Category: Big Brother

The EU goes full Orwell

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

Mass surveillance, journalists and their sources

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 »

The beginning of an new era of Internet censorship?

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 »

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

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.

Falkvinge: For first time, an ISP reveals why Police demand internet subscriber identities: ordinary file sharing is the most investigated “crime” »