UK tribunal rules that GCHQ hacking does not violate human rights

The GCHQ has won a major court case in defense of its persistent hacking program. Today, the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal declared that the surveillance agency is not in violation of British law, despite a complaint by Privacy International. Launched in the wake of the Snowden revelations, the case alleged that the GCHQ was violating fundamental warrant protections in its persistent surveillance actions. In December, the case made headlines when it led the GCHQ to admit to its persistent hacking programs for the first time.

Source

This is absolute nonsense. The corruption is being openly displayed as to say, “you can't do a god damn thing about it!” It started in the dark and while some people saw it forming, there was no real evidence that governments had these capabilities. Lawmakers were prepared though, putting up road blocks in advance. You know, just in case someone who knew too much decided to blow the whistle on what they were up to.

Court documents reveal oversight body struggling to control GCHQ domestic hacking

GCHQ first avowed the use of hacking in February 2015, when the Secretary of State released a draft Code of practice in response to our legal challenge. Previously secret documents, and witness statements produced by GCHQ now reveal and confirm:

* GCHQ confirmed that the Secretary of State does not individually sign off on most hacking operations abroad, but only when "additional sensitivity" or "political risk" are involved [Witness Statement of Ciaran Martin, paras 65, 72C].

* Overseas hacking does not require authorisations to name or describe a particular piece of equipment, or an individual user of the equipment [Witness Statement of Ciaran Martin, para 56].

* The Commissioner only formally reviewed the individual targets of GCHQ hacks overseas in April 2015 [Witness Statement of Ciaran Martin, para 71I].

* The Intelligence and Security Committee Report in March 2015 called MI5's and SIS's failure to keep accurate records of their overseas hacking activities "unacceptable", [ISC report, p.66] as it makes effective oversight impossible [Witness Statement of Ciaran Martin, 71L].

It began with this,

Computer Misuse Act 1990

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced partly in response to the decision in R v Gold & Schifreen (1988) 1 AC 1063. Critics of the bill complained that it was introduced hastily and was poorly thought out. Intention, they said, was often difficult to prove, and that the bill inadequately differentiated "joyriding" hackers like Gold and Schifreen from serious computer criminals. The Act has nonetheless become a model from which several other countries, including Canada and the Republic of Ireland, have drawn inspiration when subsequently drafting their own information security laws, as it is seen "as a robust and flexible piece of legislation in terms of dealing with cybercrime”. Several amendments have been passed to keep the Act up to date.

It appears that this piece of law is designed to facilitate their actions while incriminating the rest of us. It was allowed to remain open ended as the internet was surely going to evolve over time. The result of that evolution may not have been easily predictable, so they wrote the law as vague as possible. Thanks to Snowden, a wonderful opportunity to rewrite the books has came along. Hmm...

The Government is still looking to push major new spying powers into law, despite a report it commissioned advising that they weren’t needed.

Go figure. What a bunch of morons. After putting Snowden under different lighting conditions, you may develop a different opinion about why he exists. He's beginning to look more light an illuminating force for the NSA, than anyone who did any real good for the planet. We've almost accepted his revelation as common practice and have been soothed back asleep, succumbing to the reality that government is in our business 24/7.

From October 2015,

The new powers could include giving Britain’s spying agencies the power to take over a phone remotely and access all of the documents – including text messages and emails – and photos that are stored on it. They will then be able to install software that will allow them to look in on the messages and data of people at any time, according to reports.

Anyways, back to last Friday's victory for the GCHQ. The link below will help explain why privacy is an important human right. It goes into great detail about how the right system can be equally as effective for the government and it's people. As for the UK, things are going to escalate pretty quickly.

International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance

...critics say that decision represents a clear break from the principle of necessary and proportionate authorization, which civil rights groups across the world had pushed for in the wake of the Snowden ruling and has basis in a number of national constitutions.

The problem is, they're not only looking to catch the bad guys, they're looking to keep an eye on you and your habits. They want to extract as much information from our daily lives and let AI algorithms provide them with possible outcomes to what my past behavior has dictated that I'll end up doing in the future. They market towards profitable trends in behavior and capitalize on your desires and obsessions. Just look at their arrogance…

In the ruling, the IPT swept aside those concerns as anachronistic impediments to national security. "Eighteenth Century abhorrence of general warrants issued without express statutory sanction is not in our judgment a useful or permissible aid to construction of an express statutory power given to a Service, one of whose principal functions is to further the interests of UK national security, with particular reference to defense and foreign policy," the ruling reads.

