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'.
exactly
amnesty international probably think they're special, but the uk government really doesn't give a shit about anyone other than themselves. only the alleged peadophiles in the house of lords need their privacy protected
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
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
sexual violence against children is violence, and when it's carried out under colour of Law by agents of State, too fucking right it falls within their remit. Truth of it is, they REFUSE to go against their biggest donor - the BRITISH GOVERNMENT - over something which could see this septic isle glassed.
(and no, that is not a typo. This place is toxic).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
but the uk government really doesn't give a shit about anyone other than themselves
That is missing the point somewhat. Secret services want to watch over absolutely everything - because they can. Their governments seem to have largely abdicated control, not least because then the decisions on what to spy on and what to ignore could then be held against the politicians responsible. GCHQ seem to consider any inland NGO and most foreign countries to be targets but a lot of that is absence external of controls.
The E German Stasi *owned* the country, and had leading figures in all three W German agencies. A significant proportion of that country's budget was spent on the Stasi. Did it help them when Gorbachov decided not to stand in the way of reunification?
The U.S. are gathering more and more data, hell - they even knew about the 9.11 group ahead of time (and had been warned by the Germans) but did it help?
Look at Tunisia a couple of weeks ago, GCHQ were so busy spying on AI that they missed the big one. As if AI are going to mount an attack of that kind.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
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.
This is just either mudslinging on your side, or it is showing that you have no idea what Amnesty International is about.
I don't expect Greenpeace to talk about government overreach, and I don't expect the taxpayers union to report on human rights violations in a country on another continent. Why do you expect Amnesty International to investigate cases of child abuse?
And when you have drones incarceration is not even needed.
Why spy on Amnesty? They try to help political prisoners and such.
That is a very good reason for most intelligence agencies to spy on Amnesty: Amnesty has a lot of contacts on the ground in many oppressive countries. These contacts could be recruited as spies by intelligence agencies, sold out to their local government, spied upon to learn of coming activities, leaned on to start certain activities, or something else entirely. Some of these people could even know some of the dirty secrets of the intelligence agencies and their governments. Unfortunately, their spying is likely to make it harder for Amnesty to do their work, and significantly increases the risk of their contacts. In my opinion, the spying should stop.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
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!
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
Common tactic you're using here: The Whataboutism.
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.
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.
you can't pretend it isn't in the countries best interest.
Since when is the government the country? It might be in their best interests. I don't see why it's in mine. Then again, my interests don't include making as much money as I can and to hell with the consequences.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Mass surveillance is when they listen in on everyone, including you, me and Amnesty. If they just tap into Amnesty, it's targeted surveillance. It might still be wrong, but it's not the same. I'm not against targeted surveillance, provided that there are clear rules in place that get independently verified and rigorously enforced (which of course is never the case).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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
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."
That is great. Now give an effective solution and why you feel it would work. Be aware that I am not disagreeing with you on principle but I am approaching your argument with reason as my goal. I will respond in kind. I may learn something this way and, combined, we may even have a rational response.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Interesting... What you see as destroying democracy is what I see as ensuring democracy does not turn into tyranny or the masses ruling the minority. I see them as being there to ensure your rights are being monitored because you are not willing to put forth the effort to know and monitor those rights on your own. That is my view. I welcome your view. How is it that you see them destroying democracy?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
if Amnesty is surprised by this then they're really unqualified to do the work they claim to champion - they have to completely misunderstand the nature of government to be shocked by this, which is supposed to be their area of expertise.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)