Slashdot Mirror
Does The 'Snoopers Charter' Also Enshrine Lying In Court? (theregister.co.uk)
The U.K.'s newly-based Investigatory Powers Act (the Snoopers' Charter) "allows the State to tell lies in court," according to The Register, saying it enshrines into law "the practice where prosecutors lie about the origins of evidence to judges and juries." Jigsy shares their report:
The operation of the oversight and accountability mechanisms...are all kept firmly out of sight -- and, so its authors hope, out of mind -- of the public. It is up to the State to volunteer the truth to its victims if the State thinks it has abused its secret powers. "Marking your own homework" is a phrase which does not fully capture this...
Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability -- nay, duty -- to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story. Potentially, you could be legally bound to go along with lies told in court about your communications -- lies told by people whose sole task is to weave a story that will get you sent to prison or fined thousands of pounds.
Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability -- nay, duty -- to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story. Potentially, you could be legally bound to go along with lies told in court about your communications -- lies told by people whose sole task is to weave a story that will get you sent to prison or fined thousands of pounds.
Since the truth no longer applies, I guess lawyers and Judges will be out of a job.
Courts are suppose to get to the TRUTH of the matter and decide what to do based on TRUTH. What's the point of having a court where the government is allowed to lie, expected to lie, and the people being lied about are required to act like the law is the truth?
Sounds like we need to make Britain great again...
If the State is known to lie and is unwilling to prove their claims they are establishing reasonable doubt. A boon for defendants.
And here this vociferous Englishman thought he was writing satires about the developments in the USSR.
Vaguely reminiscent of The Trial...
...for not having a WRITTEN Constitution.
UK (AFAIK) doesn't have a written constitution, and that has been the basis for almost all the bad decisions that have happened in the UK lately (at least the ones that make news on the other side of the pond).
1. Brexit: Cameron just 'randomly' "CHOSE" majority (50%+1) as the requirement for Brexit, and never thought it would actually pass... if he had instead just MADE UP 60% or 66.6%.... none of this would have happened
2. Scottish Independence vote... again... just randomly made up rules at the time by the PM to decide things.
3. The Queen can just DISSOLVE Parliament whenever she wants... and force new elections. (This has always struck me as odd, but *shrugs*) B/c Parliament serves "at the pleasure of" the monarchy.
4. This nonsense that can't even be challenged in court because there is no such thing as a "First Amendment" in the UK... (There are no Amendments, nothing to 'amend')
I'm not saying the US Constition is perfect... Hell... Its original sin of slavery and the compromises put into place to get southern states to sign onto it... is still having real world implications today (Electoral College is an example, but the biggest is the Senate that gives unequal representation to citizens in less populated states)
-RC
So fire your lawyer and state the truth yourself if they're too chicken-shit to oppose a bad law. Insist on a jury trial. Jurors are getting pretty good at the whole jury nullification thing. BTW, it is NOT illegal to tell the jury they can nullify the law - just that judges don't like it and will punish you for it - and their doing so will make the jury distrust the whole legal system.
Also, appeals courts have set aside convictions based on things like handing out flyers outside of courthouses to let jurors know their right to nullify a law, as well as convictions where no jury is present.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
This also makes all state evidence beyond reasonable doubt if the source can never be assured, making a mockery of the legal system.
All hail the Lie. And you want me to pledge my allegiance to you. Ha HA HA ha Ha hA
Try to trace back when this Brexit thing started. It was some time after Snowden. When the EU started complaining about UK's abuses. They called it interference on national sovereignty. Then they started to push other reasons that would be more appealing to the public.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199
Just target a person and plant child porn on any of their devices (given the hacking capabilities of GCHQ, just about anybody can be targeted), then (legally) lie about this in court - and there you go, that's all you need to imprison pretty much anyone.
That's one of the most dangerous laws there is.
So there are still oversight and accountability mechanisms? Phew, I was worried there for a second that there wouldn't be. There must be nothing to see here, moving along.
Put yourself on a jury and the defense points out the law and argues that everything the prosecution says is false. Prosecution can't readily prove it. And if the prosecution supports its evidence with lies, it could be simpler to disprove them or cast doubt upon them than if they were true. I'd be inclined to acquit in any and all cases. Not sure about U. K. but America is "beyond reasonable doubt" and with foreknowledge that the prosecution can lie, I would never acquit. They could never prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that the whole thing was made up. Am I missing something here?
