3 ms·
As someone who has worked for a number of sensitive human rights groups over the years this sickens but doesn't surprise me. I would be very surprised if some o
by secfirstmd 13y ago
As someone who has worked for a number of sensitive human rights groups over the years this sickens but doesn't surprise me. I would be very surprised if some of my operations haven't been targeted by this.
Many of the groups targeted are involved with actively investigating human rights abuses conducted by many countries in the world - including the USA in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, drone strikes, secret prisons, etc. I fail to see exactly what the US National Security interest is in investigating these groups (Caveat: not all NGOs worldwide should be outside scrutiny, ie ones which funnel arms to Al Qaeda obviously but these ones certainly don't do that). The security community (as has happened in many countries over the years - the UK in Northern Ireland for example) has confused "National Security" with "embarrassment." I say "security community" as there are many fantastic people within US government and private institutions that are capable of looking at the long-term interest and are doing a good job of supporting human rights and freedom on the internet. For example, it is a credit that so much great work like The Guardian Project and Whisper Systems is underway to address such problems.
Human rights groups and journalists have been consistently the victim of high-level APT from China, Russia and elsewhere - there are many cases documented online. Many of these have been targeted through the exact same methods that large corporations like banks, defence companies, nuclear energy businesses. It's somehow morally wrong that organisations like GCHQ and the NSA actively thwart attacks (and share information) on such companies, while ignoring and obviously exploiting threats against human rights groups (which often end in the deaths of human rights defenders, aid workers and journalists).
The long-term national interest of the USA and other countries is the spread of our good values - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, self determination, respect for international law etc. The "war on terror" has caused too many to lose sight of these soft-power instruments and that is a pity. Which does more long-term good for our way of life, values and foreign policy these days, Lockheed Martin or Amnesty International?
- w_t_payne 13y agoEmbarrassment, or is any form of political activism now seen as a threat?
- secfirstmd 13y agoAgreed.
- XorNot 13y agoYeah because political activism is never ever sponsored by foreign actors as a means of fomenting unrest. Just ignore what's happening in the Ukraine right now, it might be devastating to your indignation.
- w_t_payne 13y agoFair point, but if the political system itself isn't capable of dealing with that sort of crap, then isn't that a problem that needs to be fixed by addressing the infrastructure of the system itself, rather than anything else? Our political institutions are supposed to reject special interests and make decisions for the national good. This, after all, is their primary function and raison d'etre. If some subset of those special interests (vis, foreign actors) need to be filtered out through some special mechanism, then what does that say about its robustness and fitness-for-purpose with respect to all the other groups trying to game the system?
- coldtea 13y ago>The long-term national interest of the USA and other countries is the spread of our good values - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, self determination, respect for international law etc. That's not really an interest, short or long term. What are the various lobbies to gain from this? What is indeed an interest, and has been for over a century, is being the top dog, and taking advantage of that (using propaganda, lackeys and military power when needed) to get cheap resources, favorable trade deals and allies that ensure this goes on forever. Playing on a level playing field has never been of interest.