Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.

The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week.

The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.

There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.

This included:

• Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers;

• Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;

• Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;

• Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;

• Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.

 Breotan wrote:
I'm so glad all this attention is being focus on the US and UK so that Russia can continue with their program in peace and quiet.

 Breotan wrote:
I'm so glad all this attention is being focus on the US and UK so that Russia can continue with their program in peace and quiet.

 Seaward wrote:
Keep in mind he's only divulging all of this because he's concerned about the Fourth Amendment implications.

Where's the emoticon for eyes rolling right out of your skull?

 Peregrine wrote:
Because it's ok to violate privacy rights as long as you don't have the same specific constitutional amendment, right?

 Seaward wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'm so glad all this attention is being focus on the US and UK so that Russia can continue with their program in peace and quiet.

Keep in mind he's only divulging all of this because he's concerned about the Fourth Amendment implications.

Where's the emoticon for eyes rolling right out of your skull?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What has the 4th amendment got to do with the UK?

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'm so glad all this attention is being focus on the US and UK so that Russia can continue with their program in peace and quiet.

So as long as some other nation somewhere on Earth is worse, we shouldn't mention anything?

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'm so glad all this attention is being focus on the US and UK so that Russia can continue with their program in peace and quiet.

So as long as some other nation somewhere on Earth is worse, we shouldn't mention anything?

Wake up, sheeple!

 Ouze wrote:
Wake up, sheeple!

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'm so glad all this attention is being focus on the US and UK so that Russia can continue with their program in peace and quiet.

So as long as some other nation somewhere on Earth is worse, we shouldn't mention anything?

Wake up, sheeple!

 Pacific wrote:
Did anyone really think other than:
a) that both the UK government and others did all of this stuff, all the time as a matter of course?
b) that every person in a position of power in government doesn't know that it goes on?

The whole thing feels like someone getting busted for copying a CD onto a cassette tape..

 d-usa wrote:
But if we the government were to keep track of everything related about gun purchases, and kept secret government databases on who owns what gun and where they purchased it, then we would have a problem. Because the government knowing that kind of stuff would lead to abuse, but keeping track of everything else just keeps us safe.

 d-usa wrote:
There is also nothing unconstitutional about requiring that every gun transaction, including name and address of purchases, be entered into a federal database that can be accessed with a warrant.

 Seaward wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Did anyone really think other than:
a) that both the UK government and others did all of this stuff, all the time as a matter of course?
b) that every person in a position of power in government doesn't know that it goes on?

The whole thing feels like someone getting busted for copying a CD onto a cassette tape..

I'll answer your questions with some of my own:

1) Do you feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?

2) Do you believe it's impossible for potential and actual enemies to gain insight about how we go about collecting intelligence - and thus how to go about avoiding the various methods - when leaks like this occur?

3) Do you believe foreign intelligence partners are more or less likely to work closely and share secret information with us when we have one self-appointed jackass running around the globe spilling beans not only on us, but on them?

Another good example of crap like this is our media deciding to run the story, after it had been leaked to them, that we had a spy in a cell in Yemen, and information he provided had allowed us to stop a planned attack. (This is part of what kicked off all the reporter investigating over here that people got so up in arms over.) The real kicker is he wasn't even ours - he was most likely Saudi intelligence, and it's quite possible he got killed. Why would you risk your assets to provide us information if we can't even keep their activities secret?

Just some stuff to ponder while you applaud noted Constitutional scholar, stripper dater, and international fugitive Snowden there.

 Jihadin wrote:
Is it me or does it seem he's trying to find a country that won't extradite his arse to the US? BTW...is Assuage still in the UK holed up in some embassy?

(Washington,DC) - The conviction of President Rafael Correa's critics for criminal defamation violates Ecuador's international human rights obligations and should be overturned on appeal, Human Rights Watch said today. Ecuador should abolish the defamation provisions in its criminal code, Human Rights Watch said.

On July 20, 2011, a judge in Guayas province sentenced each of the four to three years in prison and ordered a total of US$40 million in fines against the men and the newspaper, El Universo, based in Guayaquil. The men are Emilio Palacio, a journalist, and three members of the newspaper's board of directors, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, César Enrique Pérez Barriga, and Carlos Nicolás Pérez Barriga.

"The criminal conviction of the president's critics is a major setback for free speech in Ecuador," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. "Punishing a journalist and directors of a newspaper for ‘offending' the president is likely to have a very negative impact on the news media and public debate in Ecuador."

