UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
theguardian.com
UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#2“was unlawful”, “is unlawful” and “will be unlawful”.
It will not stop just because of the court decision. The rule of law is for mere mortals, and not the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, unfortunately.
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#3Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the "temporary" Terrorism Act 2000 and its modifications in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 and/or RIPA.
I'm getting a bit tired of politicians standing up in the House of Common's, stating we need a "temporary" act to reduce liberty and privacy under the guise of terrorism, only to extend the rulings indefinitely. It's bullshit.
Also, with regards to RIPA, the section related to "Use of communication data" requires only "senior member of that authority", whilst wire taps and reading post requires authorisation from "Warrant from Home Secretary or Cabinet Secretary for Justice". The first one should also move under this authority and blanket surveillance should be banned.
Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time.
P.S. Interestingly, Germany is one of the few large European nations with troops in "Muslim lands", that has to date not had a major terrorist incident. They have a large Muslim population, which although largely very moderate and westernised, do have a minority of people who are preaching extremism. Also, many of the terrorist cells (including 9/11) have originated, or passed through Germany.
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#4Such rules will need to be accompanied by consequences for those doing it. A ruling without enforcement isn't worth much. That said, this is a great, and perhaps quite surprising ruling, considering it's a secret Court.
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#5Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the "temporary" Terrorism Act 2000 and its modifications in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 and/or RIPA. I'm getting a bit tired of politicians standing up in the House of Common's, stating we need a "temporary" act to reduce liberty and privacy under the guise of terrorism, only to extend the rulings inde…
Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time.
I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?
That really dilutes the value of the other points you make – which I do agree with.
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#6“was unlawful”, “is unlawful” and “will be unlawful”. It will not stop just because of the court decision. The rule of law is for mere mortals, and not the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, unfortunately.
The UK has a pretty good track record of nobody being above the law.
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#7Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the "temporary" Terrorism Act 2000 and its modifications in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 and/or RIPA. I'm getting a bit tired of politicians standing up in the House of Common's, stating we need a "temporary" act to reduce liberty and privacy under the guise of terrorism, only to extend the rulings inde…
There is every difference in the world between an agency being able to do what it wants, and politicians needing to stand up and make it so, and explain themselves to their constituents. I'm sorry you don't see that
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#8Such rules will need to be accompanied by consequences for those doing it. A ruling without enforcement isn't worth much. That said, this is a great, and perhaps quite surprising ruling, considering it's a secret Court.
It doesn't strike me as particularly surprising. Judges have secrets they don't want spooks reading, too.
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#9So, one of the key things about this ruling is that it declares "that prior to the disclosures made and
referred to in the Tribunal’s Judgment of 5 December 2014, the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or (on the Claimants’ case) Upstream, contravened Articles 8 or 10 ECHR".[1]
ECHR refers to the European Convention on Human Rights[2]. Article 8 covers privacy. Article 10 covers freedom of expression.
The Human Rights Act 1998 declares that "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right"[3] (and GCHQ is classified as a public authority) but I'm not aware of any legislation that would classify such actions as a crime. Therefore, while monetary damages may be awarded[4], it seems unlikely that anyone could be held personally accountable (in the sense of being charged with a crime).
Ironically, the Home Office just announced a public consultation on the draft codes of practice for interception of communications and "equipment interference" (which covers hacking).[4]
1: http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Ri...
3: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6
4: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8
5: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/interception-of-...
Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
#10So, one of the key things about this ruling is that it declares "that prior to the disclosures made and referred to in the Tribunal’s Judgment of 5 December 2014, the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or (on the Claimants’ case) Upstream, con…
I may be alone here, but while I don't always agree with the laws of the country, I want the government, army, police, and civil service to be acting inside those laws.