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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.