> I love the idea of having my own surveillance drone.
That's the point. Everybody loves to do surveillance but nobody wants to be the potential target. See the issue here?
What I'm saying is: Should society decide to want to abandon privacy, then it must be in a symmetric and very controlled manner. Everybody must then have the same degree of transparency over anybody else. Asymmetric transparency relationships are not ethic and very unhealthy for the stability of society, mid- long-term at least.
Darknet is silly and confusing name for technology. Even if it sounds so cool. I think that Friend to Friend (F2F) network is much more descriptive name for technology, if you don't want to sound so elitistic.
Well... It'd be hard to get much whiter than me! I guess that's my point though, that maybe this guy wasn't targeted but merely a victim of what happens every day. Being associated with the Guardian he'd have known his rights and might've had the confidence to demand them. Not sure which is worse, though.
This is probably the worst idea I've read on HN this week.
It's not just legally and politically impossible, it wouldn't solve the problem, it would have dire economic consequences, it would be grossly disproportionate and unfair and these kind of petty attempts at disciplining sovereign nations would only serve to politically destabilise Europe.
Nah, it is actually a pretty good idea. It's high time for the EU to actually take a stance on civil liberties, human rights and the abolishment of these ‘anti-terrorism acts’. This will be a lot harder if there are people at the table working on their application as the 51st state.
Furthermore, by cutting ties with the UK, both its financial and economical situation will be worsened, making for a loss of importance until it’s only an annoying island off the coast of France rather than the first waypoint to Canada or (in this case) Brazil.
There is an a European body dedicated to civil liberties and human rights, and it isn't the EU.
It's the Council of Europe, which is the body which coordinated the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and runs the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The only human rights cases that come before the EU courts (the CJEU) are only those within its jurisdiction. Which means: either reviewing acts of EU institutions (e.g. as in Kadi, which was reviewing regulations by the EC implementing a UN Security Council directive), or reviewing EU laws, or reviewing acts of member states implementing EU laws.
So: while the EU does have a charter of fundamental rights (the CFREU) - and is itself soon going to be a signatory to the ECHR - you can only sue the government in the CJEU for violating it when they're implementing EU law. (Especially for the UK and Poland, who have a pointless clause which restates this just for them because they're special snowflakes).
The Terrorism Act 2000 is not an EU law.
So: this is outside the scope of the EU's jurisdiction. The appropriate international court to take this to is the ECtHR.
As for kicking the UK out of the Council of Europe, that's something that can and should happen if, and only if, someone brings this to the the ECtHR, they rule against the UK, and the UK refuses to bring UK law into compliance. Trying to short-circuit that and kick the UK out without that legal process would do nothing except damage the reputation of the Council of Europe for rule of law.
While you are of course right that, from a legal perspective, the ECtHR is the body responsible for (most cases) of human rights abuse, and that it is not part of the EU per se, I did not mean to say that the current case should be brought in front of an EU court.
What I did mean to say was that the EU as a whole should (politically) take a strong stance on such issues, implement appropriate, EU-wide legislation to protect the privacy of European citizens from their own and third party governments as well as private companies and enforce corresponding standards in international trade – i.e., I was referring to a political process that I would like to take place (within the EU), not a judicial lawsuit in front of the appropriate court of law.
Regarding your last paragraph: The Treaty of Lisbon does contain an exit clause[0], which either requires the agreement on a withdrawal treaty or a period of two years from the notification of the intention to secede. This means that, within the current legal framework, it is possible
a) for the UK to declare its intention to leave and just do so in roughly 2015.
b) for the UK to declare its intention to leave, agree on an appropriate treaty and then leave as soon as possible.
c) for the other member states to leave (in 2015) and – in parts – form an appropriate core union which is made clear to be more than a free trade zone.
Naturally, the last option is rather unlikely to occur any time soon, but it would be legally possible and certainly not damage the reputation of the Council of Europe (at least not more than Russia’s prolonged membership therein).
Then they should have voted for a different government.
Sorry, but “there are people in a country with a democratic government that don’t deserve what their government brought upon them” is not a particularly good reason – and even then, I don’t think it’d hurt to allow immigration into Europe for a while, so there’s even a perspective for those that “really don’t deserve” the results of their (in)action.
The people voted for law makers that made a) easily abused laws (such as this one) and b) laws that inherently invade the privacy of their fellow European citizens. They furthermore voted for law makers that (apparently) did not include any precautions to punish those that abuse the previously-made laws.
At some point you have to draw a line in the sand, no matter the cost. (The consequences of not drawing a line, might be far more costly, not economically per se.)
