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."

Comments

Wouldn't it be ironic

[Chrisq]

Wouldn't it be ironic if someone had a hidden camera in the secret court

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[auric_dude]

A camera in a court sitting in-camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera ironic, funny, insightful, informative or all of them?

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[K. S. Kyosuke]

This one sounds more like camera obscura.

They will not peacefully give up their power

[fustakrakich]

You need to find another way of neutralizing it.

Going nowhere

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Going nowhere

[Cenan]

Defeatist attitude will certainly not help any of us one bit. If the current system is not working, one would think getting out of your seat and working for a replacement would be the obvious choice - leaning back on the couch is what got us in this mess to begin with.

Re:Going nowhere

[Opportunist]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

- Thomas Jefferson

No system is perfect. And no system will last forever. No matter how good the intentions of the original inventors, it will invariably eventually be perverted by people who do not believe in its core features, its system of privileges and responsibilities and who only want to retain privileges while shedding any and all responsibility.

But people who have only privileges and no responsibilities are useless for a society. Nobility learned that last century. This century will probably teach another part of society this lesson, that people simply don't need phony emperors with no clothes. Maybe we'll even live to see it.

How that change will come is to be determined. The later it comes, the less bloody it will be. Simply because more of the people who could defend the old system will see that it has failed and are not willing to prop it up anymore.

Re:Going nowhere

[Cenan]

Well, that is precisely the attitude I was pointing to in my original reply, defeatist. We're not trying to change human nature, that would be idiotic, and to suggest that is what it takes is equally idiotic. Human nature boils down to: eat, survive, reproduce, yet we have consistently moved forward with our understanding of the world around us, despite the drag of the reptilian brain functions. We have even managed to organize in groups to accomplish rather astounding things, despite our predatory, self-centered nature. To invoke "human nature" as a reason to not do anything is just as stupid as using the "terrorist" meme to justify large scale espionage operations.

Spewing semi philosophical one liners is certainly not the solution to our current problems, and leaning back on the couch to "watch the fireworks" is not going to help you, me or anyone either.

Re:Going nowhere

[Cenan]

Well, that and beer, no political problems have ever been solved on an empty glass.

I get your point, that encrypting your communications would solve the current problem of surveillance. The thing is though, that the surveillance is just a symptom of a much more profound problem, i.e. rotten governments. Encrypting your email is only patching a hole, not really solving a problem.

Re:Going nowhere

[Opportunist]

Easily, the same way it's perverted in the US.

1. Make people poor
2. Make defending your rights expensive
3. Break people's rights, knowing that nobody that bothers you has the money to stand up for them.
4. Profit.

Re:Going nowhere

[Smallpond]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9359763/Bee-stings-killed-as-many-in-UK-as-terrorists-says-watchdog.html

Also we need to set up cameras and secret courts to watch bees.

Re:Going nowhere

[RabidReindeer]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

We really need our Patriots, especially now. Tyrants? Not so much. That being said, we've already spilled the blood of too many Patriots--let's start with the tyrants this time around. Perhaps then, we could bring our Patriots home.

I'm inclined to feel that a true patriot isn't someone who runs around screaming "We're #1" and brandishing popguns, it's someone who actually goes out with the understanding that their blood is nourishment for their nation's liberty.

Re:Going nowhere

[AmiMoJo]

At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says

You trust that guy? Do you really expect him to say "there are hardly any terrorists, feel free to reduce my budget"? He offers no evidence. There have been scant few convictions or deportations.

Look at it another way, I randomly and with no evidence accuse you of being a terrorist. There are not 4001 suspects.

Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London

Some trolls with a camera phone go around being trolls. You fell for their scam and now think there are large areas that are "Muslim only" or under Sharia law, where the police don't dare go.

You go on to talk about British football stadiums being drenched in blood. If you seriously believe that is likely to happen and MI5/GCHQ are the only ones preventing it you are delusional. Even when they know the terrorists they can't stop them knifing people to death in the streets or bombing metropolitan areas or attacking airports. If what you suggest was true there would be some evidence of more of these plots, because even with the current level of surveillance they can't be stopped.

