Hacker News Reader

Comment by Icedcool | Hacker News Reader

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Is article 12 what you are speaking on?

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

That seems really broad. Does this apply to private citizens and firms or only governments? If the former it seems a great deal of journalism would be illegal.

A few recent examples. When Rachel Maddow released Trumps tax returns was that a violation of article 12? What about when that "grab her by the" tape came out, Trump clearly intended that to be a private conversation and it was a "attack upon his honour and reputation" wasn't it? I don't see a line that allows for truthful attacks.

I don't know if I want to live in a country where it is illegal to report on fact in such a broad and sweeping manner.

There's the general rule of thumb that one's right to privacy is inversely proportional to one's power over others. Be it political, economic, or whatever. So a Presidential candidate deserves less privacy, because they pose more of a public risk. That distinction is clear in US libel law.

That's US law, in the US truth is a sufficient argument against libel. This is the UN charter. Do you know of any other documentation that outlines article 12 in more detail? I'm coming up empty.

Well, the UN charter dates from 1948. Those were heady days. I'm sure that there's much commentary. The legacy in the EU Right to Be Forgotten is clear. And more generally, in EU enforcement of privacy rights vs corporations.

The UN charter does not apply in Europe, instead it's the 1950's council of Europe "European convention on Human Rights"[1] that applies.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...

I think what we need is acknowledgement that any sufficiently large institution is indistinguishable from government, and include only those corporations that meet the criteria of "too big to be private" (related to "too big to fail") in restrictions placed on government.

I wouldn't say "indistinguishable", because governments at least theoretically serve the people's will. US law was initially quite hostile to corporations, which were considered unaccountable. Until the late 1800s, only corporations with public-interest charters were legal.

Who defines sufficiently large? There is probably a ISP that is smaller than the New York Times does this standard not apply to them?

I don't think it's possible to create a totally incorruptible system, and who defines sufficiently large is an important problem, but I think it's not a reason to dismiss the idea. Any regulation is plagued by this question and the specter of regulatory capture. Do you think it's possible to counteract the natural decay of free markets without a [del:'central'] regulatory authority?

No, that standard would not apply to a small ISP. The premise is institutions that grow strong enough are able to unduly influence and capture the regulators more easily. Corporations need to be kept small enough to regulate effectively. The existence of "too big to fail" private institutions is a threat to democracy.

EDIT: National government, itself an institution, also needs to be kept small enough that it can be contained by the regulators on it, so this is clearly not a simple problem. The issue there (in my opinion) is that the check on national government is supposed to be the states, and they are too weak to do that effectively.

I volunteer to define sufficiently large, and I say larger than 0 is sufficiently large. Why ? Because a big player can buy or control any smaller player, so if you want protection from the bigger ones, you need either to protect from everyone or change the way corporation work. I'd suggest going back to earlier times when corporations did not have the same rights as humans and were of public interest, or maybe remove the stock exchange, or limit gambling to banks' own money instead of using deposits.

> Does this apply to private citizens and firms or only governments?

Human rights apply to humans. Firms and government are not human, not even alive or have any tangible existence.

I don't know about those Trump examples, but it seems to me that usually an elected official is a public figure and as such privacy laws do not apply. Then again human rights and legality are two different things, some human rights may be considered illegal in some places.

Indeed. That's also why Libel and Slander are an offense in England, even if it is true. Truth there, is no defense.

I much prefer the truth as a defense idea, which goes against the strict interpretation of the UN's charter.

And do not forget, "Grab her by the pussy" is now the presidential standard. there was some in this country that were that crude and direct about sexual assault, but those views are now given much more airtime..

I much prefer the truth as a defense idea

The problem with truth as an absolute defence is that as the courts famously remind us, "the truth" is not the same standard as "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

The extra parts can be rather important when someone's reputation is at stake. For example, consider the difference between "John was accused of being a paedophile" and "John was accused of being a paedophile, though the investigation was soon dropped after no supporting evidence was found and it turned out that his accuser was an ex-girlfriend with a track record of psychiatric problems including making false allegations of serious criminal behaviour to get people she didn't like into trouble".

This is also why the EU "right to be forgotten" ruling wasn't nearly as crazy as some people have been suggesting, BTW.

I'm a big supporter of the RTBF and I wish we had it here in the United States. The law does, actually, set fairly clear lines in most of the places people seem to be concerned, in terms of prohibiting "forgetting" information deemed important to public interest, for instance about celebrities or severe crimes. It explicitly highlights outdated or incorrect information as being suitable to be forgotten.

I think corporations here in the US that are against it managed to set a pretty good FUD campaign about right to be forgotten, and I think a lot of people bought into it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com