Correa had filed a criminal defamation suit in March contending that an opinion piece by Palacio "on purpose, immorally, and maliciously insults [him], with the only intention of affecting [his] prestige, honor, and good name."

The opinion piece, "No to lies" (No a las mentiras), published in El Universo on February 6, refers to Correa as "the Dictator." It criticizes Correa for considering pardoning those involved in a police rebellion in September 2010 - called a coup attempt by the government - in which Correa was held hostage for several hours in a police hospital. Palacio accused Correa of ordering his forces to fire on the hospital, which was "full of civilians and innocent people." Palacio concluded, "Crimes against humanity, don't you forget, are not subject to statutes of limitation."

In his criminal complaint, Correa accused Palacio and the three El Universo directors of committing libel against public officials (injuria calumniosa contra autoridad pública). Article 493 of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code states that anyone who falsely attributes the commission of a crime to a public official will be subject to a prison sentence of up to three years.

Correa's lawyer said he would appeal the decision, seeking a higher monetary sanction, according to press accounts. El Universo's lawyer told Human Rights Watch they will request a higher court to overturn the conviction.

Under the Ecuadorian Constitution rights protected under international law and treaties, such as the right to freedom of expression, are directly enforceable by the courts. Human Rights Watch said that the convictions should be set aside on appeal as incompatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which Ecuador is a party to.

In the interest of promoting the vibrant public debate necessary in a democratic society, international human rights bodies have long criticized the use of criminal defamation charges in response to allegations involving public officials. The Principles on Freedom of Expression adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2000 assert that protection of the reputation of public officials should be guaranteed only by civil sanctions.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that public officials "who have voluntarily exposed themselves to greater public scrutiny are subject to greater risks of being criticized, since their activities are ... part of the public debate." The honor of public officials or public people must be legally protected, the court says, but that must be accomplished "in accordance with principles of democratic pluralism."

The use of criminal proceedings for defamation must therefore be limited to cases of "extreme gravity" as a "truly exceptional measure" where its "absolute necessity" has been demonstrated, and that in any such case the burden of proof must rest with the accuser.

I. Summary

In a referendum held in May 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate to reform the Ecuadorian justice system, a recommendation accepted by Ecuador during the previous UPR cycle. However, the language of the approved reforms could significantly increase the government’s powers to influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.

Other serious concerns not addressed by the UPR recommendations of 2008 include the fact that government authorities have undermined free expression by using criminal defamation laws, by arbitrarily forcing TV and radio stations to air presidential speeches, and by failing to adopt regulations to grant official advertisement. Those involved in protests in which there are outbreaks of violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges. Ecuador has also harassed human rights defenders, and failed to bring those responsible of police abuses to justice.

II. Human Rights Issues

Judicial independence

The Ecuadorian judiciary has been plagued by corruption, inefficiency and political influence for many years. President Correa’s efforts to reform the system, however, could lead to a significant increase in the government’s influence over the appointment and dismissal of judges. The Recommendation 9 accepted during the UPR in 2008, which would on the contrary have required greater independence of the judiciary, is therefore not implemented by the Government of Ecuador.

Voters in the May 2011 referendum approved a proposal to dissolve the Judicial Council, a body composed of independent jurists responsible for the selection, promotion and dismissal of judges, whose efficiency had been widely questioned. It was to be replaced for 18 months by a tripartite transitional council to be appointed by the president, the legislature (in which President Correa has majority support) and the “Transparency and Social Control Function,” the citizen’s branch established in the 2008 Constitution. This transitional council dismissed scores of judges in August and September 2011.

Also approved in the referendum was a constitutional reform giving the executive branch and its appointees a direct role in a new Judicial Council that would eventually replace the one dissolved. One of the new Judicial Council’s five members would be chosen by the executive; its other members would include the attorney general and the public defender.

In September 2011, at the request of the transitional council, President Correa declared a “state of emergency in the judicial branch,” to resolve the “critical situation” of the justice system. The decree declared a “national mobilization, especially of all the personnel of the judicial branch.” Lack of clarity about the meaning of “mobilization” could threaten judges’ independence by suggesting that they must line up behind government goals or risk dismissal.

Freedom of Expression

The Ecuadorean criminal code includes provisions criminalizing “desacato,” under which anyone who “offends” the president or other government authorities may receive a prison sentence of up to three months (for offending officials), and up to two years (for offending the president). In addition, anyone who commits libel against public officials may be subject to a prison sentence of up to three years. A new criminal code presented by the government to the National Assembly in October 2011 does not include the crime of desacato, but if approved would still mandate prison sentences of up to three years for those who defame public authorities.

