3 ms·

So, one of the key things about this ruling is that it declares "that prior to the disclosures made and referred to in the Tribunal’s Judgment of 5 December 201

So, one of the key things about this ruling is that it declares "that prior to the disclosures made and referred to in the Tribunal’s Judgment of 5 December 2014, the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or (on the Claimants’ case) Upstream, contravened Articles 8 or 10 ECHR".[1] ECHR refers to the European Convention on Human Rights[2]. Article 8 covers privacy. Article 10 covers freedom of expression. The Human Rights Act 1998 declares that "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right"[3] (and GCHQ is classified as a public authority) but I'm not aware of any legislation that would classify such actions as a crime. Therefore, while monetary damages may be awarded[4], it seems unlikely that anyone could be held personally accountable (in the sense of being charged with a crime). Ironically, the Home Office just announced a public consultation on the draft codes of practice for interception of communications and "equipment interference" (which covers hacking).[4] 1: http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Ri... 3: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6 4: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8 5: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/interception-of-communications-and-equipment-interference-draft-codes-of-practice https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/interception-of-...

peteretep 12y ago
I may be alone here, but while I don't always agree with the laws of the country, I want the government, army, police, and civil service to be acting inside those laws.
- harkyns_castle 12y ago
  I think we've gone far beyond what anyone wants. I'm starting to be a bit surprised by the good news though, I'll take what I can get. * Until such time as we can fix this mess.
- 7952 12y ago
  I get the impression that the agencies actually do want to act legally. And the government go to great efforts to make sure that these kind of actions are legallised after the fact. I wouldn't be suprised if this ruling is used as an excuse to leave the ECHR. Personally I think it is better to have tight laws that are sometimes broken than loose laws that authorize anything. I understand that there are situations where agents may have to break the law and should have a reasonable defence against prosecution (akin to self defence). Instead we get this world in which these grey areas are ignored to the detriment of everyone.
  - xyzzy123 12y ago
    You're being downvoted unfairly IMHO. I'm against the status quo, but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated. There are a lot of legal exemptions for agencies, but they are well aware they're not above the law. The public scrutiny will create genuine headaches for them, and I can guarantee you right now that there are a lot of people whose sole job is to ensure that they meet directives. They're not gonna change international agreements over it though. I am surprised that people on HN aren't seeing this for the genuine victory it is; only law can bind these entities, and it's not a quick process. This is the process working, as well as it ever does (for ill and good).
    - DanBC 12y ago
      > but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated. I agree. They think they're following UK law. Here's an article from Grauniad which supports that: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gchq-spy-world http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gc... > The briefings, which are entitled UK Operational Legalities, stress that GCHQ "is an organisation with a highly responsible approach to compliance with the law". > GCHQ also has a well staffed legal team, known as OPP-LEG, to help staff navigate their way through the complexities of the law. > But there appears to be some nervousness about Tempora. In a paper written for National Security Agency (NSA) analysts entitled A Guide to Using Internet Buffers at GCHQ, the author notes: "[Tempora] represents an exciting opportunity to get direct access to enormous amounts of GCHQ's special source data. > "As large-scale buffering of metadata and content represent a new concept for GCHQ's exploitation of the internet, GCHQ's legal and policy officers are understandably taking a careful approach to their access and use."
DanBC 12y ago
I'm curious about the careful wording they used: this is carefully referring to data gathered by Americans[1] and used by GCHQ, and not to data gathered by GCHQ. I understand that GCHQ, while not admitting to the existence of TEMPORA in public, is being careful with it, providing in-house lawyers for their staff to operate within what they think the law says. So this ruling only changes the "We spy on your citizens; you spy on ours" work-around to various laws making it hard to spy on your own citizens. Since the English laws are pretty clear and should be easy enough for GCHQ to work with it's not much change on our side.

peteretep 12y ago

I may be alone here, but while I don't always agree with the laws of the country, I want the government, army, police, and civil service to be acting inside those laws.

harkyns_castle 12y ago
I think we've gone far beyond what anyone wants. I'm starting to be a bit surprised by the good news though, I'll take what I can get. * Until such time as we can fix this mess.
7952 12y ago
I get the impression that the agencies actually do want to act legally. And the government go to great efforts to make sure that these kind of actions are legallised after the fact. I wouldn't be suprised if this ruling is used as an excuse to leave the ECHR. Personally I think it is better to have tight laws that are sometimes broken than loose laws that authorize anything. I understand that there are situations where agents may have to break the law and should have a reasonable defence against prosecution (akin to self defence). Instead we get this world in which these grey areas are ignored to the detriment of everyone.
- xyzzy123 12y ago
  You're being downvoted unfairly IMHO. I'm against the status quo, but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated. There are a lot of legal exemptions for agencies, but they are well aware they're not above the law. The public scrutiny will create genuine headaches for them, and I can guarantee you right now that there are a lot of people whose sole job is to ensure that they meet directives. They're not gonna change international agreements over it though. I am surprised that people on HN aren't seeing this for the genuine victory it is; only law can bind these entities, and it's not a quick process. This is the process working, as well as it ever does (for ill and good).
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated. I agree. They think they're following UK law. Here's an article from Grauniad which supports that: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gchq-spy-world http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gc... > The briefings, which are entitled UK Operational Legalities, stress that GCHQ "is an organisation with a highly responsible approach to compliance with the law". > GCHQ also has a well staffed legal team, known as OPP-LEG, to help staff navigate their way through the complexities of the law. > But there appears to be some nervousness about Tempora. In a paper written for National Security Agency (NSA) analysts entitled A Guide to Using Internet Buffers at GCHQ, the author notes: "[Tempora] represents an exciting opportunity to get direct access to enormous amounts of GCHQ's special source data. > "As large-scale buffering of metadata and content represent a new concept for GCHQ's exploitation of the internet, GCHQ's legal and policy officers are understandably taking a careful approach to their access and use."

DanBC 12y ago

I'm curious about the careful wording they used: this is carefully referring to data gathered by Americans[1] and used by GCHQ, and not to data gathered by GCHQ. I understand that GCHQ, while not admitting to the existence of TEMPORA in public, is being careful with it, providing in-house lawyers for their staff to operate within what they think the law says. So this ruling only changes the "We spy on your citizens; you spy on ours" work-around to various laws making it hard to spy on your own citizens. Since the English laws are pretty clear and should be easy enough for GCHQ to work with it's not much change on our side.