Latest post of the previous page:
Well, that's just silly. Can you provide a single specific reference that clearly supports that assertion? Article 8 of the ECHR certainly does not say that. I don't dispute the fact that stress points can arise between the needs of the state and the rights of the individual, but such instances are ultimately governed by the rule of law, which in this particular example was subverted.Tatt wrote:You have no right to privacy from the security services, and never had.
...it is exempted. And always has been
The right to privacy is an inalienable human right, acknowledged in a document recognised as one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A living document that is recognised as a contract between a government and its people throughout the world. An expression of the values most dear to us, in some ways the UDHR defines what it means to be human. Something of a moral compass.
Ultimately you may be right that privacy (as opposed to the right to privacy) does not actually exist in the modern world de facto. But if true then it is this very acceptance that is the problem and we should be checking our moral compass to find another path, not bending its needle to make it look like we're still going in the right direction.
And so I must concede a point. The right to privacy - like all the other human rights - only 'exists' to the extent that it is acknowldeged and defended. So I suppose for you - and the growing mass of others of a like mind - it really does not exist. And perhaps, in time, for the rest of us it will not exist either. Well done - you win.