Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday September 14 2018, @09:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the activate-Brexit dept.

Govt mass surveillance violated human rights, European Court rules

A mass surveillance programme by the UK government violated human rights, the European Court has ruled.

In a landmark case brought by charities including Amnesty and human rights group Big Brother Watch, the top court ruled that the "bulk interception regime" breached rights to privacy (Article 8).

It comes after US whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed British surveillance and intelligence-sharing practices.

Also at Ars Technica.


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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday September 14 2018, @09:46PM (1 child)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 14 2018, @09:46PM (#735088) Journal

    Just as well. The Illiberal Elite will look after us. Or something. It's so confusing.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @11:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @11:16PM (#735135)

      Draconian copyright rules and censorship laws violate human rights too, but considering the Copyright Directive, they don't seem to care about that. I just wish there was a country that supported human rights consistently.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @09:52PM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @09:52PM (#735093)

    So when do the animals get to vote on human rights? Especially those being slaughtered around the world for amusement.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @09:53PM (18 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @09:53PM (#735094)

      It is racist to refer to Muslims as animals.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 14 2018, @10:12PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 14 2018, @10:12PM (#735102) Journal

        Except . . . Muslim isn't a race.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @03:48AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @03:48AM (#735207)

          I'm pretty sure that the only people who feel they have to say that "Muslim isn't a race" are racist themselves.

          Being Muslim is a reasonable proxy for being non-white.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:11AM

            by Immerman (3985) on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:11AM (#735212)

            I'm not sure about "reasonable", given than there's probably far more non-white Christians than... pretty much any other combination (including white Christians)

            But never let it be said that facts stood in the way of a vehement racist rant.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by unauthorized on Friday September 14 2018, @10:22PM

        by unauthorized (3776) on Friday September 14 2018, @10:22PM (#735110)

        No, it's factually accurate.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @10:43PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @10:43PM (#735119)

        Gotta love how obvious racism never gets modded troll/flamebait. Guess only the stuff that offends people personally gets modded down.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 14 2018, @10:54PM (12 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 14 2018, @10:54PM (#735125) Journal

          Permit me to be redundant: Muslim is not a race. You might pick another word to describe the bigotry being shown here, but racism doesn't fit. Now, if you will stop being redundant, then I will as well.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @11:36PM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @11:36PM (#735151)

            Yes Sir Grammar Nazi Sir!

            See, you aaarrre a Nazi!

            • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 14 2018, @11:55PM (10 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 14 2018, @11:55PM (#735157) Journal

              You seem to be off target today. Grammar nazis worry about grammar. I have little concern about grammar, and only take notice when grammar is heinously mutilated. In this instance, I'm attempting to force some vestige of science into AC's head. Muslims come in all sizes, flavors, and varieties. There are Arabic Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Negroid Muslims, perhaps some aborigine Muslims in the Americas, or Australia, and yes, Caucasian Muslims.

              When anti-theists start spouting about their hatred of Christianity, we don't call them racists. I don't believe that we have to tolerate that racism charge because we dislike Muslims.

              • (Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Saturday September 15 2018, @06:35PM (9 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Saturday September 15 2018, @06:35PM (#735372) Journal
                First, as someone who cares about both grammar and nazism, let me just say that I find the term 'grammar nazi' quite possibly the most offensive term I have ever had the displeasure of hearing, or reading. If ANY utterance should be held criminal hate speech, that phrase should qualify.

                "When anti-theists start spouting about their hatred of Christianity, we don't call them racists."

                This is the core of the issue, and I think you're essentially correct. But there are areas of exception, cases where religion is strongly correlated with ethnic identity. This sort of situation is sometimes referred to as 'communitarianism' and it's typical of the middle east for at least the past couple of millennia, since long before Islam, part of the setting in which Islam arose even.

                Groups live side by side but in separate communities, with social rather than physical barriers separating them. Of course these communities don't really represent real races - but neither does anything else we call race. The perception, inside of a system like this, is very much that 'Christians' 'Muslims' 'Jews' and others amount to separate races, and so prejudice against a religion can be indistinguishable from prejudice against a race. (The fact that the 'races' are actually closely related to each other does not seem to matter a bit for the perception here, races really are 'socially constructed' and people will perceive whatever divisions are assumed valid by the culture around them as being natural and obvious.)

                Ireland is a similar situation - on the surface, it may be a conflict between Catholic and Protestant, but in reality it's a conflict between communities with deep roots and a long history of being perceived and perceiving themselves as a separate people, ethnos, or race from each other (though again, both groups are actually quite closely related from the view of the objective eye.) So you find that the 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' partisans, the militants - they aren't necessarily very religious people. They aren't necessarily religious *at all*. They can quite easily be atheists, in fact, on either side of the conflict. Because the root of it has nothing to do with religion - but with these notions of community, of ethnos, of folk, of race. The atheist from a Catholic family is still a Catholic, in the sense that matters to the conflict at least - even if he's never believed, even if he's formally repudiated the tenants of the church - he's still a Catholic in the sense that matters here, and likely always will be. Just like the atheist Jew is still a Jew in the eyes of a Jihadi, or a Nazi; or, ironically, in the eyes of the 'Orthodox' Rabbinate. Even a formal conversion to Christianity or Islam is not always enough to satisfy those folks - the folks that care the most passionately about the division - and that really gives away how pseudo-racial their 'religion' is.

                But if we pull back from that subjective view, to (what should be?) our default view as 'westerners' as citizens of liberal democracies, of course we do and should separate an individuals choice of conscience from any associated notions of race or ethnos, and that fundamentally means we look at our own religion, as well as those of our neighbors, in an entirely different way.

                I'm not at all opposed to criticism of Islam, even after death threats from some of the most ignorant of the group I engage in it myself. I *am* opposed to a fair amount of the specific criticism of Islam that I've seen recently from the right, however, and for very specific reasons. To overgeneralize only a little, what all too often I see presented as criticism of *Islam qua Islam* - criticism that in the opinion of the exponent goes straight to the core of the religion itself - yet only applies to particular schools of Islam, most particularly the anti-traditional (and anti-modern, nearly nihilist) school of ibn Wahhab. This sort of criticism is deeply counterproductive, because it quite literally means adopting the very points that make that school so objectionable, points on which they differ, often radically and violently, from all the other schools of Islam, from all the traditional schools, as your yardstick of 'real Islam.' In effect, that means that you've just defined all moderate Muslims, and yes they do exist in the MILLIONS I assure you - you've just defined them all as apostates. Just like the Takfiri do. Why do they do this?

                Because their strategy is always to create division! To make the middle untenable, to force people to choose sides, from the choices they give. Just like Bush, they think you're either with them or against them, and they're eager to force the choice. They know that their teachings are repugnant to most Muslims - but they know a game that works every time to bring them around. They just need a useful idiot and oh! nice! They just found one. A right wing christian to wholeheartedly endorse their view on so many critical issues - YES the extremists are the real muslims! YES we are fated to an apocalyptic final battle and there is no way to avoid it, it is our duty only to choose the right side! Most Muslims still don't believe that, as far as I'm able to ascertain - and a century ago all of this would have sounded very strange, foreign, alien to most of them. But a century in control of Mecca, Medina, and a bunch of oil fields has made these views more acceptable.

                A critic that fails to distinguish this recent set of dogma from traditional schools of Islam, or worse yet uncritically accepts its claims to legitimacy and priority over them, is a critic who unfortunately functions as a useful idiot for the head choppers, IMHOP.
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 15 2018, @06:55PM (7 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 15 2018, @06:55PM (#735380) Journal

                  I will argue about separating current Wahabbist dogma from "traditional" Islam. Let us not forget that the fate of Europe - and "western" civilization - hinged on the Battle of Tours. Had Islam won that battle, pretty much all of the western world would be one flavor or another of "Muslim". Wahabbism really seems to be "real" Islam to me.

                  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday September 15 2018, @07:16PM (6 children)

                    by Arik (4543) on Saturday September 15 2018, @07:16PM (#735387) Journal
                    "Let us not forget that the fate of Europe - and "western" civilization - hinged on the Battle of Tours."

