Navigation

Archive | Big Government

The mass surveillance tipping point

By on December 16, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Human rights, Police state, Privacy, surveillance

Mass surveillance is getting more and more widespread, intrusive and extensive.

If we look at the bigger picture — the resemblance with totalitarian societies is getting rather obvious.

So, when will enough be enough? When will all of this become dangerous for real? Or is it already?

The entire notion of mass surveillance is dangerously close to the fascist concept: The all-embracing state controlling the lives of the people — in which citizens are not regarded as individuals, but are subordinate to the state.

A central problem is that the public is not allowed to know how mass surveillance is being used. Is it “only” a rather ineffective way to protect the people from real or imaginary dangers? Or is it being used to “collect it all” for the purpose of strengthening the government’s control and power over us? It seems politicians are not really that interested in telling us, are they?

Regardless, mass surveillance is a tool in the hands of the ruling political and bureaucratic class. And we know nothing about who those people will be tomorrow. Can we be sure that they will be somewhat democratic and fair people — forever? If not, we will have a very real problem on our hands.

But even with friendly, honest and democratic people in power — you can only have so much surveillance before it becomes dangerous, intolerable and unacceptable. Even with the best of intentions.

There is a tipping point somewhere between no surveillance and total surveillance. It might be in the future. Or we might already have passed it.

That is where the public debate on mass surveillance should be. But it’s not.

/ HAX

0

Short-circuiting democracy the EU way

By on December 2, 2015 in Big Government, Democracy, EU, Transparency

Laws should be made in a transparent way and in a dialogue with the rest of society.

In the EU, lawmaking (directives) is supposed to meet such criteria: It often starts with a public consultation followed by a proposal from the European Commission. Member states are heard in the Council and the people’s elected representatives can amend and adopt or reject such proposals in the European Parliament. The Council and the Parliament will have to agree for a directive to be passed. A proposal can be rejected up to three times in the Parliament before it has to be withdrawn by the Commission. (It can then be re-written or withdrawn altogether.)

This is a slow process. And that is a good thing. Laws should not be rushed trough.

But the EU is an inpatient organization. Often there are special interests pushing for a directive, pressure from abroad or some other hidden agendas pushing the legislative dossiers.

So the EU is using an instrument called trialogues to speed things up. These are not supported in the treaty of the European Union. They are just… used.

The purpose of a trialogue is to speed up legislation. In this process representatives from the Commission, the Council and the Parliament hold meetings behind closed doors – negotiating for some sort of a compromise. The records are secret and often it is also a secret who attends these meetings. There is no transparency and no way to hold anyone accountable.

These trialogues are ever more common. Some years, there can be up to 700 of them. Today most legislative dossiers are exempted from the regular democratic process in the EU and settled in trialogues.

The result is that the public and the media is being kept away from the process. Civil society, activists and the academic world have no way to influence what is going on — not even if something is going terribly wrong.

Trialogues are especially common when it comes to matters concerning mass surveillance, copyright and telecommunications (such as Internet related issues). Here the power elite and special interests are particularly intent to avoid public scrutiny.

After a trialogue, the Council and the Parliament still will have to adopt or reject the proposal. But in general, it is always adopted by mildly embarrassed politicians — who know that there are back-room deals that should not be scrutinized too carefully.

When I used to work in the European Parliament, there was a joke that was too close to the truth for comfort: In the EU, first they decide. After that, there might be a discussion. And after that, in some cases people even might bother to find out the facts.

In the EU, the democratic process has been short-circuited.

/ HAX

Links:
• Civil society calls for reform of trialogues in a letter to EU Commission, Parliament and Council »
• Ombudsman opens investigation to promote transparency of “trilogues” »
• The Council challenges the right of the European Ombudsman to conduct an inquiry into secret “trilogues” (in which most EU legislation is decided) »

0

We are all under surveillance: Re-group. Re-think.

By on November 23, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Democracy, Human rights, Police state, Privacy, surveillance, War on Terror

After the Paris attacks politicians, police and the intelligence community are tumbling over each other eager to introduce even more mass surveillance.

