It is an obvious and grotesque injustice to detain someone for six years who hasn’t even been charged with an offence.
Observer: Pressure Builds for UK and Sweden to Release WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange »
Swedish hearing with Assange & timeline »
The Independent: Julian Assange releases full testimony to Swedish prosecutors six years after rape allegation »
Blocking the content not only leads to a slippery slope — and open questions on choosing what content stays and what content goes — but also presumes that the block is the most effective way to stop the bad behavior associated with terrorists. But it leaves out that blocking such content often only makes those posting it feel like they’re on the right path, and that they’re saying something “so true” that it needs to be blocked. It’s not a path towards stopping terrorism or the spread of terrorist ideology — it just gets those engaged to dig in deeper on their views.
A group of prominent legal scholars has warned that the EU Commission’s plans to modernize copyright law in Europe appear to be incompatible with EU law. One of the main problems is the mandatory piracy filter Internet services are required to use, which largely ignore existing case law and human rights.
TorrentFreak: Mandatory Piracy Filters May Violate EU Law, Scholars Warn »
This week the Human Rights Committee (LIBE) in the European Parliament will finalize the formalities on the new EU directive on combating terrorism. There is little room for changes, as there has been closed door negotiations (trialogue) on the content between the Parliament, the Council (member states) and the Commission. From LIBE the directive will go to the vote in the December Parliamentary plenary session in Strasbourg.
This directive is an odd document as national security is not formally an EU competence. Newer the less, it has been rushed trough the system and is now close to becoming EU law.
The document can be seen as a response to the Paris and Brussels terrorist attacks. It is surely the result of pressure on EU member states interior ministers to be seen to do… something.
The directive is notably vague. Maybe even suspiciously vague.
Among the listed purposes for illegal terrorist actions, we can read the following »seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation«. And on form… »given their nature or context«.
This is vague. And it sounds dangerously close to… suppressing opposition or perfectly legitimate disruptive political activism. Would this label e.g. a tax revolt terrorism?
Threats to »information systems« resulting in »major economic loss« are also mentioned. Exactly where does this place some forms of hacking or maybe a DDoS attack? Will hackers now be deemed to be terrorists?
And exactly what does the following suggest? »Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of one of the offences listed in points (a) to (h) of Article 3(2), where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed, is punishable as a criminal offence when committed intentionally.«
The wording »whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences« is just confusing.
»For an offence referred to in Article 4 and Title III to be punishable, it shall not be necessary that a terrorist offence be actually committed, nor shall it be necessary to establish a link to a specific terrorist offence or, insofar as the offences in Articles 9 to 11 are concerned, to specific offences related to terrorist activities.«
Isn’t that a bit ambiguous?
So it continues. And I’m not the only one being suspicious…
Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Fundamental Rights European Experts (FREE) Group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are warning that the overly broad language of the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism could lead to criminalising public protests and other peaceful acts, to the suppression of the exercise of freedom of expression protected under international law, including expression of dissenting political views and to other unjustified limitations on human rights. The Directive’s punitive measures also pose the risk of being disproportionately applied and implemented in a manner that discriminates against specific ethnic and religious communities.
It seems that the purpose of this directive is to expand the scope of the anti-terror legislation to cover as much as possible. The risk is that it will go too far – labeling opposition, activism, hacking, and some other political activities as terrorism. Especially as it is up to the member states to implement this directive. There are plenty of politicians in Europe just looking for an excuse to silence uncomfortable voices and disruptive political movements.
/ HAX
EDRi: European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed »
The inquiry was established in 2014 in the wake of the Snowden revelations, which showed that not only was the NSA spying on the whole world, but it had also partnered with the intelligence services of particular states to spy on their citizens and those of the surrounding regions. One of these countries is Germany, which has had a close relationship with the US in military and intelligence matters since its occupation by US forces in WWII. The US has been shown to use its bases in Germany and its relationship with German intelligence to spy on German citizens as well as European Union institutions. (…)
Last week, on 21 November 2016, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice upheld the complaint and ruled that the committee was obliged to hear Edward Snowden in person. However, at the next inquiry hearing three days after the ruling, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Union bloc and the Social Democrats removed Snowden’s invitation from the agenda of the inquiry and are contesting the Court’s decision.
Wikileaks: German BND-NSA Inquiry Exhibits »
A terrorism Directive put together without a proper consultation, without any impact assessment and without meaningful public debate creates the worst possible outcome
…said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights.
It is too unclear to be implemented in a harmonised way across the EU, too shrouded in secrecy to have public legitimacy and too open to interpretation to prevent wilful abuse by governments seeking to exploit its weaknesses.
EDRi: European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed »
EDRi: Commission responds to Ombudsman investigation on EU Internet Forum »
Politicians and bureaucrats are transferring power from the people to themselves. There is corporatism, where politicians and Big Business join forces to circumvent a proper democratic process. Our civil rights are being thwarted for a number of different reasons. And there is a noticeable and growing democratic deficit.
Apparently, the people is now drifting into resignation and defeatism. Especially the young. The chart above is from the NYT article: How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’ »
According to the Mounk-Foa early-warning system, signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.
Across numerous countries, including Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States, the percentage of people who say it is “essential” to live in a democracy has plummeted, and it is especially low among younger generations.
Naturally, one can understand why people are disillusioned about democracy. Politicians are accumulating power – but are not in contact with ordinary people, their lives, and their worries. One could argue that our political leaders are not even in contact with reality. The political elite seems to be incompetent while at the same time being arrogant and condescending.
People being fed up with politics and bureaucracy is quite understandable. But what is the alternative?
I fear that it will not be enlightened philosopher kings that will rule us. Nor will it be a libertarian minarchism where people are free and live in harmony. Other, more aggressive, forces will be at play.
Authoritarian populists, the military, communists, SJW, fascists… The »alternatives« to democracy are all rather unpleasant, will lead to oppression – and will not respect the individual, her civil rights, and freedoms.
I can agree that democracy in some ways is a problematic system with very real built-in dilemmas and faults. I also fully agree that most of today’s politicians are dimwits and that many of them are dangerous.
But, still – I find democracy the least bad system.
However, democracy would gain greatly from being trimmed down – focusing on society’s core functions, doing what is important well – and then leaving people free to live their lives pretty much as they want. Maybe that is the only way to save democracy, in the long run.
/ HAX
Today, the FBI becomes a global adversary and enemy to every security-conscious computer user and to every IT security professional, similar to how the mass surveillance agencies are treated. The FBI has requested, and been granted, the lawful power (in the US) to intrude into any computer in the entire world.
Falkvinge: Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every security professional worldwide »
