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.
Brilliant news, lets hope this judgement sticks.
Isn't the UK leaving the EU?
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.
EU also ruled that UK police have to delete it's DNA database of innocent people, but that hasn't happened yet hazzit?
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.
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.
This was "The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014". A piece of emergency legislation in order to provide a short term framework for security services to actually be able to actually do anything after a repeal of the earlier legislation for similar reasons. This will expire a week on Saturday.
It will be replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Perhaps this ruling will be used as a precedent for challenges to the latest bill.
David Davis is a little bit of an oddity here. He is typically very much on the right wing, anti-EU side of the party, but he is extremely strongly in favour of human rights protections.
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.
"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."
So basically your argument is that they can't do anything about it really, and the UK is sovereign? So the UK should just stick their tongue out and ignore it, like a boy who finally figured out that his Mom can't spank him now that he is stronger? So what is the point in staying? To create paperwork for the EU court? What a waste of time. Amazingly the UK traded successfully with Europe for hundreds of years before the EU existed.
the UK didn't want it, it would veto it so it won't happen. Thats the beauty and pain of the EU policies, they'd need all 28 states to agree before the EU could enact a law like this.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You lack reading comprehension as well as any comprehension about what trade deals and treaties mean.
So basically your argument is that they can't do anything about it really
My argument is they can do precisely as much or as little about it as any party we sign a trade deal with in future.
So all your arguments about how the EU is bad because they have a say over our laws and because they have the final say and can overrule us will apply exactly the same to any trade deals we sign.
So unless you're proposing we sign no trade deals in future, then your posistion is inconsistent and irrational.
Amazingly the UK traded successfully with Europe for hundreds of years before the EU existed.
Yes, and look how that ended, not with a whimper but with a bang.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why do you keep talking about trade deals? This ruling has nothing to do with trade deals. Trade deals can be negotiated without remaining in the EU. Amazingly trade happened before the EU existed for hundreds of years, and amazingly EU countries are able to trade with non-EU countries too, even today! I know, it is hard to believe. The EU is going to fall apart anyway, you might as well get out now.
why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK?
Because you agreed to that in the 50's? Anyway, in this particular case, it is because the UK court of appeal (nominated by lawyers) asked for an opinion from European Court of Justice (nominated by governments). ECJ is of the opinion that the law as it is violates the human rights and privacy of EU citizens.
If the UK court agrees, and rules accordingly, then it's possible to challenge the snooper's charter in UK courts. Case by case.
That's all it is. Self-nominating bunch of layers asked the opinion of representative-nominated lawyers about the agreement of two sets of rules. Hardly the unelected overruling the hapless britons...
They can be negotiated, they can have a "say", but they can't overrule UK rulings (or claim to have the ability to).
You keep banging on that point, but you've not addressed teh fundamental point.
Both with the EU and any future trading partners, the only sanction any of them ultimately have is to refuse to uphold their side of the deal any longer. In both cases they have a "say" over our laws because we have to do what they want if we wish to keep dealing under the same terms. In neither case do they have any further mechanism to force us.
Yet you keep asserting there's a difference between the EU enforcing its rules and any random trading partner enforcing its rules.
I think you I understand what you are saying now:
If you think that' you're even thicker than you first appeared! I think that's why I find you so entertaining. You keep surprising me :)
Good thing most people agree with me
After all, 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Which applies to all the Canadians working in the UK.
Under the Canadian Constitution, they have an explicit right of Privacy, and this "law" violates the right that treaty protects.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --