Europe's Top Court Confirms No Mass Surveillance Without Limits (techcrunch.com) 23
Europe's top court has delivered another slap-down to indiscriminate government mass surveillance regimes. From a report: In a ruling today the CJEU has made it clear that national security concerns do not exclude EU Member States from the need to comply with general principles of EU law such as proportionality and respect for fundamental rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression. However the court has also allowed for derogations, saying that a pressing national security threat can justify limited and temporary bulk data collection and retention -- capped to 'what is strictly necessary.' While threats to public security or the need to combat serious crime may also allow for targeted retention of data provided it's accompanied by 'effective safeguards' and reviewed by a court or independent authority.
Re: Represent (Score:2)
Well.. fuck them!
I mean literally. :D
Let's be honest.At 3AM, a hole is a hole. :P
If Britain hadn't already left, (Score:5, Insightful)
then they'd be on their way out of the EU now for sure. The British government has a huge-and-growing commitment to mass surveillance, and they'd not let some foreign blokes curtail it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And skipping that, what can be done by a court can be undone by it. That's why you should have some kind of amendment process driven by supermajority to lock this stuff down (almost) permanently.
I've seen a number of stories where EU people brag about not needing a first amendment (free speech, etc.) because it got in the way of their censorship desires (e.g. right to be forgotten, hate speech) only to be bit on the ass by it elsewhere, to say nothing about how, learning from history, you are whistling pas
Re: (Score:2)
to say nothing about how, learning from history, you are whistling past a mighty full graveyard.
"That's ok! Democracy has mighty good control over it. We implement nothing that doesn't have huge crowds cheering for it....ohhhh."
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't worry about crowd size. Those guys 80 years ago didn't willingly participate, just did so because their neighbors pressured them by threats of social and professional ostracis...ohhhh."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meesa might say thunderous applause.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a number of stories where EU people brag about not needing a first amendment (free speech, etc.) because it got in the way of their censorship desires (e.g. right to be forgotten, hate speech) only to be bit on the ass by it elsewhere, to say nothing about how, learning from history, you are whistling past a mighty full graveyard.
That would be Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
I think that can be fairly criticised for having a ton of exceptions:
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is primarily going to be a tool used against the UK and the US because 'your Government surveillance breaches our EU data protections'.
EU countries on the other hand will merely ignore it - there's a reason the EU is currently pursuing 800 breaches of EU treaties: People like Merkel don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the EU's curtailing of British mass surveillance the government doesn't really want to leave. It knows leaving is a stupid idea that will lead to ruin but it can't stop it now. It sold itself on the strong man image only months ago.
At best it might be able to do a huge last minute climb down and sell it as a victory somehow, but even that will be a massive economic hit that we can't afford with a COVID recession already on.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the EU's curtailing of British mass surveillance the government doesn't really want to leave. It knows leaving is a stupid idea that will lead to ruin but it can't stop it now. It sold itself on the strong man image only months ago.
At best it might be able to do a huge last minute climb down and sell it as a victory somehow, but even that will be a massive economic hit that we can't afford with a COVID recession already on.
Indeed. Government by those with big egos, no personal integrity and really small skills. Except skills at manipulating people, that is. The only thing that is going to save the Brits from going through a very long and very dark phase is basically getting rid of those big egos (the more permanent, the better), admit the mistake and ask for forgiveness. The EU would very likely accept that. But that is not going to happen.
Exception (Score:2)
There are, ostensibly, methods to opt-out of these rules, specifically for Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"There are, ostensibly, methods to opt-out of these rules,"
I opted out by using a VPN.
Re: Exception (Score:2)
The UK always got special treatment in the EU. They were the only ones to have a special vetoing power.(Required to be the US's vassal/mole in the EU.)
The only reason the UK is leaving, is because the treatment was not special *enough*.
When I say "the UK", I always mean their nutjob leaders (plus only those who follow them), mind you.
And if you ever want to feel good about your own government, watch this segment about the UK one:
Search for "Daily Show schadenfreudegasm".
(Freaking CC dark-aged it, so I can't
Next up: Permanent state of threat (Score:3)
Of course, you can always manufacture a "national security threat" and, of course, you need to retain all data infinitely in that case. Obviously.
Last time, fascism swept over Europe in a wave. This time it is slowly trying to creep in under the radar. And it is gaining ground.
Sounds like "Limited terms" of copyright. (Score:4, Interesting)
That is, it's a conceptual 'limit' without any reachable meaning behind it.
Which really translates to it being a fig leaf to pretend there's a limit off in the distance that will always be pushed out whenever it is approached.
What it really means is that whenever it is politically convenient, officials in charge will have an excuse to not do something that will catch THEMSELVES in surveillance, or implicate officers of the state - shuffling off inconvenient evidence at a whim - but everyone else will have maximum possible recordings and maximum prosecution for those actions.
And the courts will be on board to call that liberty, with absolutely nothing they could be reasonably expected to do better than that...
Until the shoe is on the other foot in a year, and the out-of-power actors decide that recovered evidence they hid is suddenly beyond-the-pale to use - an absolute travesty of justice, and inadmissible because it's so easy to fake these things, you know.
Presumption of benefit of doubt is a hell of a drug - and many would do anything to keep it going, but historically it always runs out for every group, at increasing rates over time.
Ryan Fenton
German SchÃuble fascists: "Everything is seri (Score:2)
For those unaware: The push for this bullshit comes from one source: SchÃuble. Our edition of Darth Cheney. ... well, a square pantsuit edition of Darth Jar-Jar Palin-Binks with Playmobil hair.
And his ally, Zypries. Our edition of
He's got a trauma ever since he got attacked and ended up in a wheelchair, and has backed all sorts of crazy totalitarian shit.
Weird. Slashdot ruined my post. (Score:2)
The title should end in "Evrything is a serious crime now! lol"
And somehow, without giving a reaon why, the last half of the comment was blocked by a "lameness filter" too:
Oh, and it's "Schäuble" (I hope this works) (Score:2)
I'm sorry for all the posts. Slashcode is such a hot mess. I wish I could merge them.
limits of democracy (Score:2)
If it weren't, all democratic areas should also have the following rule instated:
Any law maker should submit him-/herself and their closest friends and relatives to the proposed rules/legislation for a period of 5 (five) years, after which the debate can be opened whether the rules should be implement