Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UN Votes To Protect Privacy In Digital Age

Posted by timothy on from the that-and-five-bucks-gets-you-a-latte dept.

First time accepted submitter jma05 writes "The UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a privacy resolution introduced by Brazil and Germany, against unlawful surveillance. 'The resolution affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy.' Under pressure from US lobbying, the clause that mass surveillance constitutes a human rights violation was dropped earlier."

79 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. And how is by rossdee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the UN going to protect anybodys privacy?

    1. Re:And how is by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Funny

      sanctions.

    2. Re:And how is by Megane · · Score: 1

      I expect an Obamapology within 24 hours.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:And how is by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      Don't laugh. If the sleeping giant we call the UN General Assembly were to awaken and get angry, woe betide the country on whom its wrath should fall. Unlike the Security Council, there is no veto in the General Assembly, so one or a handful of countries could not stop the hammer of sanctions from coming down.

      I have long thought my country (US) needs a large dose of humility in international affairs, but I would much rather it acquire that humility by gentler means than meaningful economic sanctions.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:And how is by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Woe, in this case, is a non-binding resolution to stop trading with the US. Countries that benefit from trade with the US will mostly either defy that decision, or claim to obey it while doing it under the table.

      The UN is not a government and it does not have an enforcement mechanism (UN troops are national troops loaned to the UN). It is a debating society.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    5. Re:And how is by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      World citizens: Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
      UN: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

    6. Re:And how is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They won't protect our privacy which is fine by me. Any UN powerful enough to protect our privacy would be powerful enough to take it away. That would be much worse than having one nation violate your rights. At least when one nation violates your rights you have the option of fleeing. If a world government violated your rights, that option would be taken away. Given the power sufficient to protect privacy or take it away, what do you think such a powerful UN would do?

    7. Re:And how is by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      the UN going to protect anybodys privacy?

      The real question is, does anyone pay any attention to what the UN says about anything?

      I bet the UN is so widely ignored nobody on /. can remember what the last resolution was about (I certainly don't.)

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:And how is by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      Countries that benefit from trade with the US will mostly either defy that decision, or claim to obey it while doing it under the table.

      Sure, self-interest applies, but it is not necessarily that simple. The United States, or, rather, its corporate citizens, benefited from trade with South Africa, but they eventually sided with the divestment movement and hit South Africa where it hurt.

      I don't claim it's a likely outcome, but if my government keeps behaving like a bully, there has to be some major blowback eventually.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    9. Re:And how is by Chalnoth · · Score: 2

      Well, the UN is a bit more than a debating society. It is a place for nations around the world to sit down and talk. That capacity alone is quite important.

      No, UN resolutions aren't binding. But they are a reflection of what governments around the world believe they should be seen supporting. This is a sign, in short, that the argument that governments should not engage in broad surveillance of citizens is being one ideologically. This doesn't stop any such surveillance, but it may be a step along the way towards limiting government surveillance.

    10. Re:And how is by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      ...and if they're feeling particularly angry ... resolutions!

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    11. Re:And how is by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > No, UN resolutions aren't binding. But they are a reflection of what governments around the world
      > believe they should be seen supporting.

      As opposed, of course, to what they believe they should actually support :)

      Kind of like the Yemeni and other officials who work behind the scenes with American intelligence while running for office under the banner of hating America?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:And how is by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Spies.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    13. Re:And how is by melchoir55 · · Score: 1

      People should consider hard the opinion that "the UN is meaningless because it can't enforce anything".

      The point of the UN is that there is an open forum where countries can debate issues relevant to the world in good faith. The same principle applies to political debates in the USA. No one is enforcing what is promised in political debates, yet they are still meaningful. The day debate become meaningless because nothing is "enforced" is the same day that raw force is what a society is being governed by, rather than rule by law (or the consent of the people). Politicians have a huge incentive never to let it get that far because, at that point, the only way citizens can effect change is with force. There are a LOT more citizens then are politicians, or police, or military.

      Politicians (senators, or kings, or lords, or whatehavyou) appear to forget all that every once in a while. They are then reminded at the end of a gun, or underneath a gallows.

    14. Re:And how is by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Don't laugh. If the sleeping giant we call the UN General Assembly were to awaken and get angry,

      Absolutely nothing would happen. Because the General Assembly doesn't have the power to vote on anything stronger than making an unhappy face. It takes the Security Council to do anything real.