                    The battle was potentially disastrous, for both the 'communities' involved (and both did see themselves in that way at the time.) The Franks won and the Ummayads began to decline. This was in 732, unless you refer to an entirely different Battle of Tours, I'm sure more than one have been fought there over the years of course.

                    "Wahabbism really seems to be "real" Islam to me."

                    Al-Wahhab was born in 1703. So I am just not following you there, not at all.

                    Had the Ummayads won at Tours, Islam would have expanded further into Europe? Most likely true, but ultimately unknowable. But whether or not this would be a bad thing is also unknowable. Neither side there were in any way liberals, believe me. In many ways, we'd probably have found the Muslims of that time more to our liking than the Catholics, as modern western liberals - which is not to deny that we'd find both horrifying.

                    But Wahhabism was still hundreds of years in the future. The only link I can think of would be that looking back on Tours, from around seven centuries in the future, influenced Wahab's attitude toward jihad and so on, well, yes, I suppose there is that link. But wouldn't that mean that if Tours had gone the other way, Wahhab might have grown up to be a good boy?
                    --
                    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 15 2018, @07:31PM (5 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 15 2018, @07:31PM (#735389) Journal

                      Wahhab seemed to be intent on bringing Islam back to Mohammed's precepts. "True" Islam. Convert or die, and death to all apostates!

                      You mention the Muslims vs Catholics. You seem to know a good bit about the Muslim invasion of Europe. Are you aware that the Catholic Church all but invited that invasion, to counter the various Protestant movements? The Church's view was "Better Muslim than Protestant!" A combination of punishment, and control, from the Catholic point of view.

                      And, yes, I'm quite certain that had the Battle of Tours gone the other way, Islam would have expanded across Europe. If the Arabs could have prevailed against a more-or-less unified Europe, they could certainly have prevailed against a fragmented Europe. With a successful Tours behind them, the Arabs could have bided their time for a couple generations before attempting to expand further. Then they would have had all the resources of the newly conquered lands at their disposal - including cannon fodder.

                      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Saturday September 15 2018, @08:40PM (1 child)

                        by Arik (4543) on Saturday September 15 2018, @08:40PM (#735412) Journal
                        "Wahhab seemed to be intent on bringing Islam back to Mohammed's precepts."

                        Like virtually every religious innovator, he claimed to be a 'reformer' who was not really changing the old ways, but rather restoring them! Sure, he made that claim, virtually everyone makes that claim.

                        But was it true? Shouldn't you at least ask yourself that question, and take some time to be certain of the answer?

                        "Convert or die, and death to all apostates!"

                        See there's a funny thing, there isn't much evidence for conversion in early Islam. The Quran, Hadith, etc. all stack up to a bit of inconsistency on the subject, as I'm sure you're aware. At any rate the early converts were basically the Arab tribes there in the hijaz area, some were converted by force others willingly, but then what happens next? Well there not only is little evidence for forced conversions, but even little evidence for *allowing* conversion at all, for some time. Remember, this was a religion born from that communitarian setting, where it had been normal for millennia for different 'races' to live side by side, preserving their different religions and effectively forming a sort of a caste system in many ways. This goes back, not just to the Persians, but at least to Akkad.

                        So after Mohammed dies when they expand they basically take over the Persian and Greco-Roman realms around them, there's actually precious little conversion. In fact they actively tried to prevent it, they feared converts and soon ruled that conversion could only be legitimate if it was accompanied by adoption into one of the original Arab clans that followed Mohammed. It was seen for a long time as explicitly racial - conversion was a very rare thing, and being a Muslim meant not just being of Mohammed's religion but of his race - descended from him, or from someone that followed him. Or, in rarest of cases, conversion WITH adoption which permits you to marry into the tribe - so at least your children will be physically of that race. This is also the way many Jews and even Christians in the middle east have seen identity. In that context there was certainly no forced conversion, nor did they have any need to kill those who were content to simply pay taxes to the new master instead of the old one.

