Blogging for the 5th of July Foundation on Security, Privacy and Liberty
Jim Killock, the executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. The state has unprecedented powers to monitor and analyse UK citizens’ communications regardless of whether we are suspected of any criminal activity.”
The Guardian: ‘Extreme surveillance’ becomes UK law with barely a whimper »
Britain has passed the ‘most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy’.
The law forces UK internet providers to store browsing histories — including domains visited — for one year, in case of police investigations.
EDRi: Dutch government wants to keep “zero days” available for exploitation »
The Dutch government is very clear about at least one thing: unknown software vulnerabilities, also known as “zero days”, may be left open by the government, in order to be exploited by secret services and the police.
So, the Dutch government is willing to leave information technology all over the world vulnerable to known dangers – to be able to use them itself?
What could possibly go wrong?
The European Union intends to simplify investigative authorities’ access to encrypted content. This emerged from the replies to a questionnaire that was circulated to all Member States by the Slovak Presidency of the EU Council. After a “reflection process”, efforts in this area are, according to the summary of the replies, intended to give rise to a framework for “cooperation” with internet providers. It remains unclear whether this will take the form of a recommendation, regulation or directive or, indeed, what “cooperation” might mean.
EDRi: New EU network to combat the “challenges stemming from encryption” »
In fact, a new Democratic Party orthodoxy took hold under Obama: the right of a president to detain people, or even assassinate them, without charges or a whiff of judicial oversight. This included even American citizens.
Glenn Greenwald in Washington Post: Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them. »
Joe McNamee, EDRi: EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of free speech »
The proposed Directive:
1) requires internet companies to install filtering technology to prevent the upload of content that has been “identified by rightsholders”
2) seeks to make internet providers responsible for their users’ uploads
3) gives internet users no meaningful protection from unfair deletion of their creations
So, ISP:s will have to check on all content uploaded by users – i.e. scrutinize everything that is uploaded to the Internet.
What is to be allowed or censored will not be a matter of rule of law – but falls under company terms and conditions that can state… whatever.
There will be no legal means of redress or appeal.
Freedom of speech and freedom of information will be in the hands of ISP:s who are to be liable for all user uploads. There is good reason to fear that these companies will be overly anxious and cautious – censoring everything with even a remote possibility of being an infringement of copyright.
This is yet another attempt to get around the eCommerce-directives principle of »mere conduit« stating that net operators can not be liable for what users are doing in their cables.
And imagine the burden on the ISP:s, having to police all of the users net activities.
This proposal is an assault on »mere conduit«, free speech, privacy and the rule of law. It must be stopped.
/ HAX
EDRi on the EU agreement with social media to censor e.g. hate speech and radicalization, the »Joint Referral Platform«…
Both incitement to violence and violence itself are utterly unacceptable. However, this abhorrent behaviour must also not result in attacks on core principles of our society. In particular, any restrictions must be proportionate, necessary and genuinely meet their objectives. This means that we need clear laws and clear responsibilities for all parties involved: states, providers and civil society. (…)
The restrictions are not provided for by law ‒ terms of service take precedence. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the German parliamentary question, the proportionality cannot be assessed as the State is not in possession of useful data.
Suddenly, after the US presidential election, people seems to realize that mass surveillance is a problem.
Time Magazine: President Obama Should Shut Down the NSA’s Mass Spying Before It’s Too Late »
Well, yes. But…
Isn’t mass surveillance a problem, regardless of who is in power?
Isn’t it naive to assume that others will not and do not misuse the surveillance apparatus?
Time writes:
During the Obama administration, warrantless spying programs have vastly expanded, giving the government more power than ever before to constantly monitor all of us by collecting our emails, texts, phone records, chats, real-time locations, purchases, and other private information en masse. This indiscriminate spying isn’t just happening in some National Security Agency bunker. It has reportedly spread throughout dozens of agencies, from local police departments to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and more.
Trump has repeatedly called for more government surveillance. And he has made it very clear exactly how he would use such powers: to target Muslims, immigrant families, marginalized communities, political dissidents, and journalists.
This describes pretty well what the problem is and who is responsible.
The danger of all of this one day falling into the »wrong« hands ought to have been obvious from the very beginning.
It’s naive to claim that Big Brotherism is a problem in just some cases, used by some political forces, with some specific justifications. Mass surveillance is a problem by its very nature and to its core – regardless who is in power. Always.
Naturally, the mass surveillance apparatus in the hands of Donald Trump is a deeply disturbing notion.
But you should have considered such a risk from the very beginning. You were warned. Repeatedly.
/ HAX