This will direct resources away from regular police and intelligence work. It will not protect us, but could rather make us all less safe. But then again, mass surveillance isn’t really about terrorism. Obviously, it’s about control.

Terrorism (plus serious crime, drug trade, trafficking, child protection and the copyright legal framework) is being used as a pretext for doing what politicians cannot openly admit.

But facts are straight forward: We are all under surveillance.

The fight for people’s right to privacy must and will go on. But we also must recognize the fact that we are already living in a Big Brother society. It might be about time to re-group and re-think. Where do we take the fight for a free and open society from here?

There is the political road. Defending human and civil rights, you can punch over your weight. It all boils down to principles about democracy, rule of law and the relation between citizens and the government. In that context, most politicians cannot afford to appear as if they don’t care. Not in public.

And there is the technical road. Let’s start with something reasonable: Could anybody please make strong e-mail encryption really, really user-friendly? It shouldn’t be impossible. Or let’s take a wider approach: Can the entire internet protocol be replaced with something new and more privacy friendly?

The fight will go on. And you can be certain of one thing: Regardless of how much surveillance we have, the ruling political and bureaucratic classes will always find reasons to introduce more.

/ HAX

4

Mass surveillance is a perversion of democracy

By on October 28, 2015 in Big Government, Civil liberties, Democracy, Human rights, Privacy

Mass surveillance raises not only questions about privacy, Big Brotherism in general and the surveillance state as such. It is also a matter of democracy.

Proponents of mass surveillance often argue that there is a collective interest that eclipse private individuals right to privacy (which, by the way, is a fundamental human right).

They argue that mass surveillance is necessary to guarantee all citizens security. They say that we must balance the need for security against our fundamental rights. (But the very reason some rights are considered to be fundamental is that they should never be limited or violated, no matter what.) And the nomenklatura suggests that all that they do is done for your benefit and security.

But as we have learned, care for private citizens are not the real concern for NSA, GCHQ & Co. The purpose of mass surveillance is to protect the state — politicians, bureaucrats, special interests and the system. Everything else is just window dressing.

One should recognize that society is not our political leaders and their functionaries. Society is a large number of private individuals, who are unique and free citizens. Not a faceless mass of subordinates.

Mass surveillance is an indication that the ruling classes considers themselves — not the people — to be the core of democracy. That is a perversion of the word democracy. True public interest must focus on respecting all citizens and their fundamental rights.

In a democratic society, you only apply surveillance against people who are suspected for serious crime — not the general public. In a decent society, you trust people until there is substantial reason to do otherwise.

Simply, you cannot defend a free and open democratic society by violating the people’s fundamental civil and human rights.

/ HAX

0

Big Brother and Your Money

By on October 18, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Bitcoin, Economics, EU, Privacy, surveillance, Sweden

Many governments are getting very nervous. They struggle with debt, over spending, currency emergencies and new strains on the economy like the European refugee crisis.

So they are keen to make sure that all tax revenues that can be collected will be collected. And mass surveillance gives them a tool to do so.

Also, the move towards a cash free society makes it easier for politicians and bureaucrats to keep track of you and your money.

For years, we have sent bulk data about European bank transfers to the US security bureaucracy under the pretext of fighting terrorism and organized crime (TFTP). In the EU, plans are to replace this system with a European one — aimed to register, control and analyze all of our bank transfers.

In some high-tax countries with submissive population, like Sweden, information from data retention of telecommunications is already being used for taxation purposes.

And this is not just about taxes. If your government controls all your monetary assets, it owns you. Which might come in handy if, someday, people in power would like to curb opposition, limit your civil liberties — or just make your life very difficult.

With no private economic sphere, people are totally in the hands of their whimsical governments and its functionaries.

When it comes to “regular” surveillance concerns, having access to information about your transactions will provide the authorities with a cornucopia of information about you. More so than just surveillance of your electronic and telecommunications.

