Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 191 posts

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#41

Post by atom_enger »

nkkollaw wrote: post #36

What is the real reason behind surveillance? The government(s)'s excuse is terrorism, but terrorism in Europe doesn't kill a big enough amount of people to justify these drastic measures. I would argue also that no one has proven that it's efficient at preventing terrorist attacks. There must be a reason, I don't get it. Is it just because governments can, so they do it? It is to create the basis for some initiative…

So if you disagree with them they can deal with you one way or another? I've always thought that was the real reason: to dissuade dissidence.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#42

Post by turc1656 »

"Yet again a UK court has ruled the government’s extreme mass surveillance regime unlawful. This judgement tells ministers in crystal clear terms that they are breaching the public’s human rights."

So the question then remains...where are the handcuffs?! I ask this question constantly when it comes to government wrongdoing and there is almost never anyone charged with anything. If the government has been acting in a manner that has been found in a court of law to violate human rights, then multiple people should be going to jail.

Before you drop the "well now we know for sure - we shouldn't be punitive and punish people who thought they were doing their job properly" crap, think about this. Whenever the government applies a law in a new and untested way against a civilian the case is watched very closely and if that civilian is found guilty they never get the benefit of the "well it's been settled and now we know" argument and get let off lightly. So I argue the same should apply here. The government has grossly violated the rights of citizens on a mass scale and everyone at the top of the food chain involved in these programs should be rotting in a jail cell.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#43

Post by anon1385 »

Asdfbla wrote: post #35
beaconstudios wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you say that like undermining Corbyn is an objectively bad thing. He's an extremely divisive element of the current Labour party and the primary reason why I (and I consider myself a liberal first and foremost) cannot support the current Labour leadership. Labour's always been a mix of liberals and socialists but in my opinion Corbyn is too far to the latter to ever unify the party behind his ideas.

Yet Corbyn's somewhat populist rhetoric seems to have made Labour competitive again, or were their good election results just a coincidence and had nothing to do with Corbyn? Just curious, since I'm not British and probably only have a very superficial understanding of the politics.

It was almost entirely to do with Corbyn (and the energy brought to the party by his leadership campaigns, in the form of new members and new organisations).

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#44

Post by nkkollaw »

atom_enger wrote: post #41
nkkollaw wrote: post #36

What is the real reason behind surveillance? The government(s)'s excuse is terrorism, but terrorism in Europe doesn't kill a big enough amount of people to justify these drastic measures. I would argue also that no one has proven that it's efficient at preventing terrorist attacks. There must be a reason, I don't get it. Is it just because governments can, so they do it? It is to create the basis for some initiative…

So if you disagree with them they can deal with you one way or another? I've always thought that was the real reason: to dissuade dissidence.

But is it true, though..?

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#45

Post by wu-ikkyu »

nkkollaw wrote: post #36

What is the real reason behind surveillance? The government(s)'s excuse is terrorism, but terrorism in Europe doesn't kill a big enough amount of people to justify these drastic measures. I would argue also that no one has proven that it's efficient at preventing terrorist attacks. There must be a reason, I don't get it. Is it just because governments can, so they do it? It is to create the basis for some initiative…

Power and control over enemies.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#46

Post by TeMPOraL »

benevol wrote: post #29

What we have learned thanks to Snowden is this: You can never trust your government. Mass surveillance was conducted illegally before and continues to this day. Does anyone really think some "law" will change this?

I think yes, such laws change things a lot.

I have two heuristics that are related to this topic:

1. If something is physically possible and can be done economically, then it is already happening.

2. If a nation state wants you - or your people - gone, then you're done, period. This is a function of state's coordination power in general, and not of any technology or program they may or may not have.

(Heuristic 1. is, incidentally, why I was not in any way surprised by Snowden's revelations. It was obvious that this is happening. Heuristic 2. is why I don't buy the general argument saying "census is bad because the Nazis used census data to target Jews".)

