How Should a Constitution Protect Digital Rights?

Bibek Paudel writes "Nepal's Constituent Assembly is drafting a new constitution for the country. We (FOSS Nepal) are interacting with various committees of the Assembly regarding the issues to be included in the new constitution. In particular, the 'Fundamental Rights Determination Committee' is seeking our suggestions in the form of a written document so that they can discuss it in their meeting next week. We have informed them, informally, of our concerns for addressing digital liberties and ensuring them as fundamental rights in the constitution. We'd also like to see the rights to privacy, anonymity, and access to public information regardless of the technology (platforms/software). Whether or not our suggestions will be incorporated depends on public hearings and voting in the assembly later, but the document we submit will be archived for use as reference material in the future when amendments in the constitution will be discussed or new laws will be prepared. How are online rights handled in your country? How would you want to change it?" Read on for more about Bibek's situation. He continues,
Here is an email I wrote to FOSS Nepal mailing list. I wanted to post a similar message to some international mailing lists (like the FSF, EFF) but I know only of announcement mailing lists of that kind. If you have something to suggest, please do. We're committed to doing everything we can to make sure that in the future Nepal becomes a country where digital liberties are fully respected. It's my personal dream to make our constitution a model for all other developing (or otherwise) countries as far as digital liberties are concerned.

There are many issues on which your suggestions would be valuable. If you've interesting examples from history, they'd help too. If you're a legal expert, please mention the legal hassles our issues could generate. If you're from the FSF, the EFF etc, please provide your insights. If you're just another citizen like me, how would you like your government to address file sharing, privacy, anonymity, platform neutrality, open standards, etc? This Slashdot discussion itself would serve as a reference to our document.

Comments

Re:why?

[sexconker]

The real answers are, yes, yes, and no.
The right to privacy is a recent idea (in terms of it being a right guaranteed by the US Constitution).
It's not actually in there, and I think court cases that have interpreted it as being in there have been flat out wrong.

I do think we need the right to privacy (actual privacy, not the bullshit we have now), but we do NOT have it, even as a reserved right (in terms of interpreting anything not in the Constitution).

Privacy rights are so hard to define because we could use them as a justification for literally everything (or at least as a justification against getting prosecuted for said things).

We NEED to define them, and we NEED to get the people involved, NOT the politicians, NOT the lawyers, NOT the corporations, NOT law enforcement goons.

There is no need for a separation of digital privacy rights vs non-digital privacy rights. Such a separation is unnecessary, and merely presents potential loopholes for attacks.

Re:why?

[PopeRatzo]

If an activist court decides that a tail is a leg, then within the jurisdiction of that court, a tail is most definitely a leg

And if an "activist" court decides that a black man has the same rights as a white man, or a gay person should have the same rights as anyone else, then it will be so.

Whenever you hear someone use the term "activist" judge, you should understand that their definition of "activist" is "someone who doesn't agree with me".

What's more "activist" than telling a state to stop counting ballots in a Presidential election?

"Originalist" is another bullshit term often used. If the people that like to use the term "originalist" ever had a chance to really understand the "original" intent of the Founding Fathers, they would piss on themselves.