The government will always be able to give some reasons for its actions. Sometimes even seemingly rational ones. Like striking down on tax evasion. But even these reasons must be weighed against your right to privacy. Just passively accepting them could be used for introducing live surveillance of everybody 24/7.

It’s your life. And it’s your money. Period. The government should just get out of everybody’s hair.

If people could get themselves together and bring about a broader use of Bitcoins, we can bypass all of this governmental economic Big Brotherism.

/ HAX

1

Big Brotherism when the law is an ass

By on June 8, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Democracy, Police state, Privacy, Rule of law

Laws are the tools politicians (and bureaucrats) use to force the people to behave in a certain way. And they have the police to enforce these laws.

In a democratic society it is essential that the laws are the same for all citizens, and applied in the same way for all. Regardless what these laws stipulate, regardless if they are “good” or “bad”. All people should have the same rights (and obligations).

This does not imply that all laws are good. There are plenty of really bad laws. Some are unfair, some are in conflict with fundamental human and civil rights, some are silly, some creates “crimes” without victims and some are plain stupid.

Most people break some laws, most of the time. There are simply too many laws for anyone to have a reasonable grasp of most of them. Some laws we break because we find them unimportant, silly or patronising. And some laws we should break, as they infringe on our fundamental rights.

Laws are always the footprint of the ruling political forces. We have all seen the Internet meme “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). The fact that something is legal is no guarantee that it is right or reasonable.

In a democratic system, the laws can even be used to undermine or nullify democracy itself. In a democratic, orderly way.

Enter: mass surveillance.

Mass surveillance gives the authorities a way to control that the people obey the laws. All the people. All the laws. All the time. Even really bad laws.

This will create a society where everyone must be looking over the shoulder. A society where you must be careful before you talk. An anxious society.

This might be a classic case of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

We need to talk about this: If we are to live in a mass surveillance society (like it or not), it must be a somewhat relaxed, liberal and tolerant society.

To put it in different words: The ruling classes need to give the people some slack. If not, pressure and tensions will build in a dangerous way – when authorities can control almost everything we do.

But politicians do not abide by any live and let live principles. And they certainly do not plan ro roll back mass surveillance.

/ HAX

1

EU: Should you be in control of your personal data or not?

By on April 10, 2015 in Big Business, Big Government, Data Protection, EU, Privacy

The European Union is currently working on a new legal framework for data protection.

This process has been subject to massive lobbying from companies on both sides of the Atlantic – trying to water it down.

At the moment the dossier is dealt with at the European Council. There EU member states seems to be just as eager to undermine any substantial protection of citizens rights to their own data as the industry lobbyists.

This is a complex process, hidden behind a wall of documents and often carried out behind closed doors. It’s all so complicated that the media seems to choose to ignore it.

So, what is the conflict all about?

To put it simply: It’s about your right to control your own personal data.

The principle that lobbyists and member states refuse to accept is that it should be up to you to decide if and how your data is to be used. It’s a matter of consent.

The Big Business and Big Government approach is that there is no need for consent. That you should not be in control of how your personal information is used. That you and your rights are not important.

The usual suspects would like to keep us all as digital slaves.

This is about privacy. And it’s about your right to control your own life.

/ HAX

0

The coming War on Cash

By on March 24, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Bitcoin, Blockchain, Economics, EU, Privacy, surveillance

War on terror has become an convenient excuse for governments to start a war on cash.

Naturally, cash can be used by terrorists. But it will not mainly be terrorists who suffer from tighter control. It will be ordinary people.

One of the real reasons behind tighter cash regulations are convenient is quite obvious: taxation.

If you want support for this theory, take a look at the EU directive against money laundering. Where implemented strictly (like in Sweden) it makes handling of any substantial amount of cash almost impossible.

