[Closed] European Courts 1: UK gov O

The EU bureaucratic machine will be on the move soon ...

Big is not always beautiful.

😆

all party support for passing the emergency legislation 🙁

Not a good day for freedom IMHO and the party system means they are unlikely to face down their leaders/party.

Ignoring what you think of the law rushed laws are rarely good ones.

"The only reason this is an emergency that has to be dealt with in a single day in the House of Commons is because the government has spent three months making its mind up and has decided that we're going on holiday in 10 days' time. Would it not make far more sense to enable proper consideration, so that we do not have unintended consequences from this legislation, if this was considered in this House on two separate days, so that we can table amendments after second reading?"
Chris Bryant

And people wonder why Scots might want to vote Yes. ****ing travesty, the EU courts do something useful and it get swatted down immediately in this stitch up.

Is their anything more pathetic than the supposedly pro-EU liberal* deputy prime minister, stood at Dave's side, in true lap dog style, offering his mealy-mouthed explaination why he needed to over-rule the EU to allow the government to monitor all it's citizens communications.

* the word liberal is used figuratively in this instance. And in no way infurs any actual connection with the dictionary definition of the word

Does that mean Andy Coulson can go free?

binners - Member

Is their anything more pathetic than the supposedly pro-EU liberal* deputy prime minister, ...

He got a career as deputy PM with the pension to go with it until his life expires so better to be a lap dog than a salaried man, in reality he is laughing at you. 😆

The title to this thread is misleading. The European Court of Justice didn't win or lose anything, it just made a decision.

If I have understood it correctly, the case was brought by an Irish civil rights group against the EU. (I might not have understood it correctly). http://edri.org/ecj-data-retention-directive-contravenes-european-law/

And people wonder why Scots might want to vote Yes. **** travesty

I'm scots and whilst i want to vote yes i also wish to vote a big fat no (preferably with a slap to the face) to being ruled by Alex Salmond, some of his policies along with his sycophantic dribbling of big money donors turns me inside out, here's an example of [url= http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/08/01/the-snp-s-sinister-plan-to-give-all-children-a-state-guardia ]one of his planned polices here[/url] - the guy is a **** tin-pot dictator and the more i research and find out about him the less i like him, which at the moment is putting him on level pegging with Cameron, Blair, Hilary Clinton (curveball) and many others but if i listed them all i'd break the forum.

I wonder what extra powers have been hidden away in the bill?

I suspect there will be a lot of this in the coming years- I believe the latest visa requirements for spouses from 2012 will be going through the EU courts soon under appeal. UK judges have deemed them to be unlawful under EU law as they deny the right to family life, however Theresa May, the most evil woman alive in Britain today, has appealed this all the way up to the Supreme Court with rejection each time.

The issue is that crackpot laws like this and the spouse visa rules get deemed to be illegal by the EU and then the conservatives can play the "They won't even let us rule our own country, look at all them nasty immigrants/paedophiles etc. etc." card and win over the bigoted and ignorant.

Very glad Clegg isn't my local MP now that I've moved- the man is a disgrace to the idea of being a Liberal Democrat.

the man is a disgrace to the idea of being a Liberal Democrat.

Yep, I always thought of them as woolly jumpers and nice ideas but no real clue what to down with them, sort of like the greens with a more comprehensive policy list. Making policy that sounds nice but no idea how to implement any of it because no mug is going to vote for them.

Don't forget to email your MP if you're concerned about this. The Open Rights Group have sensible sample text and list of MP addresses [url= https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-the-data-retention-stitch-up ]here[/url].

The worst thing is that this legislation is only making legal something that's already happening now.

The security services won't be capturing any more of our data as a result, they just won't be able to be prosecuted for it.

Shameful all round, yet again Labour prove that they don't understand what the role of the 'opposition' is and LibDemstake the 'liberal' out of their name.

For discussion on the legislation read;

[url= https://twitter.com/JackofKent ]https://twitter.com/JackofKent[/url]

who's making it clear how far beyond European ruling this legislation goes in terms of allowing access to private data.

