Are there any primary sources for this? I'm having trouble finding anything talking about any final legislative action involving chat control/ePrivacy etc. that isn't this random pirate party blog.
Of course it fails to advocate - which itself may have become a vice.
While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate.
The problem lies with the fragility of our political system. It is so fragile that debating the effectiveness of the legislation can be shut down with a handful of emotionally charged words. It is so fragile that seeking alternatives which don't impact fundamental rights is overlooked in the interests of expediency.
Of course, creating such rules of thumb is a symptom of the same disease. It is a tool to discourage debate rather than encourage it.
Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)
I don't think a majority necessarily carries power. The uber rich and intelligence agencies carry far more power than any mass of citizens.
b) Elites exert control by persuasion; they control the discourse, they organize larger movements, &c. There are still limits to what popular opinion will go along with.
c) Intelligence agencies are, in most rich democratic countries, not a major lever of political power. Government economic institutions, police, courts, and the like are much more influential in both day-to-day lives and in shaping popular conceptions of the "rules of the game".
The right to life (in a negative, the government-shouldn't-take-it-away) is quite universally recognized - in cases where it's violated, defenders of that violation work very hard to craft a strong justification.
The right to free speech (again, in a negative the-government-shouldn't-take-it-away) sense is also a fundamental part of political discourse.
The right to private religious practice is broadly fundamental, though the right to religious practice of various sorts in the public domain (as well as the definition of that public domain) is hotly disputed.
Notably, the right to certain social goods are "fundamental" in parts of Western Europe (e.g. healthcare in the UK), but very much are not in the US. My general impression is that positive (the-government-should-provide-it) rights are much more rarely "fundamental" in the sense of being deep in a polity's consensus.
I note that the United States uses “inalienable rights”, meaning ones which can’t be given or taken away.
The only things that can’t be given or taken from me without a lobotomy are my education and internal thoughts and beliefs (that includes things like self-worth and dignity).
Each of you needs to define how you mean "right".
(NB: The definition in the OED spans 8 pages.)
I think by any definition, a right without a remedy is meaningless. If you have a right to expression but the state taxes printing presses so excessively that only the rich can print, what good is that right?
If you have the right to an attorney but cannot afford one or the cops won't let that attorney talk to you, what good is that right? If you go to trual and they say, "it's fine, your attorney is here, representing you" and you've never seen that person before in your life, that's what we call a kangaroo court.
Many would agree that you have a right to rebel if someone tries to enslave you. How did that work out for Nat Turner? These rights matter in an idealistic way? Was that Nat Turner's goal? To get 21st century people really thinking? Or did he want a family he could keep with him, his own home, his own food?
We are used to telling ourselves over and over the stories of people who believed in their rights, fought and won them. We conspicuously ignore the stories of people who believed in their rights, fought and lost and then were not just denied their rights but made into villains.
And don't even get me started on Operation Paper Clip, U.S. intelligence supported Nazi rat lines and Nuremberg.
Perhaps if you believe there is some philosophical cosmic central plexus where your case will be adjudicated after death you can believe in capital R "Rights". I do not. And so in my opinion, all rights depend on the right to enforce them.
Whist legal rights might have some enforcement mechanism, equitable or moral rights (divorced of legal aspects) typically would not. The right is recognised or might be asserted or defended, but by other-than-legal means.
Black's Law Dictionary gives a number of definitions, though as these are (largely) specifically in the context of law, their narrowness is somewhat expected. Fundamental right however has as its first definition "a right derived from natural or fundamental law", which might be construed as at least partially exceeding legal enforcement.
The whole notion of rights can become complicated, and whilst I often agree with the sentiments or goals of those advocating for certain rights, I find the specific rationale, logic, and/or empirical grounds often weak, leaning far more on rhetoric than some basis in reality. At the extreme, for any given right, based on "natural" or "fundamental" law, it's virtually always possible to construct a competing right which negates or countermands that.
The rights of speech vs. privacy, of bearing arms vs. freedom from coercion or fear, of access to healthcare vs. freedom from supporting another, of the national right to defence vs. the right to refrain from violence (including supporting it monetarily through taxes), etc.
There's a school of thought which dismisses the notion of rights, probably most famously Jeremy Bentham. I'm not sure I fully subscribe to his views (I've only read brief summaries, and don't substantially know them), though I'm inclined that way myself.
What I see are competing sets of freedoms, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations, most of which exist, as you suggest, based on the ability to assert or defend them as a practical matter, and to that degree I think we are in some agreement. I'd be more willing generally to suggests rights in a moral sense that should be aspired to. These might be your unenforceable, but not meaningless, rights.
There's a tremendous amount of historical reletivism and present-bias in discussion of rights. There've been incredibly durable and arguably thriving societies whose rights and values systems differ sharply with those of most present-day countries. There's been a considerable movement in questions of ethics, morality, and rights within my own lifetime, within my own homeland, and those developments are far less than those experienced elsewhere over the same period.
Absolutist declarations of rights tend to end poorly.
