Slashdot Mirror
EU's Highest Court Delivers Blow To UK Snooper's Charter (theguardian.com)
"General and indiscriminate retention" of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU's highest court has ruled, in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK's new Investigatory Powers Act -- the so-called snooper's charter. From a report on The Guardian: Only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime -- including terrorism -- is justified, according to a long-awaited decision by the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The finding came in response to a legal challenge initially brought by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, when he was a backbench MP, and Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ's bulk interception of call records and online messages. Davis and Watson, who were supported by Liberty, the Law Society, the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, had already won a high court victory on the issue, but the government appealed and the case was referred by appeal judges to the ECJ. The case will now return to the court of appeal to be resolved in terms of UK legislation.
Leaving is not the same as left. Until they actually have left, they are still bound to the laws and decisions of the union.
This only strengthens the Leave argument: why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK? Seems like a rational concern to me. The fact that you don't like the law is immaterial to that argument.
More like try again after you've Brexited and Common Sensexited.
It strengthens the Remain argument because it shows that of the two governing bodies: UK Parliament and EU, the EU is the one more disposed towards protecting UK citizens' rights.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
If I had "Mod Points", I'd mod you up for that observation...
Several things interest me about this particular piece of legislation:-
1. It Doesn't Work [1] - When the United States located Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, it was revealed that no telephone line, no internet connection and no cell phone was connected to the compound in which he lived. In fact, it was a "black spot" for services. Instead, trusted couriers carried encrypted USB sticks by hand. Pretty good OpSec, by all accounts. In other words - the really dangerous terrorists out there do not use the internet to plan their activities or communicate with each-other; they are too smart for that
2. It Doesn't Work [2] - When major incidents have happened [such as was the case with the Paris Attacks, the monitoring of the perpetrators [which had been taking place] was not effective in *STOPPING* the atrocity, it was only useful for telling us that within 24 hours of the incident, the partner of one of the terrorists had fled the country and entered Syria via Turkey. Yes, this might be useful at stopping secondary or tertiary attacks, or at finding the support network, but it won't actually stop the event itself.
3. It Doesn't Work [2] - When investigators looked into the perpetrators of the Boston Bombing in the wake of the marathon attacks, it was again discovered that the perpetrators had been monitored by the security agencies, but that even though they had been "red flagged", the responsible agency had discounted the information because they had so much other data to review. The blanket dragnet meant that they spent all their time triaging initial cuts of data, not enough time following up on reasonable leads.
4. It's An Erosion of the Presumption of Innocence - The fact that *everyone* is caught up in the net [unless you are an MP or member of the judiciary, etc] means that every single person in the UK is presumed guilty of an offence - without being charged. The data is being collected "in case you do something bad"...
5. The Damaging Risk Of Leaks - There have been too many examples of data theft or accidential leakage to bother citing examples here; the fact is that such a treasure-trove of data would be too tempting for organised criminals. In the United States, insurance companies reported that in the wake of the TSA requirement for "approved locks" on all airline luggage, claims against theft of valuables from checked luggage have sky-rocketed. A system set up for one benefit - passenger safety - is being abused by another threat - light-fingered airport staff - resulting in millions being claimed, and tens or hundreds of thousands of passengers becoming victims every year. We should expect the same sort of widespread damage once the data is being collected. Remember - it is not being collected and held by a government agency, but by the telecommunications providers. Like TalkTalk. [ Data Leak Central ].
6. Erosion of Basic Freedoms - Perhaps the most significant change, however, is the way that the relationship between the state and the citizen changes as a result of this. Unlike, say, the US [which has a constitution], the UK has no such basic safety net for human rights. What this means is that more and more powers are being given to government and which are being mis-used.
As an example of this, when researchers looked into a similar and previously enacted piece of legislation [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act], it was discovered that among the more notable and widespread uses of the law came from actions taken by local councils who were spying on residents suspected of "cheating" the school catchment area process. This is a mechanism by which children are enrolled in schools based on their home address. In other words, they way that legislation is "sold" to voting MPs and the way that it is actually used are two entirely different things.
But lastly, perhaps, is the fact that this would/will put so much power in the hands of the state that it makes the individual citizen defenceless against abuse by that state. And that is a very frightening place for us to be.
