Top Euro court advised: Cops, spies yelling 'national security' isn’t enough to force ISPs to hand over massive piles of people's private data In a massive win for privacy rights, the advocate general advising the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said that national security concerns should not override citizens’ data privacy. Thus, ISPs should not be forced to hand over personal information without clear justification. That doesn't mean that the intelligence and …
The EU, protecting UK citizens from its own Government for over 40 years. You're welcome...
I had this discussion with my cousin, who was pro-Brexit, a few years ago. He was totally unaware that a lot of the "EU meddling in UK laws", was actually the EU telling the UK that they had overstepped the mark and were infringing on their citizens' rights.
Dual citizenship is darned useful.
I'm pretty sure that, with dual citizenship, when you enter a third country, you chose to enter it as either / or. Thus, if you enter as a Brit and ask for help when in trouble in, say, Ukraine, you'll get an automated concise reply to (...) from the British consulate (a fact). And when you enter Ukraine on your German passport, you (probably) get the same-worded e-mail in German, which makes hell of a difference. Consular help is a myth, even in serious trouble, like that woman in Iran has found out.
It was a nightmare for me and loads of others who I found to be in the same position. I suffered injury during active service and forcibly "retired". Years later, I thought I would take the opportunity to go "Dual" only to find that my UK citizenship was to be revoked and then be deported. Never been to my Dad's homeland don't speak the language and depend on machines to keep me alive. No problem they said here's your NHS bill you go to pay on your way out.
What stopped it was an obscure(ish) provision of law and being able to produce decades worth of hoarded documents that I had accumulated. Thank goodness for cheap secure data storage and thanks to those who help me digitise it all.
From my experience and from listening to others, this is getting worse and some "officials" are not adverse to putting the fear of God into people by saying that have access to all their data as provided in law. Brief & Anon, because some of the "officials" are a vindictive bunch of SOB's who DGAF about caring for whatever rights we may have or to to quote one case worker "think [I] have."
I am not concerned about that. One of my passports is British and I have observed over many years that the Foreign Office will do feck all to help you overseas. Why worry about something over which you have no control. On the other hand, the Irish passport does appear to be more useful - possibly because they have not pissed people off over a long enough time to generate resentment.
It goes both ways.
For example, the EU ruling that the UK can't expel EU citizens who commit heinous crimes such as rape and child molestation. Or ruling that certain groups can be considered protected minorities even though their customs and practices are considered backwards and barbaric in the UK (No, not the obvious one, think again).
> For example, the EU ruling that the UK can't expel EU citizens who commit heinous crimes such as rape and child molestation.
So you'd rather they potentially walk off scot-free, instead of getting a proper trial, conviction, and sentencing?
> Or ruling that certain groups can be considered protected minorities even though their customs and practices are considered backwards and barbaric in the UK (No, not the obvious one, think again).
"Barbaric" is relative - case in point: milk in tea. Or, for a less extreme example, blanket state surveillance.
BTW, did you mean to imply that EU somehow forces the UK to render claustration, forced marriages etc. to be legal?
"
For example, the EU ruling that the UK can't expel EU citizens who commit heinous crimes such as rape and child molestation.
"
Most of the things that the Daily Mail tells us the "EU says we must ..." or "The EU says we cannot ..." are either gross exaggerations or are completely untrue. "The EU says we cannot sell curved bananas" or "The EU says we cannot deport someone who has a cat" "The EU says we cannot sell anything in pounds and ounces ..." etc. etc. All lies.
Most of the items listed were fabrications from the fertile imagination of a failed journalist by the name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - who openly boasted on several occasions about how he'd make shit up in order to see the fallout (and is purported to have said "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?")
Fabrications which got him sacked by a certain Andrew Neil, amongst other editors(*) - which may go a LONG way towards explaining Boris' extreme reluctance to be interviewed on live TV by Mr Neil.
Of course the journalist sacked for making up stories found out there's even less oversight or requirement for truthfulness in politics than there is on people who sell magic healing crystals, so the rest is history.
(*) Supposedly the purported quote was tossed at Andrew Neil during the process of giving Boris the sack.
"For example, the EU ruling that the UK can't expel EU citizens who commit heinous crimes such as rape and child molestation. Or ruling that certain groups can be considered protected minorities even though their customs and practices are considered backwards and barbaric in the UK (No, not the obvious one, think again)."
When you don't know the difference between the ECHR and the CJEU you get this kind of ignorance.
