UK Government Illegally Spied On Amnesty International 109
Mark Wilson writes with this excerpt from a story at Beta News: A court has revealed that the UK intelligence agency, GCHQ, illegally spied on human rights organization Amnesty International. It is an allegation that the agency had previously denied, but an email from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal backtracked on a judgement made in June which said no such spying had taken place.
The email was sent to Amnesty International yesterday, and while it conceded that the organization was indeed the subject of surveillance, no explanation has been offered. It is now clear that, for some reason, communications by Amnesty International were illegally intercepted, stored, and examined. What is not clear is when the spying happened, what data was collected and, more importantly, why it happened.
The email was sent to Amnesty International yesterday, and while it conceded that the organization was indeed the subject of surveillance, no explanation has been offered. It is now clear that, for some reason, communications by Amnesty International were illegally intercepted, stored, and examined. What is not clear is when the spying happened, what data was collected and, more importantly, why it happened.
"Illegal" (Score:2)
When the government does it, there is no such thing!
Re: (Score:2)
Especially in the UK, where Parliamentary supremacy still, at least in theory, exists. In other words, Parliament can literally make anything legal, even retroactively, that it wants.
Re: (Score:1)
It is an ancient English compromise. The crown can do whatever the fuck it likes, providing it remembers that commoners can wield an axe at neck height...
Re: (Score:2)
It is an ancient English compromise. The crown can do whatever the fuck it likes, providing it remembers that commoners can wield an axe at neck height...
Actually, I think the last time they wielded the axe, it was at chopping block height.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the Queen can, as head of state, still remove the current government.
Only theoretically. If she tried to intervene in politics in any way, there would be an outcry on all sides of the political spectrum, and shortly thereafter the end of the Monarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
When the government does it, there is no such thing!
You know, this makes me think. The TPP is basically giving Corporations powers over Governments, so I guess we will be getting into an age where it's not illegal for Corporations to spy on anyone either.
I wonder what the world would be like if we just all accepted that everyone can see everything we do and nothing is hidden, if this would cut the bullshit out?
no such thing as illegally spying (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
img src=letmelaughevenharder.jpg
Re: (Score:2)
Headline is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Today’s revelations underscore the urgent need for significant legal reform, including proper pre-judicial authorisation and meaningful oversight of the use of surveillance powers by the UK security services, the organisation said.
Even Amnesty International stated that the surveillance doesn't appear to be illegal under current law.
Re:Headline is wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To clarify, it was illegal for a variety of reasons, including interception of legally protected communications (e.g. with lawyers and members of Parliament) and because there was no authorization to spy on UK groups for this purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
It was illegal at the time, but they quietly changed the law a few months ago to make it legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:no such thing as illegally spying (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly! It's Schrodinger's Trial.
Until there has been a verdict, there may or may not have been a crime!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that fits quite a few "Law & Order" episodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a surprise (Score:2)
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
When a Government must lie to the populace it is supposed to represent, and must operate in extreme secrecy, it is no longer a Republic.
Just because we are not seeing Government death squads you believe we are still being ruled by the people? If you really believe that, I'd recommend a lobotomy. The West has been gone for at last three decades, only existing as a fantasy for the masses who have enough "entertainment" to maintain the fantasy.
Re: (Score:1)
When a Government must lie to the populace it is supposed to represent, and must operate in extreme secrecy, it is no longer a Republic.
That might also be because the UK is a constitutional monarchy...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Though I agree with you in spirit, I don't know why almost all the posts decrying the spying nowadays imply that there was a better time in the past, like we have lost some benevolent government we used to have. Check out what J Edgar Hoover was doing with the FBI through most of the 20th century. At least we don't have FBI directors for life now. And in the 60's we had the sitting president's brother as the federal attorney general, put there under instructions of the president's father (who bought an e
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see a credible claim that things are any worse now than they were in the "good old days".
Once upon a time...
There was no FOX news..
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to the Internet, and the corporate and government push to get everyone on line, spying on people was expensive in both human and physical resources. The "good ole days" was really not that long ago, because until very recently nobody could afford to spy on everyone in a country.