The law actually says they're not allowed to talk about anything they found by spying, or any spying methods. Nowhere does it give them permission to lie about any of it. Obviously some people will lie, but this law doesn't actually permit them to do so.
The first part of the law, saying they can't use the content of any conversation they've snooped on in court, has good and bad consequences, but I think that part is good overall because spying, which by it's nature must be sneaky, should be kept seperate from law enforcement, which should be as transparent as practicable. This is one way the US screwed up after 9-11, IMHO.
Prior to 9-11 in the US, the FBI and other law enforcement handled criminal matters, and were required by law to get search warrants, etc. The CIA and other spies were allowed to do things that police weren't allowed to do, BUT they weren't allowed to use that information in a criminal case or give the information to the FBI. So the intelligence agencies could spy on North Korean agents, and the FBI would investigate drug dealers, each working under rules appropriate* for their job. After 9-11, at was determined that it would be more effective if the CIA/NSA and FBI and other agencies cooperated more, sharing information. Maybe it's more effective in some ways, but it has meant that the NSA has become involved in simple criminal investigations of citizens. That's bad. The spy stuff should be reserved for national security stuff, IMHO.
* Obviously there can be, and has been, much debate about what's appropriate, but clearly what's appropriate for national security intelligence operations may be different than what's appropriate for domestic criminal investigations.
Repent while you can.
I visit a bar that has British soldiers in it, most nightly. They all praise their country, say you must visit. I am polite, but say I'd rather visit hell or Paris, same place. It would be nicer. They even remind me England is better than Russia. Wow, what a comparison. One of the countries that defined democracy is now just better than Putin's Russia. Quite an achievement going downhill.
Go Brits!
> If you are allowed to submit "unverifiable" or what I call inscrutable evidence
This law says they are NOT allowed to submit the evidence found by spying. That's an important step, though not sufficient by itself.
The issue that arises then is if the spies find out about some criminal activity, and tell law enforcement about it, law enforecement might search the house to get admissible evidence. However, if the search is challenged, if the police are asked "why did you search?" - well that's a problem. Unless the police are allowed to refuse to answer that question, they'll lie. Which is why in my opinion the spies should not tell the police about the drug dealer. The spies should generally stick to traditional spy stuff, intelligence against other countries, foreign terrorists, etc. and ignore any crime they happen to come across. That way you don't get this improper use of spy techniques in criminal cases.
Very rarely, the intelligence agencies might come across a heinous crime IN PROGRESS. Imagine a serial killer who abducts his victims, holds them prisoner for two weeks, then kills them. We wouldn't want the spies to just ignore that, but we do want a general policy that spooks don't investigate domestic crime. One possible way to handle those very rare instances might be for the intelligence agent to tell the police only "Joe Blow is doing something very bad. You should check him out thoroughly, immediately." Then the police have to do the hard work of investigating without receiving any details that the spies came across, almost like they'd handle an anonymous tip. The difference being they know this tip isn't a prank, they really do need to investigate.
So, what's the point of having a court system, if the truth no longer has meaning under this section of law? Why waste state and taxpayer money if the prosecution can basically manufacture evidence, then lie about where it came from? Just suspend the jury system, you're just wasting their time when one side is allowed, or even required, to lie in order to convict someone.
Why even have a public system at all? Just have "offenders" picked up by police, secret or not, and then disappear to prison, or simply disappear? Isn't that a more logical step under this standard of law?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
All I can say is wow. Do you know how many people have died so you can have the LIFE
You love so much? Do you know why you have such a good life? Because of the rules we have in place and they are there because people faught the good fight. I hope you are trolling.
Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability -- nay, duty -- to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions.
Doesn't it also say they may not present such evidence in the first place? ("No evidence may be adduced...")
So how/why would they then be able to/need to lie about where it came from?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It is similar to parallel construction, but somewhat different (at least for one definition of parallel construction).
One definition of "parallel construction" would be:
The intelligence agency provides some specific information to the police.
The police make up some BS story about how they got that information.
The police use that information as probable cause for a search.
There's no ideal solution, of the spies find an ongoing serious crime, but this is an improvement:
The intelligence agency gives no specific information to the police. Just "you should look into what happens at ABC Club".
The police have no probable cause at that point, they have to do old-fashioned police work.
The police can ask neighbors about ABC Club, they can visit ABC Club when it's open to the public, etc.
What the police CAN'T do is use the information from spies as probable cause, lying about the source of the information, because the spies didn't GIVE them any information.
