The European Union’s top court has severely undermined the British government’s mass surveillance powers in a new ruling that could rein in police and spy agency investigations.
In a judgment handed down in Luxembourg on Wednesday, the European Court of Justice declared that the “general and indiscriminate retention” of data about people’s communications and locations was inconsistent with privacy rights. The court stated that the “highly invasive” bulk storage of private data “exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified, within a democratic society.”
Camilla Graham Wood, legal officer with the London-based group Privacy International, hailed the ruling as a victory for civil liberties advocates. “Today’s judgment is a major blow against mass surveillance and an important day for privacy,” she said. “It makes clear that blanket and indiscriminate retention of our digital histories — who we interact with, when and how and where – can be a very intrusive form of surveillance that needs strict safeguards against abuse and mission creep.”
The European court’s panel of 15 judges acknowledged in their ruling that “modern investigative techniques” were necessary to combat organized crime and terrorism, but said that this cannot justify “the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data.” Instead, the judges stated, it is acceptable for governments to engage in the “targeted retention” of data in cases involving serious crime, permitting that persons affected by any surveillance are notified after investigations are completed, and that access to the data is overseen by a judicial authority or an independent administrative authority.
The case was originally brought in December 2014 by two British members of parliament, who challenged the legality of the U.K. government’s Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which forced telecommunications companies to store records on their customers’ communication for 12 months. That law has since been replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act, which was recently approved by the British parliament and is expected soon to come into force.
Though the U.K. voted to leave the European Union earlier this year, Wednesday’s decision remains — at least in the short term — highly significant, and will prove to be a severe headache for British government officials. The ruling will now be forwarded to the U.K.’s Court of Appeal, where judges there will consider how to apply it in the context of national law. It may result in the government being forced to make changes to controversial sections of the Investigatory Powers Act, which enable police and spy agencies to access vast amounts of data on people’s internet browsing, instant messages, emails, phone calls, and social media conversations.
“This is the first serious post-referendum test for our government’s commitment to protecting human rights and the rule of law,” said Martha Spurrier, director of U.K. human rights group Liberty. “The U.K. may have voted to leave the EU — but we didn’t vote to abandon our rights and freedoms.” She added: “Today’s judgment upholds the rights of ordinary British people not to have their personal lives spied on without good reason or an independent warrant. The government must now make urgent changes to the Investigatory Powers Act to comply with this.”
A spokesperson for the British government’s Home Office said in a statement: “We are disappointed with the judgment from the European court of justice and will be considering its potential implications. The government will be putting forward robust arguments to the court of appeal about the strength of our existing regime for communications data retention and access.”
Top photo: The European Court of Justice.
The “Father of American journalism”, Edward R. Murrow, said it best. He warned you cannot destroy rights and freedoms at home as a means for fighting for freedom against a foreign enemy.
America and England have done just that, in order to fight the “enemies” of freedom, both governments have destroyed the freedoms of their own fellow citizens at home.
You can’t destroy freedoms at home as a means of preserving freedom! Edward R, Murrow faced a very similar situation in the 1950’s blacklisting of Americans. The whole premise of “making the haystack larger so it’s near impossible to find the needles (or bad guys)” simply doesn’t make sense to anyone with a brain.
I don’t believe there is an independent judge or oversight of intelligence, this court ruling is not really affecting spies, they will continue the same as before, just it will be formally “overseen by a judicial authority or an independent administrative authority”. Many judges work for the secret service and civilian control of spies is also set up, those corrupted by spies get a job to control spies. There is no true control of secret service.
Your right about democracy being unable to control the secret service. They operate in a totalitarian utopia that is limited only in scope, that scope limited in part to hold domestic populations safe from their mandate. …But that mandate has been creeping, at least in the free world powers, in a manner that is blurring the lines between foreign and domestic issues.
