> Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life edit
> Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Convention_for_the_P...
> "Postal and telecommunications secrecy are inviolable."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Constitution_of_t...
But you know how it goes with law: all you need is a supreme-court equivalent to judge what are the boundaries and exact definition of those articles..
The article 31 is not even protected by the “Eternity Clause” that, ironically can simply be removed by the legislature.
But it seems relatively irrelevant anyways, as all western governments seem to just ignore all fundamental laws if it suits them, let alone regular laws, regardless of constitution or not. And that does not even go into the fact that the illegitimate EU just de facto supersedes all legitimate national laws.
Fact of the matter is that Germany simply does not have anything that can be considered a Constitution/Verfassung no matter how much Germans are bamboozled to believe they have something like a Constitution; a core set of laws that cannot simply be removed by a captured body of government.
If it is a Constitution/Verfassung, what is the obtuse nonsense that "the human dignity is inviolable" in the German basic law, when the German government has done nothing but violate the dignity, not even to mention the rights of the German people? They don't even abide by their own basic law.
What else can you call it when like happened in Germany a few months ago, a government that had already failed, held elections which it lost in the form of clear rebuttal of its policies, and then before ending and then further engaging in undemocratic practices, quickly voted to majority change this fake "Constitution".
Imagine if the US House controlled by Republicans could, after the midterm elections where Democrats take a major number of seats, simply just voted to change the constitution so that Democrats could not take control in a single vote. Would you consider that as having a Constitution?... a fundamental, difficult to move foundation of law that even the legislature had to abide by as it is only very difficult to change?
That is the fundamental difference between a constitution and just a facade of "fundamental law" that acts as if it is a Constitution in Germany.
Again, it also seems to be ignored that this fake Constitution in not even only Germany, but effectively all European countries is being totally subverted and undermined by the illegitimate suppression of EU fake law crated by an entity that was simply imposed on Europe without any objective legitimacy democratic legitimacy.
It sometimes disappoints me just how ignorant Europeans are of not only their own government situation, but even across Europe and America. These are not difficult concepts and not a matter of "I'm better than you", it's simply a matter of objective analysis and people don't like their ugly baby being called ugly.
that is not correct. Grundgesetz = Verfassung: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung
changes require a 2/3rds majority, just like changes to the US constitution. the unamendable parts in both are very few.
Did you catch how that might be different than when the last German government quickly removed the debt brake from this fake constitution with a single vote and after new elections had already been had and lost by the current government.
more interesting is the actual contents and the principles that are being covered. debt brake for example in my opinion has no business being part of a constitution or Grundgesetz. it should never have been added there in the first place. that's not what a constitution is for. putting stuff like that in there weakens the Grundgesetz and makes a mockery of it. it reeks of planned economy.
that doesn't mean that the debt brake is bad, or that it should not be protected by requiring a 2/3rd vote to change it. there just should be a different place for that, in order to keep the Grundgesetz focused on issues that you really don't want to change. in other words, even if only a single 2/3rd vote is necessary to approve a change, a change to the Grundgesetz should be a rare exception.
So phone taps are illegal in Germany? Police can't record what you're talking on the phone?
They’re quoting the East German constitution. I think there is a /s missing at the end.
This is regulated in the Telekommunikations-Überwachungsverordnung (TKÜV).
Edit: nvm, I didn't see this was about the GDR.
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.
It's really very simple: NO human rights are absolute.
Your right to encrypted communication, if there is such a thing, ends well before it is used to stage a coup or plan a bank robbery.
In that document it’s article 7.
Everyone's phone call is private, until there's a court order
In principal I have no problem with a court order overriding privacy, it's been that way for centuries
Mandating that all mail should be written in such a way that someone from the government could understand it, is clear overreach.
Online even the stuff that very rich companies struggle very hard to keep private regularly gets publicized in bulk.
You might think in terms of "medium is the message" so you can't directly transfer something that works in principle for one medium to another.
Last week’s events have me pondering the real value of online anonymity in a civil society.
I understand encryption and privacy aren’t 1:1, but if one goes, so goes the other.
At any rate, I want to hear other opinions. While I agree with the right to privacy, I’m wondering if privacy in ALL contexts is a good and healthy thing.
To start an answer I would say is dangerous territory to say „online must not follow the rules of offline“. My expectantion would be as general principle „onlinity“ is irrelevant. As far as sensible of course.
You could end up having to not only not critique your personal Hitler but praise him to get the right score to work in civil service or not only not only not say pro lgbtq talking points but spout pro bigot positions to qualify as a teacher helping to create first the illusion then the reality of the universiality of these positions.
Imagine how well the French resistance would have gone if all the trouble makers or likelyoffenders had been shot preemptively!
And it's because revealing breaches of social etiquette might lead to conflicts and unrest between serfs. Which lower their economic efficiency in their service to landlords.
Online is not unique in any way. It even should have more privacy because people reveal too much voluntarily already leading to all kinds of unrest.
How many people's economic activity was disrupted because they couldn't keep their cheering of Charlie Kirk's demise in private for example?
Because "online" is just as real as "offline"? It's all people communicating with other people.
In the US, I can do business under an alias, just so long as I'm not assuming that alias with the intent to defraud. In the US, I can anonymously drop a letter in a postbox to be sent anywhere in the US.
However, government agents can certainly discover my "wallet identity" in both of those situations with the application of some effort. Why would it be important to you that people doing business "online" must do that business in such a way as to make it require zero effort for a government agent to discover their "wallet identity"? Why would it be important to you that people who conduct their business electronically have far, far less privacy than people who conduct their business with paper and in-person appearances?
Freedom to speak in person is like a fist; freedom to post online is like a gun. They don't want us to have guns, obviously.
I think an interesting experiment would be to create a social platform where all identities must be verified and public and all messaging must also be public. If you could verify identities well enough, this would create a platform where everyone is saying everything knowing it's traced to their identity. Perhaps the information communicated on such a platform would be considered to have more weight than information spewed on pseudo and fully anonymous platforms.
Facebook and Google Plus (along with research focused on them and other Internet forums that demand one's Real Name or legal identity) have demonstrated that -at best- you get the same low-quality commentary as you do from pseudonymous or anonymous forums. The typical case is that discussion quality goes down as clever and thoughtful folks who aren't interested in setting themselves up to be the target of future witch hunts by expressing potentially-controversial opinions tied to their Real Name leave those forums for less restrictive ones.
Stupid people who are going to spew bilge do it regardless of whether their Real Name is attached to what they say. There are better ways to promote high discussion quality than to demand attachment of one's Real Name to one's forum account.
do you think less online anonymity would've prevented Lincoln's assassination too?
Because governments lack the maturity to judge contents. You would subject private communications to mob justice of populist political discourse. It is not rocket science that it wouldn't work.