Because they only want to sort of leave the EU. They're looking for some kind of intermediate state where they have the same access to European markets European companies do. Realistically that means British companies will have to abide by most if not all EU regulations and human rights restrictions.
Brexit would be quite simple if what the UK really wanted is complete independence. Both sides would set up the border crossings and customs stations that started closing down in 60s, and negotiate access to each others markets on a case by case basis. This would be a perfect example. The EU is not going to allow spying on its citizens by a foreign power (the UK), so if the UK wants to sell financial services in the EU it'll just have to agree to be bound by EU human rights rules.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This only strengthens the Leave argument:
Not even slightly.
why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK?
Because if you refuse to let some non-elected no UK people have a say in your laws then literally no one will sign a trade deal or treaty with you of any sort. Every deal involves agreeing to behave in a certain way. That means you don't have complete freedom over the laws you pass, if you want to actually stay in the trade deal.
Seems like a rational concern to me.
No, it's an irrational concern by utter fuckwits who don't realise that we always had sovereignty and no one will deal with you if you're an ornery dickhead who refuses to agree to anything.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You are confused on my point. Disregard THIS PARTICULAR LAW. I get it that you don't like it (I don't either), but what if the ruling had been the opposite and the EU wanted to spy, and the UK government didn't want it? There was nothing the UK could do. If you don't like your representatives in the UK, then change them.
It certainly wasn't what people asked for. Some faceless bureaucrat I have nothing in common with in Whitehall made this crap up, paid some ivory tower solicitors a bloody fortune that immediately left the country for a tax haven to write it without all the talk of WHAT THE GODDAMNED LAW WAS FOR, and the same bureaucrats ALSO wrote themselves out from under the law.
Not democratic at all. Autocratic? Yes. Democratic? No.
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here. It seems that the Stay people are irrational emotional utter fuckwits, but that is just my opinion. Good thing the rational side won, in my opinion.
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here.
So how do you think the EU is actually going to overrule us, eh? All they can do is wag their finger, and tell us what a naughty boy we are and if we keep on not abiding by the rules, kick us out of the club.
And that's precisely the same as every other trade deal ever.
We are and always were a sovereign nation. The EU has neither the ability nor the will to literally enforce anything against us or any other member state. They can say things, take us to court, make pronouncements and ultimately expel us, but under no conceivable circumstances would a complete breakdown agreements lead to anything else. They would send no tanks, no planes and no bombs. They wouldn't however allow our goods, money or people to freely cross the border.
And that is literally all.
I'm curious how you think that's any different from the trade deals we're supposed to be negotiating after we "leave".
It seems that the Stay people are irrational emotional utter fuckwits, but that is just my opinion.
It's interesting that you think that given you show no understanding of the situation at all.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Sure. But you're still bound by the rules of that market. UK companies would still be subject to Brussels, however UK/EU relations would take on a distinctly bilateral flavor instead of the old multi-lateral flavor of the old Common Market days. This would put the UK at more of a disadvantage relative to the rest of Europe when it comes to bargaining power, both in comparison to its pre-Brexit position in the EU and it's pre-EU position in the Common Market.
Really the only way for the UK to obtain a more favorable position would be if the entire EU collapses. Which the rest of Europe is keenly aware of. That's why the rest of Europe isn't going to cut Britain any slack on Brexit. If other EU members see that Britain negotiated itself a more favorable position by exiting the EU, then other nations will follow. So there are three possible outcomes:
(1) Britain manages to negotiate a symbolic exit with little de facto impact.
(2) Britain is treated like any other foreign country in the European Market.
(3) The EU collapses and the former members try to salvage something by reviving the old Common Market system.
The only outcome that is potentially economically favorable to Britain is (3). The country that gains the most from Brexit is Russia.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'd like to see some evidence for your assertion that they've produced nothing concrete.
You talk as if Brexit were easy. We're talking about disentangling an entire country's legislative and economic system from decades of cooperation with other countries, with a very real risk of recession and diplomatic repercussions if it's screwed up. I can't see how they'll do that properly in the two years they have, much less six months.
Hell, it probably took them at least six months to figure out in what areas of government and economics there *might* be ramifications, considering they still had to run the country in the meantime. It's pretty clear no one thought about that ahead of time.