Slashdot Mirror


US Working To Kill UN Privacy Resolutions

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.

197 comments

  1. Notice to all posters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You all know who cold fjord is and what his agenda is. So I suggest, we don't fall into his trap of getting into endless debates that don't achieve anything by ignoring his comments.

    1. Re:Notice to all posters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't comment on things that can't be spun. Notice he never said a word on the NSA botnet story.

  2. They don't give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, the US government really doesn't give a fuck. They're paranoid as shit that their little party will be over.

    1. Re:They don't give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      us is totalitarian in [very bad] disguise.

    2. Re:They don't give a fuck by AlphaWolf_HK · · 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.)

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re:They don't give a fuck by Taco+Cowboy · · 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.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    4. Re:They don't give a fuck by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Worse things? No evidence for that. Would do worse things? No evidence for that. Try again.

    5. Re: They don't give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:They don't give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More reason to wrest control of the root servers off ICANN (USA)

    7. Re:They don't give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who the fuck is the "NSA"? the "New South Africa" sponsored by APARTHEID ISRAEL, and all the resources under their command; read, AKAMAI, AMDOCS,ONAVO, APPLE-CENSOR-THINGEEEEEEEEE?

      Wise up, /dottirs, these israeli backdoors are BUGGING EVERYTHING UP!
      Signed,
            MicJack

    8. Re: They don't give a fuck by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:They don't give a fuck by jalopezp · · Score: 4, 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.

    10. Re: They don't give a fuck by somersault · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:They don't give a fuck by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:They don't give a fuck by HiThere · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. But it's a good reason for other countries, or groups thereof, to establish their own root servers.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:They don't give a fuck by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1, Informative

      to show the world that THEY ARE STILL THE BOSS

      Is there some other boss you would prefer?

      I read this time and time again about how vile the U.S. is for policing the world and pushing every other country around.
      Without the U.S. there will be a power vacuum. Who would you prefer to take it's place?

    14. Re:They don't give a fuck by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      It concerns me to learn our leaders (US citizen here) have lost confidence in our ability to innovate and the value of cooperation. As a direct result, we appear to have temporarily lost our way and have begun to trade on the reputation of our betters (predecessors) to gain advantage through subterfuge (compromising our international integrity) rather than excellence...which, quite frankly, is not the "American Way"... as we were taught to understand it. Ultimately it reveals why the dark underside of 21st century American exceptionalism has taken such a beating in the last couple of decades. We are investing (heavily) in the short term expedience historically proven to be destructive...but worse, our leaders on either side lack the conviction to speak clearly and truthfully about actions taken in our name and the values we believe in. I hope we all recognize we must evolve from a competitive to a cooperative underlying transaction to remain peacefully sustainable. This balance can only be achieved on a foundation of principled actions respectful of inalienable human rights because as the world continues to shrink our interrelations will reflect the quality of our connections for better or worse. I question the veracity of published popular support for secret courts, invasions of privacy, repeated omissions of material information and commission of false witness under oath (to name a few obvious examples). These methods have no place in the America I want to live in and project to other cultures. This is a very good time for the otherwise silent majority to put pen to paper in an effort to remind our politicians who they represent. Further, in the unlikely event we cannot encourage meaningful change, these are very good issues for platform declarations and voting booth decisions. We will only have the qualities in government we demand.

    15. Re:They don't give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to second grade with you! That, I assume, should read "We are totalitarians in [very bad] disguise."

  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. The sooner the UN is thoroughly dominated by somebody, the sooner everybody will realize that one world government is tyranny.

    1. Re:Good by gagol · · Score: 0

      The de-facto world government is the US right now. I am sure you would enjoy being "liberated" with carper bombing...

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. The sooner the UN is thoroughly dominated by somebody, the sooner everybody will realize that one world government is tyranny.

      Funny how you bitch about a "one world government" being a tyranny, but are advocating in favor of ordering sovereign nations to do what you want.

    3. Re:Good by Elminster+Aumar · · Score: 1

      Carper bombing? Is that a form of weaponized carp?

    4. Re:Good by gagol · · Score: 1

      I wish, it would be so cool! No, it is just a typo... r, t, so close...

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  4. just words on paper by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, 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. :(

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:just words on paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Maybe the UN will sanction us with their army. Oh wait, they don't have an army. I guess that means they need to shut the fuck up.

      --DC

    2. Re:just words on paper by runeghost · · Score: 1

      More like Land of the Corporate Tools :-(

    3. Re:just words on paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is really a shame that the human race is not yet advanced enough for proper anarchy, nor will it be in our lifetimes.

      "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

      Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." Thomas Paine Common Sense

    4. Re:just words on paper by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The UN's "laws" have no weight and mean nothing. What do they have to do with the US Constitution? They're totally separate entities.

      Moreover only conservatives worship the Constitution. You sound like one of them.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:just words on paper by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:just words on paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same UN with member countries that also violate their own citizens rights online as well.

      The UN has become mostly a club of criminals intent on browbeating the US, not the other way around.

    7. Re:just words on paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's ironic that - in a thread about the fundamental right to online privacy - you are implicitly criticising someone who wishes to post anonymously.

    8. Re:just words on paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing there is more to the world then army's and other ways to sanction besides military force.

