Amnesty International Seeks Explanation For 'Absolutely Shocking' Surveillance 112
Mark Wilson writes: A court recently revealed via email that the UK government had been spying on Amnesty International. GCHQ had put Amnesty under surveillance — despite this having previously been denied — and now the human rights organization wants answers.
In a letter to the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Amnesty International asks for an explanation for the surveillance. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal's (IPT) email made it clear that GCHQ had been intercepting, accessing and storing communications, something that Amnesty International's Secretary General, Salil Shetty believes 'makes it vividly clear that mass surveillance has gone too far'.
In a letter to the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Amnesty International asks for an explanation for the surveillance. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal's (IPT) email made it clear that GCHQ had been intercepting, accessing and storing communications, something that Amnesty International's Secretary General, Salil Shetty believes 'makes it vividly clear that mass surveillance has gone too far'.
Why not (Score:1)
Why should amnesty international be treated any differently to everyone else?
Re:Why not (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly
amnesty international probably think they're special, but the uk government really doesn't give a shit about anyone other than themselves. only the alleged peadophiles in the house of lords need their privacy protected
Re:Why not (Score:4, Insightful)
but the uk government really doesn't give a shit about anyone other than themselves
That is missing the point somewhat. Secret services want to watch over absolutely everything - because they can. Their governments seem to have largely abdicated control, not least because then the decisions on what to spy on and what to ignore could then be held against the politicians responsible. GCHQ seem to consider any inland NGO and most foreign countries to be targets but a lot of that is absence external of controls.
The E German Stasi *owned* the country, and had leading figures in all three W German agencies. A significant proportion of that country's budget was spent on the Stasi. Did it help them when Gorbachov decided not to stand in the way of reunification?
The U.S. are gathering more and more data, hell - they even knew about the 9.11 group ahead of time (and had been warned by the Germans) but did it help?
Look at Tunisia a couple of weeks ago, GCHQ were so busy spying on AI that they missed the big one. As if AI are going to mount an attack of that kind.
Re: (Score:1)
It is the courts, the judicial branch, of government that is most accessible (other than press which is speech but is something we ostensibly own ourselves) branch of the government. It is you duty to know your rights and your obligations. It is your job to monitor the courts and to use speech to inform others when there is a miscarriage of justice. We have failed in our duty to ensure we maintain this right because we have stopped viewing it as our obligation. Spend a day of your vacation. Go to the local
Re:Why not (Score:5, Insightful)
Why spy on Amnesty? They try to help political prisoners and such.
That is a very good reason for most intelligence agencies to spy on Amnesty: Amnesty has a lot of contacts on the ground in many oppressive countries. These contacts could be recruited as spies by intelligence agencies, sold out to their local government, spied upon to learn of coming activities, leaned on to start certain activities, or something else entirely. Some of these people could even know some of the dirty secrets of the intelligence agencies and their governments. Unfortunately, their spying is likely to make it harder for Amnesty to do their work, and significantly increases the risk of their contacts. In my opinion, the spying should stop.
Re:Why not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not (Score:5, Insightful)
you can't pretend it isn't in the countries best interest.
Since when is the government the country? It might be in their best interests. I don't see why it's in mine. Then again, my interests don't include making as much money as I can and to hell with the consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I knew there was a reason I liked you. Few understand their responsibilities (or are willing to accept them) as citizens. Fewer still understand the differences. This is the root of our problem, I think. I have tossed some gibberish into this thread. It will be ignored. Oh well... It is not frustrating to watch if you look at it right. It is actually just an example of animal behavior at both every scale including meta and it is absolutely humorous to witness if viewed in the right light. We expect fundamen
Re:Why not (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of Brittains closest allies are brutal despots. Keeping Amnesty International from "Rocking the Boat" directly supports an ally, and therefore supports national security. Yes this is immoral and illegal, but you can't pretend it isn't in the countries best interest.
In the best of times, it may be that our overlords perceive that keeping brutal despots in power is to the advantage of the entire country and/or supports national security. But that does not mean that it is the truth. The people arguing that dealing with vicious dictators is a good long term strategy are the same that argue that war is a good way to fight Islamic State. Propping up dictators may give cheap access to resources and markets (e.g. for weapon sales), but it will cause widespread resentment against the Brits among the subjects of the dictator as well as immigrants in Britain, possibly leading to acts of terrorism or increased recruitment for Islamic State and their ilk.