    15. Re:And how is by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Actually no. It would stem from the fact that the US is the largest charitable contributor on the planet. This is both governmental and private.

    16. Re:And how is by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You are a rarity. I agree with you on the humility part, but sometimes I just wish for some huge natural disaster or a complete dollar collapse. You guys deserve to spend a couple of centuries in a state of starvation and suffering after the past 50 years actions.

      Wow, what a fucking sociopath. "Your government's done some fucked up shit before, so all you citizens who had nothing to do with any of that deserve to die horrible, painful deaths."

      Yea, well, fuck you too, buddy.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:And how is by meerling · · Score: 2

      Nobody deserves that.
      Besides, if you want to condemn and punish an entire country, especially since politics are constantly changing, there are two things you seem to have forgotten.

      First, all the good the USA does. Whether you like it or not, they are a major contributor of relief to other countries when they are victims of disasters, and even pays 22% of the UNs funding. Don't forget that the US is also both a major consumer of goods from other countries, but supplies a huge amount of the worlds food. You cause a country to undergo a serious issue like a "complete dollar collapse", and you can kiss all that and more goodbye. Whether you like it or not, you'll lose the good that the USA does and hurt almost everyone.

      Second, stop calling the kettle black. Sure, the USA is one of the big dogs, and everyone likes complaining about the big dog, but come one, virtually everything the USA has done, has been done by all the rest. Many of them do all of them, but there are a very few exceptions that do only some of them. The only difference is that it's come out in the news so people are complaining about it. Heck, even countries that yelled at the USA for spying on their ambassadors admitted a week or so later that they spied on everyone elses ambassadors as well.

      The USA is supposed to be a world leader in freedom and 'democracy' and generally play the good child. In that, it's rather fallen in the mud lately, and has been acting like most of the rest of the unruly brats running around this neighborhood called Earth. That's too bad, but if you really think they are horrible and need to be punished with having limbs amputated or locked in the cellar for acting like the rest of them instead of being given a stern talking to and perhaps made to stand in the corner for a while, then you really need to have a hard look at yourself in the mirror and figure out that what you are doing wrong.
      (If one child pees the bed, are you going to cancel the family vacation just to punish the one?)

    18. Re:And how is by meerling · · Score: 1

      Looks like one country is already going to get a license to ignore ip restrictions on USA stuff.
      Haven't heard any news on that for about a month, so I don't know it's current status.

    19. Re:And how is by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 1

      The United States, or, rather, its corporate citizens, benefited from trade with South Africa, but they eventually sided with the divestment movement and hit South Africa where it hurt.

      I don't claim it's a likely outcome, but if my government keeps behaving like a bully, there has to be some major blowback eventually.

      From the wikipedia article it shows that this was primarily backed by religious people in the US and not the politicians of the time in government. Today South Africa has a policy of Black Economic Empowerment which is essentially a tit-for-tat policy that further puts into law race differences and somehow benefits a "Chinese" looking person who may come into the country fresh today over a local "white person" who is being "reverse discriminated" against. Whilst not as bad as Zimbabwe's policies, the sentiments are similar, and you wonder how race can still be an issue there when in most places in the west it doesn't matter at all. Perhaps South Africa could have been today in a much better shape if it just went out of Aparteid on commercial and trade foundations and actually enshrined into law equality for all.

    20. Re:And how is by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2

      This is reminiscent of how bills in Congress are really decided in committee, with the floor speeches just meant to impress the suckers back home.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    21. Re:And how is by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      So, Mr Complainer, got a better idea?

    22. Re:And how is by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Which one? What are you talking about?

    23. Re:And how is by Smauler · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, UN resolutions aren't binding. But they are a reflection of what governments around the world believe they should be seen supporting.

      You mean like the International Criminal Court, which was founded 11 years ago? The US is the only western country not to accept the ICC. Everyone around the world thinks this is odd.

    24. Re:And how is by Smauler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The amount the dominant country puts back into an economy as charity is difficult to quantify. The British Empire pumped billions in to all of its colonies. It took out more, or it would not have done it. Pumping money into regimes to make them vaguely stable so that you can economically profit is _not_ charity.

    25. Re:And how is by Chalnoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be quite surprised if the rest of the world thinks it's odd. The US is actively involved in numerous war crimes, and has been for a number of years. It's despicable.

