back to article United Nations signs off on 'right to privacy in the digital age'

The United Nations (UN) has unanimously voted to adopt a resolution calling for online privacy to be recognised as a human right. The gesture is politically notable because it shows the world is willing to be seen to do something in the wake of The Year Of Snowden. The resolution extends the general human right of privacy to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    That's a relief then

    Although shouldn't the UN have used its other 2 magic wishes to end war, poverty, hunger, injustice etc?

    1. Thorne

      Re: That's a relief then

      Well they used one magic wish to ban smacking of children in Australia.....

      1. croc

        Re: That's a relief then

        "Well they used one magic wish to ban smacking of children in Australia....."

        Wrong country. You are not from around here, are you.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That's a relief then

      We all know how effective the UN can be these days.

      This statement will make all the difference won't it?

  2. phil dude
    Meh

    well when not elected...

    you can say anything you like. Come to think of it, even if you are elected, if you have a good PR dept you can say anything you want. Seems that way...

    The UN is a fig leaf over national govts acting badly, of all sorts. Better than nothing, but still, there are too many people sitting around that big UN table that would have sticky ends with any more freedoms...

    P.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: well when not elected...

      Bit like Lib-Dem election pledges, you can say whatever the hell you like, you're never going to have to implement it.

  3. Thorne

    A total waste of time

    That will be ignored by every spy agency in the world......

  4. cracked

    Rights and wrong(s)?

    On the upside, the UN has explicitly recognised “that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy” and noted that “the global and open nature of the Internet and the rapid advancement in information and communication technologies as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms”.

    One:

    Do you have a right to privacy in a public place?

    (I am not reading through all of the UN Human Rights legislation/proclaimations to find out, by the way!) ;-)

    I thought, certainly in Western-style democracies, that you only had a right to privacy, once outside of private property, if there was not an over-riding public interest in invading (any such) privacy??

    Or, how else do the myriad tat-mags get to publish pictures of [some celeb I have never heard of] with his/her vag peeking out, from beneath their skirt, as they exit a taxi?

    Two:

    Despite that fact that a person can use the Internet whilst in the privacy of private property, are their online interactions in a public or private space; or both? (Note: their interactions, not their actions).

    Real World:

    If I hold a whispered coversation, on the concourse of a public railway station, am I entitled to expect that conversation to be private?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Rights and wrong(s)?

      Being in public doesn't mean you have no rights

      If you were constantly followed around by a squad of police recording everywhere you went, everything you said, everyone you talked to and everything you looked at - you might think that was pretty oppressive

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Rights and wrong(s)?

      If I hold a whispered coversation, on the concourse of a public railway station, am I entitled to expect that conversation to be private?

      I think whispering is a clear indication of a desire to make a communication one-to-one, rather than generally accessible, so I'd say 'Yes'. But in practice, if anyone overhears your conversation you can't blame them for breaching your privacy unless they are taking clear steps (leaning close/using a bug or a directional microphone) to subvert your privacy measure.

      For me, if someone uses special methods or takes advantage of their privileged position (eg as the operator of the infrastructure over which a conversation has occurred) to reveal a conversation that would otherwise have been private, then they have breached the participants' privacy.

      1. cracked

        Re: Rights and wrong(s)?

        It's interesting that (I assume?) you both think communications on the Internet are in a solely public place (even if sometimes whispered).

        They are genuine questions, I don't know the right answers. I too would like to think that if you meant a conversation, in a public place to be 1-2-1, then it would be ... But I have a suspicion that it is going to be more good manners and less any kind of "right".

        I also wonder, legally, in which "sphere(s)" a (say) online banking transaction occurs (private, public, both)?

        It would be interesting to know the opinion/thoughts of the outlaw.com lot (who have stuff placed on here, from time to time) ... Wouldn't it ... Simon? ;-)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @cracked - Re: Rights and wrong(s)?

          I was more making the point that even if a place is public, a conversation can be private. In such a place, though, breach of privacy may be considered to be a minor infraction.

          There is certainly a view expressed that the internet is public therefore privacy should not be expected, but I think that's plain bollocks.

          My general feeling is in fact opposite to what I seemed to have implied to you. As far as I'm concerned the internet is not by definition a public place. Rather, the level of privacy is variable according to the forum/medium employed.

          If I communicate with someone via private messenging or e-mail (ie 1:1), then I think it is irrelevant that the communication may travel unencrypted across public networks. As long as the public can't (legally) see that communication then it is private. If someone who carries or hosts that communication reveals or makes use of that conversation then they are breaching my privacy.