As a long term strategy, I also think that it is flawed. Dictatorships are not as vibrant and dynamic as societies where people have a reasonable amount of freedom, safety and general quality of life. If the dictators fall and are replaced by something nicer (yes, that is a big if), they tend to develop faster, bringing more wealth, stability and safety for all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
That is great. Now give an effective solution and why you feel it would work. Be aware that I am not disagreeing with you on principle but I am approaching your argument with reason as my goal. I will respond in kind. I may learn something this way and, combined, we may even have a rational response.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have unspoken assumption that propping up dictators actually make us safer or more prosperous.
This assumption is very popular among the powers that be, because it gives them a moral standing for being ruthless monsters: Their monstrosity protects their people. It even creates a self image that they are sacrifice themselves to make the world safer for their people. The same thing happened with the American slave trade: At first it was to help the poor uncivilized Africans find Christ, but when t
Re: (Score:1)
How, realistically, are we going to stop them from spying? What alternatives do you have?
Re: (Score:2)
How, realistically, are we going to stop them from spying?
That is a good question. I very much doubt that we can argue with them to get them to stop. The leadership of the spy organizations are both very certain that they are right, and it is to their personal advantage to continue down the current road. Political leaders tend to either agree, not care or be open for manipulation (with terrorism and pedos giving the spies leverage). Agreement comes from that insidious group of political leaders who want to control their own population. Technology can give some pro
Re: (Score:1)
Which, by way of a circle, brings us back to the start. As near as I can tell, the government should be afraid of the citizens and not the other way around. This is not true and, I think, is the root cause. How we change it is obvious - revolution. How we keep it changed is also obvious - observation. However, I do not see either being effective long-term. I advocate the latter with the former being one's obligation if they continue to engage in bad behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
If the dictators fall and are replaced by something nicer (yes, that is a big if), they tend to develop faster, bringing more wealth, stability and safety for all of us.
Though it might feel nice to believe this, it is not the case. Please mention one country which developed faster, and brought wealth, stability and safety after it's dictator fell. East Germany, which really wasn't a dictatorship? Because Romania, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, and countless other counter examples prove that statement as little more than naive wishfulness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to pretend. When you ally yourself with scum, it rubs off. Something about dogs and fleas.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, my thought was "And the pig got up and walked away."
( http://www.monologues.co.uk/Co... [monologues.co.uk] )
Re: (Score:2)
That is a very good reason for most intelligence agencies to spy on Amnesty: Amnesty has a lot of contacts on the ground in many oppressive countries.
Sure, but let's be absolutely clear. While that may be very useful for the intelligence services, they have absolutely no right to spy on Amnesty International to get that information. Even the government agrees with that.
Re: (Score:1)
If the government agreed then it would not happen. As such, we can rationally conclude the government is not in agreement with this. Perhaps you mean a specific branch of the government agrees or, worse, perhaps they are paying lip service and do not actually agree? Either way, it needs to stop but it is less energy to complain about it and hope that it changes. I submit that even a wall of text is not enough to effect change.
I did almost type "affect change" just to annoy people. I figured I would not even
Re: (Score:2)
Irish attempts to reach out to the US with human rights issues in the mid/late 1960's had to be reshaped.
South Africa had a vital site shared with the UK for global network tacking expanded in the 1970's.
Argentina was interesting emerging market for UK naval systems (frigates) sales into the1970's.
The issues of trade unions within the UK national security sector was interesting due to the 1987 the European Commission of Human Rights findings.
The emerging 1990
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... What you see as destroying democracy is what I see as ensuring democracy does not turn into tyranny or the masses ruling the minority. I see them as being there to ensure your rights are being monitored because you are not willing to put forth the effort to know and monitor those rights on your own. That is my view. I welcome your view. How is it that you see them destroying democracy?
Re:Why not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Why not (Score:3)
if Amnesty is surprised by this then they're really unqualified to do the work they claim to champion - they have to completely misunderstand the nature of government to be shocked by this, which is supposed to be their area of expertise.
Re: (Score:2)
They are pissed off about it - there's a difference. It's like when the computers in the Dalai Lama's office were found to be full of Chinese spyware, there's was no point pretending it hadn't happened just because it was likely to happen.
