Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden Promotes Global Treaty To Curtail Surveillance
An anonymous reader writes: In a video appearance, Edward Snowden said domestic digital spying on ordinary citizens is an international threat that will only be slowed with measures like a proposed international treaty declaring privacy a basic human right. "This is not a problem exclusive to the United States.... This is a global problem that affects all of us. What's happening here happens in France, it happens in the U.K., it happens in every country, every place, to every person," he said.
I wish something like that could happen, but I doubt most governments would ever agree or follow any kind of treaty. People also talked about solving world hunger... We already grow enough food to feed more than the people on this planet, but there are still numerous people starving and dying because of it. Not to mention corporations that "spy" on their customers to give something away for free, like facebook. Wouldn't be hard for the governments to get that info. I respect Snowden for what he did, but governments are afraid of privacy and encryption.
Even if a global treaty is struck to declare privacy a basic human right -- who is going to provide the oversight, who will punish those that breach the treaty and how will such punishment be administered?
Reality check: There's just no way this is going to work.
Aren't there global treaties that outlaw torture?
What happens at Gitmo, who is punished for the violations and how is that punishment metered out?
This, I am afraid, is nothing more than an exercise in futility. We have already lost our right to privacy and the only way it will return is probably by way of an armed uprising.
If our grandfathers and great-grandfathers could see just how many of the rights and freedoms they fought to protect have now been lost in the name of "safety" and "security", they'd turn in their graves.
The US exerts their political influence on other countries like the UK, France, Germany, and so many others to engage in surveillance of innocent citizens.
Troll is obvious troll.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Saying what you need to say publicly - such as signing a no-spying treaty - and then gathering whatever you think you need to gather regardless, that seems like part of the game. Any declaration of the human right of privacy, while a great first step, needs to be backed up with consequences for violations.
Look at the Bush revelation the other day, he tried to change the wording of an old authorization to legalize something the NSA was already doing.
So we learn three things from that: 1. He didn't know they were doing it till after they were doing it. 2. He was more follower than leader, fitting the law to their wishes. 3. They decided to do that, and didn't feel hampered by any legal bounds.
It's really people like General Alexander that have driven this mass surveillance.
You can see it in the FISA courts too. They appear to have been told "we will tap the wires and filter for terrorist communications, do you authorize this?".
Later the judges find out the actual operation is "we will tap the wire AND STORE ALL COMMS, then run filters for terrorist communications AGAINST OUR STORE,".
Which of course is mass surveillance, there would be no court process require for them to pull up anyones data and they could pick the target first, find some excuse to spy on them using their broad rules and then go dig their data. Which is different from the judges approval.
The NSA carefully controlled the message to the FISA court, but couldn't stop the judges finding out about the 7 huge data centers to store all this data they were collecting. Hence I think that was the point the penny really dropped.
Obama appears to have come along and "tweaked" some troubling program. I think he put the US data into a lock box, well at least NSA has told him its a lock box, it will be a column in a database that flag "US", the data would be trivial to access and the 'lock box' exist in office memos only.
The bulk of NSA staff will be following a set of rules, which are strictly enforced, this is the front shown to Congress and Executive. Meanwhile there will be a Uber Style 'God View' for a special group. Because as I said at the start NSA appears to drive the mass surveillance agenda, rather than the politicians driving it.
Europe has learned no lessons, since European states have been embroiled in colonial wars well after WW2. They claim the high ground in the same way a serial killer can.
Already is a basic human right according to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of human rights.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, [...]."
The fact that nobody seems to care about it is the issue.
The problem is not that US or EU don't want to respect human rights, but that now the technology for total surveillance exists, and it can't be made to disappear any more. Even if US and EU stopped surveilling, other actors would still do it.
Some, like FB, would do it for practical and economical reasons, just because there are server logs and they need to optimize advertising and user engagement. Other, like various totalitarian regimes, would still do it because they see it as a counterbalance for the increased social activism powered by the increase in connectivity that has permeated all societies. People got new powers in the last two decades, and the state got new powers too. They are afraid of these more connected and organized masses.
