Slashdot Mirror
UN Telecom Chief Urges Blackberry Data Sharing
crimeandpunishment writes "The top man in telecommunications at the United Nations is weighing in on the Blackberry battle ... and he says share the data. The UN's telecom chief says governments have legitimate security concerns, and Research in Motion should give them access to its customer data. In an interview with the Associated Press, Hamadoun Toure said 'There is a need for cooperation between governments and the private sector on security issues.'"
I think I speak for all of us, when I say: FUCK THE UN!!!
It says it's an entertainment site. But I found a better source anyway; TFA probably cut and pasted from the AP (or from another site that paid the AP for publication) anyway.
Free Martian Whores!
I can see there being a need for cooperation and information sharing when it comes to people actually suspected of crimes. I am not comfortable giving out information just because they want to go on a fishing expedition though.
Of course this could be covered in the article, which my work proxy is denying me access to.
Next will be government mandated backdoors into SSH and SSL... you know, to stop the terrorists.
Trolling is a art,
Isn't an individual's right to privacy inalienable and shouldn't the UN therefore support it?
Why would you think that? The UN is a select club of governments doing the bidding of those governments. Individuals and their rights have little to do with it apart from some posturing.
We don't need no steenkin' privacy. In fact, if we don't roll over and submit our every move for scrutiny to our governments, the UN, and the space aliens occupying the ISS, then clearly we have something to hide, and must be locked up for our own good and the good of society.
Governments need to feel secure. Secure from attacks by foreign nations. Secure from attacks by its own citizens. Governments need all information about anyone they consider a threat. Getting all your information might be considered a breach of your privacy, but it's a safety blanket for the government. Oh, and remember, if you're not with the government, you must be a terrorist.
Enjoy!
Isn't an individual's right to privacy inalienable and shouldn't the UN therefore support it?
No, it's not. Where is the document that says it is? Most people live under tyranny. It's too bad, but that's the way it is. We have the rights the we or someone else has fought and won for us and we keep them by continuing to fight. Nothing inalienable about that.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Someone get the UN telecom to read slashdot.
Or, at least his nephew who walks him through how to reinstall MS Office.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
You gotta love an international organization that has no inherent and reliable method of enforcing it's orders and statements. It's like getting barked at by a Chihuahua in some blond chick's purse.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Fuck. That. Shit. (Yeah, yeah, mod me down for vulgarity. There is no other appropriate response.)
Whatever your opinion of inalienable rights, check out Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which one would think the UN might actually support.
Privacy is not (and never has been) listed in any of the human rights charters.
Also, keep in mind that even in an utopia you can't have both inalienable right to free speech and an inalienable right to privacy; in quite many concerns one needs to be abandoned to keep the other.
Someone is going to be deciding what to do with your data here, either the individual companies or the government. Personally, I'd rather that the government made the call (whether it be to keep data private, use it, etc) than maintain the current situation, where we have to beg companies to maintain our privacy, and then trust them to continue to do so. Those of us who live in democratic countries elect our government, and the theory is that they're accountable. We do not elect corporations and private companies. As with Google's "Do not be evil," promises that our privacy will be maintained are often made graciously, and perhaps with the best intentions, If your government isn't accountable, you can replace them. If RIM, Google, or anyone else decides to abuse your data... what then?
The UN guy's opinion is in perfect harmony with article 12 which quite explicitly allows non-arbitrary invasions of privacy in a manner according to local law, as the government of India requests.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
UN Declaration of Human Rights article 12 states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
IE, the UN "Telecom Chief" isn't abiding by the UN's alleged policies. I suspect he needs to be removed from his post. Of course, he won't be.
In most countries in the world, the government is far more likely to cause harm to the public, than the public is likely to cause any harm to the government. In my opinion, the Public certainly has more pressing security concern than any government has. The fact of the matter is, anyone with even the slightest interest in keeping their conversations private will be able to do so easily no matter what their respective government is monitoring. All this really does is give those governments access to the general publics mail which will then be used to stifle dissent, not protect the public.
No, all humans have the same inalienable rights - not created by the government. True that only some of us have governments that we create to protect those rights. But in the US we have one that we created to protect the right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment says the government must protect "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", AKA privacy. Americans don't respect governments that don't protect people's rights. At least not patriotic Americans.
--
make install -not war
Secretary Toure,
FYI:
Thought you should know.
Sincerely Yours,
Peter Hutnick
Clarifying myself - privacy as such is listed, but not *inalienable privacy* - it is considered that privacy is a right unless there is, in essence, any overriding excuse to break privacy including a legal request from government.
