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

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#161

Post by rapala »

lucb1e wrote: post #59
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You kinda hint at the answer in your post already - you keep referring to "the government", but who? Is there one or a few people responsible for directing others to perform the unlawful surveillance? Or are they too protected by some mechanic? The legal state being "unclear" probably also means that those people can't face judgment for continuing doing it while the judges were still out.

Well somebody or some bodies stood for the law and approved it. They needn't all go to jail or it would become a neat implement for beheading a government, but allowing them to create such laws without any repercussions is wrong.

Umm... that is exactly how an parliamentary democracy works. The parliament can enact any law. Yes, many such systems contain laws that overrule all other laws and are often harder to change. These are often called constitutions. But I can't recall any constitution that could not be changed.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#162

Post by namelost »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #136
richmarr wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially when the UK doesn't even have a constitution Yeah we do. British Constitution is ace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Constitution_(solitair... Oh, if you meant the government thingy no, we kinda accept that stuff changes... which I think is more useful than holding any one thing as particularly holy and untouchable. The US has got its knickers in a proper twist with all that "money is speech" "wha…

By your own admission, the UK is driven by expediency. The state can do essentially whatever they want, as long as they have a Really Important Reason. Get rid of jury trials for northern Ireland for a few years, because it's cheaper than properly protecting juries? No problem! The American constitution exists to say that there are some things the government ought not do, even if it makes their job harder, and that i…

The problem the US has is that the constitution has two roles. Firstly it specifies the relationship between the federal government and the states (a kind of treaty). Secondly it specifies the rights of individuals.

While the treaty between the states and the federal government has very little reason for change, the rights of individuals need to change as society changes.

But the US constitution does not lend itself to easy modification, so in practice the Supreme Court is used to "interpret" further individual rights into existence.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#163

Post by jkaplowitz »

lucozade wrote: post #128
mtgx wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ECJ has ruled less awful laws than this to be invalid under the fundamental charter of rights. I wouldn't be worried about them. It's the UK courts you have to worry about when deciding such cases, especially when the UK doesn't even have a constitution and they kind of play it by ear.

Not sure a constitution necessarily helps. In this case, the Human Rights legislation is acting like a constitution in the sense that it's a benchmark that laws are being held to. A constitution can sometimes be a fairly negative thing. You regularly see US decisions being made against the Constitution where it blatantly isn't applicable. You rarely (ever?) see SCOTUS saying that the Constitution doesn't apply so it…

What would it mean for the US Constitution not to apply to a law within the US?

For a federal law, either it's within Congress's specifically enumerated and limited powers (as interpreted by SCOTUS) and therefore valid, or else the law is invalid.

For a state law, the US Supreme Court will only base their ruling on the US Constitution if anything legally binding at the federal level (including but not limited to the Constitution) forbids or allows that state law.

Otherwise, SCOTUS and every other court will defer on state law to the state Constitution as interpreted by state courts, but from a federal constitutional perspective, states can pass whatever laws aren't federally forbidden.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#164

Post by jwdunne »

lucozade wrote: post #157
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your own admission, the UK is driven by expediency. The state can do essentially whatever they want, as long as they have a Really Important Reason. Get rid of jury trials for northern Ireland for a few years, because it's cheaper than properly protecting juries? No problem! The American constitution exists to say that there are some things the government ought not do, even if it makes their job harder, and that i…

> Get rid of jury trials for northern Ireland for a few years I believe we still have Diplock courts. They were actually put in place because internment without trial was considered too draconian. The kind of thing that would never occur with a constitution (give me a G...) > Californian cities can take their own people's guns away How does that work? Is California accepting that the 2nd amendment put in the bit abou…

Quite annoyed is a bit extreme. I'm miffed but annoyed? Rocking the boat mate.

Not having a written constitution isn't as bad as it seems. The government can't do what they want. The courts do rule against them.

We have quite a deep history of law that sets things out. Thousands of years. Sometimes we get silly things, like until recently pregnant women having the right to piss in a bobby's helmet, but it's very much a case of a complex set of rights wrestled from the ruling classes over those thousand years or so.

The government is in a precarious situation at the moment. They are extremely weak. It wouldn't take a whole lot to get this legislation outright neutered. If Tom Watson is working on it, I imagine Labour are doing just that.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#165

Post by rapala »

coldtea wrote: post #62
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You kinda hint at the answer in your post already - you keep referring to "the government", but who? Is there one or a few people responsible for directing others to perform the unlawful surveillance? Or are they too protected by some mechanic? The legal state being "unclear" probably also means that those people can't face judgment for continuing doing it while the judges were still out.

> You kinda hint at the answer in your post already - you keep referring to "the government", but who? Is there one or a few people responsible for directing others to perform the unlawful surveillance? Yes. Those that signed related orders. It doesn't even matter if they get them all, just some high enough would be enough to deter others.