Re: (Score:2)
So Francis Walsingham, SOE, MI5/6 managed to keep UK safe without massive, intrusive intelligence gathering, even though they faced actual, serious enemies of the crown, but GCHQ can do it's job without spying on everyone when the biggest threats to UK are political (and seemingly unlikely to happen, like Scottish independence or humane EU) or economic (neo-liberals running IMF, ECB and Eurogroup).
Besides, to defend yourself, you don't need that much secret information, you can get most intelligence about a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think representative democracy even works in either sense of the word either though because the UK's representatives don't represent their constituencies democratically due to the fact AV was rejected, and because it doesn't use an even remotely representative voting system to be even close to proportional nationally either.
For example, the current government has 100% of the power with 37% of the public vote, whilst my local MP has 100% of local representative power with only 31% of the vote.
Elected
Re: (Score:2)
Rejected by whom?
Re: (Score:2)
My point precisely. If the current system is undemocratic (which I don't really agree with - PR isn't all it's cracked up to be) then at least it was democratically chosen to be undemocratic.
Re: (Score:2)
The turnout was 41%, so 28% of the population rejected it, primarily because the Tories prevented any other more desirable flavours of representation even being on the ballot in the first place.
That's hardly a shining example of democracy, but then, I'm not surprised you think it is if you think the current system is somehow democratic as you're claiming.
Are you sure your argument isn't simply that you like minority rule because you're part of the ruling minority? Because you don't seem to be arguing in fav
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who you are because you're posting AC, and your post doesn't make much sense because I've frankly no idea what the fuck you're on about regarding Blair and being one of those people, one of what people? What are you talking about?
But no, I'm not trying to sneakily imply that 72% were in favour, what I'm saying is that whilst you can legitimately argue that AV was democratically rejected, you cannot say that FPTP is democratically supported because there wasn't a big enough turnout to give FPTP
Re: (Score:3)
It's precisely that kind of distorted talk that makes it clear that you and groups like Amnesty aren't really interested in anything but tearing down the West.And THAT sort of tactic IS exactly like that which was promoted by the Soviet Union (i.e. those evil communists).
And it happened there precisely because nobody spoke up against it when they still could have.
Re: (Score:3)
The way you are talking reveals that you have no fucking idea about what Amnesty International is actually doing, and this kind of ignorance is infuriating me, because a simple web search could have given you at least some clue.
I've been a member of AI for a decade now, and there is absolutely no doubt to anyone who actually reads their reports that they are one of the most impartial organizations on earth. Please stop this bullshit about "tearing down the west" and get a life!
Even better, go to the AI page [amnesty.org]
No surprise human rights are the first target (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who fight for human rights are now considered to be on the same side as the terrsts.
Only terrrist want human rights (privacy).
Government just wants you to be safe. You voted them into power after all.
Re:No surprise human rights are the first target (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone who embarrasses a Western government or an ally of a Western government is, by definition, a terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
A lawyers ability to speak to gov issues, UK policy, cite international conventions in public, to contact the US and UK press on issues had to be contained.
How or why this generation of UK based legal teams and human rights groups thought they had been granted some fancy new freedoms is a real mystery.
The UK has always watched, shaped and infiltrate
Amnesty International has dealings with terrorists (Score:2)
But even if they were doing a better job of maintaining their moral clarity (a moral clarity built on fighting against arbitrary indefinite detention and torture, which is of course extremely important) in their dealings wi
I think we all know the reason... (Score:1)
>why it happened
Because they could.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No future, no future,
No future for you!
Re: (Score:1)
To who does the future belong?
Johnny Rotten...
Re: (Score:2)
What an embarrassment to be a govt agent. (Score:1)
It must be embarrassing to admit to being a government agent now days. Way to fall down people. You no longer have anywhere near the value you used to have.
Encrypt (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of organizations, human rights organizations are one of those, that really should consider encrypting all their email. Setup TLS on your mail server, download Thunderbird/Enigmail/GPG and go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A combination of encryption and steganography will soon follow. ;-)
Just fuck off with the smilie / winkie face crap.
I-write-like-a-retard.com is that way --->
Were you abused by a clown as a child?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately encryption only hides the message content, not the metadata. As we have seen, metadata is often worse (from a privacy point of view) than the actual data, especially for a charity like Amnesty that needs to communicate with lawyers and MPs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I should have added: host your own data. At least you will *know* when they are looking at your data.
