Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Wants Authority To Serve Warrants In U.S. (usatoday.com)

Posted by timothy on from the among-friends dept.

schwit1 writes with this news, as reported by USA Today: British and U.S. officials have been negotiating a plan that could allow British authorities to directly serve wiretap orders on U.S. communications companies in criminal and national security inquiries, U.S. officials confirmed Thursday. The talks are aimed at allowing British authorities access to a range of data, from interceptions of live communications to archived emails involving British suspects, according to the officials, who are not authorized to comment publicly. ... Under the proposed plan, British authorities would not have access to records of U.S. citizens if they emerged in the British investigations. Congressional approval would be required of any deal negotiated by the two countries.

78 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, right... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Informative

    British authorities would not have access to records of U.S. citizens if they emerged in the British investigations.

    Riiiiight. They would never do that and hand it over to its Five Eyes brethren in the NSA. That's just crazy talk!

    1. Re:Yeah, right... by Kobun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's already here, they are just getting more brazen about revealing its existence. I don't really know how many fig leaves are left, this might be the second-to-last one.

      NSA can't "legally" wiretap everyone in the US? That's ok, let the GCHQ do it and turn the results over to the NSA through a 'cooperative' agreement. GCHQ can't "legally" wiretap British citizens? Why look at that nice cooperative agreement just sitting there!

    2. Re:Yeah, right... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      What happened to equality before the law? What happened to blind justice? You know, that famous statue at the Supreme Court?

      What happened to the concept of inalienable rights, inherent in you by fact of being human, not by being a US citizen. Our constitutional theory declares these rights preceed the formation of any constitution or government.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Yeah, right... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Awww, how quaint ... you still think all of that applies in the modern world.

      Governments have been trampling on that shit with increasing brazenness.

      They don't give a crap about what you think your rights are, they've given themselves exemptions to those, lied to us and said they'd be used for limited things, and then started using them for everything else.

      Every single government on the planet has decided it is far more important they be able to see everything we do than adhere to any laws which limit what they can do.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Yeah, right... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sorry Mr Nutcase, but you seem to have gotten that backwards. The UK authorities will apply directly for the US warrant, and if it is approved then the data will be collected by the US and handed over to them. When they say that US citizens data won't be given even when they "emerged" in the investigation, that is what they mean. The way you read it it would contradict itself, but actually it doesn't. This is data that is already stored by the NSA, but requires a warrant to view. This is not a warrant that would allow UK agents to come to the US and install phone taps. ;)

    5. Re:Yeah, right... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      I'm just waiting for a case to go before the Supreme Court that has standing, which then finally gets a hearing.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:Yeah, right... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Actually the whole thing is backwards misinformation. What is really happening is that US authorities want the right to wiretap anyone in the five eyes group upon the flimsiest of excuses and extend that out into typical aggressive US search warrants, violent arrests, persecution via prosecution and fuck justice, they just want to fuck people up because they annoyed them. This is just the bullshit roundabout way of getting there. So everything about being a reciprocal arrangement and then forcing it upon other countries because a currently very corrupt government in the US and UK agreed to it.

      The US are desperate to be able to force US style law en-FORCE-ment on other countries, so they can harshly interrogate anyone who pisses them off.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Yeah, right... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      They (5 eyes countries) already have the ability to tap phones in each others countries, via access to the NSA database where everything is kept. This is just making it legal so they can use it in court.

    8. Re:Yeah, right... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That is silly, because the existing state of things is that if the US Government wants to arrest somebody who is in the UK, they get arrested and handed over. If they want to handcuff them roughly, they can just do it at the airport during the handoff.

