Navigation

Archive | Big Government

Tyranny without a tyrant

By on June 16, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Rule of law

The greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one could argue, to whom one could present grievances, on whom the pressures of power could be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant.

Hannah Ahrendt, Reflections on Violence, The New York Review of Books, 1969

2

Really, how much surveillance is enough?

By on June 12, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Human rights, Police state, Rule of law, surveillance

Imagine mass surveillance as a line from 0 to 100. Zero is total anarchy and no control at all. One hundred is total control and surveillance of all the people, in all places, all the time.

So, where are we today? At 45? 60? 75?

Second, in which direction are we moving? Right you are, towards 100.

At which point will this become dangerous, for real? Should we say stop? Can we say stop? Is it too late to say stop? Discuss.

There are international conventions for moments like this. They enshrine our fundamental human rights. One of them is the right to privacy. The right to be left alone.

However, we constantly hear Big Government say that we must compromise, that we must strike a »balance« between security, crime fighting, copyright protection, child protection, the war on drugs, the fight against tax evasion, trafficking, terror propaganda, hate speech, the occasional outburst of moral panic – and our fundamental rights.

The only way to strike such a »balance« is to restrain and undermine citizens rights. And that must not happen. This is the red line. This is why these fundamental rights are set down in very serious European, EU, and UN Conventions.

You simply do not fiddle around with fundamental human rights.

Still, this is exactly what governments all over are doing – striking a »balance«. Taking away our rights towards the ruling political class and our bureaucratic overlords. And this is always done formally correct, within our democratic parliamentarian systems. Because there are not enough people who say No.

Considering that our fundamental human rights are there to protect the people from the state – I really think that the people ought to defend and protect them better. Because our elected representatives will not. They are not on the peoples’ side on this one. They are the state, they are Big Government. They have a different agenda.

To be overly clear: This is about the state taking away your protections against… the whims of the state and its functionaries. This is very bad.

Furthermore, we can not know who might rule the state tomorrow. Please, learn from history. Don’t put dangerous tools of control and mass surveillance in the hands of dangerous people.

All of this must end now – or we will no doubt slide into a more authoritarian society.

/ HAX

1

Theresa May should blame herself, not the Internet

By on June 5, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, Privacy, Rule of law, surveillance, UK, War on Terror

To nobody’s surprise also the London Bridge assassins were known to the authorities. One of them has been in a tv-documentary about jihadism. And he was reported trying to convert children he met in a park to Islam. According to himself, he would be prepared to kill his own mother in the name of Allah.

Responsible for the authorities that are supposed to handle things like this was – between 2010 and 2016 – now Prime Minister Theresa May.

Today her only comment is that she would like to censor the Internet.

Censoring information and maximizing surveillance of the people is not the way to defend democracy. That would rather be to support the terrorists strive to destroy our open and free society. And it would do very little to stop religious radicalization.

To Theresa Mays defense, it should be said that it is not all that easy to know what to do. You can hardly lock people up who have not (yet) committed any crime. You cannot jail people because of their skin color, their cultural background, their faith or their political beliefs. And you should not punish entire ethnic groups because of the deeds of a few.

There must be better ways to defeat terrorism.

/ HAX

A few links:

London Bridge terrorist ‘was in Channel 4 documentary about British jihadis’ »

Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It »

‘Blame the internet’ is just not a good enough response, Theresa May »

Tim Farron warns of win for terrorists if web is made surveillance tool »

2

G7 Group unite to limit free speech

By on May 26, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Data, Big Government, Censorship, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Global Politics, Human rights, Internet, Police state, Rule of law, social media

Dear all,

Please take notice that the G7 meeting just decided to beef up censorship and control of the Internet.

If you make censorship possible at all – sooner or later it will be used by sinister minds.

Please – do not limit the freedom of speech. We cannot silence or put people in prison, simply because we do not agree with whatever they are saying. (Unless they are a direct threat to other people’s immediate security. And if so, only after a fair trial respecting fundamental human rights.)

Giving Big Government and Big Data control over the freedom of the word – that must not happen.

/ HAX

2

The Internet after UK elections?

By on May 19, 2017 in Big Government, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Internet, Privacy, UK

UK Prime Minister and noted authoritarian Theresa May has promised that if she wins the upcoming general election, her party will abolish internet access in the UK, replacing it with a government-monitored internet where privacy tools are banned and online services will be required to vet all user-supplied content for compliance with rules about pornography, political speech, copyright compliance and so on — and search engines will have to employ special British rules to exclude banned material from their search results.

BoingBoing: Theresa May promises a British version of Iran’s Halal Internet »

0

Fake news – are they for real?

By on May 10, 2017 in Big Government, Civil rights, decentralization, Democracy, Free Information, Google, Hacktivism, Media, Transparency

There is a lot of buzz about »fake news«. But there is very little discussion about what it is that is supposed to be fake.

Maybe, there isn’t that much real fake news. (Dissent doesn’t qualify as fake.) Maybe it’s about stuff we don’t really want to know about. Or are not supposed to.

»Fake news« seems to be a mirage that will vanish if you try to pin it down.

It might also be that we are already so entangled in lies that we can no longer recognize the truth, even in its presence.

/ HAX

2

Wikileaks is about freedom of the press

By on April 22, 2017 in Assange, Big Government, Deep State, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of the Press, US, Wikileaks

But if the US Department of Justice prosecutes Assange, as it reportedly may soon, he could become something else: the first journalist in modern history to be criminally charged by American courts for publishing classified information. WikiLeaks may not look like a traditional journalism outlet, but it shares the same ends—publishing true information from its sources. And that means legal action against Assange could threaten the freedom of the press as a whole.

Wired: The US Charging Julian Assange Could Put Press Freedom on Trial »

0

Wikileaks – Truth is not a crime

By on April 21, 2017 in Assange, Big Government, Deep State, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of the Press, Transparency, US, Wikileaks

The U.S. administration is raising its voice when it comes to Wikileaks and its editor in charge, Julian Assange.

According to CNN Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.” (Link»)

We’ve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail. (…)

“Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He’s sitting in an Embassy in London. He’s not a US citizen,” Pompeo said.

But there is opposition…

Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, argued that US prosecution of Assange sets a dangerous precedent.

“Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public,” Wizner told CNN. “Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations.”

So, what is it that Wikileaks have done to stir the wrath of Washington?

Wikileaks has published »war diaries« from U.S. wars in Irak and Afghanistan: Exposing what has been done in the name of the American people, paid for by American taxpayers – to the American public.

This is how it should be in a democratic society. Without transparency, it will become impossible to hold those in power accountable. And it will make democratic elections pointless, as voters cannot make informed choices without the relevant information.

Wikileaks also has published U.S. Embassy cables, exposing the U.S. administration having double standards and lying to other countries (many of them allies) as well as to the American public.

Once again, exposing this is a democratic undertaking. In a democratic society, it is a significant problem if the government holds one set of policies in public and a different one behind the scenes. Power should be carried out in public, not in secret.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have provided a remarkable service to society, to the American people, and to the world.

Going after Assange is going to war against transparency, the truth, the people – and democracy itself.

0

EDRi on data mining

By on April 21, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Data, Big Government, Data Protection, Democracy, Privacy

Did Donald Trump become president because he hired the data mining firm Cambridge Analytica, which uses profiling and micro-targeting in political elections? Some say yes, many say no. But what we know is that we are subjected to extensive personalised commercial and political messaging on the basis of data, including metadata, collected and used without our awareness and consent. It can result in changes in our behaviour, at least to some extent.

EDRi: Data mining for profit and election result – how predictable are we? »

0