Although you may think it wrong, the surveillance by GCHQ is a meaningful part of the security services efforts to protect ordinary Britons. You don't offer anything to replace it.

Redirect those staff to doing more traditional detective work. I believe that would make us safer, but even if you could prove it would result in more terrorist attacks it would be worth it just to preserve our freedom and way of life. Freedom isn't free, and security isn't worth it at any cost.

The ideology of the extremists is an aggressive one; they mean to take over the world even if it takes 1,000 years.

Unfortunately when their kids find out about Hollywood movies and delicious pork they tend to forget all that stuff and become westernised. There are always exceptions, but they are mostly idiots who have proven themselves to be totally incompetent and unable to harm us even when they try.

Re:Going nowhere

[cheekyjohnson]

I think you've made it quite clear in the past that you are indifferent to the prospect of the mass slaughter of your fellow citizens

Indifferent? I believe that I'm merely not so naive as to have so much faith in those given so much power and the ability to act in secrecy.

Re:Going nowhere

[Jean Taureau]

I don't object to survellance by GCHQ, I'd just like it to be targeted rather than blanket ... and carried out _within_ the framework that parliament agreed rather than finding loopholes that allow it to work _outside_ that framework.

Call me old-fasinoned, but I still believe the only way to ensure that the terrorists don't win is for the country to take it on the chin when terrorists strike and then carry on as normal. Anything else, any knee-jerk reaction, any retalliation, any security or survelliance clamp-down that dissrupts peoples day-to-day lives and the terrorists have already won, they got what they wanted. The trouble is the terrorists aren't the only ones with a vested interest in that outcome.

Re:Going nowhere

[Anonymous Coward]

...*Fear based rhetoric*...

Although you may think it wrong, the surveillance by GCHQ is a meaningful part of the security services efforts to protect ordinary Britons. You don't offer anything to replace it.

...*More fear based rhetoric*...

Look, I'm sorry you Yanks got your panties in a knot over one attack on home soil. I'm sorry that all your idealism didn't do shit to shield your sad little minds from the "terror" of living in the real world where the insulation of "X has talent" and "X can dance" TV shows hasn't kept you from seeing the enemies you've made.

  But this isn't new shit for us Brits - we've been getting bombed and "terrorised" in our colonies and home country for decades now. We've had the European immigrants into Israel bombing us out of the country, half a dozen countries in Europe that are now our 'friends' trying the same shit, and the bloody Irish separatists using everything from nail bombs to car bombs - it got so bad that people weren't able to put their bins on the street on collection day cause some sod might hide a bomb there.

True enough there are some fat lazy slobs in the commons now that were probably safe in their country home when all that shit was going on - but now they have to be in the center of London for their job - so we have to put up with this shit because of their fear.

But the last thing we need is fretful little cowards like you telling us how important this shite is! It's old news that doesn't concern any of us and you won't make us hate anyone but you and the other cowards. You certainly won't turn us against any of our friends who happen to be of different faiths - at least no any of us that weren't already rabid, froth-mouthed EDL members. The only country that has lost any UK supporters in the last decade has been the US - and that's only going to get worse as people like you continue to shout the loudest.

Re:Going nowhere

[0111 1110]

You are also an extremist, cold fjord. You and the rest of your pro-authoritarian friends. Should we come after you as well? Surely you have commited the very same thoughtcrime as the most likely innocent muslims you call terrorists. The rest of us would prefer not to live in a police state. Not in the US. Not in the UK. Not anywhere. Liberty is far more important than any terrorist attacks.

Maybe you are deathly afraid of teh terrierists, but it appears to me that even venomous snakes are more of a menace. The number of people who die each year from terrorist attacks in the US or anywhere else is pretty close to zero. If there are terrorists everywhere as you seem to think then they are awfully lazy.

Oh well...

[lxs]

I guess that governments value their privacy as well.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

Re:The very word "secrecy" is repugnant

[Opportunist]

Jeesh! He dared to actually SAY that? No wonder he was shot...

Star Chamber

[dido]

Might as well reopen the Star Chamber while they're at it.

Re:Star Chamber

[countach]

No need to reopen it. This IS the star chamber.

the revolution

[polar red]

The revolution is coming. any day now. really. Yes. Now could be a good time. well ???

