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.

The coming War on Cash

War on terror has become an convenient excuse for governments to start a war on cash.

Naturally, cash can be used by terrorists. But it will not mainly be terrorists who suffer from tighter control. It will be ordinary people.

One of the real reasons behind tighter cash regulations are convenient is quite obvious: taxation.

If you want support for this theory, take a look at the EU directive against money laundering. Where implemented strictly (like in Sweden) it makes handling of any substantial amount of cash almost impossible.

The latest is the French tightening the regulations on cash. From Mises.org…

“These measures, which will be implemented in September 2015, include prohibiting French residents from making cash payments of more than 1,000 euros, down from the current limit of 3,000 euros. Given the parlous state of the stagnating French economy the limit for foreign tourists on currency payments will remain higher, at 10,000 euros down from the current limit of 15,000 euros. The threshold below which a French resident is free to convert euros into other currencies without having to show an identity card will be slashed from the current level of 8,000 euros to 1,000 euros. In addition any cash deposit or withdrawal of more than 10,000 euros during a single month will be reported to the French anti-fraud and money laundering agency Tracfin. French authorities will also have to be notified of any freight transfers within the EU exceeding 10,000 euros, including checks, pre-paid cards, or gold.”

The whole idea is based on the presumption that people are up to something suspicious. This seems to be the new default mode, replacing the presumption of innocence (that happens to be one of the fundaments of rule of law).

But this is not just about distrusting citizens with their own money. The common European currency, the Euro, is in a precarious state. Cash regulations can (and will) be used to stop people from rescuing their own money when the shit hits the fan. Just see what happened when the Euro-crisis overwhelmed Cyprus. The government confiscated money directly from peoples bank accounts — and most people had no possibility to rescue their savings.

“Coincidentally” mass surveillance is an excellent tool for governments to enforce financial regulations aimed at the general public…

Is this the moment when people finally will have to turn to free digital currencies in a big way? Is this the tipping point?

/ HAX

EU: Data retention – an up-to-date summary

In a few weeks Swedish national data retention laws (based on the EU data retention directive) will be tested in an administrative mid-level court. This is only one of many court appeals in the EU on the subject. Former Pirate MEP Amelia Andersdotter has made a time line (link, in Swedish »).

In the following countries data retention has been rejected by court: Lithuania, Bulgaria (several times), Romania (several times), Germany, Ireland (several times), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Austria, Finland (political decision), Slovakia, Slovenia and The Netherlands. Then there are some open court cases.

In April last year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the EU directive on data retention – for breach of human rights. And recently, the European Commission has declared that there will be no new directive.

It’s also worth noticing criticism against data retention from the EU Council lawyers, Germanys minister of justice, the EU Data Protection group, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN High Representative for Human Rights and Privacy in a Digital Age and others.

The Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe has made this statement…

“Suspicionless mass retention of communications data is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law, incompatible with core data-protection principles and ineffective. Member states should not resort to it or impose compulsory retention of data by third parties. /…/ Member states should stop relying on private companies that control the Internet and the wider digital environment to impose restrictions that are in violation of the state’s human rights obligations.”

But some countries — like the UK, France and Sweden — try hard to ignore all criticism and all concerns about human rights. They have no plans of giving up this kind of mass surveillance.

/ HAX

Link (in Swedish, about the Swedish court case, but with some helpful quotes in English): Amelia Andersdotter »

The worst of two worlds

For the sake of argument: Let’s assume that we are stuck with mass surveillance and Big Brotherism.

Such a society can be very unpleasant and very difficult to live in.

There is a trend among politicians and bureaucrats to regulate and micro manage more and more about our lives. Today, all western countries have more laws, regulations and rules than anyone can grasp and relate to. Every day most of us break the rules. Often several times every day.

Many of these rules are irrational, moralistic, prejudiced, paternalistic, subjective, stupid, unnecessary or malicious. Some laws creates crime where there is no victim. Some are outdated. Some are simply wrong.

In a total surveillance society this abundance of rules will lead to a situation where each and every one of us might be investigated, “corrected” and / or punished. Especially people in opposition, those who don’t fit in a “one size fits all” society and those who would like to live a free life (taking responsibility for their own actions). If people in power and their functionaries think that you are annoying — there will always be a reason for them to make an example of you, as a warning to others.

For a Big Brother society to be at all tolerable to live in — it must be open minded, tolerant and liberal. It must have fewer intrusive rules and more freedom.