Since President Correa filed a criminal defamation suit in 2007 against the director of the newspaper La Hora, several local and government authorities have initiated criminal proceedings against journalists and media owners accusing them of defamation. According to the Fundación Andina para la Observación y Estudio de Medios (Fundamedios), a nongovernmental organization that focuses on free expression in Ecuador, six journalists have been convicted for defamation since 2008, and at least 10 others are under criminal investigation.

In 2011, President Correa took Emilio Palacio, a journalist, and three members of the El Universal newspaper’s board of directors to court for allegedly defaming him. In July, a judge in Guayas province sentenced the four men to three years in prison and ordered them to pay US$ 40 million in damages to the president for an article the judge considered defamatory. In an opinion piece Palacios had referred to President Correa as a “dictator,” and accused him of ordering his forces to fire on a hospital, which was “full of civilians and innocent people,” during the police revolt mentioned above. In September 2011, a three-person appeals court confirmed the prison sentence and the fine by majority vote.

In order to rebut media criticism the government has also used a provision of the broadcasting legislation that obliges private broadcasters to interrupt scheduled programs to transmit government messages known as “cadenas.” According to an independent group, between January 2007 and May 2011, there were 1,025 cadenas totaling 151 hours of broadcasting time, many of which included attacks on government critics and only interrupted the program of the journalist that the cadena was criticizing.

Legislation to regulate broadcasting and print media has been under congressional debate since 2009. In the May 2011 referendum, voters also supported by a small majority a proposal to create an official council to regulate the content of television, radio and print media. Proposals by six ruling party legislators under discussion in the National Assembly in July 2011 would grant broad powers to this council, allowing it to punish media that disseminate “information of public relevance that harms human rights, reputation, people’s good name, and the public security of the state,” terms so vague that they could lead to sanctions against critical outlets.

The national government of Ecuador is the main advertiser in Ecuadorian media. At this writing, there are no clear, public guidelines in place on how to distribute official advertisement. The absence of transparent criteria for allocating government advertising contracts creates a risk of political discrimination against media outlets that criticize government officials.

Misuse of Anti-Terror Laws in Dealing with Social Protests

Prosecutors have applied a “terrorism and sabotage” provision of the criminal code in cases involving protests against mining and oil projects and in other incidents that have ended in confrontations with police.

Involvement in acts of violence or obstructing roads during such protests should be ordinary criminal offenses. Yet Ecuador’s criminal code includes, under the category of sabotage and terrorism, “crimes against the common security of people or human groups of whatever kind or against their property,” by individuals or associations “whether armed or not.” Such crimes carry a possible prison sentence of four to eight years.

In July 2011 the Center for Economic and Social Rights, an Ecuadorian human rights group, reported that 189 indigenous people were facing terrorism and sabotage charges. Most of them were in hiding and only eight had been convicted.

Human Rights Defenders

The Correa administration has proposed to tighten regulations regarding the operation of both domestic and international NGOs in the country, including those working for human rights and the environment. In a draft decree announced in December 2010, domestic NGOs, including those working for human rights, would have to re-register and submit to continuous government monitoring. The decree would give the government broad powers to dissolve groups for “political activism,” and “compromising national security or the interests of the state,” vague terms that could seriously compromise NGOs’ legitimate activities. At this writing, the proposed decree has not been adopted.

Another presidential decree adopted in July 2011 regulating international NGOs with an office in Ecuador allows the government to monitor all their activities and rescind their authorization if they engage in activities different from those described in their application, or “attack public security and peace.” In August, the government announced that it was planning to halt the operations of 16 foreign NGOs because they had failed to provide information about their activities.

In a radio broadcast in June 2011, President Correa accused two nongovernmental organizations, Fundamedios and Participación Ciudadana of trying to destabilize his government, and questioned their alleged receipt of funds from foreign donors. In response to a statement by Fundamedios pointing out that its receipt of foreign funding complied with the law, the communications secretary accused NGOs of implementing “political strategies and military tactics aimed at creating confusion or promoting currents of public opinion favorable to the interests of some of their funders.”

Accountability

Impunity for police abuses is widespread and those responsible for murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely brought to justice. In June 2010, a truth commission created by the Correa administration published a report documenting 68 extrajudicial executions and 17 “disappearances” between 1984 and 2008, and named 458 alleged perpetrators of abuses. According to the commission, few of those responsible for the abuses had been held accountable, due to statutes of limitations, jurisdictional disputes, and procedural delays. In October 2010 the attorney general appointed a team of prosecutors to reopen investigations into cases reported by the commission. As of September 2011, the prosecutors were reported to have renewed investigations into several key cases, but no suspects had been charged.

