Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

US Working To Kill UN Privacy Resolutions 197

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the only-criminals-need-privacy dept.
schwit1 writes with a short excerpt from The Cable "The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained by The Cable. American representatives have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network." A leaked memo containing U.S. suggestions for changes to the ICCPR includes gems like (referring to intercepting communications) "Move 'may threaten' from before 'the foundations of a democratic [society]...' to before 'freedom of expression.' We need to clarify that privacy violations could 'interfere with' freedom of expression and avoid the inaccurate suggestion that all privacy violations are violations of freedom of expression." The U.S. changes are pretty much directed at making dragnet surveillance of non-citizens technically legal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Working To Kill UN Privacy Resolutions

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Wow, the US government really doesn't give a fuck. They're paranoid as shit that their little party will be over.
    • by AlphaWolf_HK (692722) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @02:37AM (#45523571)

      As much as I know it pains the US to see privacy advocacy, I'm a bit dumbfounded as to why the UN would want it. Most of its members don't even like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, so why would they give a damn about privacy? The only thing I can think of is to kneecap the competitive advantage that the US economy has in the tech sector, which by its nature is very anti-privacy, though more as a result of the way it functions than any interest in spying on you.

      The EU is already red handed guilty of this because they raise a huge stink over it and want to push laws trying to bring more business to their domestic tech services, even though their governments often do worse things (Or would do worse things if they had the capability. Which they mainly don't due to a lack of jurisdiction; part of the reason why they need to have more of these services run domestically.)

      • by dave420 (699308)
        Worse things? No evidence for that. Would do worse things? No evidence for that. Try again.
      • by jalopezp (2622345) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @10:25AM (#45525751)

        These laws apply to everyone. Making 'extraterritorial surveillance' a violation of human rights would mean that no one is allowed to do it. Not the US, not the UK, not China, not fucking Burundi. American technology industries wouldn't be hurt by this, they can only be helped if the law assures their clients that their data is safe.

        Anyway, the point is moot. Of the five permanent members of the security council, at least four would veto any such curbs on their surveillance programs.

    • Meh, true, but at the same time, may threaten the foundations of democracy, unless very explicitly defined somewhere later in the document, is vague enough to be utterly meaningless. A very, very few governments will use it as intended while the vast majority will only block the most egregious of the violations. And given the lack of specificity, both interpretations would be correct.

  • by Gravis Zero (934156) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:20PM (#45522471)

    even if the UN passes something to assert "universal human right to online privacy", we know that the ones doing the snooping are still going to keep snooping with no regard for the law.

    Land of the free to violate our own constitution. :(

    • More like Land of the Corporate Tools :-(

    • The US has been expelled from UN bodies in the past, due to violations of international law. Although 95% symbolic, it hurts them in things like trade negotiations and bilateral agreements. In turn, that makes equally abusive but unsanctioned nations more attractive to business. That, in turn, hurts donations to politicians and tax revenues. Not necessarily by a lot, but name a politician who wants to spend less.

      (Note: Tea Partiers and Libertarians want other people to spend less. They, themselves, are by f

      • "The tea partiers who have twisted the libertarian philosophy into an unrecognizable monster" FTFY

        The pure libertarian philosophy is simply that citizens should have unlimited autonomy so long as it doesn't infringe upon the autinomy of others

        Near slavery via economic means doesn't pass that litmus test

        Unfortunately there isn't exactly a brightline to decide when this occurs...but the tea party have perverted it either way.

        • And yet you would instead vote for those who go far beyond what you define as "perversion"?? You are bothered by near slavery via economic means and yet vote for those most in favor of it, or at least not those who want no part of such a thing.

          The Tea Party is about smaller government spending less. The only perversion is twisting that to mean a greater degree of economic slavery!

          If you don't like economic slavery you too had better start coordinating with the Tea Party, or forever hold your peace.

          • Well first of all that's a strawman argument to the point where I don't even know who you think I'd vote for. Modern liberals are infinitely worse as summed up by someone's signature "progressive liberalism: ideas so good they have to be mandatory", so I generally lean conservative.

            So I would vote conservative if I thought votes did anything. I vote for local elections, and rep elections, and that's it. That being said here are my issues with the tea party:

            A) The tea party wants special interest groups to d

            • Oh and for the record I mentioned economic slavery because that's the impression most people have of libertarianism. I wasn't necessarily knocking the tea party. There has to be a balance.

              Economic redistribution is simply nonsense though.

