UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa
13 comments
Even worse, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30345801 "GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule". This is ridiculous and insulting.
That's a great point.
About the only thing you can do is call them on it in social media; tell them you are paying attention:
About the only thing you can do is call them on it in social media; tell them you are paying attention:
@BBC why won't you use the word "illegal" or "unlawful" in the headline?
This is far bigger than censure.I'm going to _try_ to stop reading BBC News instead.
It won't be easy because I've been using it for years. I like the site's navigation and readability but the content is often lacking given their resources.
They did something similar with the Prince Andrew story, reporting his "emphatic" denials before mentioning the allegations.
Clearly, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, the Beeb regularly seems eager to jump to the defense of the powerful rather than scrutinise.
I'm veering way off-topic now but this morning they had a big, brash, bullshit "breaking news" banner for a piece about a tennis player's wedding date.
That may be of interest to the public but it's not in the public interest. Too often the BBC conflates the two as meaning the same thing.
It won't be easy because I've been using it for years. I like the site's navigation and readability but the content is often lacking given their resources.
They did something similar with the Prince Andrew story, reporting his "emphatic" denials before mentioning the allegations.
Clearly, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, the Beeb regularly seems eager to jump to the defense of the powerful rather than scrutinise.
I'm veering way off-topic now but this morning they had a big, brash, bullshit "breaking news" banner for a piece about a tennis player's wedding date.
That may be of interest to the public but it's not in the public interest. Too often the BBC conflates the two as meaning the same thing.
> However, the Beeb regularly seems eager to jump to the defense of the powerful rather than scrutinise.
Well, the one time they got a bit too uppity (on the Iraq invasion), their head was literally cut off.
The UK is a funny country. Lots of freedom, but certain powerful interests simply won't be restrained by things like laws or common decency.
Well, the one time they got a bit too uppity (on the Iraq invasion), their head was literally cut off.
The UK is a funny country. Lots of freedom, but certain powerful interests simply won't be restrained by things like laws or common decency.
I borrowed this and tweeted it. Attributed to you.
Have you read the judgement?
It quite literally says they contravened articles 8 or 10 of the ECHR but now comply.
With a quick read up on the ECHR it seems that the judgements made are binding but, since according to the judgement they are now compliant, it doesn't seem like any action will be taken.
Again this is from a view of complete ignorance of the law, but censure seems like the most appropriate word in this case.
It quite literally says they contravened articles 8 or 10 of the ECHR but now comply.
With a quick read up on the ECHR it seems that the judgements made are binding but, since according to the judgement they are now compliant, it doesn't seem like any action will be taken.
Again this is from a view of complete ignorance of the law, but censure seems like the most appropriate word in this case.
It looks like the article was rewritten to focus more what what is happening now than what happened in the past. It doesn't look particularly like underhandedness to me
[deleted]
So, 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-...
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-...
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.
I get the impression that the agencies actually do want to act legally. And the government go to great efforts to make sure that these kind of actions are legallised after the fact. I wouldn't be suprised if this ruling is used as an excuse to leave the ECHR.
Personally I think it is better to have tight laws that are sometimes broken than loose laws that authorize anything. I understand that there are situations where agents may have to break the law and should have a reasonable defence against prosecution (akin to self defence). Instead we get this world in which these grey areas are ignored to the detriment of everyone.
Personally I think it is better to have tight laws that are sometimes broken than loose laws that authorize anything. I understand that there are situations where agents may have to break the law and should have a reasonable defence against prosecution (akin to self defence). Instead we get this world in which these grey areas are ignored to the detriment of everyone.
You're being downvoted unfairly IMHO. I'm against the status quo, but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated.
There are a lot of legal exemptions for agencies, but they are well aware they're not above the law. The public scrutiny will create genuine headaches for them, and I can guarantee you right now that there are a lot of people whose sole job is to ensure that they meet directives.
They're not gonna change international agreements over it though.
I am surprised that people on HN aren't seeing this for the genuine victory it is; only law can bind these entities, and it's not a quick process. This is the process working, as well as it ever does (for ill and good).
There are a lot of legal exemptions for agencies, but they are well aware they're not above the law. The public scrutiny will create genuine headaches for them, and I can guarantee you right now that there are a lot of people whose sole job is to ensure that they meet directives.
