last week, there was a verdict in a British court saying that GCHQ had actually broken the law with its loose supervision. While many advocates of privacy in joy, as GCHQ, saying the verdict confirms that their activity is legal. How can this be? Do not count your chickens quite yet.
In 08, I served on a panel at the time of the Swedish equivalent overdirector NSA / GCHQ. There was a new law on general eavesdropping in the works, and I'm a declared opponent of the public against it. For some reason, this overdirector thought it would be a good idea to explain exactly how the Swedish FRA had broken the law and the constitution since 1976 - while I secretly recording right on the beast something like long shot this could actually happen.
"We had this [surveillance] job for a while, but this way [with this new law], it will become legal," the overdirector - Anders Wik - was recorded as saying.
and I recorded everything, and published the record, and traditional media do not write one article about it. Not one. Only the technical review IDG did.
The FRA has been bugging satellite since 1976. They justify this by showing a law that says everyone can hear radio waves, which makes sense when looks radio waves from a television signal or radio CW perspective. But the law has said radio waves in general, which of course includes the directional radio links, such as between satellites and ground stations.
This conflict strongly with privacy against-wiretaps laws, where you have a so-called expectation of privacy when you make a phone call, and not (legally) to reflect on how the phonecall circuit may be connected from a technical perspective. But the FRA argues that if your phonecall came to get a jump on the radio at some point, it was fair game for -. According to another law
In short, there are a multitude of contradictory laws in the region, and civil liberties activists tend to pound the table on the constitutional rules of civil liberties. But these constitutions allow exceptions more often, and they are rarely tried in a public court.
However, as stated above, the ARF knew very well that they have broken the law. At least the overdirector did, and one might assume that means the entire leadership knows that they are indeed a criminal organization. They just had - and have -. secret courts on their side, like their counterparts in the GCHQ and the NSA
A favorable verdict does not make a summer. So it is also with this verdict, which said that GCHQ was guilty of illegal activity. All this has probably exceeded the statute of limitations, and in any case, wiretapping their bulk is legal today, according to the same verdict.
Thus, as with the FRA, the mass surveillance GCHQ is legal today, even though a court said it did not use to be. This does not help much.
Privacy remains your own responsibility. Count on or secret courts, nor the ambiguous legislation.
0 Komentar