UN Votes To Protect Privacy In Digital Age

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."

Comments

And how is

[rossdee]

the UN going to protect anybodys privacy?

Re:And how is

[Spy Handler]

sanctions.

Re:And how is

[SirGarlon]

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.

Re:And how is

[qbzzt]

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.

Re:And how is

[Sponge Bath]

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!

Re:And how is

[SirGarlon]

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.

Re:And how is

[Chalnoth]

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.

Re:And how is

[meerling]

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?)

Re:And how is

[SteveFoerster]

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.

Re:And how is

[Smauler]

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.

Re:And how is

[Smauler]

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.

Re:And how is

[Chalnoth]

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.

Re:And how is

[TapeCutter]

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.

That should scare the NSA

[JoeyRox]

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

Re:That should scare the NSA

[buchner.johannes]

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

Re:That should scare the NSA

[ComputerGeek01]

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.

Re: That should scare the NSA

[ArhcAngel]

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

Re:That should scare the NSA

[buchner.johannes]

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.

Re:That should scare the NSA

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Re:That should scare the NSA

[TapeCutter]

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.

USA voted for this

[ZombieBraintrust]

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.

Re:USA voted for this

[Chelloveck]

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.

I am impressed...

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.