NGO fronts (Score:5, Interesting)
Every second NGO is a front. While they're non-government their humanitarian causes provide legitimate reasons to go about town, get involved with policy makers and do whatever is needed - issue bribes to influence decisions, gather information, collect dirt, etc. Both the USA and Britain use this tactic all the time, so its not surprising they're also spying on other government organizations, which could be up to the same thing. I'm not saying that Amnesty International is, but it would be worth it for them to check.
Now every government says that every other government conducts in spying and that its a necessary evil. The real problem is that its not just spying. Because under the radar operations are not answerable to the people, this makes the already blurry line that separates defense from offense a whole lot fuzzier. The cogs of war are always turning.
Take the example of Afghanistan. The CIA used NGOs extensively there as a base to start funding 'moderate rebels' (terrorists) in order to drive out Soviet Influence. When extra funds were needed, everyone's favorite kingdom Saudi Arabia were happy to help finance operations as well. Speaking of which, Wikileaks just released a report on how Saudi Arabia have extensive operations in every country, to promote their interests.
We're screwed. While covert surveillance is necessary for defense, there's nothing to stop it being corrupted and used for offense, and the policy decisions that lead to war are all conducted in secret. Things are already well underway by the time the media propaganda machine fires up and puts it to the people for 'popular vote'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I guess I should be irrationally afraid of that organization, and send my SAS death squads to give them a little extra judicial punishment. Or I can just spy on them and figure out what they are up to.
Or neither.
Good troll though. Ridiculous, but not incoherent.
I'm guessing (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm guessing there was concern at GCHQ that Amnesty International may discover some dirty little truths about the conditions and placement of captives by other English agencies or their allies that would be impalatable for the English public.
Let me take this one (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you were to ask almost everyone at almost every level if this was a good or a bad thing that they have done they would pretty much all agree that it was in the greater interest of the UK. Thus they did bad things to us for our own good.
What they never seem to ask themselves is what the average person in the UK would think about dealing with these very bad people. Most people would quickly say things like the ends not justifying the means.
If you look at the former prime minister TB and his dealing with Libya's madman leader then you know that these people will pursue their own interests, their career interests, and the interests of their friends and supporters long before they would even give a shrug about the interests of the citizenry.
Also when it comes to these people, I don't see the whole "a few bad apples." because if they know that this is going on and do nothing then they are just as bad as the rest. It is no different than if I know my neighbour is murdering people and I just buy earplugs to not hear the screaming. I might not be guilty of murder but it doesn't make me a good apple.
Re:Let me take this one (Score:4)
That.
And, it also helps if you know the sources that provide information to Amnesty International. You can then leak them 'totally by accident' to the friendly raving lunatic in the country you're doing business with, and *poof* no more complaints. Or complainers.
It happened in the UK as well: human rights campaigners have been targetted by hit squads in the past, especially Irish campaigners, journalists, lawyers etc. in Northern Ireland were at serious risk, because the police would leak the addresses and names of those folks that were suspected of IRA sympathies to the extreme right wing deathsquads of the Orange order.
So for everyone in the UK, hearing about this brings back a lot of old and unpleasant memories.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but there are also legitimate problems with Amnesty too. It admits itself that it tends more towards criticism of state actors and typically western states because it feels it's safer to investigate them and easier to acquire the information to investigate. You can see Amnesty's own admission of this here, though the cited link doesn't seem to work any more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What this typically means is that say, Hamas can fire rockets specifically with the aim of killing Israeli civil
Re: (Score:2)
Duh! because they're supposed to be upholding national security, fighting terrorism etc. An NGO such as Amnesty is no threat to national security, is not a terrorist organisation, and is not a terrorist sympathiser. Thus, it should be entirely off-limits to these government organisations.
Just like most citizens should be off-limits too - except none of us are - we're all on the "watch list" which runs a regular 'grep' of our online lives just to make sure we didn't do something we shouldn't. If we google th
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these asshats have serious anger management issues where they put people who cut them off in traffic onto "extra scrutiny" lists for when they travel. It certainly appears that there is no repercussions to anything they do so why not?
Re: (Score:2)
My other neighbour is very sexy and probably showers naked. So I will just put a little camera in to gather some "research" information.
Just because they want information and someone else has it in no way justifies what they do.
I think we can all agree that you can spy on an enemy. But when a country spies on its own peop