with the recent attention on the massive monitoring the Internet, Brazil and Germany proposed a resolution at the United Nations ( "UN") General Assembly November 7, 2013, which would extend the right to privacy in online communications. The resolution was born after revelations that the leaders of Brazil and Germany have been spied at some point by the National Security Agency (NSA). U.N. resolution proposed to incorporate the right to privacy online in the International Covenant on Civil and 1976 political rights under the general right to privacy. The proposed resolution included declarative references against the extra-territorial and illegal surveillance while calling on all nations to end violations of privacy by encouraging compliance with human rights, establish accountability and oversight surveillance of communications, and possibly author of a report on the protection of the right to online privacy by the high Commissioner of the United Nations on human rights in the General Assembly.
initial opposition to the resolution included the United States ( "US") and its partners, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and Australia ( known as the "five eyes"). Opponents of the U.N. resolution argued that no universal right to privacy exists and that governments should recognize the privacy of a person just outside their own country. Were these arguments prove incorrect, current practices monitoring of the NSA would be considered highly unethical and potentially a huge violation of international human rights. This reasoning could explain US efforts to quietly change the resolution instead of outright combat the U.N. After all, the US has never engaged in illegal mass of online espionage practices; rather, it contributes instead to the legal supervision authorized by federal law, congressional oversight, and approval by the Federal Courts. Assuming a compromise can be reached, then the US and its partners can possibly claim that they are against illegal mass surveillance of online activities, while continuing to pursue those activities.
As lobbyists and diplomats involved with changing the resolution of privacy, the United States and its watered partners down by removing the language describing illegal surveillance and disavowing extraterritorial monitoring illegal. The most notable compromise resolution was made to the withdrawal of the language implies that interception and collection of communications and personal data or "mass surveillance" national and international could constitute a violation of human rights. For US red lines to the proposed U.N. resolution, the Bay blog turtles is accused of the information here. After the amendments were approved, the UN resolution to extend the right to privacy in online activities could now be approved by the US and its partners.
Despite the weakening portions of the language of the UN resolution, the overall integrity of the commitment to the protection of online private life remains intact. The resolution was adopted the Human Rights Committee U.N. November 26, 2013, with the unanimous approval. This draft resolution also has the approval of five major human rights and privacy organizations, and international access information, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Given that the resolution currently has at least 50 co-sponsors means that the resolution will likely pass the General Assembly when it is voted on in December.
Although the passage of the resolution will not automatically reign in unscrupulous practices of the NSA, he will keep the theme of fresh mass surveillance in people's minds. The importance of the current UN resolution is to initiate an ongoing conversation on the mass line in oversight to the groups to develop best practices for the promotion and maintenance of freedom while balancing the need for governments investigate the illegal online activities. We hope that the U.N. resolution once approved will help to establish and integrate the right to privacy in online activities across all nations, it may eventually be recognized as a universal human right, it should be.
0 Komentar