Re: Hear all about it!
Then perhaps you're not thinking things through. Why hasn't it already been tried already, then?
Mass surveillance programs run by the UK, French and Belgian governments are illegal, Europe’s top court has decided in a huge win for privacy advocates. The European Court of Justice (CJEU) announced on Tuesday that legislation passed by all three countries that allows the government to demand traffic and location data from …
> Why hasn't it already been tried already, then?
Ah, the crux of the problem: Why don't all the kids bunch together to make a schoolyard bully shut up once and forever?
Because our fight/flight reflexes are geared towards flight, and herd mentality dictates you do whatever the others do, in this case nothing. Nobody wants to be the first one.
That's indeed the fatal flaw which makes bullying so easy...
Meanwhile, it's in the EU that freedom is guaranteed the best. Justice a bit less maybe, but we're getting there.
The UK still tops most countries in world rankings of freedom (14th worldwide, 9th place among EU members in the world human freedom index) and justice (8th overall worldwide in open government) for example. It is behind the usual candidates like New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark, but well ahead of France and Italy, for example. Generally also ahead of the USA. Don't believe all you read in the tabloids.
> The UK still tops most countries in world rankings of freedom (14th worldwide, 9th place among EU members in the world human freedom index)
On the other hand we have a Govt who are currently trying to pass bills that will allow them to
* Ignore the terms of a treaty they signed up to
* Ignore domestic laws (including those against murder) under some extremely broad and ill-defined circumstances
We *might* top most countries in rankings, but do not for a second rely on that. Complacency is the barn door through which all of that escapes, and it's very potentially in progress
You can put it down to malice or incompetence, but either way the current lot are setting up a legal footing for future abusers. When we start to drop down those periodic rankings it will likely already be too late.
Which, to be honest, brings us to the same conclusion you ended with
> Don't believe all you read in the tabloids.
But MI5 / 6 wouldn't as they are highly against proper labour values (though fine with Tory Lite labour as espoused by Blair or Starmer) - as evidenced by the plots to destabilise the Harold Wilson government, that came not via Conservatives but via the security services.
the plots to destabilise the Harold Wilson government, that came not via Conservatives but via the security services.
There was supposedly a plot from some MI5 staff, but it was aimed at Wilson himself, who was alleged to be a soviet spy (according to a discredited defector). It didn't target the Labour party or the government as a whole.
Hmm, the World Freedom Index is a strangely anonymous thing, no details on the website. It claims to be a summary of three other indices.
I took my figures from the Cato institute "Human Freedom Index", which claims to use 76 indicators in it's calculations.
They both seem to show roughly the same general pattern, just differing in precise placings.
So why do the ERG want to scrap the human rights act?
It's irrelevant how much freedom we have now. What matters is what happens after 31/12/2020 when you and the other brexitters (due mainly to the tabloids you curiously accuse of going the other way) get your wish of aligning our protections from the EU to the US.
We're often told that UK workers rights and human rights protections are generally always stronger than the minimums imposed by the EU, so why would they change.
Which, as you say, blindly ignores the fact we've got people like the ERG and the fucking Home Secretary claiming that these protections are bad and need "reform" (cough... scrapping). Hell, they're currently running a campaign against lawyers for having the cheek to try and make sure the law is followed.
As such, the intelligence services will immediately start work on their own interpretations of what phrases like “strictly necessary” and “persistent threat” mean and see if they can fit them within existing laws. If that effort doesn’t hold water, we can probably expect to see new legislation proposed by the government.
Assuming HMG deigns to take notice of it (and they'll have to if they want* any hope of getting a pass on businesses doing any trade with the EU that involves sharing data) they'll probably just go to the filing cabinet and get out Investigative Powers Act 4.0 or whatever number we're up to now.
I'm sure they've anticipated this and couched the same old slurping in different terms. It's one thing where we're really world beating.
* I have serious doubts they even care.