      • (Note: Tea Partiers and Libertarians want other people to spend less. They, themselves, are by far the worst of the pork barrel spenders.)

        Who do you think are the Libertarians in Congress? The only one I know of is Justin Amash.

        You do realize that Tea Partiers and Libertarians differ on about 50% of the issues, right?

        • by doom (14564)

          (Note: Tea Partiers and Libertarians want other people to spend less. They, themselves, are by far the worst of the pork barrel spenders.)

          Who do you think are the Libertarians in Congress? The only one I know of is Justin Amash.

          Oh right! "True libertarianism has never been tried", right? It's funny, you know, the socialists say the same things about socialism. Perhaps you would like to go off into the corner and commiserate with them...

          (The present crop of Republicans has certainly been acting like

          • Oh right! "True libertarianism has never been tried", right?

            No, that's a separate issue.

            (The present crop of Republicans has certainly been acting like they want to drown the government in a bathtub. )

            How? Do you mean spouting off nonsense on TV? Look at their actions - that's all that actually matters - politicians are constant liars so we can only tell what they really think by how they act. Show me one Republican (aside from Amash) that is not voting to expand the size and scope of Government on eve

    • by jopsen (885607) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @01:30AM (#45523257) Homepage

      even if the UN passes something to assert "universal human right to online privacy", we know that the ones doing the snooping are still going to keep snooping with no regard for the law.

      Sure, UN laws aren't trivial to enforce... And yes, it's hard to say to what extend a US court will acknowledge treaties signed by the US.
      And hey, the US maybe not even choose to sign such a treaty.

      But highlighting the problem, and making in bluntly obvious that the US is spying on people to an extend Stasi could onl y dreams of is a good start. Nothing ever changes over night, NSA wasn't built in a day, and it'll take more than day to shut it down.

      But when to US makes moves like this, is bluntly obvious to the rest of the world that going forward internet cables needs to be routed around the US. That's not going to happen over night either, if ever...

      • My opinion is that we shouldn't shut the NSA down - they DO serve a valuable purpose for National Security.

        What we SHOULD DO is force them to obey their charter and the law. If they want to spy on foreign nationals, crack enctyption, etc.. go right ahead.

        If they DO sweep up some US citizens not involved in plotting against the US.. ok, that may happen tooo - but they should NOT be allowed to share results of illegal wiretaps/surveilance with law enforcement - and any evidence obtained in such an illegal man

  • by Roger Wilcox (776904) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:20PM (#45522473)
    I'll spy on your citizens if you spy on mine!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Your idea was already captured by the NATO bunch years ago.

  • by pla (258480) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:23PM (#45522493) Journal
    We have more of us than you have of you.

    Forget that at your mortal peril.

    And yeah, go ahead and track that. You already have a file on me, add yet another footnote to it.
    • Re:Dear NSA: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ultranova (717540) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:35PM (#45522567)

      We have more of us than you have of you.

      There is no "us" if the people can't communicate. That's the real reason for surveillance, always has been and always will be: to stamp out any effective resistance before it begins. And that's also why the ability to communicate secretly is absolutely vital to keep tyranny from rising its ugly head.

      Well, we all know which side of power vs. freedom America has cast its lot with...

    • Re:Dear NSA: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:57PM (#45522707) Homepage
      Every tyranny is exercised by the few over the many. Your numbers don't mean much.
    • by citizenr (871508)

      We have more of us than you have of you.

      most of "us" are sheeple, the rest can be easily dealt with if necessary.
      look up Night of the Long Knives

    • by gagol (583737)
      How many people from the land of the BRAVE is willing to challenge this authority? Yeah, that's what I thought.
  • Why Bother (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rtb61 (674572) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:26PM (#45522507) Homepage

    I cannot fathom why the US would bother. It should already be fully aware that it is breaking numerous computer crime laws across the globe. All that is happening now is many other countries are now paying much more attention to computer security and will be seeking to detect and prosecute computer crimes already covered by existing laws within those countries, whether committed by the US government or by any other governments, it is going to become next great spy vs spy game. All the United Nations will do is stand up and vote to say, it's naughty please don't do it, no legal ramifications, no question of sanctions, nothing except the public bruising of US political ego. The act of trying to block it, in fact is a subtle diplomatic trap into which the US has fallen and which makes it look far worse than ignoring other countries laws and acting criminally upon a global basis. It is being made to look like it is blatantly, publicly trying to steal the right of privacy for every person on the planet and all their future descendants. It is going to fail, too many countries will have fun thumbing their nose at the US and making a fools out of US diplomatic fools and seriously guys give about the bullshit double speak, it's closed loop bullshit, nobody but you and your own PR agencies believes that crap. It was a trap and the US diplomatic corps ignorantly skipped right into, smelling their own bullshit as the fragrance of roses.