                        So I've got to give the claim a 'half true at best' mark on this. While there is some evidence of forced conversion inside Arabia during M's lifetime, and directly after particularly in Persia, the traditional jurisprudence effectively explains the former as exceptional and the latter as simply mistaken, and certainly has feasible arguments for doing so.

                        And that's not their most radical idea by any means. You've seen me refer to them as Takfiri. This refers to the practice of unilaterally declaring someone who is under traditional sharia presumed to be a Muslim (or a person of the book) to be a kafir, an infidel. That's simply forbidden, it's a monumentally serious sin in Islam, because it amounts to placing yourself above all authority; that's what Shaitan did right? Because who has the authority to call kafir? G_d himself. Where did he delegate that authority to you, who claim to submit (muslim) to his authority? That's the sort of argument you have there, and simply stating that al Wahhab was right and a thousand years of scholars are wrong, particularly from our perch on the outside looking in, seems a stunning oversimplification at best!

                        "Are you aware that the Catholic Church all but invited that invasion, to counter the various Protestant movements? The Church's view was "Better Muslim than Protestant!" A combination of punishment, and control, from the Catholic point of view."

                        That doesn't immediately ring a bell, you might link me what you are referring to?

                        At any rate it shouldn't be a surprise. Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, have consistently supported Islam as a thorn in the side of Eastern Christianity in many ways as well.

                        "If the Arabs could have prevailed against a more-or-less unified Europe, they could certainly have prevailed against a fragmented Europe"

                        Not necessarily. It's also plausible that, with the threat they perceived extinguished, they would have simply turned their attention inward again. It's certainly not like that's never happened.

                        But without a time machine we'll never know for sure.

                        Your scenario does remind me of a sci-fi novel I read years ago whose title I wish I could remember though. Alternate time-line, didn't split from Tours though, cruised right on past that to about 1350. Black death hit early and hit harder. European population dips significantly further than in our timeline, ultimate result, Osmanli Caliphate rolls over eastern Europe and doesn't stop till it gets to Scotland. As a consequence, no Columbus, islamo-Columbus sails a decade late. Islamo-Cortez does not find the oddly pacifistic Moctezuma on the Aztec throne, but his nephew(?) a more traditional ruler who simply has him tortured to death and then takes all his stuff. The Aztecs set to reverse-engineering the ships and other equipment immediately. By the time the next expedition comes, they find a fledgling Aztec navy which is not about to let them setup shop. Within another century, the Aztecs have declared their own version of the Monroe doctrine.

                        But yeah, we'll never know for sure.

                        --
                        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:32PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:32PM (#735476)

                          The reason Protestant and Catholic conflict leading to the battle of Tours didn't ring a bell is because it didn't happen. Most of a millenium too early for Martin Luther.

                      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @09:35PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @09:35PM (#735436)

                        My take: today's "bad" Muslims are a consequence not of the religion but of the rampant colonialism and imperialism in the last couple of centuries, but especially since WW2. The Ottoman Empire got wrecked, Jews flooded over into British-controlled Palestine before and during WW2, eventually leading to the creation of Israel by the U.N., U.S. overthrew the Iranian government in 1953, U.S. and Soviets fought a proxy war in Afghanistan, the U.S. adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. The end result has been a bunch of poor, weak, or undemocratic countries containing most of the world's Muslims, providing easy targets for extremism.

                        If Islam had become the religion of Europe, it could have eventually taken over the Americas by killing and conquering the natives, just as Catholicism and Christianity did. In this alternate history, Islam would be running the world, much as the U.S. does now, and Hindu and Christian extremists would be the ones strapping on the suicide bomb vests.

                        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 15 2018, @10:57PM

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 15 2018, @10:57PM (#735455) Journal

                          I've thought along those lines. And, in fact, we have a more current history to look to, that lends credence to your thoughts. We invaded Iraq, for reasons that seemed good enough to our politicos. Time proved that those reasons were mostly bogus, but time hasn't erased the consequences of that invasion. The entire region is more unstable than it was before the invasion, providing sustenance for DAESH, or ISIS.

                          The Ottoman provided stability, whatever else it may or may not have provided.

