back to article UN to Five Eyes nations: Your mass surveillance is breaking the law

Edward Snowden should be shielded from prosecution because the world needs people willing to expose violations of human rights, says the UN's High Commissioner for Human rights Navi Pillay. Speaking at the launch of a report into digital privacy, Pillay said Snowden's revelations “go to the core” of the UN's concerns about …

Page:

  1. Mark 85

    Since the UN is ignored by everyone anyway and thus, pretty much useless what's the point? What are they (the UN) going to do about it besides pound on the podium?

    1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      If that's the case, she should run for Parliament.

      I'd vote for her!

    2. sabroni Silver badge

      Mark 85, I think the real question is..

      ..what are YOU going to do about it? Besides pound on the keyboard....

      1. Mark 85

        Re: Mark 85, I think the real question is..

        Not talking to the UN. I'm trying to deal with a couple of Congress Critters... It's much like pounding my head against the wall but without the bloodshed. What are you doing about it?

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Mark 85, I think the real question is..

        I was planning on putting on a blue helmet and standing beside somebodies keyboard without actualy stopping them doing anything.

      3. Queasy Rider

        Re: Mark 85, I think the real question is..

        And what are YOU, Sabroni, going to do about it? See, that little game can go on ad nauseum. By the way, I'm doing nothing because I firmly believe that neither myself as an individual nor we in our collective millions can stop, slow down or deter anybody from amassing data, simply because knowledge is power. Besides, the only thing I can do is withdraw from the system, get rid of my cell phone, landline, internet connection then computer, bank accounts (with my credit and debit cards), employer, multiple insurance policies, driver's license and vehicle, library card, cable tv, magazine subscriptions, and soon, cash transactions, and finally go live in a hole in the ground. Oh wait, didn't Saddam try that already? We are not little guys to the real power brokers; we are nothing guys. And nothing, that is, zero times x, whether x is one or a billion is still zero.

        The old cliche is you can't fight city hall. We know that isn't quite true because some individuals have done just that by expending prodigious amounts of effort and resources. Now multiply that by the size of the national or world stage. The godfathers of this world don't owe us; we owe them and they will never relent on any issue unless it gains them more money or power, not less. You want to live in a different world, go join a commune, but be aware, while you are hiding under your communal rock the rest of the world will keep on turning, and when you emerge blinkingly from under that rock you will only find it even more difficult to suffer the world order.

        You can change your own little corner of the world, but unless you want the rest of the world to rain down on your head like some kind of metaphorical Armageddon, you'll have to go along to get along. It all makes me so sad, Sigh.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Mark 85, I think the real question is..

          Guys, if you can't think of anything to do yourself, it's not a bad idea to support the people who require your funding to work in the right direction for you:

          Electronic Frontier Foundation

          Open Rights Group

          Liberty

          Big Brother Watch

          Or any of the others listed at the bottom of this page: https://www.dontspyonus.org.uk/org

          If you're not already supporting one or more of them, may I urge you to set up a small monthly donation at your earliest convenience.

    3. Omniaural

      At this point, the UN is nothing more than the world's conscience.

      If governments want to know how they SHOULD act for the benefit of all mankind then they should listen to the UN.

      However as was proved with the Iraq invasion, just as with our own conscience, it's easy to ignore that voice saying you shouldn't be doing something when all of your instincts are reaching out for the things you desire.

      The UN is powerless because selfish national interests keep holding back the human race from breaking the historical cycle of greed, war and conquest that always seems to occupy the minds of those with power.

      1. cortland

        The UN is not *excatly* powerless but

        it is EFFECTIVELY powerless because nations who wish it to do their bidding are all the rest of the time content to frustrate its ability to act.

        And because (as they say in Nigeria) a tree that won't hold your weight when you lean on it can't hurt when it falls on you.

        1. Tom 38

          Re: The UN is not *excatly* powerless but

          The UN has power because it consists of powerful nations, but it has no power when it wishes to control the actions of the powerful nations that give it power.