The Human Rigths Act specifically does not grant the courts the possibility of not following Acts of Parliament when the too conflict. The courts can only give an declaration of incombability which they have done. This is how an Parliamentary sovereignty works.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#166

Post by rapala »

turc1656 wrote: post #152
dmix wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts didn't technically rule that it violated a particular persons rights, only that the law lacked safeguards to prevent such an abuse. That quote was by a Labour minister not the judge. But otherwise I agree with holding politicians accountable, as this has no doubt already broken at least a few peoples rights.

I disagree. The judges held that it was "inconsistent with EU law". That means it is illegal because it goes against the (higher) EU law. They held that the reason it was inconsistent was because it lacked "prior review by a court or independent administrative authority" - basically, due process. It seems clear from the language of the judges that rights were violated without due process. That's no minor offense.

> That means it is illegal because it goes against the (higher) EU law.

It actually does not mean that. The courts cannot ignore an Act of Parliament even if it conflicts with the Human Rigths Act but can o ly give an declaration of incombability which they have done.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#167

Post by waqf »

namelost wrote: post #162
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your own admission, the UK is driven by expediency. The state can do essentially whatever they want, as long as they have a Really Important Reason. Get rid of jury trials for northern Ireland for a few years, because it's cheaper than properly protecting juries? No problem! The American constitution exists to say that there are some things the government ought not do, even if it makes their job harder, and that i…

The problem the US has is that the constitution has two roles. Firstly it specifies the relationship between the federal government and the states (a kind of treaty). Secondly it specifies the rights of individuals. While the treaty between the states and the federal government has very little reason for change, the rights of individuals need to change as society changes. But the US constitution does not lend itself…

Three roles — it gives individuals rights versus the federal government, which on the one hand is a fairly logical extension of a treaty between the states and the federal government but which on the other hand has the problems you describe — and it also gives individuals rights versus the states, which is a totally different and very weird kettle of ball games.

On the plain meaning of the text, an amendment like "Congress shall make no law …" wouldn't even bind the states in the first place, but apparently it does.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#168

Post by qubex »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #137
qubex wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is the output of politicians so in a certain sense they can collectively always pass legislation that protects themselves anyway so there’s not much point in compelling them into doing so by prosecuting them. Parliamentary immunity also exists in many countries to ensure that parliamentarians cannot be prosecuted for acts they undertook whilst in office (or other acts, so they that they cannot be compelled in…

In the UK the Queen passes the laws, so there seems no reason she couldn't issue a writ making particular actions of MPs unlawful. Presumably she doesn't because she rather likes the money and the palaces more than she wants to settle the question as to how you have a parliamentary democracy and monarchy with "you don't".

I don’t know if that is even possible within the confines of the UK’s latter-day (uncodified) constitutional monarchy, but the Queen resuming the practice of unilaterally imposing laws upon Parliament and the Realm at large would be one of the most terrifying regressions of the past several centuries.

Besides, the scenario you depict further reinforces my argument that there’s a “trusted root” at the apex of our democracies and that this entity (whether the Queen, or Parliament, or Congress, or the President, or whatever-have-you) can pursue its own interests with abandon, and there’s nothing we buggers further down the pyramid can do to prevent it.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#169

Post by jen20 »

n4r9 wrote: post #48
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.

I would imagine if newspapers phrased it as "May enacts legislation which will allow the government to spy on what porn you look at" rather than the meek-mannered garbage they actually print, the opinion of the average person in the UK would be quite different.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#170

Post by namelost »

waqf wrote: post #167
namelost wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem the US has is that the constitution has two roles. Firstly it specifies the relationship between the federal government and the states (a kind of treaty). Secondly it specifies the rights of individuals. While the treaty between the states and the federal government has very little reason for change, the rights of individuals need to change as society changes. But the US constitution does not lend itself…

Three roles — it gives individuals rights versus the federal government, which on the one hand is a fairly logical extension of a treaty between the states and the federal government but which on the other hand has the problems you describe — and it also gives individuals rights versus the states, which is a totally different and very weird kettle of ball games. On the plain meaning of the text, an amendment like " C…

Yes and when the rights of states clash with the rights of individuals, there are often nonsensical consequences.

For instance, in 2005 the US was one of the last countries to abolish the death penalty for children, not by passing a law, but on the action of the judiciary interpreting a new individual right into the constitution (i.e. to not be executed for crimes committed under the age of 18). Quite how they managed to get the age 18 out of the words "cruel and unusual punishments" is something to ponder.

Prior to that, the states had an inviolable constitutional right to execute children.

So the US was prevented from ratifying the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child because Congress couldn't make a law violating the right of states to execute children, yet the US states could not individually ratify the UNCRC themselves because that would be violating the right of Congress to make treaties.

The outcome of this battle of rights between governmental bodies, is that children in the US are to this day denied individual rights that they would otherwise have under international law, or even national law, and rely on 12 judges to extract their rights from thin air.

Post reply on HN