[HN Gopher] Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU ... ___________________________________________________________________ Germany's blanket data retention law is illegal, EU top court says Author : tyrion Score : 239 points Date : 2022-09-20 13:17 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | karlerss wrote: | The orginal ECJ press release: | https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202... | layer8 wrote: | Note that the ruling defines a number of exemptions. See the text | following "However, EU law does not preclude national legislation | which" in the press release: | https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202... | | In particular, service providers will probably still have to | maintain the infrastructure to activate "general and | indiscriminate" data retention on demand. | kurupt213 wrote: | I would think it's also against the spirit of the bill of rights, | yet here we are in America, with secret courts reviewing secret | surveillance and meta data. | aksss wrote: | And it's not even a secret process half the time - witness the | recent conversations about CBP imaging phones of intl | travellers. | rmbyrro wrote: | Is the ECJ kind of a Supreme Court that can overturn member state | laws and rulings? | | I had the impression member states were 100% sovereign within the | EU... | arlort wrote: | Define sovereignty | | Member states have agency to leave the EU whenever they'd like | if they wish not to be bound by agreed upon laws | chippiewill wrote: | Member states are sovereign insofar as the EU institutions only | have jurisdiction because the member states allow them to do | so. EU law only applies because local law says it applies. The | ECJ is the highest court in any of the member countries because | the law in those countries say it is. | | This differs from the situation in the US where Texas couldn't | pass an amendment to their state constitution declaring that | they are no longer subject to federal law. State law is | subordinate to federal law / the US constitution. | Longhanks wrote: | Couldn't Texas exit the US in the same way that European | countries can exit the EU? | sveme wrote: | Out of curiosity: can Swiss cantons leave the Swiss | confederation? | Archelaos wrote: | The 26 cantons are mentioned in the Swiss constitution by | name. If one wants to leave, the constitution would have | to be changed. So a canton can only leave, if a majority | of the whole people as well as the cantons voted in | favour. | anony999 wrote: | Technically the answer is yes. In practice I believe there | would be civil war before that happens. | kwhitefoot wrote: | > Technically the answer is yes. | | Really? You mean that there is something in the US | Constitution that explicitly allows a state to secede? | | "In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the | separate issue of secession was also discussed. James | Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the | Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that | secession was permitted by the Constitution.[29] In a | March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating | him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison | discussed "revolution" versus "secession": | I return my thanks for the copy of your late very | powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes | "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of | "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the | claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from | intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being | a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. | The latter is another name only for revolution, about | which there is no theoretic controversy." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_Sta | tes | IntrepidWorm wrote: | If the threat of secession requires going to war over, it | would seem that no, secession is not a legally supported | process. | Archelaos wrote: | But could it not be possible to allow the secession of a | state by an ammentment to the constition? | ben_w wrote: | No, the EU has a specific process for leaving by asking, | while the US states can only leave if a sufficient number | of the other states agree to it. | | The EU isn't really a country, it's a free trade agreement | with an unusually democratic (by the standard of FTAs) | process for updating its own rules. | bhupy wrote: | The EU isn't a country (yet), but it's a political union | that increasingly walks and quacks like a country. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lj127TKu4Q | effie wrote: | Indeed it is not a country. But democratic process is a | very wrong word here, even with the adjective | "representative". The EU process for updating its own | rules is a bureaucracy directed by prime ministers, and | those influenced/controlled by powerful groups. E.g. | Scholz and Macron pushing for federalization and | weakening the power of states - this is great for EU | apparatus and those wanting to make it stronger, but | state citizens do not want this. | ben_w wrote: | Can you name any trade agreement with a _more_ democratic | process? | M2Ys4U wrote: | >The EU isn't really a country, it's a free trade | agreement with an unusually democratic (by the standard | of FTAs) process for updating its own rules. | | The EU isn't just a free trade agreement and it has | _never_ been just a free trade agreement. It has _always_ | been a political endeavour. | | Of course that doesn't make it a country or a nation | state at all, but let's not go too far in the other | direction when trying to describe it. | ben_w wrote: | _Every_ free trade agreement is a political endeavour. | The entire _concept_ of free trade is in part where the | term "liberal" originates from (not that the term should | be considered a guide to current policies of parties with | that title, lots has changed since it was Liberals vs | Whigs). | gpderetta wrote: | EU treaties explicitly say that a member can leave them (in | particular article 50 of the Treaty of the EU). | | In general a country can't get out of an international | treaty unless the treaty itself has provisions for it. Of | course the only way to