US Working To Kill UN Privacy Resolutions 197
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.
They don't give a fuck (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They don't give a fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They don't give a fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:They don't give a fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
us is totalitarian in [very bad] disguise
Au Contraire !!
There are billions of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in this world who still believe in the dog and pony shows sponsored by the United States of America, and all its lapdog allies, such as Britain, Canada, Singapore and Australia.
Since the Edward Snowden affair, has USA apologized to the many millions of people who were spied on by NSA and all its allies ?
Since the Edward Snowden affair, has USA admit their wrongdoings ?
Nope !
Instead, they countered with lies, deceits, and threats, designed specifically to show the world that THEY ARE STILL THE BOSS and the rest of the world must continue kowtow to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More reason to wrest control of the root servers off ICANN (USA)
Re:They don't give a fuck (Score:5, Informative)
No. But it's a good reason for other countries, or groups thereof, to establish their own root servers.
Re: They don't give a fuck (Score:2, Interesting)
The terrorism card US is playing is mostly just a smokescreen. The real motive is corporate espionage and Business Intelligence $$$. CanÂt blame the US, this is exactly what the Chineez have been doing a long time.
The privacy in UN is mainly to secure European commercial interests.
Re: (Score:3)
CanÂt blame the US, this is exactly what the Chineez have been doing a long time.
I'll blame them. I'll blame anyone who sinks to their enemy's level of wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:2)
What about blaming those who think of a nation as their enemy even when they're not at war?
I don't think China has anything in their constitution that makes domestic spying illegal either, so technically the US government is sinking to a much deeper level of "wrongdoing". I don't think surveillance itself is wrong. I think it's actually quite prudent, especially internationally. Some potential uses of the surveillance can of course be very wrong though.
just words on paper (Score:5, Insightful)
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. :(
Re: (Score:2)
More like Land of the Corporate Tools :-(
Close but not quite (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
(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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
This.
Though progressives often have these strange justifications for more government regulation. I recall once on slashdot talking up how stupid it is that in Oregon you can't pump your own gas due to regulation. Sure enough some derp comes along talking about how he'd prefer it that way for safety reasons, never mind that actually driving a car is a *lot* more dangerous than simply putting gas in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, like this [theatlantic.com] for example. The fact that the US has remarkably bad and horribly expensive health care is just the silliest excuse for government intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
A state has a stupid regulation against self-service gas so all regulations are stupid? Logic fail.
The pure libertarian philosophy is simply that citizens should have unlimited autonomy so long as it doesn't infringe upon the autonomy of others
That is true and a philosophy that I subscribe to. However, the libertarians think that somehow paying taxes is against liberty, making regulations against fouling my air and water is against liberty, laws mandating that you don't pay starvation wages are against libe
Re: (Score:2)
However, the libertarians think that somehow paying taxes is against liberty, making regulations against fouling my air and water is against liberty,...
Paying taxes for things like the common defense, police, firefighters, etc etc are no problem. Taxes intended to fund things that are not included in the Constitution, and for purposes of social engineering like income redistribution, not so much.
...laws mandating that you don't pay starvation wages are against liberty...
That you got one right. Minimum wage laws simply limit entry-level employment opportunities and disenfranchise new workers. They also prevent low or no-skilled workers from voluntarily participating in low/no-pay apprenticeships and internships that gain them new
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes intended to fund things that are not included in the Constitution, and for purposes of social engineering like income redistribution, not so much.
What (besides the NSA and Gitmo and the TSA) are unconstitutionally funded? Do you consider food stamps to be income distribution? I see food stamps as a gift to McDonalds and WalMart, whose employees should have government protection against those who are unfairly exploiting them.
Minimum wage laws simply limit entry-level employment opportunities and disenf
Re: (Score:2)
More government = less freedom.
Less freedom to steal, less freedom to pollute, less freedom to screw over your customers and business partners, less freedom to endanger others... you're right, more government = less freedom. That's a GOOD thing.
Government is there to protect me from you. I can affect government; I have a vote and a voice. I have no club whatever to bash over the head of AT&T, the MAFIAA, Monsanto, Wal Mart, Shell, BP, Microsoft, Sony... Except government.