In a referendum held in May 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.

Those involved in protests in which there are outbreaks of violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges. Criminal defamation laws that restrict freedom of expression remain in force and Correa has used them repeatedly against his critics. Some articles of a draft communications law in the legislature since 2009 could open the door to media censorship.

Misuse of Anti-Terror Laws in Dealing with Social Protests

Prosecutors have applied a “terrorism and sabotage” provision of the criminal code in cases involving protests against mining and oil projects and in other incidents that have ended in confrontations with police. Involvement in acts of violence or obstructing roads during such protests should be ordinary criminal offenses. Yet Ecuador’s criminal code includes, under the category of sabotage and terrorism, “crimes against the common security of people or human groups of whatever kind or against their property,” by individuals or associations “whether armed or not.” Such crimes carry a possible prison sentence of four to eight years. In July 2011 the Center for Economic and Social Rights, an Ecuadorian human rights group, reported that 189 indigenous people were facing terrorism and sabotage charges. Most of them were in hiding and only eight had been convicted.

Accountability

Impunity for police abuses is widespread and those responsible for murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely brought to justice. In June 2010 a truth commission created by the Correa administration published a report documenting 68 extrajudicial executions and 17 enforced disappearances between 1984 and 2008, and named 458 alleged perpetrators of abuses. According to the commission, few of those responsible for the abuses had been held accountable, due to statutes of limitations, jurisdictional disputes, and procedural delays. In October 2010 the attorney general appointed a team of prosecutors to reopen investigations into cases reported by the commission. As of September 2011 the prosecutors were reported to have renewed investigations into several key cases, but no suspects had been charged.

Freedom of Expression

Ecuador’s Criminal Code still has provisions criminalizing desacato (“lack of respect”), under which anyone who offends a government official may receive a prison sentence up to three months and up to two years for offending the president. In September 2011 the Constitutional Court agreed to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of these provisions submitted by Fundamedios, an Ecuadorian press freedom advocacy group. A new criminal code presented by the government to the National Assembly in October does not include the crime of desacato, but if approved would still mandate prison sentences of up to three years for those who defame public authorities.

Under the existing code, journalists face prison sentences and crippling damages for this offense. According to Fundamedios, by October 2011 five journalists had been sentenced to prison terms for defamation since 2008, and 18 journalists, media directors, and owners of media outlets faced similar charges.

President Correa frequently rebukes journalists and media that criticize him and has personally taken journalists to court for allegedly defaming him. In July 2011 a judge in Guayas province sentenced Emilio Palacio, who headed the opinion section of the Guayaquil newspaper El Universo, and three members of the newspaper’s board of directors, to three years in prison and ordered them to pay US$40 million in damages to the president for an article the judge considered defamatory. In an opinion piece Palacios had referred to Correa as a “dictator” and accused him of ordering his forces to fire on a hospital, which was “full of civilians and innocent people,” during the September 2010 police revolt.

In September 2011 a three-person appeals court confirmed the prison sentence and the fine by majority vote. Correa said in a press conference that he would consider a pardon if the newspaper confessed that it had lied, apologized to the Ecuadorian people, and promised to be more “serious, professional and ethical” in the future.

In order to rebut media criticism the government has also used a provision of the broadcasting legislation that obliges private broadcasters to interrupt scheduled programs to transmit government messages known as cadenas. According to an independent media observation group, between January 2007 and May 2011, there were 1,025 cadenas totaling 151 hours of broadcasting time, many of which included attacks on government critics.

Legislation to regulate broadcasting and print media has been under congressional debate since 2009. In the May 2011 referendum voters supported, by a small majority, a proposal to create an official council to regulate the content of television, radio, and print media. Proposals by six ruling party legislators under discussion in the National Assembly in July 2011 would grant broad powers to this council, allowing it to punish media that disseminate “information of public relevance that harms human rights, reputation, people’s good name, and the public security of the state,” terms so vague that they could easily lead to sanctions against critical outlets.

Judicial Independence

Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years. Correa’s efforts to reform the system could lead to a significant increase in the government’s influence over the appointment and dismissal of judges. Voters in the May 2011 referendum approved a proposal to dissolve the Judicial Council, a body composed of independent jurists responsible for the selection, promotion, and dismissal of judges, whose efficiency had been widely questioned. It was to be replaced for 18 months by a tripartite transitional council to be appointed by the president, the legislature (in which Correa has majority support), and the “Transparency and Social Control Function,” the citizens’ branch established in the 2008 Constitution. This transitional council dismissed scores of judges in August and September 2011.

