Slashdot Mirror
UK 'Emergency' Bulk Data Slurp Permissible In Pursuit Of 'Serious Crime' (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes: Bulk collection of data from phone calls and emails by carriers acting under government orders could be permissible in the pursuit of 'serious crime'. That's the preliminary ruling in a case brought by Brexit chief minister David Davis against PM Theresa May before the European Union's highest court. The ruling suggests bulk collection and retention of customer data might not be in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights -- if it's done legally and with safeguards. Davis with Labour Party deputy leader Tom Watson and others brought their case to the European Court of Justice in February.
and that's serious, too
> UK 'Emergency' Bulk Data Slurp Permissible In Pursuit Of 'Serious Crime'
Such as copyright infringement of downloading a movie or album...
Where are those imbeciles who used to say that we had to vote against Brexit 'cuz the EU protects our human rights betta?
Like wagging your finger at your kid's bully? The sort of ASBO tripe that passes for serious crime in the UK sets one hell of a low bar, and opens a wide door to abuse.
...then Alfred quits.
If the government does a mass data collection, the data will be used for purposes beyond that originally intended. Period. That is how governments work. Having spent the last 15 years of my life in the bowels of one of the largest governments in the world, I know whereof I speak.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
...justifying things in emergencies tends to cause the redefinition of emergency.
America grants extra executive powers in emergency situations and that really only resulted in the country being declared to be in a state of perpetual emergency.
IF X THEN EXTRA_POWERS := TRUE
X
Simplifies to
EXTRA_POWERS
You're a moron if you think the EU offered no protection whatsoever. None is exactly what additional protection we'll get from the EU after Brexit. And if you think Theresa May is going to improve the protections the UK has now, you're a fucking moron.
'cuz the EU protects our human rights betta?
Because it does. Why else would "Brexiter" Davis taking a case to the EU court? Because he knows that in the UK he has no chance of obtaining any protection of rights.
and "serious crime" increasingly is equated with thoughtcrime. The definition of "legally" is fluid and arbitrary, and "safeguards" are totally unspecified and undefined; this renders both terms utterly meaningless in the context of TFA. "(L)aid down by proper legislative process" and "respect the essence of the right to respect for privacy and data protection" are weasel words and part of a snow job.
Undefined, non-specific buzz-words are the perennially favourite tools of despots and would-be dictators. Unfortunately, today they are also the lingua franca of both political and legal discourse; and a befuddled populace, (with the help of news media which are largely complicit in the scam), goes along with it all as though it means something other than their eventual enslavement.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Except that his claim was trashed. Which trashes your pro-EU talking point too. Have fun defending the EU human rights track record now.
A bad claim was trashed, but that doesn't mean the reason the court was selected were wrong. The reason it was selected is that if offered (past tense, now) more protection than UK courts.
safeguards, I do not think that word means what you think it means
A bad claim was ...
That's just your unqualified opinion, and surely it wouldn't be agreed upon by any privacy advocates.
Canadian citizens have a right to privacy when in the EU, which the UK is still a part of.
This includes data slurps.
And it's in the Constitution.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
None is exactly what additional protection we'll get from the EU after Brexit.
Though we'll still be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is independent of the EU, has its own court, and does not have the associated political shenanigans the UK pulled in relation to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that is at issue here.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Ladies and Gentlemen upon exiting the EU, please remember to collect all of your bags and leave your rights at the door.
Is this actually defined anywhere, or is it left to the opinion of the investigating officer?
Of course it all hangs on who's definition of a "serious crime"
And like lots of other bs legislation,it will start off meaning one thing and then rapidly be subverted and a "serious crime" within a few years will mean a couple of 15 year old street weed dealers...
Just like stingrays are only meant to be used for serious investigations here in the UK,but ordinary police forces have been caught using them to gather data and evidence against minor drug dealer groups,though the evidence collected through their use is rarely actually used in cases,because then they would give the game away that they using them for everyday situations,but they make such wonderful fishing tools that they just cannot resist using them,exactly the same as has been found in the USA and just about every other country that has them,proving once again that if there is any chance of a capability being designed,and built then it will quite soon be in common,if often,illegal use...
Lots of us already knew this,more suspected it,snowden just goes confirm some of it..and he didn't know half of it...
If someone can dream it up and others can build it,it's in use somewhere...
If it cannot be done legally,no matterfolk will just lie about it or deny its existence...
Fuck the British press. Outfits like theregister -- positively for Brexit, previously (still?) -- have lost nearly any and all integrity.
This is NOT a ruling, it is merely an opinion by an advisor to the court. Here's the document, which ofcourse El Reg couldn't even be bothered to link to. I'll be gracious to them, and assume they couldn't even be bothered to read it, either.
First, this non-binding opinion isn't about the UK situation only -- it's a opinion on 2 merged cases, the most important one brought forward by a Swedish telecom provider Tele2/Sverige, which found itself in conflict with either Swedish law [enforcing data retention] or European law, after the European Court of Justice invalidated the Data Retention Directive in a 2014 ruling on a Digital Rights Ireland case.
Second, the data to be retained are strictly defined in Saugmandsgaard opinion: data making it possible to identify and locate the source and the destination of the information, data relating to the date, time and duration of communication and data identifying the type of each communication and the type of equipment used.
The content of the data is specifically excluded of the retention obligation.
Note, finally, that retention of these data is not an EU obligation: the opinion only establishes that national governments may implement such a data retention, that this is not incompatible with other EU rulings. Solely the fight against serious crime is reason to implement such an obligation.
Let me part with the final paragraph of that opinion:
Finally, the general obligation to retain data must be proportionate, within a democratic society, to the objective of the fight against serious crime, which means that the serious risks engendered by that obligation within a democratic society must not be disproportionate to the advantages it offers in the fight against serious crime.
Ooh look!
A racist Brexiter. What a surprise.
Ooh look!
An immigrant remainer. What a surprise.
Of David Davis (a Brexiteer) taking a case to the European Court of Justice about violation of his privacy rights, as defined by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; a document his new boss Theresa May (who opposed Brexit) has publicly said she would like to tear up.