Even if countries didn't do it, corporations and various shady groups would still do it. All it takes is to put a monitor on the pipe or a video camera on the highway to record everything that passes through there. And when one party does it, all parties need to do it to keep up and not come at a disadvantage in security.
What we need to do is it to regulate how this information is being used to restrain our rights. We need to learn to be more tolerant - we all have our secrets and they shouldn't be weaponized against us, at least not in the public moral court. So we need to adjust our social standards to allow for more diversity, because now we all live in a panopticon and there's no turning back to the privacy and anonymity times of our parents.
Maybe something good will also come out of this. With more data and analysis power, we could guide our policies and avoid some excesses that usually went unnoticed in the dark ages of information. And now we need to accept the reality of our panopticon society and build a better way of living in it.
For example, declare tracking an individual or an individual's property by any automated system, whether government or privately owned, generally illegal. Likewise, storing such records should be generally illegal. Make a few exceptions such as when there is a warrant, or if the individual requests it (where such request must be at the very least "check this checkbox to confirm you want to be tracked, data will be stored for n days", not "click here to agree to wall of text").
Otherwise: all cameras will use image recognition to log where you've been, all cars will be tracked via license plate readers and onboard GPS, all cell phone owners will be tracked and their location logged for years, all purchases (cash or credit card) will be tracked and logged. And all this data will be sold, and God help you if the government doesn't like you.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
more likely to receive a message from aliens than to get USA, UK, Russia and China to agree to this
HERETIC!!! Yoorop can do NO WRONG! Because... YOOROP! BURN THE HERETIC! HEIL YOOROP!
If you don't think that the UK, France, and Germany are perfectly happy to spy on their own citizens without US pressure, then you don't know much about Europe. They have a long tradition of spying.
Also, if you think the US has that much power over Europe, then you kind of have a naive America-centric view. Europe has a bigger economy than the US, and they do their own thing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The modern political system is based on surveillance. Actually it is the surveillance. Read "Code Book" by Simon Singh, ISBN 1-85702-889-9. All modern state history is basically the history of surveillance.
More than that, in future not just communication devices will be used for surveillance, but any device, a photo-camera, a mixer, TV-set, etc. It is happening already now.
But every cloud has a silver lining, - if you need a private conversation, - put on a light t-shirt and shorts, no watch, not smartphone, no MP3-player, not even a pen, and go with your partner to a park, to a beach, etc. for a private conversation. It would be good not only for privacy, but for heath too. And for environment.
I envision in future important business meeting outdoors while running, or swimming, or just walking. It is the only way to achieve a relative privacy, - an unpredictable outdoor location with no electronic devices around.
It's not treason when it is exposing people who defy the constitution instead acting against the nation itself. It looks a lot more like patriotism.
However, if you define treason as beating a Russian at chess and patriotism as selling weapons to a terrorist group that had killed over one hundred US Marines less than one year earlier (the "patriot" North selling to Hezbolla), then all bets are and treason means defying "The Party" instead of the nation. That line leads to the direct opposite of what George Washington and others had in mind IMHO. I'm pretty sure Franklin and Jefferson would be cheering for Snowden if not the entire lot of them.
It should read "then all bets are off".
The other typos don't really matter and don't change the meaning.
He is in Russia not by a choice. He continues trying to get an asylum in free countries. But it seems things are often not the same as they look from the first sight.
Either you are sitting in Russia or china being paid OR you are one big idiot. Russia and China spy on their citizens far more than does America. And both spy on other nations as well. But if you think that Europe will quit listening to their network, and simply allow ISIS to attack them, you are a full idiot.
For a long time, we didn't think about the consequences of wholesale collection of all available data of people, because the sheer amount of data meant, that it wasn't done for all people in the most complete manner. There were specialized professions which collected as much data as possible, but only for a certain subset of people: tabloid journalists for celebrities, spies for high profile persons in politics, investigators for people accused of a crime and private eyes for targets the paying customer named. And we thought, that those limits somehow made sense, as most of us are neither celebrities, high profile persons in politics, accused of crimes or in an enduring conflict that makes one side willing to pay large sums of money to private investigators. And we somehow felt, that those persons are special, and thus permitted special care, and we told ourselves, that those persons deserved it because of their life choices.
