Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Surveillance Faces Legal Challenge.. In Secret Court
judgecorp writes "Privacy International is mounting a legal challenge against snooping by the UK government's intelligence agency GCHQ. But the case will be held in secret The group is challenging UK government access to Privacy, and the UK's own Tempora system, arguing that both allow 'indiscriminate' snooping because they operate in secrecy with a lack of legal oversight. All well and good — but the authorities have ruled that Privacy's challenge must be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which hears cases in secret and is under no obligation to explain or justify its verdicts."
This will all be overseen by the secret world government from their underground lair.
Wouldn't it be ironic if someone had a hidden camera in the secret court
You need to find another way of neutralizing it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We all know the rule of law has broken down completely. I admire their approach, but we need to be realistic. Its the end of the road for our current way of life.
We're all just waiting for this to really kick in and its not going to be pretty when it does.
The UK where Justice must never be seen, and preferably not done.
I guess that governments value their privacy as well.
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. [...] there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it." - JFK
Might as well reopen the Star Chamber while they're at it.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
The revolution is coming. any day now. really. Yes. Now could be a good time. well ???
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Aside from the obvious abuse of power inherent in the absence of accountability of secret trials, there's the equally obvious problem of undocumented law and its considerable potential for abuse. Regulation is by definition documented. And one of the benefits of that is that one has some idea of the lines which shouldn't be crossed.
Secret rulings by unaccountable courts mean secret laws which can then be selectively enforced by the only people who know the contents of those rulings, including their features and context. I think it should be a broad principle that such secret courts should never exist in a democratic society.
I think it was oh 8 months ago or so, I made a comment about how the UK was no longer adhering to the basic tenets of democracy and have basically thrown the shitter, and then burning it. I got modded down, flamed, and people said I was full of shit then. Yeah well, I guess I was right then as much as I was right now. Get's worse of course, that the UK is blocking people who might offend the "violent minority" and in turn speaking the truth isn't conducive to the public good.
Om, nomnomnom...
... where they hide the kangaroo really well?
Cough! Ouchy!
... and Terry Gilliam's Brazil depicts a Utopia compared to today's standards.
Sitting in the dark while viewing an inverted image of the outside world.
And it was written down. So your "(or at all)" is manifestly wrong.
Do not negotiate with terrorists.
UK government access to Privacy
Should that be "access to PRISM"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"Privacy's challenge must be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which hears cases in secret and is under no obligation to explain or justify its verdicts."
Otherwise known as "The Court of Star Chamber".
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Isn't a secret court illegal?
-- Cheers!
What do they got to hide?
So damn silly. Fuck them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/09/prince-charles-letters-mps-private-court
>Prince Charles's letters to ministers to remain private, court rules
>Judges reject Guardian attempt to force publication of 'black spider memos' that would reveal efforts to influence government
>influence government
It's official, the UK is a plutocracy.
When picking your side in the 'War on Terror' - Is Al Queada tapping your phones and recording everything you say?
The law has been broken for decades.
Ever try suing Oracle Corporation? I have. They lied to the court, withheld documents, sabotaged the careers of anyone whom opposed them - even their own law firm's lawyers, where one of Scalia's nephews or grandsons was employed at a law firm that handled an unlawful termination lawsuit, in San Francisco, and was, himself, terminated, by his employer, because of Oracle's extreme dissatisfaction with, if I recall correctly, a bit of humane behavior.
You folks like to complain about Kobi Alexander, Comverse Technology, Odigo, Varus, and Narant ... but everything they were doing, sniffing network traffic, I'm pretty sure Oracle was doing - sniffing the contents of databases - a decade or two, before.
And let's not even talk about USENET, or Barry Shein, or UUNET, or the FBI.
Hello, have any of you fools noticed that Larry Ellison now owns 96% of a Hawaiian island?
And, just between you and me, it looks like he gets regular blood transfusions, too.
ac due to mods
Star Chamber!
Pardon my hijacking this, since we're talking about the UK, but I find the below quote from Wikipedia woeful:
The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[13] The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment – i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "plead the Fifth" to avoid self-incrimination – is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.[14]
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821–22 (1975).
You don't have to incriminate yourself now. Everything you do, every eye twitch, every phone call, every thought, will incriminate for you since we're recording it all.
Where does the 5th come into this in The States? We need a definition of "self" so that evidence cannot be used against a person which isn't technically coerced, but infringes on the a person's basic "self" and incriminates them through a violation of that privacy.