They're not gonna change international agreements over it though.
I am surprised that people on HN aren't seeing this for the genuine victory it is; only law can bind these entities, and it's not a quick process. This is the process working, as well as it ever does (for ill and good).
> but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated.
I agree. They think they're following UK law. Here's an article from Grauniad which supports that: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gc...
> The briefings, which are entitled UK Operational Legalities, stress that GCHQ "is an organisation with a highly responsible approach to compliance with the law".
> GCHQ also has a well staffed legal team, known as OPP-LEG, to help staff navigate their way through the complexities of the law.
> But there appears to be some nervousness about Tempora. In a paper written for National Security Agency (NSA) analysts entitled A Guide to Using Internet Buffers at GCHQ, the author notes: "[Tempora] represents an exciting opportunity to get direct access to enormous amounts of GCHQ's special source data.
> "As large-scale buffering of metadata and content represent a new concept for GCHQ's exploitation of the internet, GCHQ's legal and policy officers are understandably taking a careful approach to their access and use."
I agree. They think they're following UK law. Here's an article from Grauniad which supports that: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gc...
> The briefings, which are entitled UK Operational Legalities, stress that GCHQ "is an organisation with a highly responsible approach to compliance with the law".
> GCHQ also has a well staffed legal team, known as OPP-LEG, to help staff navigate their way through the complexities of the law.
> But there appears to be some nervousness about Tempora. In a paper written for National Security Agency (NSA) analysts entitled A Guide to Using Internet Buffers at GCHQ, the author notes: "[Tempora] represents an exciting opportunity to get direct access to enormous amounts of GCHQ's special source data.
> "As large-scale buffering of metadata and content represent a new concept for GCHQ's exploitation of the internet, GCHQ's legal and policy officers are understandably taking a careful approach to their access and use."
The mob also has well staffed legal teams to help their staff navigate through the complexities of the law.
It's easy to keep the appearance of following the law when you're a secret organisation on a mission, with little public oversight. And unlike organised crime, intelligence services don't have to rely on blackmail to get a direct line to the executive and legislation.
Admit to the stuff that's legal, make the stuff that's borderline a political issue, make excuses for the stuff that was illegal then retroactively legalise it, all the while relying on the bottom end of the iceberg being secret for long enough that you've got time to destroy the evidence or nobody cares anymore.
I'm sure that's how it works, it's not even malicious, it's just tribalism. It's why we institute transparency and accountability in most other places. Give your local library enough funding and remove all the oversight and in 10 years it'll have a bunch of skeletons in the closet and a "well staffed legal team to help them navigate their way through the complexities of the law."
It's easy to keep the appearance of following the law when you're a secret organisation on a mission, with little public oversight. And unlike organised crime, intelligence services don't have to rely on blackmail to get a direct line to the executive and legislation.
Admit to the stuff that's legal, make the stuff that's borderline a political issue, make excuses for the stuff that was illegal then retroactively legalise it, all the while relying on the bottom end of the iceberg being secret for long enough that you've got time to destroy the evidence or nobody cares anymore.
I'm sure that's how it works, it's not even malicious, it's just tribalism. It's why we institute transparency and accountability in most other places. Give your local library enough funding and remove all the oversight and in 10 years it'll have a bunch of skeletons in the closet and a "well staffed legal team to help them navigate their way through the complexities of the law."
> Personally I think it is better to have tight laws that are sometimes broken than loose laws that authorize anything.
That's not an unreasonable position, but consider this counterpoint: in the long run, there is more danger in people thinking it's sometimes okay to break laws, than in allowing whatever conduct was going to inevitably happen.
That's not an unreasonable position, but consider this counterpoint: in the long run, there is more danger in people thinking it's sometimes okay to break laws, than in allowing whatever conduct was going to inevitably happen.
> That's not an unreasonable position, but consider this counterpoint: in the long run, there is more danger in people thinking it's sometimes okay to break laws, than in allowing whatever conduct was going to inevitably happen.
It seems like the problem is you've got one of these: Low false positives, low false negatives, simple laws; pick two.
To which some people are going to say that we shouldn't have simple laws, but that's really not a good alternative. Even if the law says exactly what you want (which is Hard), the administrative burden of following and enforcing laws that complicated can exceed the benefits.
