Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

European Human Rights Court Rules Mass Surveillance Illegal (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by Soulskill on from the stop-doing-what-you're-doing dept.

Kekke sends this report from El Reg: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that mass surveillance is illegal, in a little-noticed case in Hungary. In a judgment last week, the court ruled that the Hungarian government had violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy) due to its failure to include "sufficiently precise, effective and comprehensive" measures that would limit surveillance to only people it suspected of crimes. Under a section of the 2011 National Security Act, a minister of the government is able to approve a police request to search people's houses, mail, phones and laptops if they are seeking to protect national security. ... The court said the Hungarian government should be required to interpret the law in a narrow fashion and "verify whether sufficient reasons for intercepting a specific individual's communications exist in each case." Or in other words, every individual case must be looked at carefully and a decision made on each. Which is clearly impossible if the law is taken to carry out mass surveillance, i.e., hoovering up information over the internet and then searching in it."

40 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Easy solution by penguinoid · · Score: 1, Funny

    Look inside everyone's mail. If there's anything suspicious, there's your probable cause. If there's nothing suspicious, no harm done -- but best to keep the info in case it contained a coded message. This message brought to you by the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Easy solution by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Look for tourists or academics found with or buying 2 copies of any book, they could be setting up a one time pad network.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "If there's anything suspicious, there's your probable cause. If there's nothing suspicious, no harm done"

      And if there's nothing suspicious, but there is something useful? Like political information? Like passwords? Commercial secrets? Blackmail leverage?
      No harm done?

      East Europe is getting undermined by old pro-Russian political factions, in Poland for example, the ruling party has appointed 2 judges and changed the laws so that the court is effectively nullified without the vote of these 2 judges. It's also changed the appointment of TV executives on the state channel to be chosen by them. I'm sure they'd love to have control of surveillance too, the soviet parties miss the STASI level of control they had.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35303912

      Was their anything suspicious in Merkel's communications? Was there harm done against Germany by spying on her?
      Was there anything suspicious in the billions of UK communications that GCHQ has intercepted? Yet the government hid the mass surveillance from Parliament and everyone elected has been subject to this surveillance and the manipulation that goes with it, meaning we get nothing but pro-Stasi governments in the UK.

    3. Re: Easy solution by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Poland pro-Russian? Don't be ridiculous. The head of their Piss party would exterminate all Russians if he could, and wants the Polish empire to stretch from the Baltic sea to the Black sea, just like in good old times.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re: Easy solution by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Szydlo is just a puppet of the aforementioned head of the Piss party and probably hates Russians herself, like every other self respecting Pole. And they don't exactly need to spy on their own people and seize control of the courts, they just do it because they can and because it is what nationalist governments tend to do.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Easy solution by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      East Europe is getting undermined by old pro-Russian political factions, in Poland for example, the ruling party has appointed 2 judges and changed the laws so that the court is effectively nullified without the vote of these 2 judges. It's also changed the appointment of TV executives on the state channel to be chosen by them. I'm sure they'd love to have control of surveillance too, the soviet parties miss the STASI level of control they had.

      So you're saying PiS is pro-Russian?

    6. Re:Easy solution by tnnn · · Score: 1

      PiS admires the Russian form of a 'strong government'. While it doesn't try to implement a carbon copy of it, PiS borrows some 'bright' ideas from both the Russian and Hungarian systems (nationalism, 'strong leader' with much power, mythical 'they' who are always to blame for the failures, etc.). Recent changes in wire-tapping law, seem to be similar to the ones mentioned in the article.

      While at the moment PiS is not pro-Russian, changing political situation might push it in that direction (Hungary already paved the way).

    7. Re: Easy solution by tnnn · · Score: 2

      While Poland has some difficult history with Russia and while our geopolitical interest are often contradictory, Poles don't 'hate' Russians. Don't confuse politics with normal people.

    8. Re:Easy solution by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      PiS admires the Russian form of a 'strong government'. While it doesn't try to implement a carbon copy of it, PiS borrows some 'bright' ideas from both the Russian and Hungarian systems (nationalism, 'strong leader' with much power, mythical 'they' who are always to blame for the failures, etc.).

      Ideas that were also present, at one point, in a certain country to the west of Poland that eventually went to war with the Soviet Union (after signing a deal with the Soviet Union to carve up Poland), so it's not as if this behavior is obviously "soviet" or "pro-Russian".