      It is a weak argument. The government over here already has all the powers. You seem to actually think they care about if the documents have a fancy wax seal from the UK or not, for stuff they can do anyways? LOL

      OTOH, the UK government doesn't have the data in their database. This would actually give them additional access. And the NSA clears it to make sure it only data about non-Americans. I don't trust the NSA to respect my privacy, but I do trust their technical abilities at signals intelligence; they will probably press the right buttons to cause my data to be automatically removed from any data dump they Officially Give to a Foreign Government. Unofficially, who knows, but that isn't this proposal. And they won't tell us about that one. ;)

    9. Re: Yeah, right... by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Will this agreement be in addition to our supersede the UK USA information sharing agreement drawn up shortly after WWII that already stays all intelligence between the 5 eyes and divides the world and specifies which of the five eyes is responsible for spying on which parts. I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but all this is doing is pretending to be more open about it to please a few politicians.

    10. Re:Yeah, right... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Problem is, not simply the policy, it is flaws in the policy that allow, say psychopathic individuals in those agencies to exploit those flaws. This demands plenty of checks, balancers and hurdles, to slow up those individuals and trap them, when they seek to exploit those flaws for their own criminal advantage. This includes exploiting those flaws for promotional advantage. Until the US justice system heals itself, it can no longer be trusted. Failure to properly prosecute torture, prison abuses, abusive charging practices, purposefully extended trials incorporating confinement (extending out beyond any realistic penalty). Quite simply until the US takes on the proper mantle of justice and integrity it should be excluded from the international justice system except where any claim made by the US government is proven in court in the targeted citizens country. Want to play bullshitting wolf boy, then be treated as bullshitting wolf boy, until you have proven different.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Would the UK allow the US to do the same there? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    [nt]

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Would the UK allow the US to do the same there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They already do: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

    2. Re:Would the UK allow the US to do the same there? by spork+invasion · · Score: 2
      From TFA:

      A separate official said that any agreement also would be designed to provide equal benefits for U.S. law enforcement and national security authorities in U.S. investigations.

      "Such an agreement would ensure U.S. access to data stored in the United Kingdom in support of law enforcement, terrorism, and other transnational threat investigations and support our partners’ ability to investigate serious crime, as well as terrorism and other transnational threats on a reciprocal basis,'' that official said.

      --
      I hate all anonymous shitbags. Log in, you filthy bastards.
    3. Re:Would the UK allow the US to do the same there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      A separate official said that any agreement also would be designed to provide equal benefits for U.S. law enforcement and national security authorities in U.S. investigations.

      "Such an agreement would ensure U.S. access to data stored in the United Kingdom in support of law enforcement, terrorism, and other transnational threat investigations and support our partners’ ability to investigate serious crime, as well as terrorism and other transnational threats on a reciprocal basis,'' that official said.

      Sorry I feel off my chair and banged my head on the floor. I thought you said " ability to investigate serious crime, as well as terrorism." But we know how ineffective these so-called national security measures have been proven. You want my papers? Sure I have them wrapped in this stick of dyno-mite which is about to be shoved up your ass officer.

  3. In other news... by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the British also want to issue tax stamps on tea.

    1. Re:In other news... by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      So long as we remain their sole provider of major armaments, that's fine.

    2. Re:In other news... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Gosh, if they did that to the tea it would probably inflame the passions of the English-born so drastically that they might even throw it into the sea in protest.

  4. Re:So it begins by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another step in the erosion of the sovereignty of each country. Who needs the "one world government" when you can just pull crap like this, the TPP, etc?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Why isn't headline "Obama willing to bend over..." by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >> British and U.S. officials have been negotiating a plan...Congressional approval would be required of any deal negotiated

    Do these US officials report to the executive branch? Then why isn't the headline something like, "Obama happy to bend over for British wiretapping of US citizens" or some-such? This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum...

  6. Thanks, Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I guess this isn't the Hope and Change you voted for.

    1. Re:Thanks, Obama by Kobun · · Score: 2

      Hillary claims to be Obama's natural successor. Just something to keep in mind as they weigh her against Sanders...

    2. Re:Thanks, Obama by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No, Sanders likely loses the general. Leaving no gridlock, hence we'd be fucked.