But with the availability of data storing and processing, we all are now in the role of celebrities, accused, politicians or people in deep conflicts. Suddenly it's not a choice anymore to get your privacy constantly violated. It happens to all of us. And now we see that the old idea, that if something is in the public view, it belongs to the public, and it should be allowed to indiscriminitely record, store and process it, is working against us.
About 300 years ago, we understood that for special types of data, it shouldn't be the case. Works of Art were in the public view, but it was explicitely forbidden in the Statute of Anne in 1710 to record, store and process them without explicit permission, because mostly everyone understood that those works somehow incorporate a value.Now with the advent of big data, we also see that other data, which are not Works of Art, still have an intrinsic value, and if everyone is allowed to siphon it from us, we lose, and someone else who is not us, gains, albeit it's us who created the value in the first place.
Rights are recognized. If you declare it, it's a privilege, not a right.
> The US exerts their political influence on other countries like the UK, France, Germany [...]
Blah, blah. They're as bad on both sides of the pond. The only "advantage" in evil the US has (at the moment) is its greater economical power (at the moment).
Look at the disgusting thing France has done wrt surveilance: just tightened up their surveillance laws with little or no parliamentary resistance (just the activists out there and the *ISPs*) protested.
Look at Germany: the NSA selector lists are being kept secret *from a parliamentary investigation committee (FFS!)* "because it would put a burden on the Germany - USA relationship". Even after Obama himself publicly said to Germany "do what you think is right". So that's what Merkel and her fucking goons think is right.
Look at UK's GCHQ and its "full take".
Do you think they are all doing that because Uncle Sam is telling them to? No. Those machines are out of control *everywhere*, let's face that.
Pointing fingers doesn't help the fight.
I detest the NSA & CIA. But I also detest the GCHQ, BND and every other. The ones may be doing *currently* more damage, but that's just because they're *currently* better funded. They *all* are despicable, amoral, out-of-control entities. Organized crime at the highest level.
No mostly its your own fault for telling everyone everything on Facebook, twitter,etc doesn't anyone talk person to person anymore in a quiet room ? And I don't mean text each other when sitting 2 feet apart!
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Sure, the US is a military superpower these days, however the five eyes have been sharing intelligence since they won WW2. The code cracking techniques developed by Turing and others were a very closely held secret. It wasn't until the late 60's that the rest of the world woke up to the fact their encryption methods were transparent to the five eyes. The event that did more to bring this military and commercial spying to light than anything else was the invention of modern encryption methods. But make no mistake, this arrangement is nothing new, it was born in the UK during the darkest days of WW2 when Churchill awarded Turing his code cracking buddies an "unlimited budget".
None of those men and women could possibly foresee what it would become after the war, what they saw were immediate results such as the rapid destruction of the Nazi U-boat fleet, the successful Naval ambush at Midway island, and a thousands of smaller missions that co-opted the enemy's command and control systems to the allies advantage. The U-boat campaign is when Churchill shared his secret weapon with Eisenhower, who immediately set up a similar operation in the US that was more focused on the war with Japan. People who worked in the centers during the war were told they would face a firing squad if they discussed their work with their friends or family.
This is the real reason "terrorist" websites are not expunged as soon as they appear is that co-opting those communications systems, mapping the enemy's org chart, predicting their next move, etc, is much more productive than disrupting or destroying the comms systems and wondering who they are and what they are up to.
So to get back on topic, it's obvious a treaty won't work because only those who cheat can win, and if the cheat is the world's only superpower, who do we think is going to punish them, God? anyone who can remember 9/11 can also remember GWB spitting the dummy at the UN and announcing to the entire world the US can not be restained by anyone. It's also obvious that the currently agreed upon human rights are not fully respected by any nation, and are totally irrelevant to (say) Saudi Arabia.
