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
I hope you know this is "fake news" being The Onion.
Worse than the surveillance issues Britain may have, is the idea that an unelected and unaccountable body outside of Britain is trying to legislate the British people (the "EU"). If I lived in Britain I would the tell the EU to go **** off and then start tackling the internal problems.
Being an American, and living stateside, I don't have a direct dealing with this issue at hand per se, but I do find it interesting that so many are OK with the massive CCTV surveillance implementation within the U.K. where virtually EVERY move u make is recorded 24 hours a day but not ok with this. I understand the mass collection of all electronic data from all citizens is a breach of certain civil liberties yes, but I also understand the issue with the large amount of terrorist activities that are conducted within the EU as well as the large influx of both terrorists and terrorist indoctrination groups working within the border that pose a much larger threat to the safety of all.
It for sure is a delicate balance of freedom of rights and personal security in which I don't think there can ever be one without the other. Sadly, the evidence points to more needing to be done to protect the citizens and how can that be done without collecting, analyzing, and acting upon actionable intel that would not have been present without programs like this?
Again, this is just MY opinion and personal feeling of the issues and matter at hand.
And as a military veteran, I personally do not feel that this action is a contradiction for the freedoms I fought to protect as a solider of the ended goal is to protect the nation. The trade off of more privacy for citizens doing nothing wrong in an attempt to identify threats to national and sovereign security is an acceptable trade off for me. Not saying this opinion is right or wrong, just mine
Be safe.
Best,
USVet
"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little bit of security, deserve neither." I believe a wise man once said. There's a reason our country is supposed to uphold "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Sacrificing the liberty of all innocent for the pursuit of a few extra bad guys is rarely a good trade off. As John Adams said, there will always be evil. Its a cat/mouse game that can never be extinguished, no matter how many freedoms you're willing to sacrifice.
It's worth noting out government did have their say in any EU legislation passed too and it wasn't just a case of us being told what to do.
I don't intend on sounding paranoid here but it is inevitable.
Our laptops, phones, games consoles, tablets, desktop computers... Don't quite a few of these things have cameras built in or offered as optional extras that sit facing your sofa or into your office environment 24/7?
If the government wants to it can watch many of us all day without us knowing. Bang. 1984!
In response to those using the word 'remoaner' and celebrating leaving the EU. Your arguments look about as tired as Katie Hopkins face, so do shut up.
Are some so stupid they can't tell the difference?
Silly question.
Our laptops, phones, games consoles, tablets, desktop computers... Don't quite a few of these things have cameras built in or offered as optional extras that sit facing your sofa or into your office environment 24/7?
If the government wants to it can watch many of us all day without us knowing. Bang. 1984!
In response to those using the word 'remoaner' and celebrating leaving the EU. Your arguments look about as tired as Katie Hopkins face, so do shut up.
[doublepost=1482400135][/doublepost]I wish people would stop calling satire 'fake news'.
Are some so stupid they can't tell the difference?
Silly question.
Not sure how I feel about this...I think the EU have the people's best interests at heart...but then if there was valuable data collected that could be used to incriminate/prosecute in the future, I think I'd be in favour of using it. Taking this information source away seems that it would not be in the best interest of the people. Moreover, potential terrorist etc (if this is who we as a government/society are concerned about), will continue to amass whatever information they desire to satisfy their cause. So aren't we then shooting ourselves in the foot?
The most important thing - in my mind - is that such a store of data is encrypted, secure, and can only be accessed via a warrant. If, and certainly ONLY if, these safeguards were all in place then I don't think I have a big problem with information being stored for 12 months.
The most important thing - in my mind - is that such a store of data is encrypted, secure, and can only be accessed via a warrant. If, and certainly ONLY if, these safeguards were all in place then I don't think I have a big problem with information being stored for 12 months.
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tions-watchdog-report-phone-web-data-policing
It’s like “United States”: the statement is false on its face. The idea was that by calling it what it wasn’t — united — positive feedback would self-reinforce to make it true. Unfortunately, because we’re calling it what it isn’t rather than what it is, the feedback being created is negative, or self-weakening, therefore the harder the union is forced, the weaker it gets, and the clearer the lie becomes.
I can't tell from the article, but my feeling is that these are cases where information was accessed without a warrant? Is that correct?