  2. Denarius
    Unhappy

    given the citizens largely dont care

    it is a lost cause. Only public noises that mention UN these days seem to be social engineers or panic merchants. Usual FUD from the Fat Man yesterday if we don't encourage additional snooping and data retention. Odd given that under Oz law, such as it is, there is no restraint already. Loyally serving his masters in the USSA I suppose. Perhaps costs should come out of pollies superannuation and secret police budget so auditing of activities can be done by forensic accountants.

  3. Hargrove

    The point is . . .

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

    Or to say nothing. Technology has given those who govern unprecedented capabilities to monitor and record the details of an individual's life. They are using it, and will continue to expand its use, unless voices are raised against the practice.

    This is a case where silence is assent. The fact that an individual or institution lacks the power to take action does NOT excuse them from the obligation to speak out for what they believe is right.

    1. king of foo

      Godwin's law

      "You can present the material, but you can't make me care." - Bill Watterson

      I am constantly amazed and infuriated by the widespread apathy when it comes to privacy and the invasion of it. Governments exist to protect the rights of citizens to live in a certain way, not to dictate what that way is/should be. I used to be proud of the fact that I could walk down the street without someone in a uniform saying “Papiere, Bitte”; proud of my country and for the countless men and women who fought for my freedom to do exactly that.

    2. ma1010
      Big Brother

      Re: The point is . . .

      Well, the biggest problem is WHAT CAN WE DO? One poster mentions social media. I think as far as the big governments are concerned, social media has the significance of, as Robert Heinlein put it "squeals of kittens in box." Here in the US, you can vote for the Republicans, who favor mass surveillance, or you can vote for the Democrats, who favor mass surveillance. Gotta run out and vote! So, my question is what, exactly, should the good men do to try to put an end to the horror? Much of the apathy isn't really apathy, it's just that those opposed to Big Brother don't have any effective plan of action.

  4. Charles Manning

    Big deal

    I am opposed to mass survelillance, but surely UN has bigger rights issues on it's plate than this?

    Women/gays being stoned to death, soccer playing Palestinian kids being straffed by Isrealies,...

    The 5 eyes nations are all reasonably democratic, with citizens who are reasonably empowered to act. It is not like they're in dictatorships where the citizens have no control over the issues.

    It is far more important that the UN help those who lack the power to help themselves.

    1. Steven Roper

      Re: Big deal

      So by your reasoning, we should simply ignore every issue and problem in the world until the single worst one (as defined by you) has been solved, and thus resolve them one at a time in order of importance?

      You are aware that there are enough people on this planet, that we can examine and solve multiple problems simultaneously, right?

    2. Gotno iShit Wantno iShit

      Re: Big deal @Charles

      Is that a JTRIG post?

    3. a53

      Re: Big deal

      So that means she should say nothing ?

    4. scrubber

      Re: Big deal

      There is no moral authority if we do bad shit at home. It becomes do as I say, not as I do, which invalidates every sentiment we send out. Human rights are cajoled on other nations through embarrassment more than anything else and if we're 1984 what the heck place do we have telling anyone else anything. Plus the US executes minors and the mentally incompetent, so, ya know...

  5. Aslan

    I don't pay much attention to the UN and when I do I'm wary of it, worrying that it looks to usurp national sovereignty, but this, this changes things a bit. The organization I was concerned about taking away my rights and freedoms is now the one standing up for them. That's the wrong side of the issue for the USA to be on. If the UN can arrange protection for Snowden and keep up the pressure on this issue I'll be suitably impressed and at the least, will feel they're due some respect.

    @Charles Manning

    Funny you should say that here with the supposed last name of Manning. Just because there's murders who haven't been caught yet doesn't mean the those who break and enter shouldn't be brought to justice.

    1. Aslan

      @Charles Manning. Sorry about taking issue with your name I see you have a long posting history here, you got in just before I did. It has been shown that governments take an interest in social media and other such things. If we haven't seen their effects yet we most certainly will in the coming months and years. I do reiterate however, Just because there's murders who haven't been caught yet doesn't mean the those who break and enter shouldn't be brought to justice.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Headmaster

    To be completely fair....

    The Russians, Chinese, Indians and probably the French and a lot of other countries should also most certainly be called out for excessive surveillance. However, its good that the UN is saying something about it.