To sum it up, the recurring threat of terrorism was the GCHQ's parroted response in defense to obvious criticism faced by graciously allowing themselves into every facet of your life.

"The security situation for the United Kingdom, presently described as severe, is such that there needs to be the most diligent possible protection.”

Well, I don't even live in the UK, but I know what you're going through. Its game over in slow motion.

But, at least we're SAFE.

For now.

a reply to: eisegesis

Just like their counterparts in the NSA and ASIO, this is a law that defines the meme of "do as I say, not as I do" and their get-out-of-jail-free-card is that elusive "terrorist" or "potential terrorist" that constitutes their justification to spy on citizens lest "political risk" (read: antiestablishment sentiments) is manifested and the establishments status quo is potentially compromised.

a reply to: eisegesis

“you can't do a god damn thing about it!”

A good summation...says it all really, I'm not even sure what might constitute why these criminals will now, cough, be allowed to have even a teeny weeny reason to stick their greasy nebs into your business..no, I am sure, and the answer is ANYTHING.
Now they have come up with this piece of shiite, it even allows them to go rogue if they want to..a bit of private spying on the side. What an advantage that has over the rest of us. Sometimes I wonder what the real causes behind the financial crash were...who knows? Advantage paid spy, then game, set and match!

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: eisegesis

Just like their counterparts in the NSA and ASIO, this is a law that defines the meme of "do as I say, not as I do" and their get-out-of-jail-free-card is that elusive "terrorist" or "potential terrorist" that constitutes their justification to spy on citizens lest "political risk" (read: antiestablishment sentiments) is manifested and the establishments status quo is potentially compromised.

Absolutely. Here's what I see as a result of collecting metadata, biometric and habitual information from humanity. Very slowly, the world around us will begin to feel artificial. When there is no more private conversations with Mother Nature and escapism is unobtainable, we are no longer on any individual pursuit.

What is left are involuntary actions and basic instinctual acts of survival and devotion, which may only be displayed in accordance with government oversight and regulation, all while trying to maintain the expected predicted behavior model the DBS (Department of Behavioral Services), has licensed you to display that year.

When reality is scripted and the plot is boring and tiresome, its just easier at that stage, for the masses to accept their fate. Authoritarian welfare is offered at subsidized pricing based on patterns of behavior and accountability. The word "freedom" will only be found in books, provided they still exist.

Hail Hydra!! (the NSA)


Not on my watch!!!

a reply to: eisegesis

And that's what it all boils down to, it's not about protecting any nation or any citizen, it has only ever been about power & control, you slowly erode freedom and privacy away from each generation and eventually you'll have a pacified generation who will not be able to comprehend freedom or privacy and the goal of enslaving everyone will be complete.

a reply to: Discotech
Free yourself of the shackles......
Its a simple as having the courage to do so.....
The freedoms we used to have were pried from the grip of kings and potentates not very long ago.....
It could be said that the current situation is a result of the bustards clawing them back from us, all this time.......
The monetary system is the main controller......
Time to break the banks....

Wasn't this always the idea?

From what I can tell, Snowden's job was to desensitize, rather than revolutionise.

There wasn't meant to be changes, it's a chance for us to 'get used to it'.

a reply to: eisegesis

I do not place any value in this ruling, none what so ever.

Why? Because the establishment is not a fit and proper judge, of what is and is not a violation of our rights, because no member of that establishment, nor any group of members of that establishment, including the judiciary, the parliament, or any body associated with the authorities, can be trusted to be solely, and rigidly obedient to the opinion, the will of the people.

It is we, the people of these isles who should decide if we believe that our human rights are being infringed, not the courts assigned position by the very establishment which seeks to erode our liberty. My rights have been violated, for I believe it is better to risk death, than give my government any more power over me, than it used to have before the Internet, before the social media, before search history and IP addresses became as important as they are today. I gave no permission for my government to remove my privacy, nor that of any other citizen of this nation, and until the people are given the power to choose whether they support the level of data collection, the manner of its collection, the type of data collected, and indeed the people doing the collecting itself, I will never trust that it is being done for our benefit.

Why? Because what benefits me is having at least the pitiful Liberty extended to British subjects officially speaking. I may not carry a sword on my own nations soil. This is wrong. I may not defend my honour with the finality I believe is justified, and this is wrong. I may not insist that my government behave in accordance with the orders and wishes of its people, in all things, and at all times, as they should in a democracy, and this is also wrong. But to have these and many, untold myriad of other problems with government and then have them tell me that I may also expect no privacy, either on the street, or on the web, that there is no area of my life which will remain my own, private, for me to own and sculpt as I see fit, is an absolute travesty, and I do not accept it.

