SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A top secret report to the British prime minister has recommended that a new international treaty be negotiated to force the cooperation of the big US internet companies in sharing customers' personal data, the Guardian has learned.
Privacy campaigners said the decision to classify the report, written by the former diplomat Sir Nigel Sheinwald, as top secret was designed to bury it and said its key recommendation for an international treaty could provide a legal, front-door alternative to the government's renewed "snooper's charter" surveillance proposals.
It is believed the former British ambassador to Washington concluded that such a treaty could overcome US laws that prevent web giants based there, including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo, from sharing their customers' private data with British police and security services. It would also mean not having to revive the powers – which require British phone companies to share data from the US giants passing over their networks – from the 2012 communications data bill that would enforce their compliance.
Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group said: "The Sheinwald report should be published. Any attempt to hide it can only be interpreted as an attempt to close down debate about whether the snooper's charter is really needed. A new international treaty is the right approach to cross-border requests for data by law enforcement agencies. This approach undermines Theresa May's claim that there is a need for a new snooper's charter when there is a simple, transparent and workable solution."
But the Cabinet Office defended its decision to keep the report secret [sic]. It said Shinewald "reports on progress to the prime minister but... is not undertaking a public review". The Guardian understands the report has been classified as top secret by the Cabinet Office because it goes into the detail of each company's operations. Shinewald was appointed by Cameron in September 2014 as his special envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 03 2015, @08:57PM
True, its clear the Brits understand our constitution better than most US Citizens.
The only way to pass a law of equal gravitas to the Constitution is to do it via a Treaty.
Article Five, says in part:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
As written, the sentence places laws and treaties on equal footing with the Constitution.
Now laws passed by Congress were always expected to be subject it Judicial review by the Supreme Court, this addressed well before the signing, as explained by Hamilton in Federalist 78.
No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. ... The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar provenance of the courts. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the Judges as, a fundamental law.
But nowhere did Hamilton, or any of the other framers indicate that the SCOTUS could declare a treaty unconstitutional [justia.com].
Oddly, the courts have opined, that they could declare a treaty unconstitutional, but in fact, it appears that they never have actually declared any treaty invalid.
And because the constitution says nothing on this, no one has been too eager to push the issue as it will surely result in a constitutional crisis of one sort or another. Especially with a president that worked hard to get such a treaty still in power.
Its a dangerous loophole, and one the US should close as soon as possible with finality to prevent this kind of end-run, as well as the shenanigans of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement which the administration is trying to pass as a treaty.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.