    26. Re:And how is by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nothing of importance is handled by the UN.

      The UN eradicated smallpox and are very close to eradicating polio, if they did nothing else all the bluster and bullshit will have been worth it. If you expect them eradicate the people you personally view as tyrants and warmongers, you will be bitterly disappointed.

      Sit down and talk? Really? How old are you, 12?

      I'm in my 50's, in my experience it's the adults/nations who stamp their feet and won't talk who are generally perceived as immature. There's a strong meme in the US that only "good nations" should have a seat at the UN, it's a meme that displays a complete lack of understanding as to why the UN was formed in the first place. Also, if you believe in the US ideal of free speech you will defend ImADinnerJacket's inalienable right to stand on the podium and spew his bile to the world, nobody is forcing you to listen, which is why ImADinnerJacket is normally talking to empty seats.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    27. Re:And how is by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Your fighting human nature by pointing out the obvious, we evolved a sophisticated "theory of mind" that perceives competing tribes as a single personality. Your mind will naturally construct such a personality for just about anything (cars, houses, pet rocks, etc), you can compensate with logic but you can't make it go away.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    28. Re:And how is by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      They will send us a sternly worded note stating that we really should pay attention to their... *yawn*.... sorry...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    29. Re:And how is by Pav · · Score: 1

      The problem IM(not well enough uninformed)HO is that decent leadership was too thin after Nelson Mandela. Desmond Tutu is at least a moral compass calling out some of the unwarranted sidelining of white South Africans, the corruption etc... as well as the Robert Mugabes of this world. The new South African project needed inspired leadership for a generation or two, but it didn't even get one. It did get the best start though given the situation. Hopefully as the electorate becomes more educated the racial politics will get pushed out (either from within the ANC or preferably without so there can be real democratic cut and thrust).

    30. Re:And how is by FunkDup · · Score: 1

      how is the UN going to protect anybodys privacy?

      with the cunning use of words

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    31. Re:And how is by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      The US is the only western country not to accept the ICC. Everyone around the world thinks this is odd.

      Looking at the map, it appears to me that your latter statement is a bit overstated, since it's basically just South America and Europe wholly on board, while most of Oceania has outright rejected it, as has most of Asia (mind you, I'm not making a moral judgment one way or the other with that statement, just addressing an issue of facts). None of the world's superpowers have ratified it, in fact, and there's nothing particularly surprising or odd about that, since it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't want to subject themselves to a form of international oversight that would effectively strip them of some of their own authority.

      Even as an American, I can appreciate that that's not a good thing, but I can also appreciate why it makes a good deal of sense for them to have done so.

    32. Re:And how is by Smauler · · Score: 1

      All of the conventional "Western" states have ratified it, that was what I was referring to the rest of the world looking at as a bit odd. It's obviously far from odd that places with dodgy or corrupt regimes and those not as subject to the rule of law have not ratified the treaty. Oceania is not considered "western", except for Aus/NZ, which have ratified it.

      The EU is a superpower, too, by any definition, and is more than cohesive enough to act as an entity.

    33. Re:And how is by Quila · · Score: 1

      The ICC violates three constitutional rights: the right to trial by a jury of one's peers, the right to confront one's accusers, and the protection from double jeopardy. I don't think there is even any provision for bail.

      Others may think it's odd because we have a higher protection of rights than they do (certain recognized abuses we're fighting notwithstanding). It's like how Islamic countries think it's odd that we are free to ridicule Mohammed, or how European countries think it's odd that American Nazis can say whatever they want.

  2. That should scare the NSA by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    I mean, who wants the all-powerful UN coming after them, especially when the UN's largest financial contributor is the USA.

    1. Re:That should scare the NSA by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Informative

      US only contributes 22%. Europe pays more. Get your facts straight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations#Funding

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:That should scare the NSA by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I find it funny that people have to compare a continent to a country to make the US look less important.

    3. Re:That should scare the NSA by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Europe is not a country, they like to pretend to be one entity when comparing themselves to the US. But one mention of something like a fiscal policy or paying off debt in a realistic manner and they break apart faster then the US congress on an election year.

    4. Re:That should scare the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But one mention of something like a fiscal policy or paying off debt in a realistic manner and they break apart faster then the US congress on an election year.

      Um.. If you mention fiscal policy or paying off debt in a realistic manner the US breaks apart equally fast.