So if you're stuck choosing between false positives and false negatives, the libertarian position falls out pretty quickly. Because in order to provide deterrence and account for less than 100% enforcement, the penalties for breaking the law are generally much higher than the societal cost of the crime, which means that the government convicting a good person has a much higher societal cost than the government not convicting a bad person. In other words, the laws should err on the side of things not being illegal.
But you're applying this to government action. And there are certainly things government officers can do that justify removing them from the general population and to which the same principle applies. But we have another alternative in this case, which is to remove them from the government. The burden for firing government officers should be a lot lower than for putting them in prison, which means we should reasonably do it a lot more aggressively when there is even the slightest hint of misconduct.
It seems like the problem is you've got one of these: Low false positives, low false negatives, simple laws; pick two.
To which some people are going to say that we shouldn't have simple laws, but that's really not a good alternative. Even if the law says exactly what you want (which is Hard), the administrative burden of following and enforcing laws that complicated can exceed the benefits.
So if you're stuck choosing between false positives and false negatives, the libertarian position falls out pretty quickly. Because in order to provide deterrence and account for less than 100% enforcement, the penalties for breaking the law are generally much higher than the societal cost of the crime, which means that the government convicting a good person has a much higher societal cost than the government not convicting a bad person. In other words, the laws should err on the side of things not being illegal.
But you're applying this to government action. And there are certainly things government officers can do that justify removing them from the general population and to which the same principle applies. But we have another alternative in this case, which is to remove them from the government. The burden for firing government officers should be a lot lower than for putting them in prison, which means we should reasonably do it a lot more aggressively when there is even the slightest hint of misconduct.
I think we've gone far beyond what anyone wants. I'm starting to be a bit surprised by the good news though, I'll take what I can get.
* Until such time as we can fix this mess.
* Until such time as we can fix this mess.
I'm curious about the careful wording they used: this is carefully referring to data gathered by Americans[1] and used by GCHQ, and not to data gathered by GCHQ.
I understand that GCHQ, while not admitting to the existence of TEMPORA in public, is being careful with it, providing in-house lawyers for their staff to operate within what they think the law says.
So this ruling only changes the "We spy on your citizens; you spy on ours" work-around to various laws making it hard to spy on your own citizens. Since the English laws are pretty clear and should be easy enough for GCHQ to work with it's not much change on our side.
I understand that GCHQ, while not admitting to the existence of TEMPORA in public, is being careful with it, providing in-house lawyers for their staff to operate within what they think the law says.
So this ruling only changes the "We spy on your citizens; you spy on ours" work-around to various laws making it hard to spy on your own citizens. Since the English laws are pretty clear and should be easy enough for GCHQ to work with it's not much change on our side.
Whilst 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.
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.
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.
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.
Whilst I am not endorsing the view, I would like to point out that Operation Northwoods–style false‐flag attacks are not a necessary reading of the grandparent's post. It would also be satisfied by the government/security services being aware of a planned attack by actual criminals, and simply letting it happen rather than preventing it as would otherwise be done.
Correct. I can't imagine that a government would be so morally corrupt as to incite, finance and source weapons for Islamic extremists that they then unleash on their own citizens, and then make sure they they all get shot during the rescue to make sure they never talk.
I can imagine that the security agencies make mistakes. I can also imagine that they don't always effectively manage and identify the correct intelligence. Whilst blanket surveillance provides you to monitor all the things, it just makes the haystack bigger. Good intelligence and reliable sources on the other hand (which require smart man-power), is costly and laborious. It helps you know in which bale in the haystack you should be taking a closer look at.
I can imagine that the security agencies make mistakes. I can also imagine that they don't always effectively manage and identify the correct intelligence. Whilst blanket surveillance provides you to monitor all the things, it just makes the haystack bigger. Good intelligence and reliable sources on the other hand (which require smart man-power), is costly and laborious. It helps you know in which bale in the haystack you should be taking a closer look at.
A more diluted version of this conspiracy theory is that there is a roughly constant supply of crazies who want to blow stuff up, that most of them are easy to catch, and that on occasion security agencies let one succeed so that they can get favorable-to-them legislation to happen.
An even more diluted version is that the security services aren't super human, and occasionally make mistakes. Some conspiracy, eh?
No, they are super-human, and all of this is part of an intentional plot to subvert us in a way that won't cause us to rise up and behead the super-humans currently running the show...