    • Re:Why Bother (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s.petry (762400) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @12:05AM (#45522751)

      It is an illusion that all these other countries are "different" than the US. Citizens of the UK, Germany, France, etc.. have all found out that the US is spying on them, with full cooperation of their own agencies and corporations. What is changed and what is different after that revelation? Nothing!

      They are still doing the same things, even if Merkel said "please stop spying on 'me'".

      People want to believe that things are the same today in politics as they were 40 years ago, they are not. They want to believe that their Government controls their own country, but that is no longer the truth. Sure, the local governments control some things, but the economies are all from the central banks. The same owners of the central bank in the US own the banks in the Western world.

      The US is playing fall guy for the surveillance, sure. But the rest of the West benefits from the surveillance as much as the US. It's control, and they want more of it.

      People were warning us about this New World Order thing back in the 50s and 60s. The media quickly labelled them "crazy conspiracy theorists" and people fell for the ruse. People today still don't want to believe it. They claim that these are 'political mistakes' or that they do it for the money. Mistakes? With hundreds of people analyzing the situation, none of them are below average IQ, and every decision they happen to make is a mistake? To believe that, is a mistake.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      The US could have passed this and if ever asked just told the press any hardware/software was for "police" cooperation, a military "sale" or joint exercise or the US been "invited" in for telco upgrades.
      The press optics of this is strange, the US always seemed to play the UN a lot better.
  • Cyclic history (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gmuslera (3436) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:29PM (#45522531) Homepage Journal
    Lets take away "that" basic human right, it don't matter. In a few years, other rights would be excepted too (i.e. torture, how can be bad something as fun as waterboarding?), and if the progression continues they will be back to import cheap workforce from Africa in no time. We seen this kind of progressions [wikipedia.org] becoming very popular lately.
  • by BringsApples (3418089) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:38PM (#45522585)
    If "the Americans" don't follow the rules that the UN comes up with, what would the UN do? Seriously, I'm not trolling here, I'm seriously interested in hearing what the UN would/could do. Sanction the US? Military action?
    • by Luckyo (1726890) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:50PM (#45522665)

      UN isn't a governing body. It's a collection of diplomats from around the globe.

      What could happen is US getting pushed out of certain diplomatic circles, causing decline in its ability to leverage its influence over issues important to it. The loss is not the type that is easily evident to average citizen - but consequences of that loss usually are, as they can be for example about a US company not getting deals it needs to get or losing bids or even getting its property nationalized abroad, things like that. Diplomatic pressure is one of the main ways of ensuring that your national interests are taken into account abroad. Losing ability to apply it can be crippling in certain scenarios, or force you to take a much less efficient, and less functional means of accomplishing the same task.

      Then there's the general aspect of know-who. A lot of things are done on upper level though people who know people. When you're cut out of certain aspects of diplomacy, this particular resource dwindles fast.

    • 'If'? The US fucked the UN before.

      Listen, if these officials care so much, they're in a better
      position to answer you and you know it.
      And in effect that /does/ make it seem like you're trolling
      here. Fine with me.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Its more like a convention on torture, arms deals, sanctions, human rights.
      Not much the UN can do, but most nations like to be 'seen' as voting together in positive ways.
    • The United States provides 22% of the United Nations funding (more than double the next highest contributor). So if they don't get what they want, they could probably fuck the UN by stopping payment. They have a lot of leverage to get what they want anyway.
    • by FatLittleMonkey (1341387) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @02:22AM (#45523489)

      It allows treaty nations to seek redress in international courts. So it allows signatory nations to punish and/or restrict US companies (Google/Microsoft/etc) for cooperating with routine NSA/CIA monitoring in violation with the treaty, and if/when the US takes the matter to the WTO court, it allows signatories to use the treaty to justify their unilateral trade restrictions against US companies.

      Since those companies cannot refuse to comply with secret warrants in the US, and they cannot refuse to comply with treaty nations' laws, their only way out of the bind is to stop operating in treaty countries. This increases the political pressure within the US against the monitoring, since those US companies (and hence their rented politicians) care more about being locked out of foreign markets than they care about teh terrists.

      Put it another way, if it didn't matter, why is the US pushing so hard to change it?

