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.
Given that those who make the definition of crimes are the same who are legislating to strip you from your privacy... it's not surprising.
Of course, governments just give themselves the exclusivity of crimes. Kidnapping, assault, theft, murder, torture... Though, they rename the action in the process, imprisonment, "public safety", taxes, war...
What worries me about the article is that it keeps mentioning the European Convention on Human Rights, but singularly fails to clarify that the IPT is a UK body and not a European one. The whole point of the European court system is to help citizens overturn the decisions of an entrenched national establishment that refuses to police itself. The UK keeps complaining about the EU "interfering" in our laws, but they only do so at the request of British citizens (or less commonly other EU citizens who aren't receiving fair and equal treatment).
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Of course, the ones doing the spying are the ones who make the laws. There's no problem at all. Move along, comrade.
You'd think that the average slashdot user knows how to install adblockplus...
Why does Slashdot never fix this problem? It's not the first time when I hear people being riled up by intrusive ads over here, especially ones which play audio.
Sometimes this website feels like a ghost ship without anyone in control. :-O
Except that in the UK, Judges have the ability to nullify a law if they consider it onerous or wrong, without being specifically asked to look at the law itself.
One of the many reasons I trust the UK judicial system - its very independent of the current Government.
A non-political body called the Judicial Appointments Commission, the 15 members of which include barristers, judges, normal everyday people and legal professionals. The government have no say in appointments, and have no power over the commission - its completely independent.
A non-political body called the Judicial Appointments Commission, the 15 members of which include barristers, judges, normal everyday people and legal professionals. The government have no say in appointments, and have no power over the commission - its completely independent.
Look at the list of the current commissioners sometime...
normal everyday people eh?, let me see who the lay members are..
former senior civil servant, couple of professors, a top businesswoman, a Lieutenant General Sir... the sort of people I meet every day (well, I *used* to when I worked in Camford..).
oh, for sure, independent..for a given value of independent.
Fortunately the NSA can have no dirt on any of the judges, so nothing could go wrong at all.
Oh...
Wait...
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"I thought it was to overturn the decisions of national establishment and replace them with decisions made by a supranational establishment instead.
With respect of the human rights laws, they seem to be more of a stick to beat the government with than anything used to really protect human rights - the latest scam from the ambulance chasing human-rights lawyers is the case of a foreign criminal who used the human right to a family life to defend himself from being deported after serving his sentence. Only in this case, he was had threatened to kill his family and was banned from seeing them.
Is state snooping on communications against our human rights? Is it against the human rights legislation?
Just because the law justifies it doesn't mean it's not a crime. Don't make me break out Godwin to prove my point!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The system is too easily subverted by the government. They made rules to have much of this case in secret, making it impossible to make proper arguments. Judges can only act within the rules set by the government.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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."
A few million Jews might want to have a word with you if they were still alive.
There are things that are criminal by definition. Would you consider it ok if whatever constitutional guard exists against violation of personal and intimate room, creating a law that says that any governmental official can at leisure enter your home, search it and take with him whatever he pleases? Because, you know, terrism and that. Make a law and it's ok to do whatever you please?
Question every law you encounter. Test it whether it may exist, test its validity and its purpose. Blind acceptance of laws is what makes dictatorship possible in the first place.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Minor correction - this changed with the introduction of the UK's Supreme Court, whose judges are politically appointed.
The government of the time created it specifically so that they had a top court they could take advantage of when they found that whole independent judiciary thing inconvenient.
You're right we've always had a great system and we do still have a great system for the most part, but the UK's Supreme Court has put an end to that to some degree as the government can always just escalate to them when it doesn't get it's own way.