As US authorities decide they have the right to seize any data, the mandatory privacy suite expands: full-disk encryption goes from optional to very recommended, in addition to using a firewall and some sort of encrypting anonymizer.
Falkvinge – Privacy habits: Full-disk encryption goes from optional to very recommended »
For many years, the EU has taken many small steps towards introducing an EU ID card: eIDAS. (Or at least a strict common EU standard for nationally issued ID cards.)
An ID card proving the holders identity is one thing. (However, a mandatory ID card as such is a very controversial concept in some member states.) One interesting point is if there is going to be a common personal EU identification number. Another is what information the cards chip will contain and how it is going to be used. No doubt, an EU ID card can be used as a very effective tool for various forms of Big Brotherism.
It is in the light of the EU slowly trying to introduce a common, mandatory ID card that various EU schemes should be scrutinised.
Last week some sites, e.g. Breitbart London ran this story: The European Commission Wants You To Log Into Social Media Accounts With Govt-Issued ID Cards »
Well, that might be a bit oversimplified. What the EU suggests is that it should be possible to use national (EU harmonised) ID cards to log into various online platforms instead of logging in using e.g. Facebook or Google. Thus giving you the possibility of being controlled by Big Government or Big Data.
Giving people a possibility to choose is a good idea, as such. But I’m not sure that I would like Big Government or Big Data to have the control over my online life.
And you should be very suspicious! The moment there is an established platform for online registration (or signing transactions) with an EU approved ID card – this system can be rolled out all over the place. For example, the EU would love to have a system where you have to use your ID card to be able to log on to the Internet. I have met several people in the EU apparatus promoting that idea.
But how should you go about if you don’t want nor Big Government or Big Data to be in control of your online activities?
Actually, it can be done quite easily – by using Blockchain technology, decentralised solutions, and open source software. Ideal, there should be a couple of different such ID providers, competing with each other over providing competent privacy protection.
(All of this might even be possible to achieve using the already existing Bitnation World Citizen ID.)
This can be one of those forks in the road of history: Do we want our online activities to be controlled by Big Government and Big Brother, by Big Data – or a decentralised system with a high level of security, respecting users right to privacy and controlled by no one?
/ HAX
Links:
• The European Commission Wants You To Log Into Social Media Accounts With Govt-Issued ID Cards »
• EU: Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe »
Earlier this week we learned that the EU has initiated a cooperation with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to swiftly remove internet content that we are not supposed to see. Link»
And now the EU Commission would like to regulate what can be shown on tv, on-demand-services such as Netflix and possibly even Youtube.
The new suggested rule is that at least 20 percent of all on-demand content and 50 percent of all television content must be produced in Europe.
This is suggested in the revision of the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). Link»
In other words, in one weeks time, the EU has launched a new level of Internet censorship – and suggested new guidelines for what kind of audiovisual content the people ought to consume.
This is bad, in so many ways.
First of all, who are politicians and eurocrats to tell us what audiovisual content we are supposed to watch?
Second, it is totally absurd that the country of origin of a tv-production should decide if it is to be shown or not, rather than its subject, quality, and public demand.
Third, this is ill-conceived cultural protectionism.
Fourth, when the ruling political class tries to control what audiovisual content we can or cannot, should or should not see – society is swiftly moving in a totalitarian direction.
These suggested EU rules must be stopped.
/ HAX
The 5 July-foundation is now experimenting with podcasting, so far in Swedish.
[The] idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. This may sound innocuous. Politeness is a virtue, after all. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me, or about the things I hold dear, such as my ethnic group, religion, or even political beliefs. Since offence is subjective, the power to police it is both vast and arbitrary. (…)
Opinion polls reveal that in many countries support for free speech is lukewarm and conditional. If words are upsetting, people would rather the government or some other authority made the speaker shut up. A group of Islamic countries are lobbying to make insulting religion a crime under international law. They have every reason to expect that they will succeed. (…)
So it is worth spelling out why free expression is the bedrock of all liberties. Free speech is the best defence against bad government. Politicians who err (that is, all of them) should be subjected to unfettered criticism. Those who hear it may respond to it; those who silence it may never find out how their policies misfired. As Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, has pointed out, no democracy with a free press ever endured famine.
The Economist: Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out. »
Also read The Economists report: The muzzle grows tighter »
The threat of mass surveillance on reporting, particularly work of an investigative nature, may “all but eliminate” confidential sources and the value they bring to journalism.
This is one of the conclusion presented in a new academic research paper, “No more sources? The impact of Snowden’s revelations on journalists and their confidential sources”, published on 24 May and authored by Paul Lashmar, journalist and senior lecturer at University of Sussex. (…)
“Journalists need to be more outspoken about the impact of surveillance in preventing them from delivering their most important role, bringing to account government and the powerful when they are errant,” Lashmar wrote.
Journalism.co.uk: Research highlights the impact of the threat of surveillance on journalists and their sources »
