UN Says Mass Surveillance Violates Human Rights
from the because-it-does dept
Over the summer, the United Nations commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, had said that mass surveillance likely violates human rights. At the time, she said:‟International human rights law provides a clear and universal framework for the promotion and protection of the right to privacy, including in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance, the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data. Practices in many [s]tates have, however, revealed a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak procedural safeguards, and ineffective oversight. All of these have contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful interference in the right to privacy.”Now a new report from a different UN official, issued to the UN General Assembly, backs that up and appears to go further:
International human rights law requires States to provide an articulable and evidence-based justification for any interference with the right to privacy, whether on an individual or mass scale. It is a central axiom of proportionality that the greater the interference with protected human rights, the more compelling the justification must be if it is to meet the requirements of the Covenant. The hard truth is that the use of mass surveillance technology effectively does away with the right to privacy of communications on the Internet altogether. By permitting bulk access to all digital communications traffic, this technology eradicates the possibility of any individualized proportionality analysis. It permits intrusion on private communications without independent (or any) prior authorization based on suspicion directed at a particular individual or organization.The report is clear that it's not talking about just any surveillance -- but mass surveillance. It notes that preventing terrorism is a legitimate reason for targeted surveillance, but that since there's no proof that mass surveillance actually helps stop terrorism, it's in violation:
Article 17 of the Covenant provides that any interference with private communications must be prescribed by law, and must be a necessary and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate public policy objective. The prevention of terrorism is plainly a legitimate aim for this purpose, but the activities of intelligence and law enforcement agencies in this field must still comply with international human rights law. Merely to assert — without particularization — that mass surveillance technology can contribute to the suppression and prosecution of acts of terrorism does not provide an adequate human rights law justification for its use. The fact that something is technically feasible, and that it may sometimes yield useful intelligence, does not by itself mean that it is either reasonable or lawful (in terms of international or domestic law)The report also takes on the whole "but it's the internet, you have no privacy anyway" argument pretty clearly:
Some argue that users of the Internet have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the first place, and must assume that their communications are available to be monitored by corporate and State entities alike. The classic analogy drawn by those who support this view is between sending an unencrypted email and sending a postcard. Whatever the merits of this comparison, it does not answer the key questions of legality, necessity and proportionality. The very purpose of the Covenant’s requirement for explicit and publicly accessible legislation governing State interference with communications is to enable individuals to know the extent of the privacy rights they actually enjoy and to foresee the circumstances in which their communications may be subjected to surveillance. Yet the value of this technology as a counter-terrorism and law enforcement tool rests in the fact that users of the Internet assume their communications to be confidential (otherwise there would be no purpose in intruding upon them). This is reflected in the assertions made by members of the intelligence communities of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the disclosure of mass surveillance programmes operated by these two States, in which the disclosures were said to have damaged national security by alerting potential terrorists to the fact that their communications were under surveillance.From there, the report notes that if states wish to impede on this privacy in the name of preventing terrorism, they must show tangible benefits from such surveillance -- and, so far, no government has done so. Furthermore, the report warns of:
[....] The suggestion that users have voluntarily forfeited their right to privacy is plainly unwarranted. It is a general principle of international human rights law that individuals can be regarded as having given up a protected human right only through an express and unequivocal waiver, voluntarily given on an informed basis. In the modern digital world, merely using the Internet as a means of private communication cannot conceivably constitute an informed waiver of the right to privacy under article 17 of the Covenant.
The Internet is not a purely public space. It is composed of many layers of private as well as social and public realms. Those making informed use of social media platforms in which messages are posted in full public view obviously have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The postcard analogy is entirely apposite for the dissemination of information through the public dimensions of Twitter and Facebook, for example, or postings on public websites. But reading a postcard is not an apposite analogy for intercepting private messages sent by e-mail, whether they are encrypted or unencrypted.
...an ever present danger of “purpose creep”, by which measures justified on counter-terrorism grounds are made available for use by public authorities for much less weighty public interest purposes.It's good to see such a clear condemnation of the problems of bulk/mass surveillance efforts -- almost always conducted with no evidence of benefit. Of course, the reality is that this report is unlikely to lead the intelligence community to change its stance on these programs, but it further highlights just how out of step with basic human rights these programs remain.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: human rights, mass surveillance, nsa, privacy, surveillance, un
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Re: Re:
And???