Stop calling it metadata El Reg. Just don't.
It is data. What's collected is actually all the data except for the value of the "content" field.
All other fields are filled: caller name, caller number, caller location, same for the callee, plus date, time, duration, plus probably more like device type, who was talking (bytes sent), etc.
"Stop calling it metadata El Reg. Just don't. It is data."
It is metadata. Metadata is a specific type of data, so it is data, but it's specifically data about some more data, and so metadata.
And it is qualitatively different from collecting all data, as well. If I give you the complete metadata about films, you can build all sorts of information about who likely is friends with whom in Hollywood (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, for example), but you still cannot see any movie.
I'm not saying whether or not governments should collect these data, but metadata is a better description of what is collected.
follow Russia's examples, with a cherry on top, i.e. some mumble-mumble upon how we will study the ruling in detail and 5 sec later the great (British) public will have forgotten about the whole issue, and what can the little fuckers do about it anyway. Rant on the reg, let them, proves democracy works!
Excellent news that this has finally been decided. However mass data gathering is not the only problem that will affect our inevitable request for an adequacy decision - quite possibly prevent it being granted. The UK's position on transparency in relation to "national security", whereby it's possible for someone to be convicted of a criminal offence with severe penalties without even their defence counsel being able to discover all the evidence against them will also be a real stumbling block.
However as nobody here in the UK even seems to be taking any notice of Privacy Shield being struck down - they're just carrying on as before piping our personal data to US slurpers - the position post-December 2020 may come as a bit of a shock. Being British, we keep forgetting that we don't always make the rules, but when EU based agencies and businesses stop exchanging data with us we'll find out the reality that we don't.
It's not quite that simple. ISPs in France are required by law to keep logs for a year. If a restaurant pays an ISP to install & run its WiFi, there's no issue. If the restaurant just gets the WiFi kit itself and signs up for an internet connection (which, lets face it, is how most restaurants and cafes do it, paying little heed to security, firewalls, QoS, etc.) the restaurant is then considered to be an ISP supplying internet to its customers, and is subject the the same laws as any other ISP.
Legal frameworks regulating state security data collection activities are, at best, cosmetic and of no avail. This is because ordinary citizens cannot just knock on the door of GCHQ and its like and demand to verify legitimacy of activities. Oversight devolves to government ministers, parliament, judiciary, and perhaps a committee of the Privy Council.
Government ministers have conflict of interest because they may draw upon information derived from surveillance. As evinced by numerous IT cock-ups presided over by ministers, they, regardless of political party, are (proudly?) ignorant of matters mathematical, scientific, technological, and computational. They are incapable of detecting attempts by sharper minds than theirs to pull wool over their eyes. Parliament and its committees are equally devoid of capacity to detect male bovine excrement.
Senior judiciary generally have very sharp intelligence but very few are equipped to probe deeply into data related activity at GCHQ, MI5/6, etc. The Privy Council is a non-starter because it supports the Crown, i.e. embedded kakistocracy, rather than subjects of the Crown.
The only setting where data malfeasance could be detected is during a trial when provenance of information is challenged. That is wholly theoretical in two respects. First, trials bringing forth 'sensitive' information take place behind closed doors. Second, security and police forces need not reveal nefarious means of investigation which are merely 'leads' to findings capable of independent verification (e.g. we acted on a tip off and found the data and physical evidence now presented to the court).
Thus, there is little point to getting upset about mass surveillance through tapping into the Internet. The strongest objection to mass surveillance rests on its inefficiency. That is, collecting masses of data on off-chance of it being useful is mindless compared to setting skilled people onto targeted investigations.
Regardless, honest citizens and competent crooks have access to various means of protecting their digital security. At very least they can obfuscate their activities such that mere data trawling does not arouse suspicions for follow-up by targeted surveillance.
"Oversight devolves to government ministers, parliament, judiciary, and perhaps a committee of the Privy Council."
