* Posts by flayman

70 posts • joined 29 Jun 2010

Page:

Supreme Court says secret UK spy court's judgments can be overruled after all

flayman

Re: Seriously?

It's obiter and not agreed by Lord Lloyd-Jones, whose concurring opinion expressly declines to comment on it. It's less of an issue now because, as Lord Sumption points out, Section 242 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 amended the original legislation to allow for appeal, though that doesn't apply to the present case. He then goes on to examine the roots of ouster clauses and the differences between excess of jurisdiction and errors of law or fact within jurisdiction. It would be interesting* to see what the Supreme Court would make of it if Parliament ever actually managed to enable a statutory decision maker with such an extreme ouster clause.

*in the sense that constitutional crises are rarely boring

flayman

Re: Seriously?

I agree. It is interesting. The ouster clause of the RIPA Act reads like this:

"Except to such extent as the Secretary of State may by order otherwise provide, determinations, awards and other decisions of the Tribunal (including decisions as to whether they have jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or be liable to be questioned in any court."

The brackets "(including decisions as to whether they have jurisdiction)" is there to deal with the problem presented by Anisminic where the HoL determined that the ouster clause of the relevant legislation such that the "determination by the Commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called in question in any court of law" did not prevent judicial review on errors of law. In that case the Lords found that the Commission had gone outside its jurisdiction, and so they had failed to make a true determination. As a matter of law, the decision by the Commission was a nullity.

In the Privacy International case, jurisdiction is not at issue. Lord Carnwath suggests that an extreme ouster on reviewing any decision which is "a nullity by reason of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, or any other matter," as failed to get through Parliament when clause 11 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill 2003 was introduced, would probably not have survived here. There will be many lawyers who disagree with this analysis. Indeed three of the most senior judges in the country disagreed. Some may say that the Supreme Court has made an error of law. But unless it involves EU law (for now) or Human Rights Law, there is no other judicial body that can review their decision. The same might have been said for the IPT before yesterday.

flayman

Re: Seriously?

The majority judgement says that the language of the ouster clause is not clear enough. If it had explicitly forbade any court from reviewing even a purported determination by the tribunal, than that could have stood. The reasoning is that Parliament must deal with the political ramifications of any law it enacts and probably a stricter ouster would not have passed scrutiny. Parliament is sovereign and can make whatever law it likes. With specific enough language, it can allow a lower court's judgements to be non-reviewable even where there is a gross error of law. The only thing Parliament doesn't have the power to do is enact a law that it would be unable to repeal in the future.

A barrister's write-up of the judgement here: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/05/15/anisminic-2-0

flayman

Re: Thank you ...

It's not really an appeal against. It's an appeal to. I don't really like how it sounds "the judgement was appealed against". "The judgement was appealed to the Supreme Court" is more like it.

flayman

Re: some errors in the article

No, 4 and 3 by your reasoning.

flayman

some errors in the article

There are a few errors:

1. "...the five strong judicial panel" It was a 7 judge panel. You can see that just by looking at the title page of the judgement.

2. " Both the High Court itself and the Court of Appeal agreed with PI." Those courts agreed with the IPT and rejected the appeals. They probably could not have allowed the appeals because they were bound by Anisminic. The Supreme Court has made a landmark ruling, which is why it's getting such press interest.

3. "Dissenting from Lord Carnwath were Lords Sumption and Wilson..." Lord Reed also dissents because he agrees with Lord Sumption. Therefore, we have a 4:3 majority. It's the slimmest of majorities, but for now it's precedent. Another case could find its way to the Supreme Court which alters the reasoning somewhat. This is what has happened now with Anisminic, though that case was House of Lords 1968 and referred to a different statutory body.

Oh dear. Secret Huawei enterprise router snoop 'backdoor' was Telnet service, sighs Vodafone

flayman

I agree that China needs reigning in, but this is pathetic. Let's not forget that the NSA was shown to have been operating "upgrade" factories where intercepted network kit from American companies like Cisco were implanted with unauthorised firmware for spying on foreign customers targeted for surveillance. Clearly the fact that Huawei is a state run company makes little difference in practice when the spies get involved.

