So is this the same Chaos Computer Club that trashed VMS systems at Padua University and Digital equipment in 1987 before the word hacker was invented.
Having failed in its bid to block GCHQ's hacking activities at the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal, advocacy group Privacy International says it will now take its fight with the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights. Joined by five other groups from around the globe, Privacy International says it will be …
It's the same court that ruled that prisoners have voting rights. Ten years ago. We've ignored them entirely, even after they reached the same ruling on three more cases. They have no enforcement powers - if the UK governments decides to simply pretend they don't exist, there's nothing stopping them.
> Theresa May said the UK will still comply with ECHR laws even after Brexit.
And we should trust her?
What she said was "there would be no Parliamentary majority" for leaving the ECHR. The sub-text I hear is "yet..." given that she has made her position very clear.
My prediction is that, as with things like their creeping privatisation of the NHS and other sell-offs, instead of one big change we'll see a whole load of little amendments being made that, slowly but surely, will strip us of our Rights until we only have the ones that *she* likes left to us.
Firstly, because it's not relevant to the ECHR for reasons already mentioned, and secondly, because Brexit hasn't happened yet. What has happened is a referendum, the outcome of which is such that the UK government is advised to start proceedings to leave the EU. And that too hasn't happened yet.
On top of that the actual Brexit will be up to two years after the start of the talks.
Well, I won't be voting for the blowhard. But you should be aware that describing someone as a felon who has not been convicted is libel... You may be safe as long as you leave it unclear which person you are naming as a felon - although the blowhard is far more likely to sue anyway.
I'm not going to bother arguing about presumption of innocence, evidence beyond reasonable doubt, or the strong likelihood that neither you or I has any real information about the 'crimes' which may be involved, as I too frequently would like to see politicians sent to jail - it doesn't happen often enough. I do think anyone supporting the blowhard is going to find themselves even further betrayed when the fantasies being peddled remain just that win or lose. Mind you, the other one will probably disappoint to some degree. Politics will disappoint, but let's try to avoid disasters like Herbert Hoover (a great man until elected), Nixon (from even before first elected to any office), and George W Bush (who was once a decent mascot/ cheerleader, and remains a poor painter).
"Why single out the UK government? Did they think it would be an easy target?
Why not try the same thing against the US government"
Because it's UK legislation that's being challenged.
Because the UK is a signatory of the ECHR where C = Convention.
Because the UK is subject to the jurisdiction of the ECHR where C = Court.
Because none of the above apply to the US.
Is it really so difficult to understand?
Is it really so difficult to understand?
Yes. Yes, it really is, for people with a limited interest in the world. For people who have been told that they've had enough of experts, which they know is true because their gut feeling is always better.
I wish it were otherwise. I could try to explain why, but anything I might say would sooner or later be attacked as 'elitist' or 'you ivory-tower intellectual'. It's just not worth the effort any more.
The claim that there are simple absolute answers to complex problems will always attract more support than any recognition of reality and its inherent uncertainty. Fuck it. Burn, you stupid twunts. Just burn.
Your last paragraph sums politics (and currently the US Presidental race) succinctly. I'm not sure that politicos even realize that they fall prey to this with pondering legislation. Answers.. easy, simple, fast. No thinking required but someone will be blamed for being evil.
Not for the first time.....and probably not for the last time either.....but here I go again:
1. Theresa May and her ilk are determined to build another STASI....if privacy is not dead yet, it soon will be. The tool for this invasion of basic human rights is GCHQ
2. Recall that Theresa May opined recently that the UK should opt out of the ECHR
.....now, I wonder if egregious violations of the ECHR rules might not be going on RIGHT NOW. I wonder if Theresa May's desire to be rid of the ECHR was not precisely because she and her (so called) civil servants were afraid of the type of law suit described in this article.
It really is quite strange how we used to ridicule the GDR for their massive state surveillance, yet somehow its fine if we do exactly the same thing but use machines instead of agents to do the collection.
People claim that it's less likely to be subjected to human error or seeing things that aren't there, but that sounds like bollocks; if anything that's passed further up the chain. Poor inferences will affect a much larger data set with modern data processing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019