Hacker News Reader

Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

This seems like a better check on the authoritative power imo. It can come with gag orders and so on. But no free citizen's property should be seized without explicit permission or extreme circumstances. But I don't know if the Dutch has anything similar to the US's 4th amendment (against unreasonable search an seizures). I'd still argue that you're not free if the government can just seize your things when you have not broken any law, and don't feel like that's a high bar. And we all know Goodhart, so I'm sure someone will exploit this like the parent suggested.

View on HN

> I'd still argue that you're not free if the government can just seize your things when you have not broken any law, and don't feel like that's a high bar.

I was wondering how this would fit if an entity like equifax wanted to hide a data breach. However, reading your statement again, failure to report a security breach is unlawful in all fifty states as far as I can tell from a Google search (I anal, I don't know the law) so I'd imagine EU laws would be at least as strong as this.

With that out of the way, yes, I am ok with this.

> It can come with gag orders and so on

Those are not really a thing in the EU (at least, not for regular police)

> you're not free if the government can just seize your things when you have not broken any law

This is something that can and does happen in the Netherlands, f.e. when the government feels they need to destroy your apartment and build a new one (as part of gentrification, generally). They are tangentially required to get you replacement housing, but not at the same price or in a similar location. Thus, not in any practical sense. If they cannot find this for you they will still kick you out and where you will live after is your problem.

> I don't know if the Dutch has anything similar to the US's 4th amendment (against unreasonable search an seizures).

The Netherlands is party to the ECHR. Article 5 through 8 inclusive are relevant, especially Article 8.

The Dutch constitution may also cover this ground, but I'm not familiar with it.

Thank you. I'm actually a bit surprised how close some of these read to US amendments.

Though reading Article 8 -- Right to respect for private and family life -- I'm not sure if this matters IANAL

> 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 is necessary in a democratic society __in the interests of national security, public safety__ or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

That feels like as long as it is the law then it doesn't violate Article 8. Seems that saying it is for public safety is also another way to get around this. I also noticed this in Article 11 (right to assembly) and some others. Not being a lawyer, these seem pretty non-binding.

Yes, unfortunately there's the potential exception you see. The European interpretation of rights is that they're balanced against each other, as opposed to absolute.

The good news is that “necessary in a democratic society” is a high bar. Thankfully there have been several successful challenges to government mass surveillance in the past, under this Article.

Unfortunately, proposals like this keep coming back, and you never know what way a court will rule.

This is like you getting mugged and the police stealing your car afterwards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com