  7. EssEll

    Dangerous precedent

    This worries me. Whatever else Snowden is, he is an alleged criminal. He stands accused of crimes against his country and he is a fugitive from justice. He has not stood trial, and yet this person seems to be suggesting that he should receive immunity from prosecution on the basis of the crimes he has allegedly committed.

    Where does the line get drawn?

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: Dangerous precedent

      I think the Nuremberg trials established that simply obeying orders and laws is not an acceptable defence against actions that are clearly morally abhorrent.

      By implication, those who speak out and act against said actions should be protected against perverse laws or illegal orders.

      It is the whistle-blower's charter on a grand scale: If you have evidence of wrong-doing you should not be punished for revealing it, but that is kind of hard when the evidence is against the government who is also in charge of the trial & punishment.

      1. EssEll

        Re: Dangerous precedent

        Firstly comparing any potential trial against Snowden to the Nuremberg trials - against individuals complicit in the torture and death of millions of people - is at best questionable.

        Secondly at least the Nuremberg trials actually had a trial. The individuals faced some form of justice and answered for their crimes. Snowden has had no such "opportunity".

        Thirdly - I never said anything about punishing him, I pointed out that he has not faced trial.I don't care where he stands trial - it can be an international court if he feels he will not get justice in the US - but to suggest he should be completely protected from prosecution at all is just wrong.

        1. haiku

          Re: Dangerous precedent

          >> Snowden has had no such "opportunity".

          And, if the US government - and its allies - have their way, never will.

        2. P. Lee

          Re: Dangerous precedent

          > Firstly comparing any potential trial against Snowden to the Nuremberg trials - against individuals

          > complicit in the torture and death of millions of people - is at best questionable.

          At this point, possibly. However, the infrastructure has been put in place what the Nazis or the Soviets could only have dreamt of for spying on their own people. All we need a a financial jolt large enough to make a lot of people hungry and people will accept any leader charismatic enough to persuade them that he has a solution to their problems.

          I have little fear of Islamic international terrorists - they have a track record of doing very little damage. National governments on the other hand have a long history of terrorising and slaughtering their populations.

          1. EssEll

            Re: Dangerous precedent

            " I have little fear of Islamic international terrorists - they have a track record of doing very little damage. National governments on the other hand have a long history of terrorising and slaughtering their populations."

            Can you give me an example of where a national government has "terrorised and slaughtered their population"?

            1. M7S

              Re: Dangerous precedent

              Here's one: Saddam Hussein terrorised and slaughtered significant elements of his population. I believe he gassed around five thousand Kurds at some time.

            2. Roj Blake Silver badge

              Re: Dangerous precedent

              "Can you give me an example of where a national government has "terrorised and slaughtered their population"?"

              Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Amin, Milosovic and Hussein are all names that spring instantly to mind.

              British colonial administrations been involved in massacres of populations that they were governing.

              1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

                Re: @Roj Blake

                You might also want to include the "USA" in how it dealt with the native Indians (not to mention the first appearance of prisoner camps in the civil war), and the Spanish in various south America countries.

                Not to mention government-church sanctioned massacres throughout Europe in the late middle ages, oh yes, and that bit of bother caused by the Romans earlier...

                A few nutters have nothing on the ability of national organisation to cause suffering.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Dangerous precedent

                9/11 is a prime example

            3. Naughtyhorse

              Re: Dangerous precedent

              Are you speaking with forked tongue about the killing fields? That could end up with you being sent to the gulags, if Robespierre does not drive you across the Atlantic on the mayflower, and no one expects that (their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... amongst our weapons.... amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... ).

              <can I stop now please?>

              go read a history book, preferably one the ex minster of education would disapprove of

          2. Champ

            Re: Dangerous precedent

            >I have little fear of Islamic international terrorists - they have a track record of doing very little damage. >National governments on the other hand have a long history of terrorising and slaughtering their >populations.

            This is exactly my view on this subject. The whole "we need these laws to protect you from terrorism" argument just doesn't stand up.

    2. MyHandle256

      Re: Dangerous precedent

      Rewind back to 1939-1945. If a German had released a cache of documents showing that the Nazis were building concentration camps, would you be "worried" that this German was being excused, after all he was an "alleged criminal" and by releasing the documents was now "accused of crimes against his country?", and it was setting a dangerous precedent that people were calling for his immunity from prosecution?

      Theres nothing criminal about going against your country, when your country is committing criminal acts in the first place. Blind, unquestioning loyalty to "your country" is how situations like this arise in the first place. Thats what fascist authoritarian regiemes want, its how they operate.

    3. Naughtyhorse

      Re: Dangerous precedent

      No need to worry about the dangerous precident...

      He's retired now, and spends all his time in the bath producing infantile daubs of his own feet.

    4. Someone Else Silver badge
      Go

      @EssEll -- Re: Dangerous precedent

      Where does the line get drawn?

      Here, among other places. To wit:

      The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report agency misconduct. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Whistleblowers [1] may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    resistance is futile

    The public outcry and indignation of allies and domestic US companies co-opted into spying on their users for Uncle Sam has resulted in precisely nothing being done.

    The US and UK are still busy at it, they're even rubber-stamping new laws with opposition support. They're talking about improving oversight and so on, but it's just fluff. They're going to keep spying on everyone just as before regardless.

    But now thanks to Snowden, we know this. If we want to be protected, we're going to have to do it ourselves. There is probably no hope to make everyone NSA/GCHQ proof, but widespread use of encryption and other technologies could realistically make blanket surveillance impractical and uneconomic.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: resistance is futile

      but widespread use of encryption and other technologies could realistically make blanket surveillance impractical and uneconomic.

      sure...

      Is that whilst their in the midst involved in all aspects of design/implementation of ecnryption standards ?

      Or when you use encryption that they can not decypher and they come knocking on your door?

      1. Roj Blake Silver badge

        Re: resistance is futile

        "Or when you use encryption that they can not decypher and they come knocking on your door?"

        They won't have the manpower if everyone does it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: resistance is futile

          boom and thats when they pass a law anyone caught will be put in jail for blahdeeblahhh and then a few public cases made out of those they wish to pursue to set examples..

          Anyhow whilst their agencies are involved in all aspects of design/implementation of h/w s/w there is no winning I am afraid...

          1. Looper
            FAIL

            Re: resistance is futile - agencies involved in all aspects of design/implementation of h/w s/w

            All aspects of h/w AND s/w?

            Really?

            Ever heard of open source?

  9. Tom 7

    The police complain about paperwork but do in preference to walking the beat

    I'm beginning to wonder whether excessive surveillance is a similar thing - 'we cant take action because we are onto something bigger at the moment and dont want to spoil it' and no doubt the big thing will evaporate while they drink their coffee. Or why didn't you spot that? Well we had so much data that by the time we'd trawled through it it was too late - GCHQ and the NSA are packed with coffee drinking Wallys.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    here is your problem : TCP/IP

    TCP/IP protocols were initially developed as part of the research network developed by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA or ARPA).

    Typerwriters for all on sys admin appreciation day - certainly less issues to fix for the system admins

  11. Otto is a bear.

    What do you think mass surveillance is?

    I'd say it was the monitoring of the general population for aberrant behaviour, and the ability to do something about it. Which is just about impossible, look at the efforts North Korea goes to, and still fails. All states, since time immemorial, have done this by monitoring the chatter in the general population. At one time it was about having someone in the right ale house at the right time, someone standing outside to see who goes in and out. Now, that just won't work, the virtual ale houses are much bigger and move around, you can't stick an individual outside, you need to monitor it, see who talks to whom, and listen in to random conversations to pick up intelligence.

    How you would detect unknown groups any other way, I don't know, but I do know that the logistics of actually monitoring every individuals behaviour is way beyond the capabilities of any government, let alone doing something about it.

    I think a lot of commentators here would change their minds after a close brush with a terrorist or criminal action. Think, how would you identify a cyber criminal or terrorist, if you don't know who they are, and can't find out, unless you have a warrant that identifies them. By the time you have a warrant to look at an identity, it probably isn't there any more. The trick of intelligence is to identify things before they happen, and prevent them happening. Remember that criminals and terrorists look just like you and me, and can come from nice families as much as anywhere else, they can be your friends and neighbours.

    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: What do you think mass surveillance is?

      "I think a lot of commentators here would change their minds after a close brush with a terrorist or criminal action."

