>James Eadie QC claimed that the doctrine does not have force in law and cannot impose legal restraints on the agencies.
Eadle, I could have said that and I don't have lawyer training. It is not a law, BUT that agencies are not bound by it is a big question mark, because the Doctrine arguably constitutes a Cabinet or Prime Ministerial Order. Don't the Brit civil services have any laws saying they must be bound by their superior's orders?
>As reported by the Guardian, Eadie told the IPT that excluding politicians from GCHQ's mass surveillance wasn't even feasible.
Let me propose a "revolutionary" idea, Eadle. If, despite your position, we accept that the doctrine has a legal effect, and that you can't exclude politicians from a mass surveillance plan ... the only solution is to NOT DO MASS SURVEILLANCE!
Is that really hard?
Still, I must wonder when all the legislatures in the West will finally get fed up of this crap and just pass a act (an undeniable law with undeniable legal efect) banning intelligence agencies from doing anything while they review everything from zero, with all future activities under positive control only. We tried to believe them, listened to their arguments that positive control eliminates their needed flexibility, and look how they exploit it. Sometime, we have to put our foot down, even if it does mean one or two buses are exploded.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
