When Courts of Justice prevent that countries adapt to new technologies

When the mafia infiltrates to the highest regions of the legislation, expect troubles. Or when judges don't trust democracy and think democratically-elected parliamentarians want to control individuals, expect troubles. Because, in that case why should people trust governments?

While France is making laws stricter to prevent future terrorist attacks, first the European Court of Justice and now confirmed by the Belgian Constitutional Court decided that telecom data of people can't be kept by telecom operators to help in future possible investigations. Mafia members of privacy organisations such as the League for Human Rights and the French and German Sections of the Advocacy requested the destruction of the data retention law. If indeed they want to protect the privacy of common people than these organisations show that governments are so distrusted that these organisations think our data will be misused; indeed, possible when the wrong people gain power. 

In short, in Belgium telecom operators had to store for up to one year telephone data, ie who called who and from which location but they were not allowed to store what was said. Thus, although limited data was stored, it was often essential to help when a murder was committed or a drug trafficker was stopped, police and researchers could investigate with whom these people had been in contact. In effect, I think it is even better that also conversations are stored to prevent that someone who may be unknowingly a friend of a potential criminal, can be considered to be part of the network. Of course, that requires good legislation to protect people's privacy such as: data of everyone is stored (for a certain period) but cannot be accessed unless an investigative judge approves access to someone's data to investigate.

Now, this is no longer possible. The criminal world will really celebrate. Although, while up to know criminals took advantage of the secrecy of the internet, recently data was collected from WhatsApp that resulted in the arrest of many possible criminals; trials still need to start and confirm their guilt. Will this data be allowed in court unless police had permission from Justice to act? Further, police and researchers may now have to rely on Facebook, Google and other media as these companies store nearly all our data and this outside a legal framework; what may be the cost to receive this information from private companies who need to make profits? Further, shouldn't we be happy that legislators make laws about what is possible and what isn't instead that we have to rely on international companies who may decide what is best for their own interested in addition to ours. But, I acknowledge that in a number of cases the companies defended the privacy of users, important in countries with dictatorship, while other times this resulted in slow progress against crimes. Still, we are slowly moving towards a time when criminals who used new technologies to communicate with each other can no longer use this as police may infiltrate. But, this requires good legislation to prevent our data are sold to whomever pays. And thus parliamentarians need to be able to discuss and vote laws so it is clean what is possible for companies and police and justice without judges who cancel these laws although they can inform how to improve the laws. 

Sometimes people have little choice when they want changes but to vote for parties such as Poland's PiS so politicians will clean-up the mess in the justice system and be sure that jurisdiction changes, certainly when organisations such as the EU seems to prevent these changes. But I also understand, when the wrong people are in power people can suffer such as certain Polish cities declared themselves LGBT-free areas, thus a violation of human rights. Therefore, let us hope such parties stop focusing on people who do not harm others.

Earlier posts on Facebook about the same subject

10/10/2020

The European Court (EC), out of this world. Why? Recently the EC ruled that communication data of everyone can no longer be stored for a certain period by telecommunication companies, because this doesn't protect the rights of potential criminals as they are the only one who benefit from such a ruling. 

Indeed, we live in stressful times and who seems today to be a nice person may be a terrorist who started to prepare months ago the terror; therefore, we need to know everyone in the network to prevent more future attacks. Another example are people who may be in contact with children they may one day kidnap or abuse so data on a child's phone may link to a criminal. Still, judges decided protection of privacy above anything else. 

That's also why I wrote before that judges may give advice such as point out conflicts between different laws so legislators can improve laws. The judges are right when they say that laws should exist that prevent our data is sold by companies or stolen and punishments for such crimes should be set as indeed it concerns our privacy. But, a few people, ie judges, shouldn't be able to block laws in a democracy that should be sufficiently strong to prevent abuse. 

Storage of data from everyone was good as a police officer explained because now they have to ask that data of all Muslims are stored because some may organise a crime and thus this supports anti-Islam sentiment while we all know that also white people can commit atrocities (such as in Norway years ago) and thus it is important to know after people committed crimes with whom they communicated before the crime to arrest possible acquaintances. 

Now, in case legislators deem it necessary, they should be able to improve and vote again to store data of everyone for a certain period so law (justice) and order (police) can investigate retroactive a person if needed while unelected judges shouldn't be able to block laws voted in Parliament that are intended to protect the public although they should inform what can be improved to improve laws. Maybe store this data on servers belonging to governments? But, when people have the impression their safety cannot be not guaranteed, than people may feel forced to vote for politicians who will disobey and do as they think is best for society and this without democratic control. Because:

THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS AND SOCIETY AND NOT ONLY PRIVACY ALSO NEED PROTECTION.

16/10/2020

While the European Court of Justice judged that telecom operators can't store calls for months, something that may be necessary to prevent crimes or find accomplices, a decision too far towards protection of privacy, the UK moves too far in the other direction although many voted "out" in the Brexit referendum to liberate the UK from that Court. Yes, undercover agents are needed to prevent crimes and arrest criminals, but, it shouldn't be possible for those agents to commit crimes unless in the worse situations. 

Still, in case something serious may happen in Europe because judges prohibited ways to discover crimes before the crimes happen, this may also be used in Europe one day. 

However, immunity in one country doesn't mean immunity in the rest of the word when someone committed a crime under normal laws.