They have a history of not supporting an individual's right of privacy ( among other rights ), so why would they change now? They are just another governmental entity, and by nature don't like privacy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yes, there is a need for cooperation between governments and the private sector to protect the people's privacy from invasion by either government or private sector entities. These security issues are far more common, urgent and important than any need for the government or private sector to invade our privacy. And without due process, like evidence/argument/decision in a legitimate court, neither government nor private sector has any "security" interest that should see cooperation by anyone, including people in the government or private sector.
--
make install -not war
What of the security of the citizen in the face of a corrupt government?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Governments have ceased to be of the people and by the people and for the people. They are now entities in their own right, safeguarding their own survival. To say otherwise is to say that you're a revolutionist, a terrorist supporter. Because the government would never want *my* information... But yet the FBI has abused their "National Security Letter" privilege over 100,000 times.
Governments now exist to ensure the biggest corporations stay at the top, and those that are in government, have an easy ride to and through retirement. There was a time when making a living off of other people's taxes (at least in this country) was viewed as a bad thing. Now, government jobs are the ones to have, better pay, better benefits, and you can't get fired. The government is now a publicly funded corporation, with the ability to charge you whatever it wants by taxing you into oblivion. We'll see this November if we actually control our government or if some subliminal mindset does.
What the government does have a duty to do, is protect the rights of it citizens. Let's see if that happens here.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Crimethink is doubleplus ungood.
There have been two applications of collective security - Korean War, and Kuwait.
I take it you don't disagree with those, since you didn't list them.
They are so few because member states don't vote for it often.
They do, though, vote for Peacekeeping operations, and there have been a LOT of them, where the "UN" was there. and by the UN, I mean member states who were willing to step up to the plate and put lives on the line to help people in other countries.
I think your problem is not with the UN, but with the member states not stepping up to the plate.
But the UN can't force them because it's NOT a world government.
-- for the U.S. to immediately cease funding the United Nations. As in right f*cking now!
First and foremost, the United Nations is just that, and is inherently biased towards the states that create and support it.
But beyond that, the United Nations was created primarily to put an end to, or at least limit, international conflict, and the UN's commitment to human rights is only a means to that end. The list of human rights that the UN and other international bodies have agreed upon are primarily, if not exclusively, those rights that have been consistently listed as the casus belli of prior international conflicts. These human rights are typically focused on minorities rather than individual rights, as one country's minority is another's majority. So Slavic majorities in Serbia and Russia complained of Austro-Hungarian oppression of Slavic minorities in Croatia, Germany spoke of the plight of Czechoslovakia's German minority, and (far more recently) Russia complained of Georgia's oppression of Ossetians.
Rights of the individual, however, almost never become more than domestic matter, a cause for domestic, not international, conflict (e.g. civil wars, revolutions, etc.). So, ultimately, the UN shouldn't care one way or the other, at least not openly and officially, so long as these rules are applied uniformly and not, say, to Indian Muslims moreso than to Indian Hindus.
It's not exactly a select club. It's pretty much everyone.
The US have the death penalty which is a gross violation off the inalienable rights - the right to life.
... you first, Secretary-General Toure. Let's give every government representing a member-state of the United Nations access to Mr. Toure's Blackberry (or the equivalent, if he has a different mobile device) data. ALL of it, since that's what India is requesting from Research In Motion. It would be interesting to see what discussions he's had with industry lobbyists, wouldn't it? Surely SOME nation would leak that information, like Iran if the "talks between satellite provider Eutelstat and the Iranian government" referred to in the article don't go the way Tehran wants.
I agree with you. That's why so many patriotic Americans oppose the death penalty, and most states eliminated the practice.
But the US is if nothing else a process in democratic republic. We've got enough people who don't really accept that rights are inalienable that the actual implementation still has plenty of archaic practices left from when we first started innovating in democracy.
--
make install -not war
I believe the existence of a right to privacy is still a matter of debate in US legal circles because it isn't explicitly stated. I agree with you that there is such a right, but that's my opinion and I'm just a citizen. The UN language in Article 12 seems stronger, but I don't accept the notion that the UN actually represents anyone. It's a forum for rulers to exercise their egos and negotiate deals. At best its a mild restraint on bad behavior, very mild.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
What's non-arbitrary about 'blackberry owners'? Does RIM allowing them access likewise give them iPhone data? No, it does not.
Isn't open source supposed to be about sharing?
What kind of anti-freedom people do we have here?
Go away shill.
Open source is actually about freedom, which requires a certain amount of limitation of government power. In the specific, open source limits the government's power to prevent use of software through court action. See SCO v IBM and all the potential implications of that case.