On the CJEU front and freedom of movement the UK absolutely can expel EU citizens for these crimes and does so, well over 5000 a year are deported or denied entry at the border for a variety of reasons under the heading of 'presence not being conducive to the public good'
Its the European Court of Human Rights which rules on individual cases, leaving the EU won't change that.
> He was totally unaware that a lot of the "EU meddling in UK laws", was actually the EU telling the UK that they had overstepped the mark and were infringing on their citizens' rights.
Which is ironic considering where the european convention on human rights CAME from....
This should be required viewing, share and enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA
It seems that there is a digital divide looming in our near future. There will be one bastion of freedom and privacy, the EU, and there will be the rest of the world living in totalitarian surveillance states "for your protection, citizen".
I'm glad I live in France. And I'm glad there still are people in this world who retain their sense of duty when they attain important positions.
No, Pai, I'm not talking about you.
Hey hey hey, Pai has a great and very clear sense of duty. He's doing a great job working for the people who really matter, and he's working tirelessly for them!
What? You didn't think I was talking about the American Public, did you? Don't be silly. Of course they don't matter... They don't even own yachts...
I'm happy I am in Spain, we seem to have a reasonable government at the moment but who knows how long this one will last?
Overall we don't have a great deal of interference from government and unless you are a Catalan activist, nobody has any interest in you.
I'm glad I live in France.
Hmm, that's the place which elects a new government that promises reform, and then lets the unions take over & paralyze everything to block the reforms when they're announced? You have to wonder who actually runs the country, it certainly doesn't seem to be the elected government. But if you're happy with that...
So my view (having a French wife) and having lived in France, and still owning a lovely house in the Vendee is yes, the elected Government DO run the country, but there is a greater sense there that they do so on a very clear set of terms that respects and protects their culture and disparate heritages, and the people are passionate enough to become very VERY well roused and active in telling that government to clearly fuck off when they overstep that mandate.
England (I won't speak for Scotland or Wales) on the other hand seemingly has a Government that is totally out of touch with its people, culture and heritage, and more sadly, a fragmented, self interested and highly apathetic populace that seems to think it has no power to change things through mass activism or other means.
Unfortunately, being English, and still living in England for a lot of the time - my view is that this country is going backwards, and as a few others have mentioned, it won't be long before I apply for French citizenship and say goodbye to it forever.
The appropriate way to tell a government or politician to fuck off is in an election (as the UK recently did with Labour), not with street troubles orchestrated by trade unions. Union membership in France is <10%, so they are hardly representative.
I'd also disagree that the English population is "highly apathetic' given the 67.5% turnout last year, which is fairly typical and largely the same across the UK. It compares very favourably to the < 50% turnouts in the most recent French legislative election. The lack of mass activism in the UK isn't apathy, it's a recognition that it's not the right way to do things. You get lasting change through talking and agreement, not by bottles through shop windows.
A lot of it is cultural. I'd say that the French (based on my 30 years living in France) expect the state to be paternalistic and to look after them, as the archetypal "bon père de famille", they are nowhere near as individualistic or self-motivated as the British. Britons don't expect the government to do everything for them, but recognise their own responsibility to make their own lives, a view which I personally share. That also argues against the idea of being "apathetic", that's a charge I would level at the French far more than at the British, at least when it comes to choosing governments.
"
The appropriate way to tell a government or politician to fuck off is in an election (as the UK recently did with Labour)
"
That's the lie we are all told.
If all the political parties have similar policies on data protection (or anything else you don't like), you can do nothing to change it in an election.
Added to which, people can be persuaded to vote for the most outrageous policies if the politicians tell lies about the scope and consequences thereof. When income tax was first introduced, the electorate was assured that it was only a temporary measure that was necessary to avoid the collapse of the UK, and it would be recinded as soon as the Napoleonic war was over, and so by and large agreed with it as being unwelcome but unfortunately a necessity.
All you can attempt to do is vote for the least worst party - which then often ends up being far worse than you thought it would be. It gives you the illusion that you have some sort of say in how you are governed. But also ensures that no government makes any plans that would be unpopular in the short term even if they would be immensely beneficial in the long term.
Quote
"The lack of mass activism in the UK isn't apathy, it's a recognition that it's not the right way to do things. You get lasting change through talking and agreement, not by bottles through shop windows."
Why is why the hated poll tax got binned after the riots and attempting to burn down most of London....