Heuristic 2. tells me that if the state turns fascist, it's game over, and it has little to do with present surveillance and efforts to oppose it. Heuristic 1. tells me that no matter what the law says, militaries and intelligence agencies will keep snooping on everyone. So given all that, what's the change?

The change will be visible when you forget about doom&gloom scenarios (1) and NSA (2). It's about regular abuses of citizens in a stable state, under the rule of law. If the state sets the rules of the game and then breaks them, you have recourse. There are courts. There are media. Careers of politicians and public servants are on the line. Officials will be reluctant to break the rules out of simple fear for their own reputations and career prospects.

So this is not a perfect win. But there will never be a perfect win, there will be no end of electronic surveillance, as long as we are a technological civilization (see heuristic 1). But it's something to go on, it's a change in the direction of actually achievable balance.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#47

Post by turc1656 »

atom_enger wrote: post #41
nkkollaw wrote: post #36

What is the real reason behind surveillance? The government(s)'s excuse is terrorism, but terrorism in Europe doesn't kill a big enough amount of people to justify these drastic measures. I would argue also that no one has proven that it's efficient at preventing terrorist attacks. There must be a reason, I don't get it. Is it just because governments can, so they do it? It is to create the basis for some initiative…

So if you disagree with them they can deal with you one way or another? I've always thought that was the real reason: to dissuade dissidence.

I've always thought this as well. They can more effectively control the population and also get "dirt" on anyone they want. There's pretty much no one on this planet who hasn't said or done something they aren't proud of, don't want public, don't want their spouse to know, is mildly illegal (but which could then be vigorously prosecuted once they are a target), etc. etc.

I think it's for the Donald Trump scenario - if an "outsider" tries to enter the political arena to gain power they can crush that person using all the available tools in their arsenal. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, he was able to combat that because he was already rich and famous. No regular human being could rise to power without the approval of the existing political elite. Mass surveillance is just one tool they use to maintain that power.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#48

Post by n4r9 »

nkkollaw wrote: post #36

What is the real reason behind surveillance? The government(s)'s excuse is terrorism, but terrorism in Europe doesn't kill a big enough amount of people to justify these drastic measures. I would argue also that no one has proven that it's efficient at preventing terrorist attacks. There must be a reason, I don't get it. Is it just because governments can, so they do it? It is to create the basis for some initiative…

I think it's probably a vote-winner. From within our tech bubble it's easy to see why this is stupid, but the majority of the UK might look at a newspaper headline such as "May cracks down on terrorism on UK soil" and think Hey, she's actually doing something about all these scary terrorist events I hear about.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#49

Post by nickjackson »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #8

Biggest problem IMO with this is that they left the data collection and storage to each ISP individually without any support. This results in a large surface area for security failure and the inevitable leak of this data into the public domain. I wrote my MP with these concerns but they wanted it on the cheap and forced it through. I don't like that they're storing the data in general as even if they centralised it a…

Yep. TalkTalk can't even keep their customers key details secure, and now they are expected to keep browser history as well? It's a joke.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/talktalk-fin...

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#50

Post by dalbasal »

mabbo wrote: post #6

I know of very few British MPs, being a Canadian who watches occasionally British panel shows, but I do hear about Tom Watson fairly frequently and almost always for things I am in favor of. Now here he is championing the fight against mass surveillance as well. British folks: is this guy eventually going to replace Corbyn? He seems likeable enough to. And he has a sense of humor- the first time I heard of him was wh…

Probably not soon anyway as he's associated with the old, non-corbyn faction of the party which seems to be in disfavour ATM.

Though... he does currently have a shadow secretary position. In theory that makes him a ministerial candidate and that (also in theory) puts him in position to create labour's policy on such topics.

Writing the cheques from government is always different to being in opposition or even a disident backbencher. But you're right. He does seems to have an understanding of these issues, and guts.

Post reply on HN