They won't even let us rule our own country, look at all them nasty immigrants/paedophiles etc. etc." card and win over the bigoted and ignorant

We have a scottish devolution thread if you wish to discuss the issue there.

Much as I would love to criticise Cameron and his "only the bad guys amongst us need worry" attitude I'm struggling to get offended at this.

However, I'm only reading about it on the BBC website and knowing them, they will have omitted something really vital.

The proposed law seems to clarify the requiement for telecoms companies to retain their call data records. All telecoms companies retain this for a certain period anyway, as this is how they work out how much to bill you.

It doesn't give the security services the right to access all this data as a matter of routine does it? Or is that the bit the BEEB have omitted?

Our Stasi aren't too bothered about the rule of law; they just spy anyway.

I think the government should be much more aggressive on internet/communication surveillance. This legislation doesn't go far enough. I am amused when people talk of privacy given all the stuff posted on facebook / twitter which is public domain and the fact that google/facebook etc data mine everything we type in order to sell advertising.

Off topic slightly but I highly recommend the movie "The Lives of Others"

Or is that the bit the BEEB have omitted?

Censored!

Seriously though - the fact that all three main parties agreed to this tells me there is a lot going on that we just don't know about, which is what I've always suspected. This is hugely unpopular, and any party could get a serious credibility boost by opposing it. But they haven't. When do they all agree on anything?

also wish to vote a big fat no (preferably with a slap to the face) to being ruled by Alex Salmond

Fair enough, but he wouldn't be in charge forever.... But this isn't that place for that discussion.

I think the government should be much more aggressive on internet/communication surveillance. This legislation doesn't go far enough.

You think the Government should have the right to snoop on all of your electronic personal data and communications when ever they like with no justification whatsoever? Emails, phone calls, texts, private messages, all of it? With no proof or even a hint of wrong doing?

The police aren't allowed to randomly stop you in the street and search you, why on earth should they be allowed to do it online?

The police aren't allowed to randomly stop you in the street and search you, why on earth should they be allowed to do it online?

Why do all the main parties agree with the bill? Because when all is said and done any differences between them are largely cosmetic. They are all part of the same political class.

Dave made a point, in his pre-electoral schmoozing/lies, of pointing out labours authoritarian streak, and saying that the more draconian aspects of it would be repealed. Anyone seen any signs of that? No, me neither.

The only politician worth listening too on matters like this is David Davis, and he reckons it's all deeply suspect.

[i]they have to have a reason to look at your online records. They have to have a warrant.[/i]

they don't now.

And this law means that it's legal for them to do it without a warrant.

The police aren't allowed to randomly stop you in the street and search you

They are, aren't they?

Why do all the main parties agree with the bill? Because when all is said and done any differences between them are largely cosmetic. They are all part of the same political class.

But they point-score and argue on everything.. except this.. hmm..

Jambalaya - you recommend watching 'The Lives of Others' then advocate more aggressive government surveillance? Looks like the writer and director really hit the spot with communicating their message to you. Ringing endorsement of intruding in people's private lives that it is. 😯

* puts house on Jambalaya using the phrase 'if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear' in his next post*

It's the tendency that underpins retention we have to be very careful of.

Gus Hunt, an ex-CIA Chief Technology Officer, highlighted in a presentation while still in post that, ‘It is really very nearly within our grasp to be able to compute on all human generated information’... ‘The value of any piece of information is only known when you can connect it with something else that arrives at a future point in time’ and ‘Since you can't connect dots you don't have, it drives us into a mode of, we fundamentally try to collect everything and hang on to it forever’.

This isn't because everyone is a suspect, but because we are the context against which unusual activity is measured. The bottom line is that they want it all. This isn't just social media and phones, but the next wave of biometric and wearable technologies too. This makes The Lives of Others (a great film) seem innocuous. Please email your MP if you're not keen on this (sample text and your MP [url= https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-the-data-retention-stitch-up ]here[/url]). Even if you're OK with this, at the very least the bill needs proper scrutiny and not to be rushed thorugh.