Although closer to the mark was the people like me who did their level best to avoid paying the thing in the first place... change of address.. yupp... every 4-6 months and told the council where I was going... if they could'nt address the bill to the right house its not my fault if I cant pay it.
We made a huge hole in council finances doing that, a hole the government could not ignore.
Hence the poll tax was binned and we went back to a tax on properties(much harder to hide those)
I did end up paying... after they finally caught up and summons me , but by then it was 20 months later and the poll tax was dead :)
The grass always looks greener on the other side. They might be, or appear to be more pro-privacy, but they also have appetite for keeping an eye on what their plebs are doing. On what WE, the EU plebs are doing, to be exact. It looks to me like a clash between liberal values declared (and often practiced) by the EU rulers, against their own dread of sudden upheaval. They want to be cuddly and loved, but safe from you-don't-know-what-but-something-for-sure-so-we-need-to-know.
> There will be one bastion of freedom and privacy, the EU, and there will be the rest of the world living in totalitarian surveillance states "for your protection, citizen".
I get the same sense. I wish that I could join the EU myself.
The irony is you don't have to hover up data, as any open source pundit will tell you, Linux or OpenBSD record's data in it's log files, everything a user does gets recorded for the users posterity you would assume, but then you get the Plan 9 "communist" pundits that point out that everything you do on that system gets recorded to WORM disk's which means "Write Once Read Many!" and the fact it's forensically written to disk means that you can not edit the data, encryption or no encryption.
Which is why, you can presume they're all screaming on about encryption, breaking the encryption does not mean you will get away with "Debt Parking" or "Fanciful misdirection of funds" your actions will still be recorded by an authoritarian system that mandates one thing - CONTROL.
So in a way you can side with the "Red" party for there tenacity and foresight in wanting to bring the whole world under there umbrella. Where everything you say or do is logged and recorded for your posterity of course.
That's the future you wanted and it's the future your getting... Kicking and screaming all the way...
Loved the fact that Corbyn got it right, "Boris is waiting on a toxic deal from Trump!" then after the election "Boris" comes right out with it, "I'm waiting on a deal with Trump!" LOL only five years of the "Blues" being in power, such as there power is...
And they are trembling in the pews at the thought of a totalitarian system controlling there lives, well what did you expect. The matrix is everywhere, all around you, you can feel it when you pay your taxes and get bombarded with advertising on the internet.
The issue is not about data that you control access to. It is about data that is stored on systems that you do not control access to that is the problem.
I have no problem with my PC saving my private diary in a local text file, or logging every application that I have run and every video and music file I have played. The problem comes when my PC's operating system decides to upload that data to a server which complete strangers have access to with neither my knowledge nor consent.
The simple answer is that the president is not elected by popular vote. The electoral college apportions votes to each state based on population. So you basically have 50 state elections to win. If you get an extra million votes in states large population you only get the electoral votes for that state. The Electoral College votes are the same whether you win by 1 vote or by 1 million votes.
The reason for this is that more rural states do not agree with getting ruled by New York, California, Texas and Florida.
Civics class is ended.
PS Yes I know there are territories out there but as of now they are not a significant part of the vote.
The Electoral College votes are the same whether you win by 1 vote or by 1 million votes.
The reason for this is that more rural states do not agree with getting ruled by New York, California, Texas and Florida.
Would work even better if we could pick up the Libertarian practice that "None of the Above" is automatically a line on any ballot.
I also think it's time we implemented an Electoral-type system for picking US Senators for a state; each county gets one vote, tallied against the popular votes in that county. Population centers are already adequately represented by the HoR, so now we need a way to balance against what the dimwits in NYC do.
Just because a system works (poorly) in a certain way does not make it democratic.
Just a simple glance at the UK's:
* almost complete lack of proper electoral law and process
* a toothless and useless electoral watchdog that can only advise but not enforce
* electoral fraud being punished with a measly fine instead of voiding the election and banning the perpetrator from standing again
* Electoral Return Officers that can decide not to send thousands of people the required forms without facing custodial sentences for breaking electoral law or forced election re-runs
* parliamentary elections that are actually run by the government (Cabinet Office) instead of parliament
* the use of numbered ballots so the government can look up how everyone voted
means you can only conclude that the UK doesn't meet any standard of 'democracy' that has become the norm in the developed world since mid-20th century.
The UK does not care about elections, it cares about election results. Nobody cares how those "results" are obtained, as the last "election" clearly demonstrated. Ballot stuffing and voter suppression is rife and nobody cares. We still have not found an answer to the mystery of the massive influx of postal votes (twice as many in the last "election" as in previous ones) or how people in the government or the BBC already knew the outcome of postal votes before the election was held. Everyone just pretends the current government was elected as if nothing happened.
