Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

privacynotprism.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#51

Post by gadders »

SEMW wrote: post #32
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Democracy" is tyranny of the majority. In our constitutional republics, we have courts as a check on democracy, and that's necessary. Sometimes, those courts strike down programs generally supported by the electorate. Sometimes that's necessary too, but it's always a subversion of democracy. However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's why internati…

> However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's a valid POV, but it can hardly be stated as fact. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights owes its existence to a broad consensus that, actually, certain fundamental principles of human rights are universal, and a South African has as much of a right to not be tortured by his government as…

> which was mostly drafted by an Englishman

And unfortunately interpreted by activist judges from the continent.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#52

Post by gadders »

DanBC wrote: post #28
lmm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but UKIP are nutters.

True, but sadly they are popular nutters. Daly with UK voter turn out being so low (between 60% and 70%) it's not so hard to grab some votes, especially if you spew the kind of stuff that UKIP spew. It'd be interesting to see some vigorous modelling with different amounts of UKIP influence to see what happens (in the fictitious model). ( http://ukpolitical.info/turnout45.htm )

Yeah, because being against a corrupt, unelected organisation that can't even get its own accounts signed off due to corruption and fraud. What a crazy position to take.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#53

Post by gadders »

arethuza wrote: post #48
cobrophy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nutters that are becoming increasingly popular.

I don't think UKIP have much support here in Scotland - I suspect most people see them as the "Little Englander" party: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-ukip-ha...

Well, if the SNP had had their way you'd be in the Euro instead.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#54

Post by gadders »

SEMW wrote: post #39
oleganza wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who defines and enforces "rule of law" and "human rights"? These people are the rulers then. When some "majority" or "president" decides that "X is a basic human right", then suddenly everyone who produces and sells X must sell it for government-imposed prices. Or has to go to jail. It would probably be cool if we figured out all basic human rights once and for all and had the written laws enforce themselves without…

> "X is a basic human right", then suddenly everyone who produces and sells X must sell it for government-imposed prices. Or has to go to jail. This is nonsense. The ECHR is enforceable against states only (it's a treaty, after all - its signatories are states, not individuals). Non-state entities can't be sued, let alone prosecuted, for violating it - they're not bound by it. It contains a list of rights and restric…

But things like "right to free expression" and "rights to a family life" are interpreted so broadly as to become a mockery.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#55

Post by gadders »

rayiner wrote: post #18

I can't believe anyone still thinks international tribunals are a good idea. As if not bad enough for unelected judges to subvert democracy in their own county, but now you can have unelected judges in other countries subvert democracy in yours!

I think C.S. Lewis had it right:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#56

Post by tptacek »

DanBC wrote: post #45
tptacek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in addition to the fact that they're 4 judges out of 9,800 total state and federal judges (which federal judges are also regionally allocated so as not to have Connecticut judges hearing Alaskan controversies), those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. It's impossible to look at the US judicial system and come away with the conclusion that it heedless of the concerns of Floridians hearing Ala…

> those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. And the ECHR are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. Thus, we agree that just as scotus doesn't mean that you have a bunch of gun-slingin' Texans passing laws to control the lives of portland Oregon hipsters, we don't have frog-eating French controlling the lives of the Roast Beefs.

The limitation you're referring to is substantive, and the limitation I'm referring to is procedural. They aren't remotely the same thing. The implicit proposal you're referring to gives an unrepresentative international tribunal the power to override democratic process over a whole area of policy.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#58

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

gadders wrote: post #50
GunlogAlm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UKIP had their way, we wouldn't be in the European Union or Council of Europe and would be withdrawn from the Human Rights Convention.

And a good thing too. That way prisoners wouldn't get the vote, we'd be able to deport terrorists etc etc. I can't see any additional rights that I have that I didn't have before it became part of British law. All I see are dis-benefits.

Ok, I'll bite. What are the dis-benefits?

Which human rights do you specifically want to lose?

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#59

Post by ksrm »

gadders wrote: post #50
GunlogAlm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UKIP had their way, we wouldn't be in the European Union or Council of Europe and would be withdrawn from the Human Rights Convention.

And a good thing too. That way prisoners wouldn't get the vote, we'd be able to deport terrorists etc etc. I can't see any additional rights that I have that I didn't have before it became part of British law. All I see are dis-benefits.

>That way prisoners wouldn't get the vote

Why is this a good thing? Prisoners are still citizens. Disenfranchising them only serves to further alienate them from society.

Time and again the ECHR has served as an important check on breaches of the European Convention by the UK. But a few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_and_Grady_v_United_Kingdo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders_v_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Bournewood_Community_and_Me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_v_United_Kingdom

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#60

Post by rayiner »

DanBC wrote: post #40
tptacek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, first of all, they generally can't.

There's 4 judges from New York on scotus.

Tell me how people in Montana feel about the three justices born in New York City: Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg? Tell me how much people in Montana like edicts coming down from Washington, D.C.?

We have a Supreme Court, and we need one because we're one country under one Constitution and one Federal Government, but it's been bitterly divisive and I don't know why any country would want to subject themselves to that without those constraints.

Post reply on HN