Does monitoring your phone affect the essence of privacy?
europeanlawblog.eu
europeanlawblog.eu
The American constitution, of course, does not bind the EU in any way.
We've changed it now. Submitters: please don't do that.
Yes, I think the precise terminology generally used for discussing such situations is "within/outside the ambit of the competences assigned to it" or (more succinctly, but even less clearly) "intra or ultra vires".[0]
It's therefore not so surprising that people informally adopt the more familiar term "(un)constitutional", even if that implies a national structure that doesn't match the EU's legal basis under international law.
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290553083_The_ECJ_a...
They are referring to this chart as the supreme and binding force, where in which the highest court of the EU weighs things against
and used the colloquialism "unconstitutional"
It's kinda more complicated than this as many european states are divided into regions, so for many matters it's not even the individual states transposing the EU directives into national laws but regions transposing the EU directive into regional laws.
One example would be the EU deciding, a few years ago, that the age for cars to be considered "old timers" is 30 years. Before that some regions had 20 years, others 25, others 30, etc. Then all the regions had to adapt their legislation. In a single country, like Belgium, the three regions all transposed the laws in varying ways (and at different times). But in the end the result is the same: all european regions have "harmonized" the notion that an oldtimer is a vehicule 30 years old or older.
Now there are several matters on which the EU has no authority whatsoever. For example the EU has no fiscal authority: fiscality is decided by the countries/regions and the EU can shut the fuck up. (so far).
ehhh, kind of?
> is the EU a treaty union like the UN or a federation where members are subject of the EU?
its not exactly a one-to-one comparison with anywhere, but its easy to find an individual country's head of state or representatives saying - in a positive way - that they have given up sovereignty for a stronger many country union.
additionally, the top EU court is still coming into its own, with its recent rulings over the last decade being more analogous to the US Supreme Court's "Marbury v. Madison" moment, where it kind of just noticed its finality and gravity and actually exercised that. But one key difference is that the ECJ is not simultaneously an appellate court. So national courts are still silo'd in their own country's processes, with the additional ability to weigh in on ECJ decisions and rulings. While the ECJ deals directly with union law.
so, its happening. but kind of.
The notion of "international law" itself is also a bit murky. It implies that there is some sort of authority above countries to enforce this law, but there isn't. Countries are sovereign. If the legitimate authority of a country decides to walk away from a treaty, nothing prevents that. It is international law in the sense that it applies to the citizen of the country, as long as the country has the will to adhere to the treaty. History is full of broken treaties (in fact most of them end up that way sooner or later), including very recent examples (territorial integrity of Ukraine).
And again, things might be different in the case of the Lisbon treaty, as the treaty was adopted by means of changing the constitution, at least in France.
No it doesn't, and that's not what your link says.
The "EU position" (if there even is a single position that can be called that) is that the EU's treaties are binding on the signatory states, and the EU's court is ultimately responsible for deciding the meaning of those treaties. Of course, if a country disagrees with the court, it is free to leave the EU completely.
More of the former than the latter.
Ironically, the EU is essentially the mechanism of the emergence of the US empire after the Republic was destroyed in the US Civil War, albeit using a few different methods and methods, however resulting in the same constituent outcome ... centralization of power among a ruling class, which citizens have been deprived of.
In other words that may be more relatable to folks here, it's like being diluted out of company ownership. You are promised a certain percentage in exchange for your fundamental critical engineering work that gets the whole effort off the ground in the first place, and then when the moneyed interests come in they dilute you out of any kind of meaningful ownership, let alone value of the thing you created and built, which now others will abscond with and get wealthy from.
The EU has always been deeply corrupt scheme to essentially deconstruct the consequences of the revolutionary era following the US revolution, the same way that the US Civil War essentially reverted the US revolution and nullified the US Constitution.
My prediction if that we will likely in our lifetime see a kind of Oceana, consisting of all of Western Europe and the whole of the Americas, which "always has been at war with Eurasia".
