Saved from them Tories, saved by the EU.
Sooner we're out of that madhouse sooner we can be paid for spying on our friends and family.
source: EU data retention ruling goes against UK - BBC News
Sooner we're out of that madhouse sooner we can be paid for spying on our friends and family.
EU data retention ruling goes against UK
Woman using a laptopPA
The European Court of Justice has ruled against the UK government following a legal challenge over data retention.
EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime.
The legal challenge was initially championed by Brexit Secretary David Davis, who was then a backbench Conservative MP.
The Home Office said it was "disappointed" with the judgement and would consider implications.
The Lib Dems said the ruling proved the government had "overstepped the mark" with its Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, branded the "snoopers' charter" by critics, which requires communications companies to retain data for 12 months.
'Proper scrutiny'
The ECJ said a "general and indiscriminate retention" of data was against EU law and could only be done under certain conditions and "solely for the purpose of fighting serious crime".
Its ruling confirmed a preliminary verdict in July. The case now returns to the UK Court of Appeal, which had referred it to the ECJ for clarification.
Mr Davis, who had long campaigned on civil liberties issues, left the case after Theresa May appointed him to her cabinet in July.
Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, who is one of those bringing the case, said: "This ruling shows it's counter-productive to rush new laws through Parliament without a proper scrutiny."
The Home Office said it would be putting forward "robust arguments" to the Court of Appeal.
It added: "Given the importance of communications data to preventing and detecting crime, we will ensure plans are in place so that the police and other public authorities can continue to acquire such data in a way that is consistent with EU law and our obligation to protect the public."
The data in question refers to details such as the time and data of a phone call being made or an email being sent - but not its contents.
Woman using a laptopPA
The European Court of Justice has ruled against the UK government following a legal challenge over data retention.
EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime.
The legal challenge was initially championed by Brexit Secretary David Davis, who was then a backbench Conservative MP.
The Home Office said it was "disappointed" with the judgement and would consider implications.
The Lib Dems said the ruling proved the government had "overstepped the mark" with its Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, branded the "snoopers' charter" by critics, which requires communications companies to retain data for 12 months.
'Proper scrutiny'
The ECJ said a "general and indiscriminate retention" of data was against EU law and could only be done under certain conditions and "solely for the purpose of fighting serious crime".
Its ruling confirmed a preliminary verdict in July. The case now returns to the UK Court of Appeal, which had referred it to the ECJ for clarification.
Mr Davis, who had long campaigned on civil liberties issues, left the case after Theresa May appointed him to her cabinet in July.
Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, who is one of those bringing the case, said: "This ruling shows it's counter-productive to rush new laws through Parliament without a proper scrutiny."
The Home Office said it would be putting forward "robust arguments" to the Court of Appeal.
It added: "Given the importance of communications data to preventing and detecting crime, we will ensure plans are in place so that the police and other public authorities can continue to acquire such data in a way that is consistent with EU law and our obligation to protect the public."
The data in question refers to details such as the time and data of a phone call being made or an email being sent - but not its contents.
Comment