back to article GCHQ didn't illegally spy on Brit NGOs, tribunal rules

Privacy International and Liberty failed today to convince the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) that GCHQ had unlawfully intercepted the communications of, and snooped on, UK-based human rights groups. The IPT, in its third and final judgment relating to the spying activities of Blighty spooks, said in its ruling on Monday …

Silver badge

Or 3rd option

Spying did take place but the IPT wasn't told about it.

Spies keeping their spying secret - who would have thunk it

6
1
Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: Or 3rd option

Spies keeping their spying secret from our elected representatives or those elected representatives condoning the spies breaching our laws and spying on us just because they can - who would have thunk it.

FTFY.

7
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: YAAC Re: Or 3rd option

"....but the IPT wasn't told about it...." So what your saying is you actually don't want to baaaahlieve any result unless it's the result you want? This is my surprised face, honest.

1
7
Silver badge

Re: YAAC Or 3rd option

This is the same IPT that came up with the ruling that British Law forbids mass surveillance, but even though GCHQ is troughing every bit of data on us as they can, they're *not* performing "mass surveillance".

Matt will now explain how many angels can dance on the head of that particular pin.

(Well, actually he won't, he'll just call people by silly names and dodge the question and move the goalposts as we've all come to expect...)

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Or 3rd option

>Spies keeping their spying secret from our elected representatives

Traditionally that's the only people that spies have managed to keep secrets from.

They certainly can't keep the secrets from the enemy. But fortunately that rarely matters - even when MI5 was being run by the KGB it wasn't a problem until the papers found out.

5
1
Bronze badge
Joke

Re: YAAC Or 3rd option

Matt will now explain how many angels can dance on the head of that particular pin.

Angels simply don't dance. It's one of the distinguishing characteristics that marks an angel. They may listen appreciatively to the Music of the Spheres, but they don't feel the urge to get down and boogie to it.

Unless it'a a gavotte, in which case, one.

1
0
Holmes

"No determination in favour of complainant"

That could also be read as "no reasonable level of proof could be found against the defendant"......so like the Daz advert they're technically whiter than white as the case was unproven

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Since when...

...did human rights groups exclude crims, terrorists and evil people?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Since when...

Since when did GCHQ exclude crims, terrorists and evil people?

2
2
Silver badge

Re: Since when...

"

Since when...

...did human rights groups exclude crims, terrorists and evil people?

"

In fact the HRA is *only* for people who the government say are *suspected* of being one of the above.

People who the government have no interest in do not require the protection of the HRA, just as people who are not sick or injured do not need the NHS. Therefore *all* the cases that involve Human Rights involve people who the government (or its agents) have a malevolent interest in - and in many of those cases the government will *claim* that their interest is because the person is a threat. It is the job of the ECHR to find out whether the government's claim is or is not justified. This is why the perception is that the HRA is used to protect criminals and terrorists, when in fact it's purpose is to protect people who are *not* serious criminals or terrorists, but who the government would like to interfere with despite having no *legitimate* cause to do so.

Domestic laws are to protect you from the illegal acts of other citizens. The Human Rights Act is to protect you from illegal acts of your own government. Many people do not understand that distinction. If your neighbour hits you over the head for no reason, that is not a violation of your Human Rights, but a violation of domestic law. If a policeman (who represents the state) hits you over the head for no reason, then it is a violation of your Human Rights.

8
2
Anonymous Coward

What it really means....

"The Tribunal is satisfied that no use whatever was made by the intercepting agency [GCHQ] of any intercepted material, nor any record retained"

Meaning: We did collect it, we've just got so much of it, we can't read it all. Or more likely, we've read it and you can't prove it.

"and that the sixth claimant has not suffered material detriment, damage or prejudice as a result of the breach. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the foregoing open determination constitutes just satisfaction, so there will be no award of compensation."

Meaning: Hah! Watch me openly laugh in your face! Loser.

"Since no record was retained, there is no cause for ant order for destruction."

Meaning: Prove we read it bitches. You can't can you. Well...screw you then!

8
0
Anonymous Coward

GCHQ building

Doesn't Apple's new campus (see link below) look like the GCHQ building.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/apples-gchq-2013-10

1
0
Silver badge

You'll maybe get there in the end .... if your smarts kick in before you're too knackered to act

Ye gods, when ever are folk going to realise that rules and regulations are for power and control over minions and the great unwashed and undereducated and are used as a fabulous convenience by those and/or that which presume to be more intelligent and assumes a role in leadership which media conveys to the myopic masses.

9
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

"Privacy International's deputy director Eric King said...."

More of the usual bollocks to try and hide the fact he lost again.

1
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: "Privacy International's deputy director Eric King said...."

Hard to win when all the cards are stacked against you.

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: AC Re: "Privacy International's deputy director Eric King said...."

"Hard to win when all the cards are stacked against you." Hard to win when all the laws of the land are stacked against your silliness. TFTFY. You don't like the law then find a group of politicians willing to stand up for your baaaaahliefs and then try and convince the majority of the electorate to support them so they can get elected and change the laws. There are laws in the UK I profoundly disagree with (such as the ban on handguns), but I recognise them as the law because, no matter how misled I think the government of the day was in passing them, they were legally passed. It's called democracy, quit whining and try it.

0
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017