      Although Anonymous Howard up there might be using "soviet" and "Stasi" just to mean "authoritarian", not to mean anything necessarily having to do with Soviet-style Communism, as per

      Was there anything suspicious in the billions of UK communications that GCHQ has intercepted? Yet the government hid the mass surveillance from Parliament and everyone elected has been subject to this surveillance and the manipulation that goes with it, meaning we get nothing but pro-Stasi governments in the UK.

      so they could just as easily have said "Nazi" and "Gestapo".

    9. Re:Easy solution by tnnn · · Score: 1

      Ideas that were also present, at one point, in a certain country to the west of Poland that eventually went to war with the Soviet Union (after signing a deal with the Soviet Union to carve up Poland), so it's not as if this behavior is obviously "soviet" or "pro-Russian".

      Both the nazi germany and soviet union shared many authoritarian ideas. Still, I believe that's irrelevant to the original subject.

      I fully agree that the ideas I mentioned earlier, don't make PiS 'pro-Russian' per se. However, because it is widely said that PiS looks up to the Hungarian and Russian governments for inspiration, some people assume that PiS is pro-Russian. It is not. It just reuses the ideas.

      Because those ideas stand against EU ideals, Poland might get alienated and drift in the general direction of Russia, just as Hungary did. No, it won't leave EU or anything like that. But this drift might weaken EU and people's rights in Poland.

    10. Re: Easy solution by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      ORLY?

      Many Poles believe that crazy conspiracy theory instead of accepting that their military pilots just can't fly that well. Was altogether a good thing for Poland, though. Something similar would so a lot of good over here, too - maybe I should donate Merkel and her entourage a ticket to Smolensk.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    11. Re: Easy solution by tnnn · · Score: 1

      Many people believe in many things regardless of how realistic they are. For example, it appears that many Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job [1]. In Poland, according to the most recent poll [2] (in Polish), 22% Poles believe in Smolesk conspiracy. Interesting thing is that out of those 22%, some believe it was Russian job while others think that it was perpetrated by the ruling party.

      Majority agrees with the official polish report that blames multiple factors (on both the Polish and the Russian side) as it's often the case in aviation accidents. And let's be painfully blunt - neither Russia nor the ruling party did benefit from the accident. Quite the opposite.

      And trust me, crashing anyone in a plane is never a solution. I won't even mention the moral and humanitarian aspects as they are (hopefully) obvious. Even from a Machiavellian point of view, it useless - dead leaders will get replaced by their (often more paranoid) associates, some people will believe in conspiracy theories and radicalise themselves and it will be a lot harder to reach any consensus or change anything.

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      [2] http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,177...

  2. Re:Why is Europe helping terrorists? by GrahamCox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I assume you're trolling. But on the offchance that you're actually swallowing this BS, there's only one response: you big wussy pussy.

  3. Great for individuals. by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Much of the EU has its own deep dark history with German Nazi occupied Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., Soviet occupation, decades of NSA, CIA and GCHQ operations.
    Mass surveillance was used on a lot of the different nations and individuals for different party, political or trade reasons.
    Legal teams can draw on the past generational experiences under fascist, communist and now EU/US/NATO rule and tell the press about what they found.
    Recall the vaults filled with audio tape opened in the 1990's. The vast amounts of files the East Germans collected and then tried to destroy. The German legal views on opening East German files re East or West German collected content. Now the NSA whistleblowers.
    Looks like the EU just found out about the wisdom of the US 4th amendment to be secure in their persons, houses, papers vs big government or a politico-economic union tyranny.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Great for individuals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like you guys were definitely the first to think of that...sheesh!

    2. Re:Great for individuals. by Kkloe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you mean the 4th amendment that the us widely ignore and have mass surveillance of their own citizens?

    3. Re:Great for individuals. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Looks like the EU just found out about the wisdom of the US 4th amendment to be secure in their persons, houses, papers vs big government or a politico-economic union tyranny.

      "Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[3] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      More like the US hasn't quite learned the lesson, or has begun to forget it.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    4. Re:Great for individuals. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      More like the US hasn't quite learned the lesson, or has begun to forget it.

      For somewhere between 30 and 60 years (depending on district), the education and entertainment providers in the USA have been actively trying to manipulate the populace toward embracing certain totalitarian police state options. The populace is being taught helplessness and dependence, and to be violently afraid of anyone who does not embrace a lifestyle of helplessness. Thus the loud opposition to the second amendment and cold apathy over the fourth, fifth and tenth. People are now voting who have been trained to defer self-preservation to people who they personally fear and believe will murder them if given a chance, yet few of them realize this inconsistency because they have also been taught that logical thinking is the way of a closed and bigoted mind.

      Those in the bureaucracies and other unelected segments of government watch the trends carefully, taking authority with every crisis and never returning any. Many in congress start to think like the staffers they inherited within 3 years, and some presidents act like no one will ever come along capable of revoking their actions (and history has shown, few do directly correct prior presidential action).

