Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Edward Snowden surveillance powers ruled unlawful (bbc.co.uk)
55 points by rayascott 3 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 11 comments



"Edward Snowden surveillance powers ruled unlawful" ?

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


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).


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


I for one want Snowden to immediately stop using his unlawful surveillance powers!


Could you not have a better title, jesus christ


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

</s>



> 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.


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.


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.


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




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: