Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday April 11 2015, @07:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can't-make-us dept.

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.]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:04PM (#169075)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:23PM (#169082)

    Who's to say that everyone needs to like privacy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:26PM (#169084)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:32PM (#169088)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:12PM (#169105)

          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

            by mtrycz (60) on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:17PM (#169109)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:35PM (#169141)

              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

                by mtrycz (60) on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:47AM (#169167)

                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

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:18PM (#169110)

            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

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:48AM (#169291) Journal

    >>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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @01:52PM (#169322)

      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

        by Bot (3902) on Friday April 17 2015, @08:57AM (#171944) Journal

        > 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.