      People get what they ask for. The people have generally asked for mind-numbing entertainment and to ignore the world at large and that's what they got.

      Those in power are filling the vacuum created by the general population, who, not fighting to keep their place, are content to sleep while their rights are degraded until eventually nothing will be left and the cycle hits bottom at which time perhaps the children of those people will want more and will rise up again, starting the cycle anew.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  4. How in the world... by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    ...will they ever root out terrorists before terrorists strike? Such a law will lead to another Charlie Hibdo attack!!

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  5. Mass Surveillance Illegal in EU by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Except of course for all those cameras surveilling every public inch of major cities, because that's "public space" and you still have the option to self-impose house arrest to avoid it.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re: Mass Surveillance Illegal in EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse London with the EU.

    2. Re:Mass Surveillance Illegal in EU by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 2

      When will this meme ever die?

      Firstly, the vast majority of cameras are privately owned, looking at back doors, stock rooms, car parks... Police etc have to request copies of videos (with a warrant if the owner doesn't want to hand over and/or their insurance company doesn't insist as part of the settlement following an incident)
      This must be good for the Slashdot crowd because private==good and government==bad and the cameras wouldn't be there if it weren't for market forces (i.e. lower insurance premiums)

      Secondly, although there are large numbers, many are dummies or of such poor quality that they're less than useful (see the footage shown on Crimewatch** and other TV shows). In one previous project, I've seen the images from safety cameras looking at dangerous rail crossings and you'd be hard pushed to tell if it's a man or woman in the picture, let alone distinguish facial details [to be fair it was mainly an infra red image to allow usage at night, but as a means of detecting who was acting dangerously/stupidly it's no good].

      Thirdly- the figures often quoted were from a small and not very scientific study by looking at one or two streets and extrapolating.
      This has as much validity as saying the population of the US is over 6 times that of the world -- by taking the population density of New York and multiplying by the land area of the US.

      There is a debate to be had on mass surveillance - but cheap shots on poor foundations do not help anyone. The world is a lot more nuanced than stereotypes and slogans.

      **Monthly TV show that appeals for help / witnesses in unsolved crimes -- local equivalents exist elsewhere

    3. Re:Mass Surveillance Illegal in EU by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      When will this meme ever die?

      No, considering you have idiots in charge of your government and police. Especially very special kinds of idiots like the Metro Police Chief saying who believes that CCTV is the solution to crime problems. Instead of having more police officers out there, and doing random patrols.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Mass Surveillance Illegal in EU by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agree that we have idiots in charge.

      How that happens with a broken, first past the post gerrymandered constituency boundaries "democracy" is another debate entirely.

      Also agree with the point about police attitudes.

      Cameras are the latest in the "ooh look, new technology, that'll save some costs!" approach - not only in policing but also endemic in most organisations [public and private].

      What I was trying to say was that cameras are not as prevalent - and even less useful - as some people (esp. in US) have been led to believe and (b) that it's not a black and white issue** - not all cameras are 'spying' and even fewer are used by 'the authorities' and (c) the general public here would (as a rule) prefer to have cameras in shops etc. to allow miscreants to be punished when caught than risk alternatives such as being injured/killed by an overenthusiastic armed response.

      **ironic really as most CCTV cameras are black and white rather than colour for operation in low light levels.

    5. Re:Mass Surveillance Illegal in EU by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      About a decade ago I installed a CCTV system for a local shop. It was a local supermarket, called a convenience store in some places. Anyway, as part of getting a licence to sell alcohol the police required the owner to put CCTV on the outside, watching the street from four different angles. They made it clear that if they asked for the footage it was to be handed over without question or compensation. The guy had a number of other similar shops and stood to have licences revoked for all of them if he didn't comply. He saw it as just part of the cost of doing business in the UK, bribing the local police with some free CCTV that doesn't count towards their total panopticon score because they are privately owned etc.

      They were good quality cameras too, the same ones he used inside the shop but with an outdoor housing. He bought a load of USB hard drives to service police requests at the same time. To save time and money he just gave them a whole day of video rather than editing it down to the time in question.

      It's also worth noting that it's not just the cameras that are a problem. The government controlled ones are now usually hooked up to automatic numberplate recognition and increasingly facial recognition. The police already have a significant proportion of the population in their database, and can tell you where any vehicle was driving in the past five years minimum.