    9. Re:just words on paper by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:just words on paper by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Moreover only conservatives worship the Constitution.

      Worship? How about simply respecting it? I wish the government would.

  5. I have an idea! by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll spy on your citizens if you spy on mine!

    1. Re:I have an idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets designate a world wide "Edward Snowden Day. How about June 21, his birthday.
      The man at least deserves something for alerting the world to the depth of " It's gonna get worse folks".

    2. Re:I have an idea! by jd · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:I have an idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about the 5th of July? It's also symbolically better, and it'll be easier to get ahold of fireworks for more people.

    4. Re:I have an idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make it the 5th of November and the NSA could burn Snowden effigies!

    5. Re:I have an idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your idea was already captured by the NATO bunch years ago.

  6. What's the point of a resolution by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    without general capitulation...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Dear NSA: by pla · · Score: 2

    We have more of us than you have of you.

    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.

    1. Re:Dear NSA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA here. I'm dumping the files of you and the others who pretend online their words are anything but empty threats:

      Harmless.

    2. Re:Dear NSA: by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have more of us than you have of you.

      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...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:Dear NSA: by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every tyranny is exercised by the few over the many. Your numbers don't mean much.

    4. Re:Dear NSA: by citizenr · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    5. Re:Dear NSA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you didn't have telephones or the internet?

      fucking idiot.

    6. Re:Dear NSA: by gagol · · Score: 1

      How many people from the land of the BRAVE is willing to challenge this authority? Yeah, that's what I thought.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    7. Re:Dear NSA: by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Communication doesn't require internet or telephones. But you can bet that without some form of communication, you will not be able to win a war, much less know when the war is has been won.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    8. Re:Dear NSA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... didn't have telephones or the internet.

      The only person who needs telephones or internet is you. Great strawman, but the word used was 'communication'. That would be mail, telegraph, smoke signals, or sending a servant round to get an immediate reply.

      Fucking idiot.

    9. Re:Dear NSA: by Nyder · · Score: 0

      Communication doesn't require internet or telephones. But you can bet that without some form of communication, you will not be able to win a war, much less know when the war is has been won.

      Yes, because somehow we lost our ability to talk, or to write down message on paper.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    10. Re:Dear NSA: by Nyder · · Score: 0

      ... didn't have telephones or the internet.

      The only person who needs telephones or internet is you. Great strawman, but the word used was 'communication'. That would be mail, telegraph, smoke signals, or sending a servant round to get an immediate reply.

      Fucking idiot.

      I understand you are so stupid you can't log in, but le tme clue you. The NSA can't stop me from talking to someone, or passing them a note. They can't spy on that. What can they spy on? The internet & telephones. So who is the idiot?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    11. Re:Dear NSA: by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, 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 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?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    12. Re:Dear NSA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Different AC here.

      Ultranova wrote:

      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...

      After some logical fallacies, Nyder later wrote, to an AC:

      I understand you are so stupid you can't log in, but le tme clue you. The NSA can't stop me from talking to someone, or passing them a note. They can't spy on that. What can they spy on? The internet & telephones. So who is the idiot?

      I'm afraid, Nyder, that I must side with the first AC. You are being "the idiot." Here's why:

      1) Your argument against ultranova was weak and potentially derailed a more interesting discussion.

      2) Your argument against the first AC is also weak. Calling someone "so stupid they can't log in" in a thread about the fundamental right to online privacy, is, well, pretty stupid in and of itself.

      3) You're a good demonstration, yourself, that logging in doesn't improve the quality of discourse.

      And too indulge in a little pettiness of my own: Perhaps you're just too stupid to log out?

    13. Re:Dear NSA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communication doesn't require internet or telephones. But you can bet that without some form of communication, you will not be able to win a war, much less know when the war is has been won.

      Yes, because somehow we lost our ability to talk, or to write down message on paper.

      Fighting from a technological disadvantage is a major problem.

      The most important part of warfare is logistics, rapid communication is necessary to keep that efficient.

    14. Re:Dear NSA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC Napolean said moral is to material as 3 is to 1 so it seems he didn't agree with you. Mind you he did come unstuck in Russia....

    15. Re:Dear NSA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Write on! Your name must be Revere-ed!
      You, Sir, are certainly not one opon whom to trod... (don`t tread on me, or those people over there!)

      Well Paul, grab ur guns and run up on the UN at NewYork to make sure the idiotic-intelligence-and-warmongering-cult do not persuade other UN-nation-states to follow the idiotic american lead....

      Now, how to we stop those terrible Palestinians from forming a state with state-owned central-bank, and a public-service not interested in Canadian private data?!

      america should move to kick israel out of the UN, or vice-versa and both,
      Surely one draws the curtain while nude, or enjoys a private-message; why should any nation or national citizen allow the israelis and the americans to take away those RIGHTS?

    16. Re:Dear NSA: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Pamphlets. Lots of pamphlets, many of them published anonymously.

    17. Re:Dear NSA: by c0lo · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    18. Re:Dear NSA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MM, nope, that's a negative.

    19. Re:Dear NSA: by Curate · · Score: 1

      Using laser printers would be fine as long as you don't use the Arial font, as that would invoke too much suspicion.

