Navigation

Archive | February, 2016

Encryption: Apple vs. FBI

By on February 18, 2016 in Apple, Big Brother, Cryptography, Data Protection, Privacy, US

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake. (…)

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business. (…)

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable. (…)

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Apple CEO Tim Cook: A Message to Our Customers »

A must read!

0

UK one step closer to ban anonymous porn surfing

By on February 16, 2016 in Censorship, Data Protection, Internet, Porn, Privacy, UK

With a public consultation, the British government now is one step closer to demanding age verification at internet porn sites.

This is a bad idea in itself. But what makes it even worse is that it will make anonymous porn surfing impossible (at least for the not so tech-enlightened).

BBC: Government launches porn site age checks consultation »

Daily Mail: Porn sites will have to make users prove they’re over 18: New laws will make them use age verification software or face up to £250,000 fines »

First of all, is it at all wise to ban people under the age of 18 from watching porn online? After all, they are allowed to enjoy sexual activities from the age of 16. But they shouldn’t be allowed to see depictions of other people fucking? Really?

Second, there is a strong case for anonymous porn surfing: Many people might want to explore alternatives to heterosexual missionary position sex. But they might not want the government, the ISP:s, the credit card companies or the site owners to know about it. And rightly so. People have a right to sexual privacy.

My third objection is about security. One of the options in the consultation is that people should have to check in to porn sites (even free porn sites) by using their credit card. Thus exposing themselves to obvious risks. This way porn sites (real ones, that can be hacked and fake ones, set up for skimming) will become a very popular tool for credit card fraud.

The whole project will become a morass of unintended and unwanted consequences.

/ HAX

1

The EU-US Privacy Shield Illusion

By on February 11, 2016 in Big Data, Data Protection, EU, Privacy, US

A little more than a week ago, I wrote a blog post on the EU-US Privacy Shield. This is supposed to replace the fallen “Safe Harbour” agreement, protecting European personal data when transferred to the US. (The latter didn’t, that’s why the European Court of Justice invalidated it.)

But, as I wrote, the EU-US Privacy Shield is just a framework agreement, not a deal. No substance. Nothing. Everyone is just stalling for time.

And I’m not the only one to be suspicious. Today the weekly EDRi-gram from Brussels-based NGO European Digital Rights turned up in my mailbox. And they do take a swing against the Privacy Shield illusion:

What’s behind the shield? Unspinning the “privacy shield” spin »

Some quotes…

• If there is a deal, why was nothing published?

It is standard practice from the European Commission. When an agreement is reached, the Commission launches a press release, but not the actual agreement. In this way, the Commission can control the amount of information available to journalists and the general public. It then launches the actual document once the press cycle is over and the details are no longer newsworthy.

I couldn’t agree more. Things like this happen all the time. And the EU Commission seems to get away with it all the time. In this case, let’s keep an eye on the ball for a change.

• Was there a deal?

Actually, there was no deal. The Commission had to announce something on 2 February in order to prevent regulators from starting enforcement action against companies that were (and, today, still are) transferring data illegally to the United States.

Bulls eye, again. What we see is the EU political system trying to dodge the EU judicial system. I won’t quote the entire text, but I must direct your attention to this showstopper…

• Is it strategically wise to announce a deal before discussions have been completed?

For the US, definitely, for the EU, it was strategically disastrous. As the EU has announced a deal, European negotiators have absolutely no leverage in the discussions around the detail of the agreement. Politically, it is impossible for the EU to reject anything that the US now proposes, because it is politically impossible for the Commission to abandon negotiations after it announced the completion of an agreement.

Is this just mind-bending incompetence? Or outright political sabotage?

And so it goes on. You really should read the whole piece.

The European Parliament (that has demanded a suspension of the Safe Harbour agreement for years) ought to be very upset. And the European Court of Justice should treat this as contempt of court, if there is such a thing in its’ regulatory framework.

We really shouldn’t let the European Commission get away with this. European citizens deserve decent data protection.

/ HAX

0

The future of digital currencies

By on February 10, 2016 in Bitcoin, Blockchain, Uncategorized

What is actually going to happen is, each virtual currency is going to continue doing its thing. If bitcoin’s current situation becomes a problem, people are going to start using something else. That something else will gain traction. It may even become more popular than bitcoin. Or, when that begins to happen, the bitcoin community is actually going to decide to evolve. This process is necessary for evolution. To think that we need only one virtual currency is short sighted. There are going to be many virtual currencies that have various properties that are suited to their environment better than another. Virtual currencies are going to become some of the human beings’ tools to transmit value between each other, in addition to ancient technologies such as bank transfers or Paypal.

Bitsapphire: The necessities of Evolution »

0

And the war continues…

By on February 10, 2016 in Big Entertainment, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, TPB

The streaming technology freshly embedded into The Pirate Bay is under fire from the Hollywood-backed anti-piracy outfit BREIN. Torrents-Time is an “illegal application” according to BREIN’s lawyer but in a response the group behind the software warns the Hollywood-funded group to back off or face criminal proceedings for extortion.

