Slashdot Mirror
Challenge Over UK Bulk Hacking Powers Taken To European Court of Human Rights (vice.com)
Joseph Cox, reporting for Motherboard: On Friday, activist group Privacy International and five internet and communications providers lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the UK's use of bulk hacking powers abroad. "The European Court of Human Rights has a strong track record of ensuring that intelligence agencies act in compliance with human rights law. We call on the Court to hold GCHQ accountable for its unlawful bulk hacking practices," Scarlet Kim, legal officer at Privacy International, said in a statement. The application has been made with UK-based non-profit GreenNet, the Chaos Computer Club from Germany, Jibonet from South Korea, US internet service provider May First, and communications provider Rise Up. In 2014, Privacy International filed a complaint over the country's bulk hacking powers with the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a court which determines if public authorities have unlawfully used covert techniques. In February of this year, the IPT concluded that GCHQ's hacking was legal under the UK's Intelligence Service Act 1994. Privacy International is now challenging whether the UK's interpretation of the Intelligence Service Act for using bulk hacking powers complies with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Does the EU court have any say?
UK to hold referendum on exiting the Human race. Being Human is just not that popular in majority of the world govts.
The Privacy International needs a local (UK) victim who have been hacked and have gone through the whole British legal system while claiming the violation of the human rights. Privacy International can't be the plaintiff unless they have been hacked by the UK government in UK. Unless of course, the rules of the court have changed significantly in recent years. Other arenas like the ICJ with the governments involved (Germany, South Korea, US) might be more effective, although a few phone calls with the members of the special relationship end the hope that the governments would protect the assets of their citizens and potentially those of the nations via legal means.
We don't care about your hacking court powers OK. This used to be a good site. Now it is the Feds? assholes. I agree with what the other commenters said in the stories above.
Immediately after a post discussing the meaning of the term /. propagates the incorrect meaning. Shame on you, shamedot. When writing code one can go in with a metaphorical scalpel, a ginsu, or can hack it up with an axe or chainsaw; cracking on the other hand gains unauthorized access, like a safe cracker. Even if it's an electronic safe he's not a "safe hacker", he's a "safe cracker". A safe hacker would take pieces of many safes and hack them together into a working safe, even if it shouldn't work. Ipso facto these would be bulk cracking powers.