You think Parliament gets an effective role?
The problem is the government minister bit. They can sign warrants which ought to be limited to the judiciary. At present the judiciary is independent (if you doubt that just remember the judgements against govt. over the last few years) but Cummings isn't happy wit that and wants to get his hands on appointments.
That was downright piratical, Long John Silver, ..... and quite like dark web gold for throwing down and around as pearls before swine.
The bottom line though is, Don't get Caught Holding a Can of Worms .... Everyone and everything exercising power and energy, sharing future views of present situations, is, if systems in place are up and up to running effectively in the secure shady and shadowy backgrounds at the forefront of secured special access back room operations, surveilled and subject to any kind of action by members and agents of organisations/worlds traditionally left well alone and on their own in the dark, for the very best of all the right reasons in classified COSMIC Top Secret/SCI MagiCircles.... Origin Unknown/Suspected Purpose IMPuritanical Tyrannical/Antidote Defence Unavailable/Feared and Believed Almightily Omnipotent and Omniscient/Overwhelmingly Vital and Virulent.
Invite their worthy interest and displeasure at your peril.
And surely the Parliamentary estate worker doesn't expect a temporary exemption from state interest surveillance and blanket immunity from persecution and/or prosecution of their failed and fraudulent decisions/action, rather than them taking cold comfort in realising they always be subjects and objects of a more permanent invasive and pervasive search from such a Secretive Rule as may Reign Supreme and Sublime. The former would be tantamount to encouraging MADness and Mayhem out of the Shadows and into the Street and Main Stream Teams and that would Create Orders of CHAOS and Conflict, neither never before seen nor previously experienced or imagined.
Is that what you want? Yes or No? All those unsure can register a Maybe and A.N.Others will then decide for you.
Oh, and as Dominic Cummings, a present Government MoJo and BoJo Leading Advisor, found his name mentioned in this thread [AC/Doctor Syntax], I'd like to take this opportunity to say, in relation to all alien matters both recently shared and previously disclosed for discussion both here and elsewhere in the more private surroundings of stealthy silent steganographic communications, ........ Pull you finger out. Pull out the pin and toss the AWEsome Grenade. IT aint No Toy to Ignore sitting Primed for Future APT Action and NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive IT on the desk in your Pending/In Tray
Just Let IT Be your "England expect... " Trafalgar moment and a worthy starter crowning achievement for that only opens up the entrance hall door to the rooms of many mansions.
Senior judiciary generally have very sharp intelligence but very few are equipped to probe deeply into data related activity at GCHQ, MI5/6, etc. ...... Long John Silver
Surely, ideally, none should be equipped to probe deeply into data related activity at GCHQ, MI5/6, etc. Such would only make them an attending accessory to various norms and forms of deep data related activity ...... and that is laden with risks they are not equipped to deal with by any conventional means controlling memes.
As Spectators and Fans of AWEsome Activities are they most welcome to look, listen and learn of the Future in AI with a Virtual Development Leading Program with Surreal Alienating Projects the Product for and from AI and IT to Present and Realise/Picture and Create and Store as/in a Useful ACTive Memory Device/Hindsight Rich Source ....... now that is a Wondrously Enriched Core Ore the likes of which you would would find it difficult to believe could ever freely exist, engage and prosper precipitately without difficulty for an express ride right to the top of where you are needed to be, program seeding and projects feeding.
.............anyone who wants a LITTLE privacy is using:
- burner phones
- VPNs
- private ciphers
- hijacked wiFi
.......and who knows what other means in order to ensure that:
- the "metadata" is either anonymous....or points to someone else
- the data will be hard to decipher
.......and in the mean time, the snoops at GCHQ are collecting LOTS of stuff about perfectly legal activities by perfectly ordinary folk.
This is why, every time there's a horrible outrage in our streets, we get to hear (much later) that the perps were "already known to the authorities".
It's a clown show......political theatre at its most sublime!