Really?
Wow, the security services are ignoring the law and doing whatever the hell they want? I'm shocked!
This article adds two reasons to why I think a post-Brexit UK is very unlikely to offer an adequate level of protection in terms of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). One reason relates to recent comments made by Prime Minister Theresa May about human rights. The other relates to the non-compliance of the national …
It's one thing to argue that May's policies would make compliance impossible. It's another to assume that she (or someone else) won't have to change them. The economic realities of not being able to comply (not to mention the impact on the Good Friday agreement of abandoning the ECHR) is going to make her stance increasingly impractical.
We would, in future, be well advised to avoid promoting Home Secs to PM; the experience seems to warp their judgement.
"We would, in future, be well advised to avoid promoting Home Secs to PM; the experience seems to warp their judgement."
As the appointment process consisted of several rounds of political backstabbing and back room deals, and not even the tiny proportion of the country that are official members of the conservative party got to pick between prospective candidates, I'm not sure where the "We" come into it.
Oh you mean (it's just) Boris banging on about "Taking back control" ?
Seems he mean the Home Office taking back control (of bulk data sets).
Just to reiterate the UK Supreme Court view in a nutshell.
"Bulk storage of personal data is just fine. It's only if it's used in bulk that there might be an issue with Article 8."
No one else in Europe agrees. But then some of those countries (both North and South of the Iron Curtain) lived through what happens when the state is allowed uncontrolled bulk data collection.
While they may not know that this applies to them, one would expect that they had something in place to review legislation and determine whether they are or are not in scope of it, on a regular basis.
I think that leaves two possibilities:
1) They are incompetent, and genuinely have no idea what regulations apply to them
2) They know which regulations apply to them, but wilfully ignore them.
Which is it?
Didn't they take a very long time to dig up something in the 1984 Telecoms Act which retrospectively lets them off the hook (sorry, pun not intended), but they were doing it anyway?
History suggests it is in fact (3):
Make the regulations sufficiently confusing and vague that challenging them is exceptionally hard, especially when evidence is unobtainable; in the face of a successful challenge, change the regulations to ensure all pending challenges have to start again.
"(b) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands"
Perhaps that should be removed or rephrased to say that they CANNOT collect bulk datasets in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, otherwise that'll be the death of selling UK-based software/cloud services abroad.
But given her latest non-interview it seems Cruela De Vil is not bothered about economic interests, only regressing back to the 16th century, just before Crop Rotation was discovered because it's also mentioned in an EU directive and that's a problem.
"Perhaps that should be removed or rephrased to say that they CANNOT collect bulk datasets in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, otherwise that'll be the death of selling UK-based software/cloud services abroad."
And yet it doesn't seem to have harmed the US selling of cloud services, collection of EU data or even government submission of EU data to or by US companies.
The example I always give is the murder of Stephen Lawrence. His family started to embarrass the Met because of the lack of progress in the investigation. Their response was to send an undercover officer not to further the murder investigation but to discredit his family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26466867 With things like mass surveillance in place it will be much easier to dig up something embarrassing while perfectly legal or put things out of context to achieve the same aim. This is all about power protecting itself at the expense of ordinary people.
Oh dear, since when is the ECHR the EU? But a lot of the pro-Brexit arguments have been a conflation of various "taking back control" type misinformation, with rhetoric that sounds like it came straight from the script of "V for Vendetta".
When your government starts saying "we know best, and shouldn't be judged by our peers" then it really is time to start worrying...
Being part of the ECHR is a requirement for EU membership. May has in the past said the best reason to get out of the EU was so that we could then get out of the ECHR (although perhaps displaying her ignorance by claiming we could leave ECHR and remain in EU):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21726612
If the STAZI existed they would look on in envy with what is being done now. We must take away your rights in order to project them is as stupid an arugement as it sounds.
"Being part of the ECHR is a requirement for EU membership."
But being part of the ECHR does not require a country to be in the EU. And the Brexit vote was specifically about the EU, not any of the other European institutions we are members of, most (all?) of which don't require EU membership as a precondition.
But being part of the ECHR does not require a country to be in the EU. And the Brexit vote was specifically about the EU, not any of the other European institutions we are members of, most (all?) of which don't require EU membership as a precondition.
This is true, but it is her stated intention to make it a manifesto commitment to withdraw from the ECHR. Personally, this scares me. A lot.
"it is her stated intention to make it a manifesto commitment to withdraw from the ECHR"
The question this raises is exactly when did she realise her dreams were incompatible with supporting Remain. From her invisibility throughout the referendum, I'd guess a few days into the campaign someone smacked her with a clue stick.
"when did she realise her dreams were incompatible with supporting Remain....I'd guess a few days into the campaign someone smacked her with a clue stick."
I doubt it was as late as that nor that anyone had to alert her to it. I think she was a closet leaver all along but expected remain to win so nominally went along with that.
"it is her stated intention to make it a manifesto commitment to withdraw from the ECHR. Personally, this scares me. A lot."
Me too! And when she tries it on, I hope there are proper challenges to her right to unilaterally attempt it the way she tried to ride roughshod over Parliament with respect to invoking Article 50.
@ Anonymous Blowhard
"But a lot of the pro-Brexit arguments have been a conflation of various "taking back control" type misinformation, with rhetoric that sounds like it came straight from the script of "V for Vendetta"."