Re:the revolution

[polar red]

Violence isn't my first choice either, but are you assuming your choice in the election matters ?

Re:the revolution

[polar red]

Maybe a 'property-reset' is the way to go? initialize every bank-account with for example 5000 GBP/EUR/USD/... and everybody with more than 1 house must choose 1 to keep.

Re:the revolution

[FireFury03]

Of course it matters, the problem is that in order to affect change you need to convince the majority that their vote also matters, and that not toeing the party line is not a wasted vote. I don't think a regime like the one in the UK can withstand prolonged dissent stemming from rigged elections, so voting for change would eventually affect change, granted, it might take a few elections. In this context, change doesn't mean voting for the opposing party though, but voting (or running) for a party or group that believes in the change you wish to see. Just flipping across the middle to vote opposite doesn't change much if we assume that they're all alike.

There are several issues:
- None of the main parties are actually seriously interested in reversing the trend towards a police state. The best you get is an occasional promise to block the trend on one specific piece of legislation, not block it across the board or reverse it. In the current first-past-the-post system, anyone who isn't one of the main parties doesn't stand much chance, so "form your own party then" isn't an answer.
- Too many voters vote for the same party in each election just because thats the party they always vote for, rather than because of their policies.
- We have to elect parties based on *all* their manifesto, we can't cherry pick some promises from one party and some from another. This means that if you have a party offering to improve the economy and trash civil liberties running against a party that will trash the economy and improve civil liberties, the civil liberties arguement often takes a back seat, even though these are separate issues.
- Pretty much all the parties have shown to be untrustworthy with respect to their election promises, so whichever way you vote you have no idea what the party is going to actually do if they get into power.
- Far too many people vote how the papers tell them to vote rather than actually thinking these issues through themselves.
- Far too many people vote with a short term attitude - they're interested in being able to put food on the table tomorrow rather than whether they might be "disappeared" for wrong-thinking in 30 years time.
- The same old people are in the civil service, no matter who gets elected into government. The civil service have a *lot* of influence and it would be hard for a government to continually have to push back against them.

All these points come together to mean that the result of elections is always going to be minor variations of "same old same old".

(FWIW, I'm of the opinion that "you have a duty to vote, so you must vote no matter what" is a bad idea - if you have no interest in the issues at hand then you *shouldn't* vote - if you vote then you're just diluting the votes of people who do care about this stuff.)

On the subject of violent revolution, I highly doubt any good can come of the use of violence.

Well, the "good" that can come from a violent revolution is that a smaller number of people can effect change. You don't need to do the impossible task of convincing millions of apathetic people to actually _think_ in order to effect change. Of course, the change may not be for the better, but I see very little chance of there being real change in any direction through the current democratic system.

I'm sure you can look back through history and find plenty of violent revolutions that led to long term improvements to societies, even though they cause short term pain.

We shouldn't be so eager in handing out judgements and accepting death as payment for having a different view of the world. I'd be wary of accepting a new government that got into power by sheer number of guns, that feels very much like "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

I too would be very wary of such a government. Although I'm not sure I would be any more wary of them than the current one - the current government already seems to be handing out judgements for having a different view of the world.

pix or it didn't happen

[khallow]

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.

Yeah not surprised.

[Mashiki]

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.

Secret court, is that the one ...

[Ihlosi]

... where they hide the kangaroo really well?

George Orwell Was an Optimist ...

[trydk]

... and Terry Gilliam's Brazil depicts a Utopia compared to today's standards.

Sounds about right.

[auric_dude]

Sitting in the dark while viewing an inverted image of the outside world.

Re:The magna carta does exist, you know.

[mrbester]

Magna Carta was for the benefit of the barons, not the general population. Perhaps you're thinking of a document from 1688.

Re:The magna carta does exist, you know.

[TheCarp]

> Unfortunately, it looks like American law started with rights for all and
> is now working its way back up.

Rights for ALL* in America!

* Some restrictions apply, applies to US residents before the signing of the constitution or born here afterwards. Void in the case of membership in native tribes. Must own significant land to qualify. Men only.

Down the 400-year-long snake...

[Archtech]

"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".