Yet according to Transparency International, who investigate this sort of corruption, the UK is one of the world's least corrupt countries (11th place out of 180, in the top 5 in the EU), ahead of France, Ireland, the USA, etc.
the use of numbered ballots so the government can look up how everyone voted
They are sealed, and destroyed after a year. Any systematic abuse like that would be very obvious, and known.
Nobody cares how those "results" are obtained, as the last "election" clearly demonstrated.
Sour grapes because it didn't go the way you wanted?
We still have not found an answer to the mystery of the massive influx of postal votes (twice as many in the last "election" as in previous ones)
A lot of previously-uninterested expat citizens in the EU voting because of Brexit?
how people in the government or the BBC already knew the outcome of postal votes before the election was held.
Representatives of all the parties are present at the opening of the postal votes, as observers, that's part of the need to have a fair count. It seems that some of them foolishly commented to the BBC that the results were "grim for Labour". They shouldn't have done so, and the BBC certainly shouldn't have reported it.
"Yet according to Transparency International,"
Transparency International report the PERCEPTION of corruption, which is quite a different thing from the ACTUAL corruption level
Corruption is like dry rot: The structure can be quite fragile but the facade looks intact right up to the point where a large chunk falls off (See Boeing and the FAA)
It's also like a rotting fish: It ALWAYS starts at the head and works its way down. By the time you see flunkies taking bribes in the streets, the entire organisation is riddled.
The EU is great, unless of course you're the victim of an European paedophile, in which case your abuser can't be deported to their country of origin, or you belong to a main stream religion in which case you can't dress how you want, where the symbols that you want, or express the opinions that you want. Because when it comes to basic rights, only secular rights seem to count these days.
Why would you want religious rights to trump secular rights? If your religion promotes human sacrifice, should that take precedence over the secular right to life? There's nothing stopping you stating your religious opinions either, but if in doing so you incite hatred or violence then you should indeed face punishment just as much as anyone doing so from a non-religious viewpoint. Your belief in an invisible sky fairy does not grant you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The fact that your *neighbour's* religion forces certain dress restrictions on *them* is quite simply none of *your* business, and certainly no reason to believe that *your* rights are being infringed in any way.
Not to mention that it may well be the case that your neighbour is no more upset about the religious dress restriction than you are upset about the dress restrictions that you have to endure (e.g. being forced to cover your genitalia when in public).
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're talking about the breaking of chemical bonds at a quantity and rate sufficient to generate heat and light then I think we can all agree that such a thing exists, but if you're talking about ascribing this to the presence and desires of a fire god then I'm pretty sure you'll struggle to get a jury to agree with you.
I'm referring to the nature of our reality (i.e. what we perceive to be true).
If some of the things I've read about are true (such as the double slit experiment) then reports of supernatural phenomena aren't absurd at all, but it does probably depend on just who is doing the 'viewing'.
Sorry, Sir Runcible, but if you think that the verifiable existence of wave-particle duality means that werewolves are a real thing or that planets and biospheres can be wished into existence in a single day, you really need to put down the Deepak Chopra and pick up the Richard Feynman.
Not just the wave-particle duality bit, but the fact that you get different results based on the experiment being observed etc.
You're also taking my open-mindedness about people interpreting interesting (and little known) phenomena as some kind of intelligent force as a statement about such things being absolutely true, when such is not the case.
Just because you don't believe in a sky-god doesn't mean there isn't a lot of weird shit going on that can't be rationally explained away (yet).
"But, as with so many other things around Brexit, the truth is that the UK cannot exist in the modern world as its own digital island and so will have to reach some kind of agreement with Europe, or face the risk of being cut off from the continent when it comes to sharing data."
Yes, but who's going to explain all that to the ERG.
Another judgement which, if upheld, will only serve to see more criminals escape justice, more people become the victims of crime of all types, and the rest of us paying more because it's more difficult to investigate and prevent crime. Great.
Privacy, much like free speech, is great in principle, but applying it to the nth degree just means more bad things happen to good people.
"
Privacy, much like free speech, is great in principle, but applying it to the nth degree just means more bad things happen to good people.
"
Rubbish. It's the same with "freedom". We would be a lot safer if there was a dusk to dawn curfew in place and you needed a travel permit for moving anywhere except on foot.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