Re:Government keeps an eye on political organisati (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you even know what organisation you're talking about? Overwhelming majority of Amnesty's work is outside modern Western world. And they pick up "fights" with targets that are overwhelmingly more powerful than their organisation routinely. It's their mission to do so.
Re:Government keeps an eye on political organisati (Score:5, Interesting)
Overwhelming majority of Amnesty's work serves western powers rather than the other way round. Which explains why things can happen like someone in the US state department taking over the lead in Amnesty US (Suzanne Nossel).
They're very weak in their criticism of western targets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That said, human rights groups are not above critici
Re:Government keeps an eye on political organisati (Score:4, Informative)
The main reason why AI is "very weak in their criticism of Western targets" is for a very simple reason - Western societies have far lesser violations of issues AI works against.
The worst offender of the West, US is still far better than most of the third world in terms of due process available and incarceration.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Incineration is much more effective!
Re: (Score:2)
And surprisingly, local governments are often in full support of drone killings. Consider Yemen which is now in a full civil war in part because of the government's actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus a whole lot of Iran's and al Qaeda's actions.
Re: (Score:2)
And Iran in turn is far better than much of third world, where they often don't really have courts - they have lynchings.
Consider India for example. Girl of lower caste gets raped by boy of higher caste, goes to the police. Police ridicules her and on her way back, her own villagers lynch her and hang her.
Does your "oh noes, bad due process in US" start to sound quite good in comparison to you yet?
You get worse than that across much of Africa and Papua New Guinea for example, where you have similar courts o
Re: (Score:1)
The main reason why AI is "very weak in their criticism of Western targets" is for a very simple reason - Western societies have far lesser violations of issues AI works against.
The worst offender of the West, US is still far better than most of the third world in terms of due process available and incarceration.
When you make statements like that, and if you want to be accurate, you need to define what terms like "Western targets", "Western societies", and "the West" mean. Does it include Saudi Arabia, Poland, Qatar, Israel and Turkey? Certainly, those countries, although maybe not geographically west, all have decent arguments for being labeled as being in the Western sphere of influence.
And in your comparison, are you factoring in the size of the country?
Finally, you must know the US doesn't rate well in ter
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried wikipedia yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Government keeps an eye on political organisati (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't mean to be overly critical about the western human rights record but that's not the reason,
that AI or HRW are not very critical. Internally western countries are better off, that's not the issue.
As soon as you check the criticism that should be made, AI and HRW come off as pretty weak. If you count the allies in the western camp it's already disastrous. If you count the external actions of the western camp. also a disaster.
Another poster mentions the drone war. It's a good example because nobody in the west is bothered much by that. To us it feels like a minor issue, a necessary evil and not much of a big deal anyway. So neither is Amnesty bothered. You should check the legality. You should check polls in the arab world about them. You should check the effectiveness(I think 2%) and the strategic effect of them, it's pretty much putting out fire with gasoline.
One reason you think western actions are alright is because you rely on western sources for your judgement. There's a good variety of western sources in principle, but all those that rise to the top are mediocre. You almost need to go to cantankerous antisocial radicals to get a decent view. There's this kind of cascading effect where people right at the source are already being very measured in order not to be dismissed. And then every level it goes through more filtering occurs. So a watered down report may be published by AI, but then they don't make too much noise about it, and then the press filter it again.
At the moment there's Yemen. Not particularly an AI/HRW issue but at least it gives a good idea of what I think :) /publishable opinions.
It's pretty much a one sided invasion with a complete cutoff of all resources: 90% of the food has to be imported through the ports so you've got instant famine. What do we hear at the end of the line? Some kind of proxy war between Saudis and Iran, which is two lies in a few words. Iran is hardly involved and it's not a proxy war at all. Just the Saudis attacking because of some peace agreement they didn't like.
So in principle all human rights organisations should be yelling bloody murder.
Instead this kind of reaction is considered a radical opinion that doesn't fall in the range of reasonable
Re: (Score:1)
Some of the best media comes from a source that many of us, in the West, are prejudiced about (intentionally or unknowingly). Al Jazeera (spelling?) is actually fairly well informed, surprisingly objective, and willing to approach subjects that are foreign to us in the West. Obviously no single news source should be consumed as factual by the consumer. Laziness on behalf of the consumer is, by no means, a responsibility of the provider. No news service has been, or ever will be, without bias. This has never
Re: (Score:1)
US is still far better than most of the third world in terms of due process available and incarceration.