New Zealand cops cuff alleged jackasses who shared mosque murder video, messages online

flayman

I don't know why you'd need to watch this video to appreciate that. It's a given. In places where it's easy to acquire weapons of mass murder, there's a passing chance of being murdered that way as you are going about your business. It is certainly a good idea to be mindful of your avenues of escape wherever you are and whatever you happen to be doing. I guess we also learned, as though this weren't already known, that buildings with only one exit are not particularly safe. It's a very hard lesson to learn for those who were unfortunately involved, but that also doesn't really require watching a video. Recommendations should certainly flow from this.

flayman

Re: His Manifesto

I'm not going to read his manifesto. He hasn't been shot dead, so there will be a trial at which point it will all come out. It's not particularly important what he thinks about white supremacy unless you're someone who cares about white supremacy and feels the need to defend that sort of thinking. He shot up two mosques, killing 50 Muslim worshippers, and made sure he could stream a live recording of it. There's no need to say it, but not all white supremacists are murderers or advocate murder, just as not all (in fact relatively quite few) Muslims harbour terrorist intentions.

flayman

That's a good point and I agree in principal. We don't know much of the facts in these specific cases. It would be wrong to remand someone unless the nature of the offence suggested a clear risk to the public or if they were a flight risk.

flayman

Re: The difference

You're forgetting about the immediacy of this video compared to the historical nature of the hypothetical footage of gleeful Nazi killings. Dissemination of the Nazi examples would not encourage more gleeful Nazi killing and recording of that. The content refers to people long dead. There is footage I have seen of the execution of a Viet Cong prisoner. It is not going to be regarded as as an "objectionable publication" because of the overriding historical significance. It is not a snuff film produced for perverse enjoyment. This live shooter video has been produced for something like that, and the anticipated consumption and reactions are part of what fuelled the event and future events of this nature. The sharing leading to reactions of glorification also needs a strong deterrent in order to disincentivize these acts.

There are also various rights in play, some of which are probably not well defined but are understandable with a common sense approach. I'd argue that family of the dead have the right to preserve the dignity of their loved ones and to be protected against further trauma. The dead themselves may have or have had rights engaged that are violated by the public dissemination of this video.

flayman

Troubling anomalies? This sounds like your typical Sandy-Hook style conspiracy theory denialist BS. In that case, please do eff right off. Seriously. Are you saying you actually watched a first person shooter video of a confirmed mass murder exercise because you were searching for the "truth"? I suppose those people aren't really dead or they weren't really people or something. It was all CGI and this was all just a stunt so New Zealand could ban assault rifles. I have absolutely had it with people who expound these ridiculous theories. Please eliminate yourself from the world. I suppose it was only a matter of time.

flayman

Not a thought crime

14 years is a maximum sentence. Degrees of intent will have an impact on that, as would various other mitigating factors. It's a lot to be potentially faced with, but I'd posit that a defendant who is genuinely remorseful will get off lightly. The seriousness of the offence is arguably appropriate. The sharing of this type of material is not acceptable. It is a matter of human dignity.

Action goes beyond thought. You can think what you like about the live captured video of mass murder. What you can't do is share it and glorify it.

Joe Public wants NHS to spend its cash on cancer, mental health, not digital services

flayman

What about the digital transformation?

If the survey is talking about digital access services, then I understand why end users do not put a high priority on that. But we should be talking about digital transformation, much of which is behind the scenes and involving masses of data. From what I've read, Hancock seems to be clued up about this. All industries and embracing digital transformation as way of reducing costs, improving user experience, and driving innovation. If this is done properly (big if) then it can reap huge rewards across the board. Diverting the cash to propping up the groaning status quo sounds a lot like - too busy chopping wood to sharpen the axe.

Google skewered in ad sting after Oracle-backed bods turn troll

flayman

Re: I have no respect for sting operations

You might like to think of this as a national security flaw.

UK Foreign Office offers Assange a doctor if he leaves Ecuador embassy

flayman

Re: Solid facts?

