How is trying to achieve greater national sovereignty to curtail the rights of those largely deemed undesirable getting closer to a "nanny state"? Especially under the Tories.

I'm not talking about these specific instances about certain "undesirables". I don't always agree with the ECtHR either, but after the court being a major part of my Minor (International and European Law) through college, I can assure you that it has changed the lives of millions for the better. While there are certain questionable and sometimes petty rulings made, the ECtHR has improved countless of systems and government policies, ranging from things like actual torture, inhuman prison conditions, blatant police brutality and abuse, environmental hazards, to illegal searches / wiretaps, limits to free speech, discrimination, inequality, arbitrary trials, forbidden protests, illegal arrests, curbing the freedom of the press and so on.

Yes, there's some bad stuff that happened, and yes, the ECtHR could do with a reform. But it is also the single most effective, influential and important human rights system in the world, providing for a great protection of human rights and an appeal when a nation's government or legislation would never consider to put itself in a position where they could face scrutiny or be wrong.

So what I'm afraid of is not necessarily a few undesirables being sent back. It's the reversal of a longstanding tradition of reverance of human rights. Not only could a major member such as the UK leaving affect the entire standing of the EC(t)HR, but it could also be bad for the UK itself. I'm not saying that the day the UK gets rid of the HRA, you'll wake up in a 1984 totalitarian regime. But I do fear that basically saying "fuck the ECtHR, its Convention, progressive nature and decades of experience crossing the mere borders of countries, we're doing our own thing now" can lead to some very bad things and policies.

It's no secret that the ECtHR receives a lot of negative (and often biased, if we're going to be honest) news in the UK, calling out the Court and accusing it of forcing the UK to change for the worse. Just for some statistical information, you should read this:

"Our key finding is that the UK has a very low ‘rate of defeat’ at Strasbourg, both in absolute terms and in comparison with a selection of other states. Of all the applications brought against the UK at the ECtHRin the past decade, the vast majority fell at the first hurdle: only three per cent were declared admissible. An even smaller proportion - 1.8 per cent – eventually resulted in a judgment finding at least one violation. In other words, the UK ‘lost’ only one in fifty cases brought against it in Strasbourg. The rate of defeat falls to 1.4 per cent (around one in 70) if judgments are adjusted to show the effect of repetitive cases. The latest figures for 2011 show a rate of defeat of just 0.5 per cent, or one in 200."

And for some other points, the ECtHR did quite a lot of good for the UK. It led to a rule change that allowed police to actually take preventive action in certain abuse cases, something that would've never seen the light otherwise. It led to a change of how the state evaluates itself after policy brutality and deaths at the hands of the state, something that would've probably still been the same as it was before. It got rid of certain inhumane practices and torture during investigations. It led to more scrutiny and careful planning for potentially lethal police interventions. It changed the diplomacy regime for the better and changed the "indefinite detention of people who could be terrorists" regime. It improved the guarantees for a right to fair trial, got rid of corporal punishment, instituted a more reasonable suspicion for arrest, changed the policy in regards to forced labor, gave victims more rights in a criminal procedure, went against the indefinite retention of fingerprints, DNA and other sensitive information "just in case", changed random and arbitrary wiretaps, gave more rights to gay people, got rid of the censorship rules that allowed publications to be stopped when the government deemed them unfit, disallowed discrimination with immigration...

I understand that you are sceptical of the ECtHR, but they have done good. I recommend you reading through some of what I linked, it's really quite well written and informative. So while I don't always agree with the Court either, these are all examples of the positive changes it has brought forth. It has protected millions of British people and changed several dangerous government policies that would probably still exist now if it wasn't for the court.

I realize that this probably won't change your opinion, but until I see the proposition of the new HRA and potentially some changes in the British legal system, I would not be too happy about this development if I were you. The ECtHR has it flaws, but I am glad that is there to watch my back and that I can actually and effectively rely on a very extensive human rights treaty to go against my own government and country if something would go wrong.

Thought I read it in the FT article, but apparently not. Can't fucking remember where I got that from.

There have been similar cases (that I don't personally always agree with it), but this isn't one of them.