We here in Canada had law passed by a recently ousted Conservative government, enraged at climate change activism, that defined terrorism as being any threat to the economic or national security of the country. Coupled with this definition was the authority to secretly investigate anyone and “disrupt” their activities. This effectively moves political action on the bigger issues at least, into an area of suspicion and clandestine response that has no limits, for there is no due process as there is no evidence for it is all secret. This had special resonance here in Canada as we had a huge scandal in the early 70’s when ‘disruption’ actions such as stealing dynamite, blowing up minor facilities, arson, etc and then criminally charging innocents on false evidence were revealed. Totalitarian in the first sense of the term. Yet the new Liberal government has yet to yank the offending definition.
However, far greater application of mass surveillance will be on domestic law enforcement. It will revolutionize law enforcement when fully implemented. While presently, control of the citizenry is limited by cost, this simple safeguard to rights and freedoms will disappear. One constable at a computer terminal will be able to do in hours what used to take weeks or months. The most mundane of concerns will become enforceable. The drug warriors will be back in the game. The village snoop will have newfound status. Political action will be able to be tightly controlled. The opinions and discussions of those that use public forums such as this board will be watched at the very least. Dirt on anyone will be able to be unearthed. J. Edgar Hoover will be celebrated.
This is the future. …..And our elected reps sit on their hands, or worse, defend or promote this unfolding horror to individual privacy and the ability to engage in the politics of our democracies.
Off topic, sort of, but not really:
I have this fantasy the Trump administration will go off the rails in criminal ways so quickly the 40yr Bush/Clinton New World Order war-criminal-establishment will want to come down on it like a ton of bricks. Because even President Obama joined that war crimes establishment early on with his “look forward not back,” and drone murder/assassinations in a host of countries with which we’re not at war. Some outside usurper not playing ball could be that one bad apple that spoils everything – for all their legacies.
So I say, may an overwhelming establishment desire to officially put the Trumps in their place – start something that bites a pack of Big Brother building, world domination war criminals in the ass – like nobody’s business. It’s way past time to start clearing the air on what OUR country’s been, how it was really built, and more importantly – what it’s become.
The intelligence community will never stop what they do. They must continue to lie to the politicians and lie to the general public. They are experts at depeption, that’s why they will never be trusted. They are the film that lies just under that layer of scum which smells like death. That’s the intelligence community, they helped create all terror we live with. Thanks you jerks.
We, Westerners, like to think of and identify ourselves not with the Greeks’/Athenian ideals, but with the kinds of technologies they “invented”. We tend to forget that the problem isn’t really about “voting”, “the # of people needed for petitions”, “laws (among them those against or for surveillance)”, “governments”, …, but about people’s minds and spines, which is ultimately what makes reality meaningful, understandable, be.
The technologies Athenians used to make collective sense of things and at the same time individually sharing “those ‘things'” and their decision making processes with you and me were very simple:
1) grab a pebble (they used to “count” their herds in the same way). Black if you disagree or wanted to kill a proposal (or person as they “democratically” did with Socrates) or white if you were fine with it;
2) grab some cleaved stone slab wide enough to write the name of the m0th3r f#ck3r you didn’t want to be sharing your community if it came to that (as they did to niggah Themistocles, who actually was a very skilled liar and manipulator (“excellent politician”) and the chief strategist in the war against the way mightier, more peopled and “civilized” invading Persians)
3) jurors used two types of coins to cast their opinion, and
4) were selected with a random selection device (a kleroterion)
// __ Athens – The Truth About Democracy (with Bettany Hughes)
youtube.com/watch?v=J_xuzTG6l_s&t=815
~
I don’t know if it is that you turn cynical as you age. I can’t help but find self ridiculing these types of “news” being “reported” by as loud as “speakers” may be from a “corner” of our societal, collective minds.
I think we have to get on their faces and under their skin if we want any changes to actually happen. Technology gets way faster and fatter than the speed at which “We the people” can make sense of things. We are fooling ourselves if we think that we will achieve anything by “talking” and with “laws”, by trying to appeal to their sense of civility, morality and humanity …
We will have to talk to “We the people” first, appeal to their consciousness in ways they understand “by any means necessary” we are not lacking techno sh!t of any kind. Just a week ago theintercept’s journos were talking about the same issues, just entertaining, strategically verbalizing them from a minimally different angle.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/15/james-clapper-has-a-classified-blog-it-is-called-intercept/?comments=1#comments
I wonder what just “talking” will actually buy us, as if words by themselves had some sort of of power.
RCL
A superb victory for human rights and let this be a lesson to other Fascist regimes that have no respect for privacy, and who try to rush oppressive and intrusive laws through in a sneaky and underhand manner. A crushing and humiliating defeat for the Conservative Government haha !
The EU is a corporate, non-democratic organization that liberals have wrongly embraced. Liberals wrongly sided with trans-national corporations and finance capital when they opposed the Brexit. Although I agree with this narrow ruling by unelected officials — its motivation is to punish the British for leaving the EU. The EU simply wants to control Europe as the new Fourth Reich with their own military and spying apparatus:
“A European equivalent of the CIA could be founded to bring together 28 member states’ intelligence following the Paris attacks.”
“Following today’s meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, he said that EU interior and justice ministers assigned the European Commission to draw up a proposal to allow for “the systematic control” of all people entering the passport-free zone.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-eu-ministers-consider-europe-wide-intelligence-agency-and-increased-border-security-a6742111.html
Moral of the story: The EU simply wants control. They are only against spying by Britain in the same way the CIA would be against North Dakota setting up a spy agency — they have no respect for democratically elected nation states and simply want all the power of spying to themselves. They seek to transform the world into a stateless, undemocratic society, run by corporate interests and financial capital.
It is funny that the liberal wing of the EU is pushing for these spy powers the hardest:
“The leader of the liberal party in the EU Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, has repeatedly urged EU states to set up a joint intelligence agency since the militant attacks on the offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris in January.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-shooting-eu-intelligence-idUKKCN0T921F20151120
Oh, one more thing for you liberals. I know many of you are against GMO’s … well the EU recently ordered all of Europe to accept them, violating their own rules:
“EU member states again refused (for a third time this year) to approve a renewal of the license for the weed-killer glyphosate manufactured by Monsanto and other corporations involved in GMO crop cultivation. That should have meant that the license would expire by the end of June, and Monsanto’s Roundup and other glyphosate weed-killers would have to be withdrawn from Europe by the end of this year. Instead, on June 29 the European Commission (EC) decided “unilaterally” to extend the glyphosate license for another 18 months. ”
“Its own decision about glyphosate was based on assessments made by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), prolonging the authorisation until a new scientific review is concluded before the end of 2017, but Greenpeace has called the EFSA study a whitewash.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/06/post-brexit-is-the-eu-flaunting-its-undemocratic-tendencies/
So much for the progressive, friendly EU … another liberal myth in the their bedtime storybook of tall tales.
Laws are meaningless without unbiased enforcement . As it stands today , and as it always has , enforcement is the privilege of the wealthy .
That is the STATUS QUO until the poor get so hungry they start killing the wealthy .
All this talk about voting for change is juvenile nonsense ! You can’t vote out a cancer !!!
? Reply
In one of 2016 biggest ironies “Employee Lawsuit Accuses Google of (Internal) Spy Program”
‘The lawsuit alleges Google runs an internal “spying program” which relies on employees voluntarily reporting other employees who might have leaked information.
The lawsuit alleges that Google warns employees to not put into writing concerns about potential illegal activity within Google, even to the company’s own attorneys, because the disclosures could fall into the hands of regulators and law enforcement. It also alleges that confidentiality provisions include a prohibition on employees writing “a novel about someone working at a tech company in Silicon Valley,” without Google signing off on the final draft.’
https://www.theinformation.com/employee-lawsuit-accuses-google-of-spying-program
Is the President-Elect willing to fix the spy agencies (and contractors) being above the law? Eric Schmidt personally worked tooth-n-nail against him!
But rather than being grossly negligent (like Hilliary) Google is extremely clever already anticipating what is to come. How many thousands of data-mining engineers are involved?