I hope every single whoreson who put this decision together, suffers every last ailment attending to a lack of Liberty, and I hope that while they do they weep at their own folly before they choke on it.

To be honest, the source is reporting on itself. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal report is not yet public, but will be. However, here's some info to add balance to the article.

This was a hearing in respect of a claim by Privacy International, and seven IPSs, of which Greennet Limited carries on operations in this country and the other Claimants have customers in this country. The use of CNE by GCHQ, now avowed, has raised a number of serious questions. The Tribunal is satisfied that with the new EI Code, and whatever the outcome of Parliamentary consideration of the IP Bill, a proper balance is being struck in regard to the matters it has been asked to consider.

Source IPT

And there's this from the UK Gov... UK Gov response

And, fro context, here's the cited EI Code... UK Legislation

And here;'s the actual code... EI Code

originally posted by: eisegesis
Well, I don't even live in the UK, but I know what you're going through. Its game over in slow motion.

You failed to notice the phrases "hacking operations abroad" and "overseas hacking activities".
In other words, this is about the surveillance of foreigners.
if you don't live in the U.K., that means you.

What surprises me is that your surprised.

a reply to: DISRAELI

That's right! And under the terms of an agreement which binds the Five Eyes intelligence network together, the data GCHQ collects on US citizens is passed to the US, and the data the NSA collects on us is passed back to our government. We are getting shafted either way, and it's all nice and bloody legal.

Just a shout out to both organisations, by the way... If it comes to it one day, you do realise how screwed you guys are going to be, if the writing on the wall spells revolution?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: eisegesis

I do not place any value in this ruling, none what so ever.

Why? Because the establishment is not a fit and proper judge, of what is and is not a violation of our rights, because no member of that establishment, nor any group of members of that establishment, including the judiciary, the parliament, or any body associated with the authorities, can be trusted to be solely, and rigidly obedient to the opinion, the will of the people.

It is we, the people of these isles who should decide if we believe that our human rights are being infringed, not the courts assigned position by the very establishment which seeks to erode our liberty. My rights have been violated, for I believe it is better to risk death, than give my government any more power over me, than it used to have before the Internet, before the social media, before search history and IP addresses became as important as they are today. I gave no permission for my government to remove my privacy, nor that of any other citizen of this nation, and until the people are given the power to choose whether they support the level of data collection, the manner of its collection, the type of data collected, and indeed the people doing the collecting itself, I will never trust that it is being done for our benefit.

Why? Because what benefits me is having at least the pitiful Liberty extended to British subjects officially speaking. I may not carry a sword on my own nations soil. This is wrong. I may not defend my honour with the finality I believe is justified, and this is wrong. I may not insist that my government behave in accordance with the orders and wishes of its people, in all things, and at all times, as they should in a democracy, and this is also wrong. But to have these and many, untold myriad of other problems with government and then have them tell me that I may also expect no privacy, either on the street, or on the web, that there is no area of my life which will remain my own, private, for me to own and sculpt as I see fit, is an absolute travesty, and I do not accept it.

I hope every single whoreson who put this decision together, suffers every last ailment attending to a lack of Liberty, and I hope that while they do they weep at their own folly before they choke on it.

Ok, this morning in a half awakened state, your post appeared. I always feel so bad, because of our time zones or posting habits, you always respond while I'm riding the REM wave into tomorrow. I will tell you this though, upon waking and checking if I had received any replies, your post was one of the first things to put a big smile on my face.

I apologize for not being as respectful in the past, but my brain has a hard time jumping back into a thread I've authored after coming home from work the next day. I know, I'm terrible at that and have been kicking myself for doing it. Its not fair to the other posters who respectfully add commentary to my threads. Sorry, I'm working on it.

To you my friend, I say that whatever you have suffered for recently, at least on my end, you seem like a gentleman who's been dealt a bad hand. Truebrit, thank you for your repeated witty, off-colored remarks. They always demand my comprehension and leave me with a smile. For some reason, I feel as though you and I will be fighting side-by-side during the great culling. Thank you for your reply and where I'm from, have a wonderful evening.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
What surprises me is that your surprised.

What doesn't surprise me is how apathetic everyone has become.

We can do better than merely observe our own demise, no?