1984 and the Right to Privacy. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14812091
Do you think privacy is a right?
The freedom and safety of many people all over the world is dependent on the ability to limit who knows about their political preferences, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and more.

Image




The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) is a regulation by which the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission intend to strengthen and unify data protection for all individuals within the European Union (EU). It also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU. The primary objectives of the GDPR are to give control back to citizens and residents over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU. When the GDPR takes effect, it will replace the data protection directive (officially Directive 95/46/EC) from 1995. The regulation was adopted on 27 April 2016. It applies from 25 May 2018 after a two-year transition period and, unlike a directive, it does not require any enabling legislation to be passed by national governments.

wiki


EU judges may be asked to decide whether the (United Kingdoms') intelligence services’ bulk collection of email data in order to prevent terrorist attacks is legal.

In a fresh challenge that could impact the Investigatory Powers Act, the campaign group Privacy International has argued in court on Monday that interception of social media that is not targeted and subject to sufficient safeguards is forbidden by a previous European judgment.

After a minute’s silence in memory of the victims of the attack in London on Saturday, the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) said it was considering whether to refer the issue – concerning the use by GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 of bulk communication data – back to the court of justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.

Investigatory Powers Act legalises range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services

“This case raises a fundamental political question as to the competing powers of the nation state and the EU,” the vice-president of the IPT, Mr Justice Mitting, told the hearing.

In December, the European court if justice ruled that “general and indiscriminate retention” of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal. The far-reaching judgment was in relation to previous surveillance legislation but it may now effect the Investigatory Powers Act – the so-called snooper’s charter.


Only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime – including terrorism – was justified, the EU’s highest court said.


The finding came in response to a legal challenge initially brought by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, when he was a backbench MP, and Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ’s bulk interception of call records and online messages.

Addressing the IPT on Monday, Thomas de la Mare QC, for Privacy International, said: “Communications data collected in aggregate about individuals is no less sensitive than the content [of emails].”

UK citizens live in a country subject to a greater surveillance than any other, he said. “You should not forget that every single EU state has in the past five years been combatting Islamic terrorism of exactly the same form [as the Borough Market and Manchester attacks] and despite their efforts gross terrorist outrages have occurred ...

“Notwithstanding such terrible threats to human life, the constitutional right to personal privacy sets limits on state surveillance powers,” he said.

After the UK leaves the EU, the tribunal heard, European states may no longer be able to share intelligence with Britain unless the legal regimes are aligned.

James Eadie QC, for the government, has acknowledged to the tribunal in written submissions that the issue may have to be referred back to Luxembourg to clarify the EU court’s judgment.

His evidence also pointed out that the government faced “increasing use of encryption and increasing difficulty of interception” online that makes use of bulk communications data and bulk personal data more important.

Reliance on such bulk data surveillance reduces the need for more intrusive techniques, Eadie said. “The usefulness of bulk communications data is clear ... It provides more comprehensive coverage than is possible by means of interception. For example, it enables GCHQ to ‘tip off’ [MI5] when a subject of interest arrives in the UK,” he said.

The hearing is expected to last all week.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... hq-m15-mi6
#14812586
But privacy hasn't been a thing until very recently, like it only really started getting traction during the late 1800s. I don't think it's that much of a big deal, yes there should be a limit to how much the government should poke their nose into your business however I don't think that it matter whether or not the government sees the stuff I do as long as it doesn't stop me from seeing stuff on the internet and doesn't interfere with my life. Like I'm ok with the government gaining data on it's citizens. It could potentially be used to create policies that reflect the citizens condition or create statistics that could be then given out to the general public for general usage. Stuff like that.

The problem I have is the government takes paternalistic actions based on that data. Once they interfere with the lives of it's citizens, thats what I have a problem with.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]

In other news ... According to his lawyers, Trum[…]