
Did European Court Just Outlaw “Massive Monitoring of Communications” in Europe? - ghosh
https://cdt.org/blog/did-the-european-court-of-human-rights-just-outlaw-massive-monitoring-of-communications-in-europe/
======
kbart
A great gesture, but sadly I'm sure all these national letter agencies will
find a loophole in laws or pass some bills to push their agenda anyway. You
know as a usual story goes -- "but terrorists!", "think of the children!" etc.
Enforcing EHCR ruling was never a strong side, on the way of it becoming a
national law (if ever), it often gets diluted or (purposely) misinterpreted.

~~~
sdoering
And even if it does, even after clearly stating, that what they do/did is
illegal, our national security agencies (BND in Germany) just go on doing
their thing.

What our parliamentarian investigation committee keeps finding does nothing to
stop these practices. And why should it - imho they (national security
agencies and respective politicians) have clearly left the space of the law,
as it does only apply to them on paper, not in reality.

I got cynical and fatalistic during the last years - and I do not see any real
chance for a democracy left. We are living in post democratic times, where
democracy is only there as a play being shown for the people, to keep them
placated.

Sorry, for my mood.

~~~
jacquesm
> We are living in post democratic times, where democracy is only there as a
> play being shown for the people, to keep them placated.

Democracy has _always_ been only a partial implementation of one. The Swiss
come closest, every other so-called democratic country is so only in name and
always has some provisions to limit the direct impact a vote can have on how
society operates.

This has both good _and_ bad side-effects, the bad ones seem to be the
majority both in number and gravity. One large problem is that political
systems are very slow to change once they are established, their founding
documents take on some kind of religious aura and to question them and or
those that laid them down is made tantamount to treason.

~~~
tremon
_One large problem is that political systems are very slow to change once they
are established_

This is mostly a good thing. However, the boiling frog approach is still
available. So society must be vigilant and vocal about every small step in the
wrong direction.

Hopefully, this ruling will reinvigorate some of the debates. I know many
defenders have become numb to the relentless attacks on individual freedoms
(it can be seen in some of the comments here too).

~~~
jacquesm
I think it's more like a sawtooth curve. Some revolution takes place in a
locality. Then, for a long time frustration with the system slowly builds
until an overhaul is required, leading to a new point of very rapid change.
This then plateaus at a level that fixes some of the old problems and
therefore reduces the frustration levels to below where people pay a large
amount of interest to the problems in the system.

Depending on the location and the amount of external influences this can
happen every so many centuries or every couple of decades (or even years in
extreme cases).

The essence of a real democracy is that I think that it forestalls any such
desire to revolt in such a way that change is allowed to be gradually
absorbed, rather than that it comes to a head, even if such change is
perceived as 'unwise' it may be a better solution than to have a bunch of
elders/wise guys/connected people to decide 'what is best for the masses'.
Give them enough rope to destroy things and they may do so, or they may stop
just short of doing it and learn from their mistakes. Take away their
opportunity to do so and you get a sham democracy in return.

------
bede
Given that our Home Secretary recently stated that 'the UK does not undertake
mass surveillance' to the investigatory powers government committee, I can't
see this having any semblance of an effect (over here, at least).

~~~
JulianMorrison
I suspect the legal trick they'll rely on is: "we _collect_ in bulk, but
_surveillance_ within that giant haystack of data is only ever aimed at
particular persons. We don't want or use the totality of it, but we do need it
so we can monitor retroactively."

Which I'd understand, but think they are throwing too much away in pursuit of
too little. Still it's how they'll try and dodge. Well, that or "we don't need
human rights anyway, can't make us, so neener neener."

~~~
kzrdude
It's a lie, and it's not even certain it's a legal lie until a court has ruled
on it.

------
umanwizard
Forgive the nitpick, but it's an important distinction: this is the European
Court of Human Rights, not the "Eu" [sic] court of anything. It is a separate
institution from the EU and has non-EU adherents, like Russia for example.

Another point: the court has no enforcement mechanism. I suspect if all the
major European powers disagree with one of its rulings, they will easily be
able to flaunt it with impunity.

~~~
junto
> Another point: the court has no enforcement mechanism. I suspect if all the
> major European powers disagree with one of its rulings, they will easily be
> able to flaunt it with impunity.

I don't think that is true. As it stand today, EU members are obliged to
integrate these rulings into national law. It is one of the major nitpicks of
the British Conservative party backbenchers, who wish to remove the United
Kingdom from the "control" of the EHCR. This statement below sums it up better
than I can:

> The Council of Europe has also made clear that the European Court of Human
> Rights, in Strasbourg, is not a substitute for national courts, but is
> subsidiary to national systems that safeguard human rights. The principles
> of law of the European Union, known as Community Law or European Union Law,
> also have direct effect in national courts, as European Union Law takes
> precedence over national law in EU member States. For these reasons,
> individuals and groups alleging violations of human rights provisions are
> required to first exhaust domestic remedies before a case can be considered
> admissible by a European tribunal.

[http://www.stopvaw.org/enforcement_mechanisms_in_the_europea...](http://www.stopvaw.org/enforcement_mechanisms_in_the_european_human_rights_system)

~~~
rmc
Yes, but it can take years before countries have to do anything. Ireland has
often waited years before implementing rulings, (e.g. for decriminalisation of
homosexuality)

~~~
denis1
Yet it is still better than nothing. After the ECHR decision, the citizens
should be able to challenge laws that do not respect their rights, and the
governments can't hide behind stupid reasons that ignore the ruling of ECHR.

~~~
ricksplat
Yes - and this is often the case. There has been cases where legal decisions
in Ireland have been appealed to the EUCHR and the decision there has
overruled the Irish one. For instance
[http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-
news/european-c...](http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-
news/european-court-of-human-rights-underused-in-irish-law-lecturer-1.2083248)