  8. U. S. is out of control!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I read this, but I cannot believe it. When did we give them so much power to divest us of every single right we are supposed to have?

    1. Re:U. S. is out of control!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When we let them have more guns than we do.

    2. Re:U. S. is out of control!!! by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's difficult to pin down an exact date.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    3. Re:U. S. is out of control!!! by gagol · · Score: 0

      It could be when TV started its début... and politics became a popularity contest between candidates chosen by the rich elite.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    4. Re:U. S. is out of control!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the prez, JFK ,voiced his view that the ....israeli nuclear-factories.... should be INSPECTED, and ...got whacked....

  9. Why Bother by rtb61 · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Why Bother by s.petry · · 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.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Why Bother by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US could have passed this and if ever asked just told the press any hardware/software was for "police" cooperation, a military "sale" or joint exercise or the US been "invited" in for telco upgrades.
      The press optics of this is strange, the US always seemed to play the UN a lot better.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Why Bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rulers and Laws.... so some Central Banker visits a Caliphat and gets arrested because his private "tweets" were not so private...... sexed up on the beatches of tel-aviv......

      juST BECAUSE THE CENTRAL BANKSTERS ARE ESSENTIALLY THIEVES, does not mean that the israeli hand goes unseen.
      whether public-taxpayer-money, or private-data of citizenry
      the israelis take it all!
      Optical Illusion, international collusion.

    4. Re:Why Bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      okay, smart guy, there are over 200 countries on the planet, tell me WHICH ONES have a secret splitter room at the telecoms ? ? ?
      what's that ? ? ?
      you didn't say anything, you just kind of mumbled some obscenities my way...

      fucking nimrod: samoa bribing a motel clerk $40 to find out if the attache from country X had a hooker in their room is NOT the same as unka sammie vacuuming up THE WHOLE PLANET'S COMMUNICATIONS...
      sure, 'everybody does it', IF you count ANY such actions as equivalent, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE DISPARITY...

      fucking NSA bot/shill/asswipe...

  10. I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have no proof, and we know Obama wouldn't do this. If they have no evidence, then why not call them out as liars?

  11. Cyclic history by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lets take away "that" basic human right, it don't matter. In a few years, other rights would be excepted too (i.e. torture, how can be bad something as fun as waterboarding?), and if the progression continues they will be back to import cheap workforce from Africa in no time. We seen this kind of progressions becoming very popular lately.

  12. What can the UN actually do? by BringsApples · · Score: 2

    If "the Americans" don't follow the rules that the UN comes up with, what would the UN do? Seriously, I'm not trolling here, I'm seriously interested in hearing what the UN would/could do. Sanction the US? Military action?

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:What can the UN actually do? by Luckyo · · 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.

    2. Re:What can the UN actually do? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't have that clause, and the UN is not free to operate, spy, arrest, or even kill anyone in the US. Just completely false.

    3. Re:What can the UN actually do? by sg_oneill · · 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.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    4. Re:What can the UN actually do? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      'If'? The US fucked the UN before.

      Listen, if these officials care so much, they're in a better
      position to answer you and you know it.
      And in effect that /does/ make it seem like you're trolling
      here. Fine with me.

    5. Re:What can the UN actually do? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its more like a convention on torture, arms deals, sanctions, human rights.
      Not much the UN can do, but most nations like to be 'seen' as voting together in positive ways.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:What can the UN actually do? by FatLittleMonkey · · 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?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    7. Re:What can the UN actually do? by dogandpants · · Score: 1

      The UN, in spite of the current security council, and in spite of the enormous animus of the USA, will someday be our rules. That's why.

    8. Re:What can the UN actually do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      That's not their only way out--they are multinational companies, they could just leave the US as well. Not many multinationals set up shop in Burma, either, for example (that may of course change now that Ang Sang Suu Kyi is out of jail)

    9. Re:What can the UN actually do? by BringsApples · · Score: 1
      Very informative, thank-you!

      ...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.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    10. Re:What can the UN actually do? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      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.

  13. Text of one of TFA by c0lo · · Score: 3, Informative
    TFA on the foreignpolicy type: pops up a "blocking" iframe asking for registration. Duh, even with noscript, it's just easy do "view page source", and copy the pasta into a dummy.html file.

    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?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:Text of one of TFA by kermidge · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Text of one of TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions."

      You mean Abu Ghraib was perfectly legal after all?

      The US did have jurisdiction.

    3. Re:Text of one of TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a note to save you some time next time... instead of copy/pasta the html, you can just right-click on the elements that bother you (the iframe in this case) => inspect element (opens html inspector) => right click on the element => delete node. And it's gone (although in this case you have to do this both for the iframe and the overlay).

    4. Re:Text of one of TFA by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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 in other countries who have never been to the US have those rights, too.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Text of one of TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, breaking human rights doesn't count if done outside the country of the perpetrator?

      That's their theory. They do want to respect human rights, but also to decide who is human and who is not. Today the limit is at the country border, tomorrow... who knows.

    6. Re:Text of one of TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Members of an invading army are subject either to the laws of their home country (as long as they're winning), or the host country (if they get captured).

      Members of an occupying army, or troops permanently stationed in another country, generally have their status defined by some sort of treaty between the occupier and occupyee.

