UK gets taken to EU court and loses on surveillance laws - X-posted

[DemolitionRed]

A Tory MP, David Davies took the (Tory) UK government to the European Court of Justice. He won, Teresa May lost and her 'snooper's charter' looks fatally damaged!

Looks like our intrusive surveillance laws will have to be changed and in a big way! Oh dear!

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-secretary-david-davis-has-won-a-court-case-against-theresa-may/ar-BBxoQNk?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

The article is worth a read from the irony POV too - David Davies is the Brexit Secretary! You really could not make this up :hee:

An extract:

“This is the first serious post-referendum test for our Government’s commitment to protecting human rights and the rule of law. The UK may have voted to leave the EU – but we didn’t vote to abandon our rights and freedoms.”

Watson said the ruling showed it was “counter-productive to rush new laws through Parliament without proper scrutiny.

Oooops!

I wonder how long Davies will retail his job?

[Scarlett.]

And this is exactly why being in the EU is a good thing, someone to hold our government to account.

[Brillopad]

And this is exactly why being in the EU is a good thing, someone to hold our government to account.

And who holds the EU to account?

[joeysteele]

And this is exactly why being in the EU is a good thing, someone to hold our government to account.

Yes indeed, there are good and bad as to all things but you are right in what you say.

[jaxie]

And if Germany had better surveillance they might have their man by now. There is a place for it in an increasingly dangerous world.

[Livia]

Oh yes, that's what we need. A foreign, unelected court to impose their laws on our country. And I would remind everyone that our surveillance laws have done a pretty good job up till now.

David Davis brought the case before he became Brexit minister. I see a little conflict of interest there...

[user104658]

And if Germany had better surveillance they might have their man by now. There is a place for it in an increasingly dangerous world.
And if we just locked everyone in cages from birth there would be no crime at all.

Hooray! I've done it! I've solved crime! Now we need to hurry up and get out of the EU so that their pesky human rights shenanimawotzits can't get in the way of my plan.

[MB.]

And I would remind everyone that our surveillance laws have done a pretty good job up till now.

...so why introduce any new ones when those we already have in place work perfectly fine?

[arista]

And this is exactly why being in the EU is a good thing, someone to hold our government to account.


Chewy
Pull Your Socks UP

From March 2017
we start a 2 Year Leaving the EU

We do not , need or want them
FACT

[arista]

And if Germany had better surveillance they might have their man by now. There is a place for it in an increasingly dangerous world.


Yes Germany has no cameras like ours
they are nothing like the UK

we buy their Cars
at the moment.

[jaxie]

And if we just locked everyone in cages from birth there would be no crime at all.

Hooray! I've done it! I've solved crime! Now we need to hurry up and get out of the EU so that their pesky human rights shenanimawotzits can't get in the way of my plan.

Now you're just being silly.

[user104658]

Now you're just being silly.

It's an extreme version of exactly the same concept :shrug:

[DemolitionRed]

They aren’t only tracking and monitoring our text and email messages, web browsing history; travel and financial transactions (buying habits). They are monitoring which of us use public services, our work records and even our health records. Our every move can now be monitored from cradle to grave. Our suspicious government monitor us more than we monitor our own young children….” All in the name of terror”

Excessive surveillance will only foster a climate of suspicion. Suspicion that we are owned by the big guys and could face social exclusion and discrimination if we dare to stand up against a system that is rapidly controlling our every move.

Look towards North Koreans and the fear caused by mass surveillance. There is nothing democratic about what our government are up to.

[Livia]

...so why introduce any new ones when those we already have in place work perfectly fine?

That's quite a strange question. Things develop... terrorists evolve their tactics, so must we. Laws have to evolve with the situation.

[Livia]

And if we just locked everyone in cages from birth there would be no crime at all.

Hooray! I've done it! I've solved crime! Now we need to hurry up and get out of the EU so that their pesky human rights shenanimawotzits can't get in the way of my plan.

Serious Debates, TS. The clue's in the words.

[Livia]

They aren’t only tracking and monitoring our text and email messages, web browsing history; travel and financial transactions (buying habits). They are monitoring which of us use public services, our work records and even our health records. Our every move can now be monitored from cradle to grave. Our suspicious government monitor us more than we monitor our own young children….” All in the name of terror”

Excessive surveillance will only foster a climate of suspicion. Suspicion that we are owned by the big guys and could face social exclusion and discrimination if we dare to stand up against a system that is rapidly controlling our every move.

