Slashdot Mirror
UK's Most Secretive Court Rules GCHQ Mass Internet Surveillance Was Unlawful
Hammeh writes: Today marks the first time in its history that the Investigative Powers Tribunal (IPT), who are responsible for oversight and complaints relating to all of the UK intelligence agencies, upheld a complaint against GCHQ, stating that accessing data provided to them by the NSA was in breach of human rights. The ruling comes as the saga into online privacy continues to unfold. Last year, the same court ruled that internal surveillance of British citizens did not breach human rights. The difference: NSA data is claimed to have sidestepped the protections provided by the UK legal system. The tribunal also noted that although the UK government was willing to admit that Prism and Upstream existed (both NSA programs outed by Edward Snowden), they would not comment on the existence or non-existence of the Tempora program.
But is this going to have any consequences for those who violated the law on a massive scale?
They KNEW they were targetting British people, they even had key journalists as targets. Not terrorists, or 'Jihadists' journalists.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-01/20/gchq-journalist-emails
They KNEW they didn't have legal authority to do a full take on our data. The bill to legalize it was repeatedly pushed by Jacqui Smith and Theresa May and neither got the Snoopers Charter passed.
It failed to pass again a few days ago, as traitors to their country pushed it through on an amendment:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-01/27/snoopers-charter-lords-rejected
GCHQ spied on us for a foreign power anyway.
They spied for the NSA on British communications and undermined our democracy. There needs to be f**ing prosecutions.
Every politicians now has an NSA file filled with GCHQ provided information.
Every potential poltician has an NSA file filled with GCHQ provided information.
Every journalist has an NSA file filled with GCHQ provided information.
They undermined us, there needs to be criminal prosecutions and the man who went ahead with this despite the law failing to pass, he needs to be prosecuted as the spy he is. He's a spy just as if he was a Russian spy working for the Russians or a Chinese spy working for the Chinese.
And when the NSA/CIA/US Politicos use that data to leverage UK politicians to keep GCHQ spying on Brits, you GCHQ staff will know you are traitors to Britain. YOU DID THIS. You created those files that let them leverage the UK political machine. Where is the Snowden among you, that had the balls to stand up and tell us of all this illegal activity??
And as for the US, now you can see that General Alexander sent staff to the UK to get around the US laws and spy on Americans using Tempora. He's walked away from this free as a bird, even has a consultancy, he flat out lied about spying on Americans too.
Read this:
http://boingboing.net/2015/02/05/ron-wyden-to-eric-holder-befo.html
Understand that Wyden is telling you that he cannot discuss these secret commercial deals that were struck between US corporations and the NSA to hand over all their private data. US citizens too, and no doubt all of Europes.
So all the 'cookies' nonsense, the EU got stuck with, meanwhile the NSA was cutting financial deals with the Facebook/Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/DropBox/Apple's of this world to get all of the private data. THEY got a business subsidy, and NSA got everyone's private data.
So everyone of you now has a leverage file against you, and we cannot trust our politicians to act for their countries because of it. That goes for US politicians too, because the files will be used to prevent politicians that don't fit the military industrial complex from rising up to rule.
It ruled that to be in compliance it had to publish it's process, which it did to the court during the trial. As it's published it during the trial, it's now in compliance and not acting illegally.
Nothing to see here, move along slashdot.
If there were more secretive courts?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
We can't even test for explosives in our "largest terrorist attacks ever" that precipitated this modern level of public surveillance lawlessness.
America has one
Britain has one
And both countries supposed to be democratic countries!
Secretive courts supposed to be associated with countries such as China, or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or some banana republics, definitely NOT democratic countries
How in hell the voters from Britain as well as from America allow such things to happen in the first place??
Are we finally going to start seeing courts saying that the 5 eyes cheating to get around the legalities of spying on their own people by having other governments do it is a terrible idea?
Because that would be fucking awesome. When a government has been told "you can't do this" and "this is your evidentiary standard" -- to subsequently say "well, we got it this way, it was they who broke the law so it's OK" -- well that's pretty douchebaggy.
I would dearly love to see courts saying "Gee, the NSA has broken our law, and no matter if they think it's legal it isn't".
These assholes have decided they have no jurisdiction, and I'd like to see someone remind them that they do.
The world hasn't consented to be spied on by the NSA, so I'd love to see them and their counterparts brought up onto shorter leashes. Or shorter ropes.
They're like dogs who bite, if you don't get that under control you might have to put them down. And if they're going to sidestep the law, then they definitely should be put down.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
National espionage agencies operate outside the law these days anyway.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
No matter if it is the NSA or GCHQ, they are but apparatus of the respective governments they serve
And the governments in question, the government of the United States of America and the government of Great Britain, supposed to be in charge by the politicians, who are elected by the people
In other words, the people of both countries entrusted their respective nations to the politicians, and it's the politicians who are betraying the people
guess its time to change the law
And people think that the Illuminati isn't real.....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
they would not comment on the existence or non-existence of the Tempora program.
That's because it's actually the tempura program, and no-one wants that taken away from them.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Some links to pages describing Tempora.
