Author: HAX
Henrik “HAX” Alexandersson is a Swedish writer, thinker and political evangelist. Between 2009 and 2014 he worked in the European Parliament for the Swedish Pirate Party.
EDRi: Next year, you’ll complain about the Terrorism Directive
Next year, when your Member State starts blocking websites, without quite knowing why, when it starts imposing restrictions on Tor and proxy servers, without quite knowing why, when unaccountable, unclear legislation leads to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and your government says that it is “EU law that it is obliged to implement” and you wonder why the press never reported on it, when you search in vain for who is accountable for a weak and dangerous text, come back and read this again.
EDRi: Next year, you’ll complain about the Terrorism Directive »
EU:s EPP group calls for Internet censorship
The centre-right group in the European Parliament, EPP, just released an article on its’ website: The Fight Against Online Radicalisation »
Let me copy paste a few passages…
This would mean limiting the internet reach that ISIS and other extremist groups have on our social media networks. To ban them completely would be impossible as it is difficult enough to figure out who is an extremist recruiter and who isn’t on Facebook and Twitter, but we can certainly limit and delete their Facebook pages and bar their accounts. (…)
It has been agreed that Europol is to obtain greater powers to deal with the tackling of the terrorist threat online. New specialist units, monitored by an European Data Protection Supervisor and a Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group, will be set up that will be able to contact social network providers (Facebook, Twitter etc.) directly to ask that pages and accounts run by ISIS are shut down as fast as possible.
Obviously, we need to make a stand against radical Islamism and others who advocate violence and who do not respect human rights and civil liberties. But is censorship really the right way to do it?
Either you have freedom of speech or you don’t. If you restrict free speech, e.g. by censoring Internet content, per definition you have lost it.
The only acceptable exception would be clearly expressed, substantial threats directed against other people’s life, security or property.
It is true that radical Islamism is a murderous ideology. But so is Communism and Fascism. Banning all bad and dangerous doctrines would have far-reaching implications. And who is to decide what to censor?
If we introduce far-reaching online censorship you can be absolutely sure that it will be extended beyond its’ original purpose.
Actually, we are already there. In many countries, xenophobic and anti-immigration Internet activities are prohibited, censored and can lead to prosecution. What is considered to be acceptable opinions or banned hate speech is a matter of definition. And once again, who is to decide?
The irony of it all is that the same set of rules are used to silence radical Islamism as anti-Muslim, anti-immigration rants.
Radical Islamism aiming at limiting other people’s freedom, human rights and/or civil rights must be opposed. Strongly. But it must be done in a frank debate and by good examples.
You simply cannot defend a free and open society by limiting people’s human and civil rights (such as freedom of speech).
/ HAX
European Parliament to tackle virtual currencies and Blockchain
This week, the European Parliament will debate (Wednesday) and vote (Thursday) on a report on virtual currencies.
First of all, this is a report – not legislation. But it will be handed over to the European Commission for consideration.
It is interesting to see how the EP seems to think that virtual currencies can be regulated and incorporated in existing regulations and legal frameworks. Of course, a new virtual currency can do that. But when it comes to Bitcoin and other existing currencies – I cannot understand how this is supposed to be done. (And it shouldn’t.)
The EP also seems to believe that virtual currencies have some sort of governing bodies, that could be held accountable in front of the EU and national authorities.
On the positive side, the report states that no special legislation for virtual currencies is needed – for the time being. (“More tailor-made legislation might be needed.”)
Here are some parts of the report that might be of interest. (VC = virtual currencies. DLT = distributed ledger technology = Blockchain.)
19. Welcomes the Commission’s suggestions for including VC exchange platforms in the Anti-Money-Laundering Directive (AMLD) in order to end the anonymity associated with such platforms; expects that any proposal in this regard will be targeted, justified by means of a full analysis of the risks associated with VCs, and based on a thorough impact assessment;
20. Recommends that the Commission draw up a comprehensive analysis of VCs and, on the basis of this assessment, consider, if appropriate, revising the relevant EU legislation on payments, including the Payment Accounts Directive (PAD), the Payment Services Directive (PSD) and the Electronic Money Directive (EMD), in light of the new possibilities afforded by new technological developments including VCs and DLT, with a view to further enhancing competition and lowering transaction costs, including by means of enhanced interoperability and possibly also via the promotion of a universal and non-proprietary electronic wallet;
21. Observes that several virtual local currencies have been created in Europe, not least as a response to the financial crises and the related credit crunch problems; urges particular caution when defining virtual currencies, in the context of any future legislative proposals, with a view to taking proper account of the existence of ‘local currencies’ of a not-for-profit nature, often having limited fungibility and providing significant social and environmental benefits, and to preventing disproportionate regulation in this area, as long as taxation is neither avoided nor circumvented;
22.Calls for the creation of a horizontal Task Force DLT (TF DLT) led by the Commission, consisting of technical and regulatory experts, in order to:
i) provide the necessary technical and regulatory expertise across the various sectors of pertinent DLT applications, bring together stakeholders and support the relevant public actors at EU and Member State level in their efforts to monitor DLT use at the European level and globally;
ii) foster awareness and analyse the benefits and risks – including to end-users – of DLT applications in order to make best use of their potential, including by aiming to identify a core set of attributes of DLT schemes conducive to the general interest, such as non-proprietary open standards, and by identifying standards for best practice where such standards are emerging;
iii) support a timely, well-informed and proportionate response to the new opportunities and challenges arising with the introduction of significant DLT applications, including by means of a roadmap for future steps at EU and Member State level which would include an assessment of existing European regulation, with a view to updating it in response to significant and systemic DLT use where appropriate, also addressing consumer protection and systemic challenges;
iv) develop stress tests for all relevant aspects of VCs and other DLT schemes that reach a level of use that would make them systemically important for stability;
23. Stresses the importance of consumer awareness, transparency and trust when using VCs; calls on the Commission to develop, in cooperation with the Member States and the VC industry, guidelines with the aim of guaranteeing that correct, clear and complete information is provided for existing and future VC users, to allow them to make a fully informed choice and thus enhance the transparency of VC schemes in terms of how they are organised and operated and how they distinguish themselves from regulated and supervised payment systems in terms of consumer protection;
The devil is in the details. (My emphasis above.)
