Slashdot Mirror

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Since the European Convention on Human Rights legislation came in to force the other week (in Britain at least), our legislators seem to have been running scared of falling foul of it, and people are saying a lot of existing British laws will be annulled or substantially altered by interpretation in the light of the Euro-dictat. As far as I can tell, the wording is so vague that (lawyers reckon) it's easily interpretable for the benefit of David in any David v. Goliath case. The satirical magazine Private Eye said it best in a cartoon last week (damn can't find it on-line), picturing a game of Monopoly, with a man reading from a Chance card: `Go to jail. Go indirectly to jail via the European Court of Human Rights. Get out of jail free. Collect £2,000,000.' It's pretty rare that you get this sort of sweeping legislation coming into force, and here's a nice example of it protecting on-line rights already (hurrah!).

The Council of Europe members are from many countries:
Albania (address) Mr Paskal Milo, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Andorra (address) Mr Albert Pintat Santolaria, Minister for External Relations of the Principality of Andorra
Austria (address) Mrs Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs
Belgium (address) Mr Louis Michel, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Bulgaria (address) Mrs Nadezhda Mihailova, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Croatia (address) Mr. Tonino Picula, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Cyprus (address) Mr Ioannis Kasoulides, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Czech Republic (address) Mr Jan Kavan, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Denmark (address) Mr Niels Helveg Petersen, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Estonia (address) Mr Toomas Hendrik Ílves, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Finland (address) Mr Erkki Tuomioja, Minister for Foreign Affairs
France (address) Mr Hubert Védrine, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Georgia (address) Mr Irakli Menagarishvili, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Germany (address) Mr Joschka Fischer, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Greece (address) Mr Giorgos Papandreou, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Hungary (address) Mr János Martonyi, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Iceland (address) Mr Halldor Asgrimsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Ireland (address) Mr Brian Cowen, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Italy (address) Mr Lamberto Dini, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Latvia (address) Mr Indulis Berzins, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Liechtenstein (address) Mrs Andrea Willi, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Lithuania (address) Mr Algirdas Saudargas, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Luxembourg (address) Mrs Lydie Polfer, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, External trade.
Malta (address) Mr Joe Borg, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Moldova (address) Mr Nicolae Tabacaru, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Netherlands (address) Mr Jozias van Aartsen, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Norway (address) Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Poland (address) Mr Bronislaw Geremek, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Portugal (address) Mr Jaime José Matos Gama, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Romania (address) Mr Petre Roman, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Russian Federation (address) Mr Igor Ivanov, Minister for Foreign Affairs
San Marino (address) Mr Gabriele Gatti, Minister for Foreign and Political Affairs
Slovak Republic (address) Mr Eduard Kukan, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Slovenia (address) Mr Dimitrij Rupel, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Spain (address) Mr Josep Pique i Camps, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Sweden (address) Ms Anna Lindh, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Switzerland (address) Mr Joseph Deiss, Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs
"the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (address) Mr Aleksandar Dimitrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Turkey (address) Mr Ismail Cem, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Ukraine (address) Mr Borys Tarasiuk, Minister for Foreign Affairs
United Kingdom (address) The Rt. Hon. Robin Cook, MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

___________________________

Yes, some people may become infected from pig organs, and other people may in turn contract disease from them. But we're not helpless in the face of disease. Pigs can be tested for the presence of pathogens prior to transplant. Individuals can be monitored for the presence of bacteria and viruses (and you can be sure that people receiving pig organs will be closely monitored.) Individuals who contract diseases can be quarantined.

Also, we already face the risk of become infected with diseases and parasites from other species. You can contract trichonosis by eating undercooked pork. Slaughterhouse workers are exposed to pig blood and offal on a daily basis. Transplant recipients are simply a new transmission vector among many other pre-existing vectors.

Finally, keep in mind that we can be certain that people will die if they don't get organ transplants. According to the Council of Europe's home page:

Nearly 40,000 patients are at the moment waiting for a kidney in Western Europe whilst the number of cadaveric donors remains stable at around 5,000 each year. This is also the case in USA where the gap between the number of available organs and patients on the waiting list is also very high. They have more than 30,000 patients on the waiting list and the number of cadaveric donors is around 5,000 each year. Mortality rates while waiting for a heart, liver or lung transplant generally range between 15% and 30% but are even higher in some reports depending on the type of the organ needed. In 1994 there were no suitable livers for some 400 European citizens and around a further 400 died while waiting for a heart.

