-- Top comment on Reddit [0]:

'This clearly violates both EU and British law.

It's simple: Parliament and the CPS can no longer ignore GCHQ's abuses and the entirely inadequate 'oversight' regime of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Brooks et al. go on trial for allegedly hacking celebrities' voicemail messages, but Cabinet ministers walk free after approving secret suspicion-less dragnet recording of millions of webcam chats? This precedent can't stand. It's time we demand prison sentences for everyone who knew about this and did nothing to stop it.

Relevant British law is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, Part II, Section 32 -- "Authorisation of Intrusive Surveillance":

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/32

(2)Neither the Secretary of State nor any senior authorising officer shall grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance unless he believes—

(a)that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and
(b)that the authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out.

GCHQ's position was that, "...the general principle applied would be that if the accuracy of the algorithm was such that it was useful to the analyst (ie, [if] the number of spurious results was low, then it was likely to be proportionate)".

But the entire point of requiring 'proportionality' is to exclude activities which are useful, but too intrusive for the benefits gained. GCHQ's reasoning that usefulness implies proportionality is clearly false. Time for a few ministers to see the inside of a courtroom.'

--

Without being an expert on the law (and ~99.999% of the people reading this fall into the same bucket) -- I/we can assume that other clauses exist to 'defang'/'neuter' the clauses cited, the ones which were purportedly violated. And this highlights another BIG issue: a law's true intent is oftentimes indecipherable or outright deceitful.

Groundbreaking precedents have been set due to laws which were passed on false pretenses (for ex., look up the genesis story of "eminent domain") - or simply marketed as something misleading (ex. Sen. Feinstein's "FISA Improvements Act"). To me, that is the greatest form corruption in a democracy -- lawmaking with surreptitious intent.

While bills have to be massive in some circumstances (and interlinking by their very nature) -- a standardized list of simple outcomes of said law should be a requirement, and a bill should be "unit tested" the same way programs are. Actually, behaviorally tested is a better phrase. We need a tool for lawyers/lawmakers to help them express the consequences of a bill in a definitive manner. - Are there such initiatives? (please comment) Shouldn't we start one? Has the idea been floated and shot down (at EFF/Demand Progress/etc), and if so why? IMHO it would be worth the investment given the stakes (understanding the consequences of bills and laws -- even spotting excess/hidden "pork"). . I would love to read a bill as a series of behavioral test assertions, wouldn't you! :)

>>> Hopefully the stated concerns don't apply; countless suits are brought against all suspect parties (esp. high profile targets); and those responsible are served justice to the maximum extent of the law. As the hum of document shredders begins on 10 Downing Street - know that THIS is the opportunity to "make an example out of" the type of people who are responsible for the system as it exists today. It's our turn for a power play.

[0] http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1z33wx/uk_spy_age...