3 ms·

The problem is that neither the government or police are really accountable for abuse of these powers. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the police have admitted pr

by Lio 7y ago

The problem is that neither the government or police are really accountable for abuse of these powers. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the police have admitted previously they’ve abused surveillance powers to blacklist innocent people from construction jobs simply for being members of trade unions. [1] No body went to prison for that or lost their job and no governments were brought down because of it. A few companies paid compensation but some are still fighting it in court. Until we can point to examples members of the police or security service being in someway sanctioned for privacy abuses I don’t think anyone can say that the system is working. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/06/trade-unionist-refused-job-after-police-passed-details-to-blacklist https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/06/trade-unioni...

shadowgovt 7y ago
Sibling to this thread, it was noted that HUDOC has oversight and can fine a government for human rights violations. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime...
- Lio 7y ago
  Leaving aside any fallout from Brexit, there’s a world of difference between “can” and “has”. Until safeguards are proven to work and we have examples where they actually haven’t been applied then they effectively don’t exist.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    """ Holds, by six votes to one, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) to the applicants in the first of the joined cases: EUR 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; (ii) to the applicants in the second of the joined cases: EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; """ https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc524359882 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc524359882 One can debate how effective a EUR 185,000 fine is in restraining the UK, but it strongly indicates the behavior was unacceptable and will be considered unacceptable moving forward. Seems safeguards work.

by Lio 7y ago

shadowgovt 7y ago

Sibling to this thread, it was noted that HUDOC has oversight and can fine a government for human rights violations. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime...

Lio 7y ago
Leaving aside any fallout from Brexit, there’s a world of difference between “can” and “has”. Until safeguards are proven to work and we have examples where they actually haven’t been applied then they effectively don’t exist.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  """ Holds, by six votes to one, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) to the applicants in the first of the joined cases: EUR 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; (ii) to the applicants in the second of the joined cases: EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; """ https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc524359882 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_Toc524359882 One can debate how effective a EUR 185,000 fine is in restraining the UK, but it strongly indicates the behavior was unacceptable and will be considered unacceptable moving forward. Seems safeguards work.