Re:Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament
by m_mueller on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @06:12AM
(#18919862)
be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces, while the law text actually says "public spaces and what's observable from there". i.e. pretty much any Swiss inhabitant can now be put under surveillance in their private homes without any judge order.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Brexit Deal Fails in Parliament
by AstralStorm on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @06:30AM
(#18919933)
This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only.
And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not covered, neither are directional microphones etc.
Law is not an algorithm. It is executed by judges and jurors.
(Note: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
That would depend on the wording and on legal precedent in the UK some civil service pensioners had changes to their pensions because the wording of the scheme of arrangement used a different three letter word than some other pensioners.
When it comes to surveillance I don't put any trust in the system other than what's strictly allowed / disallowed according to law text. Remember Fichen?
Yes, you are right. Then the opposing committee would point this out in their explanation.