Yet only ONE employee spoke-up?
Google being so powerful the ad-dependent media doesn’t even cover the story.
Congratulations to model Europe.
Well deserved guys!
Thank you for this. I’m happy someone was brave enough to take this to court for all of us. Heading to the valley in that new muscle car for the ducks and honey baked ham. Looks like it’s going to be another good hair day. :-)
Changes nothing. If law worked, our prisons would be empty. Mass surveillance is here to stay, and will be conducted for public and national security purposes no matter what the public believes the law permits. It was done during the Bush administration in violation of the 4th amendment until it was made retroactively legal after the genie was out of the bottle. It will continue. Make yourself alright with it because it is the new reality.
EU court huh?
LOL
In the meantime intelligence services can.t even follow and trace known jihadist. Metadata is just a means to control innocent citizens in order for the elites to stay in power.
and the other headlines is..
US msm (whore wmd wallstreet) media deep six eu privacy ruling
search this
court privacy ruling
and see what comes up
#1 theintercept.com
#2 reuters
#3 nada
THANK YOU Ryan Gallagher and THEINTERCEPT!
wont be long before the elected whores legislate to install cameras and mics in every home. And, after that retrofit, they will also make you pay a monthly fee and if you dont, $50,000 fine and 5 years in prison.
More likely it will be willfully invited into consumers abodes via IoE (Internet of Everything) monitoring the fridge, its contents, etc. at the low, low price of only 69.99/mo. Who knew even more intrusion could be so affordable?
Yes, thanks to “home automation” via the Amazon HeckNo or Google Nope, the speakers that hear you back, loud and clear.
Laws are meaningless without unbiased enforcement . As it stands today , and as it always has , enforcement is the privilege of the wealthy .
That is the STATUS QUO until the poor get so hungry they start killing the wealthy .
All this talk about voting for change is juvenile nonsense ! You can’t vote out a cancer !!!
the killing method of ridding the population of the cancer is not necessary and poisons the souls of the innocent and their relationships.
The way to rid a good society of the wealth cancer is to simply write a law – a simple law – and have on the ready person/s prepared to get elected. This might seem impossible but it is pretty easy if you know how to sell and support it.
ie…
new law
the POVERTY ERADICATION ACT
All wealth shall be scored by valuation and ownership and as long as poverty exists, wealth shall be taxed and confiscated until the poverty is eliminated. The tax and confiscation shall begin with the greatest scored owner and proceed across all valuations such that maximum valuations shall steadily decline until the objective is remedied. Elected or appointed persons in public office who oppose these efforts are guilty of betray and shall be immediately relieved of their position and assets confiscated.
Cloud Computing is for Airheads.
Put your data on someone else’s disk drive… guess what? You could end up like Podesta the Molesta.
I don’t often agree with the Seeker, but s/he’s absolutely correct here^^^.
Except for the “Molesta” part. That’s nonsense. What Podesta molests is our crippled democracy, not kids in the basement.
Over the last few years, I have increasingly come to wonder why it was that my father and uncles risked their lives and went to war in defense of Britain. I, for one, am glad they are no longer alive to see what Britain has turned into.
If there were alive, they would doubtless ask themselves the question: “Why did we risk our lives, and sacrifice so much, just to see Britain turn into what we had fought against?”
They never would have believed it. All four were born in the early 1920’s and they the fall of the Berlin Wall as living testimony to the inherent strength of a free society, open markets, our constitutional democracy and respect for human rights.
Their failure to recognize Gorbachevs central role in the successful dismantling of the Soviet empire notwithstanding didn’t make their heartfelt belief in an American Republic any less endearing to their grandchildren or those of us with a genuine affection for the human condition.
Two uncles in the European Theatre, one uncle in the Asian Theatre and one in the Merchant Marine.
Another reason for May to invoke Article 50 promptly. The sooner the UK is out of the EU, the sooner they will be unimpeded in their trampling on the rights of their citizens. I wonder, though, whether the EU ruling will have an force for EU citizens being spied on by the Brits.