TorrentFreak: Hollywood Wants to Shut Down Pirate Bay’s Streaming Technology »

0

The Assange dilemma

By on February 7, 2016 in Assange, Human rights, Sweden, UK, UN, US, Wikileaks

I stand with Julian Assange. But I think his case took a turn for the worse this week.

First, to recapitulate: Julian Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden. This ridiculous situation is the result of a Swedish prosecutor refusing to interview him about alleged sexual misconduct, in a case that is very thin. Assange has reasons to fear that Sweden might surrender him to the US, where a Grand Jury is preparing his case. Sweden has handed over people to the CIA without prior judicial process on an earlier occasion. And the Wikileaks whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The situation for Julian Assange looks very much like that of a political dissident kept under house arrest.

Article 9 in The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

This declaration has been signed by Sweden as well as the United Kingdom. Now a UN panel under the Human Rights Commissioner has ruled that the way Assange is treated is in breach of this central principle. It is the same panel that e.g. took on the case of Aung San Suu Kyi. Usually, these rulings are held in high. But this time, the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Clearly the UK and Sweden only honor the UN panel when they are not the culprits.

Never the less, this has been lost on most people. It’s all too complicated and sublime.

The British and Swedish governments, on the other hand, only had to deliver simple one-liners. The UK foreign secretary Philip Hammond brands the UN panel’s ruling “ridiculous”. The Swedish government’s line is that this will not change anything.

Also, some media has deemed the UN approach as nonsensical. Remember, it’s simply not enough to be right — if this cannot be communicated in a way that makes an impact.

In practice, very little has changed. And the case against Assange will stay open until August 2020.

Somehow, I have a feeling that the UK, Sweden and the US feel rather content having Julian Assange in limbo at the Ecuadorean embassy in London. There his actions will be limited. And with an open investigation on alleged sex crimes, his reputation will stay tarnished. All of this having a negative impact on Wikileaks possibilities to expose wrongdoings and the dirty little secrets of the power elites.

That is exactly why the UN panel’s report is relevant.

/ HAX

Affidavit of Julian Paul Assange »

 

1

The War on Cash

By on February 6, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Government, Economics, EU, Privacy, War on Cash

Holger Steltzner in Frankfurter Allgemeine...

Beim Feldzug gegen das Bargeld geht es um mehr als das Bezahlen. Ginge es nur darum, könnte man die Leute einfach selbst entscheiden lassen, wie sie künftig zahlen wollen. Es geht um das Ende von Privatheit und selbstbestimmter Entscheidung, um Lenkung von Verhalten und um den Zugriff auf das Vermögen. Der Bevormundung des Bürgers wäre in einer solchen Welt keine Grenze gesetzt, Geld wäre kein privates Eigentum mehr. Der Übergewichtige könnte mit seiner Karte auf einmal die Kalorienbombe nicht mehr zahlen, der Alkoholiker sich die Weinflasche nicht mehr besorgen, und am „Veggie Day“ dürfte man mit seinem Smartphone kein Fleisch mehr kaufen. Der Zugriff des Fiskus auf das Konto des Bürgers wäre selbstverständlich. Und in totalitären Staaten gäbe es kein Entrinnen vor Überwachung und Unterdrückung. (…)

Andere Motive sind für den Krieg gegen Cash wichtiger, aber über sie wird weniger geredet. Hier kommen die Notenbanken ins Spiel, auch die Europäische Zentralbank, deren Präsident Draghi schon laut darüber nachdenkt, wie er am besten die Abschaffung der 500-Euro-Note kommuniziert, die der EZB-Rat noch gar nicht beschlossen hat. Ohne Bargeld wären die Bürger den Negativzinsen der Zentralbanken ausgeliefert. Davon träumen auch viele Finanzminister und keynesianische Ökonomen.

Bargeld ist Freiheit » | Google Translate »

Update: Translation to Swedish in the comments, thanks to Christian Engström.

2

A Bitcoin moment? Or not?

By on February 4, 2016 in Bitcoin, EU

The European Union is trying to decide what to make of Bitcoin and other digital currencies.

In general, the EU Commission has decided not to regulate. At least for the moment.

But at the same time, the EU is expanding its’ regulations against money laundering and terrorism funding.

And from that perspective, the recommendation seems to be that it should be required to register when exchanging digital currencies for traditional ones — or the other way around.

Naturally, this is inconvenient. And it might be yet another obstacle on the road to general acceptance of digital currencies.

But it might also be an opportunity to expand the Bitcoin ecosystem and to make it more or less autonomous — so that you will never have to change Bitcoins for fiat money.

But for that to happen, the Bitcoin society needs to get its’ act together. The present uncertainty about technical matters is a killer — that may thwart a coming Bitcoin Moment or kill it off altogether.

/ HAX

EU: Commission presents Action Plan to strengthen the fight against terrorist financing »

0

EU: The War on Cash

By on February 3, 2016 in Big Brother, Democracy, EU, Hacktivism

Right now, the 4:th EU directive against money laundering is being implemented in the member states.

Among the stricter rules for handling cash, the directive outlaws payments in shops for more than 10,000 €. Some member states chose to go even further limiting the highest amount to 5,000 €.

Thus, making anonymous purchases of e.g. expensive IT-equipment impossible…

0