      Representatives of Country A on Country B's soil are generally subject to the laws of Country B, unless they have diplomatic immunity, in which case they still come under Country A's jurisdiction (sort of). I think that's probably the closest analogy to what happens when agencies use the internet to spy on each other.

      Regardless, "human rights" don't stop at a country's borders. What matters legally is where the perpetrators are, not where the victims are. The diplomat is talking through his/her ass.

  14. Hans Brix said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The UN will be very angry with you... and they will write the U.S. a letter, telling them how angry they are.

  15. Devil's Advocate by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:Devil's Advocate by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The world knows the past of a China and Russia/Soviet Union. The world knows telco and networking the reach of a China and Russia.
      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"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Devil's Advocate by gagol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But only the US citizens let their governments spends billions of their own money on it to target them without doing a thing about it. Land of the free... not! Land of the brave, not!

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  16. And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA work by UpnAtom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA work on subverting encryption algorithms. 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 and BitMessage. Maybe some of you know of or are working on other projects you'd care to mention.

  17. And why by Opportunist · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:And why by artor3 · · Score: 1

      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 ranting. It's your Two Minutes Hate for the day, except it lasts more than two minutes, and occurs multiple times a day.

    2. Re:And why by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Rules are going to be used against US, not others by PerlPunk · · Score: 3, 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.

  19. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe some of you know of or are working on other projects you'd care to mention.

    I'd rather not make a target of myself. And that is the sad truth.

  20. I'll care to mention by Burz · · Score: 1

    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...

  21. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 4, 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.

  22. So what's your plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    People constantly bitch about how their government is failing them, but how many of you think you can do more than just bitch? Because if that's all you can do, then what's the point of doing even that?

    Join the Metagovernment project, and you actually can make a freer, better world using the principles of open source. Think not? Okay, what's your plan? If you don't have a better idea, at least spend a few minutes learning about the plan to build an alternate form of governance that can push aside the broken status quo.

    We really do have a plan, and no, it really is not some stupid form of mob rule. Check it out, and learn why you can do more than just bitch about how screwed we all are.

    1. Re:So what's your plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be slashdot if it weren't all about whining about how fucked we all are.

    2. Re:So what's your plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      after reading the front page of the link, I'm even more confused. what exactly is it you're offering? A piece of software or a form of governance?

    3. Re:So what's your plan? by jd · · Score: 1

      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 superior results to your approach.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:So what's your plan? by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should replace your sig with a link to your plan? Where can we find it?

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    5. Re:So what's your plan? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Yea, what he said.

    6. Re:So what's your plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both. We're building new software to support a new form of governance. Development of each is informing the other. There are a lot of approaches, and Metagovernment is an umbrella for people taking those different approaches to compare notes and coordinate when possible.

      We have a lot of people in various levels of involvement, but really could use more programmers and project managers.

    7. Re:So what's your plan? by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Are we "anonymous cowards" or just using modpoints wisely?

      --
      resist propaganda
  23. Only China and Russia should be allowed to spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    b/c they never pretended to be for highfalutin personal freedoms. Let's let them spy on us all they want, take all of our industrial and military know-how and we'll just sit around drinking beer!

    We'll show them who the cool kids are.

  24. Unusual Need by JimSadler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The current crop of terrorists certainly have been dangerous enough. But if the mood of nations is such that terror will be the popular mode of rebellion we need to take unusual measures to survive. So far I suggest letting the US spy internally without much restraint at all. But we should put in place laws that compensate victims for damages more stringently when they are damaged by error from authorities. For example people who are imprisoned and found to be innocent should be heavily compensated as should people who have lost jobs or been under threat of arrest without cause. We also need to imprison cops more often when they go beyond what is allowed and harm people without good reason, Spaying people in handcuffs or use of stun guns repeatedly for no reason needs to be halted.

    1. Re:Unusual Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who sign your paycheck dear spin doctor?

    2. Re:Unusual Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spaying people in handcuffs

      Eeek.

    3. Re:Unusual Need by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      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"

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    4. Re:Unusual Need by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The 'current crop of terrorists' are not a huge threat in the grand scheme of things, and not terribly far from other periods in history. The big difference is the lack of a credible military threat to overshadow it. They've also managed to be largely incompetent, although often times slightly less incompetent than our intelligence agencies. It's basically keystone cops vs. storm troopers here.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Unusual Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current crop of terrorists certainly have been dangerous enough.

      Have they? How many dead? how many wounded? How many people have lost their possessions to those "terrorists" you have in mind?

      But if the mood of nations is such that terror will be the popular mode of rebellion

      Do nations have a mood? Can you tag broad groups of people as intrinsically evil?

      we need to take unusual measures to survive.

      Is your survival really at risk? Or maybe it's something else?

  25. This week we can give thanks by frovingslosh · · 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.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:This week we can give thanks by jd · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:This week we can give thanks by EdIII · · Score: 4, 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?

    3. Re:This week we can give thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, that's the U.S. constitution you cite. What has that to do with the organized crime cartel running the country and raking in a premium of protection money (responsible for a large part of the country's bankruptcy) for financing their blackmail department NSA and their crime and corruption department DOJ run by the serial perjurer and iilegal arms trafficker Eric Holder?

