Slashdot Mirror
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."
sanctions.
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.