UK 'Emergency' Bulk Data Slurp Permissible In Pursuit Of 'Serious Crime' (theregister.co.uk) 48
An anonymous reader writes: Bulk collection of data from phone calls and emails by carriers acting under government orders could be permissible in the pursuit of 'serious crime'. That's the preliminary ruling in a case brought by Brexit chief minister David Davis against PM Theresa May before the European Union's highest court. The ruling suggests bulk collection and retention of customer data might not be in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights -- if it's done legally and with safeguards. Davis with Labour Party deputy leader Tom Watson and others brought their case to the European Court of Justice in February.
this is serious (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling suggests bulk collection and retention of customer data might not be in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights -- if it's done legally and with safeguards
So it's not illegal, so long as it's done legally.
Serious crime (Score:5, Insightful)
> UK 'Emergency' Bulk Data Slurp Permissible In Pursuit Of 'Serious Crime'
Such as copyright infringement of downloading a movie or album...
Re: (Score:1)
> UK 'Emergency' Bulk Data Slurp Permissible In Pursuit Of 'Serious Crime'
Such as copyright infringement of downloading a movie or album...
Or pointing out the bad things that the people in power are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
News at 11, the big story here, everyone is missing, the UK government just killed the data cloud. How can anyone ever trust a data cloud company any more, that company could be searched and that means all the data that it holds exposed to government perusal. Basically the UK government is claiming that all letters and packages at a post office are examinable should a warrant be issued against, any employee at that post office. The only way to secure your data now is own you own servers in your safe room o
Re: (Score:3)
None is exactly what additional protection we'll get from the EU after Brexit.
Though we'll still be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is independent of the EU, has its own court, and does not have the associated political shenanigans the UK pulled in relation to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that is at issue here.
Re: (Score:1)
'cuz the EU protects our human rights betta?
Because it does. Why else would "Brexiter" Davis taking a case to the EU court? Because he knows that in the UK he has no chance of obtaining any protection of rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that his claim was trashed. Which trashes your pro-EU talking point too. Have fun defending the EU human rights track record now.
Re:"Serious Crime" (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/... [nwemail.co.uk]
"However, before the trial was set to start, a fresh charge was entered, to which Cooper pleaded guilty."
Game over. Nobody convicted him but himself. It didn't even need a trial, it's automatic and then he's automatically punished. No judge stood there and THOUGHT that he was guilty. He admitted guilt from the very start of the trial.
If you don't think that what you did overstepped the mark, you don't plead guilty, especially if you're a midwife whose career is on the line. And then you could appeal to the court based on the circumstances and might be FOUND guilty. But admitting it is NOTHING to do with courts being overly harsh. Someone says you committed an offence. It goes to court. You admit that you did. Game over. No evidence needs be heard.
Chances are that he was way over the mark, knew it, and didn't mention that in any of his posts.
Don't get your news, or your opinion of the justice system, from a one-sided, uninformed puff-piece from the media. Even the BBC.
Re: "Serious Crime" (Score:1)
Evidently it no longer takes a village to raise a child. It takes a police state.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The data was never needed to be used in UK courts as it was acted on in other direct ways by the UK gov/mil. The fun part is now this the gov can collect the any bulk data that gets sorted by site accessed, credit card, ip, user details, isp and legally go to court with its logs and findings. Just protesting or question
An "emergency" is whatever they say it is, (Score:4, Informative)
and "serious crime" increasingly is equated with thoughtcrime. The definition of "legally" is fluid and arbitrary, and "safeguards" are totally unspecified and undefined; this renders both terms utterly meaningless in the context of TFA. "(L)aid down by proper legislative process" and "respect the essence of the right to respect for privacy and data protection" are weasel words and part of a snow job.
Undefined, non-specific buzz-words are the perennially favourite tools of despots and would-be dictators. Unfortunately, today they are also the lingua franca of both political and legal discourse; and a befuddled populace, (with the help of news media which are largely complicit in the scam), goes along with it all as though it means something other than their eventual enslavement.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK threat level had never been below "substantial" in its history. Most of the time it's at "severe".
In other words, they can take a big slurp any time they like, because terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. When I went to school, we used to learn a story about a boy and a wolf. It didn't end well for him, and one of my biggest concerns about the whole terrorism paranoia thing is that our governments are making exactly the same mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except the wolf eats all of us.
Safeguards (Score:2)
safeguards, I do not think that word means what you think it means
Violation of the EU-Canada Data Treaty (Score:1)
Canadian citizens have a right to privacy when in the EU, which the UK is still a part of.
This includes data slurps.
And it's in the Constitution.
O The Irony (Score:2)
Of David Davis (a Brexiteer) taking a case to the European Court of Justice about violation of his privacy rights, as defined by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; a document his new boss Theresa May (who opposed Brexit) has publicly said she would like to tear up [theguardian.com].