But, I'm sorry, you were trying to troll just then, weren't you? Oh well, off to another topic for you. Tell your boss I said 'hi'...
uhm, us citizens have 'security concerns' about our very own government!
before I hand over my keys to them, they first have to prove worthy of my trust. right now, they fail to have my trust. they need to first earn it.
you guys go first, ok? give us visibility in the so-called security and level with us and be honest with us what's going on out there.
then, after say 5 or 10 years of 'good progress reports' and no outright abuse, we'll THINK about it.
m'kay?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
from the article:
The agency has no independent regulatory power, but Toure's comments are a barometer of sentiment among the agency's 192 member states, which are expected to re-elect him to a second term later this year.
so they have no power. as usual.
ignore the fuck-wad. he's just repeating what all others in power are *requesting* of their citizenry.
exercise for the reader: can you find ANY government who's NOT out for a privacy-grab in the name of terrorism? anyone, anyone? bueller? anyone??
the most popular bandwagon of our decade. "me too! I also want to be able to check out my citizen's emails and stuff. come on, I want that power too!"
sickening. a dark side of humanity is being shown in this kind of process.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Everything that protects people is a matter of debate in US legal circles. The 14th Amendment is a matter of widespread debate.
There is such a right. It's clear enough for anyone who isn't trying to abuse our rights from the exact language of the 4th Amendment, especially people who want to outlaw abortion again by undermining the privacy right in our persons the Supreme Court used to nullify Federal regulation of abortion.
As for the UN, it sucks, but it's way better than the alternative: no forum, and even more war. It's not supposed to represent anyone but the member governments, and not equally. The mild restraint is better than nothing, and enough that many wars, including nuclear annihilations, have been avoided by it. So while I'm all for making it better, the "fuck the UN" screeches come from people who just want to eliminate it. Like the many Bushites who wanted to "blow it up", in exactly those terms. People who want the wars that the UN helps avoid, even if it doesn't help enough.
--
make install -not war
Much like the UN, the ITU is a joke and an amusing waste money. The ITU would love to have controlled Internet standards but the world ignored them and went with the IETF. They would love to have controlled mobile phone standards but the world ignored them and went with the ETSI. They would love to control domain TLDs, but the world ignored them and went with ICANN.
Both Tory and Labour governments had their butt kicked when they tried first banning, and then introducing key escrow, encryption legislation in the UK. France had all encryption banned until they found the NSA were passing industrial secrets to their US rivals such as Boeing, and changed their legislation so fast their politicians almost got whiplash watching it pass.
I'm not sure it is relevant, but Toure is from Mali which has been a dictatorship for centuries and only recently gained democratic elections less than 20 years ago, from which he then went and studied his degrees at Moscow University. Maybe government intervention and control into people's personal lives seems more normal for him?
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
What about the security concerns of the citizens?
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
RIM's corporate clients run their own blackberry servers, and the encryption is end-to-end between the corporation's own server, and the Blackberry devices used by their employees. The encrypted traffic flows through the internet and through servers under RIM's control, but they can't read any of the data without the encryption keys which are generated entirely by the client and are never given to RIM.
This is different from their consumer service, where its RIM itself that runs that blackberry server and so they have access to all of the encryption keys on it and can help governments intercept the traffic at that end.
Because of this, I'm not sure how exactly they plan to comply with the public demands of India and a couple of other countries to let them decrypt and read all of the data. They've stated that they're going to give India what it wants, but I believe that is technically impossible right now. RIM will have to re-engineer their system, deliberately weakening it by adding the backdoors that the government needs (some kind of enforced key-escrow service, or something). It will require software updates on the corporate servers AND all of the blackberry devices, and more importantly, it might REALLY piss off some of their large corporate clients. We'll see.
Maybe we could apply the principles of the Miller test to intrusive government demands. How about this: would you feel more secure or less secure if the government was able to read all your texts whenever they feel like it?
As for Apple iPhone "crypto":
Tech Public Policy stuff
This is sad, but the rights of a dictator governing his country prevails to the rights of his citizens under UN laws. FUCK YOU UN.
Tomorrow is another day...
The UN's telecom chief says governments have legitimate security concerns,
And I have legitimate privacy concerns. So - this kind of empty statement is meant to "weigh in" on a debate? I always thought to "weigh in", you'd need some... you know... weight.
Saying someone has a legitimate reason means nothing if you only look at one side of the equation. Society is all about the balances we strike between the legitimate reasons of everyone involved.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In the United States of America, the interception of communications (letters and then later electrical and electronic communications) between US citizens and foreigners predates the Constitution and has been practiced continually. Hell, Gen. Washington, later President Washington and the Continental Congress and later the US Congress authorized this. It has always been standard practice that the opening and copying of such communications is allowable by law. Only recently with the abuses by various police agencies has there supposedly been a curtailment in such activity. In all actuality, the Patriot act only extends past practice to all citizens rather than communications between citizens and foreigners.
Actually given the historical record, in all truth, TFA could be marked "Nothing new to see here, move along." Sad but true.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
How in the FUCK is an intelligent song about the United Nations off topic in a discussion about the United Nations?
Seriously? Really?