      • Very informative, thank-you!

        ...if/when the US takes the matter to the WTO court, it allows signatories to use the treaty to justify their unilateral trade restrictions against US companies.

        You know, I thought that Google and Microsoft were among the biggest (regarding revenue) in the world. Turns out, they're not even on the list here [wikipedia.org].

  • Text of one of TFA (Score:4, Informative)

    by c0lo (1497653) on Monday November 25, 2013 @11:40PM (#45522605)
    TFA on the foreignpolicy type: pops up a "blocking" iframe asking for registration. Duh, even with noscript, it's just easy do "view page source", and copy the pasta into a dummy.html file.

    Excepts from it:

    The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, [...], affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations "must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week.

    Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations."

    But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage.

    In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas.

    The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America's effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, "the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead.

    There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions."

    Duhhh... what?!? So, breaking human rights doesn't count if done outside the country of the perpetrator? You mean Abu Ghraib was perfectly legal after all?

    • by kermidge (2221646)

      An interesting twist, extra-territoriality notwithstanding, is how the U.S. will explain its hypocrisy in the matter of the wholesale interception of all the electronic communications of their own citizens.

    • I never liked this whole extra-territoriality, therefore rights don't apply BS. The US is built on a powerful philosophical notion: that your rights are inherent to you by fact of personhood, and are not granted by government, but rather secured using powers the people gave it.

      Some of that is showing up here, yes, it is each nation's responsibility to do this.

      But...if the rights are inherent, you have them inside or outside, and citizen or not. The rights precede formation of government, and hence people

  • Not to play the devils advocate or anything, but you think China and Russia are on board with this? Don't just point to the big bad U.S.A. on this one boys. It's all the big governments.

    • Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AHuxley (892839) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @12:28AM (#45522853) Homepage Journal
      The world knows the past of a China and Russia/Soviet Union. The world knows telco and networking the reach of a China and Russia.
      They are limited in their total global reach per country. As Snowden and many others show, only the US and UK can really peer, buy, trade or surround the more interesting global telco interconnects.
      Lots of governments have total mastery of their own networks but very few have total mastery of the world wide telco/internet crypto.
      It is really only the US and UK who have become addicted to signals on a global scale and now can't escape global comment on their now very public actions.
      China likes trade, eduction backed with loans and local political support to gain influence.
      Russia likes the individual with the correct ideological, human weakness or cash flow issues that make them willing to sell out to gain insights.
      The US is really the one country left with one very expensive trick thats lost all its magic - signals intelligence.
      The rest of the world is slowly looking at their own intelligence services/telcos and seeing nothing but collusion and collaboration with the UK and USA.
      Junk crypto with codes and methods been passed around/sold by ex staff. Their own staff are not protecting their vital national crypto interests anymore.
      UN votes like this just say no to mass outside surveillance - on their citizens, on their companies, on their banks, on their telcos, on their political parties, on their faiths, on their trade deals.
      i.e. a China and Russia do not really have to care, all their 'other' options are working just fine.
      Most other counties just want their expensive telco equipment to be safer from "ex staff"
  • by UpnAtom (551727) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @12:02AM (#45522741) Homepage

    And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA work on subverting encryption algorithms [schneier.com]. Terrorists are a miniscule threat compared to our Governments and Secret Services

    The US no longer has a legitimate "government (..) for the people." The UK never did, except occasionally by chance.

    We know that power like this is abused and attracts those who will abuse it. We must consider whether we want our children to live in a free country.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

    We need to support projects like MailPile [mailpile.is] and BitMessage [bitmessage.org]. Maybe some of you know of or are working on other projects you'd care to mention.

    • I2P and Qubes OS, though I am not yet contributing directly I do use them and understand them to some extent. My main concern is that the solutions are comprehensive and thus get used consistently, instead of diddling around with numerous application-layer protocols and OS add-ons.

      I've started writing about them in my journal...

    • by Mister Liberty (769145) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @12:24AM (#45522835)

      Agreed.
      And we need to take CARE of our Whistleblowers.
      Develop some thoughts on that.
      Obama and his thugs hunt them -- we should provide cover,
      shelter and care for them.
      How -- that is the big question.

    • Retroshare. It's an IM program, with a few other nice features too - file sharing/transfer, distributed forums, mail. IM-security wise its capabilities are similar to OTR: Hides content, but not metadata. It does have a few other advantages:
      - File browsing and searching, not just sending. Good for sharing document collections. Also makes it favored by paranoid pirates.
      - Fully decentralised. There's no central authority to collect metadata from, so the listeners would have to resort to taps and analysis, a s

  • And why (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @12:13AM (#45522781)

    Why do I get to hear that here and not from our local news, or rather, from my politicians who invariably had to notice this?