Also approved in the referendum was a constitutional reform giving the executive branch and its appointees a direct role in a new judicial council that would eventually replace the one dissolved. One of the new council’s five members would be chosen by the executive; its other members would include the attorney general and the public defender.

In September 2011, at the request of the transitional council, Correa declared a “state of emergency in the judicial branch,” to resolve the “critical situation” of the justice system. The decree declared a “national mobilization, especially of all the personnel of the judicial branch.” Lack of clarity about the meaning of “mobilization” could threaten judges’ independence by suggesting they must get behind government goals or risk dismissal.

Human Rights Defenders

The Correa administration has proposed to tighten regulations regarding the operation of both domestic and international NGOs in the country, including those working on human rights and the environment. In a draft decree announced in December 2010, domestic NGOs, including those working on human rights, would have to re-register and submit to continuous government monitoring. The decree would give the government broad powers to dissolve groups for “political activism,” and “compromising national security or the interests of the state,” ill-defined terms that could seriously compromise NGOs’ legitimate activities. At this writing the proposed decree had not been adopted.

Another presidential decree adopted in July 2011, regulating international NGOs with offices in Ecuador, allows the government to monitor all their activities and rescind their authorizations if they engage in activities different from those described in their application, or “attack public security and peace.” In August the government announced it planned to halt the operations of 16 foreign NGOs because they had failed to provide information about their activities.

In a radio broadcast in June Correa accused Fundamedios and another NGO, Participación Ciudadana (Citizen Participation), of trying to destabilize his government, and questioned their alleged receipt of funds from foreign donors. In response to a statement by Fundamedios pointing out that its receipt of foreign funding complied with the law, the communications secretary accused NGOs of implementing “political strategies and military tactics aimed at creating confusion or promoting currents of public opinion favorable to the interests of some of their funders.”

Key International Actors

In August 2011 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed a case accusing Ecuador of violating the right to due process of 27 Supreme Court justices who were arbitrarily dismissed by Congress during a constitutional crisis in 2004.

In October 2011 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held a thematic hearing on freedom of expression in Ecuador. Addressing the ongoing use of criminal libel laws to prosecute people for criticizing public authorities over matters of public interest, the commission noted that the protection of reputation in such cases must be guaranteed only through civil sanctions. The commission also expressed its “deepest concern” at a government broadcast (which all television and radio stations had to air) seeking to discredit Fundamedios, whose representatives had testified at the hearing.

Head of state and government Rafael Vicente Correa Delgado
Indigenous and community leaders faced spurious criminal charges aimed at restricting their freedom of assembly. The rights of Indigenous Peoples to consultation and to free, prior and informed consent were not fulfilled.
Background

Mass demonstrations and blockades led by Indigenous organizations took place against government proposals on the use of natural resources and to demand the right to consultation.
In August, Ecuador granted diplomatic asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. At the end of the year, he remained in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK where he had sought asylum after the UK Supreme Court dismissed his appeal against extradition to Sweden to answer allegations of sexual assault. Ecuador granted him diplomatic asylum on the basis that, if extradited to Sweden, he could be extradited to the USA where he could face an unfair trial, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, life imprisonment and the death penalty.
In October, an Ecuadorian court issued an order that froze approximately US$200 million of the assets of the oil company Chevron in Ecuador in order to implement an earlier ruling awarding US$18.2 billion to Amazon Indigenous communities for environmental damage. Earlier that month, Chevron had lost an appeal before the US Supreme Court to stop the plaintiffs from trying to collect the damages awarded. In November, a judge in Argentina embargoed Chevron’s assets in that country to carry out the Ecuadorian court’s ruling.
In September, Ecuador accepted most recommendations made under the UN Universal Periodic Review. These included ensuring the right to peaceful assembly and protest of community activists and Indigenous leaders; undertaking a review of existing and proposed legislation relating to freedom of expression; and decriminalizing defamation. However, it rejected a recommendation to ensure the right of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior and informed consent.
Freedom of association

