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.
Leaving is not the same as left. Until they actually have left, they are still bound to the laws and decisions of the union.
The UK will not leave the EU until 2 years after Article 50 is triggered. At the moment, they're saying next March. So the UK will remain part of the EU until at least March 2019.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Isn't the UK leaving the EU?
Define: leave.
Seriously, whothefuckknows. The referendum was merely to "leave". There was no vote on what leave means, what qualifies as leave and what the government must or must not do in order to satisfy "leave". Actually technically nothing, since it wasn't binding, but assuming they follow through (seems likely in some form) there's no mandate whatsoever on any particular form of leave.
That's one reason why the referendum was incredibly stupid because it asked an almost completely undefined question. The only thing that "leave" means definitively is not be a voting member of the EU. So, we must lose our influence. However, unless we want to head on over to utter irrelevance, we're still going to have to deal with the EU. That means we will have to sign treaties of some sort which means we will have to agree to behave in a certain way. Because unlike in the bizarre fantasy of many brexiters, no one will sign a trade deal that allows you to do whatever the fuck you want.
So, it may or may not be that we have to agree to be under the remit of this court if we want don't want to be completely shafted. So even if we leave, we may well have to agree to abide by the rulings.
And anyway, we're still a member until up to 2 years (or more!) after Article 50 is invoked which means we're still obligated to abide by the rulings.
Bear in mind that Norway is not a member of the EU. So, while sticking to the only definition of "leave" we have, we could leave and sign a Norway style deal which would mean everything is exactly the same as it is now except we pay more, get a smaller rebate and have no voting rights. We could do that and still "leave". Or we could just close borders, expel all foreigners and fuck right off into the North Sea, or anything in between.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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?
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.
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.
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.