Navigation

Archive | October, 2015

Big Brother and Your Money

By on October 18, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Bitcoin, Economics, EU, Privacy, surveillance, Sweden

Many governments are getting very nervous. They struggle with debt, over spending, currency emergencies and new strains on the economy like the European refugee crisis.

So they are keen to make sure that all tax revenues that can be collected will be collected. And mass surveillance gives them a tool to do so.

Also, the move towards a cash free society makes it easier for politicians and bureaucrats to keep track of you and your money.

For years, we have sent bulk data about European bank transfers to the US security bureaucracy under the pretext of fighting terrorism and organized crime (TFTP). In the EU, plans are to replace this system with a European one — aimed to register, control and analyze all of our bank transfers.

In some high-tax countries with submissive population, like Sweden, information from data retention of telecommunications is already being used for taxation purposes.

And this is not just about taxes. If your government controls all your monetary assets, it owns you. Which might come in handy if, someday, people in power would like to curb opposition, limit your civil liberties — or just make your life very difficult.

With no private economic sphere, people are totally in the hands of their whimsical governments and its functionaries.

When it comes to “regular” surveillance concerns, having access to information about your transactions will provide the authorities with a cornucopia of information about you. More so than just surveillance of your electronic and telecommunications.

The government will always be able to give some reasons for its actions. Sometimes even seemingly rational ones. Like striking down on tax evasion. But even these reasons must be weighed against your right to privacy. Just passively accepting them could be used for introducing live surveillance of everybody 24/7.

It’s your life. And it’s your money. Period. The government should just get out of everybody’s hair.

If people could get themselves together and bring about a broader use of Bitcoins, we can bypass all of this governmental economic Big Brotherism.

/ HAX

1

Economic evolution, technology and politics

By on October 15, 2015 in Bitcoin, decentralization, Free Markets, Internet

If you order a Über car in Berlin, you will get a classic Berlin cream coloured Mercedes taxi instead. As in many other places special interest groups, politicians and bureaucrats are trying to stop market progress and competition. Sometimes they give somewhat understandable reasons such as insurance and tax issues. Sometimes they don’t.

But what is interesting is that still you will get a car, even though it might not be a black Über one. The service is being upheld, even if it’s only its interface that is used at the moment.

While it might be possible for local governments to prevent the ride-sharing side of Über (for the moment), the technical aspect of the concept seems to be unstoppable. Using the company’s smartphone app is much more cost efficient for taxi operators than having a telephone switchboard and some sort of local radio operated voice or data system to direct cars. And then there is the issue of not having to handle money or credit cards, as the payment function is already built into the system.

The Über concept also has proven to be popular with customers — as it is seen as easy to use, reliable, safe and hassle free. The same app can be used more or less worldwide

There is an underlying, slow but steady change towards a decentralized sharing economy in the western world. (Witch is was Über is really about.) This is a change of an entire market paradigm, allowing ordinary people to provide all different sorts of services to others. But for this to be a truly free and dynamic market it must be defended against over regulation and old business protectionism. For this to happen, it must be backed up by technical development.

It has been said that politics might overpower money — but that technology beats politics. This has proven to be right e.g. when it comes to the Internet, telecommunications and television. And it will be true when it comes to the emerging sharing economy — that is a yet fragile concept that politicians and bureaucrats cannot really get their heads around. (So they should keep out of it, but they rarely do.)

You can argue that cutting edge technology has become a prerequisite for economic freedom and evolution in today’s society. Which makes the fight for a free and open connected world even more important.

It might also be a good idea to hard-wire the new sharing economy with encrypted, decentralized digital currencies and payment methods, such as Bitcoin.

/ HAX

1

Shaping tomorrows Facebook

By on October 13, 2015 in Uncategorized

The past ten years was the Google years. Now, we seem to enter the Facebook era.

Facebook gives us an easy way to keep in touch with friends and relatives. It serves us with big and small news that are supposed to be relevant for us. It provides an advertising platform that is simple to use and affordable also for small businesses.

Also, Facebook is an internet player that gives Big Media an advantage over independent, alternative media. It co-operates with big, old media corporations — pushing fringe media and blogs aside. It aims to be the main video provider, but without Youtubes revenue sharing. (Resulting in less independent content being produced.)

Facebook shares information with different intelligence and surveillance organisations, especially in the US. (Even though the European Court of Justice has invalidated the »safe harbour« agreement, in an attempt to stop European personal data to be transfered to the US.)

Facebook is the ruling classes wet dream. And we must consider the possibility that it is not only used to collect information about people — but also to control what information is distributed to the citizens.