    4. Re:This week we can give thanks by stenvar · · Score: 2

      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

      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 it again. Brazil and Germany don't give a f*ck about that, and those nations spy with impunity on their own citizens.

      What Brazil and Germany suggest is that the US spying on other nations is a violation of human rights; yes, even the US spying on North Korea or Iran or any of the other repressive regimes. Of course, when nations spy on each other, it violates the laws of the target nation; that's fine. But to call it a "human rights violation" is ludicrous.

    5. Re:This week we can give thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Being on Mars is much like being on Antarctica, only much worse. Your odds of a life on it would very much depend on said idiots supplying you there. You can have freedom you dream of only when you are able to say to them: "Fuck you, I don't need anything from you."

    6. Re:This week we can give thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, study about the differences in usage of the words "person" and "citizen" in the constitution.

    7. Re:This week we can give thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you paying attention? The NSA admitted to it. But as you would expect they go on with this terrorism nonsense as being the sole reason for there illegal activity, the politicians are going to do nothing but the usual PR "we need to do something to monitor this, this should be something congress keeps tabs on".

      And why is this news worthy? This has been going on prior to WWII, and only has gotten worse since, the US is a world dictator, and the only time they want to start wars is when they cannot get the dictator they want to control. Or they give these countries huge benefits for there co-operation. To find out the countries involved, which are suppose to be enemies, are working with the NSA is nothing new.

      This is blatant control over anyone and everyone to prevent any type of rebel against government. Look at countries that are in civil war or close to it, does the US give 2 shits about them, despite the US having something to gain from it? NO!! Instead the UN and other countries are the ones expected to do something...

    8. Re:This week we can give thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Is ok to spy on specific targets, but blanket surveillance on the entire population is definitively a violation of the privacy of their citizens.

    9. Re:This week we can give thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Don't you remember Glorious Leader of Democracy George Walker Bush (US) declared their Constitution to be nothing more than a worthless piece of paper?

      “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

      “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

      // http://www.infowars.com/articles/Bush/bush_trashes_constitution_few_notice.htm

    10. Re:This week we can give thanks by Elminster+Aumar · · Score: 1

      You are very welcome, my child.

    11. Re:This week we can give thanks by Quila · · Score: 2

      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 tyrannical side with it comes to the Second Amendment.

    12. Re:This week we can give thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 tyrannical side with it comes to the Second Amendment.

      What do you mean by that?

      Can you give an example of someone supporting tyranny in how they support protecting or eliminating the 2nd?

    13. Re:This week we can give thanks by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:This week we can give thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it the UN's job to enforce the US constitution?

      You have the USSC to do that. If it's not doing its job, you have the ballot box. If that still doesn't work, then that's what the Second Amendment is for. No way the UN could get involved even if it wanted to.

    15. Re:This week we can give thanks by Quila · · Score: 1

      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 the expense of individual rights.

    16. Re:This week we can give thanks by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Where does it say "citizens"? Where does it say "only within the bounds of the continental US?"

      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 be exempted from Fourth Amendment Protections". In effect, that's what we already do when we give out visas.

    17. Re:This week we can give thanks by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:This week we can give thanks by stenvar · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is "If the constitution says one thing and policy says something else, go with policy."?

      Not at all. I'm saying that it is logically consistent under the US Constitution to apply Fourth Amendment protections only to American citizens and/or only within the US.

      You didn't refer to any language in the Constitution. You merely re-asserted current government policy positions.

      There is no language either way, so we actually have to analyze the situation. Just because you think that absent specific language, it applies to everybody everywhere doesn't make it so.

      As for current government policy decisions, they are usually based on extensive legal and constitutional analysis, so that actually strengthens my argument.

  26. The harsh reality about privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only real privacy that anyone can ever really enjoy is roughly a ratio between whatever level of interest might exist in other people about that person, and the effort that they can expend (ideally without resorting to actually breaking the law) to keep anyone from finding private information about them in the first place.

    One is always only ever really in control of the denominator in that ratio.

    We civilly afford people around us privacy because we may desire that those around us afford us likewise.... to do otherwise may be rude, but it's hardly tantamount to deprivation of inalienable rights.

  27. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like that schneier link. Not having the will nor expertise to actually read snowden's leaks, it's good to read the conclusion of an expert about them.

  28. Bullshit sideshow by oldhack · · Score: 0

    Most of these UN yakkity-yah are load of hogwash. Take their human rights thingamaggie for example. Not worth the sandwiches they fed the clowns sitting in the meetings.

    Do you seriously think CIA/NSA will stop spying because UN passed something or other? Would any self-respecting country give up endeavors in what she considers in their national security interest because of a "UN resolution"?

    You kids need to wise up.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  29. Close but not quite by jd · · Score: 2

    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 far the worst of the pork barrel spenders.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Close but not quite by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      (Note: Tea Partiers and Libertarians want other people to spend less. They, themselves, are by far the worst of the pork barrel spenders.)

      What!? You're joking, right? Maybe my sarcasm detector needs calibration.

      Now, the "establishment" Republicans, people like John Boehner, McCain, Graham, the "moderate" and RINO Republicans, they're nearly as Progressive as the Progressive Democrats and have been the ones in control of the Republican party and together with Progressive Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress and consistently expanded the size, scope, budget, and power of the Federal government for decades. That's why nothing that really matters changes very often.