Guess you've never heard of Operation Gladio. Yes, these things have happened and will continue to happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
I'm trying to understand your logic. You are saying that because one conspiracy was perhaps true, then this conspiracy is true? That is the logic that my toddler uses.
Try reading. Maybe you'll understand. Although that seems unlikely.
It's not so much that such an attack would be created by the government (which if that's what GP is saying, then I utterly agree with you). It's more what's done after the attack — painting it as a terrorist attack in the first place, then arguing that it like all terrorist attacks could have been prevented if intelligence were more powerful, etc.
I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbc-has-just...
I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbc-has-just...
> I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events.
I agree that the "terrorist" label has become far too common. It's become so ridiculous that the BBC apparently considers "not terrorism" to be newsworthy, eg. from the first page of '"not terrorism" site:bbc.co.uk':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 - Arson != terrorism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 - Electronic cigarettes != terrorism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 - Death threats != terrorism
The most interesting article in those results is the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm - Nail bomb in London market != terrorism
That last one's from 1999, and provides a stark contrast. It's from a time when our home-grown terrorism mainly came from an organised guerilla army, who's achievements included blowing up government conferences. This kind of opportunistic maiming must have seemed inept in comparison.
It's interesting that the British terrorist attacks so far this millenium (7/7, Woolwich, etc.) are more akin to that "non-terrorist" nail bombing than to, for example, 9/11 or the Brighton Hotel bombing.
I agree that the "terrorist" label has become far too common. It's become so ridiculous that the BBC apparently considers "not terrorism" to be newsworthy, eg. from the first page of '"not terrorism" site:bbc.co.uk':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 - Arson != terrorism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 - Electronic cigarettes != terrorism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 - Death threats != terrorism
The most interesting article in those results is the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm - Nail bomb in London market != terrorism
That last one's from 1999, and provides a stark contrast. It's from a time when our home-grown terrorism mainly came from an organised guerilla army, who's achievements included blowing up government conferences. This kind of opportunistic maiming must have seemed inept in comparison.
It's interesting that the British terrorist attacks so far this millenium (7/7, Woolwich, etc.) are more akin to that "non-terrorist" nail bombing than to, for example, 9/11 or the Brighton Hotel bombing.
Conspiracy theories are bullshit 99% of the time, but you must be an idiot to think it's difficult to stage such a thing. Naivety is not a very cute trait in adults (but probably not as dangerous as chemtrail-type stupidity).
Maybe not planned, but the idea that they were "tolerated" because they promoted the agenda for a reasonably low cost seems not too far fetched. grabs tinfoil
"are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?"
Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.
However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.
Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.
However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.
> Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.
For the vast majority of internet users, this is true.
Clarification: Maybe not actually read as most people understand the term, but collect, store, and analyze.
For the vast majority of internet users, this is true.
Clarification: Maybe not actually read as most people understand the term, but collect, store, and analyze.
Much as I'm skeptical of many conspiracy 'types', I think dismissing them in such a facile manner is just stupid, especially if it's true that 'a sizeable proportion of the readership believe it'. If the latter is true, at least it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'.
"it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'"
That's not how the world works. If someone says "I think the government did 9/11", then it doesn't matter how many people agree with him. His opinion is still idiotic.
Similarly I do not have to respect anti-vaxers or Scientologists, just because there are many of them.
That's not how the world works. If someone says "I think the government did 9/11", then it doesn't matter how many people agree with him. His opinion is still idiotic.
Similarly I do not have to respect anti-vaxers or Scientologists, just because there are many of them.
So you're saying no matter who says it in whatever demographic, you've made up your mind about this issue and that's that? If so, I pity your closed-mindedness, and I think we can't have a productive conversation.
(to be clear, I'm highly skeptical of overt conspiracies in general. But if a significant portion of my peers (HN readers) believe a thing, at the very least I try to seriously consider their point of view. Because I'm not infallible. Apparently you are?)
(to be clear, I'm highly skeptical of overt conspiracies in general. But if a significant portion of my peers (HN readers) believe a thing, at the very least I try to seriously consider their point of view. Because I'm not infallible. Apparently you are?)
"I pity your closed-mindedness"
This is the main fallacy of the conspiracy theorist, that those who reject the absurd conspiracy have closed minds.
