Slashdot Mirror
GCHQ Does Not Breach Human Rights, Judges Rule
An anonymous reader writes The current system of UK intelligence collection does not currently breach the European Convention of Human Rights, a panel of judges has ruled. A case claiming various systems of interception by GCHQ constituted a breach had been brought by Amnesty, Privacy International and others. It followed revelations by the former US intelligence analyst Edward Snowden about UK and US surveillance practices. But the judges said questions remained about GCHQ's previous activities. Some of the organisations who brought the case, including Amnesty UK and Privacy International, say they intend to appeal the decision to the European Court of Human Rights.
Bloody bourgeois hypocrisy to cover yup the crimes that would disgrace a nation of savages.
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Only the elite are human, and therefore, have human rights.
People with smart homes can control all their appliances using a mobile phone like a TV remote control.
Next time someone invades your privacy in Europe, please remember, they never violate your human rights !
Captha : regimes
Odds are that they would also say that if the government was operating worldwide childs molestation rings for profit.
They would say that wouldn't they. Nothing to worry about, move along now sir.
Stay classy. Stay classy.
Quit blaring Verizon commericals as soon as the page is half loaded. Video (and audio) that starts without asking is fucking the dawg, you bitch! I will never spend a penny for either Verizon or Slashdot until this quits. I say again;
SHUT THE FRACK UP, SLASHDOT!
GCHQ Does Not Breach Human Right. Judges Rule!!!!!
Well that's a nonsense ruling, Merkel and EU Parliament were spied on, and those targets are political not national security targets. and the data is given to the NSA, this tribunal does not cover the NSA and it cannot vouch or enforce anything the NSA does with that data, clearly if politicians are spied on, then this data is misused.
Any "No-spy" agreement between the UK, US and other 5 eyes, does not extend to Europe yet the privacy right covers Europeans.
Likewise claiming the data is proportionate, when GCHQ grabs *all* data is simply not possible, the tribunal seems to think if you grab the data and don't look at it (even though you're data mining it) then that's not intercepting the data. Silly.
The tribunal hints at problems in the past, but they're also hinting at the limits of their ruling.
No matter, this Kangaroo ruling is expected, and its necessary to go through this before you can go to the higher courts.
TWELVE PARAGRAPHS of blather before they tell us WHICH JUDGES. And of course it's a bunch of yes-men from the UK government's equivalent to the FISA rubberstamping court. No surprises there. But "newswriting" like that is still aggravating.
Tangentially, they have a dotcom, not a dotgovdotuk domain. A dotcom, yes, so not even a dotorg, no. But very much not a dotuk. Curious, no?
Ah, push it - push it good
Ah, push it - push it real good
Ah, push it - push it good
Ah, push it - p-push it real good
Ah, push it - push it good
Ah, push it - push it real good
Ah, push it - push it good
Ah, push it - p-push it real good
Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
The choice of who or whom can be determined by whether the answer can be he or him.
So, "he appointed the judges" -> "who appointed the judges?"
"the judges will be appointed by him" -> "by whom will the judges be appointed?"
No citation because I can't remember where I saw it, and I'm too lazy to search.
So logically if the appointing person is female:
she appointed the judges -> who appointed the judges?
the judges will be appointed by her -> by whor will the judges be appointed?
Somehow this doesn't make sense.
There is no hope that anyone there can effect any change, as with the US.
Refuse to hire ex-GCHQ or NSA employees. Make sure they know they're personally accountable for this.
Meanwhile in other news the major street gangs in America got together and debated among themselves. Their final ruling was that all their violent actions and street murders were in fact, not a breach of a the law. Despite numerous laws that say their actions are in fact wrong, they feel as though people should give up a little personal property here and there to prevent these thugs from downright burning houses down. So after all, phew, all this violence was worth it. Because think of the thug life.....
First the grand juries allowing murder, now this. These things should just be decided by randomly selected citizens. Can't possibly get a worse outcome.
When you give government the authority to declare new "human rights" you give them the right to strip them or modify them to their will.