                        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:26PM

                          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:26PM (#735469)

                          My take: today's "bad" Muslims are a consequence not of the religion but of the rampant colonialism and imperialism in the last couple of centuries, but especially since WW2.

                          Just finished reading Wilfred Thesiger's Arabian Sands (highly recommended), a book in which he traveled among the Arabs of the "Empty Quarter" of Saudi Arabia. His travels took place when oil exploration in the area was just beginning and had not penetrated much, certainly not beyond the coastal areas. He had a very high opinion of the Bedu, finding them very hospitable and honorable. He found that the most "devout" Muslims, that is the ones who had the greatest enmity towards non-Muslims, were those who had the greatest contact with the outside world. Thesiger realized that he was likely the last westerner who was going to see this culture in its more or less pure state, it was already being inexorably destroyed by contact with westerners and their values. Those parts of the culture who had already dealt with westerners had at least on some level realized their culture was under attack, and were responding accordingly.
                          You destroy a culture, you rarely get something better in its place.

                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:45PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:45PM (#735484)

                  "Grammar Nazi" as hate speech? Lol, you conservatives really are the snowflakes. Let me just emphasize that your hate speech label is retarded.

  • (Score: 2) by Aegis on Friday September 14 2018, @10:07PM (2 children)

    by Aegis (6714) on Friday September 14 2018, @10:07PM (#735100)

    Sounds like Brexit will be worth something to someone then, eh?

    • (Score: 2) by drussell on Friday September 14 2018, @11:29PM

      by drussell (2678) on Friday September 14 2018, @11:29PM (#735143) Journal

      Heh... Yeah, I was just going to say that. :)

      "Hey, now with BREXIT, we'll be able to spy and spy and spy some more on our own citizens and nobody's gonna stop us now!!"

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:34AM

      by Immerman (3985) on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:34AM (#735217)

      Just what I was thinking...

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 14 2018, @10:15PM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 14 2018, @10:15PM (#735103) Journal

    There is supposed to be a Santa Clause, but more importantly, unwarranted government surveillance is a violation of human rights. The key word there is "unwarranted". If government suspects you of a crime, then by all means, government can seek a warrant. If a judge feels that the warrant is justified, he signs off on it, and government can surveil to it's heart's content - or at least within the limits of the warrant.

    Unwarranted surveillance is a crime against humanity and human rights.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:14AM (2 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:14AM (#735213)

      It's safe to assume that someone, somewhere is planning something nefarious.

      All we need is a cooperative judge and we can conduct "warranted", detailed, perpetual surveillance of everyone!

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:36AM (1 child)

        by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:36AM (#735218)

        All we need is a cooperative judge and we can conduct "warranted", detailed, perpetual surveillance of everyone!

        Which is why appointing a judge is not (supposed to be) a trivial matter.

        --
        It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Immerman on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:33PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:33PM (#735284)

          Of course not - a judge should always be carefully selected by the people pulling the appointing politicians' strings. Otherwise they might fail to advance the agenda effectively.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @10:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @10:19PM (#735106)

    With the amount of, what do they call, "chavas" or something, they have in the limey land, they need all them cameras. In fact, they need way more.

    Leave a message below if you want a good deal on cctv cameras. Bulk sale only.

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 14 2018, @10:20PM (2 children)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday September 14 2018, @10:20PM (#735107) Homepage Journal

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 14 2018, @11:04PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 14 2018, @11:04PM (#735131)

      Still more accurate D/s than "50 shades".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @08:22AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @08:22AM (#735234)

      Your pills champion, they only help you if you take them.

  • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by Entropy on Friday September 14 2018, @11:04PM (2 children)

    by Entropy (4228) on Friday September 14 2018, @11:04PM (#735130)

    Gotta go after the people hurting people's special, special feelings... rather than the people stabbing people in the knife crime epidemic London is enjoying.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @11:39PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14 2018, @11:39PM (#735153)

      Cause CCTV has been super effective at catching every crime /s

      • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:50PM

        by Entropy (4228) on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:50PM (#736509)

        I'm not a fan of government surveillance but allocating more manpower to rape & murder rather than they hurt my feelings crimes seems like a really good idea.

(1)