The trajectory and the fingerprints of the plan is all there. US power consolidation, EU power consolidation and centralization, US deracination, EU power centralization, EU deracination, ... transatlantic integration ruled by a hereditary ruling class that will drone any resister "extremists" to cheers during hate weeks decrying disobedient subordination to the faceless machine with a theoretical ruling class that may as well be AI as it may be some hereditary demigods you will never lay eyes on. Are you adequately worshiping your holographic leaders? (in case anyone missed it, that was a reference to the UK Queen being projected as hologram in her carriage and people waving at a hologram)
>one crucial question in the upcoming policy debate will be whether this latter measure, or its implementation, is compatible with the rights of privacy and data protection under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter).
The Charter of Fundamental Rights serves as the EU Bill of Rights (the American version of which accounts for a huge portion of "constitutional" jurisprudence), and the Treaty of Lisbon makes that charter legally binding. Of note is that a previous iteration of said Treaty was explicitly called "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" and was ratified by most of the member states.
the laws which construct and constrain the european union ie the treaties of member states can be appropriately called a constitution
just because there is not one document called "THE CONSTITUTION" doesn't mean one does not exist
the ecj is a constitutional court because it does judicial review of eu law and can strike down laws that break the treaty ie that are unconstitutional
An Example is the german law which did not allow women to join the millitary till 2000. After that, they had to change the constitution because it does not comply with the EU law about the same treatment of men and women:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_12a_des_Grundgesetzes_...
A country can only ignore EU law on the following grounds: - It reduces a right set in the national constitution - It goes against a right set in the national constitution(not if grants more rights or makes rights wider) - It does not fall in the competency of the EU
https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/politikfelder/parlament-un...
That article talks about austria and germany specifically, but it should apply to other countries as well.
I think this is a little bit naive (I mostly agree with you fwiw). America and the EU influence one another a lot. Decisions they make directly affect the other. GDPR affected most Americans. Or even things like the Double Irish. Similarly American laws define a lot for European ways of life (I figure this is more obvious). I think it is easy to ignore this connection, but it happens and is important.
To me this is an interesting idea, considering there's a lot more Europeans (especially among the young urbans and very educated) moving to America than the opposite.
To me this shows a desire from Europeans to live by the US Constitution.
Also going to the US in this context really means half a dozen cities where there are unique opportunities.
If it means "violates United States of America's constitution", why would European law makers care?
I have never heard anyone use that term to refer to European laws or directives.
Per the first line from the "Treaties of the European Union" wikipedia article:
The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between the European Union (EU) member states which sets out the EU's constitutional basis.
The problem with the title is that it is heavily editorialised. Not only does the article not use the term "unconstitutional", it doesn't even firmly conclude that the proposed law is contrary to the EU treaties. It outlines an argument to that effect and ends by stating further steps needed to make a strong case.
The article itself has a perfectly good title: "Does monitoring your phone affect the essence of privacy?"
So by acceding to "The Treaty of Lisbon" rather than "The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe", the member states were legally disclaiming the right for the EU to be considered a federation or confederation.
(However, the Treaty of Lisbon did introduce a distinct legal personhood for the EU, which is arguably another necessary condition for a declaration of statehood).
I can imagine there might be a way to lock GSM module in mobiles distributed to the mass customer so sim cards distributed by provider only work with GSM modules they distribute. I wonder if this would be the case.
And also service like Skype phone would probably be banned too?
Or maybe, when it comes to monitoring they only mean content and not actual communication? So Nokia 3310 would still be OK?
BTX and Minitel where very much centralized systems as opposed to the Internet.
She won by margin of 383 votes to 327. 9 votes above minimum.
Anyone outside mainstream media can see she is more concerned about her self-preserving PR than achieving anything of substance, for a women touted as an example of female leadership she is but a shadow of a Merkel.
Or “we care about people’s privacy. But think about the children!”
I may be biased as personally I would love to see the United States of Europe in my lifetime.. probably the only way for Europe to maintain some sort of geopolitical power in the future.
That is absolutely shocking.
Is it? I'm pretty sure another teen / boyfriend / girlfriend asking for a topless or nude picture would count here, unless I'm missing something. It doesn't seem like it would be uncommon at all.
The 1/5 being victim to sexual violence does surprise, though.
There's shockingly high stats, and there's ludicrously high stats from another planet.
20% isn't just high. It's so high there's no way you were walking around without noticing.
98% of people have been attacked before their 30th birthday. Really. They've been shoved, slapped, called a slur, publicly called incompetent and/or had items ripped out of their hands.