    5. Re:That should scare the NSA by Tihstae · · Score: 1

      Comparing a country to a continent is only valid if Australia is involved.

      Your comparison is ridiculous. To use a car analogy, since every comparison should have an equal car analogy, you are comparing engines to cupholders and thinking that people won't see through your idiocy.

    6. Re: That should scare the NSA by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just because AC is being paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get him.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    7. Re:That should scare the NSA by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      I am not comparing a continent to a country, but equal shares of the worlds population (and in this case, also equal amounts of GDP). GGP made it sound like the US runs the UN, but no matter how you dice the population of the world, they are not, nor is any other major block.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    8. Re:That should scare the NSA by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      Who all answer to to the federal govt. Individual cities have their own govt systems too, should we start splitting those up as well?

    9. Re:That should scare the NSA by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      Except in this case population doesnt mean jack. The largest contribution from a single entity comes form the US, and as the AC demonstrates below, it takes a Dozen from europe to even match that. Just because you and 8 of your friends can cover half of the lunch bill doesnt make the one guy who covers the other half less important, keep moving those goalpost though.

    10. Re:That should scare the NSA by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      US only contributes 22%. Europe pays more.

      "Europe" pays nothing. EU dues to the UN are precisely zero--the EU doesn't even have a seat in the General Assembly! Talking about how much "Europe" pays makes as much much sense as adding together China, Korea, India and Japan and talking about how much "Asia" pays.

    11. Re:That should scare the NSA by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I am not comparing a continent to a country

      US only contributes 22%. Europe pays more.

      DOH!

    12. Re: That should scare the NSA by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Just because AC is being paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get him.

      No shit.

      I mean granted, I personally don't buy the conspiracy angle (They're going to force all the people in the Midwest to relocate to the coasts? Obviously anyone who thinks that has never met any actual Midwesterners), but conspiracy theories or not, there very much is a book, written and updated by UN councils, that outlines how they believe nations should control population and resource use, and some of it is pretty fucked up, if you actually bother to read the document.

      Of course, we must always keep in mind that the UN is basically toothless.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:That should scare the NSA by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      US only contributes 22%.

      The US "only" contributes 22% of the UN budget? Not only is that more than double what the next country contributes (and more than 3x what the top European country contributes), but 22% is also the maximum allowed for a contribution for the period of 2013-2015 (the minimum is 0.001%). The US is at the max, we can't contribute any more, sorry. Maybe all of Europe can step up and help out a little more to lower our $618 million bill. Here is the document that lists the actual contributions from each country, and the rules for contributions are here.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    14. Re:That should scare the NSA by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Hey it worked in Star Trek...

    15. Re:That should scare the NSA by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Yep. After all, they're so obedient to the laws of the US itself already...

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    16. Re:That should scare the NSA by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      The EU has 27 states and 500M people, the US has 50 states and 300M people. Germany and California have comparable economies, Nato and the Pentagon serve similar roles, etc. Aside from that, calculations of who contributes what to the UN should really be done on a per capita basis before you start trying to compare large federations to each other.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:That should scare the NSA by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 1

      Wrong on all parts.
      The majority of countries in the European continent COMBINED pay more than the US in direct monetary contribution. The US just so happens to provide an on demand military force for the UN, paid for by the US taxpayer. The US also just so happens to pay for 'round the clock security and upkeep for the building in NYC, which costs a few hundred thousand dollars PER DAY when they're NOT IN SESSION. It's over a million when they are. In reality the US taxpayers pay for nearly half of the UNs functions wholesale.

    18. Re:That should scare the NSA by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      The US just so happens to provide an on demand military force for the UN, paid for by the US taxpayer.

      So do other countries. They contribute Blue Berets soldiers just as the US does.

      The US also just so happens to pay for 'round the clock security and upkeep for the building in NYC, which costs a few hundred thousand dollars PER DAY when they're NOT IN SESSION.

      You seem to think there is only one major UN building in the world.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    19. Re:That should scare the NSA by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      A few comments:
      1) While the EU does pay more collectively, the US "only" pays 22% of the UN's total budget because it's not allowed to pay more. The UN has policies in place to prohibit itself from becoming too reliant on any one member state, one of which is that contributions from a single member are capped at 22%. The US actually used to pay more than that, but the cap was lowered from 25% a few years back.