The problem we have is that we sit here and complain when the security services fail to stop a bombing or other outrage and then complain bitterly that they monitor our electronic conversations because they are private.

If you want your internet use/email to be private, then encode it and use other means to make it nor possible to see. The internet is open. Security is an add on, it was not built into the original system. We are all happy to use social media, which are supplied by companies who need to make money and make use of your profile - this is not private. We send email in plain text which can be read by anyone - this is not private. We amble around the internet - this is not private.

(Sorry - I'll get off my high horse)

The bill does have a sunset clause of 2016 - which means it will have to come back to the commons and be discussed. From what all the media outlets are saying, DRIP replaces the existing powers, not extends it. The existing powers are huge anyway. And just remember that the bill will have to be published anyway

And just remember that the US, Russia, China, other EU allies, etc will all be monitoring the net/email anyway

The irony of the do-gooders spitting feathers at this when they were the very ones in favour of 'Europe' and everything it will bring,

Bed, made, lie on. Ahhhhh. 8)

[i] then encode it [/i]

*hollow laughter*

everyone knows the NSA (and thus GCHQ) have back doors on all the encryption tools and if you use Tor they target you precisely because you're trying to not be open.

The difference with a commercial company is I can sue them/it's illegal for them to inspect my internet traffic (much like Royal Mail delivering mail but not reading it in transit).

The 'well if you've got nothing to hide' faction will no doubt be along shortly...

[edit]

[i]Bed, made, lie on. Ahhhhh[/i]

you know this act is because 'Europe' declared what the security services were doing is illegal and the UK government is trying to find a workaround to it? So at the moment it's Europe on the side of those opposign this law. Just saying.

And therein lies the issue: organised terrorists tend to be pretty clued-up when it comes to tech' and encryption. It's the rest of us regular folk who get hoovered up.

And this law means that it's legal for them to do it without a warrant.

They'll still need a warrant for a "live intercept" (i.e. a phone tap). I can't see where it makes provision for routine trawls of all telecoms call data. Can someone point this out?

patriotpro - Member

The irony of the do-gooders spitting feathers at this when they were the very ones in favour of 'Europe' and everything it will bring,

Bed, made, lie on. Ahhhhh.

Yeah you've got that the wrong way round.

Don't forget to email your MP if you're concerned about this. The Open Rights Group have sensible sample text and list of MP addresses here.

I wouldn't - then [i]they[/i] will know.

**dons tin foil hat**

wwaswas - Member

everyone knows the NSA (and thus GCHQ) have back doors on all the encryption tools and if you use Tor they target you precisely because you're trying to not be open.

But it's alright because if you use strong encryption or Tor or similiar you're definitely a paedophile

Oh dear. Someone's a bit confuddled.

We should know from experience that the phrases 'rushed through parliament' and 'all-party consensus' are the perfect combination for the very worst type of legislation. And this looks like exactly that!

Great piece on it here;

[url= http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/? ]http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/?[/url]

you need to register but it's free.

[i]I wouldn't - then they will know.

**dons tin foil hat**[/i]
🙂
(Of course, the point is we want those in power to know citizens are not happy!)

Right,

I THINK this is the draft bill

Its only 7 pages long, so have a read an make up your own minds rather than let the media frenzy sway you.

I think we should be sceptical when any of these things happen:

a) Measures are rushed through parliament in the guise of emergency legislation (especially when the situation could easily of been avoided)

b) There's cross party support, especially when there's been very little debate (see point a)

c) The primary reason for the legislation is keeping us same from paedophiles and terrorists.

@somewhatslightlydazed

Yep, read it this morning, but I don't see why this is not undergoing due process and discussion. While there will be differences among us on views about the balance between security and liberty, and the ends to which metadata can be put, the Government's behaviour and response does not answer the question of why this is being rushed through without scrutiny.

Government's behaviour and response does not answer the question of why this is being rushed through without scrutiny.

Yes, there isn't an emergency and this isn't "emergency" legislation.

