This time Danish Council presidency is insane

[u/chilinachochips]

[u/jochemneut]

They can keep trying, but the current proposed law is still plain illegal. How do they even think it will pass by the CJEU?

[u/Lisztaganx → u/jochemneut]

Bruteforce attack

[u/jochemneut → u/Lisztaganx]

I don't think that would work on violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court would just block it, or a lawsuit follows and the CJEU still declares it invalid. EU legislation has to be in line with the founding documents, and if it's not, brute force couldn't make it legal.

The proposed bill is also in violation of the ECHR, UDHR and possibly the ICCPR. The member states wouldn't even be capable of following the law.

[u/Shimano-No-Kyoken → u/jochemneut]

It's all about probabilities. If it works in 0.5% of cases, you just need to attempt many times until it works out.

[u/thisislieven → u/jochemneut]

My worry is that they find a way to (re)write it in a way it snakes its way right through the text of the treaties and with the false 'shield' of child protection the courts may be reluctant to strike it down.

I'm not saying they will and generally I trust the CJEU and ECHR, but I'm just not fully at ease.

[u/jochemneut → u/thisislieven]

Valid point, I do generally trust the courts too but it’s indeed possible they rewrite it like such. I just hope the courts are smart enough to look past sneaky writing.

[u/thisislieven → u/jochemneut]

Difficulty is of course that judges don't rule on ethics or morals - the only thing they consider is whether or not something is legally permissible.

If politicians and lobbyists can find a way to do so, even if just barely and while everyone knows the text may say one thing but reality will be different, the courts can do very little.

[u/jochemneut → u/thisislieven]

Yeah the courts won’t look on ethics, but they might look on whether the legislation results in a breach of fundamental rights. Even if they write the bill sneakily, the end goal is to allow encrypted messages to be read, which is illegal. So unless they abandon this point, the court will see the breach.

[u/saberline152 → u/jochemneut]

constitutional courts do look at ethics tho?

[u/jochemneut → u/saberline152]

Do they? Good, but there are conflicts on whether EU law has primacy over the constitutions. But I hope they can strike down this legislation then.

[u/saberline152 → u/jochemneut]

Well usually in international treaties you have countries who will allow international treaties to take precedence and will allow citizens to directly call on the terms of those treaties. Belgium is such a country. Or you can be like the netherlands where such international treaties first need to be put in a Dutch law before a citizen can call on it.

However for the EU we all agreed to be like Belgium and have the EU treaty and EHRT have precedence over our own laws. This has come under scrutiny by Hungary and Poland recently saying no our own courts are better etc. But also by the German constitutional court, who says, as long as you protect people as well or better than our laws you have precedence. So a g German court whith pretty recent memories of the stasi will not be as happy with Chatcontrol or even age verification.

[u/chrischi3 → u/jochemneut]

Not only that, it's also illegal in most countries. See Article 10GG.

(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.

(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.

[u/saberline152 → u/jochemneut]

also in violation of numerous Constitutions and I know that the german constitutional court would not uphold that stuff.

[u/d1722825 → u/jochemneut]

They always use wording that the messages both needs to be secure and end-to-end encrypted AND scannable (but not readable) only by lawful third party organizations and only for detecting one thing.

If you just see that from legal point of view, that seems to be pretty good and privacy and other rights might seem to be protected.

The issue is that those requirements are technically impossible to meet. Cryptography is just math, and math doesn't have ethics and doesn't have the concept of legality. And politicians (as we can see for many times) doesn't really care about writing laws and proposals conflicting with the reality and even itself.

I'm not sure what courts can and might do if they find such regulations.

Companies will check which parts of the contradicting rules are cheaper to ignore, and it will be you right to privacy.

[u/IvorTheEngineDriver]

It's a meme and I should laugh but I just feel more and more deflated. Our rights and individual freedoms are being slowly but steadily eroded or taken away by our coward, opportunistic or plainly corrupt "leaders" and here we are.

I'm not going to say what I really think because I might end in some kind of list but it vaguely involves heads on spikes, or maybe not.

[u/Psykopatate]

They just have to retry until the attention is put on something else and they can pass it.

[u/zigs]

What do you mean "this time"? Those fuckers are always absolutely out of their minds.

[u/Illesbogar]

The fact that the danish presidency is more destructive than the hungarian one. They should be barred from taking lead going forward.

[u/Lord_Giano]

Why are we evolving backwards?

[u/density69]

What did you expect? Denmark even criminalised poverty.

[u/concombre_masque123]

lotta shady organisations dislike thr new law, guess why

[u/RedBaret → u/concombre_masque123]

Governments can find alternative ways to prosecute shady organizations without breaching the privacy of hundreds of millions of citizens. We should not give away our rights just because our governments want the cheap way out when it comes to detective and policing work.

[u/macedonianmoper → u/concombre_masque123]

Your way of fighting crime shouldn't be to invade the privacy of ALL of your citizens. Sorry not "all", politicians are excluded of course!

[u/concombre_masque123 → u/macedonianmoper]

during bush the younger presidency there was a proposal to check the transactions in the swift system, wonder what happened with that