Slashdot Mirror
Amnesty International Seeks Explanation For 'Absolutely Shocking' Surveillance
Mark Wilson writes: A court recently revealed via email that the UK government had been spying on Amnesty International. GCHQ had put Amnesty under surveillance — despite this having previously been denied — and now the human rights organization wants answers.
In a letter to the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Amnesty International asks for an explanation for the surveillance. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal's (IPT) email made it clear that GCHQ had been intercepting, accessing and storing communications, something that Amnesty International's Secretary General, Salil Shetty believes 'makes it vividly clear that mass surveillance has gone too far'.
In a letter to the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Amnesty International asks for an explanation for the surveillance. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal's (IPT) email made it clear that GCHQ had been intercepting, accessing and storing communications, something that Amnesty International's Secretary General, Salil Shetty believes 'makes it vividly clear that mass surveillance has gone too far'.
They don't want to know about State-sanctioned international child trafficking and systemic child sexual abuse - IN ENGLAND, but the SECOND the camera gets turned on them they get fucking pissy!? Fuck off!
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The the response will inevitably be "fuck you, that's why", it is at least worth forcing them to give it because it adds to the legal cases against them that are currently proceeding. What they did appears to be illegal under UK law, and in having to justify it they may inadvertently provide new avenues to make legal arguments against them.
Plus it's more bad publicity, which can only be a good thing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Overwhelming majority of Amnesty's work serves western powers rather than the other way round. Which explains why things can happen like someone in the US state department taking over the lead in Amnesty US (Suzanne Nossel).
They're very weak in their criticism of western targets.
I don't mean to be overly critical about the western human rights record but that's not the reason,
that AI or HRW are not very critical. Internally western countries are better off, that's not the issue.
As soon as you check the criticism that should be made, AI and HRW come off as pretty weak. If you count the allies in the western camp it's already disastrous. If you count the external actions of the western camp. also a disaster.
Another poster mentions the drone war. It's a good example because nobody in the west is bothered much by that. To us it feels like a minor issue, a necessary evil and not much of a big deal anyway. So neither is Amnesty bothered. You should check the legality. You should check polls in the arab world about them. You should check the effectiveness(I think 2%) and the strategic effect of them, it's pretty much putting out fire with gasoline.
One reason you think western actions are alright is because you rely on western sources for your judgement. There's a good variety of western sources in principle, but all those that rise to the top are mediocre. You almost need to go to cantankerous antisocial radicals to get a decent view. There's this kind of cascading effect where people right at the source are already being very measured in order not to be dismissed. And then every level it goes through more filtering occurs. So a watered down report may be published by AI, but then they don't make too much noise about it, and then the press filter it again.
At the moment there's Yemen. Not particularly an AI/HRW issue but at least it gives a good idea of what I think :) /publishable opinions.
It's pretty much a one sided invasion with a complete cutoff of all resources: 90% of the food has to be imported through the ports so you've got instant famine. What do we hear at the end of the line? Some kind of proxy war between Saudis and Iran, which is two lies in a few words. Iran is hardly involved and it's not a proxy war at all. Just the Saudis attacking because of some peace agreement they didn't like.
So in principle all human rights organisations should be yelling bloody murder.
Instead this kind of reaction is considered a radical opinion that doesn't fall in the range of reasonable
Some of Brittains closest allies are brutal despots. Keeping Amnesty International from "Rocking the Boat" directly supports an ally, and therefore supports national security. Yes this is immoral and illegal, but you can't pretend it isn't in the countries best interest.
In the best of times, it may be that our overlords perceive that keeping brutal despots in power is to the advantage of the entire country and/or supports national security. But that does not mean that it is the truth. The people arguing that dealing with vicious dictators is a good long term strategy are the same that argue that war is a good way to fight Islamic State. Propping up dictators may give cheap access to resources and markets (e.g. for weapon sales), but it will cause widespread resentment against the Brits among the subjects of the dictator as well as immigrants in Britain, possibly leading to acts of terrorism or increased recruitment for Islamic State and their ilk.
As a long term strategy, I also think that it is flawed. Dictatorships are not as vibrant and dynamic as societies where people have a reasonable amount of freedom, safety and general quality of life. If the dictators fall and are replaced by something nicer (yes, that is a big if), they tend to develop faster, bringing more wealth, stability and safety for all of us.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
I knew there was a reason I liked you. Few understand their responsibilities (or are willing to accept them) as citizens. Fewer still understand the differences. This is the root of our problem, I think. I have tossed some gibberish into this thread. It will be ignored. Oh well... It is not frustrating to watch if you look at it right. It is actually just an example of animal behavior at both every scale including meta and it is absolutely humorous to witness if viewed in the right light. We expect fundamental behaviors without actually doing the work to verify those goals are met which is, also, a natural trait. We have to behave unnaturally in order to get an unnatural result and expecting anything different is, by definition, insanity.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."