Facebook is also a commercial operation. It must listen to users, be relevant to us and adopt to the market. What you do on Facebook today determines what Facebook will be tomorrow. This is an opportunity. (Frankly, what are the alternatives? There is no real competition. At least not for the moment.)

E.g. you can choose to link to alternative media instead of Big Media. You can put your videos on Youtube and linking to them on Facebook, instead of putting them directly on Facebook. You can push news about mass surveillance and Big Brotherism. Everything you do will be noted by Facebook. And as you are the product — what you do will be noticed and shaping the Facebook of tomorrow.

The message should be loud and clear: Facebook users want pluralism. We love alternative media and blogs. We support revenue sharing content platforms.

/ HAX

1

UN backtracking on web policing and licensing for social networks

By on October 8, 2015 in Uncategorized

Recently the United Nations Broadband Commission for Digital Development suggested that social networks and platforms should police the Internet and to be “proactive” against harassment and violence against women and girls. Only web platforms doing so should be licensed. (Link»)

Now the commission has withdrawn its report after criticism from across the political spectrum. Breitbart.com reports…

“The report was by all accounts incredibly poorly researched, with over 30 per cent of its citations links either broken or missing. Others linked to articles from the early 2000s which accused video game companies of promoting satanism, while another linked to the local hard drive of a researcher.” (…)

“Despite the isolated attempts to defend the report, its flaws became too apparent for even the U.N Broadband Commission to defend. Its withdrawal pending review is an acknowledgement that the launch was a failure. For the friends of web censorship, it will be remembered as a major embarrassment.”

Sometimes protests works.

0

The rise of soft authoritarianism

By on October 5, 2015 in Big Brother, China, Civil liberties, Democracy, Human rights, surveillance, UK

The mere knowledge of mass surveillance will have a chilling effect on free speech, opposition and an open society. Even if no politician or bureaucrat will say it out loud — this might be a very calculated side effect of modern Big Brotherism.

In UK schools an add-on to its existing Education Pro digital classroom management tool will be used to monitor schoolchildren, bringing the teachers attention to use of “radicalisation keywords”.

“The keywords list, which was developed in collaboration with the Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism organisation that is closely aligned with the government, consists of more than 1,000 trigger terms including “apostate”, “jihadi” and “Islamism”, and accompanying definitions.”

This might flag any pupil working with fully legitime school work as a potential terrorist. The list also includes terms used in a “far right” context and names of groups and individuals defined as “terrorists or extremists”. And, of course, no one will know what words and terms will be on the list in the future. That will be up to tomorrows politicians and bureaucrats to decide. We can only hope that they are fair and decent people. All of them.

“Teachers can also save screenshots or video of a student’s screen which, Impero suggests, could provide “key evidence” to be shared with Channel, the government’s counter-radicalisation programme for young people. The software also features a “confide” function, allowing students to report concerns about classmates anonymously.”

So, British schoolchildren will have to think carefully about what they write in the future. They also must be aware of the fact that other students might act as informants. It is not difficult to see how this will create a climate of fear and uneasiness. (And new forms of bullying.)

Read more: UK: Keyword warning software in schools raises red flag »

And the Chinese have taken soft authoritarianism and informant culture one step further: There your credit score is now affected by your political activities and opinions — and those of your friends. This will apply to everything from your online shopping to your possibility to get a visa for travelling abroad.

This is nightmarish. If you stand up for your ideas, opinions and human rights in China, you will not only put yourself in harms way — but also your friends and your relatives.

This might be a much more effective way to stifle dissent than using classic tools of oppression.

Read more: In China, Your Credit Score Is Now Affected By Your Political Opinions – And Your Friends’ Political Opinions »

The modern orwellian society seems to be turning out to be more orwellian than George Orwell could ever have imagined.

/ HAX

0

TTIP: The deceitful EU commissioner

By on October 1, 2015 in Democracy, EU, Global Politics, Intellectual Property, Internet, TTIP, US

EU:s commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, claims that the negotiations over the new EU-US trade agreement, TTIP, are the most transparent trade negotiations ever.

Well, this might actually be true — as such negotiations normally are conducted in total secrecy. But transparent? No.

There is nothing like an open, democratic process about TTIP. Negotiations are still being conducted behind closed doors. Not even politicians in EU member states or members of the European Parliament are allowed normal access to the documents.

For instance, nothing is known about the TTIP IP chapter — containing issues related to patents and copyright. This is the part of TTIP where it is believed that we (eventually) will find statues restricting openness and freedom on the Internet.

The plan is obvious: The EU and the US are trying to keep TTIP under wraps until there is an final document, that cannot be changed. They believe that an all or nothing approach will make it harder for elected parliamentarians to reject the agreement.

/ HAX

0