The European Court of Human Rights was originally the first stop for Human Rights cases from the UK- like the famous case that ended the 'Right' of teachers to force sado-masochistic rape on British school pupils in the guise of 'corporal punishment'. However, Under Blair's influence, a 'Human Rights' Court was created in the UK- and the 'judges' in this 'court' have universally sided with the government. Despite Blair's best efforts, plaintiffs that fail at Blair's court can still then go on to appeal the case at the European Court- but this delays the process and massive increases the costs.
The BIGGEST scandal was when Brits sought to reverse Blair's evil habit of grabbing and keeping DNA records from innocent British citizens. Under the guise of 'search for a rapist', British police were in the habit of taking samples (in effect by force) from tens of thousands of local males- claiming said DNA records would be destroyed after the rapist was caught. In reality, the DNA information was added to a giant database Tony Blair had ordered created, and when challenged about their lies, the police chiefs laughed and said they were doing nothing 'illegal'.
Anyway, at the British Court of Human Rights, the senior judge actually rolled around with laughter (really) and she told the complainants to 'get lost', stating that the British government could do whatever it liked, and tell people whatever lies they wished, in the name of 'security'. So up to the European Court went the case, and there the judges with a massive majority STRONGLY stated that the actions of the British Government were appalling and illegal, and that innocent people must have there DNA records expunged.
Sadly, Blair's current stooges simply moved all the 'problematic' records to GCHQ computer facilities, and introduced rules that still mean common DNA databases can keep the DNA records of innocent citizens forever under various excuses (like the fact that aspects of the criminal case MAY arise at some uncertain point in the future- making all collected DNA part of needed ongoing 'evidence' in the name of 'justice').
With respect to the parents Right to protect their children from paedophile teachers who got their rocks off from beating kids, every court in the UK (which were not, at the time, Human Rights courts) agreed with the government over the parents. The case that broke the back of this issue revolved around two Scottish mothers, whose children were to be removed by Social Workers for the SOLE reason that the mothers would NOT allow their kids to be 'belted' at school. In Scottish schools at the time, 90%+ of ALL schoolchildren, of whatever age or sex, could be expected to be 'belted' at least once a month in a Scottish school. The British Government tried an experiment in the 70s to monitor the level of corporal punishment in Scotland, but gave up when the recorded numbers in just a week proved to be so insanely high, forcing the teachers to record each incident reduced teaching time too much.
Rights don't come from ASKING. You 'ask', and in a 'modern democracy' you prove yourself to be a person of no power. The ECHR was designed to fix this problem, by being INDEPENDENT of the nation of the askee. This worked well, until the age of Tony Blair. As Prime Minister, Blair 'persuaded' the heads of other European nations to interfere in the appointments of the ECHR, and to align their thinking with the desires of the politicians. The ECHR, since the rise of Blair, has rarely sided with the plaintiff against governmental abuses in their home nation. Turkey, in particular, won ruling after ruling protecting its 'Right' to suppress Muslim freedom of conscience- and shortly afterwards highly racist laws against Muslims in France and Italy were given the green card by the ECHR.
The BBC, ITN (the other 'news service' in the UK), British Newspapers, GCHQ, MI6 and MI6 are all part of the same continuum. GCHQ- as the 'Royal' military intelligence service, is literally above ANY Law. Britain is unique in that Freedom of Consc
To be free of being a target of crime is also a reasonable human expectation or right. To live in a society that has a reasonable degree of order and regular function might also be described as a human right. To expect the full benefit of medical technology, food and housing as well as legal representation in both civil and criminal issues is also esential. Not to be lied to by our employees that we call "the government" is also vital. How is it that most of these areas only get lip service and any progress is astoundingly slow? Is it reasonable for veterans not to get benefits the moment they are discharged from duty? How can a man be held in a jail for four years awaiting trial? How is it that arrests that lead to not guilty verdicts do not compel government to compensate the person subjected to that false arrest?
It should have read "government lawyers help spies lie about violating innocent people's privacy rights."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Like any of us still respect the UK...that country has almost reached the end of its long slide into complete tyrrany.