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'.
Why should amnesty international be treated any differently to everyone else?
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
Now i know no one reads the article so I'll summarize one point
If Amnesty International is being spied on, then is anyone safe?
Nope, they know how many times you wipe and how many sheets you used. Welcome to the 21st century.
also, "because we are scaredy cowards"
-- your friendly neighbourhood world leaders.
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
Do you even know what organisation you're talking about? Overwhelming majority of Amnesty's work is outside modern Western world. And they pick up "fights" with targets that are overwhelmingly more powerful than their organisation routinely. It's their mission to do so.
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.
Exactly. Amnesty is one of many soft power tools of the western establishment.
The main reason why AI is "very weak in their criticism of Western targets" is for a very simple reason - Western societies have far lesser violations of issues AI works against.
The worst offender of the West, US is still far better than most of the third world in terms of due process available and incarceration.
And when you have drones incarceration is not even needed.
Posturing histrionics.
Have gchq or other intelligence organizations ever used the data inappropriately?
Yes. Collecting it is sufficient to constitute inappropriate use.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Incineration is much more effective!
The main reason why AI is "very weak in their criticism of Western targets" is for a very simple reason - Western societies have far lesser violations of issues AI works against.
The worst offender of the West, US is still far better than most of the third world in terms of due process available and incarceration.
When you make statements like that, and if you want to be accurate, you need to define what terms like "Western targets", "Western societies", and "the West" mean. Does it include Saudi Arabia, Poland, Qatar, Israel and Turkey? Certainly, those countries, although maybe not geographically west, all have decent arguments for being labeled as being in the Western sphere of influence.
And in your comparison, are you factoring in the size of the country?
Finally, you must know the US doesn't rate well in terms of incarceration, which is almost the definition of non-liberty. We (of the US) have the worst per-capita rate.
Regarding Amnesty International, I estimate their official opinion is roughly like that of a European country. It's more or less on the good-guy side, but is overly influenced by the US & UK governments.
(||) Nehmo (||)
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
We see the same nonsense in the US. The problem is that security can never be perfect and that is used as an excuse for ever more invasive security measures. In the US we had the 9/11 terror attacks. The public got severely upset and government jumped off the rails. And I have no way to give numbers or specifics but I strongly believe that the US could absorb a punch as severe as the 9/11 at least once a year without the nation falling apart. But we are already seeing a loss of free speech and people must guard their remarks rather carefully. I am not convinced that our security and military efforts have done anything good for us at all.
Except that during the period of leftist revolutions all over the world AI doggedly pursued and questioned the actions pro-Western government armies while having a written policy of not criticizing the guerrilla actions. This asymmetric prosecution of human right crimes was only changed after the end of the cold war.
To suggest that such organizations are somehow morally above being spied-upon
Of course I suggest they're above being spied on. Everyone is morally above being spied on unless there's some sort of warrant or actualy cause. If you disagree that people aren't above being spied on, then would you be happy for me to come over and install a surveillance camera in your bathroom and bedroom?
Sorry, if I'm in charge of security for a church, I'm still frisking the nuns, because to do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Poe's law strikes again. I literally can't tell if you're being satirical or stark raving mad. You're not cold fjord, at least (then I'd know for sure).
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Because they get in the way of countries "dealing" with those they don't like.
Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
Except that during the period of leftist revolutions all over the world AI doggedly pursued and questioned the actions pro-Western government armies while having a written policy of not criticizing the guerrilla actions. This asymmetric prosecution of human right crimes was only changed after the end of the cold war.
[citation needed]
Stephan
Who really controls secret service agencies? It seems they often operate in an undemocratic vacuum ...
US is still far better than most of the third world in terms of due process available and incarceration.
That is no way to conduct a standards test! And in terms of incarceration, you are right about the US being number one, higher percentages, higher numbers all around.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
OH that right, we will all go spy on GCHQ and see if they have ever used the data inappropriately because of course they wont prosecute you for espionage and lock you up for life. If you seek inappropriate data then your intention is to use it inappropriately. So the intention in targeting political activism organisations is to attack individuals with false prosecutions that are meant to punish with legal fees, loss of employment during the trial process, threats against other family members and then the case extended out for as long as possible, with threats of extreme punishment to try to force a guilty when innocent plea. They are seeking to cripple these organisations by targeted key individuals at key times in order to cause maximum disruption. This is not done for security of state but for security of political affiliation and is driven from the top by corrupt politicised appointments. Straight out of the police state play book.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If you actually want security and not moral posturing, yes.
I get that this is hard for some people to understand.
-Styopa
Some of the best media comes from a source that many of us, in the West, are prejudiced about (intentionally or unknowingly). Al Jazeera (spelling?) is actually fairly well informed, surprisingly objective, and willing to approach subjects that are foreign to us in the West. Obviously no single news source should be consumed as factual by the consumer. Laziness on behalf of the consumer is, by no means, a responsibility of the provider. No news service has been, or ever will be, without bias. This has never been the case though people think it was better in the past - like conservatives long for the 50s. They think it was good, investigative, and idealistic in the past because they consumed media that fit their views.