I think the fact that UK Defence officials issued a Defence Advisory Notice to the BBC requesting they don't mention certain espionage programs, which may-or-may-not exist, basically confirms that they in fact do exist. It's damn near an official acknowledgement even. Same goes for the US Army restricting personel access to The Guardian website since they started mentionain PRISM and Tempora. Well done chaps!
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
You are trying very hard to shelter the politicians from any of the blames but it won't work
Let us look at it this way ...
We, the voting public, are the boss. We elect the politicians to manage the government which governs the nation we live in
It is akin to, we are the boss of a store, and we hire someone to manage our store for us
Now come NSA/GCHQ who violates the rules
It is just like saying an employee is secretly stealing money from the cash register
Yes, it was NSA/GCHQ who committed the crime, just like that employee who stole the money ... but it is the manager / politicians who must be responsible for the theft / violation of the rules !
1. We the boss did not hire that employee (NSA/GCHQ), it was the manager (the politicians) who did the hiring
2. We entrusted our nation/store to our manager / politicians and we pay them to do the job
3. The theft is a crime, and a crime which was committed by someone who was hired by our manager, and our manager, according to what you say ...
How is Parliament supposed to pass laws on this secret policy based on the lies they were told?
I do not care if the manager / politicians had been lied to or not --- they are the one who ultimately have to be responsible for the mess
It was them who allowed the treacherous things to happen - and by saying that "I don't know, I was lied to" no longer work
It *IS* their job to manage the store/nation and they have failed to carry out their duty
That is why they, the politicians, ultimately, have to face the music
They are the one who pass laws *WITHOUT* even checking
How can one passing a law in the parliament / congress without even knowing what the hell is going on, and what kind of law, and the potential consequences of the laws they are passing??
I mean, in a sardonic way. They go to such great lengths to say "IT'S ILLEGAL!!!" and "THEY CAN'T DO THAT". They dance around, yell about all this, and they're doing that so that you won't notice something conspicuous in its absence: consequences.
Imagine if you robbed a liquor store and went to court and the judge yelled about how it's illegal to rob liquor stores, you should have known that, yes, you, liquor store robber! You law breaker! Scoundrel! You're terrible, I can't believe you robbed the liquor store. Okay, you can leave now, just don't rob any more liquor stores because it's illegal to do that!
It's ludicrous, really. We need to understand that these issues are far more serious than people knocking off liquor stores and it's time we started treating it as such. Real consequences for those who broke the law - and I don't mean the minimum security marriott.
Do you have ESP?
If some Brit had been caught sneeking around and reading the GCHQ data or even reading some politician's or top policeman's traffic that guy would be in jail right now with little prospect of being out before a few decades had come to pass. Yet these douche nozzles won't even get so much as an ASBO. Justice is blind, nobody is above the law? Total and purified BS.
But we all knew that.
However: will anyone DO anything about it?
Does Scotland have to secede to get your attention?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Consequences to a government agency are not and should not be the same as they are for an individual... When a great wrong has been done by an individual, punishment is arguably useful and usually satisfying from other individuals perspective, but retribution for an organisation (esp government) it's not very useful to anyone.
Also the legality of this ruling should not determine punishment or justification, it should determine change. If the ruling was "lawful", then clearly the laws involved are not comprehensive enough or are poorly defined.
Whatever the ruling, it's clear that the GCHQ overreached. Inadequate oversight, bad policy and fallible laws could be the cause. The ruling and findings along the way can provide insight into how much of each is to blame.
Consequences to a government agency are not and should not be the same as they are for an individual... When a great wrong has been done by an individual, punishment is arguably useful and usually satisfying from other individuals perspective, but retribution for an organisation (esp government) it's not very useful to anyone.
It depends. Many of us have argued for an official corporate "death penalty", and the government here (US) actually does shut down businesses sometimes and courts often order the people who set up scam businesses to never engage in that sort of business again. Ultimately action needs to be taken against individuals, though.
Also the legality of this ruling should not determine punishment or justification, it should determine change. If the ruling was "lawful", then clearly the laws involved are not comprehensive enough or are poorly defined.
Whatever the ruling, it's clear that the GCHQ overreached. Inadequate oversight, bad policy and fallible laws could be the cause. The ruling and findings along the way can provide insight into how much of each is to blame.
Which is why - in the case of governmental misconduct - *individuals* need to be held accountable, including hard time in prison. That way, next time a higher up at [spy agency] tells his minions to [break the law], the minions get to say "Hey, Jim did that shit last year and he and his boss are locked up in a maximum security prison for the next 10 years. I'll pass and I'll also be turning you over for prosecution."
Not to invoke Godwin, but following your logic we should have handed out a bunch of harsh rebukes at Nuremberg.
Do you have ESP?
...Ultimately action needs to be taken against individuals, though.
I did not say that individuals involved should not be punished, i said that the consequences for a government agency (in it's entirety) should not be the same as they are for an individual, and this ruling is for the GCHQ's actions not "higher up at [spy agency] and his obedient minions"... I don't think individual punishment alone solves issues that span an entire organisation either.
It would make sense that individual trials result from this ruling to determine individual liability.