You know the U.K. High courts already ruled the same way right?
Not true, Mark. The UK ruling was that the government’s surveillance practices were illegal up to March and November of last year (depending upon the specific activity), but that they have been legal since then (essentially because they announced them). Additionally, the recently-passed, soon-to-be-effective Snooper’s Charter expands and codifies all of their nefarious, intrusive and creepy behavior.
Thank you for clarifying Doug. So the original high court ruling found that it did not provide adequate judicial scrutiny to apply necessity tests, and their was a lack of definition around the term “serious offences”? The government then added in provisions to “fix” the issues and appealed the original decision which lead to it being referred to the EU courts. The high court rulings findings were not consistent with the EC findings, with the EC findings appearing to be broader in its findings of incompatibility.
If the appeal courts referred to the EU courts, would the UK courts not mirror this ruling, as the case is around whether the legislation is consistent with European Union law.
Huge question, answer unknown. If the UK is going to trigger Article 50 (presumably that will have to happen, sooner or later), one of the stickiest issues is what the relationship with the EU will be after Brexit. The dominant players in the EU are already less than best pleased with the UK and if its courts were to decide not to be bound by ECJ rulings, that would annoy them even more, to say the least.
On the other hand, the authoritarian nationalist trend in the UK is very strong and agencies like GCHQ don’t like judges and governments interfering with their Five Eyes ballet: “Collect it All.” And the Five Eyes partners don’t take kindly to interference, either.
Interesting times.
Very. Surly now, the logical step would be to argue the case that the law is not just incomparable with EU law, but with the ECHR. Firstly through our domestic courts, and then with the ECtHR.
My understanding is that because ECtHR judiciary and law sits under the council of Europe rather than the EU, it’s unaffected by our membership.
Yes. I think that’s correct.
This is the problem with closed systems. By definition, all closed systems are flawed. The aquarium that the Intelligence Community lives in can be such a closed system. Strict code of conduct, tight chain of command, and no open discussion about the means or efficacy of the institution. And no oversight conducted by persons qualified to make an informed decision concerning the conflict between the public welfare and individual rights.
You’re right, the IC doesn’t like interference. Who does?
Hey 24b4Jeff
Yes the EU ruling will have force for some EU citizens being spied on by Brits and I expect domestic and international Commercial Concerns seeking to protect their proprietary interests while doing business there.
Weasel words.
The strength of your existing regime is not where the arguments are needed. But rather what you intend to do to balance that strength with the rights of people in a so-called democratic society. What utter tools and liars.
The EU is increasing its bargaining leverage for negotiating the terms of Brexit. This decision was intended to make continuing participation in the EU as distasteful to the UK as possible, thereby hastening their exit.
The decision isn’t about human rights, except to the extent that it was the most convenient stick handy for cudgelling the UK.
You may not believe it but the EU is not turning around the UK and even less so is the Court of Justice of the European Union. This ruling has been in the working for quite some time, has implications for all member states and is consistent with previous rulings of the court on privacy matters.
David Davis can be happy, his case was successful. Why is it then, that I have the fealing he almost chocked on the news nonetheless?
i would think it would be the opposite
so the Brits can adopt the ruling
The cynical UK government interprets Brexit to mean it that can choose which EU obligations to abide by. The people of the UK are losing doubly.
Well I think this decision is great as far as it goes. But unless the domestic law, of say England, changes such that there is independent oversight of these activities that can’t be thwarted by “classification” schemes or “in the security interests of a nation” type arguments, AND legal regimes funded for enforcement and penalties (including felony convictions) for those who violate whatever legal norms, then like in any other country such “rulings” by the “courts” amount to little more than aspirational directions to other branches of a nation’s government.
Snowden’s disclosures really haven’t sparked much in the way of meaningful reforms that ultimately stop the primary activity that should be stopped i.e. the cessation of mass indiscriminate warrantless surveillance and retention of everyone’s personal communications.