Apparently the EP has found something new to regulate. The fact that its’ members don’t seem to grasp the concept of virtual currencies and Blockchain will not stop them. And that is not an unusual approach when it comes to EP reports…
At best this report is a waste of time. But it can be used by the Commission to justify future legislation.
/ HAX
How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers
Accusations that Pentagon retaliated against a whistleblower undermine argument that there were options for Snowden other than leaking to the media.
The Guardian: Snowden calls for whistleblower shield after claims by new Pentagon source »
The Guardian: How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers »
UN and free speech
The United Nations Security Council wants a global “framework” for censoring the Internet, as well as for using government propaganda to “counter” what its apparatchiks call “online propaganda,” “hateful ideologies,” and “digital terrorism.” To that end, the UN Security Council this week ordered the UN “Counter-Terrorism Committee” — yes, that is a real bureaucracy — to draw up a plan by next year. From the Obama administration to the brutal Communist Chinese regime, everybody agreed that it was time for a UN-led crackdown on freedom of speech and thought online — all under the guise of fighting the transparently bogus terror war.
Zerohedge: UN Plots War On Free Speech To Stop “Extremism” Online »
Europol, Facebook & Twitter
Will the European Police Office’s (Europol’s) database soon include innocent people reported by Facebook or Twitter? The Europol Regulation, which has been approved on 11 May 2016, not only provides a comprehensive new framework for the police agency, but it also allows Europol to share data with private companies like Facebook and Twitter.
EDRi – Europol: Non-transparent cooperation with IT companies »
What the Police really wants to know
For the first time, an ISP publishes statistics of what crimes the Police are investigating when requesting the release of internet subscriber identities. The so-called Data Retention, which is a governmental requirement to store data about everybody’s communications in order to use it against them in the future, was originally justified as necessary for fighting organized crime and terrorism – but is now being used against ordinary sharing of music and movies, according to the ISP.
“We want to publish these statistics in order to show the Police are violating people’s privacy and spending resources on pointless trifles”, says Jon Karlung, CEO of Bahnhof.
Snowden sues Norway for safe refuge
Edward Snowden will sue the Norwegian state in a bid to secure free passage to the Scandinavian country, a Norwegian law firm representing the former U.S. spy contractor said on Thursday.
Edward Snowden to Sue Norway to Avoid Extradition to U.S. Over Spying Charges »
German court censors Böhmermanns Erdogan poem
A German court, Landgericht Hamburg, has decided that tv presenter Jan Böhmermann can not repeat parts of his infamous poem about Turkish President Erdogan.
The court finds passages in the text abusive and defamatory. Frankfurter Allgemeine reports that refusal to follow this ruling can lead to an administrative fine of up to 250,000 euros or administrative detention of up to six months.
Böhmermann now has the possibility to appeal against the verdict.
However, this is not the main trial. The Section 103 case will be tried by the Mainz Criminal Court at a later point.
Turkish President Erdogan has also applied for an injunction against Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner. This following Springers support for Böhmermann. The injunction is to be tried by the Cologne Landgericht. But this court has already indicated that it will not recognize the case. This can, in turn, be appealed against by Erdogan’s lawyers.
This is a can of worms.
The entire case is troublesome from a freedom of speech perspective. Especially as it also concerns freedom of the press and artistic expressions. And it gets outright awkward and absurd when German courts are deconstructing Böhmermann’s poem to decide what parts should be considered as acceptable humor and what parts should not.
There were, at one point, hopes that the German legal system would simply throw out President Erdogan’s complaints and make a firm stand for free speech. But now it seems as if the case will take a different turn.
What makes the case even worse is the fact that the German government allowed President Erdogan’s complaints on political grounds. Germany simply needs Turkey to stem the flow of refugees from Syria (and other countries). So much so that the government is prepared to put free speech on the line.
This will be a defining moment for German democracy.
/ HAX
• Gericht verbietet Teile von Böhmermanns „Schmähgedicht“ »
• Erdogan geht auch gegen Springer-Chef Döpfner vor »
Update:
• BBC: German court rules against comic Boehmermann over Erdogan poem »