Navigation

Archive | December, 2016

EU producing a lot of hot air trying to curb free speech

By on December 15, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Democracy, EU, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Internet, Rule of law, social media

A press release from the European Commission caught my eye: EU Internet Forum: a major step forward in curbing terrorist content on the internet »

At today’s second high-level meeting of the EU Internet Forum convened in Brussels by Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos and Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King, key internet companies presented an industry initiative, which constitutes a significant step forward in curbing the spread of terrorist content online. As part of the industry-led hash-sharing initiative, participating companies can use hashes to detect terrorist images or videos, review the material against their respective policies and definitions, and remove matching content as appropriate.

Well, that is only a part of the story.

The Commission totally ignores the fact that this form of censorship is conducted outside the rule of law.

The concept is that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft should remove illegal terrorist content. But what is illegal? As a matter of fact, the press release doesn’t touch on this question. The word illegal is not even mentioned. And there might be reasons for that.

In a democratic society, censorship should strictly be a matter for the courts – as they are the ones qualified to make the delicate decisions about what is legal or not. And naturally, there must be a possibility to appeal.

But that is not how the EU Internet Forum / The Joint Referral Platform will work.

It’s all about using these social networks terms and conditions to block content. The decisions will be made by the companies abuse departments, with no possibility of redress. There will be no proper legal procedure, cases will be handled by people who are not legally trained and there is an obvious risk of overreach.

That is not a proper way to approach the delicate issue of free speech.

This is all about EU politicians having established a way to limit free speech without the inconvenience of having to create new law under public scrutiny – and without having to bother with proper legal procedures. It is an approach to limit free speech without getting your fingers dirty.

And there is more.

The same instrument is to be used to curb »hate speech« and other statements that politicians disapprove of. There are no real limitations, no oversight, and no transparency. This project doesn’t have a democratic mandate. And the European Commission has been very secretive and unwilling to share information about what is going on. This is totally inappropriate.

The people’s elected representatives in the European Parliament must look into this matter – to defend our civil rights, democratic process and the rule of law.

/ HAX

4

EU mulling over encryption – behind closed doors

By on December 15, 2016 in Cryptography, EU

It seems that, once again, an important legislative process is being set in motion behind closed doors. With the exception of the Council meeting outcomes document, none of the documents were made public. The lack of transparency around these actions, both at the EU and member state level, undermines the already vulnerable trust between EU citizens, their respective governments, and EU institutions.

EDRi: Council debates encryption and other closed-door matters »

0

Internet on Cuba opening up – to Google

By on December 14, 2016 in Democracy, Google, Human rights, Internet

Cuba’s state-run telecommunications company Etecsa has signed a deal with Google that will enable faster access to content from the American company.

Under the deal, the technology giant will install servers in Cuba to improve connectivity speeds to Google services, including Gmail and YouTube. (…)

Even though most Cubans are likely to see the deal with Google as a step forward, it will do little to change the overall online accessibility in the country.

BBC: Cuba signs deal for faster internet access to Google content »

0

Links to need pre-clearance?

By on December 12, 2016 in Copyright, Freedom of Speech, Germany, Intellectual Property, Internet, Link wars

This is worrisome…

(A) Hamburg court ruled that the operator of a website violated on copyright by publishing a link to material that was infringing, even though the site operator was unaware of this fact.

Ars Technica: Commercial sites must check all their links for piracy, rules Hamburg court »

Pre-clearing all links with the linked websites would be a very complicated and time-consuming task – for both parties. Not to mention all the paperwork to document this, to avoid future problems.

And exactly what constitutes a »commercial site«?

The Hamburg court ruled that even though the link in question was not used to generate revenue directly, the site as a whole was commercial, since it sells learning materials via one of its Web pages.

So – I guess – if you have ads on your site, if you sell stuff or if you lead your readers to anything of commercial interest (like services that you provide) the purpose can be deemed »commercial«. This resulting in most sites on the net falling into this category.

This is leading to a very real dilemma. Links are the nerve system of the Internet. Most site owners would love to have you link to their pages. And for reference, an open and democratic debate and knowledge building links are essential. (Like in this blog post.)

But according to the Hamburg court, you can get in serious trouble if you don’t obtain a pre-clearance.

Even if you have the time and resources to pre-clear every link – it is likely that people running the sites you would like to link to simply do not have the resources to reply to every request to link.

So if you run a blog or a site that you want people to link to, you better state that it is published under Creative Commons license CC=BY or CC=0.

/ HAX

1

Falkvinge on the War on Cash

By on December 12, 2016 in Big Brother, Economics, War on Cash

Would you like your government to have more insight into your personal finances than you have yourself? That’s where we’re heading with the ongoing “war on cash” – into a world where every transaction is not just loggable by the government (or a government-coerced agent), but where you can also be held responsible for anything and everything you buy and sell.

Falkvinge: The war on cash being justified as “necessary against organized crime” is the worst excuse ever »

0

UK: State now allowed to lie in court

By on December 8, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil rights, Rule of law, UK

(D)espite the establishment of a parallel system of secret justice, the IPA’s tentacles also enshrine parallel construction into law. That is, the practice where prosecutors lie about the origins of evidence to judges and juries – thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial because he cannot review or question the truth of the evidence against him.

The Register: The UK’s Investigatory Powers Act allows the State to tell lies in court »

0

In France, your Internet history can send you to jail

By on December 7, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil rights, France, Internet

The contents of your internet history are more than enough to send you to jail in France. A French man has been sentenced to two years in jail for visiting terrorist websites. According to French sources, the 32-year-old man, whose name is not yet released, had been regularly visiting pro-ISIS websites for two years. On top of the two year sentence, the man will also need to pay a 30,000 Euro fine.

A French man has been sentenced to two years in jail because of the contents of his internet history »

0