Unfortunately this isnt a brexit problem but a politics problem. Look at the severe misinformation and even severe rigging in the pro-EU campaign and the continued efforts to dictate to the people. This isnt a leaver/remainer problem this is an issue that has been continuing for some time. Think back to anti-terrorism laws being misused to track dog walkers. Even the spying on civilians in this country vs the same in Germany by the NSA with permission from Germany (until they got caught listening to Merkel). Pre all this brexit stuff it would have continued to be blamed on the war on terror. But now brexit is a great excuse for those not wanting to tell the truth and those looking for something to blame brexit for (since the apocalypse didnt happen).
"When your government starts saying "we know best, and shouldn't be judged by our peers" then it really is time to start worrying..."
Well said.
"Unfortunately this isnt a brexit problem but a politics problem."
The two are not independent. Brexit is a necessity for May's escaping international scrutiny on human rights by reneging on the ECHR. She is clearly prepared to chuck substantial swathes of the UK economy under the bus in order to achieve this dubious political end. The most charitable explanation I can think if is extremely blinkered vision.
@ Doctor Syntax
"ECHR. She is clearly prepared to chuck substantial swathes of the UK economy under the bus in order to achieve this dubious political end"
That assessment is very questionable since it could easily be economically good news but the human rights bit does bother me a bit too. In my view it is the trade off that people voted tories for the referendum instead of UKIP. All the cries of no plan are for electing Cameron who tried his best to rig the outcome.
"with rhetoric that sounds like it came straight from the script of "V for Vendetta"."
Yes, from the wrong side though. I fully expect satire to become an arrestable offence and possession of the Quran to become a capital offence the way things are going.
"Adam Susan is the leader of the Norsefire party, and the ruler of the dictatorship that holds Britain in an iron grip. A firm adherent of pure fascism, he values order above all else and sees civil liberties as unneeded luxuries which are ultimately threats to a secure society. He states early in the novel that he believes in "the destiny of the Nordic race", and subsequently despises anyone who is not white, Christian, male and heterosexual."
Insert the name of the fascist du jour and whichever political party is currently most barkingly pro-Brexit at the moment.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Apparently quite a few of the Reg readers who visit the forums care, which is interesting as the vast bulk of the UK population not only don't care they don't know, and if they did they still wouldn't care. They do however know and care what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast. As such there isn't much point getting overly concerned about it.
Theresa May, Spy Minister, has managed to keep a low profile since in power. This is actually working in her favour as nothing controversial has happened but we can all see what's coming.
I'm just not sure how/why "human rights" is something you would want to opt out of, or who instructed her to do that.
Unfortunately, "Human Rights Law" has many consequences. One is that we actually have the right (currently) not to be spied upon without good reason.
The other, that really grinds everybody's gears is the "right to family/life/liberty/whotnot" which is supposed to be a modern version of Habeus Corpus (You have the right not to be imprisoned by the State without trial). This has lead to a huge industry of well-meaning or money-grubbing lawyers extending the definitions so that we don't even get to deport foreign criminals if they own, say a cat.
Most countries have laws that say if you are not a citizen, if you commit a serious crime, you're out. We have them too, but we can't apply them.
Hmm.
From the DT:
"As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the UK to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship," he said.
"One detail provided, among many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.
"The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together.
This was a quote from the first-tier judge. The Upper Tribunal did not reference said cat, using other grounds. Whether out of embarrassment or legal correctness is not clear.
Something keeps Matrix Chambers very busy.....
The reason why we have trouble deporting criminals is due to the incompetent Home Secretary we had at the time who couldn't even get dates right on documents. Some oaf call May IIRC.
And ISTR other countries went to the EU court and asked if they could deport criminals and the court said 'yeh sure'. Its only in the UK we can make something simple into someone else's problem to such a level and not invent intergalactic travel. Don't expect that to improve either way.
I think that, if it is five years or more, you get the right to stay permanently anyway.
I worry more about my girlfriend staying when it might be close to the five years at Brexit, and whether they use weasel rules like "You went Home for a month, that counts as leaving and returning".
"I think that, if it is five years or more, you get the right to stay permanently anyway."
there have been at least two cases reported in the press of EU people applying to stay as a precaution. In spite of living here for many, many years they have been told they don't have the "right" documentary material for the process.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/29/home-office-reform-permanent-residency-application-process-eu-nationals
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/29/home-office-reform-permanent-residency-application-process-eu-nationals
Actually, last year a certain home secretary insisted that "Being in the EU gives us access to criminal records sharing and prisoner transfer agreements which help us better identify people with criminal records and, allow us to send foreign criminals back to their home countries to serve their sentences" (source, last paragraph here). So according to that home sec, (who it turns out, is now our PM), it's going to be harder to deport people when we leave the EU.
Oh well!
My lay reading of that judgement is that the Supremes said, its ok to collect the data, but you cant look at it!
But since there is no point in collecting the data in the first place if you're not allowed to look at it, why would the data need to be collected? So effectively, the judges were daring the intelligence agencies to collect and use the data, and if they got caught using it, the judges could simply deny they ever gave them premission to look at it.
Gobsmacking really. Thank diety for the ECHR!
I will paraphrase Sir Kier "Human Rights Lawyer" Starmer on this one. If we collect evidence on everyone when we don't know who the suspect is, when we have a suspect we will have evidence on them. Yes he did say this (precise words may differ marginally) in one of the IP Act debates. Yes, the so called human rights lawyer thinks this is a good thing.