      Always remember to vote 'gridlock'. This year that's Hillary.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Thanks, Obama by Kobun · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I absolutely agree with you, for what it's worth. I'd like to add the handful of points below:
      • * - The Republican frontrunners are all awful. Bigoted and racist, bought off, stupid-religious pandering turds.
      • * - Mind you, there's nothing wrong with religion by itself. You know how the Founding Fathers were pretty much all Diests? Why can't we get back to that, instead of today's superficial Cracker-Jesus?
      • * - Bush followed by Bush the 2nd should have taught us that anything resembling family dynasties are a terrible mistake. The Clintons had their time. I would avoid voting for Hillary on that basis alone, even if she wasn't an awful liar and generally horrible person.
      • * - On a personal level, my policy for the last 16 years has been to vote for the strongest third party candidate that emerges. I'd love to see an end to the two-party system, however impossible that actually is.
      • * - It really doesn't matter, because the state I live in votes so strongly for whoever the Democrat candidate is that there's no hope of it changing.

      Lastly, for my single point of contention with you I offer this. The USA's current Healthcare system is already awful, expensive, and sub-standard. The situation exists that SOMETHING will be done about it, unfortunately the something will likely be worse. The "Free Health Care Giveaway" Sanders proposes is probably going to be awful. I also remember how terrible Hillary's healthcare proposal from the early 90's was (and trust me, she hasn't changed in the past 30 years). Basically, I feel that whichever Democrat wins (I really hope the Republicans can't win), we're in for another round of grab-your-ankles-without-lube.

    4. Re:Thanks, Obama by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      ". One of the biggest reasons to *not* vote for Sanders is that the free health care giveaway is just going to make people more dependent on the central government"

      As Opposed to the Piece of crap healthcare system designed by Mitt Romney we have now that is designed to line the pockets of Insurance companies?

      "Affordable Healthcare Act" is Romneycare in every form... if it was "obamacare" I would not have to be paying $850 a month for it. Real republicans would be outraged by the shit being pulled in congress by republican leaders..
      I would rather have "free healthcare" that doesn't bankrupt people and punish the middle class than having the Bullshit that the current leadership shoved down our throats.

      How about restoring the 5th amendment? How about abiding by the fucking constitution and protecting it? You know real important shit that has been ignored for the past 14 years because of the boogymen of terrorism.. Instead you are all upset about something that will actually help people?

      This is why I don't call myself republican anymore, people like you prefer to hate instead of doing what is right.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re: Thanks, Obama by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      When John McAfee looks like the best candidate in the race, the Nation is truly in shambles.

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

      Democrats, obviously.

      You seem to be suffering from the delusion that I think that there is an appreciable difference between being screwed by someone with an (R) after their name instead of a (D).

    7. Re:Thanks, Obama by Kobun · · Score: 1

      How about restoring the 5th amendment? How about abiding by the fucking constitution and protecting it? You know real important shit that has been ignored for the past 14 years because of the boogymen of terrorism.. Instead you are all upset about something that will actually help people?

      This is why I don't call myself republican anymore, people like you prefer to hate instead of doing what is right.

      Well said.

    8. Re:Thanks, Obama by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why do people who hate the overreach of the government keep voting for more government?

      Perhaps it's not like a simple knob that you can turn this way for up or that way for down?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Thanks, Obama by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is pretty derpy of you, though.

      Did you know how health care is done in Europe? Did you check if their system is a failure? You make a bunch of assertions based on speculation about things for which there are real comparisons available in the world.

      You're just hand-waving about the 5th Amendment. You heard on some radio program some blowhard mad about it, so you want to say stuff. But for somebody who hasn't been fed that issue, you don't even identify the claimed problem. If you were complaining about the 4th Amendment, there are well established complaints to be made indeed, but you'd still have to actually make the complaint in a reasoned way at the start of any discussion about it, even with people who might agree; if those people are rational beings, anyways.

      You are certainly right that if Republicans of yesteryear had actually meant any of the shit they were claiming to support, they would be dancing in the streets over Romneycare having been passed, among other things.

      It may be that some you'll realize that the Democractic Party is the center-right pro-business party in the US, but I won't be holding my breath. Few people can overcome the color-coding of the flags. Once a red, always a red.

