SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a recent press release Amnesty International reports:
Amnesty International, Liberty and Privacy International have announced today they are taking the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights over its indiscriminate mass surveillance practices. The legal challenge is based on documents made available by the whistle-blower Edward Snowden which revealed mass surveillance practices taking place on an industrial scale.
The organizations filed the joint application to the Strasbourg Court last week after the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which has jurisdiction over GCHQ, MI5 and MI6, ruled that the UK legal regime for the UK government’s mass surveillance practices was compliant with human rights.
[...] However, the Tribunal held considerable portions of the proceedings in secret.
“It is ridiculous that the government has been allowed to rely on the existence of secret policies and procedures discussed with the Tribunal behind closed doors – to demonstrate that it is being legally transparent,” said Nick Williams [, Amnesty International’s Legal Counsel].
[Editor's Note: The quoted text is reproduced here exactly as it appeared in the original. For those who may not be familiar, there are apparently three different parties involved: (1) Amnesty International, (2) Liberty, and (3) Privacy International.]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Bot on Saturday April 11 2015, @08:24PM
The problem of surveillance is the amount. The bad guys want incomplete surveillance. You might want no surveillance at all, or, guess what, total surveillance.
Think about it: every interaction, every transaction, every property tracked. Privacy would not be needed because even if everybody knew you won the lottery, nobody could steal anything from you, even scamming you into buying crap would yield damage that could be undone by a judge. In exchange you would know who owns every thing, and the causes for every behavior. You would not buy the same food because you would know that it's owned by a corporation that is owned by a bank who invested heavily also in a pharmaceutical company, and so has all the interest in selling crap food, as you would know by the things said between the lines at the stockholder meetings.
I am oversimplifying, but I think you get the idea. Of course the transformation would be problematic for things not pertaining to money. Like knowing if your husband eyes the secretary. Countermeasures would be likely needed.
But overall the tech advancement as it is, is a missed occasion to really transform society, the equation "surveillance = bad", and the dual "privacy = a right" is not as innocent and obvious as it seems. Interesting times we live in.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Saturday April 11 2015, @08:36PM
What could possibly go wrong? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:09PM
Absolutely nothing? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just some things? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Absolutely everything? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:21PM
What could possibly go right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Score: 3, Informative) by Leebert on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:06AM
You seem to be lost. Reddit is this way --> [reddit.com]. :)
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:11AM
Indeed, how could a cabal of powerful people monopolize surveillance if all is out in the open, including their efforts?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:04PM
The problem of surveillance is the amount.
The problem with surveillance is not only the amount, but who it is being used on. Surveillance should only be used on specific targets after valid warrants are obtained.
Think about it: every interaction, every transaction, every property tracked.
Sounds like a nightmare scenario. If you value the idea of privacy, this is intolerable. Keep it away from me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:23PM
Who's to say that everyone needs to like privacy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:26PM
You don't. If you don't want privacy, you are free to surrender your own. Just don't involve me or others who desire privacy and recognize its importance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:32PM
What's to say that others shouldn't surrender their privacy, too? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:12PM
The people who don't want to surrender their privacy, I would imagine. For everyone else, there is always China and North Korea.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:17PM
You forgot Five.
And then another 190.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:35PM
I don't get it.
0 + 5 + 190 = 195
195 != 1984
What are you trying to say?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:47AM
You mentioned China and Korea.
I mentioned the Five Eyes.
Then I just went with the flow saying that *all* of the governments (can't remember the exact number, but 190 seemed like a ood estimate) want to do it, and will do it as soon as they are able to (at least those that are not doing it yet).
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:18PM
What's to say that the people who do surrender their privacy don't want actually want to do so voluntarily? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:48AM
>>Think about it: every interaction, every transaction, every property tracked.
>Sounds like a nightmare scenario
My argument is that "every interaction, every transaction, every property trackABLE" is way worse.
As a good guy you might want no surveillance, as I said, and I am perfectly ok with that, society worked more or less ok that way.
I am also aware that the same system that is building the police state is the last thing on earth that should be allowed to manage it, and that wrestling control away from it is practically impossible.
Still, you haven't convinced me it's not a missed occasion.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @01:52PM
Still, you haven't convinced me it's not a missed occasion.
Then you don't understand the human need for privacy.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday April 17 2015, @08:57AM
> Then you don't understand the human need for privacy.
Look at my nick :)
JK, the problem is that the human need for privacy is being undermined in irreversible ways, as we speak. People already have to adapt to being publicly shamed, and it's going to get worse. So your point is valid but getting obsolete.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:25PM
But history shows that this surveillance is inevitably asymmetric. Where is your camera watching the cops look up skirts with their cameras? In TFA, where is Amnesty's camera watching the secret courts holding closed hearings on transparency?
The corporation will know what you buy and when, but they will hide behind a dozen aliases and trade secrets to make sure you have no idea where the food actually came from or what they put in it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:31PM
You think the information from that surveillance will be shared with everybody? Think again!
And about correcting anything. Currently there are courts to make sure there's justice. In reality there is only law, sometimes it overlaps with justice when conditions are favorable but don't count on it. And again it's the people that has the money to pay good lawyers that get what they want.
Privacy is good. Because suppose the society at large would object to your indoor growing of carrots for any reason. With privacy you can do that even if the society at large has issues with it. Because after all it doesn't affect them in any relevant way and it's not their business to interfere with using selective negative treatment for anyone they think is doing this. There will always be narrow minded and stupid people. Some will even be in a position of power. So power can't be trusted with insight into peoples private life.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:37AM
In my hypothesis, total surveillance means total surveillance, so you are talking about the bad guys partial surveillance scenario, which is indeed evil.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 13 2015, @12:52AM
Why would surveillance of bad guys when you have a probable cause be bad?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 13 2015, @10:48PM
In the scenario of my original post, sorry but indeed it's not clear, the bad guys are doing the surveillance not the object of it. Given enough time, bad guys get to the top, it's social dynamics, i daresay it's a physical phenomenon. Bad guys do bad things, so they need privacy. They also need information about everyone else -> partial surveillance, the worst scenario. Total surveillance is not as bad as it seems, no surveillance is good too. Among the three, the two most favorable are the last two, unfortunately they are both utopic, or dystopic.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 13 2015, @11:30PM
Total surveillance opens up for a Nazi style government. It will also slow progress because everyone has to justify their doings to every moron in existence.
Bad guys needs privacy but they also tend to do bad things which gets them caught or at least breaks their anonymity.
When you refer to bad guys do you mean ordinary criminals or people inside government? and what people would they keep an eye on more specifically?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday April 17 2015, @08:50AM
> Total surveillance opens up for a Nazi style government.
I think we have two different definition for total surveillance. There is a whole lot of stuff the Nazi could not have pulled if all their actions could have been completely monitored by everybody. The excuse for invading Poland comes to mind, or the fact that they blasted plutocracies when they were in bed with them (London financed Hitler).
> When you refer to bad guys do you mean ordinary criminals or people inside government?
yes.
Expanding on the answer, bad is an independent trait from the role in society.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:51PM
One problem with what you suggest is that it isn't yet possible, we have to deal with what is possible and being done right now.
Another problem with it is with all that information available, how do you find the important information you need to make your decisions? Humans can only deal with a finite amount of information, we already suffer from information overload if we try to digest all the limited information we have for decisions we make.
Even with much more advanced technology and using some very advanced AI to manage the data, I still can't see the world you envisage as being realistic.