Al Jazeera has biases but they are not what you probably assume and they are open about it while still being willing to be critical of even themselves. They remind me of PBS in a way and we can all generally agree that PBS is biased at times and if we are willing to be honest with ourselves even if we agree with their biases. We can all agree that Fox is biased if we are honest. Check out what the press did during the French Revolution. They can be cock-suckers and can not be trusted. It is up to you to read beyond the news. Consider the news like Google, consider it the start page. Like Google you may need to click more links, figuratively, to get a factual response and, quite often, you really should be reading more than one single link.
So, they have a slant but it is right in front of you and obvious and factual. The key is the last part. They will even point out facts, and discuss them and investigate them, on subjects we would not dream of publishing. They will do this while being critical of the religious and governing bodies of the various countries which they typically cover. They are willing to only share certain media in certain governments so the government has ultimate control in some areas I understand. However, they have an international coverage as well and they will do all sorts of things that do get censored. They worked hard to have this right. I am impressed with them. They take their obligation seriously and they take their consequences seriously. They are a news organization not a martyr. They have had enough martyrs already and that is how they got these rights. They are serious business...
Anyhow, I figured I'd share my opinion because you spoke of the drone war and how much the differences are between the perceptions. If people were more inclined to get their media from sources outside of their comfort zone then maybe this would change?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Canadian here. Although part of the west I have to agree. Western establishment and media tends to trot out human rights groups they themselves fund and support when criticizing non-western countries... then flipflop on certain human rights they claim to support when those same human rights groups criticize them for violating them (e.g. Bush who clearly used torture should have seen trial for potential war crimes but is instead enjoying rounds of golf)
.then along with the NSA and GCHQ violates the right to privacy of billions of people )
That said, human rights groups are not above criticism themselves. Who the f-ck made unelected NGOs the unquestionable priest class for what should and shouldn't be a right? A large chunk of "human rights" activism is just a front for leftist political ideology just like a fair chunk of it is just a smokescreen for nationalists and religious fanatics (e.g. the Holocaust industry, Islamophobia, US state department "human rights" reports that have the audacity to lecture about torture, or even my current government than claims to stand for "human rights'..
The morons that complain about those that point out this hypocrisy in the west think that everyone that complains about are sympathetic to oppression elsewhere in the world. They can't understand the concept of principle or simply think they are above them. The way to spot a BS artist is to see if they follow their principles regardless of what nation they live in or economic policies they believe in... or whether they just point fingers at everyone else without looking in the mirror. Sophistry posing as ethics.
The the response will inevitably be "fuck you, that's why",
Not necessarily. The response could be, "We just wanted to know what you were doing."
And Iran in turn is far better than much of third world, where they often don't really have courts - they have lynchings.
Consider India for example. Girl of lower caste gets raped by boy of higher caste, goes to the police. Police ridicules her and on her way back, her own villagers lynch her and hang her.
Does your "oh noes, bad due process in US" start to sound quite good in comparison to you yet?
You get worse than that across much of Africa and Papua New Guinea for example, where you have similar courts of public opinion, and where they have a strong belief in sorcery and witchcraft. Or countries like Eritrea, where court system mostly exists to simply supply slave work force to the government?
Have you tried wikipedia yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And surprisingly, local governments are often in full support of drone killings. Consider Yemen which is now in a full civil war in part because of the government's actions.
Sorry, if I'm in charge of security for a church, I'm still frisking the nuns, because to do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Poe's law strikes again. I literally can't tell if you're being satirical or stark raving mad. You're not cold fjord, at least (then I'd know for sure).
I merely convey (often unwelcome) facts to you, and report the goings-on of a mad world. If you cannot separate the teller from the tale, then you are in no position to judge whom is mad. But of course you may be a madman yourself.
What do you make of these?
Fears grow Boko Harm may use suicide bombers dressed as Catholic nuns for attacks
Sublime irony: Muslim TSA guard feels Catholic nun's genitals
In a Chilling Phone Call, Yazidi Woman Made a Sex Slave by ISIS Begs for West to Bomb Brothel
Isis use torture device dubbed 'The Biter' to impale women who breastfeed in public
Islamic State updates horror show
Last December, in a video addressed to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a veiled woman representing "Muslim mothers" argued that beheading was too humane for the Jordanian pilot. She recommended that al-Kaseasbeh be subjected to a traditional Ottoman method of execution called the Khazouk in which the victim is impaled with a thick spike hammered up his rectum and through the torso. She felt that this would deter other foreign pilots from flying missions against the Islamic State. And we may yet see the Khazouk on Youtube.
Does ISIS risk blowback, or is there a plan?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Plus a whole lot of Iran's and al Qaeda's actions.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
> Have gchq or other intelligence organizations ever used the data inappropriately?
Answer: "NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests"
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/
If you allow intelligence agencies to gain access to unlimited amounts of information, with no regard for privacy, they can use it to blackmail anyone. Next time an organization like Amnesty International finds out about an abuse perpetrated by a British-supported regime, the Government might decide to "convince" them to keep their mouths shut. Even if that doesn't happen, individuals will still use the information and tools available to them illegally.
Practically anything can be justified in the name of security. All of these procedures always rely on the assumption that the security personnel have perfect morals. It never works out that way. For reference, see TSA.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.