How does the European Convention on Human Rights affect this? IIRC it's been signed into law here in the UK, but I'm not sure what effects it has on the situation. I think Article 10 is the important one, and Articles 17 and 18 as well, but our DNS server is down here at I can't provide a better link or look at it. Thanks.

There is no difference. Saying "We don't take away freedom" and "We grant you freedom" means essentially the same.

The question is only how easily the document granting the freedom can be (de iure or de facto) abolished. The US Constitution is no different here than others, it just uses a wording typical for older and Common Law texts.
The European Convention of Human Rights is IMO more safe: It features a Court of Human Rights, which is extraterritorial for 40 of the 41 member states of the Council of Europe (and could move).

There is no difference. Saying "We don't take away freedom" and "We grant you freedom" means essentially the same.

The question is only how easily the document granting the freedom can be (de iure or de facto) abolished. The US Constitution is no different here than others, it just uses a wording typical for older and Common Law texts.
The European Convention of Human Rights is IMO more safe: It features a Court of Human Rights, which is extraterritorial for 40 of the 41 member states of the Council of Europe (and could move).

Here, it depends on your point of view. In one way, the US is actually right in this regard. Read the laws of most nations. To give you one example, take the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 10. It says all people have the right to free speech. The Canadian Charter on is another example, and says, again, that Canadian citizens have the right to free speech. Look, though, at the US Constitution. It doesn't say this. Rather, it says that the government is forbidden to take away the right to free speech. The difference is extremely important; a law can be repealed, thus revoking the right to free speech, but if the government's forbidden to take away free speech then there's nothing it can do. That's the difference; other governments grant freedoms; the US Constitution guarantees them. And there is a school of thought, one with which I happen to agree, that freedom which is not guaranteed is not freedom at all.

You took Article 10 and presented it out of context of the whole document. Specifically you forget mentioning Article 17 and 18, which state that the expressed rights can only be restricted as far as allowed in the declaration itself.

So, yes some of those freedoms expressed in the declaration may be restricted up to a certain extent, but only as stated in the whole declaration. Same applies for the US constitution.

(The European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamenal Freedoms can be found here.)

Refusing to decrypt the data when you're able to is certainly a failure to allow a legal search, but that's not the real problem with this law.

As it stands, you're required to produce the key and thrown in jail if you don't - regardless of whether you even posess the key in the first place. The only thing that counts is the police opinion on whether you posess the key, with the defendant required to prove their innocence, contrary to UK law elsewhere where prosecution are required to prove guilt. Speaking personally, I've got something like 1,000 floppy disks and several Spectrum data cassettes. The idea of having to prove that none of them held a key is a little worrying.

On top of that, my memory is that it's now an offence to tell anyone that you're being prosecuted under this law. Truly terrifying.

Anyway, two good URLs here:

• The bill. Whether the act contains any significant amendments, I don't know but none have been reported so make your own mind up...
• Secondly, some background information

Greg

The facts are not quite as you stated.. in fact the EU has no charter of human rights. The treaty you are referring to is the Council of Europe's convention of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Council has no official connection to the Union as the Council has far greater number of members (inc. Russia) and is strictly an intergovernmential organisation.

However, the EU has quite officially recognized aforementioned Convention to form a binding standard to the the EU legistlation. Furthermore, EU has based on the Convention started to form its own charter of fundamental rights to be included to the Union treaties (those are the ones unanimously agreed by members in European Councils ..confusing.. that can be seen as the EU Constitution - eg. Treaty of Rome).

Committees ;) and timetables have been formed, although unfortunately the results may not initially end up in the founding treaties - some gov'ts think that's too federalist.

Btw, I also think, that us Euros value privacy highly. However I hope that this isn't just a publicity stunt that has been designed to increase to the pile of disagreements between the US and EU, amount of which has increased as EU has gained in intergration and influence. But if the cause is real, I applaud..

Below is a link to the full text of the Convention and the privacy clause:

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

Article 8 footnote 1 - Right to respect for private and family life

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.