Category: Big Brother

EU and the crypto war

So, where does the EU stand on politicians, law enforcements and intelligence organisations war on encryption?

It is still an open question, to be decided in the e-Privacy Directive.

What is this — and didn’t the EU just set out the framework for data protection? Diego Naranjo at EDRi explains…

“Did you think the data protection reform was finished? Think again. Once the agreement on the texts of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Directive for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEDP) was reached, the e-Privacy Directive took its place as the next piece of European Union (EU) law that will be reviewed. The e-Privacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications) contains specific rules on data protection in the area of telecommunication in public electronic networks.”

Here issues such as cookies, government trojans and encryption back doors should be addressed.

So far, this process has attracted very little attention from the public, the media, the industry and internet activists. Nevertheless, these issues are essential when it comes to citizens right to privacy.

While the Apple vs. FBI case in the US is all over the media — what’s going on in the same field in the EU is more or less ignored.

While most EU politicians have held a low profile about encryption backdoors so far, the matter of government trojans already is an existing and very real cause for worry.

The French have since long been suspected to use malware (e.g. Babar, Bunny, Casper, Dino, NBot and Tafacalou) and will most certainly move ahead in its’ new cyber-security strategy. In Germany the government just approved the usage of trojans by federal agencies. And countries like Sweden are fast-tracking legislation in this field.

It is important to remember that this is not “only” about phone calls, text messages and e-mails. With trojans on your phone, tablet or computer — the government can access everything you do. What you write. What you google. Your online banking. Your social media activities. Dating apps that you might use. Your contacts. Your private pictures. Your business plans. Your health apps. You name it…

So we better get busy while it’s still possible to influence the political process.

Don’t let the EU get away with keeping this dossier under the radar. Please.

/ HAX

EDRi: Data Protection Reform – Next stop: e-Privacy Directive »

The EU-US Privacy Shield: EU presents a pointless proposal

Finally, the European Commission has presented a proposal for the EU-US Privacy Shield conserning data protection, to replace the fallen “Safe Harbour” agreement. Sorry to say, it’s rather pointless.

The background is that the European Court of Justice invalidated the “Safe Harbour” agreement that was supposed to provide adequate data protection when Europeans personal data is being transfered to the US. The reason was that US companies didn’t really care about the agreement — and that US authorities (e.g. the NSA) in many cases had access to the data.

Then followed some confusion as the EU and the US tried to negotiate a new agreement, the EU-US Privacy Shield. Here are some previous blog posts:

• An EU-US Privacy Shield? »
• The EU-US Privacy Shield Illusion »

Now we have a proposal. Some EU links:

• European Commission presents EU-U.S. Privacy Shield »
• Restoring trust in transatlantic data flows through strong safeguards: European Commission presents EU-U.S. Privacy Shield »
• EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: Frequently Asked Questions »

This new proposal is rather similar to the old, fallen agreement. So much so, that it might very well be invalidated by the ECJ once again.

The main news seems to be “adequacy decisions”. In simple terms this means that things will be deemed OK if the European Commission says so. And that is hardly a solid judicial principle.

The Austrian student Max Schrems — who took the old agreement to the ECJ in the first place — says that he is considering taking the new agreement back to court, if adopted.

In a comment the NGO EDRi:s Executive Director Joe McNamee says..

The European Commission has given Europe a lesson on how not to negotiate. This isn’t a good deal, it hardly deserves to be called a ‘deal’ of any kind.

The EDRi press release also states that the documents published “confirm that no meaningful reforms have been made and that none are planned”.

EDRi Press Release: Privacy Shield is the same unsafe harbour »

The European Commission simply does not seems to be very concerned about protecting European personal data being transfered to the US.

/ HAX

The FBI vs. Apple case is about unlocking your life

Here is some food for thought, on the FBI vs. Apple case about unlocking the San Bernardino shooters iPhone: It’s not only about your phone calls and text messages, it’s about your entire life.

An iPhone contains apps, surf history and search history that would crack open your private life completely in front of Big Brother.