          1. cracked

            Re: @cracked - Rights and wrong(s)?

            Legally, or morally, Justa?

            As in; is it only out of politeness that other people on the concourse aren't listening to us whisper?

            I think the issue will become a legal battle of words and meanings. And I am not sure the UN has helped by trying to equate the online and offline worlds?

            I think comms in the online world are in both public and private places. And because that is so, I think governments could argue that they are serving a greater public good by invading the privacy of their (and other's) electorate, in order to route out those who may harm our way of life.

            I am fairly sure similar such exemptions exist for the media, who can publish images (and detail overheard conversations etc) from those who wider society has shown an interest in.

            William's Wife was able to successfully challenge the publication of photos that were less than flattering to her image, because she was within private property when those photos were taken. I do not believe she would have been able to challenge had she instead been on Blackpool's public beach.

            And the opposite: May well prove to be the NotW "Phone Hacking Scandal". Indeed, this may well be closer to the "online" environment that we are interested in? Although - that written - it could be said that the "celebs" whose answer-phone was "hacked" were paying for a private space (the messages were not intercepted enroute - across the public sphere - but once in situ in a "rented, private space").

            Like everyone else, I would much prefer that the emails I send and receive were seen only by their intended recipient; but I am not sure a sense of politeness is enough to make that the case.

          2. kiwimuso
            Big Brother

            Re: @cracked - Rights and wrong(s)?

            I don't see it as any different to an old fashioned phone call, which, although carried on a public network was, to all intents and purposes, a private conversation unless the forces of law and order applied to a judge/magistrate/court official for a warrant to wire tap, and had to produce evidence to show that there was reasonable cause to do so.

            I don't see this as any different on the internet with emails, VoIP calls etc. It should all be private unless a warrant is issued.

            Having said that, it is obviously a piece of cake for what is laughably still known as the forces of law and order to grab any or all data or communications that they wish at any time at all.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "To respect and protect the right to privacy, including in the context of digital communication"

    Meanwhile the plebs are busy uploading their PI to Facebook et al.

  6. dan1980

    Yep, that'll work alright.

    Considering the US Government maintains that sections of the Geneva Convention (you know - the ones about torturing people, etc...) don't actually apply to them, I wonder exactly how much weight such a pronouncement has?

    Remember, all the government has to do to prevent the facts of any prospective case from seeing a court is to say: "but, but, national security . . . " And remember also, we're talking about something that's supposed to be covert; if done 'right' it shouldn't even get to the point where the Government needs to intervene and use it's magical 'get out of jail free' card.

    In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the central issue was not what actually happened to the prisoner but if the court was able to hear the case. Essentially, the US Government had passed legislation that tried to prevent the court being able to decide if it (the Government) was breaching the Geneva Convention.

    In both situations, the Government has simply legislated that the courts can't try the Government. I used to think that the tripartite system was a good idea as it helps limit the power of any one party. Indeed it still is a good idea. It just doesn't work that way in practice anymore; not since the Government decided it didn't want to be subject to such judgment and subsequent limitation of their action and autonomy and so legislated accordingly.

    1. g e

      Perghaps

      The GC could be modded to have wording such as 'Any clauses deemed not to apply to any sovereignty by such sovereignty shall automatically not be enforceable against that sovereignty's people anywhere in the world against any other sovereign state.'

      Kinda like 'If the USA doesn't think that bit applies then it does't apply for all Americans wherever they are and whatever they're doing'

      So. We can all torture Americans without redress from the USA (other than bombs, as usual), because they think they can torture others.

  7. Chad H.

    Sadly, UN resolutions of this sort aren't binding and can be flouted without consequence.

    --------

    This is just why you have to laugh at the conspiracy nuts who are convinced the UN is the start of the NWO. They just have no clue as to how ineffectual and powerless it really is.

  8. GeoTel

    I wonder if the UN will ever actually pass a resolution against the US (and UK) regarding this violation? Even if it isn't enforceable, I think many would appreciate the notion.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Even if they try, someone will veto it.

      And since the UN must pass all of its resolutions without any veto, it will be buried.

      And that is why the UN is powerless : it is not the fact that it is the UN, it is the fact that there will always be someone to step up and veto something someone else doesn't want.

      If the UN had existed in 1939, it would have pressed for a motion to condemn Hitler for invading Poland - but Russia would have vetoed it (or Italy, or Japan, or whoever).

      It is not the UN that is powerless - it is our own damn incapability to work for higher goals instead of working for personal interests.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like