Judges Say the UK's Digital Surveillance Program Snooper's Charter Is Illegal (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes: Judges have ruled that the UK government's digital surveillance program -- known variously as the Snooper's Charter and the Investigatory Powers Act -- is illegal.
In the case brought by human rights group Liberty, appeal judges found that the preceding Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) -- which ultimately became the Snooper's Charter -- failed to offer adequate protection to people's data. Of particular concern was the fact that private data could be shared between different agencies without sufficient oversight. Further reading: The Intercept.
In the case brought by human rights group Liberty, appeal judges found that the preceding Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) -- which ultimately became the Snooper's Charter -- failed to offer adequate protection to people's data. Of particular concern was the fact that private data could be shared between different agencies without sufficient oversight. Further reading: The Intercept.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your judges might, but your politicians do not give a shit about you -- just like everywhere else.
The "Deep state" is such a crock on conspiracy shit; it's borderline hilarious. If there is was a "deep state", then you can guarantee people who have been in government for years are a part of it. McConnel, Gingrich, etc. Even pundits like Limbaugh would be tits deep.
Our judges actually care about civil liberties. You buffoons elected Trump. LOL
Personally, I want judges that care about the law as written, not buffoons who legislate from the bench. I also prefer laws that don't impact civil liberties so Judges who care about the law can protect them. So you need two things here. Just laws that protect civil liberties and Judges that enforce the law.
Trump is appointing Judges who care about the law and won't invent rulings on laws that don't exist. I don't see how that's a bad or dangerous thing for anybody, unless you think the law is wrong. If you think the law is wrong, that's something you take up with congress who writes the law, or the president if he signed it. He may be a buffoon to you, but he's doing the right thing with the judges he's appointing.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Sorry, but if democratically elected MPs can't pass laws which pass legal muster, that's their goddamned fucking problem.
Being democratically elected is only part of the story. Writing laws which are legal is the other part.
For the same reason that any healthy democracy should have underpinnings which say "no, you don't get to decide these people are slaves", the judiciary is there to prevent people from passing laws which say exactly that.
If you live in a country where judges can't strike down laws as illegal, then you are in a seriously fucked country where lawmakers have absolute power and can pass any stupid ass law they want ... all MPs get to fuck your daughter and your wife whenever they wish, for instance.
So, hey, if you are stupid enough to think you want to live in a country where judges can't void laws ... then please, fuck off and go live in one. I guarantee you, it won't be a nice place.
Know who wants to live in a country where the judiciary can't strike down laws? Tyrants, fascists, and mewling idiots who are too stupid to understand the function of a judicial system in society.
If you want to live in such a country, move to one, and then shut the fuck up.