Yeah, fair enough. I should have looked more carefully at the Google search results on the name of the department. Thumb me down on that. I don't give a sh1t. My facts regarding the rate of healthcare related foreclosures in the US are well documented though. And often there was insurance that refused to cover the treatment costs. This happens at the worst possible time, and it's what you can expect when insurance companies tally treatment costs in their ledgers as "medical losses". A single payer system removes the insurance underwriting aspect and ensures that health care recipients have access to treatment when it's most needed without having to worry about going bankrupt.

flayman

If he comes out then Sweden will renew their extradition request for anything that is not outside their statute of limitations. Then he'll be held without bail until he can be handed over. Then he'll be tried and either acquitted or convicted. Meanwhile the US could put in an extradition request which would surely be refused. Then he'll go free either immediately or after serving his sentence. Then he will absolutely never be granted residency in Sweden. Then he will carry on being a self serving arsehole afraid of being sent to the States but more at risk of that than had he remained in all along.

flayman

Eff you, whomever gave a thumbs done. My facts are solid.

flayman

For all its faults, at point of use it is a far superior health service to the fragmented and antagonistic American system of insurance underwriting. It could stand reform, certainly. But I'm fed up of twats like Farage feeding lies to US media about it. Health is every bit a public concern as education.

flayman

What forums please, and I'll happily debunk them. It's the Ministry of Health, by the way. Sounds like you might be American. If I'm right, know that your health care system (despite and not because of ACA) is awful unless you have lots of money. Insurance companies go to great lengths to deny coverage. 2/3 of mortgage foreclosures in the US ten years ago were due to unpredictable and unmanageable medical expenses. I'm an American expat in Britain. I know a good thing when I see it. It's struggling under Tory cuts, but it's still superior.

flayman

Re: WiFi coverage

If they catch him using internet they can take away his devices. Then he's stuffed. Or they might just decide they've had enough and then he's really stuffed.

flayman

Re: Pick your own poison

He also cost the UK millions of pounds in police monitoring to prevent him stealing away in the night (or the day) and uphold our obligations to the requesting country. He also cost his suretors hundreds of thousands of pounds in forfeit. But he's not getting special treatment. I expect any fugitive returned to justice to be treated humanely and provided medical care as needed.

flayman

Re: Many things but not a traitor to the US

We need many more like him exiled to closets without internet access.

In huge privacy win, US Supreme Court rules warrant needed to slurp folks' location data

flayman

"who Trump and Gorsuch REALLY are"

"(that's who Trump and Gorsuch REALLY are, by the way - don't believe the nonsense)"

Right. Maybe that's how Gorsuch really is. Not Trump. Donald Trump is a man of no principle and poor character. If there's any one thing that defines Trump it is that he cares exclusively about anything that benefits Trump, his family, and his friends. Anything that impedes his plans is an enemy, and he's generally not interested in what comes up neutral. America First, as long as he's right at the front of that. Seriously, how can anyone still be standing up for this guy?

flayman

Re: Gorsuch's dissent FTW.

I just wish we could have one court that wasn't so political. That's the way it's supposed to be. That's sort of how it works in Britain. But the written Constitution in the US and the ability of the SCOTUS to declare laws unconstitutional against the back drop of a now virtually impossible constitutional amendment mechanism has meant that the Court's appointment system is hugely politically charged and the justices themselves are mindful of advancing their own political ideologies.

flayman

Re: Gorsuch's dissent FTW.

I suppose he didn't join the majority opinion because he felt it was not drafted narrowly enough that he could put his name to it. If they were going to lose and needed another vote then they would have had to bargain away some of their position.

Blackberry snaps, yakkity-yak Snapchat app brats slapped with patent trap rap

flayman

Re: "downplayed the importance of *bling*"

Yes. My daughter begged us for a Blackberry when she was about 10, some 6 or 7 years ago. By the time we let her have one her friends had all swapped for iPhones. No matter how you slice it, Blackberry lost its grip on their target market. They realised they couldn't compete with the Java based OS that was homegrown, so they bought QNX, which could have been a good move. Unfortunately, they took a year longer to market than expected and meanwhile they were continuing to sell outdated phones. Naturally iPhone pipped them. Call it bling or whatever. Blackberry just didn't move fast enough.

flayman

Re: They're only responding in kind

The 2011 outage was significant for a couple reasons. One, the service previously had a rock solid reputation for reliability. Two, the outage coincided with the release of the iPhone 4S. I suppose another reason is that the outage followed on the heels of the layoff of 2000 employees due to slowed growth. Much of what happened to the company after 2011 would be the result of poor strategic decisions and analysts writing them down. It's probably not a coincidence that the dual CEOs resigned in January 2012 and then in March the company posted its first net loss in years. Their 2013 earnings were on par with 2009.

flayman

Re: They're only responding in kind

"With the billions they paid in patent violations and licenses maybe they could have developed the ecosystem they needed to compete."