I get the feeling the way it is being rushed through is just a bit of political posturing. Its an attempt to make the government look firm and decisive.

Yep, read it this morning, but I don't see why this is not undergoing due process and discussion. While there will be differences among us on views about the balance between security and liberty, and the ends to which metadata can be put, the Government's behaviour and response does not answer the question of why this is being rushed through without scrutiny.

Why do all the main parties agree with the bill? Because when all is said and done any differences between them are largely cosmetic. They are all part of the same political class.

* puts house on Jambalaya using the phrase 'if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear' in his next post*

problem is it goes beyond a stop gap that deals with the EU ruling.

it actually expands what the government can do in terms of interception of traffic.

and private chats amongst the parties does not count as 'scrutiny'. They could have published the bill 3 months ago and had proper scrutiny of it. The process they are using appears to be deliberatly trying to avoid it being looked at too closely by either the Commons or the Lords.

Indeed, strategic manoeuvring, not accountable politics.

"The proposed law seems to clarify the requiement for telecoms companies to retain their call data records. All telecoms companies retain this for a certain period anyway, as this is how they work out how much to bill you."

Right - and the proposed law makes it mandatory to retain data for a certain period. That's in contrast to the present position where telcos should not retain the data for longer than is necessary (as I understand it). It's a reversal of the principle, in other words.

It's ironic isn't it? You could level the phrase at the political establishment, and the security services, that they're so fond of trotting out when defending this kind of nonsense:

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear

... Erm... Ok then... In that case why is this being rushed through, with no time for any scrutiny, and without being debated then? Whatever happened to democratic accountability?

Frankly, it stinks! If this is so necessary then take the time to tell us why then. One minute it's terrorism, then it's organised crime, then it's to stop the next Jimmy Saville...

They tell us what it's supposed to stop, but there's very little forthcoming about how exactly it's meant to stop any of this. Seems to me that they're making up the justifications as they go along. It needs to be debated, and scrutinised so that it can be assessed whether the sacrifice of our democratic rights are justified by any alleged threat, and then a decision taken

One thing that the police and security services constantly demonstrate is that when given sweeping new powers, usually under anti-terrorism guises, they immediately start abusing those powers, twisting them to cover all manner of things for which they were never intended. This will be the same.

The claim 'your data is safe with us' also sounds a bit false when they can't even keep flight records to Guantanamo safe and lose records of child abuse allegations.

Does anybody think the government hasn't been doing this for god knows how long anyway? I's only now they're "justifying" it.

@iolo, yep, and documentation from the Snowden leaks confirm activities that have taken place without oversight, scrutiny and the absolute flimsiest of legal justification. This shouldn't detract from public expression about what passes into legislation and how this happens.

I find it concerning that if the authorities want a warrant to increase surveillance on any individual then this will be given by a politician rather than a member of the judiciary

They've been doing it, the EU have told them to pack it in, as it's illegal, so they're changing the law to make it legal.

It does seem particularly laughable when the political establishment has been wringing it's hands for years, telling us mournfully that whatever Europe says, goes! And they simply have no power to challenge it.

Though in this case, when it threatens to actually curtail the powers they've illegally accumulated, apparently they can simply turn round and tell them to **** off!

lose records of child abuse allegations.

@iolo - no the government haven't been keeping a record of every email/phone call/sms - the Telco's do though and so do the internet companies. The new law just mandates what they must keep and for how long. The use of phone records is highly valuable in general police, in road accident cases they can check whether you where using your phone at the time for example. Had you been sending SMS when driving etc.

I find it concerning that if the authorities want a warrant to increase surveillance on any individual then this will be given by a politician rather than a member of the judiciary

I think when they mention "Secretary of State" in this sort of legislation it usually means an authorised official. So in practice a memeber of the judiciary will authorise the warrant.

I'm sure we're all prepared to have all our communications monitored if it means we're saved from the tyranny of people texting while driving. We can all sleep safe in our beds tonight eh?

@Had the records/files been electronic there is much better chance we'd still have them

Stunningly naive.