Slashdot Mirror
UK's GCHQ Intelligence Agency Violated Human Rights With Its Mass Surveillance Tactics, Top European Court Rules (theguardian.com)
GCHQ's methods in carrying out bulk interception of online communications violated privacy and failed to provide sufficient surveillance safeguards, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled in a test case judgment. From a report: But the Strasbourg court found that GCHQ's regime for sharing sensitive digital intelligence with foreign governments was not illegal. It is the first major challenge to the legality of UK intelligence agencies intercepting private communications in bulk, following Edward Snowden's whistleblowing revelations. The long-awaited ruling is one of the most comprehensive assessments by the ECHR of the legality of the interception operations operated by UK intelligence agencies. The case was brought by a coalition of 14 human rights groups, privacy organisations and journalists, including Amnesty International, Liberty, Privacy International and Big Brother Watch. In a statement, published on Amnesty's website, Lucy Claridge, Amnesty International's Strategic Litigation Director, said, today's ruling "represents a significant step forward in the protection of privacy and freedom of expression worldwide. It sends a strong message to the UK Government that its use of extensive surveillance powers is abusive and runs against the very principles that it claims to be defending." He added: This is particularly important because of the threat that Government surveillance poses to those who work in human rights and investigative journalism, people who often risk their own lives to speak out. Three years ago, this same case forced the UK Government to admit GCHQ had been spying on Amnesty -- a clear sign that our work and the people we work alongside had been put at risk. The judges considered three aspects of digital surveillance: bulk interception of communications, intelligence sharing and obtaining of communications data from communications service providers. By a majority of five to two votes, the Strasbourg judges found that GCHQ's bulk interception regime violated article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees privacy, because there were said to be insufficient safeguards, and rules governing the selection of "related communications data" were deemed to be inadequate, The Guardian newspaper reported.
Commenting on the ruling, Snowden, wrote, "For five long years, governments have denied that global mass surveillance violates of your rights. And for five long years, we have chased them through the doors of every court. Today, we won. Don't thank me: thank all of those who never stopped fighting."
Commenting on the ruling, Snowden, wrote, "For five long years, governments have denied that global mass surveillance violates of your rights. And for five long years, we have chased them through the doors of every court. Today, we won. Don't thank me: thank all of those who never stopped fighting."
http://www.sott.net/image/s15/...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
The ECHR is not part of the EU infrastructure, and after Brexit the UK will still come under it, unless we separately decide to quit. Brexit removes the UK from the ECJ, which is a separate beastie.
Well, after Brexit it won't even be a symbolic win. When Britain leaves the EU, it also leaves behind the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
The EU is unique in the world in that an extensive array of explicitly enumerated human rights are protected constitutionally. In the US, human rights are protected by a patchwork of case law and SCOTUS ninth amendment based rulings. Example: Roe v Wade interpolates a woman's reproductive rights into the Bill of Rights. To some people this is common sense, to others it makes no sense. So the fundamental rights you enjoy as an American are subject to shifting court interpretations, which are the result of long term political campaigns to gain control of the court. The rights an American citizen enjoys, say to privacy, are a moving target, and more to the point a moveable target.
The main political force behind the Brexit movement was to escape from the restrictions of EU law, but this also includes EU human rights law which restricts the power of citizens to oppress each other, either directly or through the government. So while Brexit, does technically remove restrictions, whether your life will be more free depends on how well-placed you are.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The EU is unique in the world in that an extensive array of explicitly enumerated human rights are protected constitutionally
And it, and countries violate them all the time. Restricting everything from speech, to political groups, to denying a political soap box, and publication of materials it deems unfit. Arresting and detaining people for wrong think, wrong speech, wrong public opinions.
Om, nomnomnom...
The win is not just "symbolic", although its benefits are limited.
Of course the court can do nothing to enforce its rulings.
BUT every time a judgment like this is handed down, one more layer of deception and hypocrisy is stripped away from those who like to claim that they operate a "democratic" government, that they "support human rights", and that they "love liberty".
That is a perfect definition of a symbolic victory.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"steps towards a police state"???
Excuse me... to me it looks like the UK (and members of FiveEyes) have actually been *sprinting* towards a police state and some are already well within sight of the finish line.
Have you ever noticed that when we (the great unwashed) break a law it is called an "illegal" act -- but when the state breaks the law it's simply called "unlawful"?
"Illegal" acts are inevitably subject to huge censure (fines, imprisonment, etc) -- whilst "unlawful" acts are simply dismissed as "gosh, we got caught, we'll try to cover up better next time" and nobody even gets their wrist slapped.
What's more, "the great unwashed" in many countries (such as New Zealand) are now so busy simply trying to house, feed and clothe their kids that they're almost completely unaware of what's going on -- which leaves the state free to embark on petty vendettas and repeated "unlawful" acts without having to worry about being held to account.
... is a cornerstone of the tripartite democratic system, this judgement is a testament to strength. This would never happen in most countries, that is their weakness.