I'm personally glad this is happening; all of this bullshit about giving prisoners the vote and not being able to deport Abu Qatada because of his "right to a family".

Also, the giving prisoners a right to vote argument is very undetailed, and I'm pretty sure that the right to respect for family life had nothing to do wit hthe Qatada case.

A lot of what this really boils down to is that you just don't trust the government to carry this program out without abuse, despite a (frankly surprising) lack of violations on their part.

Correct would be "despite a lack of violations that we know of". Snowden probably didn't even reveal a fraction of what actually can be done with your data. All we have is a single person revealing what he knew. Had that not happened, we would still mainly be in the dark about what generally goes on with your personal information and metadata.

Those gray areas really aren't there. It's pretty specific how they associate ties, and it starts with whether you have contacted flagged cell phone numbers associated with terrorists, or are within a few degrees of separation from one (I.E., you text your friend who is in contact with a terrorist cell number).

Which still changes absolutely nothing about how they interpret the already broad guidelines behind the scenes. They're obviously not going to release information about every search and analysis they go through with, which makes complete sense but also keeps this far away from public scrutiny.

"These are our guidelines."
- Yeah, but they are very broad.
"Well, we will only interpret them very strictly, promise!
- Which we have absolutely no way of verifying.
"Looks like you're just going to have trust us to sit on all this sensitive and private information and barely ever use it!"

Yeah...

Like I said earlier, it's simply not possible to draw these conclusions based on what they have access to before getting a warrant from the court. They don't have access to name, numbers, dates, and times of calls until they get a warrant. And even if they did, then that's really an issue of the NSA employing individuals who are trustworthy and professional. Obviously, Snowden is the exception in this case.

You are wrongfully acting as if a warrant is some kind of valid protection mechanism. They're handed out far away from public scrutiny and require nothing but a signature. I'm not saying that they are at this point, but these could very well be complete bullshit safeguards.

"Don't worry people, we only collect your data without doing anything with it. Before doing that, we need a warrant! Relax, your privacy is safe. Oh, but let's conveniently ignore the fact that this court is shrouded in secrecy, doesn't have to answer to anyone, doesn't have to reveal records and doesn't even have to prove anything, all while it can potentially routinely hand out dozens of warrants every single day."

Didn't Snowden reveal court warrants that basically stated that certain phone providers had to indefinitely and routinely hand over all call detail records (both domestic and foreign) on a daily basis for a very broad reason?

And then there's also stuff like this. Yes, it's two years old by now, but the point still stands. A secret loophole, kept from the public, allowing the NSA to take notice of the content of emails and calls without a warrant even existing?

Even if the rules have changed by now and there is more control exercised, this just comes to show how easy it is for the government to play around with this kind of stuff behind the scenes. While reassuring us that we have nothing to worry about and that there are guidelines to be followed, who knows? The single person who came out with some information suggesting that more was going on has since been branded and hunted as a traitor.

Either way, like I said before, I am not opposed to certain intelligence gathering. I am just extremely surprised by how you are seemingly downplaying all of this. Not to sound like a tinfoil hatter, but "just trust us, we promise we will play by the rules and not go around some relatively flimsy safeguards" isn't good enough.

Deflate...gate?

Quote from: Flee on May 12, 2015, 07:40:50 AM

What game? Is it some casual scrubgame we're talking about?

Yeah like Quake

Posts like this are the reason I visit Modabuse Anonymous every week.

You're a good guy, from what I can tell.

This is almost as bad as them still making regular Destiny videos. They are usually met with a ton of downvotes and legitimate criticism, but they still keep pumping them out daily with clickbait titles.

"The Fireteam Chat: Why YOU should be excited for House of Wolves"

Please just kill me now.

Hello everyone, I am the One True Desticle and today...

I can still hear it.

Not that graphics matter all that much, but it still looks good.

I just noticed that typing "chal" on my phone automatically predicts "ChallengerX" as the most likely word to fill in.

Anime has corrupted you, Psy.

So many ponyfriends in this thread!

Quote from: Flee on May 10, 2015, 06:39:13 AM

Is nothing sacred to these wicked folks?

nope, just like your people ponying everything they can think of.

>implying anything sub 5% even counts as beer

Americans please.