SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A top secret report to the British prime minister has recommended that a new international treaty be negotiated to force the cooperation of the big US internet companies in sharing customers' personal data, the Guardian has learned.
Privacy campaigners said the decision to classify the report, written by the former diplomat Sir Nigel Sheinwald, as top secret was designed to bury it and said its key recommendation for an international treaty could provide a legal, front-door alternative to the government's renewed "snooper's charter" surveillance proposals.
It is believed the former British ambassador to Washington concluded that such a treaty could overcome US laws that prevent web giants based there, including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo, from sharing their customers' private data with British police and security services. It would also mean not having to revive the powers – which require British phone companies to share data from the US giants passing over their networks – from the 2012 communications data bill that would enforce their compliance.
Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group said: "The Sheinwald report should be published. Any attempt to hide it can only be interpreted as an attempt to close down debate about whether the snooper's charter is really needed. A new international treaty is the right approach to cross-border requests for data by law enforcement agencies. This approach undermines Theresa May's claim that there is a need for a new snooper's charter when there is a simple, transparent and workable solution."
But the Cabinet Office defended its decision to keep the report secret [sic]. It said Shinewald "reports on progress to the prime minister but... is not undertaking a public review". The Guardian understands the report has been classified as top secret by the Cabinet Office because it goes into the detail of each company's operations. Shinewald was appointed by Cameron in September 2014 as his special envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing.
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday June 04 2015, @07:21AM
I wish I had a modpoint for you. I found your post quite interesting.
Looks like we will all be forced to abandon "privacy" because today's technology enables mass surveillance.
And in the same vein...
Looks like we will all be forced to abandon "copyright" because today's technology enables mass replication.
I guess technology is a two sided coin.... give and take.
Of course "they" won't admit it. They want to take and take. And find Congressmen to "work with" to make it so.
"They" do things I do not like, but there isn't nothing much I can do about it. They have the technology that enables them to do it.
I do things "They" do not like, but there isn't nothing much they can do about it. I have the technology that enables me to do it.
All we can do is make Congressmen look bad by asking them to pass unenforceable law - which ends up mostly fomenting a disrespect for all law.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 04 2015, @05:19PM
An interesting conundrum.
Privacy is pretty much exactly like copyright in many ways, and is subject to the same "artificial scarcity" arguments.
It seems likely that the pirates will not likely appreciate the comparison.
My point wasn't that we need to abandon privacy, simply that technical means to enable or protect privacy, especially against government attacks (to say nothing about large corporations), are probably not going to be fruitful, or sustainable.
I think the solution is to turn government around. I don't pretend to have a plan for that. But I think the founding fathers were closer to a working framework than we are today.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday June 05 2015, @04:45AM
Point taken. I was the one who fired off that "maybe we need to abandon privacy" gig, as I have seen the powers that be going nuts over how easy and profitable it is to share my personal data - completely ignoring my claim of "copyright" on MY life, yet in the next instant running off to Congress to pass law to try to protect their information.
My take is both memes are obsolete and unenforceable.
Like you say, an interesting conundrum.
Actually I kinda hope the pirates appreciate the comparison. Might come in handy in a courtroom. One side is pressing charges for violating copyright, the other side retorts they have claimed copyright on their own life, but it has also been violated, and no action taken. Restate our Pledge of Allegiance. The first three words: I Pledge Allegiance. The last three words: Justice for All. Then ask if the prosecuting party is calling our Pledge of Allegiance nothing but a crock of crap.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]