US, UK watchdogs file legal moves to curb government surveillance

The Supremes?

Diana Ross for president!

To me, it's different shades of irrelevancy

I concluded some good 15 years ago that the difference between criminals and governments mis-applying and abusing intercept laws was too minimal on a practical level to worry about it, so the protection strategies that we develop keep both in mind.

There are ways in which you can use laws against those that want to abuse laws for their own ends - it starts with forcing a nice fat evidence trail on such abuse. In my experience, most of those that go creative with powers know damn well they're breaking the intent, and thus share a strong dislike for leaving evidence. Forcing them to leave such evidence tends to greatly discourage such creativity.

The next layer is assuming that you still haven't managed, and protect. This is where employing former intercept specialists pays off really well - nothing beats a gamekeeper turned poacher. Insider knowledge cuts both ways. Of course, you cannot fight a court order for disclosure (would also be stupid, because that you're dealing with a process that has found evidence of a crime and the last thing you want to do is help criminals), but that's exactly the point: you protect against everything that doesn't need a court order and even in the UK, you can do this as long as you understand the legal play around RIPA.

I have no problem with intercept powers to fight crime - in a democracy, you grant that privilege to law enforcement exactly because they could otherwise not do their work. However, what I strenuously and aggressively object against is the abuse of such powers, and any attempt to hide what they're used for like labelling it with "National Security" or any other excuse that prevents trustworthy oversight should not just be regarded with the utmost suspicion, it should be actively fought. Because it means there is something to hide.

Good luck with that.

I hope all the legal project documentation is being done on paper with lemon juice ink cos, you know, they'll be reading those emails for sure.

it will fizzle

the gov will issue several statements, some "opposition mps" will issue their usual froth, a couple of more articles, and by that time we will have had another crisis / terror attack / bank non-collapse / G21 summit to talk about. And the real show will go on.

:((((

Independent snooping body?

Let's face it, the technology to snoop on citizens every communication has been around for a while and agencies tasked with "our" protection have fully utilised it since day one.

The war on terror helped legitimise mass snooping and thus allowed agencies to act on the data, whereas before they had to tread very carefully indeed.

Do I appreciate the protection our security services gives me? Well, yes, of course.

Do I think this information is misused? Well, yes, of course.

Do I think this information will be used to perpetuate a corrupt and morally bankrupt state? Oh yes.

Collection of our data will not go away, it will just go back underground again if enough of us object, no the solution is to have an independent body, responsible for collecting and storing this information and beyond corruption.

A computer program, that can be reviewed by any citizen, written to enshrine our privacy and tasked with keeping our data secret, until a court is convinced otherwise, at which point the data for that individual is made available, while fully documenting the action.

How such an objective system can be built is the question, but it does have an answer, it's just out of the reach of those with the resources to make it happen.