enforce an international treaty, if | threats or sanctions are not enough, is war. | arlort wrote: | No | | There is no codified legal process for a US state to leave | the Union, and the only previous attempt caused a civil war | | A member of the EU has both an implicit right to withdraw | from the treaties (deriving from international customary | law around treaties) and an explicit legal path to follow. | A process which they control in their entirety (as in they | can't be forced to stay longer than they wish by the other | countries and can't be forced to leave earlier than the | prescribed deadline) | jfk13 wrote: | Some states tried that in the 1860s. It was traumatic. | drooopy wrote: | I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as a 100% | sovereign country anywhere in the world. | anony999 wrote: | Who is 100% sovereign? Any kind of treaty makes you less | "sovereign". I believe it's the same question about freedom. | Are you a free person if you have a job, pay mortgage or marry | someone? | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _Who is 100% sovereign?_ | | 100%? Only those with a nuclear deterrent, and maybe not even | them. Otherwise, there is always a bigger fish. | | Edit: I can see some people don't believe me. Do you really | think treaties are more than paper if you don't have force to | back them up? The US has threatened to invade the Hague if | they try to charge Americans with war crimes. Went beyond | mere threats in fact, congress and Bush the younger enshrined | this threat in Federal Law. | theplumber wrote: | >> Do you really think treaties are more than paper if you | don't have force to back them up? | | There is a foce that can build up. If the U.S starts going | rough someone else will take its place. We've already seen | pieces moving during Trump's term. U.S's soft power helps | it more than you think. | | North Korea is more "sovereign" than the U.S. in your book. | Good economic and political relations with your neighbours | can make you more powerful than being a sovereign lunatic. | AdrianB1 wrote: | The member states are not 100% sovereign within the EU, there | are some mechanisms to control it. For example, Romania (EU | member country) has a provision that international treaties | signed by the country override local legislation, so that EU | directives - while not directly in effect - are above local | legislation. | | Practically, if a national law is found to be not compliant | with the EU legislation, the country has some time to adjust it | to make it compliant or to repel it. In court cases, the | Constitutional Court can directly strike the provision in the | law or the entire law, as appropriate. | sofixa wrote: | > I had the impression member states were 100% sovereign within | the EU... | | ~80-90% depending on how you measure. | | The judiciary of all countries is technically under the ECJ | jurisdiction. People can sue their countries, and local court | decisions can be appealed to the European court structure | (ECJ/ECHR). | | That was in fact one of the Brexit talking points, judiciary | independence. | ectopod wrote: | Just to be clear, the ECHR is not an EU court and brexit | Britain is still under its jurisdiction. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R. | .. | M2Ys4U wrote: | And one cannot appeal a case from the court of a member | state to the CJEU. Member states' courts can (in some cases | must) refer specific questions of law, but that is not an | appeal by any party to the dispute. | dagw wrote: | ECJ can only rule on EU laws. So as such they are not | overturning any German laws, just stating the the German law is | not in compliance with EU regulations. What that means in | practice varies a lot from case to case, but in general the EU | has the power to fine members that are in breach of EU | regulations. | | For practical reasons most EU countries want to be in | compliance with EU law and will often follow ECJ | recommendations and change their own laws if found to not be | compliant. Also many EU countries have laws that essentially | state that all their laws must comply with EU law. | | The other option is to apply for an explicit opt out of certain | a EU regulation that you feel is incompatible with your own | laws. | tarakat wrote: | We've seen where this leads to in the US, where the federal | government financially extorts states to fall in line on | issues that are supposed to be up to the states, such as what | happened with speed limits: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta. | .. | int_19h wrote: | The difference is that EU member states have the right to | leave if they don't think the arrangement benefits them. | tarakat wrote: | And we must ensure that choice remains economically | viable, and not just for the largest member states. | Because a union maintained by compulsion, even economic | compulsion, is not a union, but an empire. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _many EU countries have laws that essentially state that | all their laws must comply with EU law_ | | Isn't granting the ECJ jurisdiction is a requirement of EU | membership? | Longhanks wrote: | EU treaties are not a constitution and the constitution the | people gives itself stands above all. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _EU treaties are not a constitution and the | constitution the people gives itself stands above all_ | | Germany [1] and Hungary [2] played with this fire. In | summary, no. | | Treaties have force of law. If a country improperly | ratified their EU treaties, they need to amend their | constitution (if it exists) or admit they never properly | joined the EU in the first place. Given the latter means | economic collapse for most EU members, it's not a hard | choice. | | [1] https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/06/nick-kenny- | german-... | | [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/first-eu-seen-moving- | cut-money... | Longhanks wrote: | Once the people choose to no longer follow the EU Supreme | Court, thus, as a follow up, no longer choose to follow | the EU treaties, they exit the EU just as the UK did. | | No country is or can be forced to be a EU member. | | Just because