It's a great start! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I do have a plan, a plan built on solid foundations (although I must admit some of the support beams need work). A plan I have posted a few times, so am unsure why I should bother now. It is also a plan that would require a lot of people joining in, which is never going to happen these days - experimental governance was all the rage in the 1600s and 1800s, but people are too comfortable now. Better the devil you know, after all.
Nonetheless, if it could be started, I can absolutely guarantee it would give su
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should replace your sig with a link to your plan? Where can we find it?
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points I'd give it to my first AC ever. This is a quote from a particularly hilarious chappelle's show. A decade later and still relevent as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. You should have the RIGHT to privacy, but when you want something to be taken seriously, you need to put a reputation behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover only conservatives worship the Constitution.
Worship? How about simply respecting it? I wish the government would.
I have an idea! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your idea was already captured by the NATO bunch years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
June 4th would be symbolically better, and it would piss off those responsible for a date being needed. Which just makes that day even better. Or we could combine it with veteran's day, as I imagine the veterans are a little unhappy at winning the battles but losing the war. Hey, if you fight for freedom and then have none, you lost.
Dear NSA: (Score:3)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Dear NSA: (Score:5, Insightful)
i wonder how we manage to have a revolution back in the 1700's since we didn't have telephones or the internet.
There was also no system where horses and wagons had to display numbers, and those numbers could be read by automatic systems on every major trail and on most Sheriff's horses, and which were stored forever by the British administrators for later data-mining. There was no system where long-distance commercial carriages required travellers to show photo-ID, and which were stored in a database, which could also be reported to the British administrators based on a secret warrant. There was also no system which images and stored the address details of every single piece of territorial mail.
The lack of technology [kieranhealy.org] in the 1700's cut both ways.
There was, however, the unlimited legal power of British Regulars to stop and search anyone, for any reason. Which was why the US founders included a clearly worded right of privacy/security as part of the US Constitution to prevent that situation from ever recurring. So at least you have that advantage. Right? Right?
Re: (Score:3)
Pamphlets. Lots of pamphlets, many of them published anonymously.
Re: (Score:3)
Pamphlets. Lots of pamphlets, many of them published anonymously.
If you want to try them today, would be wise to not use laser printers in printing them. And, oh, better not store the text on Google Docs (under whatever name the service goes nowadays).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dear NSA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Why Bother (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The press optics of this is strange, the US always seemed to play the UN a lot better.
Cyclic history (Score:4, Insightful)
What can the UN actually do? (Score:3)
Re:What can the UN actually do? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, UN is actually a tool of illuminati. Also, your local electric company is the part of the same conspiracy, pumping mind control waves though your house wiring and right into your brain!
Or what passes as one anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
'If'? The US fucked the UN before.
Listen, if these officials care so much, they're in a better /does/ make it seem like you're trolling
position to answer you and you know it.
And in effect that
here. Fine with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much the UN can do, but most nations like to be 'seen' as voting together in positive ways.
Add To That: U.N. Funding (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What can the UN actually do? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
...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].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What can the UN actually do? (Score:5, Informative)
When Kerry signed the Small Arms treaty, it was innocuous in itself. However, it did have a clause which allows UN troops to operate on US soil independent of the Army and police forces.
No it doesn't. UN troops can't deploy *anywhere* without the Security councils approval, and *any* decision of the security council can be vetoed by the united states. It literally has no power to deploy anywhere without the unanimous approval of the United States, China, Russia, France and England. If any one of those countries say "No", it can not happen.
The UN is just a group of representitives from each country. It has no powers beyond what those countries wish it to have. its not a government, and it has very limited powers beyond what its members give it. If it ever deployed forces into the united states to abduct or kill someone, chances are those forces would be arrested, imprisoned and perhaps even executed as a hostile foreign power. And it would not be the UN, either. That power has never existed for the UN and the US is sufficiently stand-offish with the body that it would never agree to it. And without the agreement of the US, it will never happen.
Text of one of TFA (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
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)
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"
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA work (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I'll care to mention (Score:2)
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...
Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the use of encryption and obfuscation products needs to be universal, and on by default, not just even if you don't need it, but especially when you don't need it.
Re: (Score:3)
You sound like the militia movement from the 1990s.
That voice you hear... isn't me. You might want to get that checked out.
this is a civilized website where smart people talk.
So what are you doing here?
I am British and thus have no US party bias, which is more than I can say for you. Also, I am left of Obama, like nearly all Brits -- so you couldn't be further off the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. I didn't even mention Obama and I suspect a far higher proportion of US citizens are openly bigoted. Heck, many leading GOP members are openly homophobic.
Try again.
And why (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Rules are going to be used against US, not others (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
So long Democrats (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
backwards (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
7 billion can play at that game. (Score:2)
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.
More details of the proposed text (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When we let them have more guns than we do.
Re:U. S. is out of control!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's difficult to pin down an exact date.
This week we can give thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us give thanks that the United States is going to protect us from those dirty third world countries that want to impose basic human rights of privacy on us.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re: (Score:3)
For other things to be thankful for, The Guardian has an excellent review of a documentary + book on the death squads the US military and intelligence run. For example, I'm thankful there are attempts to colonize Mars. I have better odds of a life away from such idiots, if I'm on a civilized world and they're stuck on Earth.
Re:This week we can give thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause , supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized .
Their logic makes the Constitution nothing more than tissue paper.
- Unreasonable - Their goal of mass surveillance is most certainly guided by good sense, meaning practical judgement, and is only used in the best interests of the citizenry. Have to fight those tewwoists. Especially, the domestic ones.
- Probable cause, limitation of scope of search - With the technology available today, and the attainment of mass surveillance, probable cause is instantly established. Moreover, the scope of the search is intelligently limited at all times by the technology itself. It decides what needs the most surveillance and active involvement by those in power.
- Did it really happen? - If the citizenry does not perceive the surveillance, does it exist? Of course not. Don't be silly. Nothing exists unless you believe in it, and this is concrete proof of "Out of sight, out of mind". Privacy is what we tell them it is.
Those three points are pretty much the entire basis and rationale for the people that support the violation of the Constitution. That's being extremely kind and assuming nothing but benevolent intent, and the fact, they even give one fuck about the Constitution, the very concepts of freedom, and the idea of a government for the people and by the people
It's tragically sad at this point that the US has fallen so very far from its ideals. Give it a little bit longer on this path and quite frankly the US of 100 years ago would invade *us* to export democracy along with other countries too.
When will the UN grow some balls and levy real sanctions against the US till it cuts their shit out?
Re: (Score:3)
Those who believe in tyranny will always interpret the Constitution in the most strict manner in regards to individual freedom, and most expansive for government power, as you have shown in the case of the 4th. Those who believe in freedom will always look for the interpretation that most supports and protects individual rights and limits government infringement upon them.
What I find hilarious is that a large number of people standing next to you claiming to be on the freedom side suddenly turn to the tyran
Re: (Score:2)
You either support an expansive individual rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights, or you support an limited individual rights interpretation with expansive government powers. If you support the latter, you support tyranny.
The ACLU is a perfect example of this hypocrisy. On every one of the BoR they support and actively defend the individual rights interpretation -- except for the 2nd. Somehow, for only that one amendment, they take a collective rights view and support expansive government powers at th
Re: (Score:3)
That provision protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizures by the US government; it's a great principle, and it would be nice if the US government started following
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say "citizens"? Where does it say "only within the bounds of the continental US?" ... and I guess I should append "excluding, of course, the area within 200 miles of an area designated as a border" to that question.
Re: (Score:2)
US laws and the US Constitution only apply within the US. In other countries, other laws apply. There is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits us from violating the laws of other countries.
Whether it applies to non-citizens visiting the US is a policy decision; it depends on the conditions under which non-citizens enter. The US could simply say to non-citizens "as condition of visiting the US, you agree to
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is "If the constitution says one thing and policy says something else, go with policy."?
You didn't refer to any language in the Constitution. You merely re-asserted current government policy positions.
Re: (Score:2)