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!
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.
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.
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.
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.