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

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#91

Post by eeZah7Ux »

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.

> It's dangerous to criminalise political tier decisions and actions

Politicians should not be above the law.

On the contrary, the public figures are supposed to be more transparent and held accountable more readily than private citizens.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#92

Post by simias »

mrtksn wrote: post #33
simias wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have anything particular in mind or are you just guessing? This is all very vague and smells faintly of tinfoil-hattery. Not that I don't believe that the USA are heavily involved in Europe and cooperate pretty tightly with European intelligence services but the original question was about mass surveillance of the citizens. For example how do you explain the GDRP if the point is to let the USA snoop on Europea…

I don't remember where exactly I read about this, but I recall that it was an opinion peace based on the NSA leaks. Anyway, there's the Five Eyes alliance that does it, why wouldn't there be an arrangement between EU and USA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes >"Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each ot…

That's fair but the only complicit European country in the Five Eyes is the UK (and, well, not for long anymore I suppose). I don't think I'm willing to jump to the conclusion that "if the UK does it then certainly the other european countries must do the same". The UKUSA relationship is rather unique.

At this point you need to look on a country-by-country basis, I doubt there's a secret EU-level agreement to let the USA spy on EU citizens. For instance I could believe that the Germans might consider it, if only because they have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to international intelligence and diplomacy. That being said industrial espionage would be an obvious drawback.

On the other hand I really don't expect French intelligence to accept such a scheme. French has its own network for international intelligence and is perfectly capable of spying on its own citizens if it wants to. There's simply too much to lose letting the USA in unchecked.

As for the rest of Europe it's also hard to make a simple guess. Some countries like Poland are historically very USA-friendly and might accept something like that. Others on the other hand align much more with Russia nowadays and might be more willing to collaborate with the FSB than the CIA.

So I still don't buy the "european countries let the USA spy on their citizens". It's too much of a leap considered the evidence we have.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#93

Post by naasking »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #57
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 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.

Terrorists would quickly know about other cell failures if no attacks ever succeed, so they would already be changing their game. Constantly thwarting attacks would also increase confidence in the effectiveness of these measures, not decrease them. If there was evidence to speak of, we would have seen it by now. The arguments in favour of surveillance are smoke and mirrors.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#94

Post by naasking »

mseebach wrote: post #79
ChrisSD wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diff…

Humint is always more effective than sigint at these efforts. Far too much noise in the former case.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#95

Post by EnderMB »

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 theory, wouldn't it require someone challenging the government in a court of law?

It sounds like this kind of thing is very common, but because there's no challenge to these crimes the government just carry on as normal.

I know no more about the law than the average person, but surely a large-enough group of people, backed by someone with legal/political pull, could challenge the government?

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#96

Post by Silhouette »

topbanana wrote: post #81
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?

"Mass surveillance was conducted illegally before and continues to this day. Does anyone really think some "law" will change this?" What it changes is whether you can be criminally prosecuted based on circumstantial / irrelevant / trumped up evidence.

What it changes is whether you can be criminally prosecuted based on circumstantial / irrelevant / trumped up evidence.

Although that is obviously an improvement, it is of limited benefit if mere suspicion of criminal behaviour (including "terrorism", the current root password to the legal system) is still enough to impose serious extra-judicial restrictions on someone's life, and there are many laws and government mechanisms that provide for that.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#97

Post by [deleted] »

simias wrote: post #92
mrtksn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember where exactly I read about this, but I recall that it was an opinion peace based on the NSA leaks. Anyway, there's the Five Eyes alliance that does it, why wouldn't there be an arrangement between EU and USA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes >"Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each ot…

That's fair but the only complicit European country in the Five Eyes is the UK (and, well, not for long anymore I suppose). I don't think I'm willing to jump to the conclusion that "if the UK does it then certainly the other european countries must do the same". The UK USA relationship is rather unique. At this point you need to look on a country-by-country basis, I doubt there's a secret EU-level agreement to let th…

[deleted]

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#98

Post by rocqua »

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…

Because those who wrote the law have cover from parliament passing the law. Who would we be cuffing? Those who drafted the law? Or maybe those who whipped party members into line to vote for the law?

In my opinion, people drafting illegal laws is to be expected. It is the responsibility of parliament and the house of lords to keep illegal laws from being enacted. So if we were to cuff anyone, it seems to me it ought to be parliament. For parliament we have a different measure than the courts though. That would be elections! It seems less that wise for the public prosecutor to be able to target members of parliament for how they voted. The solution should be sought in a better democracy.

An underlying issue here might be that a majority of voter would actually like to see the constitutional basis for this ruling changed. The Brexit vote could be seen as supporting this. If indeed the electorate wants to get rid of this, there is very little to be done. And that is how a democracy is kind of supposed to work. Sometimes, this makes democracies suck. But like Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms we've tried.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#99

Post by iand »

simias wrote: post #90
iand wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/gchq-europe-... On your second point, industrial espionage is, I suspect, a large factor in determining which countries should be spied on. Does anyone really think that Boeing doesn't get competitor info from US agencies?

Right, but that's my point. Your article is about the USA spying on European citizens (with the complicity of the UK) and the governments of these countries complained (at least publicly): >The German, French and Spanish governments have reacted angrily to reports based on National Security Agency (NSA) files leaked by Snowden since June, revealing the interception of communications by tens of millions of their citiz…

From http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/15/world/emerging-role-for-th...

> Spying on allies for economic advantage is a crucial new assignment for the C.I.A. now that American foreign policy is focused on commercial interests abroad. President Clinton made economic intelligence a high priority of his Administration, specifically information to protect and defend American competitiveness, technology and financial security in a world where an economic crisis can spread across global markets in minutes.

Or, more recently, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25907502

>US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden has alleged the National Security Agency engaged in industrial espionage. >In an interview with Germany's ARD TV channel, the former NSA contractor said the agency would spy on big German companies that competed with US firms.

And the US spying on trade talk negotiations from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/germany-eu-us-...

>Der Spiegel said files obtained by whistleblower Edward Snowden showed that the NSA spied on the EU in New York after it moved to new rooms in autumn 2012 and that the NSA runs a bugging programme in more than 80 embassies and consulates worldwide called the "Special Collection Service", which has "little or nothing to do with warding off terrorists"

Other countries too, such as France, from http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Espionage-Takes-Toll-On-Ai...

> Gone are the Cold War days when one Soviet agent reportedly tried to stick a gyroscope in his pocket during one trade fair. But a Russian spy official and a former chief of French intelligence said in recent interviews that that their agents were involved in industrial espionage.

Post reply on HN