Amnesty International latest to slam surveillance giants Facebook and Google as incompatible with human rights

Firstly, an assault on the right to privacy on an unprecedented scale, and then a series of knock-on effects that pose a serious risk to a range of other rights, from freedom of expression and opinion, to freedom of thought and the right to non-discrimination.

This core power asymmetry is maintained and topped off by self-serving policy positions which at best fiddle around the edges of an inherently anti-humanitarian system. While platforms have become practiced in dark arts PR offering, at best, a pantomime ear to the latest data-enabled outrage thats making headlines, without ever actually changing the underlying system.

But while the arguments against digital surveillance are now very familiar whats still sorely lacking is an effective regulatory response to force reform of what is at base a moral failure and one thats been allowed to scale so big its attacking the democratic underpinnings of Western society.

Google and Facebook have established policies and processes to address their impacts on privacy and freedom of expression but evidently, given that their surveillance-based business model undermines the very essence of the right to privacy and poses a serious risk to a range of other rights, the companies are not taking a holistic approach, nor are they questioning whether their current business models themselves can be compliant with their responsibility to respect human rights, Amnesty writes.

The abuse of privacy that is core to Facebook and Googles surveillance-based business model is starkly demonstrated by the companies long history of privacy scandals. Despite the companies assurances over their commitment to privacy, it is difficult not to see these numerous privacy infringements as part of the normal functioning of their business, rather than aberrations.

Amnesty concludes that it is now evident that the era of self-regulation in the tech sector is coming to an end saying further state-based regulation will be necessary.

Original article