Maybe. I'm not so sure. I think they lost their way. BBM suffered a major outage in 2011 that shook the company's reputation. Then they screwed up the launch of BB10 and it was delayed by more than a year. This allowed Apple and Google/Samsung to grab a firm hold. Strategically the company then failed to grasp the changing market demographic for smart phones and downplayed the importance of good entertainment features, which professionals want as much as anyone else. They put too much stock in the uniqueness of their offering. Then the following year they practically threw out the device from their corporate strategy. So much for an ecosystem! You can't really have an eco-system without devices attached to it. In late 2015 the company finally embraced the Android ecosystem, but by then it was too late. You could argue that the reason companies like Snap and WhatsApp flourished was that they filled the vacuum left by the departure of Blackberry from the handset market (they never really successfully penetrated the consumer market) and the relegation of BBM to a standalone service, which didn't appear on iOS and Android until late 2013. Had BBM been available back in 2011 (even despite the outage) then Snap Inc probably wouldn't have got off the ground. Instead, Snapchat became the defacto for time limited messaging on both of those platforms.

flayman

Re: Ahhh, the optimism of lawyers

Every single one of those patents, like nearly all software patents, is bullshit and should never have been awarded. Like the patent for the tab in a multi window application. If their claims are to believed, Blackberry had a 10 year head start on the competition. It didn't save their business because they failed to adapt to, let alone anticipate or precipitate, a changing market.

Yes, Assange, we'll still nick you for skipping bail, rules court

flayman

Have a read of this, my friend: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/

"Foreign Policy discussed his case with UIf Wallentheim, the director of the division for criminal cases and international judicial cooperation at the Swedish Ministry of Justice. He said that Swedish courts tend to see through such ploys to circumvent Swedish extradition agreements’ exceptions. Swedish judges often examine a case’s underlying factors when making their determinations, he said."

If and when the United States requested extradition from the Swedish authorities, it would be judged on its merits. But you can't just say outright that the US would attempt to circumvent the exceptions, without risking diplomatic relations. What is required here is to give the United States the benefit of a fair reading in the future.

flayman

They could read through WHAT application? There is no application. If and when there was, they would probably read through it and realise it was a ruse. Are you supposed to say that in the absence of anything concrete? Any request from the US will be a ruse? Might as well tear up the treaty.

flayman

Yes, but without seeing an application you can't judge one. So suppose the United States could adduce evidence of some non-political crime committed by Assange. Who can say? But to give an assurance of no extradition to the United States under any circumstances would be to disregard the extradition treaty. It would be a nonsensical assurance.

flayman

Doctrine of Speciality

Doctrine of Speciality does not apply only to criminal offences committed in the country the person is being extradited to, according to any source I can find on it. The person can only be prosecuted for crimes named in the extradition request. This includes a prosecution to determine whether or not to extradite to a third jurisdiction. Julian Assange was prosecuted in the United Kingdom and given the opportunity to defend himself against the Swedish extradition request, a criminal justice process that concluded at the UK Supreme Court. Your bold text adds nothing. At any rate, the Swedish prosecution authority have stated publicly that they are bound by this doctrine in this case.

Non-refoulement

The word "refoulement" either alone or as part of "non-refoulement" appears 15 times in the opinion of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, for example: "...without any guarantee of non-refoulement to the United States where he faced, in its view, a well-founded risk of political persecution and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment." Much is made of the UN report, which claims that the UK fail to honour the granting of political asylum by Ecuador. But there is no basis for political asylum because the crime for which he's wanted in Sweden is a sexual offence, not a political one. Assange is currently enjoying diplomatic asylum, which is not recognised. If a requesting nation sought him on the basis of some political crime, then he would be entitled to political asylum. Ironically, the best host in that case would have been Sweden, since it is coded in their extradition treaty with the US to refuse political extraditions. This is why Assange applied for residency there.

Also, why are assurances needed from a democratic country who is a signatory to all the relevant conventions that they will not violate norms of international law? So yes, as they have stated (how the hell do you do a blockquote?):

"Every extradition case is to be judged on its own individual merits. For that reason the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee in advance that Julian Assange would not be subject to further extradition to the USA."