there are economic implications does not | mean the EU treaties are above the countries' | constitutions the people actually chose to enact. | SiempreViernes wrote: | This is true of any law, there isn't actually anything | except common agreement that constitutions should be | treated more seriously giving them extra status, and | there isn't anything but the consent of (enough) people | giving laws any power: nobody is ever forced to follow | any law, they are simply punished if they don't. | | However, once you decide to stay within the law it is | indeed possible to have EU treaties stand above the | constitution. In situations where you've added bits in | your constitution that the EU treaty has priority, acting | like this isn't true is simply breaking the law. | Xylakant wrote: | But if your constitution is incompatible with the | treaties required to be member in the EU, you essentially | have two options: change your constitution or not be | member of the EU. | sokoloff wrote: | Or, leave both the constitution and treaties in place and | wait to see if the EU bothers to take adverse action. | NoboruWataya wrote: | It's a bit more complicated than this, because the | treaties don't really have any mechanism for unilaterally | expelling a member state and there is no precedent for | doing so. The reality is there is no easy answer to what | happens when a national constitution is incompatible with | EU law. | M2Ys4U wrote: | Member states can, in theory, be suspended, though we've | seen when it comes to Hungary and Poland that mechanism | is quite hard to use (as it requires unanimity of all of | the other member states) and it's considered the "nuclear | option". | einpoklum wrote: | And here I was thinking that German (and to some extent | French) politico-economic interests stand above all. | Silly me... | ben_w wrote: | Right now the political and economic interests of Germany | and France is a strong EU. Won't always be true, though I | can't foresee the circumstances when it might change. | | Likewise, for most of my life, my personal political and | economic interests included a strong UK (still does even | though I moved to Germany) and USA even though I never | lived there. | NoboruWataya wrote: | The supremacy of EU law is a pretty interesting one. It is a | fundamental principle of the EU that EU law takes | primacy/supremacy over national law (in areas where the EU has | competence). How this actually works in practice can be a bit | fuzzy, because the EU is certainly not going to send tanks into | a member state's capital to enforce its laws. | | As I understand it, the way this usually works is by national | law explicitly endorsing EU law (usually at the level of the | national constitution) and stating that in the event of any | contradiction between EU law and domestic law, EU law will | prevail. So EU law is "supreme" in practice, but that supremacy | is granted/recognised under the domestic constitutional order. | | In some countries, this recognition is limited, such that | national courts will not permit EU law to override certain | aspects of the national constitutional order. When that | happens, there is really no easy solution. | | An interesting recent example is | https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-closes-case-against... | where the German court found that an ECB bond-buying programme | was unconstitutional and in doing so refused to follow a prior | decision of the ECJ. | | Another consequence of this approach to supremacy is that | significant changes to the EU treaties require a constitutional | amendment in Ireland, which requires a referendum. To my | knowledge Ireland is the only country to have such a binding | legal requirement, with the effect that a number of amendments | to the treaties have in the past been delayed or defeated by | the Irish public voting against them. | T-A wrote: | > Is the ECJ kind of a Supreme Court that can overturn member | state laws and rulings? | | Yes. See e.g. | | https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/... | tokai wrote: | The sovereign members of the EU have ratified treaties of | European Union law themself. | Longhanks wrote: | * some of the then-elected governments | | There was a national referendum before the Lisbon treaties | that was declined by the Netherlands and France, which in | turn "watered down" the EU constitution into the Lisbon | treaties which are now in use, which were then ratified | without any national votes. | | As the German politician Martin Scholz once said, if the EU | were to apply for an EU membership, it would get declined | because of a lack of a democratic foundation. | jltsiren wrote: | > As the German politician Martin Scholz once said, if the | EU were to apply for an EU membership, it would get | declined because of a lack of a democratic foundation. | | That's the way it should be. | | In a democratic state, the state itself is sovereign, while | the citizens are not. The rights of the citizens depend on | the constitution, which can be changed according to a | democratic process. The EU is a union of sovereign states. | Due to that sovereignty, decision-making in the EU cannot | be fully democratic, as that would violate the sovereign | rights of the member states. | Longhanks wrote: | Well, since I live in Switzerland, I am happy to | disagree. Swiss people vote on many things multiple times | per year and consider this a fundamental right and _this_ | the way it should be. | jltsiren wrote: | A sufficient majority of citizens can change the | constitution and take that right away from you. Because | you live in a democratic state, you do not have sovereign | rights. | MichaelCollins wrote: | Just the same; sufficient number of states can take those | 'sovereign rights' away from a country. In the context of | a discussion about Germany, shouldn't this be obvious? | jltsiren wrote: | There are many levels of government from local to | multinational. At most one of those levels can be | sovereign, and democracy makes most sense on that level. | On other levels, some degree of democracy is possible, | but it's always subject to the consent of the sovereign | state. | | EU member states have voluntarily agreed that in