      Both the establishment/Progressive (R)s and the (D)s have been excoriating the TEA party-associated members and those who speak of libertarianism (not the R. Paul brand of crazy, the concept of "libertarian") and sabotaging them at every turn because they keep proposing things that cut spending, government growth, and expansion of government power/loss of freedom (having more of one means having less of the other).

      The TEA Party-supporting and libertarian-leaning are the only ones proposing any meaningful reductions in spending (including pork). Of course, one can call anything they want "pork" if they already have their politically-biased conclusions beforehand, and are simply hunting for something to back up their narrow beliefs.

      The US basically has a one-Party system, with TEA Party and others who believe in less government, less spending, and more freedom, trying to gain a foothold.

      There's one simple principle that people should never forget.

      More government = less freedom.

      How much less-free do *you* want to be today?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Close but not quite by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1, 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.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re:Close but not quite by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      "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.

    4. Re:Close but not quite by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Close but not quite by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      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 disappear. Citizens, companies, groups advocating a specific goal, etc should have a voice, so yeah, that's an issue. For a party that wants individual rights this seems inconsistent.

      B) "English as our core language is required" the message here is pretty simple. They want to be able to exclude immigrants (I'm referring to legal immigrants here) from municipal services, running from offices that they can run for (obviously they can't run for a lot of them), and I've heard it directly from them. That's the motive contained in that "idea."

      C) They want to integrate religion (Christianity being the only valid religion in their mind) into the political process. This should not happen in any sense, ever, at any time. I think anyone should be able to express their religion (even in public! Shocking I know!), but the nation should not be ruled be any one religion. This is also one of my gripes with the conservative party.

      D) They call Edward Snowden a traitor while paying lip service about NSA spying. The party itself does not, as it's official position is that they want to stop the spying. However the vast majority of it's members, and it's leaders, are outspoken against him. NO true libertarian or conservative could call him a trator. Practically by definition under either of those philosophies (as they were violating individual rights on a truly massive, horrifying scale) snowden should be a patriot.

      Granted I'd be more likely to vote tea party than liberal. I just wish the actual libertarian party could produce a good candidate who isn't Ron Paul (who it turns out is crazy and hypocritical.)

      So I'll keep trying to vote as close to the middle right as possible.

    6. Re:Close but not quite by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Close but not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% Libertarian Government and then US stupidity would be ONE less cancer on the world

    8. Re:Close but not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHAHA

      You fucking idiot, you have no idea what the Tea Party is, do you? Hint - follow the money.

    9. Re:Close but not quite by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      (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?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Close but not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It appears you haven't been paying attention in the last few years. The Tea Party is an astroturfing front organization for the biggest money in politics to provide the illusion of smaller government. They want less power in the hands of government, and more power in the hands of international corporations that cannot be held accountable or voted out (or even boycotted, since they'll just get government sanctioned bailouts). Supporting the Tea Party is quite literally supporting fascism.

    11. Re:Close but not quite by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of what you said. I also agree with requiring English as a core language, however not for exclusionary reasons. The US is a melting pot of cultures who come to our shores for a variety of different reasons. A core common language is an important glue in tying all of those cultures into a cohesive and some what unified society. Split language nations have shown time and time again a tendency toward eventual civil war because the different parts of the nation do not consider themselves one. I'm not saying people should be made to suffer unduly but a little social pressure to encourage English adoptions among new immigrants is a good thing.

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    12. Re:Close but not quite by doom · · Score: 1

      (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.

      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 they want to drown the government in a bathtub. )

    13. Re:Close but not quite by doom · · Score: 1

      Though progressives often have these strange justifications for more government regulation.

      Yes, like this for example. The fact that the US has remarkably bad and horribly expensive health care is just the silliest excuse for government intervention.

    14. Re:Close but not quite by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:Close but not quite by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      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 liberty, that regulations against unsafe workplaces is against liberty. Libertarians want the liberty to fuck me over.

      Near slavery via economic means doesn't pass that litmus test

      Hyperbole much? The government's not doing that, libertarian business owners are. You think those people working at WalMart should have to have a food drive to be fed? They're walMart's wage slaves. I, personally, will be delivered from slavery next February when I retire.

    16. Re:Close but not quite by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      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 every voting day. You won't find any, hence they're not libertarians. Or, if they somehow are, they are voting against their conscience and will, but I tend not to believe that they're all being controlled by an evil statist puppet master.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    17. Re:Close but not quite by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      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 skills and work experience which greatly increases their earning ability.

      ...that regulations against unsafe workplaces is against liberty.

      Wrong again. Wanting less regulation does not mean no regulation. If your business blows up or catches fire, it could damage my property and/or endanger my life. Same with the stupid meme that libertarians don't want to pay for police or firemen and want something resembling Somalia. Bullshit propaganda from authoritarians.

      Libertarians want the government to be restricted to what the Constitution allows it to do, and that's all. If you want a change, simply amend the Constitution. That's why there is a process for amending it. If your ideas have the support of most people, it will be voted in to be added to the Constitution. The government doesn't get to do things the Constitution does not allow, no matter how many secret courts they create or how many secret rulings they make.