(not like UN can do anything about it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Point in case: Internet is a human right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm glad the UN visited my then prime minister (provincial) "Jean" John Charest to tell him his anti-protest Law 78 was not only against the canadian charts of rights and liberties (our bill of rights, made in the 70's by the only party that cares about social issues (that's able to get in power, the Liberals, the NDP reached their apex now I'm afraid, anyway enough canadian politics.
Soon after people, high ranking UN Officials took a trip from New York to Quebec City, we won, us being students so that our student fees don't grow by 75%. Politicians seems to have forgotten that being a member of the OCDE means your goal is to reach completely free post-secondary education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To revoke US membership would require a UN security council resolution. The US (along with China, Russia, UK and France) has veto power over any UN resolution. Therefore any resolution raised to eject the US could be vetoed by the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because, ya'know, FEMA/UN death camps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secure!
Private!
Anonymous!
And you can even encrypt the content without anyone ever complaining about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you look at the history, though, it already went towards more surveillance with the telegraph rules. Things went from bad to worse with the telephone and now the internet surveillance is so all-encompassing that privacy and human rights are meaningless concepts. The technologies have made it possible to improve surveillance and a possibility is now a must use for the independent states of surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can, of course, encrypt your letter -- but that's no different than encrypting your electronic communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Anyone can send a letter anonymously (or use a fake name), and the postal services will still deliver it. This further reduces the amount of 'useful' metadata that can be collected considerably.
2. Before mail can interceped and opened by an intelligence agancy, a lot of legal steps have to happen (obtaining warrants via court etc). I doubt it is as easy as "when they so desire". And even then, you're free to send encrypted messages.
All in all more secure, anonymous and private than the e-alternative...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely true. This is also true online as well.
"Before mail can interceped and opened by an intelligence agancy, a lot of legal steps have to happen"
Not so many as you might suppose. There have been a number of cases where it has been revealed that mail was getting opened, examined, photographed, and resealed in the absence of anything like a court order. In practice, all it takes is the postmaster agreeing to it.
"All in all more secure, anonymous and private than the e-alternative..."
I disagree. Yes, there are a couple of slight advantages to postal mail, but they're not great enough to really matter. In either case, if you care about privacy, you need to take extra steps to ensure it. They're pretty much the same extra steps, too: you have to keep your name and address off of the "envelope" and you have to encrypt your message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UN representatives sent to shill Agenda 21: too many to count
UN representatives sent to stop mass surveillance: 0
Well, U.N., how about you start actually DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT instead of being all talk while proving every conspiracy theorist right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's probably a No-Fly list just for that very possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have no problems with the average citizen, just their leadership. As long as Americans are apathetic to the problems their criminal government inflict on the rest of the world. The average American does not even factor in any solution that is created from any other country. If Americans were actively fighting back against their our of control government maybe they would factor in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone else at the UN: "We need to sanction the US."
US: "Nah."
Motion fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Glenn Greenwald's TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcSlowAhvUk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it was solely to deal with terrorists... Since it's about control they can't actually show any benefits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its been a while since the US gave a single fuck about international law or the UN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but what can the UN do to stop it , Point a finger and say shame on you, None of the Governments list care about anything other than the 1% tossing them a few dollars, While we remain cattle .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Postcards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Postcards.
You may not be OK with it, but the post office currently does precisely this anyway. Every piece of mail they handle is photographed, both sides, and stored in a searchable database. They've been doing this for a long time now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their probably on their phones right now to their lawyers, pr, company bread maker, figuring out how to circumvent, ..YES, our.damn.rights
They wonder why we hate 'em so......i wonder if disagreing with their obvious bullshit is their definition of "domestic" terrorism......i kinda think thats were their heading, political, idealogical persecution.......i.e. Disagree with me, bam, your a terrorist........and all the power they've given themselves, plus the vague definition............is it me, or is this just to fucking obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA says
[ link to this | view in chronology ]