some | situations, EU law takes priority over national law. But | because the member states are sovereign, it's up to them | to decide how to proceed when EU and national laws are in | conflict. The EU has only limited means to sanction | member states that breach their laws. It cannot arrest | and prosecute German lawmakers. It can't declare German | laws invalid, except to the extent German institutions | voluntarily follow EU rulings. It can't forcibly rewrite | German laws. And in extreme situations, it can't declare | Germany's Constitution unconstitutional and invalid, and | it can't forcibly rewrite it. | sveme wrote: | The difference is between direct and representative | democracy, not of democracy itself. | xyzzyz wrote: | A good mental model is that EU works pretty much like US did | 100 years ago. The US states were roughly as sovereign as EU | states (with some important differences, especially in defense | and immigration), and US federal government was similarly | powerful to EU government. | | This has, of course, changed over the last century, and US | states lost most of their sovereignty. I predict the same will | happen to EU states over the next century. | clarionbell wrote: | That would be in 1920s and states were far from sovereign | back then. Maybe 1820s, then one could argue the union was | more 'loose'. But even then, the union was pretty tight. | Hence constant issue of slavery in federal law. | Tangurena2 wrote: | Archive link: https://archive.ph/oKMPL | zackees wrote: | omgomgomgomg wrote: | Yet another time Germany needs external intervention measures to | get in line. | | Time and time again, history has proven everywhere that if the | population does not keep their politicians in line, they will get | drunk from all the power.The people do not even vote reasonably, | so it is very difficult. | | Have these lawmakers ever presented good results which can be | attributed to their work? | Sebb767 wrote: | > The people do not even vote reasonably, so it is very | difficult. | | You get three votes [0] every four to five years, where you | need to vouch for someone from a short list to make all the | choices to represent you. And this is actually the good case, | in the US it's reduced to just two options. Deciding whether | someone votes reasonably is very hard when they weigh certain | decisions (and how likely politicians are to keep their | promises) completely different. | | Just as an example, you might say that you think climate change | is the most important topic overall right now, so you vote for | the German Green party - except, of course, if you doubt that | they'll actually change much or if you think that nuclear power | is the answer, which they don't like. So you think of voting | for a small party, but they'll be in the opposition at best, | but most likely not even hit 5%, making your vote nothing more | than a gesture completely ignored by the ruling parties. So | what's the unreasonable choice here? | | Long story short, what I'm trying to say is that whenever I | heard the accusation of people voting unreasonably, so far, the | actual argument always was "people disagree with my [clearly | optimal] opinion or voting strategy". | | [0] Local, federal and state each. | numlock86 wrote: | Is this from the same guys who want to get rid of cryptography | for the public or at least get some backdoors? | gpderetta wrote: | The ECJ never 'wanted to get rid of cryptography' nor has the | power to do so. It has the power to declare that such a law | would violate EU treaties though. | nonethewiser wrote: | Is Germany a sovereign country if an international court presides | over them? | | This tends to get brushed aside by people defending the EU. Isn't | this a step in the direction of the EU becoming something like | the United States? There tends to be a lot of double-speak on | this: "That's not true" and "it's a good thing" at the same time. | layer8 wrote: | Germany is free to leave the EU if they don't want to follow | the accords anymore. Its being subject to EU law is voluntary. | karatinversion wrote: | It is not. The whole point of the EU is to pool sovereignty for | common benefit. Germany is constrained in things it can do: it | cannot ban the importing of French wine, give huge subsidies to | its domestic steel industry to gain market share in Europe, or | stop Bulgarians entering the country. | | Of course, there is no EU army enforcing EU law, so a | sufficiently damn-the-consequences German government could do | these things, at the cost of destroying the single market. | radicaldreamer wrote: | The EU's stick is financial | gpderetta wrote: | Any country that signs any form of international agreement is | giving away part of its sovereignty in exchange of some | benefit. It is just a matter of degrees. | dane-pgp wrote: | I'd be interested to know if the EU law that the ECJ relied on | differs from or goes further than the case law from the European | Court of Human Rights that the UK is still a member of. | | A ruling against mass data retention in the UK could help Privacy | International in their on-going case against the government for | its mass surveillance and use of "bulk personal datasets". | | https://www.privacyinternational.org/long-read/4598/briefing... | gpderetta wrote: | Mass data retention and surveillance has been ruled illegal | multiple times both by ECJ and ECHR (as it is in direct | contravention with the right to privacy in article 8). In | particular UK is still supposedly bound by the ECHR even after | Brexit. Unsurprisingly, EU governments and UK in particular, do | not care, and there is only so much these courts can do to | enforce their judgments. | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | Doesn't sound great: | | "allows, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, an | instruction to be given requiring providers of electronic | communications services to retain, generally and | indiscriminately, traffic and location data in situations where | the Member State concerned is confronted with a serious threat | to national security that is shown to be genuine and present or | foreseeable. Such an instruction must be subject to effective | review, either by a court or by an independent administrative | body, and can be given only for a period that is limited in | time to what is strictly necessary, but which may be extended | if that threat persists" | | -- that is just asking for a "perma-emergency" to justify such | an exception for a long time until the court can (years later) | maybe decide that that goes go far. | dane-pgp wrote: | > just asking for a "perma-emergency" to justify such an | exception for a long time | | For context, I thought I'd look up the current UK "National | Threat Level", and it is apparently "Substantial", which is | the middle value on a 5 point scale, and the lowest it has | ever been since the system was introduced in 2006. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Threat_Levels | BlueTemplar wrote: | In related news, the EUropean Data Protection supervisory | authorities are complaining that their budget isn't being | significantly increased even as the complaints they have to | process have exploded in the recent years : | | https://euobserver.com/tickers/156038 | int_19h wrote: | There's a curious comment on that article from a person in | support of that retention law: | | "Google can do that [blanket data collection], my Chinese mobile | phone manufacturer too, why shouldn't the government be able to | do it?" | | Something to ponder when we talk about data collection by private | parties: like it or not, it does provide justification for | governments doing the same. | superjan wrote: | It works the other way too: If a politician objects to FAANG | privacy violations, they should not introduce laws that allow | such violations themselves. | Sebb767 wrote: | Of course they can. It makes sense for the government to be | able to arrest people, but I absolutely don't want to give | corporations that right (especially not FAANG - judicial | systems a bad enough as is, but Google's customer support is | still a downgrade). | | The government and the private sector are very different and | what one of them can and can't do is not necessarily related | to whether the other should or shouldn't be able to. | novok wrote: | Google and others are also not allowed to do blanket data | collection by law, they are restricted in how and who's data | they can collect with stuff like the GDPR. | | You can debate how effective it is, but they are not allowed to | do it, and nobody should be allowed to either. | uhuruity wrote: | Governments have a monopoly on (legal) violence, and by default | it's not possible to move countries (that is, unless you get a | visa or live in a free movement area). I think it's reasonable | to hold governments to a qualitatively higher standard than | companies. | eivarv wrote: | No, it does not - for two reasons: - Two wrongs | don't make a right: Someone behaving unethical does not excuse | unethical behavior from someone else. - There is a | difference in the power dynamics of the relationships: Consumer | and service provider VS citizen and state. | | If anything, laws and right should be strengthened to | explicitly ban this behavior. | int_19h wrote: | You may disagree with that justification, sure. The point is | that there are people who are convinced by it. | eivarv wrote: | Whether people are convinced or not - your claim was that | it provided "justification". | | My point is that it does no such thing - it doesn't hold up | as a valid argument (which really is the bare minimum for | something to even be considered as potentially true). | ghiculescu wrote: | You can opt out of using Google or buying Chinese phones more | easily than you can opt out of being German. Governments have | more unchecked power and should be held to a higher standard | accordingly. | immibis wrote: | In the EU, you can very easily opt out of living in Germany. | moonchrome wrote: | That's like saying you can solve a pest infestation problem | in your house by blowing it up. | caskstrength wrote: | Because neither Google nor your Chinese mobile phone | manufacturer can put you in jail. | sva_ wrote: | I posted this earlier: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32909698 | | I don't care about the points, just think it is a bit weird that | a promotional commercial company post is now on the frontpage | instead of a more neutral news site. | | Although now, Reuters would probably be the better source than | what was available earlier today: | | https://www.reuters.com/technology/indiscriminate-data-reten... | [deleted] | dang wrote: | Good point. We've changed the URL to the Reuters article now. | Submitted URL was https://mailbox.org/en/post/european-court- | of-justice-overtu.... Thanks! | shadowgovt wrote: | Interesting that it was a German law. I was under the impression | that German law was pretty conservative on data collection. | bakuninsbart wrote: | In general, yes, and I think Germans are (at least in theory) | much more protective of their data than others. Nonetheless, | every government since the late 00s has been trying to push | this through in one form or another. | | I suspect there is heavy lobbying from within the professional | bureaucracy (including police and IC) for this. Possibly also | diplomatic pressure from countries like the US. | moffkalast wrote: | Gestapo always trying to sneak its way back in silently in | the background. And it's not just Germany either, it's quite | annoying how backsliding into an anti-democratic surveillance | state is now the default and needs to be constantly fought. | | Perhaps it's "always has been", it's just laughably easy to | do with software these days. | narag wrote: | Don't forget the companies that provide the means to | eavesdrop everybody. | therealmarv wrote: | hold on, what Germany wanted to do (blanket data retention) is a | reality for a long time in other states in EU. There are many | countries collecting for 6+ months all connection data (e.g. | France or Spain). A map is in this German article from 2019 | | https://netzpolitik.org/2019/vorratsdatenspeicherung-in-euro... | | So this becomes illegal in other EU member states now too? Does | anybody have any inside how this will change EU data retention in | general? | eivarv wrote: | It has been illegal _at least_ since the Grand Chamber | judgments on the