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

Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

privacynotprism.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#41

Post by tptacek »

DanBC wrote: post #40
tptacek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, first of all, they generally can't.

There's 4 judges from New York on scotus.

And in addition to the fact that they're 4 judges out of 9,800 total state and federal judges (which federal judges are also regionally allocated so as not to have Connecticut judges hearing Alaskan controversies), those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear.

It's impossible to look at the US judicial system and come away with the conclusion that it heedless of the concerns of Floridians hearing Alaskan cases. The US system is almost literally the opposite of that.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#42

Post by Zigurd »

rayiner wrote: post #18

I can't believe anyone still thinks international tribunals are a good idea. As if not bad enough for unelected judges to subvert democracy in their own county, but now you can have unelected judges in other countries subvert democracy in yours!

The result we get is that the executive of a government claims they have complete freedom of action regarding national security. National security becomes a magic word that unlocks unconstitutional actions when you mix domestic operations with national security.

Are you claiming that an international tribunal to try a case against an unlawful executive is worse? Or are you claiming that if the executive does it, it isn't unlawful?

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#43

Post by spongle »

cobrophy wrote: post #26
lmm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but UKIP are nutters.

Nutters that are becoming increasingly popular.

Indeed. The problem Is that nutters vote nutters in.

A big chunk of the UK consists of nutters. Look at the EDL for example. I've lived places where idiots like that are worshipped.

Thoroughly depressing.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#45

Post by DanBC »

tptacek wrote: post #41
DanBC wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's 4 judges from New York on scotus.

And in addition to the fact that they're 4 judges out of 9,800 total state and federal judges (which federal judges are also regionally allocated so as not to have Connecticut judges hearing Alaskan controversies), those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. It's impossible to look at the US judicial system and come away with the conclusion that it heedless of the concerns of Floridians hearing Ala…

> those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear.

And the ECHR are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. Thus, we agree that just as scotus doesn't mean that you have a bunch of gun-slingin' Texans passing laws to control the lives of portland Oregon hipsters, we don't have frog-eating French controlling the lives of the Roast Beefs.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#46

Post by joelrunyon »

brackin wrote: post #6

Paypal blocked my card when trying to donate, won't start a conspiracy theory.

What's the best P2P paypal alternative?

I'm off of paypal for accepting payments but would love a solid alternative to sending money to people internationally (Chase Quickpay is great but you can't do international xfers).

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#47

Post by arethuza »

cabalamat wrote: post #14
ksrm wrote: post #12

It's times like this that I'm very glad the ECHR exists.

It is perhaps not surprising that the government wants to scrap it -- http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/30/conservitives-scr...

I was a bit vague on the European Convention on Human Rights - this article from the BBC is quite good:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm

One particularly interesting point:

"The UK was one of the first members of the Council of Europe to ratify the Convention when it passed through Parliament in 1951."

Indeed, Chruchill seems to have been very keen on the idea - how ironic!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009...

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#48

Post by arethuza »

cobrophy wrote: post #26
lmm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but UKIP are nutters.

Nutters that are becoming increasingly popular.

I don't think UKIP have much support here in Scotland - I suspect most people see them as the "Little Englander" party:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-ukip-ha...

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#49

Post by Ihmahr »

joelrunyon wrote: post #46
brackin wrote: post #6

Paypal blocked my card when trying to donate, won't start a conspiracy theory.

What's the best P2P paypal alternative? I'm off of paypal for accepting payments but would love a solid alternative to sending money to people internationally (Chase Quickpay is great but you can't do international xfers).

Bitcoin, but you knew this right?

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#50

Post by gadders »

GunlogAlm wrote: post #16
ksrm wrote: post #12

It's times like this that I'm very glad the ECHR exists.

If UKIP had their way, we wouldn't be in the European Union or Council of Europe and would be withdrawn from the Human Rights Convention.

And a good thing too. That way prisoners wouldn't get the vote, we'd be able to deport terrorists etc etc.

I can't see any additional rights that I have that I didn't have before it became part of British law. All I see are dis-benefits.

Post reply on HN