That is no way to conduct a standards test! And in terms of incarceration, you are right about the US being number one, higher percentages, higher numbers all around.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that during the period of leftist revolutions all over the world AI doggedly pursued and questioned the actions pro-Western government armies while having a written policy of not criticizing the guerrilla actions. This asymmetric prosecution of human right crimes was only changed after the end of the cold war.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that during the period of leftist revolutions all over the world AI doggedly pursued and questioned the actions pro-Western government armies while having a written policy of not criticizing the guerrilla actions. This asymmetric prosecution of human right crimes was only changed after the end of the cold war.
[citation needed]
Amnesty can go and fuck itself (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't want to know about State-sanctioned international child trafficking and systemic child sexual abuse - IN ENGLAND, but the SECOND the camera gets turned on them they get fucking pissy!? Fuck off!
Re: (Score:1)
In order to maintain maximum efficacy, AI restricts itself to one primary topic: government repression against its citizens through violence and incarceration. There are plenty of people within AI who want to broaden that mandate and quite a few things have been added over the years, but AI is well-aware that they cannot go up against every kind of human rights abuse without watering down their message.
Re:Amnesty can go and fuck itself (Score:4, Interesting)
sexual violence against children is violence, and when it's carried out under colour of Law by agents of State, too fucking right it falls within their remit. Truth of it is, they REFUSE to go against their biggest donor - the BRITISH GOVERNMENT - over something which could see this septic isle glassed.
(and no, that is not a typo. This place is toxic).
Re: (Score:1)
Amnesty is entirely funded by private donors - they don't take government money.
Re: (Score:1)
Between 2006-2011, more than 6500 children of foreign birth, travelling on foreign documents with their parents, were directed to be removed from their parents and taken into Local Authority care in England and Wales in closed proceedings. Many were forcibly removed at birth.
Some were forcibly adopted.
Some Local Authorities admit (it’s all in the public domain) to taking over 1,000 children each.
There may be thirty and more State employees involved in any one case. None of them take a second to consid
Re: (Score:1)
Go to the public court and give your opinion when you see a case like this, you can probably argue against or for legal procedures or perceived court misconduct in an objection and with the permission of the court. The judge may not give you permission which means you will need to ask them permission to a hearing with the judge and or prosecution. Submit that the procedures are illegal based on your interpretation of the law (citations help but a good judge will check case law) and ask that the judge recons
Re: (Score:2)
mothers never had guardianship.
Try again.
Re: (Score:1)
Yet they reveal MURDER of children by Israel police:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/02/trigger-happy-israeli-army-and-police-use-reckless-force-west-bank/
"Israeli forces have displayed a callous disregard for human life by killing dozens of Palestinian civilians, including children, in the occupied West Bank over the past three years with near total impunity, said Amnesty International in a report published today."
So they do good work, and I assume its why GCHQ spies on them and perhaps also JTR
Re:Amnesty can go and fuck itself (Score:4, Interesting)
This is just either mudslinging on your side, or it is showing that you have no idea what Amnesty International is about.
I don't expect Greenpeace to talk about government overreach, and I don't expect the taxpayers union to report on human rights violations in a country on another continent. Why do you expect Amnesty International to investigate cases of child abuse?
Re: (Score:2)
GENOCIDE falls within Amnesty's remit.
The UN definition of GENOCIDE includes but is not limited to moving children from one class or group to another class or ethnic group.
Thank you, come again.
Re: (Score:2)
Still thinking someone just wants to sling mud.
Re: (Score:2)
the application of force includes but is not limited to the threat of force. The State likes to think it has the monopoly on legally applied physical force, not least the threat of it.
I'm starting to think there's a State apologist around here...
Re: (Score:3)
Common tactic you're using here: The Whataboutism. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
how about you bring something material to the discussion instead of this utter fucking nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
It already has been explained to you that child abuse is not their mandate. Your "argument" is a common troll-tactic to "counter" someone's efforts:
"Oh, you're collecting money for the poor in the 3rd world? What about the religious persecution in your own country?"
