The perennial tug-of-war between government interests and individual liberties is playing out in the battle over encrypted messaging. Technology tilts the field toward individuals.
There are certain kinds of rules and discoveries that society can make that they must defend by making rules that eliminate anyone that dares bring the adverse ruling up again. You want slavery and propose it back into law? Society kills you for that.
We need to reverse this. We need to make sure we only need to win once, to permenantly secure this. This is why constitutions exist. Instead of passively waiting, we need to go on the attack, and strike the final blow, before they do. We need these rights secured by constitutions, so they can’t be so easily taken away from us. I read that for instance Germany has article 10 of their Grundgesetz, which, (in this translation), states:
“(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.”
But sadly it’s being followed by:
“(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature.”
I imagine more countries might have these half-ass measures. Laws that read '(1) X is a fundemental right and nobody can ever take it away from you. (2) except ofcourse goverment, who can do as they please’. I suppose ultimately it requires legislators to give up power, and obviously that only happens under external pressure. Currently people don’t seem to care enough to put pressure on these types of issues. I mean, if people cared, they’d move to private services, and if they did then this would be less of an issue. It’s an issue precisely because people don’t seem to care nor understand the relevance of privacy.
So we need people to care temporarily, and then use that momentum to get our constitutions changed. And for that we probably need a scandal, one that’s completely outrageous, while still being quite easy to understand. I don’t know if or how this would come to pass, but I wouldn’t say it’s completely unthinkable. Perhaps we also need some books or films, like a modern 1984, some AI-dystopia. that atleast gets cultural elites, but preferably larger parts of society, to worry about their freedom. In a sense doing the groundwork, and then when minds are ready, we need to strike.
In order to retain our rights to private communications, we have to win every time.
In order to take them away, they only have to win once.
They will keep trying.
Stay vigilant.
This type of democracy is awful sometimes.
There are certain kinds of rules and discoveries that society can make that they must defend by making rules that eliminate anyone that dares bring the adverse ruling up again. You want slavery and propose it back into law? Society kills you for that.
deleted by creator
Yeah but as of right now they have more firepower
We need to reverse this. We need to make sure we only need to win once, to permenantly secure this. This is why constitutions exist. Instead of passively waiting, we need to go on the attack, and strike the final blow, before they do. We need these rights secured by constitutions, so they can’t be so easily taken away from us. I read that for instance Germany has article 10 of their Grundgesetz, which, (in this translation), states:
“(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.”
But sadly it’s being followed by:
“(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature.”
I imagine more countries might have these half-ass measures. Laws that read '(1) X is a fundemental right and nobody can ever take it away from you. (2) except ofcourse goverment, who can do as they please’. I suppose ultimately it requires legislators to give up power, and obviously that only happens under external pressure. Currently people don’t seem to care enough to put pressure on these types of issues. I mean, if people cared, they’d move to private services, and if they did then this would be less of an issue. It’s an issue precisely because people don’t seem to care nor understand the relevance of privacy.
So we need people to care temporarily, and then use that momentum to get our constitutions changed. And for that we probably need a scandal, one that’s completely outrageous, while still being quite easy to understand. I don’t know if or how this would come to pass, but I wouldn’t say it’s completely unthinkable. Perhaps we also need some books or films, like a modern 1984, some AI-dystopia. that atleast gets cultural elites, but preferably larger parts of society, to worry about their freedom. In a sense doing the groundwork, and then when minds are ready, we need to strike.
Stay vigilant indeed.
If we kill them it helps.