“The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”, said Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull today. He has been rightly mocked for this nonsense claim, that foreshadows moves to require online messaging providers to provide law enforcement with back door access to encrypted messages.
Archive | July, 2017
PI to court over »Five Eyes« transparency
Privacy International has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to compel disclosure of records relating to a 1946 surveillance agreement between the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, known as the “Five Eyes alliance”.* We are represented by Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (MFIA). The most recent publicly available version of the Five Eyes surveillance agreement dates from 1955. Our complaint was filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
PI: Privacy International Files Lawsuit To Compel Disclosure Of Secretive 1946 Surveillance Agreement »
Suffocating free speech online, country by country
The trend of courts applying country-specific social media laws worldwide could radically change what is allowed to be on the internet, setting a troubling precedent. What happens to the global internet when countries with different cultures have sharply diverging definitions of what is acceptable online speech? What happens when one country’s idea of acceptable speech clashes with another’s idea of hate speech? Experts worry the biggest risk is that the whole internet will be forced to comport with the strictest legal limitations.
Wired: The World may be Headed for a Fragmented ‘Splinternet’ »
The police will always know who you are
Police already have access to visors with built-in face recognition and fugitive spotting. The technology was in prototype stage a few years ago, and was successfully tested when police officers walked into dark cinemas full of people and got so-called People of Interest highlighted directly onto their field of vision. The future is approaching fast, and it’s not all shiny happy rainbow unicorns.
Falkvinge: There are already police visors with built-in face recognition and fugitive spotting »
Court case to bring light to »Five Eyes« intelligence cooperation?
“We hope to find out the current scope and nature of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement – and how much has changed since the 1955 version,” Privacy International legal officer Scarlet Kim tells WIRED. “We’d also like to know the US rules and regulations governing this exchange of information – what safeguards and oversight, if any, exist with respect to these activities?”
Wired: The US government is being sued for info on the secretive Five Eyes intelligence group »
Digital border searches, now also in New Zeeland
New Zealand airport customs agents force thousands of travelers every year to hand over the passwords for their devices, in some cases inspecting files and even copying the data for the government.
Softpedia: NZ Airport Travelers Forced to Surrender Device Passwords, Data Copied by Govt »
Meanwhile, in Mexico…
A team of international investigators brought to Mexico to unravel one of the nation’s gravest human rights atrocities was targeted with sophisticated surveillance technology sold to the Mexican government to spy on criminals and terrorists.
NYT: Spyware Sold to Mexican Government Targeted International Officials »
All registers will leak
A darknet trader who claims to have access to any Australian’s Medicare card information is reportedly selling the confidential data online.
9news: Medicare details of ‘every Australian’ being illegally sold on darknet »
Who is a terrorist?
This is quite interesting. Who is to be considered being a terrorist? This is an especially important question, considering all new and far-reaching anti-terror laws.
Tim Pool @ Youtube: ANTIFA listed under domestic terrorism »
Consequences of Germanys social media censorship
Even accepting that free speech ends where criminal law begins, that doesn’t justify fining the platforms. If people are posting “illegal” content, go after them for breaking the law. Don’t go after the tools they use. By putting massive liability risks on platforms, those platforms will almost certainly overcompensate and over censor to avoid any risk of liability. That means a tremendous amount of what should be protected speech gets silence, just because these companies don’t want to get fined. Even worse, the big platforms can maybe hire people to handle this. The littler platforms? They basically can’t risk operating in Germany any more. Berlin is a hotbed of startups, but this is going to seriously harm many of them.