Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday January 18 2020, @01:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the my-data-is-still-my-data dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Analysis: In a massive win for privacy rights, the advocate general advising the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said that national security concerns should not override citizens' data privacy.

That doesn't mean that the intelligence and security services should oblige communications companies to hand over information, especially when it comes to terrorism suspects, the opinion, handed down yesterday, proposes. But it would mean that those requests will need to be done "on an exceptional and temporary basis," as opposed to sustained blanket harvesting of information – and only when justified by "overriding considerations relating to threats to public security or national security."

In other words, a US-style hovering [sic] up of personal data is not legal under European law.

The legal argument being made by the AG is technically advisory - the ECJ has yet to decide - though in roughly 80 per cent of cases it does side with the preliminary opinion put forward by its Advocate General, in this case Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona.

If the ECJ agrees, it could also have significant implications for the UK which has passed a law that gives the security services extraordinary reach and powers – which is in a legal limbo due to the ongoing Brexit plans to leave the European Union.

If this proposed legal solution is adopted by the court, the UK will be able to retain its current laws, though it would almost certainly face legal challenges and would have a hard time reaching an agreement with Europe over data-sharing – something that could have enormous security and economic implications.

The case itself was sparked by a legal challenge from Privacy International against the UK's Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) as well as a French data retention law.

In essence, the issue was whether national governments can oblige private parties - in this case, mostly ISPs - to hand over personal details by simply saying there were national security issues at hand.

The AG opines that no, it cannot: the European Directive on privacy and electronic communications continues to apply, and is not superseded by security claims. It does not apply to public bodies who are obliged to do what the government says.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday January 19 2020, @11:35AM (2 children)

    by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Sunday January 19 2020, @11:35AM (#945252)

    I read it the way I did specifically because I know of at least one homeless person who contributes (not on this site however) by using the free computers at the library. It's warm, dry and has access to water and restroom. He has mental problems and writes on several blogs concerning his specific illnesses. (I buy him a sandwich and a cup of coffee from the diner next door when I see him, I don't give him cash as it would end up in a beer bottle as alcoholism is one of his many problems) Like MDC, he is reasonably intelligent, but paranoid beyond belief and difficult to get to know.

    He's quite a nice guy but very shy due to his paranoia. Took quite a while to get him to open up at all, and even then it's pretty minimal, for example he won't tell you his last name and depending on his mood, his first name is either 'Carl,' 'Mick,' or 'Dale.'

    I am a bit concerned for him due to his advanced age and the cold weather recently as I haven't seen him in a several weeks. I hope it's due to being in a shelter or better yet, and actual apartment. As he does get a small government check, I hope it's the latter, even if it's only for the winter.

    I got to know him initially when he left a coat behind at the library last summer, I found him a couple of blocks away and talked him into letting me drive him to the Union Gospel Mission. Since then I see him most Saturdays at the library.

    Writing on a blog or news site doesn't have to cost money, and in his case, is probably therapeutic to some extent.

    A good weekend to you both, Joe and Hudson.

    --
    Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Sunday January 19 2020, @12:07PM (1 child)

    by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday January 19 2020, @12:07PM (#945257) Journal

    Ah, yes, ambiguity in spoken / written language strikes again. I think we both now see where the confusion came from. I think Hudson meant "contribute" in a monetary way while you interpreted it as non-monetary. It does lead to drastically different interpretations of the sentence.

    I have to admit MDC's departure shook me. I may not have always agreed with him, but I almost always found his thoughtful contributions to SoylentNews highly enjoyable. I didn't know him personally, but I do miss him. I think it's awesome you talk with Carl/Mick/Dale on a regular basis.

    Have a good weekend too.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 19 2020, @02:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 19 2020, @02:47PM (#945291)

      as a random internet user i was surprised to see the dialogue about someone having picked up on an unstated or implied bias.

      i can see why a person considered to be homeless, but maybe capable of contributing, could be insulted if taking the statement that homeless need not apply/do not donate was some sort of bias. it could look like that.

      but i also see it as something like what was already said... "use what you have more effectively than giving it to me". clearing up such ambiguity could sound like trying to wring more money out of people, like if it was stated "but when you can afford to, please donate to me". maybe not even mentioning it is the best thing to do--having to include a disclaimer for statements just takes away from the message if it requires explanation.

      probably no offense was meant, and regardless, donations would still be taken. its up to the giver to decide if it is financially a good idea or if there are more pressing concerns.