    10. Re:Thanks, Obama by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sure she's batshit, no dispute.

      But she doesn't have control of the Senate or House. So her batshit is relatively harmless, this cycle.

      Ted Cruz has the same problem. Only he has batshit weasel eyes (vs batshit harpy eyes). But he has partners, so he's a relative threat.

      They all want to increase government, just in different places.

      No way an evangelical is a good choice. Rs need to lose a few election cycles to cleanse themselves of the church ladies. I can accept a little harmless humoring them, but anybody who I see as truly thinking they are 'having a personal relationship' with a fictitious character is right out. Jeabus, sparkly vampires or 'Hello Kitty', it's all the same.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Thanks, Obama by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Of course it's not a simple knob, but let's face it, there's no way that centralized health care is turning it in a downward direction. And Sanders is a firm proponent of socialism, which asserts that it's the government's job to promote social and economic equality and well-being. I'm not saying I believe any of the Republicans are necessarily going to do better, but at least they're not actually *promising* to increase the government.

      I'm not pretending that you can just dial it down from 11 to 1 (or even 8) easily. It will take time and effort to pare things down without complete chaos, and I fear that a calm, ordered paring down of the system is not possible in this political climate.

      That's the problem with the Republican side. They sort of try to shrink it, but their idea is to brutally cut everything they don't like, and justify continuing to fund the things they do like at the same, or higher levels.

      More to the point, when they do cut things, they don't care if the government or the things that currently rely on the system break with them. They're just wielding their axe like a corporate executive does at layoff time to look good for his shareholders.

      I can't really pretend that I have some sort of system worked out, but if you can say that I have a political goal, it's very simply for people to understand that the size of the government we have is too large, which makes it prone to extreme inefficiency, and it also makes it extremely prone to being captured by special interests.

      However, at the same time, I understand that you can't just shut it down. So the real effort is to ask people to consider how their problems can be solved by something *other* than some law or regulation enforced by the government.

      I don't see a problem with free health care. Who in their right mind would, except some weird-ass social Darwinist? The problem is, if it is provided by the government it comes with strings attached and those cause problems. Even if the program somehow remains solvent for an extended period of time without a catastrophic failure in the future, it just increases the size and power of the government.

      People in the United States don't realize, or don't really like to admit how close we've come at times to being subverted into something resembling a one party state or even a state run by martial law. It's just lucky that the people who had the ability to accrue that sort of power, like a Lincoln or FDR, did not care for that sort of power, and *they didn't live past the crisis* to have the time to change their mind.

      Look at Donald Trump. He's a joke. Except, apparently he's not because there are people who would vote for someone who says the things he says. People who get mad or are only thinking of their own fears tend to bring people like him to power. Hell, even Obama had that sort of odd quasi-religious thing going on before he demonstrated his lack of ability to get shit done. A person who is able to command that sort of following AND who is interested and capable of wielding the rather massive power of the Federal government is going to be a terror to behold.

    12. Re:Thanks, Obama by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It may be that some you'll realize that the Democractic Party is the center-right pro-business party in the US, but I won't be holding my breath. Few people can overcome the color-coding of the flags. Once a red, always a red.

      You're coming from a position of a world-wide relativist. Yes, most parties in the US would be considered to be conservative compared to those in Europe. That doesn't really change the way they are arrayed in the US.

      The US isn't interested in being a world centralist, it is a conservative country that doesn't care to join the rest of the world because the electorate sees the rest of the world as not being applicable to life in the US.

      Europe does not have the same demographics or challenges as the US so the world-wide relativist scale is useless. We don't care if we're all arch-conservatives compared to some leftist in France because this isn't France.

    13. Re: Thanks, Obama by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Remember, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, vote Cthulhu!

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Thanks, Obama by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's the problem with the Republican side. They sort of try to shrink it,

      Except they don't.