A right by its name can be given or taken away. I feel the discussion about fundamental rights is moot as it always depends on the powers that be. In that sense I prefer dane-pgp's explanation of these being more foundational rights.
Your thoughts and beliefs and your actions are what you are and not a right.
If Hitler came to power, let's say in an election but it doesn't matter since the right to vote is also a privilege according to your view, and said "alright, henceforth, all blacks lose the privilege of living", would you find that irrefutable and in conformity with your own logic? If Jeffrey Epstein took power and said "children may now be raped at will", is that a matter of a privilege being cancelled? Does "might make right" however you define "might"?
I certainly hope not.
The definition you used is about what's morally right and in that sense talking about fundamental rights that can't be taken away if you want to hold up some definition of human dignity makes sense, but even then it's subjective to some degree and depends on which school of thought you subscribe to.
Your example shows exactly this ditchomy. If freedom can be taken away and sexual consent ignored, those things can't be at fundamental or real as physical laws. But even so I have a hard time imagining most who see it this way would consider this as anything but reprehensible.
Practically, however, these rights are only inalienable as long as the powers-that-be (police, military, organs of the state) agree -- if hypothetical Emperor Epstein (or real-life President Ashraf Ghani) declares child rape to be legal, and police and courts obey him, then good luck going up against them...
> Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights
There is a system of laws enacted by representatives of the people and proven out in courts, for example Eminent Domain.
To your point, that "nation of laws" concept is tending toward more of a theoretical than practical thing.
An alienable right is one which can be assigned to another.
Your physical, real (land), and usefruct rights (as with intellectual property rights) can be alienated in the sense that you can be deprived of them and then they can be assigned to another entity.
Inalienable rights can be denied to you, but cannot be made alien in the sense that another receives their benefits. Your own life, your own happiness, your own liberty, among other privileges you may enjoy, can be deprived of you. But nobody else can receive their benefits.
The notion of inalienable rights is not absolutely fixed. In 1800, you would have had an inalienable right to the function of your own heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. With organ transplants, these are now alienable rights, as those organs (and others) can be removed and given to others, through advances in medical technology.
That is, the benefits or possession of property can be transferred to another. The ability to benefit or possess cannot. Those last can be denied, and the objects of them transferred, but the right to enjoy, much as happiness or enjoyment itself, is inalienable.
There may well be other types of rights that are being discussed here, and much of the confusion in discussions of rights seems to revolve around disagreement on those definitions. It becomes something of a mott-and-bailey tactic, or one of terms expressed and understood quite differently by participants.
Not "fundamental" in the sense of "impossible to deny".
Where fundamental rights are routinely denied, civil society is impossible.
So for example we have the principle of "freedom of speech", which might be accepted by courts and society as including a right to publish literary works that some deem offensive, but that could be considered a subsidiary or supplementary right which doesn't have the same level of protection.
More relevantly, a society might accept the principle of a "right to privacy", but might not think that grants a "right to privacy from warranted surveillance" or from "warrant-less automated mass surveillance".
Of course there will always be a tension, as rights activists will instinctively claim that denying some specific right is undermining a fundamental right, since they are sure that everyone agrees that the new right is an inherent consequence of that fundamental right, but the government will always claim that its policy doesn't impinge upon any fundamental right and that the specific new right that the activists believe in doesn't need to exist at all.
Contrast these with the rights enumerated e.g., democratic rights (the right to vote), legal rights (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel), mobility rights (right to live in any province and enter and leave Canada).
The rights granted are those that build _a_ society that supports those fundamental freedoms. The fundamental freedoms themselves are not something that exist in support of anything, but are simply accepted as something that stand alone as something we demand of our government.
They are inalienable and bestowed by their Creator. I.e. they are part of the innate nature of human beings.
Governments can either protect those rights or abrogate them - it cannot invent them.
And yes, they stretch back to when humans became human. Though it took a while for people to formally recognize them.
Bushido (or the form of it on Wikipedia) has a fairly different and also interesting set.
Anton LaVey (Church of Satan) has an interesting, albeit stereotypically American, eleven.
The philosophers in this list seem to focus on commandments of rationality more than morality, but that’s not something I find hugely surprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Ten_Comman...
These are not rights.
I'll give you three: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Death is also part of our innate nature, but you did not mention that one.
As the only person left in the universe (after some cataclysm), you'd be left with obligations but no rights. The obligations would include those that arise from within yourself to prevail and try to survive as best you can. Rights? Well, who would be granting those? The innate bit refers to obligations but not rights.
But they don't. Not even close. Something is fundamentally wrong with communist societies.
"Bestowed by their Creator" starts leaning very heavily on a specific religion's doctrines, and given that there is no religion which is universally adhered to by all persons, dominant in all nations, or indeed acknowleging that "no religion" is the belief of a substantial portion of the population, then regardless of the legacy of the phrase, it's not especially useful in discussion and to me seems to obscure more than it reveals.
Could you choose an alternate phrasing?
