Blogging for the 5th of July Foundation on Security, Privacy and Liberty
As US authorities decide they have the right to seize any data, the mandatory privacy suite expands: full-disk encryption goes from optional to very recommended, in addition to using a firewall and some sort of encrypting anonymizer.
Falkvinge – Privacy habits: Full-disk encryption goes from optional to very recommended »
For many years, the EU has taken many small steps towards introducing an EU ID card: eIDAS. (Or at least a strict common EU standard for nationally issued ID cards.)
An ID card proving the holders identity is one thing. (However, a mandatory ID card as such is a very controversial concept in some member states.) One interesting point is if there is going to be a common personal EU identification number. Another is what information the cards chip will contain and how it is going to be used. No doubt, an EU ID card can be used as a very effective tool for various forms of Big Brotherism.
It is in the light of the EU slowly trying to introduce a common, mandatory ID card that various EU schemes should be scrutinised.
Last week some sites, e.g. Breitbart London ran this story: The European Commission Wants You To Log Into Social Media Accounts With Govt-Issued ID Cards »
Well, that might be a bit oversimplified. What the EU suggests is that it should be possible to use national (EU harmonised) ID cards to log into various online platforms instead of logging in using e.g. Facebook or Google. Thus giving you the possibility of being controlled by Big Government or Big Data.
Giving people a possibility to choose is a good idea, as such. But I’m not sure that I would like Big Government or Big Data to have the control over my online life.
And you should be very suspicious! The moment there is an established platform for online registration (or signing transactions) with an EU approved ID card – this system can be rolled out all over the place. For example, the EU would love to have a system where you have to use your ID card to be able to log on to the Internet. I have met several people in the EU apparatus promoting that idea.
But how should you go about if you don’t want nor Big Government or Big Data to be in control of your online activities?
Actually, it can be done quite easily – by using Blockchain technology, decentralised solutions, and open source software. Ideal, there should be a couple of different such ID providers, competing with each other over providing competent privacy protection.
(All of this might even be possible to achieve using the already existing Bitnation World Citizen ID.)
This can be one of those forks in the road of history: Do we want our online activities to be controlled by Big Government and Big Brother, by Big Data – or a decentralised system with a high level of security, respecting users right to privacy and controlled by no one?
/ HAX
Links:
• The European Commission Wants You To Log Into Social Media Accounts With Govt-Issued ID Cards »
• EU: Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe »
Earlier this week we learned that the EU has initiated a cooperation with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to swiftly remove internet content that we are not supposed to see. Link»
And now the EU Commission would like to regulate what can be shown on tv, on-demand-services such as Netflix and possibly even Youtube.
The new suggested rule is that at least 20 percent of all on-demand content and 50 percent of all television content must be produced in Europe.
This is suggested in the revision of the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). Link»
In other words, in one weeks time, the EU has launched a new level of Internet censorship – and suggested new guidelines for what kind of audiovisual content the people ought to consume.
This is bad, in so many ways.
First of all, who are politicians and eurocrats to tell us what audiovisual content we are supposed to watch?
Second, it is totally absurd that the country of origin of a tv-production should decide if it is to be shown or not, rather than its subject, quality, and public demand.
Third, this is ill-conceived cultural protectionism.
Fourth, when the ruling political class tries to control what audiovisual content we can or cannot, should or should not see – society is swiftly moving in a totalitarian direction.
These suggested EU rules must be stopped.
/ HAX
The 5 July-foundation is now experimenting with podcasting, so far in Swedish.
[The] idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. This may sound innocuous. Politeness is a virtue, after all. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me, or about the things I hold dear, such as my ethnic group, religion, or even political beliefs. Since offence is subjective, the power to police it is both vast and arbitrary. (…)
Opinion polls reveal that in many countries support for free speech is lukewarm and conditional. If words are upsetting, people would rather the government or some other authority made the speaker shut up. A group of Islamic countries are lobbying to make insulting religion a crime under international law. They have every reason to expect that they will succeed. (…)
So it is worth spelling out why free expression is the bedrock of all liberties. Free speech is the best defence against bad government. Politicians who err (that is, all of them) should be subjected to unfettered criticism. Those who hear it may respond to it; those who silence it may never find out how their policies misfired. As Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, has pointed out, no democracy with a free press ever endured famine.
The Economist: Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out. »
Also read The Economists report: The muzzle grows tighter »
The threat of mass surveillance on reporting, particularly work of an investigative nature, may “all but eliminate” confidential sources and the value they bring to journalism.
This is one of the conclusion presented in a new academic research paper, “No more sources? The impact of Snowden’s revelations on journalists and their confidential sources”, published on 24 May and authored by Paul Lashmar, journalist and senior lecturer at University of Sussex. (…)
“Journalists need to be more outspoken about the impact of surveillance in preventing them from delivering their most important role, bringing to account government and the powerful when they are errant,” Lashmar wrote.
Journalism.co.uk: Research highlights the impact of the threat of surveillance on journalists and their sources »
Internet and social media giants Facebook, Twitter, Google’s YouTube and Microsoft on Tuesday pledged to combat online hate speech in Europe as the European Union’s European Commission unveiled a new code of conduct in Brussels designed to avoid the “spread of illegal hate speech.”
The companies vowed to review most valid requests for removal of illegal hate speech within 24 hours and to remove or disable access if necessary.
To be observed. Closely.
THR: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube Vow to Combat Online Hate Speech in Europe »
Right now, we see the Bitcoin (BTC) exchange rate skyrocketing. At the moment, the day to day volatility is some 25 percent – with the price of 1 BTC closing in on USD 550.
