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.
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?
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.
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.
Sadly all democratic States appear to have embraced efficiency as the metric of success above all else. Random destruction of individuals is the result. The joke that life is ruled by "doing the right thing" became the opposite of reality once politicians declared it as their goal. Here is a tip to guide your life by. Just take any slogan that politicians declare and realize that they are saying it because they know for sure that they are either implementing policies that have the opposite effect or that it is already happening. Watch your back and keep a low profile, they are out to get you paranoid or not.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
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.
UK (AFAIK) doesn't have a written constitution
Technically, we have a written, but not codified constitution.
1. Brexit: Cameron just 'randomly' "CHOSE" majority (50%+1) as the requirement for Brexit
Nope, he didn't choose anything. Unlike the previous referendum, there was nothing in the act about what would happen if it passed, which was part of the problem. There was no provision in the bill stating requirements for either side to win, nor what happened if they did. As a result, the referendum has no more legal force than an opinion poll. That's not a problem with not having a codified constitution (the US, for example, has no provisions for referenda in its constitution, so would be in a similar situation if a poorly worded referendum act passed in Congress), that's a problem with politicians not thinking through the consequences of their actions. If you have a solution for that problem, most of the world would be interested in hearing it...
2. Scottish Independence vote... again... just randomly made up rules at the time by the PM to decide things
This referendum was held because it was an election promise by the party that won the majority (if memory serves, in fact all) of the seats representing Scotland.
The Queen can just DISSOLVE Parliament whenever she wants... and force new elections
That's technically true, but not really relevant as it would trigger a constitutional crisis if it ever did happen (as I recall, Australia and Canada have similar clauses in their constitutions). As of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the government can no longer call a general election with a simple vote and a majority of one of the MPs that bother to turn up. That's largely a superficial distinction though, because a general election can be triggered by a vote of no confidence, which requires a simple majority.
This nonsense that can't even be challenged in court because there is no such thing as a "First Amendment" in the UK
This can be challenged in court, and almost certainly will be (I know of one challenge that's already been launched, there will no doubt be others). It's likely to be in violation of the ECHR, so can be challenged in all of the way up to the European Court of Human Rights. In this respect, the UK is luckier than the USA, because to bring a case to overturn a law in the USA, you must show someone who has been harmed by the law in question. In the UK, laws can be challenged on the basis that they permit hypothetical harm and the judiciary can require that they be amended to avoid that hypothetical from becoming reality. This is particularly important in cases like this, where it's very difficult to prove harm because the evidence is classified and exempt from FOIA requests because of national security.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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."
You've pretty much described "parallel construction".
Why are Americans so absolutely certain they know absolutely everything about the laws, customs and culture of countries they've never visited & couldn't even point to on a map?
There should be a unit. The dY - deciyank. Log (amount they think they know / amount they actually know)
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> 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.