      Clearly you didn't get the single knob analogy. Try thinking of a graphic equalizer.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Thanks, Obama by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Right, you're so worried about France you're unable to comprehend my comment in the context of the United States of America.

      I'm not a relativist of any sort, you're guessing at random shit, and guessing wrong. Assume I'm an arrogant American from a western state. Now try to parse it again. Within the context of American politics, the Democratic Party is a center right business party. If you can't understand the claim, don't blame France.

      What are you, some kind of freedom fry?

    16. Re:Thanks, Obama by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A Trump/Hillary election would be almost no lose. Unless she somehow turned the senate and house around.

      That's a worry for later years.

      Still there is the Sup Court. Who's next to die?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. one world government coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    bit by bit. convergence amongst western powers first. asia next. the rest later. not so alex jonesy anymore.

  8. Re:i.e. Democratic Reacharound by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    Warrants? Why can't the brits just hack everyone's computers like other civilized countries do?

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  9. Re:Why isn't headline "Obama willing to bend over. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, please, the US has been demanding this same kind of crap around the world since 2001.

    This security stuff is now the keys to the kingdom, you can undermine sovereignty and violate laws in secret if you put on your fucking puppy dog face and says "because, security".

    The US government is actively involved in doing the shit to the rest of the world, so don't look to us for any sympathy. Because an awful lot of Americans seem to think it's just fine when you do it to the rest of the world.

    You're damned right this doesn't happen in a vacuum.

    But if you think the US hasn't been demanding the ability to wiretap others, or just going ahead and doing it, you've been willfully ignorant to the last bunch of years.

    Only now that it's happening to you, you're suddenly outraged.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  10. I'm sorry, I thought this was America by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    https://youtu.be/hDoGqZUHVEI

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:I'm sorry, I thought this was America by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm not gonna click that link but, knowing you, that'd better be the band.

      Nah, see it was just a laugh from a cartoon. You're probably too sophisticated to know the reference, but a stupid cartoon full of dirty jokes is right in my intellectual wheelhouse.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. WTF happened? by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    I thought our forefathers fought Britain to be free of them? WTF happened?

    1. Re:WTF happened? by ledow · · Score: 1

      You tried to get Microsoft EU to send all our EU-based personal data to the US courts, in pretty much the same kind of shitty outmaneuver described here, even when we told you where to go.

      If you're that cut off from Britain, please remove your authority required to launch our Trident missile solutions too.

    2. Re: WTF happened? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      They knew the Brits would be back, hence the 2nd Amendment: aim for the remaining teeth. ;)

    3. Re:WTF happened? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The UK wants its stolen land returned and back tax. It took them a while and they did it politically but they are back. Welcome into the Commonwealth.
      Leave your hard won freedoms at the door and get ready for some MI5/6 and GCHQ advisors looking deep into all US files.
      A bit like what the UK asked for over the issue of US support for Ireland flowing from the US in the 1960-90's.
      This time its all very legal and the UK expects the full and happy cooperation of all US bureaucrats.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:WTF happened? by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      You know we don't hate the brits anymore right?

  12. Re:So it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I remember reading somewhere we had this little disagreement in the 1770's with the State of Great Britain. Part of it had something to do with their overreach in legal processes.

  13. So they want a smaller, more useless Interpol? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both nations are part of Interpol which was established for exactly this purpose. If they have a problem with the established organization then they need to reform that intermediary body for the betterment of all nations involved. That way it's not just the US you gain better cooperation with, but the other 188 countries as well. If you can't get the other member nations to agree with your proposals, then maybe your ideas aren't that great after all. This "alternative" of sidestepping established practices and micromanaging jurisdictional treaties between every god damn nation under the sun, just because you can't stand criticism from your peers, is nothing short of ridiculous.

    Or maybe this has more to do with Interpol's charter forbidding their intervention in political matters #tinfoilhat.

    1. Re:So they want a smaller, more useless Interpol? by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      The government made a similar argument in the Microsoft case. They argued that the process for obtaining a warrant over Irish jurisdiction was burdensome and thus shouldn't need to be followed, but the judge pointed out that the administration itself designed the process and could change it in cooperation with the Irish authorities if it so desired. This is probably related to that whole mess.