And until that happens court rulings and whatever other “big victories” are just lipstick on the proverbial pig, and amounts to very little in the real world.
I personally don’t think these types of activities will every stop, at least not in America, because the legislative and executive branches are staffed with cowards who are more about themselves and their careers than anything like the little people’s pesky old “rights” to be free from warrantless surveillance.
If they did care, they wouldn’t need to waste a lot of time crafting legislation with loopholes big enough to drive a warrantless mass surveillance system through, they could simply withhold or defund all of these sorts of agencies’ activities that aren’t strictly circumscribed. But there is big private sector money involved in the “intelligence community” and all the infrastructure that has been built since 9-11 to spy on everyone, and everything, and at all times. That’s a fucking very difficult gravy train to derail and exactly how the MICC functions and has since WWII.
My mind boggles at the statement that “The U.K. may have voted to leave the EU — but we didn’t vote to abandon our rights and freedoms.” I mean, the way I followed that news, dropping commitment to EU liberties was the #1 *point* of leaving the EU, even to the point where David Cameron went out, at length, very in public, demanding that the EU give the UK an exemption from human rights as the #1 thing to get them to stay. And the people of that doomed little island, for whatever reason, licked it up like three whores fighting to get credit for a happy ending.
For Cameron the Economic arguments supporting Brexit were already well in hand by the time Europe was informed of GCHQs central role in the NSAs wholesale violation of the human rights of Europeans billions of times a day for a decade or more. Where the European equivalent of “Hemisphere” was concerned billions of times a day for 40 years or more. I for one am glad Privacy International does what they do.
I loved your closing line as it is equally true for East End Boys and West End Girls. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
My VPN service is based in Britain. I wonder how this will affect VPNs generally. Maybe someone could call around and ask the VPNs and ISPs if this will impact them and how.
As I understand it, most internet cables go through Britain before they get to Europe.
VPN, Britain?
it runs thru MI5 & MI6
Britain?
Edward Snowden [email protected]
Big: EU’s highest court (ECJ) declares UK’s mandatory logging of everyone’s communications to be unlawful.
Details: https://medium.com/@privacyint/press-release-landmark-ruling-by-european-court-could-render-the-uk-governments-new-snoopers-e7caff2b59e7#.avyqg2mnc …
PRESS RELEASE: Landmark ruling by European Court could render the UK Government’s new ‘Snoopers Charter’ unlawful. The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has today delivered a landmark judgment that will have major significance for the UK Government’s new ‘Snoopers’ Charter’. Just weeks after the Investigatory Powers Act became law, ministers might be forced to rewrite large parts of it.
Don’t hold your breath, and don’t expect any rewrite to have much meaningful effect on the actual behavior of GCHQ and their Five Eyes BFFs.
I’m pretty sure Edward Snowden is not holding his breath Doug.
Every time a new set of laws comes out they make mistakes. In the European intelligence theatre this happens all the time.
The fact that TPTB ignore these laws doesn’t make any of us less responsible for understanding and employing the most effective and current contemporaneous arguments (EFF, ACLU, Privacy International, NACDL, POGA ETC) FOR government transparency or basic human rights like the right to privacy.
Have you stopped watching testimony from liars at Committee hearings too?
Absolutely. Long ago. It’s much more efficient to pick up anything relevant from transcripts and reportage.
I’m afraid that you and young Ed Snowden still have too much misplaced faith in the power of the people to control or change the circumstances of governance or the behavior of our government agencies. We live in an oligarchy and the interests and desires of ordinary citizens and grassroots movements have little to no effect on government policy or action.
Do Bill Binney, Thomas Drake and Daniel Ellsberg have misplaced faith in the power of the people?
If ordinary citizens and grassroots organizations have little or no effect on TPTB (private or public sector) WHY do corporate citizens insist government and law enforcement track and monitor activists and sabotage their efforts if they present no actual threat to the established order.
As for hearings (paralinguistics anyone?) vs transcripts and reportage I’m down with all three and a Marcy Wheeler twitter feed with a side of OneKade.
Yes. And did no one ever teach you that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?
The full text is at the linked URL.
You’re confused Doug.
Didn’t anyone ever teach you that willful submission to misplaced authority is the cowards last refuge? Bill is Brave. Edward is Brave. Daniel is Brave. Glen is brave. Laura is brave. Jeremy is brave. Marcy is brave. Colleen is brave. Doug is…
You have presented one (1) academic case for hopelessness and inaction (which you’ve misinterpreted in myriad ways to numerous to warrant their refutation) and established you have neither the intestinal fortitude to question authority nor the respect to honor those who have and continue to make those sacrifices on our behalf. If most of us are being labeled domestic terrorists anyway then it must be clear to you why the Pentagons already on the record planning for every flavor of domestic unrest the cowards among us will no doubt seek to avoid at all costs.
But on to my other two querys which you ignored in your haste to respond with your misplaced academic exercise in dissembly by distraction. I’ll mark the two questions clearly so they don’t confuse you any further.
QUESTION: If ordinary citizens and grassroots organizations have little or no effect on TPTB (private or public sector) WHY do corporate citizens insist government and law enforcement track and monitor activists and sabotage their efforts if they present no actual threat to the established order?
In your own words Doug. For the record.
Statement:: As for hearings (paralinguistics anyone?) vs transcripts and reportage I’m down with all three and a Marcy Wheeler twitter feed with a side of OneKade.
What about it Doug? Is there any value to our interpretation of body language, or the of record exchanges between those providing testimony, or their tone of voice and when and with whom they make eye contact or is that all captured in the transcripts and reportage I already read anyway?
In your own words Doug if possible.
More crickets…
Has it though, really?
No, not in any demonstrable documentable or provable way.
But the Snowden disclosures have sparked a “conversation” among TPTB and the general public. But if you think that “conversation” is going to lead to any meaningful change from TPTB and their puppets in the legislative branch short of legislatively defunding these activities, pratices and infrastructure, but nevertheless believes it has stopped anything, is only fooling themselves. Or maybe the dupes and plants in the mainstream media.
rrheard..we need petitions!
Petition the government to get some “redress” for our grievances regarding their invasion of our rightful rights to privacy, as well as their attempts at censoring the internet unreasonably..
Redress:
“Impose fairness or equality on-
to adjust a situation in order to make things fair and equal.”
We need good people who can set up online petitions for our redress, and fair-minded and inspirational voices such as yours to write up some impactful and persuasive documents on the major issues of the day..then get the people to sign the petitions and “present” them…
In England, I think, you need 100,000 signatures on a petition for it to trigger an automatic parliamentary debate…not sure of any such law here in the US, but regardless, multiple petitions online getting hundreds of thousands of signatures, or even more would make it hard for the government to ignore the will of the people, or at least a large enough part of “the people”, for much longer..
I nominate Dougy Salzmann to be the tech guy to set up these online petitions to our government, and you, rrheard, to write up our grievances and demands as free individuals who possess certain inalienable rights simply by being born as human beings…if those fucks can’t understand that, then the “Great American Experimemt” will be well and truly done…and I’ll be heading up to the Depot to buy me a (slave-labor produced) pitchfork..
I like to think of the internet now(and forums such as these) as the old “speakers’ corner” in Hyde Park…a speakers’ corner on steroids, using megaphones, so that the people living in their ivory towers can not help but hear all the fuss being stirred up!
http://www.speakerscornertrust.org/library/about-free-speech/a-brief-history-of-londons-speakers-corner/
Before the Snowden disclosures the “fools” were much harder to identify.
There is no doubt that virtually all of the post Snowden US legislation has served mostly to protect and further empower the US ICs continuing practice of willfully violating the rights of US Persons. At this point however (at least from this catbird seat) the fools are clearly the TPTB.
“in a new ruling that could rein in police and spy agency investigations”
Ha!
Do we have our rose coloured glasses on today?
The ruling makes the retention illegal, not impossible. Hardly much of a deterrent for our corporate governments.