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: 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.