  14. Why stop there? by andywest · · Score: 1

    If they are going to do that, then why not have the United States apply to join the Commonwealth? We were part of the British Empire ... once.

    --
    --- Andy West http://andywest.org
  15. Re:Why isn't headline "Obama willing to bend over. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    1940s, Echelon was originally a deal between the USA, the UK and Australia.

    They all have inconvenient laws banning their spooks from spying on their own citizens. So they all spy on each others citizens and exchange information. Formally agreed sense 1945, no doubt it was happening during the war (but mostly the laws were just ignored).

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  16. Re:So it begins by I4ko · · Score: 1

    What do you mean? You Americans pushed out the red coats back in 1783.. Took a good 233 years. I guess that should be enough..

  17. And why not.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    Oh, you're upset because another country is claiming the rights to come here and fuck with our shit? The nerve of them!

    But why not....we get to fly drones over other people's countries and drop bombs on them, a warrant seems like a kiss on the lips compared to that, right?

    Now you know how they feel.

    Look, if we can send FBI agents to any country in the world to arrest people, tell me why, exactly, other countries shouldn't be allowed to do the EXACT same thing here? Yeah, it just doesn't seem "right", does it?

    Don't get me wrong- I'm against it. But you can't on one hand say it's okay for us to do it but not for the UK to do, now can you?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  18. Re:Why isn't headline "Obama willing to bend over. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    I was going to bring that up too.

    I guess the difference now is that they can go directly to a provider and demand information rather than try to catch a glimpse of it.

  19. Re:So it begins by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Yeah but this time, WE are agreeing to it.

    *Slight* difference.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  20. Re:So it begins by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Only in that your corporate masters have agreed that it's better for them to undermine national sovereignty, so B.O.G.U.S! (bend over, grease up, suckers). Or considering how previous free trade deals have negatively impacted jobs and sovereignty BOHICA

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  21. Congress will let them by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Because we only elect spineless old farts that care about their pockets more than the people they are elected to SERVE.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  22. R E C I P R O C I T Y ??? by redelm · · Score: 1

    The norm in diplomatic relations is a tit-for-tat reciprocity: When one nation allows another the do something, almost always the first nation allows the second to do the same back.

    So my question is whether US negotiators have secured the right for US police to serve warrants on UK ISPs? If not, why not? Why give it away? Just because the EU might have a cow?

  23. Re:UK, Stop That! It's Silly. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    Leftists?

    Ignorant fuck.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  24. Little America by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    UK has been playing the wannabe EU version of America lately, wanting to close borders, wanting to revoke immigrant rights, remove welfare rights and whatnot. They have imposed several new laws to monitor their citizens, and they're becoming more and more like an closed-border socialist version of America every passing month. Now they also want rights in the U.S.A. LOL, I can't stop laughing at this, but this is so pitiful.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re: Little America by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      like an closed-border socialist

      They call themselves socialist but they're about as socialist as the National Socialists. Peel back the thin veil (that fools a lot more people than it should) and you'll see that they're in fact fascist.

  25. Didn't America fight a war about this? by generic_screenname · · Score: 1

    Something something revolution something.

  26. Re:So it begins by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Seems like a small payoff for allowing any extradition request to go through on the nod.

    (Thecase of the aspie UFO hunter nutbag who looked like a startled Patrick Swayze being notable precisely because it was exceptional)

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  27. Bad enough having your own gov. spying on you. by dhaen · · Score: 1

    I'm a Brit but this makes me just as uncomfortable as the US government watching me.

  28. Not Ever Going To Happen by gavron · · Score: 2

    The first response in this thread is "So it begins..." but no, so it does not begin.

    The UK wants this (and that part is true) and USATODAY ("TV in print") is happy
    to tell us. It's not a proposal. It's not a treaty. It's not a draft-anything. It's as much
    of a NON-STARTER as you can get. It's USATODAY Friday Filler.

