TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

296 点作者 owlmusic超过 10 年前

13 条评论

ch215超过 10 年前
The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me.<p>You&#x27;d think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was &#x27;unlawful&#x27;.<p>The Beeb did go with &#x27;unlawful&#x27; in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness.<p>&#x27;Unlawlful&#x27; now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group.<p>Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years).<p>To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one.<p>-- GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;uk-31164451</a>
评论 #9009420 未加载
评论 #9009489 未加载
评论 #9009253 未加载
评论 #9010391 未加载
评论 #9009860 未加载
评论 #9009308 未加载
jackgavigan超过 10 年前
So, one of the key things about this ruling is that it declares &quot;that prior to the disclosures made and referred to in the Tribunal’s Judgment of 5 December 2014, the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and&#x2F;or (on the Claimants’ case) Upstream, <i>contravened Articles 8 or 10 ECHR</i>&quot;.[1]<p>ECHR refers to the European Convention on Human Rights[2]. Article 8 covers privacy. Article 10 covers freedom of expression.<p>The Human Rights Act 1998 declares that &quot;It is <i>unlawful</i> for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right&quot;[3] (and GCHQ is classified as a public authority) but I&#x27;m not aware of any legislation that would classify such actions as a crime. Therefore, while monetary damages may be awarded[4], it seems unlikely that anyone could be held personally accountable (in the sense of being charged with a crime).<p>Ironically, the Home Office just announced a public consultation on the draft codes of practice for interception of communications and &quot;equipment interference&quot; (which covers hacking).[4]<p>1: <a href="http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ipt-uk.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf</a><p>2: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;European_Convention_on_Human_Ri...</a><p>3: <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.legislation.gov.uk&#x2F;ukpga&#x2F;1998&#x2F;42&#x2F;section&#x2F;6</a><p>4: <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.legislation.gov.uk&#x2F;ukpga&#x2F;1998&#x2F;42&#x2F;section&#x2F;8</a><p>5: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/interception-of-communications-and-equipment-interference-draft-codes-of-practice" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gov.uk&#x2F;government&#x2F;consultations&#x2F;interception-of-...</a>
评论 #9008539 未加载
评论 #9008591 未加载
junto超过 10 年前
Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the &quot;temporary&quot; Terrorism Act 2000 and its modifications in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 and&#x2F;or RIPA.<p>I&#x27;m getting a bit tired of politicians standing up in the House of Common&#x27;s, stating we need a &quot;temporary&quot; act to reduce liberty and privacy under the guise of terrorism, only to extend the rulings indefinitely. It&#x27;s bullshit.<p>Also, with regards to RIPA, the section related to &quot;Use of communication data&quot; requires only &quot;senior member of that authority&quot;, whilst wire taps and reading post requires authorisation from &quot;Warrant from Home Secretary or Cabinet Secretary for Justice&quot;. The first one should also move under this authority and blanket surveillance should be banned.<p>Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another &quot;act of terrorism&quot; on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time.<p>P.S. Interestingly, Germany is one of the few large European nations with troops in &quot;Muslim lands&quot;, that has to date not had a major terrorist incident. They have a large Muslim population, which although largely very moderate and westernised, do have a minority of people who are preaching extremism. Also, many of the terrorist cells (including 9&#x2F;11) have originated, or passed through Germany.
评论 #9008509 未加载
评论 #9008523 未加载
zirkonit超过 10 年前
“was unlawful”, “is unlawful” and “will be unlawful”.<p>It will not stop just because of the court decision. The rule of law is for mere mortals, and not the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, unfortunately.
评论 #9008520 未加载
lifeisstillgood超过 10 年前
So roughly speaking, the US could spy on the UK but when they shared the data with the UK it was illegal for the UK authorities to &quot;solicit, receive, store and transmit&quot; that data.<p>However they previously had said that the new process of sharing data was now legal. In order to comply with the law GCHQ and the NSA have ... Made public the fact they are sharing information and how much.<p>Yeah, please take that one to a higher court and decide not on narrow technicalities but should we be doing this at all?<p>I am rather proud of Liberty (who I used to work for (IT and campaigns it&#x27;s fun!) - it took a long time to get here.
justcommenting超过 10 年前
I hope other governments will take notice of this ruling in considering political asylum for the person who blew the whistle to expose these human rights violations on a massive scale.
ed_blackburn超过 10 年前
One presumes that the court doesn&#x27;t deems there&#x27;s been a serious criminal action here. More the status quo isn&#x27;t legal. I&#x27;d like to know if this means the current actions will stop. When? If the government will fight it. Or legislate around it? There needs to be an official response from someone will real authority. It&#x27;s been judged as illegal...so what next?
ommunist超过 10 年前
So, like @higherpurpose pointed out - ruling without enforcement is nothing in this case.<p>I seriously doubt GCHQ will transform their Cornwall facility into a tourist attraction like Bletchley Park, after NSA recently invested in it such fancy amounts of monies.
higherpurpose超过 10 年前
Such rules will need to be accompanied by <i>consequences</i> for those doing it. A ruling without enforcement isn&#x27;t worth much. That said, this is a great, and perhaps quite surprising ruling, considering it&#x27;s a secret Court.
评论 #9008526 未加载
rcthompson超过 10 年前
&quot;... for seven years.&quot; Also probably all the other years.
GordonS超过 10 年前
And will it stop? ... not a chance<p>Will anyone be held accountable and brought to justice? ... not a chance
Allower超过 10 年前
Terrible and completely misleading headline. The court ruled that the SHARING of surveillance data with NSA was unlawful until this past December. Its another meaningless verdict that effectively supports the gross invasion of individual privacy while claiming to oppose it.
评论 #9008934 未加载
fauigerzigerk超过 10 年前
It is important to fight surveillance in the courts, but as they keep making ever more draconian and broad surveillance laws it will eventually become pointless. At the end of the day, this is a political question.<p>I&#x27;m not quite sure what we&#x27;re dealing with here politically. I wonder whether this extent of surveillance is simply the will of the poeple or whether democracy has been subverted by a power hungry security aparatus.