Dutch Court Says Government Can Receive Bulk Data from NSA 109
jfruh (300774) writes Dutch law makes it illegal for the Dutch intelligence services to conduct mass data interception programs. But, according to a court in the Hague, it's perfectly all right for the Dutch government to request that data from the U.S.'s National Security Agency, and doing so doesn't violate any treaties or international law.
Rampant Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason. -- Mark Twain
Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how pretty much every country has come to the same conclusion: We can bypass our own laws if we have someone else do it for us.
They've all decided, well, we can't spy on our own people, but if the Americans do it for us it's all good.
Essentially reciprocity means that any laws which are intended to protect you will be bypassed as people get other actors to do it for them.
So, it's illegal for the Dutch to spy on their own people, probably illegal when the US spies on the Dutch, but since they've already for the information, why not?
Pathetic. Free societies aren't maintained by using loopholes to get around laws intended to control how your citizens get spied on.
What horsehit.
When governments are getting the take from the blanket surveillance the Americans (and really, the rest of the world), they have very little incentive to actually stop the surveillance in the first place.
Some days it seems like the US has more or less subverted the privacy and rights of everyone on the planet, and every other government is deciding the information sharing is too valuable to recognize they're just lying to us and doing it anyway.
At this point, I don't believe any elected official, or member of any of these state security entities deserves any privacy rights at all. Because they've all decided we don't.
The dystopian future is alive and well, and getting worse every day.
Why do we bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, just install the telescreens in our homes already. Drop the charade, we all know where it's going. You know we're not going to do anything about it. Let's just cut to the chase and get it over with.
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bright side (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you misunderstand me.
My government is part of the 5 eyes, and is guilty of this exact same kind of reciprocal arrangement.
I think it's all pathetic. But I also think it's being largely driven by the US, because since 9/11 it has become increasingly the case where the US will do anything for their own security. And I have great fears that they're the ones creating the global surveillance state.
But, make no mistake about it, I believe all governments participating in this are undermining rights and freedoms, including my own. The rest of the world hasn't consented to this, it's being done to us by secret treaties, and bypassing our own courts.
The problem is FAR too many people are saying "well, it's OK, as long as they're doing it for our security".
Sooner or later, with this level of widespread surveillance, we'll all be fucked. Because secret agencies will know every damned thing about you, and sooner or later, my worst tin-foil hat fears will come to be normal.
I don't think America is the only one doing this. But I do lay the blame squarely at the feet of the US for feeling it's their right to spy on every goddamned person on the planet.
When did the security of the US trump the rights of everyone else? Who the hell agreed to that?
Papers please, comrade. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Re:Just wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
If they remember their own history about how their own census records in the Netherlands was used against Dutch citizens during the German occupation of WWII, then the Dutch should be very concerned about the retention of data on their families by any government, including their own. Nothing gathered is ever completely safe and it can all be used against them.
The mere existance of such records can be an invitation to disaster, no matter how seemingly innocent they appear. The Dutch no doubt proudly included their religious affiliation into their census and the Germans used the census data and IBM Hollerith machines to assist in rounding them up and sending them to death camps.
Even your purchases at the grocery store can get you deemed unclean and unfit to live by the right radical groups. That within the last year you have purchased all the necessary ingredients to produce X bombs, regardless of how you actually used the items. ETC
Re:Godwin and wrong at the same time (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. The Netherlands had the highest rate of Jewish deportation of any Nazi-occupied country in Europe. They fell all over themselves turning in Jews. All that "We resisted" shit is what the grandparents tell their grandkids so they won't have to admit the truth. And the truth is that 75% of Dutch Jews died in concentration camps, a way higher percentage than almost any other occupied country. The Dutch didn't hide their Jews, they handed them over as fast as they could.
Read up on it [wikipedia.org]
Re:Godwin and wrong at the same time (Score:2, Insightful)
If you mean sacrificing your life to defend people
Shortly after it was established, the military regime began to persecute the Jews of the Netherlands. In 1940, there were no deportations and only small measures were taken against the Jews. In February 1941, the Nazis deported a small group of Dutch Jews to Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. The Dutch reacted with the February strike, a nationwide protest against the deportations, unique in the history of Nazi-occupied Europe. Although the strike did not accomplish much—its leaders were executed—it was an initial setback for Seyss-Inquart as he had planned to both deport the Jews and to win the Dutch over to the Nazi cause.
Another factor was the disbelief of both the Dutch public as a whole and the Dutch Jews themselves. Most could not believe that the Jews would be subjected to genocide and sent to death camps.[citation needed] This meant the Jews needed to hide in others' homes, but that was difficult especially in urban areas.[citation needed] It was also punishable by death. Despite the risks, many Dutch people helped Jews. One-third of the people who hid Jews did not survive the war.[citation needed]
BTW that was from your link, you might want to read up on it.
Re:Yep. (Score:2, Insightful)
Which country is this ?
The only one I can think of that hasn't started a war for monetary is Monaco, and that might just be ignorance on my part.
Re:Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2004, the Court of Appeal in England ruled that it was OK to admit evidence obtained under torture into English trials, provided that the torture had been carried out elsewhere. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary at the time said:
"We unreservedly condemn the use of torture and have worked hard with our international partners to eradicate this practice. However, it would be irresponsible not to take appropriate account of any information which could help protect national security and public safety"
The Appeal Court ruling was finally overturned by the House of Lords the following year.
However, given the enthusiasm of the original judges and the Home Secretary of the time and the ever increasing use of the "because terrorism" excuse, I'm not sure that there would be similar hope of justice prevailing in the future. It's not just privacy on the line.
Re:Godwin and wrong at the same time (Score:0, Insightful)
The most fucking ignorant post I've read on Slashdot in a very long time. Nice job.
Re:Maybe you should read the link you post? (Score:2, Insightful)
This high death toll had a number of reasons. One was the excellent state of Dutch civil records: the Dutch state, before the war, had recorded substantial information on every Dutch national. This allowed the Nazi regime to determine easily who was Jewish (whether fully or partly of Jewish ancestry) simply by accessing the data.
This is why I refuse to provide racial or ethnic information whenever I am asked. Also for my children.