    However, this is not something Congress can allow, the President can sign, and
    the law be born. It is against the sovereign principles of a free nation, against
    international law, and against the DoI and the COTUS.

    It won't happen. Continuing to cry about it maybe happening is making more
    noise than the deaf "oof" the nonstory would have made.

    Thanks, Timothy! Slashdot's new regime continues to show its stellar qualities
    of approving utter crapola for the front page!

    Ehud

    1. Re:Not Ever Going To Happen by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Huh? It looks like the story is that Brits might be allowed to create and serve certain warrants. The US Constitution places requirements on warrants, and I don't see that these would be violated by that agreement. If the Brits got warrants that didn't conform with the Fourth, they'd be invalid, just like US warrants that don't conform are invalid. This doesn't violate sovereignity any more than C++'s "friend" violates encapsulation: it voluntarily allows alternatives to the current interface. I'm not an international lawyer, but what such law would it violate? Lastly, the Declaration of Independence is a stirring document showing many of our founding ideals, with absolutely no legal force.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  29. Re:UK, Stop That! It's Silly. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    By US standards, he is.

    It's all relative.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  30. Re:So it begins by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    No, we didn't even need to stop shooting them for invading our country until January, 1815.

    But we're good friends, now.

    Anyhow, this only applies to UK citizens who are physically in the US. It seems reasonable, but of course the details of whatever the actual proposed bill in Congress is is what will matter. If the actual bill is what is described in the summary, it won't be scary or even controversial outside of tin-hat circles.

    I'm very suspicious of those people claiming that it is bad for there to be clear rules about wire taps. Are you people sure you're actually fighting on the side you tried to take? Don't just presume... stop, check your own uniform, make sure. ;)

  31. Re:So it begins by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, but you got uppity around 1812 and tried to take the remains of our North American empire away, so we sailed down the Hudson river and burned down the Whitehouse.

    We settled on the original borders because we decided you were a lost cause to civilisation.

    Wrong. Brittan decided to start attacking US merchant ships trading with France and Africa, and embargoed the US trading with the West Indies, They kidnapped enslaved US citizens by impressing them in to the British navy against their will. They occupied forts inside sovereign US territory in a violation the Jay treaty. Refused compensation for seized US merchant ships, and the British were funding attacks on US outpost in the west by natives. As for the invading Canada the US wasn't really interested in taking territory they sent a militia regiment the idea being that if they could take it they could trade it back to Brittin in exchange for backing down on everything else.

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  32. Re:So it begins by randalware · · Score: 2

    People who follow their own rules are rare.

    Governments that follow their own laws are unknown.

    Weren't you paying attention when Snowden showed you what was behind the curtains ?

    --
    This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
  33. orwellian by GarretSidzaka · · Score: 1

    Just ship all dissidents in Oceania to Airstrip One Ministry of Love for processing

  34. Re:So it begins by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    You'll get a very different picture from studying other sources. For example, were those impressed people US or British citizens? There may have been a bit of confusion over who belonged to whom in that period. I know just enough to know that (a) it's complicated, (b) there are various differing accounts, and (c) I really don't know what was going on.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  35. Re:So it begins by davester666 · · Score: 1

    And, of course, we get to do it over there.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  36. Re:Why isn't headline "Obama willing to bend over. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Because if you RTFA, it actually specifically excludes US citizens.

  37. Memo to MI6 by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Did we forget Bunker HIll?

  38. Re:So it begins by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Behind the curtain was, "all your data is belong to us." The proposal here is, "process to get a warrant for something that is already happening behind the curtain, but in secret without process."

    Yes, I was paying attention. I still am, and it seems most of the people here are more interesting in keeping it behind the curtain than shining light on it.

  39. In not sure what "Congressional approval" means by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

    Given that the details of the program would be classified, I'm not sure what "Congressional approval" actually means. Does that mean Congress has to pass a bill, or does that mean that someone on the Intelligence Oversight Committee says "uh huh" and shakes a hand?