      It's a risk I, for one, am prepared to take to live in a free society where I am not treated as a potential terrorist by my government and monitored 24/7.

      Terrorism alone can't bring down a nation. Anti-terror laws, however, can.

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: What do you think mass surveillance is?

        Isn't that the sad irony.

        Bin Laden has won. He'd won on September the 12th, but our betters and wisers were too full of their own cleverness to spot this.

        that's the trouble with democracy :-) look around you.... how would you feel about those people organising your pension? picking a retirement home for you? what's the odds that collectively they couldn't even sit the right way round on a toilet.

        and they decide who gets to play with the big levers.

        .. all we need now is to find a better way to do it :-D

    2. Andrew Jones 2

      Re: What do you think mass surveillance is?

      No!

      I am sick of reminding people of this!

      Terrorists do not use Facebook, Google+, Skype, Twitter, Email etc etc in order to discuss their latest plot, they do not buy bombs from Amazon.

      This whole "it's for your own good" argument would be great if it actually held any weight - but - did it stop 9/11? Did it stop the Boston Bombing? Does it help prevent School shootings? Shopping Mall shootings? Airport shootings? Cinema shootings?

      It does none of these things!

      Anyone who thinks a terrorist group setup a Skype call to plan where to bomb next really ought to get a reality check. We have now reached the point where not only do we know the extent of the NSA/GCHQ surveillance - we also know it's bound to go much much deeper than what has been revealed so far. Yet with all the "intelligence" at hand - they are still unable to stop the majority of what they claim they needed the intelligence for in the first place.

      Look at the recent "tools" that we found out about -

      the ability to artificially increase traffic to a website,

      to change outcome of online polls,

      The document also details a range of programs designed to collect and store public postings from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+, and to make automated postings on several of the social networks.,

      Capabilities to boost views of YouTube videos, or to boost the circulation of particular messages are also detailed

      None of these things are even vaguely related to terrorism, or preventing it. They are about altering the outcome of an event - what sort of event? Sticking my tin foil hat on for a moment - GCHQ could easily use that collection of tools to manipulate the outcome of something like - oh I don't know.... who you elect to run the country!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What do you think mass surveillance is?

        Very well put I would also add that surveillance of your own citizens does nothing to prevent the evil. Going around blowing up things/removing regimes also does nothing to change the underlying strive of those that feel differently to the outlook of others.

        The reality is very much related to this topic:

        http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/12/northern.ireland/index.html?iref=newssearch

        You have years of killing going on and none of the security measures actually stop the threat.

        What appears to be a good fix is to sit around like grown up adults and discuss the differences. Sort out the underlying issues.

        If you ask me this is all an excuse / noise created whilst one side takes advantage of the other and fuels further generations of the same.....

        Questions we need to raise to our political leaders is why did they after 10 years decide to sit around in the case of NI.. why not sooner? Why do they not apply this theory to all issues faced around the world ? if not why what is there to gain?

        I am afraid our media over here is also pretty much under the control of the same bunch that make all the excuses. Since they do not give a neutral view and properly question the elected to find out why they are doing what they are doing - what the real costs are - what has been gained - what has been lost

        ACCOUNTABILITY is what is missing

        10 years on from Iraq why is there still violence, thought this was all resolved by their initial process - if no what was GAINED and by whom

        1. Mark 85

          Re: What do you think mass surveillance is?

          I gave you an upvote for believing what you say and for bringing up accountability.

          However, I should also downvote you. Yes, things should be discussed and sorted out. However, when dealing with the Middle East, you're dealing with old grudges, religion, minor and major power brokers who's only goal is either to maintain the status quo or to get more power.

          Democracy is a great idea, but in many places it won't work as the people have no foundation in it.

          As for Iraq, or any place else in that neck of the woods, review it under the context of the guy in power has to be the biggest barbarian on the block in order to control it. If you want to go further west to Isreali/Gaza/Hamas/PLO/etc. area, look at the history of lies and broken promises from the powers further to their east. The Palestinians were offered citizenship but the players and power brokers to east promised them much if they said "no" and fought it. The powers then reneged on their promises.

          There's damn little accountability in that area.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like