In a text, Rick Falkvinge lists a few examples…

  • What news articles you read, for how long, and in what order
  • Your travel plans
  • Your dating habits
  • What you’re buying
  • What you’re thinking of buying but didn’t
  • Whom you’re in touch with but didn’t talk to
  • What you were looking for more information about, and when
  • What link(s) you follow, given a selection
  • Your physical movement through cities, and within a city
  • …the list goes on.

Is this really information that should be in government hands?

Falkvinge: Using legacy phonecall wiretapping laws to justify Internet wiretapping is obscene: immense expansion of surveillance »
Slate: An iPhone Is an Extension of the Mind »

“Federal Judge Takes Apple’s Side vs. Feds in New York”

We have a new wrinkle in the encryption fight between Apple and the FBI. In a drug case, a magistrate judge in New York’s Eastern District has ruled that Apple does not need to assist the feds in unlocking a person’s phone and that the All Writs Act does not extend to such a demand.

Reason.com: Federal Judge Takes Apple’s Side vs. Feds in New York »

Apple fighting back

Apple is already thinking about ways to make it harder to hack iPhones, reports say. According to the New York Times, the company wants to prevent passcode-free recovery mode in future iPhones. According to the FT, Apple also wants to encrypt iPhone backups on iCloud.

Techcrunch: Apple Plans To Make iPhone And iCloud More Secure To Keep The Government Away »

This Is the Real Reason Apple Is Fighting the FBI

Julian Sanchez: This Is the Real Reason Apple Is Fighting the FBI »

1. This offers the government a way to make tech companies help with investigations.

2. This public fight could affect private orders from the government.

3. The consequences of a precedent permitting this sort of coding conscription are likely to be enormous in scope.

4. Most ominously, the effects of a win for the FBI in this case almost certainly won’t be limited to smartphones.

Time for activists and Silicon Valley to join forces against government

The infotech war has begun, for real.

First we had the fight over illegal file sharing, creating a divide between Big Entertainment backed up by Big Government and a large portion of the general public. (Young people in particular.) Parallel we have had the fights between Big Telecom and activists campaigning for a free and open internet. And the struggle between Big Intelligence and civil rights / privacy advocates.

Then came Edward Snowden, providing actual proof of what our governments are up to. This created an even bigger splash, still causing ripples.

And with the San Bernardino iPhone backdoor/unlock case between the FBI and Apple the tech sector will have to choose between loyalty to its’ customers or abiding by overreaching anti-terrorism and anti-privacy legislation. That ought to be easy enough. The money is with staying loyal to customers and their right to privacy. But it’s not. Not even Silicon Valley might be able to stand up against the state monopoly on violence.

The stakes are sky high. The San Bernardino case is not just about that single case or even just about privacy. It’s about secure encryption – imperative for safe communications, online banking, medical records, confidential information, trade secrets and public affairs. Apple cannot back down on this one.

This might be what finally will unite all sorts of activists and the Valley. I rather hope so. Alone, it’s very difficult to stand up against the government (and related special interests). But if the Internet generation, net activists, civil rights defenders and tech companies stand together — we might stand a chance.

Unjust laws will stay unjust if no one stands up and fight them. Civil rights will be eroded if no one stands up to defend them. There are no limits to what governments will try to justify under the pretext of security — that, by the way, is an illusion.

The government will always try to “balance fundamental rights and security”, time and time again until there are no fundamental rights left.

Now is the time for activists (who know how to actually change politics) to team up with Silicon Valley (where the money needed to make campaigning effective is).

We can win this one — and at the same time establish a red line that governments will have to recognize.

But it will be dirty. It’s all about power and control.

/ HAX

Related: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector »

China to tighten control over online content

Radio Free Asia reports…

The ruling Chinese Communist Party has announced new regulations that will ban foreign companies from publishing online media, games and other “creative” content within China’s borders from next month.

The “Regulations for the management of online publishing services” also ban foreign-invested joint ventures from engaging in online content provision, according to a copy of the rules posted on the official website of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

And any Chinese companies wishing to produce online creative content, including audio, video, games and animations, must first seek official approval from the country’s media regulator.

This is big news — changing the situation in China from bad to worse.

China to Ban Foreign Companies From Online Media Business »

Encryption: Apple vs. FBI

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake. (…)

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business. (…)

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable. (…)

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Apple CEO Tim Cook: A Message to Our Customers »

A must read!