Who decided absolute privacy in all circumstances is a fundamental human right? I don’t think any government endorses that position. I don’t know what international law you speak of. You’re basing your argument on an axiom that I don’t think everyone would agree with.

This sounds like a Tim Cook aphorism (right before he hands the iCloud keys to the CCP) — not anything with any real legal basis.

▲

anonymous908213 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Article 12 of the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights:

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy [...]

which has later been affirmed to include digital privacy.

> I don’t think any government endorses that position.

Many governments are in flagrant violation of even their own privacy laws, but that does not make those laws any less real.

The UN's notion of human rights were an "axiom" founded from learned experience and the horrors that were committed in the years preceding their formation. Discarding them is to discard the wisdom we gained from the loss of tens of millions of people. And while you claim that society has a vested interest in violating a terrorist's privacy, you can only come to that conclusion if you engage in short-term thinking that terminates at exactly the step you violate the terrorist's rights and do not consider the consequences of anything beyond that; if you do consider the consequences it becomes clear that society collectively has a bigger vested interest in protecting the existence of human rights.

▲

whynotminot 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy

“Arbitrary” meaning you better have good reasons! Which implies there are or can be good reasons for which your privacy can be violated.

You’re misreading that to mean your privacy is absolute by UN law.

▲

anonymous908213 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Admittedly "arbitrary" is something of a legal weasel word that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I lean towards a strong interpretation for two reasons: the first is because it is logically obvious why you must give it a strong interpretation; if the people responsible for enforcing human rights can arbitrarily decide you don't have them, you don't have human rights. The second is because we have seen this play out in the real world and it is abundantly clear that the damage to society is greater than any potential benefits. The US in particular has made an adventure out of arbitrarily suspending human rights, giving us wonderful treats like Guantanamo Bay and the black sites across the Middle East. I don't know what part of that experiment looked remotely convincing to you, but to me they only reinforced how clearly necessary inviolable human rights are for the greater good of society.

	▲	pbhjpbhj 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>if the people responsible for enforcing human rights can arbitrarily decide you don't have them, you don't have human rights But the "arbitrary" there is too account for the situation where the democratic application of the law wants to inspect the communications of suspected terrorists, and where a judge agrees there is sufficient evidence to grant a warrant. Unfortunately, that law does nothing against situations like the USA/Russia regime where a ruler dispenses with the rule of law (and democratic legal processes too). You can't practically have that sort of liberalism, where society just shrugs and chooses not to read terrorists communications, those who wish to use violence make it unworkable.

▲

danaris 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But if you want to make it possible for the Feds to break into a terrorist's secure phone, you have to make it impossible for anyone to have a secure phone.

That is arbitrary interference with all our privacy.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]