Human nature is unlikely to change in my lifetime, it is still trying to evolve onto something that fits our invention of civilization. That is both fortunate and unfortunate at the same time. Ten thousand years is not enough time to declare civilization an evolutionary success story. The fact that SETI and similar efforts have not found any alien comms after listening for 4-5 decades is not a very encouraging sign. It may turn out that human civilization makes the planet uninhabitable for humans, much like the oxygen produced by primitive cyanobacteria eventually made much of the planet uninhabitable for cyanobacteria (but much more efficient in terms of time)
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So to get back on topic, it's obvious a treaty won't work because only those who cheat can win
Hardly. I don't spy on your citizens and I don't spy on my citizens, if you spy on my citizens I levy sanctions and penalties against you, as well as relations being soured which is not an insiginificant thing.
and if the cheat is the world's only superpower, who do we think is going to punish them, God? anyone who can remember 9/11 can also remember GWB spitting the dummy at the UN and announcing to the entire world the US can not be restained by anyone. It's also obvious that the currently agreed upon human rights are not fully respected by any nation, and are totally irrelevant to (say) Saudi Arabia.
So we should abandon aspirations towards human rights because Saudi Arabia or North Korea don't play along? The fundamental issue here is recognising privacy as a basic human right, whether or not the entire world goes along with it immediately is irrelevant. It's a step in the right direction.
They've proven that they don't care about the US constitution or any other law, why would they care about a treaty? The other human rights treaties are also largely ignore whenever countries feel like it.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
And now we need to accept the reality of our panopticon society and build a better way of living in it.
Civilization, in all it's forms, is surely our greatest creation, but I sometimes wonder if we are creating it, or visa-versa. It is evolving like a living system but much more rapidly, currently it nervous and sensory system are emerging, highly specialised "brain centers" in the form of IBM's watson and other AI systems have recently appeared. Maybe it will kill us all off, or maybe we will develop a planet wide "termite nest" that encapsulates our prefered environment in an artificial structure. One thing is for sure we are never going to get to a point where everyone is comfortable with the status-quo.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Give it up Snowden, nobody's listening .... oh wait!
The way YOOROP is doing nowadays, with millions of moslems flooding in ... not long from now it'll become ALLAHU AKBAR !!
Of course you're right. Here's proof:
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sure, other countries engage in mass surveillance, but most of it is instigated by the US.
You just keep telling yourself that.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The problem with this is...who with any power is gonna sign it without the full on global revolution that would be need to get those that hold power to put something in place to limit their own power.
There are no longer many countries that care more about personal freedom than they care about their own powerbase.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
So we should abandon aspirations towards human rights because Saudi Arabia or North Korea don't play along?
Of course, the same as with climate treaties :-P
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Fuck almighty, where do we start?
He's doing this from Russia because the fucking american populace are collectively too willingly ignorant and stupid to listen to the truth. (Not that Snowden is in hiding from the USA, and no one else.)
They don't want the truth, they want their false beliefs reinforced that they are the EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE.
They ignore their own history, and wonder why it repeats. And gets worse.
They want to install military bases in EVERY country in the world, and wonder why everyone gets upset about them "spreading democracy".
What democracy is that, then?
They want to purloin the assets of others, maintain an militarily-enforced artificial world currency for energy transactions, and subvert foreign laws to impose compulsory taxes (patent, copyright and licence fees) on unrepresented populations.
They want the world to sing for Jesus in the name of their "God", and refuse to acknowledge that Jesus himself would have prayed to "Allah" in ancient Aramaic, not in fucking English (although dipping into religious insanity is admittedly a distraction on this topic).
For crying out loud - from where do you think Snowden *SHOULD* be doing this? From prison? From the grave? From a hospital?
JFDavis, June '68: the prime example of how to comment on an article, and fail in epic fashion for lack of saying anything useful at all.
(Yes, I'm new here.)
You can't trust authority. How many times does it have to be proven?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Either you are sitting in Russia or china being paid OR you are one big idiot. Russia and China spy on their citizens far more than does America.
Considering these are all secret projects, on all sides, I don't think there is any basis on which to make a comparison. The truth is we don't really know who spies on whom or to what extent.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
So we should abandon aspirations towards human rights because Saudi Arabia or North Korea don't play along?
