Zanu NL give councils (and others) power to spy on emails

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by rockape34, Aug 13, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From The Times August 13, 2008
  2. Its not as if our great Government haven't got enough important things to think about, with the economy exploding into flames around them, the housing market completely crashed, companies not turning expected profits, potential war in the caucasus, Iraq, Afghanistan, Moslem Extremists, and Labour MP's expiring all over the place.

    No the thing they have on their mind is the need to snoop further on its citizens, and not only the government! They are going to give these powers to local councils to snoop on you too. Heavens above you may be doing something anti social within the privacy of your own home, such as possibly selling things on ebay! So potentially your dustman will have the ability to read your private communications and have listings of who you talk to on your telephone.

    The more I hear of this the more I think of the Stasi!
  3. If they were willing to use Stasi tactics against chavs, drug-dealers, terrorists etc, I might not mind so much. But these cnuts only want to hit soft targets: the law abiding majority. :x

    Fcuking cowards. :evil:
  4. Across the board.
  5. Well then, to my council who are reading this now...... hello, I've got secrets under my floorboards. And you're all cnuts.
  6. I would suggest that we bombard individual councils with millions of emails to break the system down but realise that it would not work because they would just use even more of the tax/ratepayers cash to employ even more jobsworth to negate the problem.
  7. Councils have had the power to snoop on their own employees for some time now. Councils' computer networks and the information that sits on them is owned by them and the data is theirs to withhold or release as they see fit.

    They still have to apply for permission to actively monitor individual's email accounts or their activities, usually to check up on suspicious activity, questionable sickness absence, etc.

    This is a step further in that it affects Joe Public.

    “The directive rightly refers to atrocities in London...." - what's the election of arch clown Boris Johnson got to do with this?
  8. You are full of wit. Or at least something that rhymes with "wit"... :roll:
  9. All the best announcements come during the Parliamentary recess. No awkward questions during PMQs on issues that will disappear from the headlines once Parliament re-convenes at the end the summer break!
  10. mercurydancer

    mercurydancer LE Book Reviewer

    Why on earth should councils have powers that are intended for use in combating serious crime and terrorism? They dont function in any capacity to do that... so why are the Gobment allowing councils to do it? When the councils used surveillance for dogs crapping on pavements and other such things, any responsible government should have stamped on them saying that we have police and security services to do that sort of thing. Its not in your remit as a council.
  11. On 17 July 2008 we had a unanimous decision from the European Court of Human Rights in Stasbourg in]I v Finland (case 20511/03)[/url] which found a breach, by the state of Article 8 of the convention which guarantees the right to a private life for all European citizens (including our own 'Subjects').

    In this particular case, the Finish Government was ordered to pay a woman Euro: 34000 for failing to adequately safeguard her personal data.

    The killer part of the judgement is at para 47:

    "The Court notes that the mere fact that the domestic legislation provided the applicant with an opportunity to claim compensation for damages caused by an alleged unlawful disclosure of personal data was not sufficient to protect her private life. What is required in this connection is practical and effective protection to exclude any possibility of unauthorised access occurring in the first place. Such protection was not given here"

    The impact of the case should not be underestimated since it is the first time in which a direct link has been establish between personal data and human rights and raises the bar considerably insomuch that an individuals data casting an onerous obligation upon the state.

    Those who know their way around the Human Rights Act 1998 will, of course have noted that although article 8 is Incorporated into domestic law and New Labour have been keen to point out that our domestic legislation has Incorporated human rights into domestic law. What New Labour failed to mention was that article 13 - the right to an effective remedy at law' is missing from UK legislation. Thus, although a breach of article 8 is justiciable in the UK courts, there is no automatic right to a remedy unless the enabling legislation governing data protection in the UK expressly provides for one.

    Although this deals with the issue of data security, it does not expressly deal with the right of the state to acquire and hold it in the first place. It is at least arguable that our domestic measures infringe the principle of 'proportionality'. This is a principle borrowed from German law according to which, a public authority may not impose obligations on a citizen except to the minimum extent that is strictly necessary to the aim that is to be sought. I would suggest that the United Kingdom's application of the regulation goes far beyond that which is reasonably required.