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.

Alleged Bitcoin architect out of sight, home and office raided

This is intriguing: Australian Craig Wright has been exposed as the man (or one of the men) behind Bitcoin. Maybe. Or not. Immediately his Sidney home (that he seems to have moved out of) and office was raided by Australian police. The only comment from the authorities is that this has nothing to do with his alleged Bitcoin connection.

Hmmm…

• Reported bitcoin ‘founder’ Craig Wright’s home raided by Australian police »
• Bitcoin’s Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius »
• This Australian Says He and His Dead Friend Invented Bitcoin »
• Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto probably Australian entrepreneur, reports claim »
• Who is Craig Wright and how likely is it that he’s behind bitcoin? »

This is like something out of a John Grisham thriller.

But what are the implications for Bitcoin? Probably none. It is a decentralized system that no one should be able to control or tamper with.

However, even a remote possibility that someone has some sort of “golden key” is enough to get the full attention of various governments. No doubt, Bitcoin threatens their control.

/ HAX

Blockchain can be used to fix a sustainable economy in developing countries

Many developing countries have problems with weak (or non-existing) institutions. It can be a problem to verify ownership of land, companies and tangible assets — as there are no reliable records and registers.

With Blockchain-based technology (the same technology that is the backbone behind digital currencies such as Bitcoin), such problems can now easily be solved.

It’s all about establishing a trusted ledger of ownership and transfers that cannot be tampered with. This is exactly what can be accomplished with Blockchain-based registers.

It doesn’t even have to be managed by the government. It can just as easily be set up by a chamber of commerce, a development organisation or a private company. The important thing is to provide solid records that can be accepted by everyone.

This would benefit agriculture, commerce and rule of law. And it would provide a stable base for economic development.

/ HAX

EU: It’s Snowden-time!

It is getting painfully clear: No single western democracy will stand up against the US to grant NSA-whistleblower Edward Snowden refuge – and refuse to hand him over to Washington.

So it’s time for plan B: Let’s campaign for the EU to provide sanctuary for Snowden.

Snowden is a very hot potato for western politicians. There is a clear public demand to grant him asylum or some other form of protection. On the other hand, the US will apply extreme pressure on any country that does.

In the EU, politicians can do the right thing — and avoid to take the heat directly. Questions from the US could be directed to Brussels and the European Commission can blame the European Parliament. No single country or politician will have to stand up against the US administration.

The initiative (probably) will have to come from the European Commission. That’s the tricky part. When it comes to the European Parliament — it has already stated that it wants the EU to provide refuge for Snowden. On the opposing side, we will find most of the member states in the European Council.

It might also be possible to involve the Council of Europe (this is not an EU institution, as this organization has more member states and is the guardian of the Europan Convention on Human Rights).

Let’s use the EU for something good, for a change.

/ HAX

Short-circuiting democracy the EU way

Laws should be made in a transparent way and in a dialogue with the rest of society.

In the EU, lawmaking (directives) is supposed to meet such criteria: It often starts with a public consultation followed by a proposal from the European Commission. Member states are heard in the Council and the people’s elected representatives can amend and adopt or reject such proposals in the European Parliament. The Council and the Parliament will have to agree for a directive to be passed. A proposal can be rejected up to three times in the Parliament before it has to be withdrawn by the Commission. (It can then be re-written or withdrawn altogether.)

This is a slow process. And that is a good thing. Laws should not be rushed trough.

But the EU is an inpatient organization. Often there are special interests pushing for a directive, pressure from abroad or some other hidden agendas pushing the legislative dossiers.

So the EU is using an instrument called trialogues to speed things up. These are not supported in the treaty of the European Union. They are just… used.

The purpose of a trialogue is to speed up legislation. In this process representatives from the Commission, the Council and the Parliament hold meetings behind closed doors – negotiating for some sort of a compromise. The records are secret and often it is also a secret who attends these meetings. There is no transparency and no way to hold anyone accountable.

These trialogues are ever more common. Some years, there can be up to 700 of them. Today most legislative dossiers are exempted from the regular democratic process in the EU and settled in trialogues.

