Slashdot Mirror
Data Store and Spying Laws Found Illegal By EU Court
WillAffleckUW writes: The EU High Court found the United Kingdom's data retention (and subsequent storage and analysis) and surveillance laws to be illegal throughout the EU, which subsequently would be an argument in courts in Australia and Canada against their own spy laws. This effectively brings back the rule of law that all EU citizens have a right to privacy that is at the Bill of Rights level, not an easily short-circuited legal basis.
"The judges identified two key problems with the law: that it does not provide for independent court or judicial scrutiny to ensure that only data deemed 'strictly necessary' is examined; and that there is no definition of what constitutes 'serious offenses' in relation to which material can be investigated." It is uncertain that this would apply to U.S. spy laws, as a right of privacy is only inferred by U.S. high courts and is not written into constitutions as it is in the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
"The judges identified two key problems with the law: that it does not provide for independent court or judicial scrutiny to ensure that only data deemed 'strictly necessary' is examined; and that there is no definition of what constitutes 'serious offenses' in relation to which material can be investigated." It is uncertain that this would apply to U.S. spy laws, as a right of privacy is only inferred by U.S. high courts and is not written into constitutions as it is in the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
And is the main reason Westminster wants to get the UK out of the ECHR so it can make laws like this legal.
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Well yes. But this is a protection against government snooping. It's my understanding that the EU right extend to protection against private entities spying. Like what Google/Facebook may or may not collect.
In the USA, the loophole has been to declare all metadata to be the sole property of the telecom. So it's not individuals' data the government is collecting. And the telecoms are very cooperative.
Have gnu, will travel.
Every move I've ever seen by the EU has had a couple layers to it. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an exception in it that allows business as usual.
I'm not claiming the US is superior... we love our loopholes as well. In the most absurd cases the loophole is merely a lack of enforcement.
We have that with quite a few laws where things are completely illegal but... if it isn't enforced then its not really against the law unless the government makes an exception randomly at any time it chooses.
And in the most pathetic incidents... say government corruption... they simply refuse to prosecute themselves. Only they are allowed to bring the case... and they simply decline to do so. Boom. Blank check to do what they want.
When you get into spying and stuff... how do you even know what they're doing?
The Europeans knew the NSA was operating in their countries because part of the deal was that the NSA would pass collected intelligence on to them. THus they got the benefit of spying on their people while not technically personally doing it. The Americans would do it for them.... and they'd get plausible deniability.
That was the old arrangement pre-Snowden.
Now of course the politicians are all pretending to have not known.
When that cools down... I doubt anything will change.
Outside of little communities like this one... no one cares.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Perhaps everything is not lost, it seems the EU high court still respects basic human rights.
News to me that the "Right of Privacy" is written into the Australian Constitution [reads Constitution again]. Nope - not here. The only "right" is to "free trade between states" - which is bullshit or I'd be able to freely trade between different states.
Order a Penthouse magazine from Melbourne when in Northern Territory? No. Order a radar detector from anywhere in Australia but Western Australia? No. Order tobacco from Queensland when in any other state with paying the local state tax? No.
Perhaps they refer to Australian obligations to recognise International Agreements which we have ratified?
Having read the referenced article I know the summary is bullshit - the source is referring to the Human Rights Act 1998 - an international agreement that our Constitution says takes precedence over Federal law. Given that the main contender to replace our current Prime Minister is a Constitutional Law expert that is even more right-wing than Tony the Abbott I'm not optimistic. Especially given the way immigration camps were moved offshore to avoid having to comply with the same Act.
It's what has been dubbed "slicing tactics" around these areas. You continuously push for huge spying bills, which all get shot down, to finally get that smaller one you were actually aiming for passed, which would have no snowball-in-hell chance to pass if people weren't already used to the outrageous demands.
For reference, see pretty much any legislation concerning terrorism or copyright.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.