      You think those people working at WalMart should have to have a food drive to be fed?

      Better ask the administration, because the ACA is forcing employers to drop full-time employees who were working up to 40 hours a week to now work less than 30 hours or face steep cost increases. Besides, "Walmart stock clerk" is not a career position that can support a family or even an individual alone at anything like a comfortable lifestyle, it's an entry-level position for new workers. To expect such jobs to pay enough to support a family or a comfortable individual lifestyle is fantasy.

      An employer can only afford to pay an employee what the employee generates for the employer. A shelf-stocker or checkout register clerk is not making an employer enough to be able to pay him/her $10-$15 an hour plus benefits.

      Employers will reduce the number of employees, relocate to somewhere where they can afford to stay in business, or they'll simply close shop, retire to Fiji, and leave you guys to figure out where those people will work now that they're unemployed completely.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    18. Re:Close but not quite by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      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 disenfranchise new workers.

      That's been a Republican canard for a long time, but the numbers show it's bullshit.

      Same with the stupid meme that libertarians don't want to pay for police or firemen and want something resembling Somalia. Bullshit propaganda from authoritarians.

      I have seen libertarians saying exactly that, that we don't need cops or firemen. I could have been a victim of Poe's Law, though.

      Libertarians want the government to be restricted to what the Constitution allows it to do, and that's all. If you want a change, simply amend the Constitution.

      Rational, reasonable, and I agree. Why did they need an amendment to outlaw alcohol but not other drugs?

      Better ask the administration, because the ACA is forcing employers to drop full-time employees who were working up to 40 hours a week to now work less than 30 hours or face steep cost increases.

      They were on food stamps before the ACA. As to cutting hours, that's a flaw in the ACA that should be remedied (and they should pass the law the house passed saying you can keep insurance you have).

      Besides, "Walmart stock clerk" is not a career position that can support a family or even an individual alone at anything like a comfortable lifestyle, it's an entry-level position for new workers.

      An entry level position certainly shouldn't afford a "comfortable lifestyle" but it should afford you enough that you don't need the government to help feed you.

      An employer can only afford to pay an employee what the employee generates for the employer.

      There are a lot of jobs that will garner no revenue at all, like janitors and repair personnel. There are also other costs of overhead that generate negative revenue. If you can't afford to hire someone, you simply don't hire him. If you can't afford to be in business you shouldn't be in business.

    19. Re:Close but not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your kind of delusional Utopian views are precisely why the US is in the economic state it's in right now.

      Thanks, dickwad.

    20. Re:Close but not quite by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      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.

      You forgot a few. Less freedom to feed the homeless, less freedom from warrant-less surveillance, less freedom from being on a Presidential "kill list", less freedom from Rendition, less freedom from "parallel construction", less freedom from secret treaties & agreements that take away your privacy & freedom on the internet to protect failed business models, etc etc etc. For every positive you can name stemming from expanding government power, I can name ten things that negatively impact people's freedom.

      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.

      The problem is that once government gets as large & powerful as the US government is, "AT&T, the MAFIAA, Monsanto, Wal Mart, Shell, BP, Microsoft, Sony" use government as a club to bash *you* over the head, and you no longer have a vote or a voice, because that large, corrupt government now takes bribes/lobbying/campaign money & marching orders from those corporations, not people like you or I.

      Government can *only* grow in power by taking that power, in the form of rights & freedoms, from the people it governs.

      How much less-free do you want to be today?

      By your reply, I'd say you find your chains comforting.

      "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

      Sorry, but fuck you, I will not surrender my natural rights and freedoms peacefully for your comfort & convenience.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re:Close but not quite by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Less freedom to feed the homeless

      Uh, can you expound?

      less freedom from warrant-less surveillance...

      These things are both abominations and illegal. The problem isn't government, but who has the power to place people within that government. The real Presidents are Koch and Soros and their ilk. The problem with big government is that the corporates are even bigger and more powerful.

      Sorry, but fuck you, I will not surrender my natural rights and freedoms peacefully for your comfort & convenience.

      Neither will I, and will continue to speak out against abuses. No matter how weak and small the government becomes, the easier it is for the CORPORATIONS to remove your rights. Look at Railroad workers in the 19th century and miners in the early 20th century before government started cracking down on corporations.

      Some people say a man is made outta mud
      A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
      Muscle and blood and skin and bones
      A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

      You load sixteen tons, what do you get
      Another day older and deeper in debt
      Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
      I owe my soul to the company store

      I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
      I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
      I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
      And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"

      You load sixteen tons, what do you get
      Another day older and deeper in debt
      Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
      I owe my soul to the company store

      I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
      Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
      I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion
      Cain't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line

      You load sixteen tons, what do you get
      Another day older and deeper in debt
      Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
      I owe my soul to the company store

      If you see me comin', better step aside
      A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
      One fist of iron, the other of steel
      If the right one don't a-get you
      Then the left one will

      You load sixteen tons, what do you get
      Another day older and deeper in debt
      Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
      I owe my soul to the company store

      Those people were SLAVES. Is that what you really want?

  30. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://prism-break.org/

  31. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    All of this anti-Obama anti-government, shit is getting old. You sound like the militia movement from the 1990s. Put a sock in it, this is a civilized website where smart people talk.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  32. It's a great start! by jopsen · · 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...