But that is not the direction society is going, is it?

Today we live in a society where every day, we are under more surveillance, subject to more intrusive rules and under stricter control. That is a very toxic mix.

/ HAX

EU: No new directive on data retention. But…

According to Reuters there will be no new EU directive on data retention — after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last year declared the existing one to be in breach with human rights.

“On the data retention directive, the European Commission does not plan to present a new legislative initiative,” Dimitris Avramopoulos told a news conference in Brussels.

This is good news. No directive, no mandatory data retention in EU member states. But to fully understand the Commission statement you will need to know how the EU is working, under the hood.

Clearly, with the ECJ verdict a new directive would run into difficulties in the European Parliament. And it would, for sure, be challenged at the ECJ again.

But with no new directive, data retention will be a concern for member states. Meaning that countries who want to continue data retention can claim that their model is special and not in breach with the ECJ ruling and / or the human rights charter.

To sum it up: No new directive will not result in a ban on data retention. It will only move the issue to the respective national level. So the matter of data retention is in no way settled. 

Reuters: EU executive plans no new data retention law »

/ HAX

Why privacy matters

Privacy is the bedrock of individual freedom. It is a universal right that sustains the freedoms of expression and association. These principles enable inquiry, dialogue, and creation and are central to Wikimedia’s vision of empowering everyone to share in the sum of all human knowledge. When they are endangered, our mission is threatened. If people look over their shoulders before searching, pause before contributing to controversial articles, or refrain from sharing verifiable but unpopular information, Wikimedia and the world are poorer for it.

Wikimedia about their lawsuit against NSA and the US Department of Justice – to challenge mass surveillance.

Links:
Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA to challenge upstream mass surveillance »
Stop Spying on Wikipedia Users »

European Parliament: You may limit fundamental rights on the internet

Today the European Parliament has adopted yet another resolution on child abuse online. And as usual it is written in a very sweeping language.

4. Recognises the different roles, duties and responsibilities of the state and private industry including in respect of investigation, prosecution, the right to privacy and data protection; calls for an effective working relationship and, subject to proper legal and judicial oversight and in respect of what is lawful and necessary in the best interests of the child and for the protection of children from child sex abuse online, information exchange between law enforcement agencies, other appropriate state duty bearers, judicial authorities, and when appropriate and necessary and in compliance with the law, the ICT industry, internet service providers (ISPs), the banking sector and non-governmental organisations, including youth and children’s organisations, with a view to ensuring the rights and protection of children online and regarding them as vulnerable persons under the law; calls on the Commission to take the initiative of asking all the Member States to take action to tackle all forms of cyber predation and cyber bullying;

Is this a way of saying that ISP:s should police the Internet? Maybe. Some people, for certain, will read it that way and use it to promote their agenda.

And what about this one..?

5. Stresses that measures limiting fundamental rights on the internet need to be necessary and proportionate, in line with Member State and European legislation and in compliance with the child’s rights under the UNCRC; recalls that illegal online content should be deleted immediately on the basis of due legal process; recalls that removal of illegal online content, in which the ICT industry plays a certain role, can only take place after judicial authorisation; emphasises the importance of respecting the principles of the due processes of law and the separation of powers;

So, the European Parliament just said that it’s OK to limit fundamental rights on the Internet? I think it did. If so, naturally it’s a good thing that it’s going to be done under rule of law and after due process. But is it at all acceptable to limit our fundamental rights? The reason they are called “fundamental” is that they should not be limited. At all. Ever.

And then we have this one…

8. Calls on the Commission to further assess commercial distribution business models in hidden services, including a monitoring of the Deep Web and the Darknet criminal markets in order to determine proliferation of commercial sexual exploitation of children online as a potential consequence of further migration from a traditional payment system to a new, largely unregulated digital economy;

It would be interesting to know how.

It’s also worth noticing that the European Parliament opens up for playing the child porn card to regulate and control digital currencies. (Yes, they think they can.)

I understand that the European Parliament would like to be seen to do something about child abuse. But I fear that it — once again — only will open up for Internet regulation. Without helping a single abused child.

Even though this not is legislation, parliamentary resolutions are often used by people who want to control information, regulate the Internet and limit our civil rights.

Link: Motion for a resolution to wind up the debate on the statement by the Commission pursuant to Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure on child sex abuse images online (2015/2564(RSP)) »

/ HAX