Indigenous and campesino leaders were subjected to unfounded charges of terrorism, sabotage and homicide; criminal prosecutions; arbitrary arrests; and strict bail conditions in an attempt to discourage them from voicing their opposition to government laws and policies. In most cases, judges dismissed the charges as baseless. However, by the end of the year, three Indigenous and campesino leaders were still involved in court proceedings and subject to bail restrictions and three others were convicted and given short prison sentences.
In August, Carlos Pérez, leader of the Communal Water Systems of Azuay; Federico Guzmán, President of the Victoria del Portete Parish Council; and Efraín Arpi, leader of the Tarqui Parish, were given reduced sentences of eight days’ imprisonment for blocking a road during a protest in Azuay province against proposed legislation. The men claimed the legislation would affect their community’s access to water and was not adequately consulted. Federico Guzmán and Efraín Arpi had stated that they did not directly participate in the protest. Carlos Pérez admitted that he did, but that traffic had been allowed to flow every 30 minutes and emergency vehicles were allowed to pass. By the end of the year a warrant for their arrest had not yet been issued.
Indigenous Peoples’ rights

In July the Inter-American Court of Human Rights confirmed that Ecuador had not consulted the Sarayaku Indigenous community in Pastaza province regarding an oil project to be carried out in their territory. It ordered the state to remove or inactivate explosives buried on Sarayaku territory; consult the Sarayaku regarding future development projects that might affect them; and take steps to make the right to consultation a reality for all Indigenous Peoples, among other measures.
In November bids for oil exploration in the Amazon region went out to public tender amid concerns that Indigenous communities that might be affected had not been consulted.
In a report published in August, the CERD Committee raised concerns at the absence of a regulated and systematic process for consultation with Indigenous Peoples on issues that affect them, including the extraction of natural resources.

Freedom of expression

There were concerns that laws dealing with the crime of insult were being used against journalists in violation of the right to freedom of expression and could deter other critics of government authorities from speaking out.
In February, the National Court confirmed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment and US$40 million in damages against three owners of El Universo and a journalist working for the newspaper. They had been convicted of slander for an editorial in which they described the President as a “dictator” and accused him of giving the order to open fire on a hospital during the police protests of September 2010. The President later granted a pardon to all four men.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
There is also nothing unconstitutional about requiring that every gun transaction, including name and address of purchases, be entered into a federal database that can be accessed with a warrant.

I see. So your point is that because you don't like the way current gun legislation pushes are going, it's perfectly cool for a guy to decide that federal statutes on secret information don't apply to him.

As cogent as ever. Care to get back on topic, or would you like to continue trying to distract from the attempted defense of the indefensible?

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'm so glad all this attention is being focus on the US and UK so that Russia can continue with their program in peace and quiet.

So as long as some other nation somewhere on Earth is worse, we shouldn't mention anything?

Wake up, sheeple!

Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because it's ok to violate privacy rights as long as you don't have the same specific constitutional amendment, right?

Are you against all forms of intelligence gathering, or only the ones conducted by modernized nations against other modernized nations?

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What has the 4th amendment got to do with the UK?

Not a thing.

It was a swipe at his initial claims that he only revealed PRISM info because he felt it was a threat to American freedoms. The fact that he's subsequently released other, secret info about our efforts to hack China and now British efforts to spy on summit delegates suggests that he might not be quite the constitutional hero he was initially made out to be.

Seaward wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Did anyone really think other than:
a) that both the UK government and others did all of this stuff, all the time as a matter of course?
b) that every person in a position of power in government doesn't know that it goes on?

The whole thing feels like someone getting busted for copying a CD onto a cassette tape..

I'll answer your questions with some of my own:

1) Do you feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?

 d-usa wrote:
I have nothing to say about the guy that leaked this, I don't think that I have every said that I am defending him.

I'm just talking about your conflicting stance on government databases, and that it seems to be perfectly fine to keep records on anything that people might be doing on a telephone or the internet. But every time anybody else has recommended a database on gun purchases, which would not be against the constitution, you and many of the defenders of the NSA activities start going "OMG, the government can't be trusted with that kind of knowledge!"

So it appears that according to you, the government would never abuse the kind of databases they are currently building. Unless they are about guns.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Allow me to answer your questions to someone else's questions with questions of my own:
1. Do YOU feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?

2. Do you feel that everyone who has access to military weapons should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be fire upon?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Even if he was a three-eyed pedophile and a troll living under a bridge that eats children, it would not make any difference to the question of whether or not it was morally right for him to blow the whistle on the PRISM program.

 Seaward wrote:
True! And it very clearly wasn't, for the record. What it does do, however, is call into question his motives. If he were only interested in making sure the American public was aware of PRISM, why's he leaking everything else he knows that's totally unrelated?