Look towards North Koreans and the fear caused by mass surveillance. There is nothing democratic about what our government are up to.

Firstly, when you say "our" text and email messages, I think you're overestimating the interest they may have in you.

Secondly... North Korea? LOL...

I feel VERY safe. I know that my best interests are being served by our Security Services. If you don't... well, you live in France a lot of the time, didn't you say? I'm sure you feel more secure there without quite so much surveillance, but with the random terror attacks.

[armand.kay]

I highly doubt the government is gonna waste money intimately watching everything that every citizen does.. I can't see them using these tools unless they have a reason to suspect a person...

[user104658]

Serious Debates, TS. The clue's in the words.
It is entirely serious.

Keeping everyone in cages (or OK, let's say a comfortable cell) permanently would stop ALL crime. We all, I assume, agree that this is going too far. Therefore we have established that there *is* a line that we are not prepared to cross when it comes to giving up freedom for safety. So where is that line?

[Northern Monkey]

I think our security services do an amazing job.They have stopped numerous terror attempts in this country.It is actually quite unbelievable that they have managed to prevent the amount they have and we haven't had a major incident since 7/7.
It is true also that technology is playing a major role in the planning of these attacks and attempts.
Our security services do need to be able to gain access to the tech to gather intelligence.
However i think there is a line where it becomes too intrusive.I'm all for the cameras in populated areas as they help identify even everyday crims aswell as terrorists.Look at Germany arresting the wrong person after truck attack for instance.
I think having the legal authority to hack into anybodies phone or e-mails is the step too far.I agree with the statement in the article that police and government shouldn't just have the power to do that at will(even if they won't) and only judges be able to permit that kind of surveillance.

[Withano]

The guy in charge of moving the Uk out of the Eu just asked the EU to block a UK law?.. Did I read that right? Thats hilarious.

[Denver]

Like it wont be reversed in the next 2 years

[user104658]

Like it wont be reversed in the next 2 years

2 years longer for people to learn how to protect themselves online at least. Because it is possible to be anonymous. And of course, criminals already know that, which is why it's utter BS that it's "for our protection", because the really dangerous people aren't operating in the open web in the first place to be logged or monitored.

[Cherie]

2 years longer for people to learn how to protect themselves online at least. Because it is possible to be anonymous. And of course, criminals already know that, which is why it's utter BS that it's "for our protection", because the really dangerous people aren't operating in the open web in the first place to be logged or monitored.

So the foiled attacks on the UK were discovered how?

[user104658]

So the foiled attacks on the UK were discovered how?

Presumably not by doing something that isn't legal yet... right? :shrug:

[Niamh.]

And if we just locked everyone in cages from birth there would be no crime at all.

Hooray! I've done it! I've solved crime! Now we need to hurry up and get out of the EU so that their pesky human rights shenanimawotzits can't get in the way of my plan.
[emoji23] exactly though

[Cherie]

Presumably not by doing something that isn't legal yet... right? :shrug:


Would you rather they didn't stop it?

[user104658]

Would you rather they didn't stop it?
But your point was that they have stopped it. Without the "snoopers charter". So how can you be arguing that they NEED something that they DON'T have, in order to do things that they are already doing WITHOUT it?

#kirkcaps

[Cherie]

But your point was that they have stopped it. Without the "snoopers charter". So how can you be arguing that they NEED something that they DON'T have, in order to do things that they are already doing WITHOUT it?

#kirkcaps

Your point is you want no snooping, my point saves lives

[user104658]

Your point is you want no snooping, my point saves lives

There is already "snooping" and plenty of scope for surveillance. What I don't want is the most oppressive abandonment of freedoms and right to privacy in the entire western world to be voted into UK law. There's a slight difference.

Also;

They have already quite blatantly admitted that the security services ALREADY covertly carry out this sort of monitoring of terror suspects. They, no doubt, use that to stop attacks from happening. So ask yourself WHY the push, now, to make it legitimate? The answer is quite blatantly nothing at all to do with terrorism.

Allowing the government and law enforcement unrestricted access to every aspect of every citizen's private life in the name of "safety", and just because "they probably wont look at mine lol wont be interested"... is mad. It's just completely ****ing insane.