Category: Big Brother

Reframing the surveillance debate

Fighting mass surveillance is somewhat overwhelming.

But it’s not only a matter of laws, legal issues and government policies. It’s also a matter of mindset.

Too often society focus on the negative, just making things worse. The war on terror seems to have created more terrorists. The war on drugs seems to have caused us more drug related problems. And so on.

So, maybe we ought to shift focus from mass surveillance to privacy.

Instead of fighting a flood of new laws, sneaky intelligence organisations, panic-stricken politicians and bully-boy security contractors on details — maybe we ought to take more time to explain why privacy is so important. Instead of primarily focus on specific elements in legislation — maybe we should fight more often on principle.

Of course we will have to fight at both these front lines. But, seriously, it might be a good thing to put more time and energy into the positive side of this issue.

Politicians, security bureaucrats and the security industry will always have an advantage when we fight by their rules, arguing over details in their schemes. But they will have a much harder time defending mass surveillance if the debate is more about respecting or denying the people its right to privacy.

It’s all about reframing the debate.

One way to do this might be to campaign for various parliamentary assemblies to introduce bills and resolutions declaring that there shall be no surveillance aimed at people who are not suspected for breaking the law.

That might put the shoe on the other foot.

It would place politicians in a situation where — instead of pretending to protect the public from some vague dangers — they will have to explain if they are willing to respect citizens fundamental right to privacy or not.

Such an approach could actually make politicians listen, as it might affect peoples willingness to vote for them.

/ HAX

“The Vindication of Edward Snowden”

Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic writes…

Snowden undeniably violated his promise to keep the NSA’s secrets. But doing so was the only way to fulfill his higher obligation to protect and defend the Constitution, which was being violated by an executive branch exceeding its rightful authority and usurping the lawmaking function that belongs to the legislature. This analysis pertains only to the leaked documents that exposed the phone dragnet, not the whole trove of Snowden leaks, but with respect to that one set of documents there ought to be unanimous support for pardoning his disclosure.

Read more: The Vindication of Edward Snowden »

(Via: BoingBoing)

Snowden: A matter of unintended consequences

No, I’m not into conspiracy theories. Yes, I believe that Edward Snowden is a genuine hero and that he is acting from the best of intentions. Nevertheless, there is a side of the Snowden revelations that has been oddly overlooked. A matter of unintended consequences.

Some people already knew. Some were pretty convinced. Some suspected. A lot of people had a hunch. Then came Snowden. Now we all know. That is a good thing.

Unless you are the US Government or the NSA. (Or their international partners.) Then you are furious.

This is what is so intriguing. Shouldn’t people in high places be rather content?

Naturally governments and spy organisations don’t want their methods to be known. But what about the awareness of mass surveillance, as such?

The very notion of blanket surveillance will change people. For the worse, if you ask me. But, giving it some thought, politicians and bureaucrats might have reason to perceive it in another way. From their perspective, the way Big Brotherism changes people doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

It will thwart opposition. It will daunt traditional whistleblowers. It will deter activism. It will silence dissent. It will keep people in check. It will foster servitude.

Now, the people will — sadly enough — know that there are good reasons to fear the government. Suddenly we live in a society where mass surveillance is the new norm. A society where it is safer to keep a low profile.

How… convenient.

I fear it will not take long before this mindset will begin to saturate the ruling classes.

/ HAX

The Intelligence Community and Democracy

In many ways, Germany seems to be an OK country. At a glance.

The Germans have learned their lessons, after Nazi and Communist rule. They have a reasonably functional Constitutional Court and a reasonably decent constitution. The German parliament, Die Bundestag, is the only European national parliament looking into the Snowden files in a serious way. And German politicians will not accept having other countries spying on them, not even the US.

But, does it matter?

This is the German Federal Intelligence headquarters, the Bundesnachrictendienst (BND).

10956395_10152943458932950_204347250478971585_n

Somehow, it reminds me of the ad tag line for that German chocolate Ritter: Kvadratisch. Practich. Gut.

Well, the “Gut” thing… I’m not so sure.

Today Der Spiegel reported that the BND has targeted politicians in friendly European nations and inside Germany for surveillance on behalf of the US National Security Agency (NSA). TheLocal.de reports, in English…

Der Spiegel reported that the US spy agency sent Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrictendienst (BND), huge numbers of “selectors” – computer addresses, mobile phone numbers and other identifying information – which are used to target people’s digital communications.

Die Zeit reported that the NSA asked for a total of 800,000 people to be targeted for surveillance.

This underlines a universal problem. What good are laws, constitutions, enquiries, democratic oversight and politicians who care for real – if the intelligence community does whatever it wants, without asking for permission or telling anyone?

But the true extent of the scandal wasn’t revealed until the Bundestag’s (German parliament) NSA Inquiry Committee submitted a request for evidence to the BND. (…)

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office, to which the BND is directly responsible, was not informed about the spying on friendly targets until after that parliamentary question was asked, in March 2015.

The intelligence services simply doesn’t give a fuck. They do whatever they want. And no matter what is going on in politics – they keep their close bonds with their Mothership, the US intelligence community.

Some might argue that we (the western world) must stick together in these matters. Maybe. Maybe not. But if we should, we ought to be open with it.

And all those intelligence agencies must be under some sort of democratic control. I understand the need for a certain level of secrecy. But, in the end, they are tools for the benefit of our democratic societies. Not the other way around.

/ HAX

Government and encryption: The split key approach

Governments are trying different approaches to circumvent encryption. While the British can send you to jail if you don’t give up your password, the US administration (restricted by the fifth amendment) is floating an alternative concept: the split key.

The idea is to gain access to smart phones and computers trough a unique “master key” for each unit, that is split in two — where the tech company in question has one part and the government has the other. By a court order the tech company could be ordered to hand over their part of the key to the government.

Keeping track of every new or used smartphone, tablet, laptop an PC and who is using it — pairing it with half a unique key — for sure will create a lot of new jobs in the public sector. And it will become a mess.

One central issue is how not to compromise user security. The Washington Post writes…

But some technologists still see difficulties. The technique requires a complex set of separate boxes or systems to carry the keys, recombine them and destroy the new key once it has been used. “Get any part of that wrong,” said Johns Hopkins University cryptologist Matthew Green, “and all your guarantees go out the window.”

How can we even trust that tech companies will not collaborate with the government behind their customers back? It has happened before. Would you bet on it never happening again? Ever?

And, is it necessary?

Neither Bitkower nor FBI Director James B. Comey, who also has been vocal about the problem, has been able to cite a case in which locked data thwarted a prosecution. But they have offered examples of how the data are crucial to convicting a person.

Should we really treat all citizens as potential criminals or terrorists? Will not the uncertainty about security breaches and fuck ups overshadow possible “benefits”? Do people have any reason to trust government any more than the government trusts them?

Somehow, this is no longer a question of security, law enforcement or even intelligence activities. It has become a matter of principle. The government demands to have access to all citizens all telecommunications and computers.

This is a red line that should never be crossed. Because if we do, it will be irreversible.

WP: As encryption spreads, U.S. grapples with clash between privacy, security »

/ HAX