The headline is wrong - only a judge can āfindā something illegal.
The headline is fine. This is mostly for an American audience, so Iāll use these examples:
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/11/19/deputy-us-attorney-general-finds-banks-compliance
Read this, please as well:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1454
more:
Iām beginning to think pedantry is an incurable disease here at Boing Boing comment threads nowadays. Now I guess youād like to have a lengthy, trite semantic argument over the usage of the word āfindā and take over this thread instead of this perhaps breaking into a discussion of the lawyerās opinion on spying, etc. and all the greater implications of this? What a bore.
Iām not a legal expert, but it seems that QCs are considerably lower in rank than AGs (there were more than 150 QCs in Scotland alone in 2005). Still, this is an official legal opinion requested by a minister that would carry some weight in UK law, so I donāt see why using the word āfindā would be out of place here.
Opinions are usually published at the direction of the court, and to the extent they contain pronouncements about what the law is and how it should be interpreted, they reinforce, change, establish, or overturn legal precedent. If a court decides that an opinion should be published, the opinion is included in a volume from a series of books called law reports (or reporters in the United States). Published opinions of courts are also collectively referred to as case law, which is one of the major sources of law in common law legal systems.
Iām also not sure that Cory was intending to use the term āfindā in any way to trick the reader into thinking it was some kind of final high court decision considering all anyone has to do is follow the link or just read the part of his sentence where it says ātop lawyerā, the words āmay beā or just read the rest of his verbiage in the post. 
I was just trying to show (but probably not very well) that many people use that terminology when describing āfindingsā from lawyers who are tied to the government and are asked for opinions.
If Cory was trying to swindle everyone, I would think heād hatch a better plan.
But, in other newsā¦ it appears that the tide may be turning against suspicionless spying in the free world.
The problem is that this doesnāt seem to be a government lawyer acting in her official capacity to form government policy. It seems more akin to a corporate tax lawyer āfindingā that a specific tax-avoidance strategy is legal (or not): itās little more than a legal opinion. Actually, itās not even that, because she appears to make multiple statements about what the law should be, and not what the law actually is (an example of this would be her conclusion that RIPAās ca. 2000 treatment of metadata should be ignored given the role metadata plays in todayās society). In this sense the document is more of a policy brief than a pure legal opinion, and while it may be useful to legislators, in no way does it form official government policy; itās simply an opinion that the legislators are free to use (or not) as they move forward.
I have no clue on the substantive merits of her actual legal analysis, and I would probably reserve judgment on it until legal commentators have weighed in. The Guardian piece offers no commentary whatsoever, and in this context we might want to remember that according to John Woo (who was actually shaping official policy in the US) and his thoroughly discredited āfindings,ā torture only begins when organs start to fail.
John Yoo
Itās a legal opinion rather than a ruling - the government then would produce an opposite argument in favour of allowing their spying on UK citizens and their forwarding data to allow the US to target drone strikes onto foreign civilians, managed from RAF bases - a judge would look at each legal opinion and then produce a ruling in a judicial review. Iād be surprised if the UK would prosecute its GCHQ staff, to say the least. Itās rare for the police to be prosecuted when they gun down unarmed UK citizens on the street in error - the prosecution is only under health and safety law and results in a fine
āTop lawyer opines that GCHQ spying is illegal & UK spies who help US drone strikes may be accessories to murderā
We could make a gentlemanās agreement that correcting grammar/spelling is fine if you also comment on the story. I definitely like when discussions are more about the topic and less about grammar but, If peopleās mistakes are not called out they miss the chance to improve their writing.
Now, I would be remiss if I did not at least mention the story, as per my suggestion. I applaud this decision and would like to see more like this out of our judicial branch here in the US. Cheers!
If people's mistakes are not called out they miss the chance to improve their writing.I think "finds" was fine as is, but it is what it is.
I applaud this decision and would like to see more like this out of our judicial branch here in the US. Cheers!
I completely agree. I hope perhaps some other countries step up to the plate as well. But, I think the huge elephant in the room thatās getting relatively ignored is all the corporate spying that goes on. Whatās not reported very much is the fact that the technology corporations keep lobbying the government to be able to keep collecting data on people. So when these same tech companies howl about NSA spying, I feel like theyāre talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Fair.orgās Counterspin program covered this issue as well as Democracy Now.
Iām aware that itās not at the same level as a ruling, but I was suggesting that it was more than just an opinion in the common sense of the term. This is why itās important to know what words like āfindā and ālegal opinionā mean in this context. In what capacity was the legal opinion sought? Would it be recognised in court as part of a challenge to the legality of GCHQ activities? Would it prompt a review of the activities by the government? Itās nice that a senior lawyer feels that GCHQ actions are or should be illegal, but on a scale of internet comment to high court ruling, how significant is it?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
