Slashdot Mirror
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.
Our judges actually care about civil liberties. You buffoons elected Trump. LOL
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
LOL. Trump is nominating unqualified partisan idealogues. Just look at the case of Brett Talley.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
You have difficulty with facts, don't you?
Yes, he was nominated. The fact that, after an outcry, his nomination was withdrawn does not mean that he "wasn't even nominated to be a judge?" Of course he was nominated to be judge.
Trump has a long list of successful nominations (where "successful" means that his nomination was appointed). Yes, I don't deny that. What I do claim is that they are largely idealogues, where loyalty to Trump is the most important criteria.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Judges in the UK can't strike down statutes. The legal system here is not like the US, where the law can evolve directly through the courts as well as through legislation. Our courts are strictly there to interpret existing laws and to deal with conflicts.
In this case, the point is that two laws were incompatible. On the one hand, we have the surveillance law, introduced by our national government. On the other hand, we have the EU human rights laws. The court here took the view that the former were in conflict with the latter, and the latter won.
The same could potentially have happened in a post-Brexit world where those EU laws are no longer supreme, if the equivalent safeguards are transferred into our national law as part of the Brexit process. This is something that various MPs and campaign groups are promoting heavily right now, because they are sceptical about the government's preferred plan where ministers get to transfer laws but also make some adjustments to them, ostensibly for practical reasons, but without necessarily passing primary legislation in Parliament. The loss of EU-derived safeguards for human rights, employee protections and the like is the main reason for concern here.
Of course, assuming we do leave the EU and our national law is then all we have to work with, that does mean that the elected legislature can amend those laws however they want and judges then have to rule based on the new laws. This is by design, and is part of what's called parliamentary sovereignty -- the principle that Parliament is supreme among all parts of the government and can't be overruled by the government alone, activist judges or (more historically now) other potential influences such as royalty or aristocrats.
The potential downside of this is that, yes, they can make bad laws too. The upside is that if MPs do that, there will no longer be anywhere for them to hide. If they want to pass a law that says they can do something bad to ordinary people, they're going to have to do it in public through the mechanisms of Parliament and they're going to be accountable for it at the next general election.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
However, because Britain is leaving the EU, it's unclear as to whether the British government will simply ignore the court ruling since EU laws will no longer have sway over Britain's national security policies.
This is why civil rights groups like Liberty and various MPs are concerned that ministers should not be able to substantially amend current EU laws in the process of transferring them to national law. That way, if the government wants to reduce protections for human rights or increase the state's power over its citizens, it will have to do it in the light of day, and accept the consequences if it turns out that some of those citizens don't agree and vote for someone else next time.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Although this is true, the case we're talking about today didn't involve the ECtHR, but rather the CJEU, and wasn't based on the ECHR, but rather the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.
If Brexit involves a complete separation from the EU, neither the CJEU nor the Charter will continue to apply in the UK. The ECHR would be all that was left.
With the UK no longer a member of the EU, the one unassailable barrier to modifying the HRA and thus removing the protections of the ECHR would also be lost. It might still require national legislation to actually nerf the HRA in that way, and no doubt that would be controversial, but in any case the protections would already be weaker than they are today if the equivalent to the Charter had not been transferred into national law when Brexit happened.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.