In the case of privacy from government seizure of private records the United States of America itself isn't even following its own Constitution and there is no reason to believe that other "Western" countries are either. So, why should anyone believe that anyone would follow an aspirational international treaty which undoubtedly would give for itself numerous ways to get around it?
Take for instance existing International Law agreed to in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights":
"Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
While I applaud the sentiment, I don't think any government thinks that it is being "arbitrary" when it conducts mass surveillance or wholesale spying. They say to themselves and their colleagues that they have very good reasons for doing what they do otherwise they wouldn't do it.
I would have no reason to think that any new treaty would be any more effective or have any fewer ways around it. Governments will always choose to carve out security exemptions at the very least which undermines the whole point.
The US Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment is(was) so special in that it isn't aspirational, but rather spells out the requirements and procedure for violating the right to privacy in fairly specific detail. And even then you see that it hasn't survived the test of time unbroken. I can't think of any other wording that would better survive even the best intentions of those tasked with our security.
If Snowden had limited his data dump to include only domestic related operations and programs he would be back in the US right now a free man. The release of data exclusively related to foreign intelligence programs and methods crossed the line. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights do not apply outside of the US. He is both whistleblower and by any definition he has committed treasonous acts which need to be adjudicated in a US Court of Law. Who knows maybe the "glove won't fit so they can't convict"? He better hope Putin doesn't pressure Obama for sanctions relief or want public support for the Russian military deployments in Syria because Obama may make handing Snowden over as part of any deal.
The irony here is that he is hiding in a place that routinely practices all the things that Edward is opposing. I realize that no one else will let him hide there, so he is stuck in Russia.
Is he still a thing?
Your private lives are bleeding out all over the Internet and the "Internet of things" boom hasn't even kicked in yet. If you want privacy you have to make it for yourself, it is social infrastructure, a convenience, and not a necessity of life. I hope people can see the difference, you do have a right to defend your privacy in realms that you have a right to control, but to suggest that it is a universal right is a nonsense.
Would we have even heard of him or would he have been like the long string of whistleblowers before him that were sidelined or locked up without changing anything? Besides, he released it all to US journalists at a US based newspaper and the spread of information about foreign intelligence programs and methods could have been stopped there is the agencies involved wanted. They were offered a preview of what was going to be published but refused to declare what should or shouldn't go out, presenting it as all or nothing. Think about that before throwing the treason word around since no foreigners got their hands on the stuff directly from Snowden.
I don't think he is that stupid since the only value there is petty revenge against someone who damaged the reputations of some spooks a few years ago and is no longer a threat to those spooks - it's not worth forgoing something of actual value.
Hate to break it to you but giving US classified information to a US journalist is just as illegal as giving it to a foreign journalist. And he gave ALL the information to 3rd parties giving him no control over the data. His theft and dissemination of classified US information related to foreign intelligence agencies is the text book definition of treason. It matters not one little bit what the actual content was or whether or not some think it shouldn't have been classified in the first place. The US government will never stop trying to get their hands on him. He stopped being a threat the minute he handed over the data to his pet journalists now he is wanted for breaking US law. He could have gotten a pass on the domestic related information but no one gets a pass when violating the Espionage Act. He didn't damage a couple of spooks reputations he damaged legitimate US foreign security policies. Just shining the spotlight on US foreign intelligence programs is damage in itself. The US cancelled all cooperation with Russia in almost every area of their relationship over this incident. The only time relative damage comes into play is during sentencing. How could he not expect to be charged with a national security level crime? Did he think obtaining rock start status would make the government stop trying to charge him with some serious crimes? Why did he go public before he was safely living in some South American Latin paradise? He went public on his own schedule.
Maybe if you want the USA to be like Soviet Russia instead of holding the government to account like George Washington and all the others wanted. It's looking a lot like you value an unquestioned King before Constitution - Snowden is the opposite.
One more try. Foreign Intelligence agencies are created for the specific purpose of spying on any foreign country where US interests come in to play. And while the US is busy spying on other countries these same countries are spying on the US. And you cannot argue that the foreign surveillance policies were unconstitutional since the US Constitution only applies on US sovereign territory. And Oliver North went to prison for his actions at the time.