Never. Our voice will be heard during the negotiations on Brexit, and afterwards. Just like the Brexiters, so get used to it....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.K. Surveillance Powers Are 'Illegal', Rules E.U.'s Highest Court
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Never. Our voice will be heard during the negotiations on Brexit, and afterwards. Just like the Brexiters, so get used to it....
In response to the CCTV argument, here is the basic rebuttal: those cameras aren't in your home or looking in your windows. They are on public streets and businesses.
Personally I'd like to feel that my privacy is pretty much upheld within my own house. Until 1984 really hits and surveillance vid monitors are installed in every property.
The more worrying thing is this. Unless someone is looking out for the little people who is going to stop the government from extending this and creating something far worse than the rampant snooping Snowden revealed to the world?
I'm struggling to understand how this actually stops terrorism? Didn't the more sophisticated terrorists just use What's App and Facebook to plan the majority of their attacks?
I understand what you are saying, but there is another way of thinking about this. Yes, there is a threat. The question is whether the reaction to that threat is disproportionate and destroys the very liberties we are trying to protect. Should we ask civilians to take the small risk they might be attacked if blanket surveillance is not performed? I believe the answer is yes. More importantly, I believe that any other answer diminishes the sacrifices that our troops and law enforcement have taken on the country's behalf.
Just my opinion, and I'm only a resident of the UK and not a citizen, so...
You mean democratically elected members of the European Parliament or democratically elected members of the House of Commons?
The amount of people who declare the EU to be undemocratic who yet couldn't name 1 brach of the EU or who their MEP's are.
Uh, the part where others did--with a majority--thus showing exactly what democracy is?
Well, its true in a sense..
How would you feel if negative credit reporting kept everyone forever and didn't expire after 10 years.. ? That would mean no one could do anything bad in their entire lives.
I side with the E.U on this data collection.. there should be an expiry date if the ISP's care about privacy of their customers.
How would you feel if negative credit reporting kept everyone forever and didn't expire after 10 years.. ? That would mean no one could do anything bad in their entire lives.
I side with the E.U on this data collection.. there should be an expiry date if the ISP's care about privacy of their customers.
That is just not what the numbers suggest. The number of casualties due to crimes, in Western Europe at least, is at a historic low, crime is overall declining. Casualties due to acts of terrorism are comparatively few to other crimes and they are fewer than there were decades ago, but there are spikes of course, like this year. (source) Statistically, you are simply safer nowadays. The idea that more surveillance will lead to fewer casualties is not a forgone conclusion and it is an immense price to pay now that technology is becoming more pervasive than ever.
Lol, I hope so.. The EU paid him a pretty awesome wage and allowed him to dodge all sorts of iffy taxes in the UK.
That's the building I'd expect judge dread to walk out of
Using VPNs can bypass this, right? What if ISPs began offering their own VPN service direct to customers? Would that be in violation of this order?
The purpose of VPNs is that traffic is encrypted, not logged, and there is a disconnect between source and destination. Today's VPNs are a bit slower than a direct connection, but maybe that slowdown is a worthwhile tradeoff?
The purpose of VPNs is that traffic is encrypted, not logged, and there is a disconnect between source and destination. Today's VPNs are a bit slower than a direct connection, but maybe that slowdown is a worthwhile tradeoff?
Thankfully ECJ is not an EU institution - so we will still have their protection from big brother after Brexit.
The purpose of a VPN is to extend a private network over the Internet. It has nothing to do with privacy. Businesses and organisations use them to give employees and other people remote access to their internal network. That is what VPN protocols are supposed to facilitate and protect. What happens to Internet traffic within that private network is a matter of policy, e.g. whether logs are kept is a discretional choice of the provider. VPNs are actually being ‘misused’ to conceal traffic from local network providers, but it has to surface somewhere.
No, you got that wrong. The ECJ is a EU court. The ECtHR is not. That is also not certain, Theresa May openly dislikes that court.
Brexit was a referendum, and the majority vote was to leave. This was a democratic vote.
The 2015 General Election was won by the Conservatives, headed by David Cameron. This was a democratic vote. Cameron stood down as leader and May took over.
What part of this isn't democracy? Or are you calling it un-democratic just because you didn't get the result you wanted?
That's just not true. It might be the case for some city centres, but not elsewhere.
Also, those CCTV networks are not joined up - the majority of them are private, and only small scale.
In a two party system it's a an illusion of democracy , it's about who you hate less at the time. Though sure let's call it democracy.
I voted Brexit. You can't throw your toys out the pram when things don't go your own way and claim it isn't democratic when it clearly was.
But I agree with the EU completely on this one. The current surveillance powers are completely wrong, unnecessary and Orwellian.
The EJC jurisdiction is only within the EU member states though isn't it?
Ignore that, spotted above..
People voted for Cameron , that is democracy , not having a choice in may?? Though people will say that the party members voted for may who represent the people.... and hence democracy. I never voted for her and don't like the idea of someone deciding on my behalf ..... where the US president and Vice President model is better, you know who takes over, and people voted for them, in my opinion
Clearly, they won' catch one "smart" terrorist via data retention. Criminals are always a step ahead of every government move, because they do not follow any laws.
Dumb law in the first place and of course ridiculous to even try for anybody to go through the massive amounts of data that would be collected.
But the price for that model is potentially conflicting mandates, e.g. a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democrat President, which have to work together to pass legislation. More power is also concentrated in a single person and they cannot be removed from office unless in exceptional circumstances.
In parliamentary systems, such as the UK, the Government is directly accountable to Parliament. That means that the position of the Prime Minister is also much weaker, they need to have continuing support in Parliament and can be removed from office. That system is a lot more cooperative and less antagonistic. You can already see this with Theresa May, she was coerced into accepting a motion she did not want, before it was formally voted on. A defeat would have undermined her leadership. I think this flexibility is a lot more desirable.