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

71–80 of 191 posts

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#71

Post by mabbo »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #13
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…

Tom Watson has agreeable views in a number of areas, but he's unlikely to be a candidate for the leadership any time soon. Quite aside from anything, Corbyn is unfortunately unassailable at the moment.

> Corbyn is unfortunately unassailable at the moment

But... Why? I don't have a horse in this race at all, but Corbyn just doesn't seem to be able to win. He seems so uncharismatic. The last election wasn't so much him gaining seats as it was May losing them.

With a minority government, May's days are numbered. It feels to me like the time to replace Corbyn is now, before the next election.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#72

Post by collyw »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #53
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?

We already knew that though - anything Snowden published was just proof of what pretty much everyone already suspected was happening and/or possible.

On the contrary, plenty of people talked about the sort of thing that Snowden revealed, but were dismissed as tin foil hat wearers.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#73

Post by arca_vorago »

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…

The surveillance engine in the five eyes primarily, was always really intended primarily as a tool for control, rather than security (see: Bill Binney's testimony). Don't forget the major data storage facilities that were created, they also want to be able to "walk the cat back" so once a dissident rears their head they can retroactively get dirt on them.

Secondarily, it's about major contract kickbacks for the good ol boys.

The most shameful part of it all is how the majority of the populace just subserviently and silently acquiesced, except to criticize those of us trying to warn everyone. (via the classic bullshit arguments we had to put up with, such as if you have nothing to hide, etc).

If it weren't for Snowden people would still be calling many of us "conspiracy theorists".

They would still if we vocalized the other things...

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#74

Post by MaxBarraclough »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #63
turc1656 wrote: post #42

"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…

In the case of the Flint water debacle, there were several indictments. It's been a really positive change at the state and local level. It empowers the career experts to say to the political appointees and elected officials: "no, I'm not going to jail over this." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/flint-water-crisis-man... https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/flint-water-... http://michiganradio.org/po…

> It empowers the career experts to say to the political appointees and elected officials: "no, I'm not going to jail over this."

Surely the point is that You could go to jail for this.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#75

Post by hippich »

turc1656 wrote: post #42

"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…

well... whom you would like to send to jail? actual clerk, his/her boss, department head? queen? whole government? (i would love this one :))

Government is unique entity - it is a entity 'too big to fail'. And we all know how entities that can not die act.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#76

Post by ivanbakel »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #74
dangerlibrary wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of the Flint water debacle, there were several indictments. It's been a really positive change at the state and local level. It empowers the career experts to say to the political appointees and elected officials: "no, I'm not going to jail over this." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/flint-water-crisis-man... https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/flint-water-... http://michiganradio.org/po…

> It empowers the career experts to say to the political appointees and elected officials: "no, I'm not going to jail over this." Surely the point is that You could go to jail for this .

Which is why the experts can use that now very real threat to refuse to carry out certain political commands. You have to have the possibility of going to jail in order to refuse to go to jail.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#77

Post by rebuilder »

turc1656 wrote: post #42

"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…

The people writing poor laws are supposed to be held accountable by the population in a process called an election. If that process is not working, it seems unlikely any legislation to punish lawmakers will fix it - they make the laws, after all.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#78

Post by mseebach »

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…

There's a simple, political answer. If you're the MP for, say, Manchester after the Ariana Grande bombing, you're (probably) not going to survive politically after trying to make philosophical points about privacy to angry, grieving parents (on live, national TV), explaining why you voted against the surveillance bill.

It's an example of an issue with concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#79

Post by mseebach »

ChrisSD wrote: post #69
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue also that no one has proven that it's efficient at preventing terrorist attacks. What if arrests in terrorist investigations are kept under wraps though? If the public would hear of thwarted terrorist attacks on a regular basis, either they'd feel more and more unsafe - that is, the terrorists win - or the terrorists find out about other cells and find ways to circumvent detection.

So arrests but no trials? Or are the trials secret too?

Neither. Successful anti-terrorism is about nipping this stuff in the bud before the potential perpetrators get close to having specific plans. You can easily think of tactics that would disrupt recruiting, financing and supply chains quietly, all the way down to simply having a "friendly" chat with someone (and/or their mother).

The extend to which this happens and to what degree surveillance helps with this is difficult to ascertain, of course.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#80

Post by turc1656 »

dalbasal wrote: post #60
turc1656 wrote: post #42

"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…

Well... These are the (large) cracks in rule of law that no one has ever managed to close entirely. It's dangerous to criminalise political tier decisions and actions, just like it's dangerous to prosecute former politicians. It harms the ability to preserve peaceful transitions. Criminals or not. First, it opens a door to political purging. Also incentives to use power in order to remain free is just too big.

I agree with you generally, but not in this case. Anyone with a double digit IQ should have been able to know that this was illegal. This wasn't one of those gray areas where federal agents are wondering how far their power goes. A simple comprehension of basic human rights as they have been acknowledged formally in law should lead any decent, reasonable person to conclude these surveillance programs were seriously against the law. That's why I don't apply the same good faith exemption that most law enforcement receives most of the time. This is gross, willful negligence and they are now trying to claim ignorance.
Post reply on HN