asterisk2a + information + chelsea + oversight + police   1

Can we really trust judges to protect reporters' confidential sources? | Media | The Guardian
Journalists won’t even be safe to talk email whistleblowers from a coffee shop [...] In stressing that the powers would not be used for mass surveillance, May said the onus would be on the home office to show necessity and proportionality. And who would decide whether that was justified? Judicial commissioners, she said. They would operate a “double-lock” authorisation process on intercept and bulk interception warrants in order to prevent intrusive snooping. [ old boys club with career interests? titles, pensions? ] But will this judicial oversight provide enough protection? That’s the key worry for journalists who now know that there is nowhere for them to conceal their communications with confidential sources. [...] We already know from instances of the police use of the regulation of investigatory powers act (Ripa) //&! Police spying row officers decline Holyrood invitation - http://bbc.in/1RSXQxl
Snoopers  Charter  Theresa  May  Surveillance-Industrial  Complex  surveillance  surveillance  state  Orwellian  free  press  Pressefreiheit  freedom  of  press  investigative  journalism  journalismus  journalism  Whistleblower  accounting  accountability  Career  Politicians  UK  USA  NSA  GCHQ  corporate  scandal  political  scandal  of  Information  Act  FOI  democracy  transparency  oversight  encryption  backdoors  backdoor  Westminster  War  on  Terror  organised  crime  War  on  Drugs  MI6  CIA  Toff  Privileged  Establishment  Edward  Snowden  Julian  Assange  Wikileaks  cablegate  Chelsea  Manning  Pentagon  Police 
january 2016 by asterisk2a

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: