Invasion of privacy VS public health

[Tim R]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this:

Here in Germany, there is a fundamental law concerning the inviolability of your home, which means that nobody is allowed to enter someone else's home, not even the police, unless either you let them enter or they have a warrant granted by a judge. 

Since a couple of weeks, the infection rates in Germany have spiked to a new record. Today, one of our politicians proposed the following: 

"We find ourselves in a national emergency that could get worse than this spring. The inviolability of the home must no longer be an argument in favor of a lack of controls. When private celebrations in apartments and houses endanger public health and thus safety, the authorities must be able to intervene."

Obviously you can't get a warrant for something which doesn't violate the law. Fortunately, the aforementioned politician is not in the government party and I'm certain this won't be implemented, however I find it somewhat concerning that such a proposal exists. It reminds me of Orwell's novel "1984". 

Do you think such an immense and obvious invasion of privacy which also violates the constitution (!) would be justified? 

 

[commie]

You probably don't care about my thoughts but since no one else answered...

I don't care about this hypocritical stuff about fundamental rights and whatnot. There's an obvious technical solution anyway: make a law almost everyone violates or a law about going to unregistered private parties and have a judge issue warrants immediately on request.

Cops need to enter people's homes based on mere suspicion to deal with DV, child abuse and such effectively. I find your comparison to 1984 ludicrous.

The larger issue is one of proportionality I think: why persecute people for meeting in their homes while people with non-essential jobs are allowed to meet at work? And I think we both know the answer to that question...

[r0ckyreed]

“Arguing you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying I don’t care about free speech because I have nothing to say.”
—Snowden

I think privacy and freedom should be fundamental rights. If we give people power over others, they will use it.

It’s like Tony Stark. He made weapons to protect people, but once he saw how his inventions were used to harm people, he stopped making them.

How far are we going to go with surveillance? Where do we draw this line?

On 10/29/2020 at 3:32 AM, commie said:

I don't care about this hypocritical stuff about fundamental rights and whatnot. There's an obvious technical solution anyway: make a law almost everyone violates or a law about going to unregistered private parties and have a judge issue warrants immediately on request.

Cops need to enter people's homes based on mere suspicion to deal with DV, child abuse and such effectively. I find your comparison to 1984 ludicrous.

If you give cops that power to enter anyone’s house without warrants, you would see a larger disparity among minorities being targeted.

How do we define suspicion? Is it defined by mainstream culture? How do you account for other cultures? What would stop police from abusing their power? Or better yet, what would stop people with power from abusing it?

This is question of private vs public, or freedom vs safety is much more complex.

[Claymoree]

It is probably because they can't do nothing even if they receive call from people that their neighbours are have guests.

One for sure , if it would be allowed it should be only temporary,  but I am not sure if they should really even do that.

 I am divided in this matter. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Claymoree