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.
> UK 'Emergency' Bulk Data Slurp Permissible In Pursuit Of 'Serious Crime'
Such as copyright infringement of downloading a movie or album...
I am serious — and don’t call me Shirley.
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.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/...
"However, before the trial was set to start, a fresh charge was entered, to which Cooper pleaded guilty."
Game over. Nobody convicted him but himself. It didn't even need a trial, it's automatic and then he's automatically punished. No judge stood there and THOUGHT that he was guilty. He admitted guilt from the very start of the trial.
If you don't think that what you did overstepped the mark, you don't plead guilty, especially if you're a midwife whose career is on the line. And then you could appeal to the court based on the circumstances and might be FOUND guilty. But admitting it is NOTHING to do with courts being overly harsh. Someone says you committed an offence. It goes to court. You admit that you did. Game over. No evidence needs be heard.
Chances are that he was way over the mark, knew it, and didn't mention that in any of his posts.
Don't get your news, or your opinion of the justice system, from a one-sided, uninformed puff-piece from the media. Even the BBC.
'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.
safeguards, I do not think that word means what you think it means
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.
Evidently it no longer takes a village to raise a child. It takes a police state.
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
So it's not illegal, so long as it's done legally.
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.