cases of "Big Brother Watch" and "Centrum for | Rattvisa" last year [0]. Though, really, the outcome was fairly | predictable for anyone following the field. | | TLDR; Continuous "General and indiscriminate retention" is not | compatible with EU fundamental rights. | | [0]: https://europeanlawblog.eu/2021/06/08/big-brother-watch- | and-... | unity1001 wrote: | I believe you have to retain tax-related data (customer | invoices, bills, payments etc) for ~2 years or however long | your local jurisdisction requires. I don't think that will go | away since such laws mirror the long-standing laws used in | normal accounting. This should be related to non-ecommerce | related data. | BlueTemplar wrote: | And laws about the data collection, collation, and usage by | governments date quite a way back... | | For instance, the 1974 French SAFARI scandal, | | where the government wanted to build a centralized computer | database that would collect country-wide administrative data, | starting with the 400 (physical) police files, and IIRC with a | single social security number for each citizen, | | has caused such an uproar that the project was abandoned and the | data privacy regulator CNIL was soon created. | | (Note the totalitarianism (aka "high modernism") inherent in | computers, by the way what they show tends to be accepted as | truth, the way they don't have any common sense, the way their | digital nature tends to classify people into strict categories, | which then become set in stone by their limited capacity to | forget, the way the free flow of information turns qualitative | and how they give a lot of power to the State while democracies | try to limit this power.) | | Sadly, we've recently seen its failure - caused in a big way by | it being stripped of its power in 2004, leaving only a | consultative (non-)power - in 2010 a law about "a general | principle of information sharing between administrations" has | still been created. | | Some notable worries are about the preceding 2007 law that | authorized ethnic statistics - while personal data treatment | using ethnic or racial data, and adding race and religion values | in the administrative files are still forbidden - the potential | of ethnic data becoming racial data is still very high. | | Another worry is about the genetic prints file : created in 2002 | and first limited to sexual criminals, it has since been extended | to a whopping 5% of the population, 87% of which have NOT (yet, | quite a lot of the debate being how long these files should be | kept) been condemned for the reason they got added to the file. | It gets worse, and shows how quantitative can become qualitative | : because genetic information is NOT independent between family | members, a staggering third of the population ends up having its | genetic identifiers at least partially stored in these files. | | A 2022 project (submission date ending 2 weeks ago) to | interconnect the digital prints file with the criminal records | file has mentioned a potential future project of connecting both | with the generic prints file... (among others) with also a | policemen-suggested requirement that "the solution be compatible | with remote work [...] not requiring strong authentication". | Semaphor wrote: | Our data retention laws get overturned all the time. Usually | already by our constitutional courts. Sadly our politicians don't | care much and don't get punished, so they just try it again and | again and again and usually it's in effect for a while before the | courts give judgement. | | I really can't explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political | apathy) comes from. | | edit: The last sentence is sarcasm | pgorczak wrote: | The process makes sense from a separation of powers | perspective. When there's an especially fine line between what | legislative wants and (constitutional) judicative allows, there | has to be some rejections. | | This is probably one of the cases where lawmakers feel some | spite about constitutional courts exerting too much influence | over their work. It would be easier if they'd just talk about | it before going through the whole process but I guess creating | frustration is part of the point here. | goodrubyist wrote: | That's not how it works at least in the US, but I don't know | about Germany. SCOTUS claims that the judicial system is not | for reviewing all the acts passed for constitutionality, but | (as per Article III) only addressing specific harms brought | up by individuals (the requirement for standing). This is | from a 1992 precedent: | | 1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," | meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest | which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or | imminent 2. There must be a causal connection between the | injury and the conduct brought before the court 3. It must be | likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by | the court will redress the injury | | Talking in advance about what law is constitutional would be | perverse under such system (I love the standing doctrine, btw | and so does the Chief Justice). | pgorczak wrote: | AFAICT it really is different in Germany. The | constitutional court can also be called by other courts, by | the government or by parliament to check already passed | laws. