Well, the trick is, a surefire way to make voters angry in large part of the continents (or, well, large part of France anyway) it so put "Constitution" and "Europe" in the same sentence - so there is not much of a place to enshrine that at the EU level.
Besides, every member state's constitution probably already has a variant of "privacy is a fundamental right except in cases defined by law".
I will argue that we _definitely do_ want cases where privacy is not 100% respected (sadly, "investigating crime" is not always a red herring, newspeak, lobbying propaganda, etc...
People really do that for a living, and in the common interest.)
In the end, it will always be a policymaker's job to draw the lines.
What I would love to enshrine in a constitution is that "People shall choose policymakers wisely.". But I'm not sure of how to enforce that :/
I think the 4th amendment did a good job and is quite specific. The courts rewrote it judicially.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
The Fourth Amendment protects the physical, yet other amendments also address privacy in different ways. The First Amendment protects the mind and arguably one's spirit, the Third Amendment is a specific type of physical protection, the Fifth Amendment also protects the mind, the Ninth Amendment protects the existence of privacy, and the Tenth Amendment lets states implement greater privacy protections as they see fit.
Given privacy is fundamentally related to the expression of free will, it's not surprising so much touches it.
That's a narrow reading of it. "Papers and effects" ought to extend to our data as well, something the authors could not have called out more explicitly at the time of its writing. Call it inconvenient or impractical, whatever, but it's ridiculous to conclude their intent was that government can spy on presumed innocents as long as they don't make a physical mess.
I think third party doctrine is also a pile of crap... and that data brokers shouldn't have a square inch of legal ground to stand on. GDPR sets a good example in that regard.
I completely agree, and computing has flipped the table on our understanding of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, our technological development and privacy concerns are proportional, which says something quite profound. Are you familiar with Kyllo v. United States and Carpenter v. United States? If not, you'll probably find them intriguing.
Third-party doctrine is indeed a pile of crap. Still, the fact remains that zero-cost (okay, effectively zero-cost) digital information breaks virtually all historical ownership models which legal systems protect. GDPR is okay, but compliance with it is so burdensome to small businesses that corporate-driven cloud infrastructure is the only way to survive.
It essentially is. The right to privacy is part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is enshrined into law as part of the Treaty of Lisbon.
No rights enshrined in a constitution is guaranteed or respected, anywhere in the world. First, in come countries legislation breaching constitutional rights appear all the time and the burden is on the people to fight that legislation that is presumed valid. Second, people believe that some rights are no longer aligned with the modern times (see USA second amendment) and are willing to remove it. Third, constitutional rights that are not completely removed are brutally "regulated", with the same effect, and most people agree with that or actively support it.
In summary, there are no rights that are guaranteed even if they are in a constitution.
It is in Italy's ("Freedom and secrecy of correspondence and any other communication cannot be violated"), but I didn't think this was particularly unique?
(Note that this article of the constitution doesn't include E2E encryption because there's a carve out for the judiciary to limit this freedom).
It seems dangerous to make proposing laws in a parliament illegal, don't you think? Anything should go in a parliament. I'm also not sure hate speech could be illegal when a member of parliament speaks in parliament, typically parliamentary debate is more widely protected.
Are you saying that it should be perfectly acceptable for legislators to propose a law e.g. to kill all men over 60 in gas chambers and that it should be treated seriously and let go all the way through legislative process?
Even more: that is currently the case in liberal democracies AFAIK. Any legislator can propose any law. It's then up to the legislative process to decide whether it should be accepted or not. (Possibly, a constitutional court could roll back laws that violate the constitution.)
My favorite solution: Those who vote for legislation found to be anti constitutional by the respective courts lose their passive voting rights and must leave Parliament immediately.
Besides, every member state's constitution probably already has a variant of "privacy is a fundamental right except in cases defined by law".
I will argue that we _definitely do_ want cases where privacy is not 100% respected (sadly, "investigating crime" is not always a red herring, newspeak, lobbying propaganda, etc...
People really do that for a living, and in the common interest.)
In the end, it will always be a policymaker's job to draw the lines.
What I would love to enshrine in a constitution is that "People shall choose policymakers wisely.". But I'm not sure of how to enforce that :/