How about a code analogy. Yeah, the code is all free of exploitable bugs, back doors, and other security concerns. You are welcome to inspect it yourself to see. Well, most of it. We have a little piece over here that you can't look at, but trust me, it's good.
The government is not being used to protect the people. Every time someone is arrested and convicted of a crime someone other than the people benefit. It's generally for the sake of safety even when in reality the person whose convicted has more frequently than not hurt no one. While in this case it is the UK government the US government has repeatedly been held to be not accountable to the people- ever. The US supreme court has repeatedly said the police and government have no obligation to protect the people (these cases stem from cases that should have been a priority for police and involved rape, murder, etc).
Instead of having this security theatre we should end the government and its inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy. The idea that we need government is a mistaken belief and we often have examples or have had alternative systems to solve problems. We often need new regulation to protect people because of prior regulations that were just terrible. But because the new regulations are suppose to benefit the people we end up failing to get them passed.
Some examples of solutions that have been implemented as alternatives to government policing. The Threat Management Center in Detroit offers private security services that can largely replace the police. You can pay for patrols of your neighbourhood and the company provides various other self-defence training services. I don't know how these services compare, but given the terrible situation in Detroit it's hard to believe the private industry is providing anything worse than the government. If it were then these private policing agencies would go under because people wouldn't be purchasing there services.
Now the biggest argument against this sort of system is likely "what about the poor". The reality is we are already seeing alternative no-cost or very low cost solutions to security. There is an app for smart phones called Cell 411. Instead of alerting the police it alerts family, friends, neighbours, and anybody nearby depending on the type of emergency and alert that is sent out. It send out your location and makes it easy for others to find you and help with whatever the emergency is. The other things to remember is that people's wealth is literally being stolen from them by the government. People don't realize to just what extant that the government is stealing from them because its spread taxes and fees across many different areas. These taxes frequently result in the loss of peoples wealth by about half. This wealth could have gone to pay for schooling, retirement savings, private security, and so on. We didn't need the government to make us dependant on it for such services. A handful of the many taxes: Income taxes, property taxes (increased rents), sales taxes, special gas taxes, death taxes, prepared meal taxes, vehicular registration fees (significant in states that use it as a form of tax, like New Hampshire, pay hundreds of dollars a year), tolls (which are extremely inefficient, costing about 30% in collection costs that don't even end up going to pay for the roads/bridges), social security that you'll never be able to get (young people), airplane taxes, 'luxury' taxes on telephony and cable bills, and numerous other taxes/fees.
If you want to take responsibility for yourself there is only one way we're going to be able to do that and it's if enough people who don't believe in the use of initiating violence for the purpose of achieving social and political goals come together in one place for the purpose of reducing government to its absolute minimum and advocating for personal liberties instead.
The Free State Project was started to do just that. It's had quite a bit of success in its efforts. Thousands of people have moved to New Hampshire (the destination picked for this effort) for the purpose of pursuing liberty and freedom in our life time. It's not a short term project, but rather one that'll take many years to accomplish and has been ongoing for quite some time now. We've had a lot of success in getting people to
> They are not allowed to lie about the content, but they ARE allowed to lie about the source
Here's the actual text of the law. Where exactly do you see that? I see that by the plain words of the law they "may not disclose ... any content of an intercepted communication", I don't see any authorization to disclose the content and lie about the source.
(1) No evidence may be adduced, question asked, assertion or disclosure made or other thing done in, for the purposes of or in connection with any legal proceedings or Inquiries Act proceedings which (in any manner)â"
(a) discloses, in circumstances from which its origin in interception-related conduct may be inferredâ"
(i) any content of an intercepted communication, or
(ii) any secondary data obtained from a communication, or
(b) tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur.
I don't understand. It's like you can kick them and they will snivel and cowtow before you. Pathetic! People who surrender their freedom so easily deserve to the exploited and enslaved.
I'm guessing the courts would rule this law unconstitutional as abusing the separation of government and judiciary, but until someone can figure out how to get that question to the Supreme court, who knows what abuses will take place.
And if you raised the question of whether it is legal, haven't you already raised the issue itself contrary to the law? I can't imagine any judge accepting this nonsense.
I'm a lawyer, in another common law jurisdiction. (Posting as AC in case I get it wrong - I'm only an amateur when it comes to UK law. I hope for my colleagues sake that all modern UK legislation isn't written like this spaghetti code.)
Section 56(1) is about what cannot be presented in court. I don't see it condoning perjury on its face, and without clearly authorizing witnesses to lie, I can't imagine any judge would construe it that way.