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | > I really can't explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political | apathy) comes from. | | I understand... it's simple... someone does something bad, | nothing happens to them... bad thing again... nothing | happens... people protest... nothing happens... bad thing | again.. nothing happens... | | If this was some other timeline, and people brought guillotines | out every couple of years and "dealt with" the "bad" | politicians in "the french way", politicians themselves would | be calling for jail sentances, because they'd atleast be alive | in there. | | Otherwise, i live in a different country, and the political | situation is the same. | petre wrote: | This only happens in France but without guillotines: strikes | + yellow gillet protests. The Germans are too well behaved to | do anything or the political process is much too civilised to | employ any form of civil disobedience. | Tarsul wrote: | I think it also has something to do with that our (German) | media is not as radicalised. And Germans don't like | facebook, so there's probably less options/danger also to | radicalise through social media. And usually the poor are | not as poor as in other countries. But we will see what | happens this winter. | tut-urut-utut wrote: | Don't worry. Today's newspapers reports that our fine | ministerin is already looking to find and exploit loopholes in | the judgement and will try to implement as much as possible | [1]. | | It's a shame. We tend to criticize EU for a million valid | reasons, but once in a while when they do something right, our | government first reflex is to just ignore it. | | [1] (German) | https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-09/vorratsdaten... | nani8ot wrote: | The coalition she's part of already said that they are | against indiscriminate data retention, so I'd say the chances | of her getting her will are slim. | | Though if the next cabinet in a few years includes the CDU | (christian democrats), they'll try again. | geewee wrote: | Seems like we've had basically the exact same case in Denmark. | A law gets overturned by the ECJ and they just make another law | that's slightly different. Then they say there's a certain | "process risk" regarding the law which basically means it might | not be compatible with EU law at all. Pisses me off. | themitigating wrote: | Political apathy comes from the political party that would most | benefit from low turnout. | | If you are disappointed with politics that is a reason to vote. | If you don't care, that's a valid reason not to vote | Semaphor wrote: | Been preaching that for years, but I can certainly see where | "it doesn't matter anyway" comes from. | em-bee wrote: | but it doesn't matter. all parties pander to a majority to | get votes. minority interests are ignored everywhere, and | consequently none of the available parties have any | redeeming qualities that make them a better choice than the | others. | | the whole system is broken. the parties waste most of their | energy to fight each other instead of cooperating to | actually solve problems. i want to throw out the whole lot | and replace it with a system that is actually | representative of the communities. is there any party | anywhere that can achieve that? | earth-adventure wrote: | At this point in time, on this planet - not as far as I | know. It's against human nature. It's why I love Star | Trek TNG, as cheeky as it can be at times, it's always | reasoning about human behavior and defining its | shortcomings. And trying to overcome those. | | Maybe the Swiss with their voting on all issues system, | are a step in the right direction. | whimsicalism wrote: | Is there not a limit case? | | Would you tell people in China, "if you are disappointed with | politics, vote in your People's Congress elections?" | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | CCP members theoretically have more agency than just | voting. Every one of them can advance issues at the peoples | congress. | themitigating wrote: | Assuming there's a choice, I'm not familiar with Chinese | elections, then yes. | | Why not vote? What is the advantage of that? | djbebs wrote: | Voting provides legitimacy to the winner of the election | and to the election process itself. | | If you disagree with both of those things, voting has no | positive and results only in negatives. | themitigating wrote: | If it has no positives what are the negatives? | function_seven wrote: | Providing legitimacy to parties or institutions that you | reject. | | Simpsons did it: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" | RegnisGnaw wrote: | Of course there is a choice. You get "Person A" from the | CCP or "Person B" from the CCP. | | I mean even in the DPRK, you can vote for whoever you | want. Its what happens afterwards.. | themitigating wrote: | So you are claiming in the DPRK voting is rigged? Do you | have proof of this? | bonzini wrote: | In DPRK there is only one choice on the ballot that you | can optionally cross out to disapprove. That doesn't | happen often or at all; I suppose they'd know who does it | based on the time it takes to vote. | whimsicalism wrote: | People might view it as giving legitimacy to a process. | themitigating wrote: | The process of voting is legitimate. | | Does giving legitimacy to voting accomplish anytime? What | about protesting the system by not voting, does that do | anything? | djbebs wrote: | Totally disagree. | themitigating wrote: | Why? | VLM wrote: | The way they've done it for decades where I live, is | party A and party B serve the same master on all | substantial issues, so pick a "hot button" social issue | that neither side will ever do anything about and have A | and B take opposing views. Then do some gatekeeping where | both parties and the media agree to push hard propaganda | that voting 3rd party is "throwing your vote away". | | The people in charge are the ones who pick the two almost | identical candidates. There will be no change in economic | or foreign policy regardless of winner. | | (Edited, the other way is to push hard core identity | politics where demographic groups are owned by certain | parties, so voting has all the legitimacy of a mere | census. The only way to influence policy would be having | (or not having) children) | whimsicalism wrote: | > The process of voting is legitimate. | | What do you mean by this? If I (a dictator) were to hold | an election but require 90% approval to unseat me, that | would be a "legitimate" process because it includes | voting? | | Do you not understand what I am saying? | | > What about protesting the system by not voting, does | that do anything? | | Arguably yes. Afghanistan's state legitimacy collapsed as | basically fewer than 10% of people voted in any of it's | elections and then the government fell. | themitigating wrote: | What event in Afghanistan are you referring to and can | you prove it was because of a lack of legitimacy due to | lack of voter participation? | whimsicalism wrote: | The fall of the government in Kabul. I'm not saying this | is the single causal event, but lower than 10% voting | definitely contributed to a lack of legitimacy of the | central govt leading to its fall. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _Political apathy comes from the political party that would | most benefit from low turnout._ | | This is very reductive, you've lost sight of the trees and | only see the forest. Politically apathetic people have a wide | array of personal reasons for being the way they are. You | don't know what's going on in all of their lives, you can't | reduce all of their life experiences and feelings into one | big conspiracy. | hok wrote: | The fact that a court overturns a law is proof that our | democracy actually works. | | No need to be 'verdrossen'. | | It would be worse if the courts just approves all laws the | government conceives. | Semaphor wrote: | The issue is, that the process to overturn a law takes years, | but introducing the same law (with a slightly different | paint) again takes months. | | Or for some reductio ad absurdum: Slavery is legal for 10 | months per year, but every October the Slavery Legalization | law gets struck down by the courts, proof that our democracy | works. | kccqzy wrote: | Why does it take so long though? In the United States | courts often issue a preliminary injunction or temporary | restraining order to stop the enforcement of law. This way | the courts can take their time in deciding a case while the | new law does not get enforced. | [deleted] | croes wrote: | Some bad laws aren't overturned | retcore wrote: | From 51:25 in this BBC documentary [0] you're introduced to | Horst Herold [1] the President of the BKA (Federal police) who | instigated the creation of the Suchsystem Inpol sowie Analysen | [2] to catch the Baader Meinhoff gang by trawling citizens | data. Until the violence of the Baader Meinhoff gang, there was | sufficient popular sentiment including in politics, against any | Federal use of power as prohibited by the constitution. This | was effectively reversed with the assassination of Alfred | Herrhausen [3] using a enfilade of shaped charges to slice | through his armoured limousine. Herold created the first | European data dragnet to identify anyone who profiled similarly | to his quarry. The gang were apprehended only using indirect | evidence ,[edit: of their whereabouts]. Violence and the | ensuing police reactions disheartened and suppressed opposition | to Federal government enforcement. | | [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p093wy1r/cant-get- | you-... , | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Herold , | | [2] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INPOL , | | [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Herrhausen | croes wrote: | Don't forget the part Peter Urbach played as agent | provocateur in the Red Army Faction. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Urbach | | Or later the Celle Hole | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole | amelius wrote: | > I really can't explain where Politikverdrossenheit (political | apathy) comes from. | | It comes from voter indifference. | philipov wrote: | This is a tautology and doesn't answer the question. | Etheryte wrote: | Out of curiosity, doesn't Germany have the equivalent of a | constitutional watchdog? For example in Estonia, the president | fills this role (as do some other constitutions, but the | president is a good example in this context). The president is | otherwise a purely ceremonial figurehead in Estonia, but one | functional role they fill is that before any new bill becomes | law, they have to sign off on it and declare it's | constitutional. If they find it not to be, they can send it | back to the parliament (or to the highest national court, | depending on the circumstances). | joker99 wrote: | We do, pretty much the same as your situation. However, it | doesn't happen very often that the Bundesprasident actually | does this. Their role is almost purely ceremonial and I could | count the cases on one hand where they used this power. Some | legal professionals argue, that this check is basically a | ceremonial one as well. | tomrod wrote: | If one thing I've learned the past decade, it is that | "ceremonial" functions can be disrupted by people who don't | respect the precedent. | nielsole wrote: | https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/hintergrund- | bundespraesi... | | A list of seven rejected laws. I think there was one more | in the last decade. | pelasaco wrote: | Me as german citizen would be interested to know how much such | processes costs from our taxes money. From bringing such law | again to debate, convicting the parlament to vote it, then | approving it, then the whole courts costs... I'm not sure why | at least once a year we see that there.. regardless of who is | in the government.. Is it Lobby driven? | salawat wrote: | It comes from fundamental constraints on signal propagation, | socially reinforced bias towards abstaining or following anyone | who sounds like they have expertise, confict aversion, the huge | overhead involved with actually becoming known enough by people | to get past change aversion, and a general willingness to | accept that the emperor is far away even though in today's | world they aren't. | | We're literally living in a time where "global" namespace | changes are made willy nilly by people who don't even spend the | time reading everything they may have an effect on by doing | them, which is just accepted as being "impossible". | | Further, the only people with the time/resources to engage in | politics in a tangible way are pgobably the most disconnected | people from the way of life for the polises they are shaping. | | Human beings are ruthless energy optimizers (biological | constraint), and the cognitive load of actually productive | political engagement is absurdly high. Thus, people with | literally anything else to do avoid it, or find it pointless, | leaving only those so bereft of anything else to do to be the | most impactful on that arena. Which in turn creates more for | the disengaged to have to do to keep them from getting in the | way... | | It's a vicious cycle. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-20 23:00 UTC)