Guardian - NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls
25 Oct 2013 01:14
ObiDanKinobi:- With regard to the last paragraph of this article. I think this is related to UJM. Suggesting they get the E.U to ask permission to divulge our citizens details, via the mandated monster to the NSA, is also bullshit. The personal details of our citizens U.K are a matter of national security, and should remain fully within this nations borders. Not be prostituted to corporations.
I have refused to sign up to the UJM scheme for the following reasons...
There is a line of reasoning that suggests the patriot act, would take precedence over the data protection act, however with regard to the patriot act having judicial priority over the data protection act 1998.
I would argue the following..
The patriot act is an American law.
Therefore it does not apply to citizens residing in a foreign nation.
In my comprehension, a foreign entity (The U.S Government) amassing unrestricted access to the personal details of a foreign sovereign entities citizens (U.K Citizens), through Monster inc, is an act or terror/war. Thus i would argue that the Patriot act then does not have precedence over the data protection act and that the data protection act affords me protection from this terrorist activity that is occurring.
I do not refuse to use online methods of looking for work, I use such methods for searching for work, including but not limited to the UJM website, local newspaper and from time to time third party sites. However i have not and as far as i can will not create an online profile as i will not wilfully surrender my rights afforded me under the data protection act 1998, even if mandated by U.K law, as i believe the said law firmly contradicts, that which is laid out in the Data Protection act, and for the peripheral reasoning i have aforementioned, believe it would be unreasonable and wrong for me to comply.
The fact that this is being imposed as a mandatory condition, is in my opinion in direct conflict with the act. The fact that the company being used by the government to execute this mandation is an American one, which has been proven to be compromised by the NSA (U.S government), would mean that by rendering my information and complying with U.K law.(The creation of an online profile) I would in essence be aiding and abetting the intelligence services of a foreign sovereign state, i believe the charge for which is treason. Because of this logical dilemma i would have to say that for the benefit of the people of the U.K i will have to wilfully break the lesser of the 2 laws (not maintain an online profile), in order to do whats right. Either that or be given the opportunity to create/maintain an online profile with my respective state (the U.K government) only, and not a third party corporation.
I refer to lavabits founder Ladar Levinson quote recently to affirm this insecurity. He recently shut down his company (Specialising in encrypted e-mails) after 10 years of trading, under concerns that it was no longer secure.
"This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
- Ladar Levinson (Lavabit founder)
Source :- The Guardian newspaper
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/lavabit-shutdown-snowden-silicon-valley
Edited for spelling 8/10/15
No comments:
Post a Comment