NO2ID

My 12 YO has been taught the basics of the above at school and looking at the abridged version provided I have spotted the following articles that the NIRD may well breach according to the discussions on this forum.

Has the right not to be discriminated against
Has the right to live in Freedom and dignity
Has the right to freedom
Has the right to equality before the law
Has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Has the right to privacy
Has the right to freedom of movement
Has the right to take part in government and to vote
Has the right to social security
Has the right to work

This, BTW, from a school that has installed an intrusive CCTV system about which the headmaster will not discuss with me!

Justin.

The reason schools are installing these electronic spies is because the government is giving them grants that can only be spent on security. Naturally the grants are not large enough to employ someone to watch them but just about the right amount to ensure a CCTV is in every class room, toilet, playground and so on. 38 in total in one school in Manchester.

As for human rights, well that depends on how much money you have to spend on lawyers. Also if it is a case that helps some government department then they will give you legal aid for it. That’s what Blair’s wife does in Matrix Chambers. The lawyers there are paid up to 1/2million per year to take on controversial cases of human rights like say the right for an oil company to do as one pleases with oil slicks or some other contorted misuse of the act. When it comes to protecting the average person's rights you will simply never get legal aid and if you pay for it yourself then try and find a brief that knows what to do in your highstreet.

But this is Ireland where school funding is nowhere near as transparent and parental representation at school management level hardly exists. And therin lies part of the problem. As far as I know the school got handed a wedge of cash for good behaviour and the first thing the HM did was rush and and spend it on the CCTV system without actually thinking about what he was doing. Up pops a foriegn parent who is used to PTA's etc and starts asking awkward questions, something that is hitherto unheard of. The man simply doesn't know how to respond. Shame really as ts a good school otherwise. Pupil to teacher ratio of 1-18 at 1st year level falling to 1-8 for my eldests chemisty class at leaving cert age (A'level).

As for lawyers then it says something about this government when the introduce dodgy legislation in the belief that its OK to do so just so long as the proles can't afford to challange it. What sort of society does that bring about?

Justin.

The European Convention on Human Rights is the main barrier as it's the one the Govt cannot easily avoid.



Can it be argued that the mass accumulation of data via the NIR or other data-betrayal initiatives are necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others?

As you see, that's quite vague. It's possible the mass-surveillance is necessary to protect a couple of hypothetical people from being terrorised, robbed or otherwise have their freedom impinged upon, even if that mass-surveillance means a dramatic reduction of freedom for the entire country.

At the end of the day I suspect it's up to the interpretation of the Council of Europe, which is why I've moved this post to Legal Questions. Even though the Govt has twice legislated in ways that officially contravened the Human Rights Act, we would be stupid to assume they haven't got some kind of answer to this barrier up their sleeve.

There is a similar thread on the ECHR/HRA here.

It will be; though you don't have it in the right context. The phrase the the Strasbourg court, and domestic ones following it, construe is "necessary in a democratic society for...[ one of a numbe rof things]". The test is in practice much weaker than necessity sounds, and the jurisprudence has produced from this a doctrine of "proportionality" which consequently is by far the most imprtant concept in human rights law, despite appearing nowhere in the source document. The courts ask, is this or that measure "proportionate" to the aim? Which means the court decides the terms of trade-off between the right of the individual and the policy objective.

It will also be argued, no doubt, that the accumulation of data does not in itself constitute an infringement of respect for private life, and that one should look at the proportionality of the intentional uses of the data on a case by case basis. Implicitly, this is the line the government has taken already.

Why are all the moderators suddenly making so many spelling errors?

In my case because I am hurrying. The need to moderate the forums is in addition to many other things to do for NO2ID, most of which affect the real world rather more.