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.
Wow, the US government really doesn't give a fuck. They're paranoid as shit that their little party will be over.
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.
I'll spy on your citizens if you spy on mine!
without general capitulation...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
The UN will be very angry with you... and they will write the U.S. a letter, telling them how angry they are.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Carper bombing? Is that a form of weaponized carp?
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.
I wish, it would be so cool! No, it is just a typo... r, t, so close...
Tomorrow is another day...