3 ms·
In many ways this ruling does not go far enough. > The court said it had identified three “fundamental deficiencies” in the regime. They were that > bulk inte
by azalemeth 5y ago
In many ways this ruling does not go far enough.
> The court said it had identified three “fundamental deficiencies” in the regime. They were that
> bulk interception had been authorised by the secretary of state, and not by a body independent of the executive;
> that categories of search terms defining the kinds of communications that would become liable for examination had not been included in the application for a warrant;
> and that search terms linked to an individual (that is to say specific identifiers such as an email address) had not been subject to prior internal authorisation.
Out of _everything_ that Snowden revealed -- the fact that _effectively everything_ transmitted electronically from one human being to another on this planet ended up in the hands of five-eyes; including how the US and UK used each others' rules to snoop on each others' citizens without oversight -- how is it the case that the court only finds that the problems are:
(1) the wrong civil servant authorised the snooping;
(2) the paperwork did not specify that the types of electronic communication examined would be e.g. "email" (which is a valid search term!);
and (3) finally, the one with teeth, the fact that investigators should have _some vague idea about what they are looking for_ before they start searching.
I don't know about you, but I'm not reassured by this ruling. This isn't an issue for the political parties in any nation, as far as I can tell, and I don't quite understand why. We have a right to privacy -- let's use it! At the very least, I wish more people would use GPG. (And yes, Mac GPG mail is actually pretty good and usable. I just have nobody listening on the other side).
- twic 5y agoOn (1), the Secretary of State is not a civil servant, that term means a government minister. The point is that the interception should have been authorised by someone who is not part of the government. I don't know who they think that should be - ideally it would be a judge, but often in the UK this stuff can be authorised by a senior police officer, etc. It might end up being the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is basically a rubber stamp: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Commissioner%27s_Office https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_C...
- azalemeth 5y agoOh, I know that the Secretary of State is not (officially) a civil servant. Both are indeed part of government. But as you rightly point out, the person that they do get to independently assess this is overwhelmingly likely to agree to whatever the executive wants: it will be a rubber stamp and thus an approval in all but name from the Secretary of State. I very much doubt that if you found yourself in that job saying 'no' a lot, you'd be in a position to keep it for much longer.
- colinb 5y agoPerhaps, but isn't it received truth that "Yes Minister" means no, except if the minister is feeling "brave", or perhaps "courageous"?
- twic 5y agoJust be absolutely clear for anyone reading, the secretary of state in this case is the home secretary, currently Priti Patel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priti_Patel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priti_Patel She is a Conservative party politician who was elected as an MP, and then appointed to the home office by the prime minister, who is also a Conservative party politician and MP. She is not "not (officially) a civil servant", she is an elected politician.
- billyruffian 5y agoParaphrasing 'Yes Minister', civil servants are in government, ministers are in politics.