For more on this, see here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/answering-consp...
This is the main fallacy of the conspiracy theorist, that those who reject the absurd conspiracy have closed minds.
For more on this, see here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/answering-consp...
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
“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.
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.
Lets see what happens to Tony Blair after the Chilcot inquiry report is published:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/tony-bl...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/tony-bl...
As per the article, I don't see the ICC bringing it (who obviously aren't under the thumb of the UK), and if they don't, I really don't see the CPS coming to the conclusion that there's a reasonable chance of conviction, or that it would be in the public interest. Depends what the report says I guess.
Can we also just take a moment to consider the monumental stupidity in accusing Blair of "war crimes" for "crimes against peace" by invoking the Nuremberg principles?? If it's "crime against peace", then it is - under the Nuremberg principles - not a war crime.
Personally, I don't see what is stupid about charging him with an appropriate crime here in the UK (if there is one - IANAL) if he lied to parliament to start our involvement in a war.
This ruling is issued by a kangaroo court that isn't like a normal court, and the "law" in this case says that GCHQ can do pretty much whatever it likes. So I'm afraid this stuff moved outside the realm of law and democracy a long time ago.
> and the "law" in this case says that GCHQ can do pretty much whatever it likes.
No it doesn't!
Oversight might have failed but there are laws and GCHQ are expected to obey those laws.
No it doesn't!
Oversight might have failed but there are laws and GCHQ are expected to obey those laws.
Oh well if it's just the oversight of on of the most powerful agencies that failed for a measly seven years then everything is fine.
Watch as nothing changes.
Watch as nothing changes.
So roughly speaking, the US could spy on the UK but when they shared the data with the UK it was illegal for the UK authorities to "solicit, receive, store and transmit" that data.
However they previously had said that the new process of sharing data was now legal. In order to comply with the law GCHQ and the NSA have ... Made public the fact they are sharing information and how much.
Yeah, please take that one to a higher court and decide not on narrow technicalities but should we be doing this at all?
I am rather proud of Liberty (who I used to work for (IT and campaigns it's fun!) - it took a long time to get here.
However they previously had said that the new process of sharing data was now legal. In order to comply with the law GCHQ and the NSA have ... Made public the fact they are sharing information and how much.
Yeah, please take that one to a higher court and decide not on narrow technicalities but should we be doing this at all?
I am rather proud of Liberty (who I used to work for (IT and campaigns it's fun!) - it took a long time to get here.
I hope other governments will take notice of this ruling in considering political asylum for the person who blew the whistle to expose these human rights violations on a massive scale.
One presumes that the court doesn't deems there's been a serious criminal action here. More the status quo isn't legal. I'd like to know if this means the current actions will stop. When? If the government will fight it. Or legislate around it? There needs to be an official response from someone will real authority. It's been judged as illegal...so what next?
So, like @higherpurpose pointed out - ruling without enforcement is nothing in this case.
I seriously doubt GCHQ will transform their Cornwall facility into a tourist attraction like Bletchley Park, after NSA recently invested in it such fancy amounts of monies.
I seriously doubt GCHQ will transform their Cornwall facility into a tourist attraction like Bletchley Park, after NSA recently invested in it such fancy amounts of monies.
Such 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.
"... for seven years." Also probably all the other years.
And will it stop? ... not a chance
Will anyone be held accountable and brought to justice? ... not a chance
Will anyone be held accountable and brought to justice? ... not a chance
Terrible and completely misleading headline. The court ruled that the SHARING of surveillance data with NSA was unlawful until this past December. Its another meaningless verdict that effectively supports the gross invasion of individual privacy while claiming to oppose it.
[deleted]
It is important to fight surveillance in the courts, but as they keep making ever more draconian and broad surveillance laws it will eventually become pointless. At the end of the day, this is a political question.
I'm not quite sure what we're dealing with here politically. I wonder whether this extent of surveillance is simply the will of the poeple or whether democracy has been subverted by a power hungry security aparatus.
I'm not quite sure what we're dealing with here politically. I wonder whether this extent of surveillance is simply the will of the poeple or whether democracy has been subverted by a power hungry security aparatus.
You'd think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was 'unlawful'.
The Beeb did go with 'unlawful' in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness.
'Unlawlful' now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group.
Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years).
To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one.
-- GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451