GCHQ’s mass data-sharing violated right to privacy, court rules

> The court said it had identified three “fundamental deficiencies” in the regime. They were that

> bulk interception had been authorised by the secretary of state, and not by a body independent of the executive;

> that categories of search terms defining the kinds of communications that would become liable for examination had not been included in the application for a warrant;

> and that search terms linked to an individual (that is to say specific identifiers such as an email address) had not been subject to prior internal authorisation.

Out of _everything_ that Snowden revealed -- the fact that _effectively everything_ transmitted electronically from one human being to another on this planet ended up in the hands of five-eyes; including how the US and UK used each others' rules to snoop on each others' citizens without oversight -- how is it the case that the court only finds that the problems are:

(1) the wrong civil servant authorised the snooping;

(2) the paperwork did not specify that the types of electronic communication examined would be e.g. "email" (which is a valid search term!);

and (3) finally, the one with teeth, the fact that investigators should have _some vague idea about what they are looking for_ before they start searching.

I don't know about you, but I'm not reassured by this ruling. This isn't an issue for the political parties in any nation, as far as I can tell, and I don't quite understand why. We have a right to privacy -- let's use it! At the very least, I wish more people would use GPG. (And yes, Mac GPG mail is actually pretty good and usable. I just have nobody listening on the other side).

"In order to minimise the risk of the bulk interception power being abused, the court considers that the process must be subject to ‘end-to-end safeguards’, meaning that, at the domestic level, an assessment should be made at each stage of the process of the necessity and proportionality of the measures being taken; that bulk interception should be subject to independent authorisation at the outset, when the object and scope of the operation are being defined; and that the operation should be subject to supervision and independent ex post facto (retrospective) review."

GCHQ cannot be happier seeing "end-to-end safeguards", "necessity and proportionality", "independent authorisation". So many additional employees will be needed to apply "safeguards" (that we will need to make sure look great on paper), budget will have to be extend to pay all those "independent" authorizators. And what is sweeter than nice "necessity" proof in the days when almost anybody can turn overnight to be terrorist because of some twit.

Why the court couldn't just say: this was illegal, all data has to be deleted until X, next time you want to do this, get a court order, as courts are those independent authorizators in all countries that follow Montesquieu's separation of powers system.

Early in my career in security (many years pre-Snowden) I thought Echelon was a fun conspiracy theory and it was really just something less extreme with good people doing important work. I do not anymore. Our societies should find a way to put an end to these agencies peacefully, not unlike nuclear test bans and disarmament.

Gone are the days of "the government may be listening" as it's now "we definitely know they are listening, recording, indexing, searching, and parallel reconstructing". We must start treating everything as compromised and actively develop against all threats... because if we don't, then we need to swallow the bitter pill and accept that state surveillance is not only actively used, but it's going to be actively used against us, and we should stop complaining about it.

You see, the government didn't perform the necessary rituals to deny your rights, and the courts have been clear: the government needs to 'vote' and say something about 'the children' before they take your rights. Of course, that's only if the courts decide to hear your case, which is dependent upon the government saying the court is allowed to hear your case.

Just keep working through the system, it's working!

With no poison tree doctrine, we are one of the few places where illegally collected evidence CAN (and is) used in courts.

:(

Remember it was our global surveillance dragnet that made us have Nelson Mandela (and other blacks) arrested.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478272695/retired-cia-agent-c...

The NSA also conducted surveillance (illegally but they were not white) on homegrown black leaders (considered communists/terrorists/traitors by the white US government) like Muhammad Ali and Martin Luther King:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24279394

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/nsa-surveillan...

Maybe it's time it should be.