      That number is dubious, but the worst thing about it is that it vastly downplays the true scale of the operation. We used to think cameras were bad, but combined with facial recognition and ANPR they create a nightmare even Orwell couldn't have imagined.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Mass Surveillance Illegal in EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just another Merkin jealous because it is another area that the Us is not USA #1 in. They are also afraid because Britain has better SCORPION STARE coverage than the US and why Cthulhu prefer to snack on skinny foreigners than merkin Ham planets.

  6. Unimportant. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

    The ECHR ruled over a decade ago that even prisoners have a right to vote. The UK replied 'we'll get right on it' and promptly did nothing at all. We've been in violation of their ruling for all that time, and there's nothing they can do. Our prime minister even openly brags that we are ignoring the ruling*. This will be no different. The ECHR doesn't actually have an effective enforcement mechanism, should a member state choose to ignore them.

    *http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20053244

    1. Re:Unimportant. by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You're assuming that the EU will treat the UK and Hungary the same.

      Just reading that sentence makes it obvious that other political considerations will decide how the power structure in the EU will behave. UK quasi-fascist government activities will not get the same response as Hungarian quasi-fascist activity. The Brits are going after Muslims, which are now fair game in the EU. The Hungarians are going after Jews and Gypsies, which is too much like real fascism in the 30's. The cynical position is that the EU want's to pretend that the "bad old days" are truly over, but are OK with less obvious current repression.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:Unimportant. by Cloud+K · · Score: 2

      Indeed, sometimes that's a good thing (like the stupid cookie law where the ICO backed off and effectively said "you know what, we find it hard work too. Do what you want.") sometimes bad.

      I seem to recall Cameron is itching to remove us from the ECHR at the earliest possible opportunity anyway, the only thing standing in his way is the small issue of peace with Northern Ireland (Good Friday Agreement). Somewhat ironic as he's using terrorism as an excuse but I remember the 80s/90s and they seemed a lot better at blowing shit up in our cities than ISIS (or whatever they're called this week).

    3. Re:Unimportant. by locofungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      The ECHR ruled over a decade ago that even prisoners have a right to vote.

      No they didn't!

      What they ruled is that you cannot have a blanket ban on prisoners being unable to vote.

      I think this makes sense. A prisoner who is in prison for one day which just happens to be election day loses any say over their government for the next 1800 days. A prisoner going to prison one day earlier for one day would have all the rights to vote of someone who didn't go to prison.

      The EHCR doesn't say which prisoners must be given the vote, just that it cannot be a blanket ban. IANAL but I think a case-by-case analysis that just happened to give no prisoners the vote would be legal.

      It's similar to the rulings that you cannot have a life sentence without hope of parole. And for the handful of notorious prisoners which this applies to, each home secretary says "never be released on my watch" which is fine according to the ECHR, just that a government cannot (try to) bind future home secretaries to the same.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    4. Re:Unimportant. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The ECHR doesn't actually have an effective enforcement mechanism, should a member state choose to ignore them.

      Which is a wonderful arrangement for those in power - the subjects of those rules can point to the ECHR and believe there's some hope that their "rights" aren't fantasies. Otherwise they might start to say uncomfortable things.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Unimportant. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It would open up any decision to legal challenge, which with the current 5 year fix term parliament would probably mean that any term of less than 5 years would not be able to stop prisoners voting. The government might argue it down a bit, but that would be the likely outcome.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Unimportant. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The prisoner voting issue is one of the reasons he wants to do so.

    7. Re:Unimportant. by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful

  7. Re:Why is Europe helping terrorists? by davester666 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Clearly, the EU needs to step up to the plate and start passing more laws that are vaguely worded and overly generic, but with the verbal promise they won't be abused. You know, like what the US has been doing, since, well, I don't know when they started, but it was a long time ago.

    Once they get this program ramped up, pretty much everybody will have violated some law, at least technically, so therefore, mass surveillance becomes completely legal.

    Everybody wins. Well, except for the commoners. Fortunately, they don't matter.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  8. Re:Why is Europe helping terrorists? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Don't be silly, things like that don't happen in the USA. Because guns.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. Re:Why is Europe helping terrorists? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Most women actually find wussy men likeable as friends.

    FTFY.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Re:Why is Europe helping terrorists? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Well, we prefer to have balls to hoping that useless laws could cover our asses.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:Why is Europe helping terrorists? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Europe, or any other place threatened by terrorism, could accomplish a lot more by infiltrating and subverting known terrorist channels of communication than by shotgun surveillance of large random populations. Set up fake Daesh honeypot websites and simulated chatter, and our drones can be even more effective.

  12. Re:Why is Europe helping terrorists? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I think you are confusing politicians with the general populous. Most of us don't give a damn about peaceful muslims.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?