Category: Big Brother

“Big Brother in the U.K.”

The United Kingdom’s Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is not part of an agency tasked with fighting terrorism. It’s a licensing body that “regulates businesses who provide workers to the fresh produce supply chain and horticulture industry, to make sure they meet the employment standards required by law,” according to its mission statement.

Nevertheless, under a new mass surveillance law, high-ranking officials in this agency will have as much access to the private internet information of British citizens as agencies that actually do fight terrorism. So will officials in the U.K.’s Department of Health, its Food Standards Agency, and its Gambling Commission, along with dozens of other government bodies.

Reason: Big Brother in the U.K. »

What is wrong with the EU Terrorism Directive?

Tomorrow – Thursday 16 February – the European Parliament votes on the EU Terrorism Directive. EDRi lists some of the things being wrong with this directive:

  • There are gaps in the harmonisation of the definition of terrorist offences. The Directive uses ambiguous and unclear wording, giving an unacceptably wide margin of manoeuvre to Member States. For example, the Directive criminalises “glorifying” terrorism without clearly defining it. This won’t prevent abuses experienced in countries like France.
  • “The criminalisation of the attempt is also extended to all offences…with the exception of receiving training and facilitating travel abroad”. This creates risks for fundamental rights and legal certainty. In addition, the European Parliamentary Research Service has recognised that “establishing a ‘terrorist intention’ may prove a challenge.”
  • The Directive’s scope touches on activities with little to no direct relationship to actual terrorist acts. For instance, hacking-related activities can be terrorist offences. Attempting or threatening to hack an information system can be punished as a terrorist offence in a Member State. Teaching somebody how to attack an information system (e.g. hacking) can be a terrorist offence. Seeking information on how to conduct an attack to an information system, can lead to a charge for committing a terrorist offence. In addition, inciting somebody to teach how to hack an information system can be a criminal offence.
  • Establishment of new offences, such as “receiving training for terrorism”, which includes consulting (non-defined) terrorist websites. Consulting (non-defined) terrorist websites can be a terrorist offence if the person is judged to have had a terrorism-related purpose and intention to commit a terrorist offence. However, the Directive says that criminal intent can be inferred from the type of materials and the frequency in which an individual consults websites, for example. On top of this, it will not be necessary for a terrorist offence to be committed or to “establish a link” to other offences in order to be punished. The Directive also says that inciting someone to consult “terrorist websites” can be punishable by Member States.
  • Member States can impose criminal liability on companies failing to remove or block terrorist websites.
  • The process for adopting the proposal avoided all of the elements of good law-making. It was made in December 2015 without meaningful consultation, public debate or even an impact assessment. To give an idea of the importance of impact assessments, we recall that the impact assessment for amending the Framework Decision 2002 looked at the available information and opted not to recommend the adoption of blocking measures because, among other dangers, it creates a risk of jeopardising investigations and prosecutions. The 2007 impact assessment also stated that “the adoption of blocking measures … can only be imposed by law, subject to the principle of proportionality, with respect to the legitimate aims pursued and to their necessity in a democratic society, excluding any form or arbitrariness or discriminatory or racist treatment.”. In the Terrorism Directive, blocking measures can be imposed by non-legislative action. In addition, it is not even clear whether regulating non-regulated “voluntary” measures by internet companies falls under the legal basis of the Directive.

It’s a mess. A dangerous mess.

Read more and get all the links at EDRi: The time has come to complain about the Terrorism Directive »

“What could happen if you refuse to unlock your phone at the US border?”

Ars spoke with several legal experts, and contacted CBP itself (which did not provide anything beyond previously-published policies). The short answer is: your device probably will be seized (or “detained” in CBP parlance), and you might be kept in physical detention—although no one seems to be sure exactly for how long.

Ars Technica: What could happen if you refuse to unlock your phone at the US border? »

The US digital border

Two weeks ago, Sidd Bikkannavar flew back into the United States after spending a few weeks abroad in South America. An employee of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Bikkannavar had been on a personal trip, pursuing his hobby of racing solar-powered cars. He had recently joined a Chilean team, and spent the last weeks of January at a race in Patagonia. (…)

Bikkannavar says he was detained by US Customs and Border Patrol and pressured to give the CBP agents his phone and access PIN. Since the phone was issued by NASA, it may have contained sensitive material that wasn’t supposed to be shared. Bikkannavar’s phone was returned to him after it was searched by CBP, but he doesn’t know exactly what information officials might have taken from the device.

The Verge: A US-born NASA scientist was detained at the border until he unlocked his phone »

Ars Technica: NASA scientist detained at US border until he unlocked his phone »

Getting you and your digital gadgets safely across the US border

Wired: A Guide to Getting Past Customs With Your Digital Privacy Intact »

Boingboing: How to legally cross a US (or other) border without surrendering your data and passwords »

EFF: Border Security Overreach Continues – DHS Wants Social Media Login Information »

UK to roll out Big Brother data base

The broadly defined clause 30 of the Digital Economy Bill contains provisions for a “single gateway to enable public authorities, specified by regulation, to share personal information for tightly constrained reasons agreed by parliament, where its purpose is to improve the welfare of the individual in question. To use the gateway, the proposed sharing of information must be for the purpose of one of the specified objectives, which will be set out in regulations.”

Ars Technica: UK government’s huge citizen data grab is go—where are the legal safeguards? »

By the way, this discussion has been going on for decades…

https://youtu.be/ThzKQdlGbDw

Youtube »

Big Brother in Austria

New legislation in Austria:

  • Networked CCTV monitoring
  • Automatic license plate recognition
  • Government spyware
  • Data Retention Directive 2.0
  • Registration of prepaid SIM cards
  • Electronic tags for non-convicted “endangerers”
  • The government wants to establish a criminal offense for the expression of opinions which undermine the authority of the state

EDRi: Proposed surveillance package in Austria sparks resistance »

Camera surveillance now more advanced – and scarier

Smile to pay. Customer recognition. Airport screening. These are some of the functionalities that face recognition brings to camera surveillance nowadays.

It will also allow for tracking people, building sociograms, can be integrated with different databases, behavioral analytics, and mass surveillance networks.

BBC: Smile, you’re on camera, and it knows who you are »

Told you so

Do criticize and protest against president Trump. He deserves it.

But do not forget that you were warned against mass surveillance and other forms of Bigbrotherism long before Trump.

When people now react to the Trump-administrations ideas of having all who travel to the US to hand over social media information and cell phone contacts…

Miller also noted on Saturday that Trump administration officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose all websites and social media sites they visit, and to share the contacts in their cell phones. If the foreign visitor declines to share such information, he or she could be denied entry.

…they should remember that this is the brainchild of the Obama administration. Then it was voluntarily, but none the less.

A bad idea is a bad idea, whoever comes up with it. This should have been stopped in its tracks, from the beginning.

It’s not about liking or trusting a certain politician or a political party. It’s a matter of principle.

You should never give government tools for mass surveillance (or other tools that can be used to oppress the people) that wouldn’t be safe regardless of whose hands it ends up in.

Ignorance and partisanship brought us here.

And yet, we have no idea of how President Trump is going to use or abuse the powers of the CIA and the technical capabilities of the NSA.

/ HAX