    Somehow I doubt the US are alone in that.

    • by artor3 (1344997)

      Honest answer? Because it's not really important, so your local news and pols won't bother to report on it. But with the proper headline, it WILL make you very angry, and angry people give lots of page views, so Slashdot will report it.

      Be honest: is it really newsworthy that the US doesn't want the UN to condemn international spying? If the UN did condemn international spying, would that change anything? Of course not. This article is completely trivial. It only serves as a launch pad for angry rantin

      • Considering that the US usually get their way, yes, it is newsworthy that they want to be seen as the beacon of freedom and liberty while at the same time working hard to eliminate just that.

  • by PerlPunk (548551) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @12:14AM (#45522785) Homepage Journal

    If you think the signatories to the privacy rules really believe in them, you are smoking some awfully strong weed. No politician--NO POLITICIAN--cares about your privacy. At best those rules will be used unilaterally and when some advantage against the US can be secured through those rules.

    On the flip-side, if you think the US is doing the same thing, you're right. This is politics, and you have to see both sides, not just one, through political lenses.

  • Unusual Need (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jim Sadler (3430529)
    The current crop of terrorists certainly have been dangerous enough. But if the mood of nations is such that terror will be the popular mode of rebellion we need to take unusual measures to survive. So far I suggest letting the US spy internally without much restraint at all. But we should put in place laws that compensate victims for damages more stringently when they are damaged by error from authorities. For example people who are imprisoned and found to be innocent should be heavily compensate
    • use of stun guns repeatedly for no reason

      "For no reason"? The problem is that police always say it's for their safety, or to reduce a threat, or some other excuse. Always, "in accordance with their training". They never admit that they used tasers or pepper spray out of frustration or as a coercive measure, or as an ad hoc punishment, there's always a "reason"

    • The 'current crop of terrorists' are not a huge threat in the grand scheme of things, and not terribly far from other periods in history. The big difference is the lack of a credible military threat to overshadow it. They've also managed to be largely incompetent, although often times slightly less incompetent than our intelligence agencies. It's basically keystone cops vs. storm troopers here.
  • So long Democrats (Score:3, Interesting)

    by c5402dc53929211e1efb (3084201) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @03:21AM (#45523723)

    Have only ever voted D in the past. Now it will be 3rd party or nothing. Every time some horrible government intrusion comes to light Obama is either silent or supports it. Not going to keep voting for my enemies.

    • R, D... they've agreed on a few 'circus issues' to differ over to entertain the masses, but on almost all concerns of real importance (aside from healthcare) they act in concert.

  • But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights

    So, the Brazilians and Germans are saying that you may spy on your own citizens to your heart's content, but you can't spy outside your own territory because that violates human rights. Sorry, but I think that's backwards. I hope the US ki

    • Re:backwards (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dj245 (732906) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @09:51AM (#45525513) Homepage

      But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights

      So, the Brazilians and Germans are saying that you may spy on your own citizens to your heart's content, but you can't spy outside your own territory because that violates human rights. Sorry, but I think that's backwards. I hope the US kills this provision. I want the US government to spy on foreign nations and not spy on Americans.

      Both are important. Otherwise other nations can spy on US citizens, and then just report the results to the US government. It already happens.

      • by stenvar (2789879)

        Both are important. Otherwise other nations can spy on US citizens, and then just report the results to the US government. It already happens.

        Other nations spying on us is already illegal under US law. If you believe that the US government conspires with other nations in them spying on US citizens, a UN resolution isn't going to help because the same US government wouldn't enforce it anyway.

        And that's, of course, exactly what's been happening to the Germans. For decades, the German government has had the US

  • A leaked memo containing U.S. suggestions for changes to the ICCPR ... The U.S. changes are pretty much directed at making dragnet surveillance of non-citizens technically legal.

    Move "dragnet" to just after "U.S." in those sentences, we don't want to inaccurately exclude them from the full accreditation they deserve. Also insert "Stasi like" prior to "U.S." to avoid the inaccurate assumption that they are not fascists.

  • by shikaisi (1816846) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @06:11AM (#45524409)
    Another leaked memo reveals that the next version of the text proposed by the US contains the words "You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him, you must love him."

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...