Process train passport law departed
On 6 May 2010 10:30 am, the summons was served at the Supreme Court. After the legally required preparations, the train has now departed.
State sued by Privacy First and 22 co-claimants
Privacy First Foundation wants to emphasise that it is not a protest organisation but seeks better legislation. In the case of the new passport law that became effective from 21 September 2009, this means the following:
- - no law full of white spots (see below);
- - use the best technology to ensure citizens' privacy (so-called privacy enhancing technologies - privacy enhancing technologies (PVTs)) (see below);
- - not spin the people, 2nd Chamber, 1st Chamber and Queen to push the law through but discuss clearly and in detail how things really are.
The law contained 23 white spaces, which are so-called (General) Measures of (State) Administration (AVMBs). Very essential matters had to be regulated therein such as responsibility, organisation set-up, rights of citizens.
These are exactly what the 2nd Chamber, 1st Chamber and Queen should and want to watch over. But because they were not in the law, Parliament did not know what they were voting on and the Queen did not know under which she signed on 11 June 2009.
Privacy First considers it a fundamental mistake not to regulate essential matters in law. A citizen should, noting a fundamental principle of law, "be able to foresee" the possible consequences of his actions towards the government or in society. (Reference: including the Supreme Court's Harmonisation Judgment of 14 April 1989, 1989-469).
Clear rules of the game that are known is what it is called in normal language but there was none of that here.
So the fuss about AVMBs can be seen as an administrative ploy to rush legislation through without any problems and to pull maximum strings yourself without Parliament being able to consider it because an AVMB does not need to be submitted to the Houses.
Privacy First Foundation does not want citizens to be at risk or in limbo because of government tricks. This has nothing to do with protesting or privacy fetishism but is simply nothing more and nothing less than demanding that our rule of law remains a transparent, democratic rule of law and does not crumble as Parliament has to turn a blind eye to more and more things "because that's the way we do things these days".