UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful • Hacker News Board

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#171

Post by confounded » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

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…

Do bear in mind that he voted for bringing the Investigatory Powers Act in to law.

He's a career politician. He'll be very pleased to be in the Guardian today.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#172

Post by ascorbic » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #91

dalbasal wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not illegal to pass a bad law. When the Supreme Court finds the law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act or EU law, they rule that the law needs to be changed. They don't prosecute the MPs that voted for it.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#173

Post by nkkollaw » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 11:16 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #78

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.

Yes but what does surveillance have to do with bombings. Have they ever stopped 1 single bombing because they were filming regular people going by their business..?

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#174

Post by nkkollaw » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 11:18 PM UTC

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.

Since that seems to be a popular excuse to start wars and otherwise-unacceptable laws, I doubt they're doing that.

Fear is pretty good for politicians.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#175

Post by nkkollaw » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 11:19 PM UTC

arca_vorago wrote: post #73

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…

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

What are those..?

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#176

Post by bigbluedots » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 1:49 AM UTC

nkkollaw wrote: post #173

mseebach wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but what does surveillance have to do with bombings. Have they ever stopped 1 single bombing because they were filming regular people going by their business..?

Maybe, maybe not. They wouldn't tell you either way

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#177

Post by goombastic » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 2:16 AM UTC

ahamedirshad123 wrote: post #52

Aadhaar in India, hopefully!

Aadhaar in India is far worse.

99% of the data has leaked multiple times already. It also seems to sport all the classic signs of an amateur project. Post facto design changes, unauthenticated mails, unprofessional mobile apps, leaky access to all of the data irrespective of your need, terrible code (same hard coded passwords for everyone), cludgy design increments making the problems worse while not acknowledging existing issues, logical errors (like beign unable to reset passwords if you have lost mobile device) and the deaths of people unable to access hospitals and food in some areas, Police cases against people reporting on vulnerabilities, ... ...

It's a kafkaesque nightmare and I am surprised no one mentions it on HN much. Probably because it's a slow motion train wreck.

I am not sure how the Indian courts are even going to justify continuing with the system anymore given the absolutely callous handling of the data thus far by their Aadhaar agency.

In the end, India's aadhaar is actually not a government project, it is a private project run by a bunch of companies run by some ex infosys top shots who have time and again proven to only look after their own interests.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#178

Post by ninkendo » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 2:37 AM UTC

Sean1708 wrote: post #117

ninkendo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took one look at that article and the fact that the U.S. is literally painted the same color as China as having an equal amount of internet censorship would be hilarious if it weren’t so egregiously misleading. There’s internet censorship and there’s China. Nobody else is in the same league. The only explanation I can think of is if censorship and surveillance are just being casually lumped together, but people und…

> The only explanation I can think of is if censorship and surveillance are just being casually lumped together The chart is literally titled "Internet censorship and surveillance by country (2014)" with categories that don't differentiate between censorship and surveillance, so I'm relatively certain that the two have been lumped together.

Sure, but that doesn’t imply that there’s an equivalency between the two, or that the grading scale should be course-grained enough to show no difference between the U.S. and China.

If I made an article called “human rights violations and numbers of reality tv shows by country” and painted Saudi Arabia and Germany the same color, it should rightly raise some eyebrows.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#179

Post by dlwdlw » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 3:00 AM UTC

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…

Reminds me of bad actors in large companies. You'd think it is beneficial to remove them as fast as possible, but in any sort of bubbled environment, extrication is not easy. Especially when the bad decisions are a result of the existing system and the said actor in tandem. (That is, that person may be "good" in another system)

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#180

Post by coldtea » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 8:27 AM UTC

rapala wrote: post #165

coldtea wrote: post #62

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? 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.

Maybe they could start with a constitution.