Earlier quoted context omitted.
:) The Black Mirror of HN comments
Black mirror is fiction. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police...
I'd have to disagree. Black mirror is gradually being shown to be fact.
Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary
91–92 of 92 posts
Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really not trying to be pedantic, but that's not true. The UK has no written constitution but it does have a constitution. It's important to make the distinction because it is entirely possible that this proposal is unconstitutional (and I wonder if that's why the Home Secretary is asking for companies to voluntarily adopt it rather than passing legislation). It smells unconstitutional to me because it is an atta…
There's no entrenched right to privacy in the domestic constitution. The Human Rights Act has, though, brought Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law: > 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. > 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and…
I broadly agree with what you're saying. I think both cases could be argued as constitutional because they both protect sovereignty in different ways: the right to privacy protects you in your own home, the right to gather intelligence protects you in public (or so the argument goes).
I think the larger problem is that the British people either don't care about - or don't understand the implications of - losing encryption. Either they don't believe their privacy will be affected or they don't imagine that they have anything to hide from the 3rd parties, be it the authorities, corporations, or criminals.
I suppose one could argue that the British constitution is working correctly as it is malleable enough to flex with attitudes, but we also know that the attitudes of politicians are diverging quite substantially from the people they claim to represent.
I also wonder if the constitution itself has become increasingly weak and irrelevant, and if it has, is that because the Monarchy, whose sole purpose is to live and breath the constitution, have become increasingly weak and irrelevant.