This might very well be a temporary fluctuation. But there are telltale signs that we might see the BTC price continue to rise.
One reason is that BTC is becoming increasingly popular with the Chinese. CCN.LA writes…
Started by Arthur Hayes, a former Citigroup trader living in Hong Kong, the goal was to create an exchange where people use cryptocurrency to bet on securities not easily accessible to them in their home markets.
Because China restricts exchanging its yuan for other currencies, citizens find it expensive and difficult to invest in overseas securities. Foreign investors are also restricted in trading China stocks.
Link: Bitcoin Derivatives Exchange Expands, Skirting China’s Currency Curbs »
Then, we have the fact that BTC mining is to be slowed down. The Dollar Vigilante explains…
On July 18th of this year bitcoin undergoes a major event that only happens every four years called a “halving”.
Bitcoins are developed through the process of mining. Only 21 million bitcoins can be in existence at any one time. The value of mining is regulated in order to maintain this number. To prevent miners from surpassing this limit, the currency is designed to cut the value of mining in half every four years. It is as if the Federal Reserve slashed the amount of money-printing it does by half.
This could have a major impact on the overall value of the currency. If demand for bitcoin continues to grow while the number of coins that can be mined is drastically decreased, the value should naturally surge. That’s just the law of supply and demand.
Link: Bitcoin Skyrockets And Is Now Up More Than 100% This Jubilee Year »
The Dollar Vigilante also lists these reasons for BTC increasing in value over time:
A bit optimistic, perhaps. But we really should consider what can happen if there is a USD or Euro crisis. (E.g. a debt crisis, a new bank crisis and/or a haircut on bank savings.)
And the fact that BTC is a decentralised currency out of reach of governments control will always give it a role in a free market.
We live in interesting times.
/ HAX
Today the European Parliament has voted on a resolution concerning the “EU-US Privacy Shield”. This is a mess.
Transfer of personal data from the EU to the US used to be regulated under the so-called Safe Harbour Agreement, aiming at protecting our data when transferred to the US. But actually, this agreement was too vague, rather pointless and possible to circumvent. Finally, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated it, finding that it violated citizens right to privacy.
So work started to replace Safe Harbour with the EU-US Privacy Shield. In the process, the EU has stated that there is a new agreement, even though we are nowhere close to a final document. The EU and the US are very eager to push for this new agreement, to benefit Big Data in the US. But the concern is that this new agreement will not treat EU citizens personal data in a responsible way, disregard our right to privacy and that it might be Safe Harbour all over again.
One core question is if the US Patriot Act and the new USA Freedom Act should have precedence over EU data protection.
Today the European Parliament had a say, in a non-binding resolution. The press release:
In the resolution, passed by 501 votes to 119 with 31 abstentions, MEPs welcome the efforts of the Commission and the US administration to achieve “substantial improvements” in the Privacy Shield compared to the Safe Harbour decision which it is to replace.
However, they also voice concern about “deficiencies” in the proposed new arrangement negotiated by the Commission, notably:
• the US authorities’ access to data transferred under the Privacy Shield,
• the possibility of collecting bulk data, in some cases, which does not meet the criteria of “necessity” and “proportionality” laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
• the proposed US ombudsperson, a new institution that MEPs accept is a step forward, but believe to be neither “sufficiently independent”, nor “vested with adequate powers to effectively exercise and enforce its duty”, and
• the complexity of the redress mechanism, which the Commission and US administration need to make more “user-friendly and effective”, MEPs say.
Parliament stresses that the Privacy Shield framework gives EU member state’s data protection agencies a prominent role in examining data protection claims and notes their power to suspend data transfers. It also notes the obligation placed upon the US Department of Commerce to resolve such complaints.
Finally, MEPs call on the Commission to conduct periodic “robust reviews” of its decision that Privacy Shield protection is adequate, particularly in the light of experience with the new EU data protection rules which are to take effect in two years.
In other words, the EU and the US are far from a complete and acceptable agreement.
Green home affairs and data protection spokesperson Jan Philipp Albrecht said:
The proposed ‘Privacy Shield’ framework does not seem like a viable long-term solution. It seems highly questionable that this new framework addresses the concerns outlined by the European Court of Justice in ruling the Safe Harbour decision illegal. The European Commission cannot issue a blank check for the transfer of European citizens’ data to the US. Instead, it has to continue to insist on improvements to the level of data protection.
At the same time the centre-right group, EPP, is impatient to have a new agreement in place – seemingly without having the same concerns over privacy and data protection.
The EPP Group’s Spokesman on the issue, Axel Voss MEP, warned against any attempt to torpedo the finalisation of the Privacy Shield, listing benefits to European consumers and SMEs alike: “Free cross-border data flows between the EU and the US are of paramount importance for our economies, trade and investment. Data flows are a key element for the competitiveness of business. Therefore the EPP Group welcomes the conclusion of the negotiations between the EU and the US on this topic.”
Now, we will have to wait to see what the European Commission makes of this.
/ HAX
Links:
• European Parliament: EU-US “Privacy Shield” for data transfers: further improvements needed, MEPs say »
• Greens-EFA: EU-US ‘Privacy Shield’ data exchange »
• EPP: EU-US data flows: urgent implementation of Privacy Shield needed »
• Ars Technica: EU data protection chief: We have serious concerns about Privacy Shield »
Previous posts on The EU-US Privacy Shield: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
See an interview with Max Scherms, who took Safe Harbour to the European Court of Justice »