Blogging for the 5th of July Foundation on Security, Privacy and Liberty
“It is a dangerous path to go down, which forces Internet providers to monitor and evaluate content on the Internet and block websites with illegal content in order to avoid becoming accomplices,” the companies write in a joint statement.
Torrentfreak » ISPs: Blocking The Pirate Bay is Dangerous Censorship »
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
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 »
(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 »
GCHQ and the NSA have spied on air passengers using in-flight GSM mobile services for years, newly-published documents originally obtained by Edward Snowden reveal.
Ars Technica: Snowden leaks reveal GCHQ and NSA snooped on in-flight mobile calls »
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.
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 »