      2) The member states do not decide how much they contribute. Rather, the UN assesses them their fee based on their gross national income and some other factors. So, this isn't a matter of the EU or US choosing to outspend or spend less than the other. It's simply a matter of each of them paying their assessed dues. Were Europe a single country instead of a continent, they would have hit the cap as well and would be paying the same as the US.

      3) He had his facts straight (as do you). The US is the single largest financial contributor to the UN, by quite a wide margin. The next closest is Japan, at less than half of the US, then Germany at about 1/3. But, as a whole, Europe does pay more (by a decent margin, in fact), simply because it isn't capped in the way that the US is.

      4) The UN's budget is around $5B for two years. That's chump change for these governments (if I remember correctly, I think that's about as much as Apple makes every two weeks), so pointing out that your country/continent/company/charity/club paid more than some other one is a waste of breath. The fact is, if the US pulled out, the EU could easily pick up the slack, or vice versa, assuming they wanted to.

  3. Glad that's sorted by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    Belling the cat

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  4. General Assembly by BringsApples · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion and carry political weight.

    And this is more to protect foreign nations' leaders against US spying, not citizens.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  5. Re:Meaningless votes by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    dictatorship nations have been voted into UN human rights commissions

    This is unacceptable, because my idea of human rights is the only one that matters! Those dictatorships don't deserve a vote; they'll just screw it up. Just leave this whole decision to me, and I'll take care of it.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  6. USA voted for this by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a privacy resolution

    That means USA voted for it. It also means countries that you would not normally associate with a right to privacy voted for it. Basically it was watered down enough that no one opposed it.

    1. Re:USA voted for this by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That means USA voted for it. It also means countries that you would not normally associate with a right to privacy voted for it. Basically it was watered down enough that no one opposed it.

      My guess is that the magic word is "unlawful". Sure, the US opposes unlawful surveillance. That's why we've made it perfectly legal for the government to poke it's nose into anywhere, at any time. No unlawful surveillance here, nope!

      Tautology cat is tautological.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  7. Drivel by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

    Meaningless posturing. The UN is utterly powerless against the NSA and its whims. This resolution carries about as much weight as a post on Slashdot critisizing it.

    --
    Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
  8. Unanimous by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Unanimous at the UN = Meaningless. Doubtful it even has gums, let alone any teeth.

  9. Will it work... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Will this work as well as all the other UN Votes? Doubtful. But then the others rarely work either.

  10. I am impressed... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The UN has just voted against "unlawful surveillance"...

    Which, being unlawful, is already illegal everywhere (pretty much by definition, really).

    So they've voted for the status quo to remain the status quo.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:I am impressed... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that this was all just useless posturing for the sake of seeming like they're addressing a problem while really not doing anything about it at all? Say it isn't so!

  11. Used to be neat and tiddy by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

    Used to be that military actions took place at the nation vs. nation level and the individual citizens were just along for the ride (whether they wanted to be or not). So, one country would spy on another COUNTRY, intercept the other country's communications, etc. Other than stuff that was military related, commercial and private communications weren't really of interest to national intelligence.

    Fast forward to now and you have private citizens taking violent action against countries they disagree with. As 9/11 demonstrated, this sort of action can result in mass casualties and huge material losses. Like it or not, governments have good reason for snooping on the communications of individuals.

    I still don't like it. By my reading of the 4th Amendment, the NSA is not allowed to listen in on my (or any other U.S. citizen's) communications. Unfortunately, about all I can do about it is threaten to hold my breath, stomp my feet or, now, appeal to the UN. Appealing to the UN probably won't do any more than my other "threats.".

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  12. As Expected by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    From TFS: "Under pressure from US lobbying, the clause that mass surveillance constitutes a human rights violation was dropped earlier."

    No way in hell was the Land of the Free going to vote for a resolution, toothless as it is, that would in any way encumber or inhibit Big Brother and Big Data.

    This is, of course, essential to maintain the facade of legality and ethics the United Police States have to maintain as part of the whole scam.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:As Expected by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Yep so the UN declares that we all have the right to dry water. Yay.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
  13. Someone needs a geography lesson by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    I'll help get you started:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

  14. Re:I vote... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    I can be Troy if you want. Especially if it means we'll hook up! :P

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  15. USA, seriously? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    "Under pressure from US lobbying, the clause that mass surveillance constitutes a human rights violation was dropped earlier."