Quite right. He might be requested for a crime that is judged to be non-political. Sweden can't say before the fact that they will never extradite Julian Assange to the United States under any circumstances. Yet he would enjoy the benefit of two possible vetoes.

flayman

Swedish prosecutors would not guarantee Assange would be spared hypothetical extradition to the US because it would be prejudicing an application that had not even been made. The US might adduce evidence of a crime that Sweden might decide was not political in nature. They reserve the sovereign right to make that determination. They did acknowledge being bound by the Doctrine of Speciality, meaning they could not extradite to a third country without Britain's consent: https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/media/the-assange-matter/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/

Jumping bail is one thing, but he has fled bail for around 6 years now, and cost the UK millions in honouring its obligations to Sweden.

flayman

Re: @Sparty ... "arguably wrong"

People should not be so quick to trash the British judicial system while spewing half truths and partially understood judicial theory. The British system of justice is far from perfect, but it has a good reputation around the world for being fair and independent. EU resolution, what nonsense! What aspect of EU law comes into play here with the extradition of a non-EU citizen from one EU country to another? You heard about some international body (a UN working group) who published an opinion, and it went into your mind as having been some binding EU resolution. Arm yourself with facts and you might not be so upset.

flayman

"If he were to hand himself in and serve out a sentence for skipping bail, and was then extradited to Sweden, the UK authorities would have no further control whatsoever: he wouldn't be on UK territory and he is not a UK citizen"

Absolutely wrong. It is a feature of international law called the Doctrine of Speciality, which Sweden have acknowledged: https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/media/the-assange-matter/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/

There is also the fundamental principle of non-refoulement.

flayman

Re: @Sparty ... "arguably wrong"

What EU resolution? You mean the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention? There has been no EU resolution and the ECHR refused to hear the case.

flayman

Re: Funny people should accuse Assange of disrespect for the law

"Oh, and at that interview, he was to be arrested and charged. His lawyer was informed of that too, the day before. That's why Assange suddenly traveled tot he UK, as he was not scheduled to be there (and in fact knew NOT to go, because he'd applied for residency in Sweden, which meant he couldn't go). It is also an odd country to go to if you're wanting to avoid extradition to the US, especially after having boasted 2 months earlier how you're going for Swedish residence because they don't extradite to the US for political crimes. It's your only choice if you have to leave Sweden THAT DAY, are an Australian citizen, and have under 30 days left on your Schengen visa, because you don't need a visa to enter the uk for upto 180 days."

I wish I could give 100 up votes for this. Brilliant.

flayman

Re: Schrödinger's Embassy

This comment is sort of funny. Someone who happily asserts without any proof that the United States are looking to have Julian Assange assassinated is also demanding evidence in support of an opinion stated as "I think we already know he's a total arsehole".

flayman

You should read the dissenting opinion, because it's quite spot on. Arguably it's not even within the working group's competence to deliberate on the submission.

flayman

Not a UN Special Commission, but a Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. This is not a body of law in any jurisdiction and it does not make rulings or judgements that are in any way binding on anyone. From the working group's summary, they find that his initial detention in isolation followed by 550 days under house arrest were a continuous deprivation of liberty which was arbitrary, in part "because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange". It further "requests" that the UK and Sweden assess the situation with a view to restoring his liberty and "considers" that he should be afforded compensation. The initial detention and lengthy house arrest may have been arbitrary, though it obviously was lengthened by fighting the extradition order and exhausting all avenues of appeal. However, it is odd to conclude that a self imposed exile to a foreign embassy is a form of detention in itself. One of the working group members disagreed that this constitutes detention. Assange is, and has always been, free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy. In doing so he would trade a self imposed limit on his free movement with an arrest and prosecution for the crimes he has committed in the UK, including defying a court's bail conditions. Having amply demonstrated that he is a flight risk, he would certainly be denied bail, not that anyone would volunteer now as surety.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012

flayman

Re: Incorrect

There is a misunderstanding here about the Swedish justice system. A person cannot be charged in their absence. There was deemed to be sufficient evidence to charge. The only thing holding it up was the formality of questioning the suspect, which could conceivably have resulted in dismissal of the charges. This has been examined thoroughly by the UK courts and Assange's argument on this ground was rejected. I don't believe that the United States wants Julian Assange dead. They may want him to face charges. He is not going to be assassinated. It would cause such a sh1t storm that it really would not be worth the trouble. He will also not be rendered extra-judicially. This process is one that really shuns publicity. It is reserved for what are believed to be extremely dangerous people that the public are generally unaware of. Julian Assange is a very public person and he is not extremely dangerous, though I'm sure he likes to thinks he is.

