Last decade, all of Europe was walking hand in hand towards nightmare monitoring companies. This decade, that has changed, and some countries in Europe (Germany et al) choose to restore civil rights while others (UK et al), press to Big Brother and beyond. This is related to a showdown over a few years.
For a time after September 11, 01, everything was crazy. Two years before, a high-profile report of a domestic spying scandal in European countries concluded that "even a small note scribbled in the margins of a personal file, a note that is never used for anything, is always an invasion of privacy. "After 01, the floodgates opened and there was no end to the ways that have been justified by the ends.
If a politician had suggested to government tracking devices to all citizens in 1999, their career would be over in ten seconds. After 01, it became a real thing, known as the Directive on data retention. It was approved by the European Parliament December 14, 04, and was effective until April 8, 2014, when the European Court of justice not only said that the directive on data retention was more indeed, but it was so serious, he never in force. The Court modified the laws and fundamental rights restored retroactively.
For several years between 01 and 08 approximately, it seemed that something was. There was no invasion if it just crazy enough "to keep people safe."
However, this government monitoring of citizens was challenged in various European states, even before his arrival at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the European equivalent of the Supreme Court. The ECJ came to the verdict on April 8 this year that the directive on data retention is completely invalid if it ceased to exist as a whole, not just in part.
In early 2010, when the data-retentionist the type of monitoring should be implemented by all countries in Europe for several years, nine states of Europe 27 (now 28) were either still refuse or had implemented and had had a national Supreme Court strikes down. A full third did not meet.
The problem with data retention as such is that it treats everyone like criminals. Specifically, it invades privacy before any individual suspected of a crime has occurred, to everyone , if such a suspicion should appear By . The criticism has not affected the ability of application of the law to track people suspected of crimes. The criticism concerned the enforcement capacity of the law to follow the people who are not suspected of crimes. There is a fundamental difference, and the European Court of Justice highlighted this point :. That the very basis of core data retention, data collection bulk without distinction, is unacceptable
This strong states of Europe from where we see pulling in different directions.
Around 06, it was just a race to the bottom. Not anymore. Germany was one of the first states in Europe to challenge the retention of data - more specifically described as "Total Communications Logging combined with physical Tracking Too" - at the Supreme Court, and court struck down with a hammer of Fury, thanks largely to the excellent footwork of a militant group known as AK Vorrat (short for about "working group on maintaining" ). following the decision of the ECJ, the ministers in Germany have confirmed that data retention is now stone dead as a concept. other countries, such as Austria, follow the same line
countriesAt the other end of the spectrum are like UK , described as an "endemic surveillance." - the lowest ranking possible - by Privacy International on time. today, there is a legislative initiative to restore all of this logging citizen monitoring and communications whatever verdict in the Court of justice, but do it everywhere as an initiative national. Basically, while ignoring the ECJ said, and also claim that it is a good idea to treat all your citizens as suspects at all times. Other countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, are following this line too.
Last decade, all states in Europe walked hand in hand to abolish fundamental rights. Suddenly, there is a clear divide between European states will come to a showdown on fundamental rights as such. In such a showdown, there will not be anywhere to hide for politicians who have pushed for a Big Brother society, which is basically good - even if slow -. Development
It's always good when there are different voices saying different things. It is then and only then that bad ideas, ugly and serious can be seen for what they are.
Privacy remains your own responsibility.
0 Komentar