In fields of no rules - anything is permissible for the rulers, even to break, what they parade as democratic Fundamental Human Rights.
My latest post was about the total surveillance by the EU system´s national states  and the EU itself using/striving for wholesale telecommunication interception.
The Following is from the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ´s  Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System 1999-2004:

7.2.2. "At EU level there are still no regulations concerning the admissibility of the interception of telecommunications for security or intelligence purposes, so the issue of infringement of Article 6(2) TEU does not yet arise.
To sum up, it can therefore be said that the current legal position is that an ECHELON type intelligence system is not in breach of Union law.

9.2 The legality of ECHELON interception “ applies only where the system is actually used exclusively for the purposes of state security. On the other hand, were it to be used for other purposes …this would constitute an infringement of EC law. Were a Member State to be involved in such action, it would be in breach of Community law.

In all Member States, the principle of telecommunications secrecy may be breached for law enforcement purposes,
provided that there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed by a specific person.
In view of the seriousness of the interference in the exercise of the right to privacy, a warrant is generally required for such an action and the warrant then lays down precise details.

For the purposes of guaranteeing national security and order, the state's right to obtain information is extended beyond the scope of individual investigations prompted by firm evidence that a crime has been committed.
Finally, a substantial proportion of surveillance measures are carried out for the purposes of safeguarding state security.

9.1. Protection against the activities of intelligence services: a task for the national parliaments.
Any arrangements to protect citizens against the activities of intelligence services can only be made under national legal systems.

8.4.1.As outlined in detail above, the contracting parties must comply with a set of conditions in order to demonstrate that the activities of their intelligence services are compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. It is quite obvious that intelligence services cannot be allowed to circumvent these requirements by employing assistance from other intelligence services subject to less stringent rules. Otherwise, the principle of legality, with its twin components of accessibility and foreseeability, would become a dead letter and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights would be deprived of its substance.

8.3.4 The view that the interception of all telecommunications, even if permissible under national law, represents the best form of protection against organised crime would amount to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.

6.1.2. Any act involving the interception of communications, and even the recording of data by intelligence services for that purpose, represents a serious violation of an individual's privacy.
Only in a 'police state' is the unrestricted interception of communications permitted by government authorities.”

Interference in the exercise of the fundamental right to privacy may be admissible if there is a legal basis under national law. The law must be generally accessible and its consequences must be foreseeable

Today, the European Union is in many fields in the process of taking up a role at least complementary to that of the nation state.
The further development of a joint European Union intelligence capacity should be considered necessary and inevitable. Cooperation with third countries, and in particular the United Stat
es, should be maintained and, very possibly, strengthened. This does not necessarily mean that European SIGINT activities should automatically be integrated in an independent European Union ECHELON system, or that the European Union should become a full partner in the present UKUSA Agreement. However, the development of'proper European responsibility in the field of intelligence collection must be actively considered.

Indeed, this EU intelligence will be established by ordering the internet providers to filter all internet and telecommunication activities
(to be put to the vote in the EU Parliament on Sept. 2, 2008). Besides, from 2010 the Europol will become an EU agency - under and paid by the EU Parliament.

"Thou art the giver of  all that thy creatures love, full belly twice a day, clean straw to roll upon;  Every beast great or small  sleeps at peace in his stall,  thou watchest over all, Comrade Napoleon!"

"All animals are equal. Added later: but some are more equal than others. No animal shall kill another animal. Added later: without cause".  (George Orwell)

We have now seen that the EU is ready to give the USA our personal data, thus breaking art. 8.4.1. of the above statement by the ad hoc Committee of the EU Parliament.
We have seen that the EU is considering to intercept each and everyone´s internet and telecommunication traffics by means of internet providers, thereby breaking art. 9.2.
We have seen that the
EU illegally 
steals the right of the national states to intercept – this being outside the competence of the EU, according to the temporary  EU Committee ( art. 7.2.2).  

The  above can only be due to the EU and the New World Order considering itself to have statehood and all of us to be dangerous criminals!!  Since they deliberately  break valid rules, however, the eurocrats are the real criminals.

An interception of communications represents serious interference with an individual's exercise of the right to privacy: Article 8 of the ECHR.
"The degree of protection can hardly be said to be adequate", say the Committee! How right they are.

Since no provision has been made for the incorporation of the Charter into the Treaty, the Charter offers European citizens no additional protection.
The Charter 
has the ambiguous value of a 'solemn proclamation'

Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the ECHR, exercise of this fundamental right is not unrestricted. Interference in the exercise of the fundamental right to privacy may be admissible if there is a legal basis under national law. The law must be generally accessible and its consequences must be foreseeable
They may do so only for the purposes listed in the second paragraph of Article 8 of the ECHR, in particular in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country. 

But of course, if we all pose a danger to the EU of the elite superstate, the eurocratic elite may feel it is justified to break their own parading ideals, since they no longer respect national law.

And as shown by Bruno Waterfield , the eurocrates consider their own safety so much more important than ours, that they now demand special police protection for themselves at the Brussels Midi Railway Station, when they return from Strassburg on Thursday evenings on their private high speed gravy train (for eurocrats only)– as well as special buses from the Station to the EU Parliament.
Cause: They consider Brussels too dangerous for themselves!!!

And nothing hurts more than the thrashing, kicking and stabs on oneself!!
That the ordinary underling population will have to live with the consequences of the multicultural "Union for the Mediterranean" created by the ruthless, selfish, illuminist , eurocratic master race in their ivory New World Order  towers is of no concern to them. On the contrary. The worse for us, the better for them!!