"But the most important fact is that Assange has done nothing either wrong or illegal."

He has defied the British courts by skipping bail and refusing to turn himself over for extradition after exhausting his legal challenges. That is itself a criminal act, and that is entirely the thrust of this judgement. Assange has tried to argue that skipping bail was lawful here, but that had zero chance of success.

flayman

Re: The problems with your problem

Whoever gave this a thumbs down please tell me what you think I got wrong here.

flayman
Thumb Down

Re: Apparently homo sapiens is not intelligent

Automatic down vote for the Jesus comparison. I can't even...

flayman

Re: Sheltering Criminals.

Assange is not exploiting political asylum. He is exploiting diplomatic asylum, which the government of the UK do not recognise. In spite of this, they have not stormed the embassy or taken any action other than posting police to ensure he can't slip away again.

flayman

The problems with your problem

"The problem is not what the US has done (past tense) but what the US will do (future tense). Do you really need me to point that out to you?"

There are two problems with this. First, what the US will do in the future is something which would be assessed on its merits at that time. He could be extradited to the US if there is a case to answer there. However, there is scope for the UK to refuse extradition requests from the United States, as we've seen recently. Ultimately the decision lies with UK courts and ministers. Second, you appear to misunderstand what the judge is suggesting. She is extrapolating from the time that Assange skipped bail, because he is arguing that his action of skipping bail was reasonable due to his reasonable fears. It imagines an alternate future in which Assange had actually been rendered to Sweden and then Sweden were later requested to extradite to the US. Sweden would be in no position to consider that request. It would be decided by the UK because as the extraditing country, we would still be responsible for him.

flayman

Re: Schrödinger's Embassy

"If he walks out, is arrested and jailed for jumping bail, and a subsequent extradition request is submitted, he's totally vindicated, and it's grounds to reject the request."

Sorry, but I completely disagree. The United States are free to request his extradition if they feel there is a case to answer. They have not requested his extradition. That fact remains. Before Sweden dropped its request, any other request would need to wait in the queue. If Assange were handed over to Sweden, they would not be permitted to turn him over to anyone else without permission from the UK because we would still be responsible for him. Assange says he really fears some sort of extra-judicial rendering to America. No way. That would never happen with such a huge spotlight. It would be roundly condemned in the strongest possible terms and would seriously chill diplomatic relations. Julian Assange is a paranoid delusional narcissist. He is also a coward. He's happy to let others take the risks publishing sensitive information. People like Brad/Chelsea. He is himself unprepared to take the martyr's path for his own cause.

Man prosecuted for posting a picture of his hobby on Facebook

flayman

Re: Police Scotland = Morons with time on their hands

The statute itself invites (indeed demands) interpretation. First of all, you need to prove that the message content is of an indecent, grossly offensive, or menacing character. That is not a plain fact or legal certainty simply because a police officer or prosecutor decides it was. Second to the alleged criminal act, there is also a need to prove a criminal intent, which was forced onto the statue by the HoL case DPP v Collins way back in 2006 on a reading down by way of the Human Rights Act. This is the same statute that was charged against Paul Chambers in the famous Twitter Joke Trial that was concluded in 2012, which is already 5 years ago. In that case the prosecutors, as in this case, failed to note the requirement to prove intent and tried to claim that the offence is one of strict liability. Even if that were true (which it has been shown false), there would still always be a need to prove the character of the message to some standard, usually the "man on the Clapham omnibus". Ridiculous and infuriating that after all the trouble we went through with Chambers there are still appallingly misconceived prosecutions like this happening.

FYI – There's a legal storm brewing in Cali that threatens to destroy online free speech

flayman

"Right to be forgotten" is hardly anything

People quoted in the article massively overstate the implications of the EU so-called "right to be forgotten". It is really very mild. No content is removed as a result of the Google Spain ruling. Only links to content are removed from search results, and then only when the person's name is in the search terms. It's much less invasive than DMCA takedown requests, and Google complies with millions of these and hardly breaks a sweat.

Page:

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019