It says, in laymen's terms: You certainly aren't allowed to talk about signals intelligence or postal mail opening programs in open court, and that includes presenting evidence that could only have come from otherwise illegal mass collection systems.
This is bad because it encourages parallel construction: the cops get a tip from the spooks, and then they happen to be in the right place at the right time looking at the right people. The police officer, if questioned at trial about the circumstances of the search, would simply deflect or claim informant privilege around the source of the tip. Outright lying can probably be avoided. What is murky about parallel construction is that the defendant, judge, and sometimes even prosecution won't get to hear the whole story of the investigation. The initial role of the state in the investigation is obscured.
And let's not forget that cross-mandate information sharing can lead to negative outcomes even when run by a benevolent state. If certain groups in the UK are subject to more scrutiny by spy services (perhaps for just reasons) then more of their criminal activity will be detected by police. Now this group appears more criminal despite having an identical disposition to crime, and is unfairly targeted for punishment. It's the digital form of stop-and-frisk.
We have rules in place because they were imposed from above. Mobs never did anything good for anyone. Get over yourself, Trump supporter.
So the entire civil rights movement never did any good for anyone? Really, who is this stupid? Only the ubiquitous and ignorant AC.
Sounds like you are being paid by some factor of the authoritarian left to "Speak power to truth," squash and squelch any dissent, and spread the message that the government is the ultimate authority and they know what is Best.
I miss the days when liberalism included a broad base of people who questioned authority, who rejected the notion that the government knew better than the people, and that we should view with a rightfully jaundiced eye the power that the state holds over the people. Now its "toe this line or you will be branded an outcast!" Jack booted ideological thugs have taken over the "left" and turned it into a parody of what it was. You need look no further than this for why we have the parody of a republican as the president elect as well.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
ideological thugs have existed at both extremes of political thought since time immemorial.
DO try to keep up...
I see that by the plain words of the law they "may not disclose ... any content of an intercepted communication", I don't see any authorization to disclose the content and lie about the source.
You stopped too soon. Read the rest of the text. The key phrases are "discloses, in circumstances from which its origin in interception-related conduct may be inferred ... or tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur". As long as they disguise the origin enough to protect their secret spying program they can use the intercepted content however they want. The point of this clause isn't to protect the public from misuse of the intercepted communications, it's to keep the interception program itself out of the public eye.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
True statement, however they were just that, the extremes, relegated to the outer edges of the bell curve, deevs apart from the mainstream expression of the party ethic. Now both parties seem to have adopted extreme positions as their main charter. The thugginess is now enshrined in their core tenets, not some deniably convenient release valve for the more "avid" members.
If this inexorable slide into sensationalism and pseudo-fanaticism is where the future is heading, please excuse me while I DON'T keep up. You idiots can have it.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
> The point of this clause isn't to protect the public from misuse of the intercepted communications, it's to keep the interception program itself out of the public eye.
Agreed, absolutely. And one way to keep it out of the public eye is to not have it involved in public trials, aka criminal cases. If they can't legally reveal the source of the information amd they can't *legally* lie about the source, than they can't really use the information for criminal prosecution without breaking the law. Hopefully they follow the law most of the time, meaning that they don't use it for domestic criminal investigations.
Watch it England. This is how you stoke a revolution. Everyone knows it'll be abused. Then abused more and more often until the lid blows off. Now you have a mess. Sometimes people lose their head.
If they can't legally reveal the source of the information amd they can't *legally* lie about the source, than they can't really use the information for criminal prosecution without breaking the law.
They'll still use it, after coming up with an alternate explanation for how the information was obtained. They won't even have to lie, exactly—once they use the secret interception to identify their target, they'll go back and perform a public and apparently above-board investigation based on those results (perhaps laundered via an "anonymous tip" from a "concerned citizen"); the results from that investigation are the ones they supply to the court. Of course, the public investigation never would have been started if it weren't for the data they secretly intercepted, and the defendant, whether guilty or innocent, will face an uphill battle combatting the mass of circumstantial evidence compiled long before the public investigation even started. This is no different from "parallel construction" as currently practiced in the U.S., with all the attendant problems. If you set out to find people who look guilty, you will turn up more than a few who are actually innocent—and if the fact that the case was founded on a dragnet search is kept secret, that circumstantial evidence will be granted far too much weight. As far as the victim can prove it's just a case of really bad luck, when in fact the system is secretly selecting for those least able to defend themselves, which leads to a high false-positive rate.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat