
Edward Snowden surveillance powers ruled unlawful - rayascott
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45510662
======
fermigier
"Edward Snowden surveillance powers ruled unlawful" ?

Shouldn't the title be instead "UK surveillance powers ruled unlawful" ?

~~~
cantrevealname
Not only the title -- the article is horribly muddled. Just look at these two
lines:

 _The court ruled agencies had violated rights as there were no proper
safeguards._

 _The court crucially said bulk interception was legitimate..._

Apparent contradiction. Further down the page I saw what the reporter was
trying to say... maybe. I think it's more likely that he muddled everything
and we should wait for better clearer reporting (or read the original court
decisions).

~~~
da_chicken
Yeah, it turns out editors are actually pretty important to publishing. QA is
important.

------
annadane
Could you not have a better title, jesus christ

~~~
SomeHacker44
I am not sure substituting Jesus Christ for Edward Snowden would achieve your
intended result.

</s>

------
dublinben
Duplicate of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17977799](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17977799)

------
avmich
> The judgement said: "While there is no evidence to suggest that the
> intelligence services are abusing their powers - on the contrary, the [then
> British watchdog] observed that the selection procedure was carefully and
> conscientiously undertaken by analysts, the court is not persuaded that the
> safeguards governing selection of bearers [internet cables] for interception
> and the selection of intercepted material for examination are sufficiently
> robust to provide adequate guarantees against abuse.

It's unclear what - and why - are criteria for sufficiency and adequacy.

~~~
teraflop
If UK court decisions are anything like the ones from the US Supreme Court,
it's a fairly safe bet that the actual judgment is a lengthy document that
explains those criteria. I wouldn't judge the thoroughness of the decision
itself from a few out-of-context snippets.

~~~
da_chicken
Journalists are also notorious for overstating and misinterpreting court
rulings, to the extent that when actual monumental decisions are made it's
often difficult to tell as journalists treat them the same as the extremely
narrow and largely circumstantial rulings.

It's almost always worth it to find the published opinion and to read that.
The language is not that bad.

------
yardie
I think you a comma. And this post's title is just awful.

