this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
554 points (99.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
9292 readers
2273 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In many cases this could be argued as unconstitutional.
In germany, it's not technically unconstitutional (i checked last week because i assumed it should be) but it definitely feels like it should be unconstitutional. After WW2, there was a consensus to not surveil your own population, and this is a very important constraint to keep in mind.
Where did you check that? The Vorratsdatenspeicherung has been ruled unconstitutional twice for example
Art. 10 GrundGesetz: https://dejure.org/gesetze/GG/10.html
In Lithuania privacy is defined as a fundamental right and it includes correspondence, digital or otherwise.
Would that prevent passing laws enabling chat control? Doubt it, but I can see it as a good legal argument against it.
According to the EU constitution?
Yes, the right to privacy is a fundamental right in the eu charter.
I yhink the declaration of the rights of man and citizens is in there somewhere. But I haven't really looked at it since the Schengen treaty mess.
According to constitutions of member states.
At least here it's worded in a way that chat control could be argued as unconstitutional (not a lawyer tho).
I would not be surprised that any other sane constitution protects privacy, and by extension digital correspondence, under fundamental rights.