The result is that the public and the media is being kept away from the process. Civil society, activists and the academic world have no way to influence what is going on — not even if something is going terribly wrong.

Trialogues are especially common when it comes to matters concerning mass surveillance, copyright and telecommunications (such as Internet related issues). Here the power elite and special interests are particularly intent to avoid public scrutiny.

After a trialogue, the Council and the Parliament still will have to adopt or reject the proposal. But in general, it is always adopted by mildly embarrassed politicians — who know that there are back-room deals that should not be scrutinized too carefully.

When I used to work in the European Parliament, there was a joke that was too close to the truth for comfort: In the EU, first they decide. After that, there might be a discussion. And after that, in some cases people even might bother to find out the facts.

In the EU, the democratic process has been short-circuited.

/ HAX

Links:
• Civil society calls for reform of trialogues in a letter to EU Commission, Parliament and Council »
• Ombudsman opens investigation to promote transparency of “trilogues” »
• The Council challenges the right of the European Ombudsman to conduct an inquiry into secret “trilogues” (in which most EU legislation is decided) »

Pirate sites: To block out or not to block out?

Today the Swedish district court of Stockholm ruled that internet service providers (ISP:s) can not be forced to block out pirate sites like the Pirate Bay. (TorrentFreak» | Also in Swedish»)

But it’s still early days. Copyright holders are to appeal the verdict. However, it’s very unusual that Swedish lower courts take bold stands. This might indicate that the judicial system has found that there is a strong case against blocking.

Interestingly, yesterday the German federal court ruled in the opposite direction. (TorrentFreak» | Also in German»)

The key issue seems to be if an ISP can be considered a co-culprit of copyright infringement in relation to the EU Infosoc directive. Conflicting judgements in different member states indicate that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will have to address the issue. And this can happen soon as a Dutch court already has asked the ECJ for guidance in a similar case.

However, it is possible for a member state to have a stronger copyright protection than required in the EU directive. But this issue might also concern freedom of enterprise and freedom of speech. So there is a high level of uncertainty and confusion.

From a practical point of view, it is interesting to see that blocking out pirate sites has little or no effect on illegal filesharing. (Link 1» | Link 2»)

The bigger question is the principle that ISP:s are not responsible for what their customers are up to in their network (mere conduit). This is a well-established principle in the EU.

In comparison, telephone companies are not liable for what people might say on their phone lines; postal services are not liable for what people send in the mail; owners of roads are not liable for criminals driving around.

If ISP:s were to be responsible for their customers activities — they would have to police everything we do online. Everything. That would be practically extremely difficult and a fierce violation of privacy. (But proponents of mass surveillance often seem to see this as an opportunity to establish new points where to tap into public communications.)

/ HAX

We are all under surveillance: Re-group. Re-think.

After the Paris attacks politicians, police and the intelligence community are tumbling over each other eager to introduce even more mass surveillance.

This will direct resources away from regular police and intelligence work. It will not protect us, but could rather make us all less safe. But then again, mass surveillance isn’t really about terrorism. Obviously, it’s about control.

Terrorism (plus serious crime, drug trade, trafficking, child protection and the copyright legal framework) is being used as a pretext for doing what politicians cannot openly admit.

But facts are straight forward: We are all under surveillance.

The fight for people’s right to privacy must and will go on. But we also must recognize the fact that we are already living in a Big Brother society. It might be about time to re-group and re-think. Where do we take the fight for a free and open society from here?

There is the political road. Defending human and civil rights, you can punch over your weight. It all boils down to principles about democracy, rule of law and the relation between citizens and the government. In that context, most politicians cannot afford to appear as if they don’t care. Not in public.

And there is the technical road. Let’s start with something reasonable: Could anybody please make strong e-mail encryption really, really user-friendly? It shouldn’t be impossible. Or let’s take a wider approach: Can the entire internet protocol be replaced with something new and more privacy friendly?

The fight will go on. And you can be certain of one thing: Regardless of how much surveillance we have, the ruling political and bureaucratic classes will always find reasons to introduce more.

/ HAX