Even breathing — the most basic need — can be argued as not a right but something that the universe requires as a need to live. If breathing and life were “fundamental rights”, then there would be a provision in the laws of nature for them.
For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but other countries might have determined their own (additional) set.
I would assume the name "fundamental" was chosen because all other rights derive from them, i.e. if they're taken away from you, you won't be able to preserve the non-fundamental rights.
It works in opposite way. Universal Declaration universally declares nice stuff, but member countries are free to restrict and persecute the freedom of """hate speech""", the freedom of """extremist expression""" et cetera et cetera et cetera
UDoHR is just a words, intellectuals are seduced by words and dismiss the fact UDoHR doesn't works anywhere except (maybe) America
What is good for human beings is objectively true as determined by human nature. It is objectively harmful, for example, to starve. It is objectively harmful to cut off one's right arm. It is also objectively harmful to take drugs that frustrate the exercise of reason because this is opposed to being the kind of thing you are, a human being. The same can be said for the misuse of the body and its faculties in various ways. They work against their healthy function and your well-being.
Now, by nature, as I already said, human beings are rational animals, that is, it is our nature to be rational. We are also social animals. Thus, our own flourishing as individual human beings is also social. A society in which justice isn't practiced is no good for the human beings that are a part of it. Justice means that we can make claims, at least under certain conditions. It is of course unjust to make claims upon others that are not warranted, so we must determine what exactly constitutes a just and legitimate claim. This presupposes rationality (you cannot have a claim to what is absurd or evil) and relational (some relations are voluntary, others are not, but the nature of the relationship will inform us of our obligations and claims) and conditioned by other factors (a criminal forfeits certain rights by virtue of having committed an injustice).
I will agree with you, though, that "fundamental rights" is unclear. If they mean something like what I've described, as something that is determined by human nature, then sure, they're fundamental in the sense that they have an objective ground in human nature. But if they are understood as somehow absolute in the sense that a criminal could go around murdering people and still maintain a claim to his own life, then no.
The problem is they don't reduce it. It doesn't prevent the abuse and rape nor does it prevent the trade. They install mass surveillance that catches some idiots.
People should judge things like this based on the content and context of the legislation, not based on a 3 word summary of its justification. There’s your rule of thumb
Press release: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210701IP...
Summary from the above link:
> Service providers can continue applying voluntary measures to detect, remove and report child sexual abuse content
> National data protection authorities will have stronger oversight of the technologies used
> Temporary solution for maximum three years
According to the text of legislation, looks like this kind of scanning was allowed until Dec 21st 2020 when it become affected by a stricter privacy directive, and this reallows such scanning.
I haven't read through it all, but the notable paragraph seemed to be:
This Regulation therefore provides for a temporary derogation from Article 5(1) and Article 6 of Directive 2002/58/EC, which protect the confidentiality of communications and traffic data.
[0]:https://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/European-chat-control...
[1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti...
Edit: It does seem that the intention here was to allow tech companies that were previously scanning for child abuse to continue to do so after December 2020, see politico.eu article
Birgit Sippel says in her statement to the president of the parliament [2]: > Dieses Gesetz ist eine Übergangslösung für drei Jahre. Die Kommission hatte versprochen, noch vor der Sommerpause einen neuen, dauerhaften Rahmen für die Aufdeckung von Kindesmissbrauch vorzuschlagen. Jetzt dauert es noch bis September oder Oktober. Dafür erwarte ich einen deutlich verbesserten Vorschlag. Die langfristige Lösung muss sich mindestens an den Datenschutzgarantien der temporären Lösung orientieren. Sie muss zwingend Lösungen für das gezieltere Scannen privater Kommunikation finden, sonst wird sie vor nationalen und europäischen Gerichten kaum Bestand haben.
Translated (by myself): > This law is a short term solution for three years. The commission promised a permanent solution to combat child abuse before the summer break. Now, this will take until September or October. Thus, I await a much better proposal. The long term solution must have at least the same guarantees for data protection as the short term solution. It [the long term solution] must have solutions for purposeful/targeted ("gezielt") scanning of private communication, otherwise it will not hold up in front of national or European courts.
So maybe things do not change that much right now.
But back to [1], I am especially curious about article 3(e): > the provider annually publishes a report on its related processing, including on the type and volumes of data processed, number of cases identified, measures applied to select and improve key indicators, numbers and ratios of errors (false positives) of the different technologies deployed, measures applied to limit the error rate and the error rate achieved, the retention policy and the data protection safeguards applied
Do you know if and where such statistics are published? (today?)
[2]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2021-07-...
The main article is sensationalistic and overblown.
It's not overblown. The horror that is the "Patriot Act" was temporary, until it wasn't. It only expired in December 2020, 19 years later, because Trump threatened to veto it if he didn't get his way, and as a result it expired because nobody chose to vote on it. If I was a betting man, I would assume it's still in use even when expired.
So, temporary laws can last for decades.
It's here:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0319...
Looks like it has a more restrictions and a reduced time period (3 years) than the proposal you linked, and some requirements to feed statistics back to monitor the performance of the law.