The latest is the French tightening the regulations on cash. From Mises.org…

“These measures, which will be implemented in September 2015, include prohibiting French residents from making cash payments of more than 1,000 euros, down from the current limit of 3,000 euros. Given the parlous state of the stagnating French economy the limit for foreign tourists on currency payments will remain higher, at 10,000 euros down from the current limit of 15,000 euros. The threshold below which a French resident is free to convert euros into other currencies without having to show an identity card will be slashed from the current level of 8,000 euros to 1,000 euros. In addition any cash deposit or withdrawal of more than 10,000 euros during a single month will be reported to the French anti-fraud and money laundering agency Tracfin. French authorities will also have to be notified of any freight transfers within the EU exceeding 10,000 euros, including checks, pre-paid cards, or gold.”

The whole idea is based on the presumption that people are up to something suspicious. This seems to be the new default mode, replacing the presumption of innocence (that happens to be one of the fundaments of rule of law).

But this is not just about distrusting citizens with their own money. The common European currency, the Euro, is in a precarious state. Cash regulations can (and will) be used to stop people from rescuing their own money when the shit hits the fan. Just see what happened when the Euro-crisis overwhelmed Cyprus. The government confiscated money directly from peoples bank accounts — and most people had no possibility to rescue their savings.

“Coincidentally” mass surveillance is an excellent tool for governments to enforce financial regulations aimed at the general public…

Is this the moment when people finally will have to turn to free digital currencies in a big way? Is this the tipping point?

/ HAX

4

In two weeks time, world leaders may decide to undermine encryption

By on February 5, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Cryptography, EU, Privacy, surveillance, Uncategorized, US, War on Terror

There are telltale signs that the US administration will move against encryption. The latest comes from Bob Litt, the General Counsel for the Office of the US Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

In a speech this week he echoed the demand that government should be allowed access to all our information. Among other things, he touched on the idea of a magical golden key.

I’m not a cryptographer, but I am an optimist: I believe that if our businesses and academics put their mind to it, they will find a solution that does not compromise the integrity of encryption technology but that enables both encryption to protect privacy and decryption under lawful authority to protect national security.

Even if this is not a ban on encryption, it is very serious. Mike Masnick at  Techdirt explains…

I’m not sure how many times in how many different ways this needs to be explained, but what they’re asking for is a fantasy. You cannot put a backdoor in encryption and create a magic rule that says “only the government can use this in lawful situations.” That’s just not how it works. At all. The very idea of decryption by a third party “compromises the integrity of the encryption technology,” almost by definition.

But I’m not sure this will be considered as a valid argument by our ignorant politicians.

It would make little sense for the US to go for a “magical golden key” on its own. Likely other members of the NSA Five Eyes group (UK, Canada, Australia and New Zeeland) will do the same.

And the EU? Europe normally follows the US in these matters. There will be an Global Security Summit in Washington later this month. And there are reasons to believe that also politicians in most EU member states would like to give their authorities the ability to circumvent encryption.

As EU member state ministers for justice and home affairs made their last meeting (in Riga) an informal one, this topic might very well have been up for discussion. (But the public is not allowed to know exactly what went on.) This is exactly what you might expect — and exactly the kind of thing the Council would keep under wraps, to avoid debate and protests until it’s too late. And the timing is just right.

The way the world is right now (Ukraine, IS and potential monetary crises) it should be no problem for world leaders to package the whole thing as “emergency legislation”.

The European Parliament will object, no doubt. But it will be sidestepped. All EU member states have to do is to agree to make this national legislation in all (or most) member states.

As a matter of fact, the EU has no formal competence when it comes to national security matters. So it will have to be a multilateral arrangement.

All the European Parliament can do is to try to protect human and civil rights in a wider sense. But that will probably not go beyond a sharply formulated resolution.

The matter can be sent to the European Court of Justice (for breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) or the European Court of Human Rights (upholding the European Convention on Human Rights). But in both cases a court process may drag out for years.

In this matter, politicians can do almost as they want. And they will not fail to make use of current world events as an excuse. (Never waste a good crisis.) The only thing that might stop them is general outcry — on a massive scale.

Soon we will know. All eyes on the Global Security Summit in the US on February 18.

/ HAX

Techdirt: Intelligence Community’s Top Lawyer Endorses Desire For Unicorns, Leprechauns & Golden Keys That Don’t Undermine Encryption »

2