~ 70 % of the reported harms occurred via a private device, meaning it was highly targeted, the reported events are mainly not things happening in a public setting.
For another happy stat you can for you to explain away, how about this: by age twelve, 6% of all girls have gotten sent sexually explicit content from someone they did not know.
https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/Estimates-of-ch...
In a major assault on basic civil liberties, the burden of proof is on the assailants.
You care about those kids? Educate them and give them the tools to protect themselves, to protect their identity online. Instead, you trained them to sign up to shady sites everywhere with their real names, real phone numbers, the same email address tied to their real identities, to readily give their real names away and above all publicly post pictures and videos of themselves.
That's a very grand thing to say after flat out stating you're just going to flat out dismiss any evidence they present ("I'm not even giving them enough credit to try and explain anything away").
Heh, hell, I'm a dude and quite a bit older but I've had this happen twice by accident (with me as the recipient, I mean). Wrong number I guess (it wasn't a phishing thing—I get shitloads of those, too).
Depending on the number of 12yo with email accounts and cell phones that wouldn't surprise me.
Close to 100% of people have gotten an out of the blue sexually explicit text or email by someone meaning to send it to someone else.
It only counts in the respondent reported that they were harmed by it.
1. One pedophile may victimize many children.
2. There's a spectrum of victimization; that wording would seem to include things like being pressured to send nudes.
Yeah, the overall 57 % figure is the total out of four possible harms targeting persons up to the age of 18.
Because sending nudes to a nine year old is probably closer to what was meant with a paedophile, the following stats is probably a better starting point for putting a tighter upper limit:
> Of the female respondents who received [sexually explicit] content from someone they did not know, 11% were under the age of nine and 21% were under the age of 12.
Here's an Australian Senator talking about a list of top level government people & politicians that are on a list that so far no one has investigated. (The list was sealed from publication by a Prime Minister for 90 years) https://youtu.be/t_FsQCxfb7k
Here's an article downplaying pedos, making them more palatable (2018): https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/07/tedx-speaker-argues-that...
Child trafficking: https://globalpressjournal.com/africa/democratic-republic-of...
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
I've seen videos of people laughing at the camera after having just killed a child while being raped. The man was a white American. This is happening in every country.
* How are "sexual violence" and "childhood" actually defined here?
* Most people who I know who were victims of sexual violence as children were victimized by other children around their own age, in person. Very often it was a sibling, cousin, or neighbor. I don't see automatic CSAM detection actually helping this statistic all that much.
* "2021 global study found that more than one in three respondents had been asked to do something sexually explicit online during their childhood". Again, what defines "childhood"? When I was a teenager, I was having phone sex and video call sex with other people my own age. That would classify me as having been "asked to do something sexually explicit online" as well as being the other side of it.
* People with disabilities are at a really high risk of victimization in a lot of different forms.
This "Reasons for and objectives of the proposal" section conflates a really large number of things (Document is http://www.marinacastellaneta.it/blog/wp-content/uploads/202... ). It treats the following items as all being effectively the same thing with the same solutions:
* Minors being sexually abused online.
* Minors being sexually abused in person.
* Minors being sexually abused by adults.
* Minors being sexually abused by other minors.
* Voluntary sexual activity between minors of the same age.
* The victimization of disabled minors.
It also abuses statistics by considering all sexual activity of minors to be effectively the same (16 year olds showing each other naked pictures of themselves being the same as prepubescents being abused sexually by adults) and using statistics that include real world abuse to justify digital surveillance that won't even help reduce a lot of those numbers because the crimes don't even happen digitally. Even if this was 100% effective at removing all CSAM from the entire internet, how effective is that expected to be at actually reducing childhood sexual abuse? I know abusers consume CSAM, but in the absence of CSAM, are people going to be less likely to actually abuse children? Are people who abuse children now going to stop, and is it going to somehow prevent new abusers from starting? I honestly don't know the answer to this, but I'm skeptical to the idea that this has anywhere near the benefit that the proponents think it does.
The normal way one, under the age of 18. They do provide stats about one happening to children at the age of nine though, if you only wanna count the really tiny ones as children.
> I was having phone sex and video call sex with other people my own age
The question is explicitly about being asked to do something they were uncomfortable with, a mutually consensual interaction wouldn't count in that survey.
https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/Estimates-of-ch...