    WTF is this shit from the so-called "Land of the free and the home of the brave"? Not US lobbying, let's call it what it is: Corporate lobbying. Sickening to see my country dying under my feet. Everything my parents told me about Russia being bad when I was growing up is instead coming true here. Damn Damn Damn... Where's that flux capacitor when I need one?

    1. Re:USA, seriously? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Colonel Otto Heidemann: Herr General, I see now, I have notions of honor which are outdated.
      General Count von Klugermann: They're not outdated!
      [looks at inexpedient incriminating evidence he is holding in his hand]
      Klugermann: Stored. With care, and love, for better times.
      [hands evidence back to Heidemann]

      Look to better times. And strive to bring them about. Until then, resist, even if only in your thoughts. No one can ever take your thoughts away.

  16. When CSE and NSA spy on the world by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    When both Canada (CSE) and the US (NSA) spy on everyone around the world, including their own citizens in their own countries, against their own Constitutions, how can this mean anything?

    Or did you not notice the cables being cut and spliced when we did it?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  17. At Least Someone Is Speaking Up! by 0xG · · Score: 1

    It may not be binding or carry much weight, but at least a voice is speaking up.

    I for one am sickened by how the internet is being used for surveillance.
    I'm appalled that I played a part in building this beast.

    Perhaps we should tear it all down and start over.

    --
    A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
    1. Re:At Least Someone Is Speaking Up! by 0xG · · Score: 1

      I was going to say more, but someone is knocking...

      --
      A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
  18. Germany by Tom · · Score: 1

    What a laugh.

    Our current (new) government wants to re-introduce the so-called "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" - the storage of all phone, SMS and Internet meta-data of everyone for no reason at all, just so they have that data (going back half a year!) in case they ever think it might help them catch a criminal.

    You're guilty until proven innocent.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Germany by Tom · · Score: 1

      Parent deserves a +5

      I'm actually a member of the Pirate Party, though I'm not sure I'll be much longer. What parent wrote is 100% spot-on. The party has been taken by feminists, weed-growsers and other left-wingers. Unfortunately, not the moderate, normal kind but the extremist fanatic idiots who run workshops about the patriarchalic oppression embodied in the use of male pronouns.

      The Pirate Party would need a reboot, throw out 99% of its agenda, kick out the half of the membership that's got nothing to do with Pirate Party ideas and was simply looking for a political platform to run their ideas on (and who, in many cases, have been driven out of all the other parties they tried before).

      But it's not going to happen. There's only so much a captain can allow on his vessel before he loses control of it. The Pirate Party is done for in Germany. We have, in my eyes, two exceptional opposing parties left.
      One is sitting in parliament right now, Die Linke (literally "the left"). Not sure I'd want them in government, but as an opposition they are doing great work, and their speeches in parliament are actually worth listening to.
      The other hasn't made it into parliament, nor does it have a good chance to - Die Partei (yes, that means "they party"). They're a satirical political party, actually running for elections and doing the best real-life satire of the whole political dog and pony show you can imagine. Their top candidate is giving interviews where he demands the Berlin wall to be rebuilt or answers questions for programmatic content with the slogan that "content needs to be overcome". With the same straight face that all politicians blast their bullshit into the camera.

      That's the best we have in Germany right now. Everyone else is corrupt, ignorant or complete morons - and in most cases, all three.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Germany by Tom · · Score: 1

      it's late, I'm tired.

      spelling errors:

      weed-growers

      "the party". they probably party, too, but it's not in the name :)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  19. And who is going to protect the UN? by kaka.mala.vachva · · Score: 1

    Seriously, is the UN even relevant anymore?

  20. UN? by PC_THE_GREAT · · Score: 1

    Can UN do anything about it if it was not respected? No they can',t so they should stop bullshitting people. UN is something that just meant for bureaucrats to get themselves fat and stuffed with donation money. Or for rich kids to join in so as they can feel they are doing something right in the world.

    UN is dead, there's nothing to actually "save the world" anymore.

    In Mauritius privacy laws, data protection agreement were just blatantly pissed up on, no one could do anything about it, because politicians wanted it this way, people complained, protested, but were any international instances [e.g UN] been able to do anything about it? Na, In life, if you don't have a big gun to show respect, :p you don't get to "vote to protect" iti s meaningless, it makes no sense, and holds no value.

    pffft, UN, the myth of this century.