I think my view is that: In the event that this information is being kept/recorded, then a warrant to access/search that information would be required, just like it would (or should? I don't actually know the law here) be required to search/access someone's personal property in their home.
No, all information had to be accessed via a warrant apart from the Scottish Police case.
So, the information was accessed by a warrant, then misused? Seems like that exposes a major failing of the law enforcement's abilities, but doesn't really say whether or not the practice of storing/accessing information with a warrant should itself be a problem, per se. Couldn't the same kind of things have arisen had the warrants requested the access of a person's home/computer? The authorities could jsut as easily screw up the interpretation of that information.
The only real problem I can see is if it is *easier* to get a warrant to access digitally stored information - or indeed if authorities are requesting such warrants more frequently because they are less work than a full-blown physical search warrant. Then that is a problem.
We will find out. 48 different agencies will soon be able to request that data. What they then do with it is anyone's guess.
What agencies outside of them will have access once it's available?
We will never know about it. We will never know if it's been increased to hacking your personal devices based on some machine or temp staff's misinterpretation of the data.
The only real difference between what the snoops were doing - until Snowden showed the world - and what they are doing now is that it's written into law and even more draconian.
Yes, I hadn't thought about what happens to the data once it has been accessed/released. I guess digital data is potentially harder to keep wraps on compared to something physical that has been seized.
I would have hoped that all this information remains encrypted at all times, but that doesn't really say anything about who the information might be shared with (along with the decoding keys). Hmmm...it seems like the laws may need a lot of work/clarification to make them useful and acceptable to the people. Banning the storage of this information is obviously a simple solution, but it seems that we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
To be fair, this is simply legitimising some thing both the US and the UK are already doing illegally.
Spot on. And the MEP's that did get elected managed to wrangle a lot of money out of the EU, which won't be coming our way any more.
The criminality of Edward Snowden is in debate so I won't comment on it but he gave an appropriate to response to the "nothing to hide" defense of mass surveillance. In his words, those who say they are not against surveillance because they have nothing to hide is tantamount to one saying they don't care about free speech because they have nothing to say. It's the principle of the thing. The government shouldn't have the power to rummage through people's information willy nilly.
Is it not possible to agree with the principle of free speech and yet also think there is nothing wrong with surveillance? (so long as neither is abused)
To me, rummaging through information willy-nilly is very different (and not acceptable), whereas recording information that *may* be useful in the future (to support a prosecution for example) seems reasonable - so long as there are some necessary safe-guards put in place.
Obviously, we are talking about the UK so the standards for search and seizure are different and so is their legal system. Judging by American standards, though, recording information just because it "may" be useful in the future to support a prosecution is not an acceptable justification. When law enforcement asks for a warrant to search someone's house, they are required to describe what they expect to find. That's a part of establishing probably cause.
Mass surveillance is searching through people's information willy nilly. The government is trying to justify it by saying that they need this power on the off-chance that it finds something useful.
Oh... I would be willing to bet I could find something embarrassing. Notwithstanding the absence of being capable of feeling embarrassment is one of the definitions of a sociopathic personality.
Perhaps you have been looking at porn? Perhaps you have been researching mental or general health issues? Perhaps you were caught parking in a disabled parking bay or have a number of parking tickets? Perhaps you have run up too much credit card debt or over committed to your mortgage? Perhaps some of your purchases would be awkward to explain? Perhaps you like gambling? Perhaps you lie to your work colleagues by omission or are just lazy at work? Perhaps you like to drink a little too much? Perhaps you called in sick to work when you weren't? Or perhaps you are unkind to your family?
I bet you're not whiter than white.
Last edited:
The government can look through my mobile phone or internet history if they wish. It's not that interesting or incriminating and I'm sure I'm an insignificant individual to them.
Cool. Perhaps you won't mind if they also implant a tracker in you to monitor your every move. Or install microphones or cameras in your house to record everything you say and do.
It is people who believe the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing fear" rhetoric that are allowing mass spying by our government on everyday people for NO REASON WHATSOEVER. Of course, MPs are excluded from the spying.
I have nothing to hide. But I will go out of my way to hide it anyway because I value my privacy and freedom above pretty much everything else.
Let's be realistic here, they've been monitoring our internet usage for years. Implanting trackers and bugging our homes is a totally different topic altogether.