It's a common attitude - because someone cares about an issue and you don't like this someone, it's an absolute monstrosity that he doesn't care about another (possibly even unrelated) issue as well.
Taking your argument to its ultimate conclusion
Of course it hasn't gone too far (Score:2)
Now i know no one reads the article so I'll summarize one point
If Amnesty International is being spied on, then is anyone safe?
Nope, they know how many times you wipe and how many sheets you used. Welcome to the 21st century.
Re: (Score:1)
"Nope, they know how many times you wipe and how many sheets you used."
It should be possible to calculate that from shopping records. You can get someone's diet from that, and their toilet paper consumption - all you need is a food-to-feces conversion model and you can calculate how many times people wipe.
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect the rate of defecation, and the required sheets, might be influenced by the amount of water (and other liquids) you consume, as well as your ability to properly cook chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How cute! (Score:4, Interesting)
The the response will inevitably be "fuck you, that's why", it is at least worth forcing them to give it because it adds to the legal cases against them that are currently proceeding. What they did appears to be illegal under UK law, and in having to justify it they may inadvertently provide new avenues to make legal arguments against them.
Plus it's more bad publicity, which can only be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The the response will inevitably be "fuck you, that's why",
Not necessarily. The response could be, "We just wanted to know what you were doing."
"Because we can" (Score:1)
also, "because we are scaredy cowards"
-- your friendly neighbourhood world leaders.
Nonsense (Score:1)
Posturing histrionics.
Have gchq or other intelligence organizations ever used the data inappropriately?
To suggest that such organizations are somehow morally above being spied-upon ignores the long long history of such groups being used as cat's paws by others whose intentions are not so noble.
Sorry, if I'm in charge of security for a church, I'm still frisking the nuns, because to do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Posturing histrionics.
Have gchq or other intelligence organizations ever used the data inappropriately?
Yes. Collecting it is sufficient to constitute inappropriate use.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually want security and not moral posturing, yes.
I get that this is hard for some people to understand.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
To suggest that such organizations are somehow morally above being spied-upon
Of course I suggest they're above being spied on. Everyone is morally above being spied on unless there's some sort of warrant or actualy cause. If you disagree that people aren't above being spied on, then would you be happy for me to come over and install a surveillance camera in your bathroom and bedroom?
Sorry, if I'm in charge of security for a church, I'm still frisking the nuns, because to do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Poe's law strikes again. I literally can't tell if you're being satirical or stark raving mad. You're not cold fjord, at least (then I'd know for sure).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, if I'm in charge of security for a church, I'm still frisking the nuns, because to do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Poe's law strikes again. I literally can't tell if you're being satirical or stark raving mad. You're not cold fjord, at least (then I'd know for sure).
I merely convey (often unwelcome) facts to you, and report the goings-on of a mad world. If you cannot separate the teller from the tale, then you are in no position to judge whom is mad. But of course you may be a madman yourself.
What do you make of these?
Fears grow Boko Harm may use suicide bombers dressed as Catholic nuns for attacks [nigerianwatch.com]
Sublime irony: Muslim TSA guard feels Catholic nun's genitals [wordpress.com]
In a Chilling Phone Call, Yazidi Woman Made a Sex Slave by ISIS Begs for West to Bomb Brothel [ijreview.com]
Isis use tortur [metro.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
OH that right, we will all go spy on GCHQ and see if they have ever used the data inappropriately because of course they wont prosecute you for espionage and lock you up for life. If you seek inappropriate data then your intention is to use it inappropriately. So the intention in targeting political activism organisations is to attack individuals with false prosecutions that are meant to punish with legal fees, loss of employment during the trial process, threats against other family members and then the c
Re: (Score:2)
Answer: "NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests"
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/
If you allow intelligence agencies to gain access to unlimited amounts of information, with no regard for privacy, they can use it to blackmail anyone. Next time an organization like Amnesty International finds out about an abuse perpetrated by a British-supported regime, the Government might de
WRONG! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly believe that the US could absorb a punch as severe as the 9/11 at least once a year without the nation falling apart.
Well that sounds like a winning campaign slogan.
Human rights campaigners = terrorists (Score:1)
Because... (Score:1)
checks and balances for secret services needed! (Score:1)