    1. Re:It's a great start! by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 2

      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 manner should be inadmissable in court.

      Basically, let the spooks spy all they want for actual National Security purposes, but don't allow that to become yet another extension to the already too long arm of the law.

      I know... it's such a juicy target:
      "We were watching this guy because we thought he might be a terrorist but instead we uncovered that he's a drug smuggler... here you go FBI / Local Law Enforcement, you can use this to get him off the street."

      well... as much as it might suck to let some guilty people get away with it because the evidence wasn't obtained legally... it sucks more to treat your citizens as the proles and outer party folks in Orwell's 1984 - the damage to society from pervasive surveillance and selective prosecution using the results of said surveillance is (to me) far greater.

      Let the police do their own footwork - hell, if you can get a court order to "wiretap" someone fine... but we are a nation of laws and when the government forgets that, we all suffer.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
  33. Ge tit right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the free.

    Home of the brave.

    1. Re:Ge tit right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don`t suppose you have RESERVATIONS about airing your views on the Palestinians under the israeli-spymaster/rhetoricmaster-cult?

      Lemme get out of the room, juST JUMP IN THE ELEPHATOR AND TAKE DOWN THE LOBBY.

  34. Add To That: U.N. Funding by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    The United States provides 22% of the United Nations funding (more than double the next highest contributor). So if they don't get what they want, they could probably fuck the UN by stopping payment. They have a lot of leverage to get what they want anyway.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Add To That: U.N. Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this moderated overrated? This is relevant to the OP's question.

  35. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  36. Cold Spinning Fjord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He doesn't comment on things that can't be spun.

    Almost every single time that Cold Spinning Fjord submitted something and/or posted a comment he spun, spun, and spun some more.

    I have no idea who pays his salary but spreading Bold Face Lies in Slashdot seems to have become his full time occupation.

  37. So long Democrats by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · 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.

    1. Re:So long Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead - throw your vote away!

    2. Re:So long Democrats by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:So long Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been doing that for years voting for the major parties.

  38. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by UpnAtom · · Score: 2

    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.

  39. Forget the carpet bombings ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sure you would enjoy being "liberated" with carper bombing...

    ... it's astroturfing from Cold Fjord that Slashdot is suffering from

  40. backwards by stenvar · · Score: 1

    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

    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.

    1. Re:backwards by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      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.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:backwards by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Both are important. Otherwise other nations can spy on US citizens, and then just report the results to the US government. It already happens.

      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 spy on its citizens and gotten reports as needed, and those responsible in Germany now need to cover their asses politically and blame the Americans. That's why Germany is pushing for this resolution while, at the same time, it is building out its own domestic surveillance infrastructure.

  41. 7 billion can play at that game. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    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.

  42. More details of the proposed text by shikaisi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another leaked memo reveals that the next version of the text proposed by the US contains the words "You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him, you must love him."

    --
    No left turn unstoned.
  43. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    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 significantly more difficult task than just sending Microsoft or AOL a polite request.
    - Block resistant. The traffic is all TLS, and looks just like any other TLS traffic, making it difficult to firewall without blocking other things too. Good for annoying repressive governments.

    I'm not affiliated with the project in any way, I just use it and think it's cool.

  44. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a bloke that works in my office that looks a lot like Edward Snowden. Maybe we just need lots of lookee-likees? ;-)

  45. This part made me laught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    Yeah, right, This comes from the country of Guantanamo, they are not soldiers so Genebra tready don't matter and torture is ok. Yah, right that I believe in his words, ah ham! Sure, sure...

  46. Re:Rules are going to be used against US, not othe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody spies on everybody, sure. But US is by far the biggest player and has the power to leverage the collected intel globally. If you decline to see that, you're fooling yourself. This isn't about politics, it's about the powerful abusing the powerless.

  47. Rewritten headline by noims · · Score: 0

    How's this for a headline:
    US fighting for ruling that would allow unlimited foreign intelligence agency surveillance of US citizens.

    Not that snappy, so maybe:
    US fights for foreign surveillance of US citizens

    --
    This is not the greatest sig in the world. This is just a tribute.
    1. Re:Rewritten headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's this for a headline:
      US fighting for ruling that would allow unlimited foreign intelligence agency surveillance of US citizens.

      Not that snappy, so maybe:
      US fights for foreign surveillance of US citizens

      could you clarify your definition of "foreign intelligence agency", and do you consider AIPAC (and its international affiliates) amongst?

      Back to the wall, MadMax, the APARTHEID WALL,

      Reporting live, on "the lobby" from Mars,
      Elhanan Tannenbaum, via UN-Prohibited israeli-space-military-optic-link
      "pass me another E" -"Buzz" Aldren

  48. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since this is a civilized website, you should learn to respect other people's opinions instead of bashing them like that.

  49. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just cut a beta of a Windows service that schedules file transfers. It uses X.509 for client/service communications and uses GPG/SFTP to transfer files on a repetitive schedule.

  50. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    None of that excuses you from your racist anti-Obama views. Plenty of UKians are openly bigoted.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  51. Re:And this is why Schneier undid 10 years NSA wor by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    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.

  52. English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.'

    This is not English. "Before"?