Navigation

Archive | Civil liberties

Amnesty: Encryption is about Human Rights

By on April 3, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Human rights, Privacy

In the digital age, access to and use of encryption is an enabler of the right to privacy. Because encryption can protect communications from spying, it can help people share their opinion with others without reprisals, access information on the web and organize with others against injustice. Encryption is therefore also an enabler of the rights to freedom of expression, information and opinion, and also has an impact on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, association and other human rights. Encryption is a particularly critical tool for human rights defenders, activists and journalists, all of whom rely on it with increasing frequency to protect their security and that of others against unlawful surveillance.

• Amnesty: Encryption: A Matter of Human Rights »

• EFF: Amnesty International: Encryption is a Human Rights Issue »

0

The spiral of silence

By on March 30, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, surveillance

A new study shows that knowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions online. The research offers a sobering look at the oft-touted “democratizing” effect of social media and Internet access that bolsters minority opinion.

The study, published in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, studied the effects of subtle reminders of mass surveillance on its subjects. The majority of participants reacted by suppressing opinions that they perceived to be in the minority. This research illustrates the silencing effect of participants’ dissenting opinions in the wake of widespread knowledge of government surveillance, as revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013.

• Washington Post: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study »
• Motherboard: ‘Chilling Effect’ of Mass Surveillance Is Silencing Dissent Online, Study Says »
• Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly: Under Surveillance – Examining Facebook’s Spiral of Silence Effects in the Wake of NSA Internet Monitoring »

0

A European FBI? Really?

By on March 27, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, FBI, Intelligence, Rule of law, Snowden

Somewhere on the Internet, someone wrote “The purpose of terrorism is to provoke the target government into curtailing civil liberties, so more people become radicalized.”

Close enough. Google “the purpose of terrorism”. The Internets is full of thought-provoking discussion about what the fuck is going on. Or at least, opinions about it.

Terrorism is a wide specter, in many ways. Now, we are waiting to find out how governments are going to react to the Brussels attacks. They will. They have to. That is what politicians do. But… how should they react?

It happens to be that national governments are catastrophically bad at sharing information with each other. At least, when it comes to information that might be a bit sensitive. They simply cannot let everyone else in on everything. They will not do that.

And the EU can do nothing. (I’m not saying that the EU should, absolutely not – but it is noteworthy that it can not. National security is strictly national competence. That’s the rule.)

So there is this bold idea floating around: A European FBI.

In other words, a federal and centralized European police. All information would belong to an EU institution in some Belgian suburb. It would have its nose in everything. Like they say in American crimis… “Oh, shit. The Feds are here.”

Newer the less, it would be a radical way to get all of the European police in line, I guess. And think about all the money they can save by having a common European police uniform.

On the one hand, it is obvious that someone must make national government’s security agencies share relevant information — about common enemies, at least.

On the other hand, who should handle this? Not the Commission itself, I hope. So, give it to Europol, they will say. And right there we also need to give Europol full operative authority in all EU member states.

Europol is the European Union’s law enforcement agency whose main goal is to help achieve a safer Europe for the benefit of all EU citizens. We do this by assisting the European Union’s Member States in their fight against serious international crime and terrorism.
— Europols boilerplate

Europol is largely a post-macho bureaucracy, with some support for member states in need to coordinate specific work and operations. But it’s not very operative in itself. (Europol didn’t even bother to look into the possibility that the NSA hacked the SWIFT bank transaction system, mentioned in the Snowden files. Not even after being asked about it by media and in the European Parliament.)

Should we put these people in charge of running European police? I’m not even sure that Europol would like to. They lack the ambition.

Maybe something… new! And there you have it: Europolice. The only police you will ever need.

Then anything can happen. There will be disasters like a centralized procurement process for toilet paper to all European police stations. There will be a federal authority running its own investigations parallel to local law enforcement. And federal crimes must be handled in a unified way across all of the EU — how do you make that happen?

There will have to be field offices in cities all over the continent, with a partly international crew.

Europolice: Keeper of all information. Online with all national records. Connected to the mass surveillance network. Bureaucracy with operative authority. A single point for failure. Under at best vague democratic oversight.

Are you really sure about doing this?

/ HAX

0

The Goovernment

By on March 14, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Civil liberties, Data Protection, Democracy, Google, NSA, Privacy, surveillance, Transparency

You know the saying that Google will know if you are gay before you do?

Almost the same, but a little different, can be said about the government.

The government knows who you have been talking to on the phone and who your friends are – and who their friends are. The government knows where you have been and who else might have been in the same place at the same time. The government knows when you connected to the internet, who you sent an email and the people that have emailed you. Data is stored about your every text message, and in some countries that go for the content of the messages as well.

In the UK Big Brother will even keep an eye on your web searches, if the government gets it its way.

The government knows who your friends are and what people you are trying to avoid. It can tell who you do business with and what people you sleep with. It can figure out your hobbies and your whereabouts. And it can flag you if a friend of your friend is someone the people in power do not approve of.

With Google – at least, it’s about selling you stuff, to expose you to “relevant” ads and to make a buck. (But World Domination, really?)

But with the Goovernment – it’s all about control. And power. Over you. For real.

Put one on top of the other, and it gets even more scary. (The government doesn’t need Google to cooperate in this. Much of the data is out on the market.)

All of this while government doings are getting more opaque, more secretive and more dubious.

This is not the way to do things in an open, democratic society.

/ HAX

0

This Is the Real Reason Apple Is Fighting the FBI

By on February 24, 2016 in Apple, Big Brother, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Data Protection, surveillance, US

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.

0

Time for activists and Silicon Valley to join forces against government

By on February 22, 2016 in Apple, Big Brother, Big Entertainment, Big Government, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Data Protection, Hacktivism, Human rights, IT security, Privacy, Snowden

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 »

0

China to tighten control over online content

By on February 19, 2016 in Big Brother, China, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet

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 »

1

Tools of oppression

By on January 27, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, Democracy, Human rights, surveillance

Today is January the 27:th, Holocaust Memorial Day. A day of remembrance. But also, a day to ask ourselves what we have learned from history.

One example is that records set up with the very best of intentions can be misused. From Wikipedia…

In the Netherlands, the Germans managed to exterminate a relatively large proportion of the Jews. The main reason they were found so easily was that before the war, the Dutch authorities had required citizens to register their religion so that church taxes could be distributed among the various religious organizations.

Unintended consequences, indeed. But this is exactly the kind of risks we must consider when handling personal data or rolling out mass surveillance. You never know why, how and by whom these tools will be used.

Can we trust that all future political leaders and bureaucrats will be decent people? Of course not. Can we be sure that we will live in a democracy 25, 50 or some 100 years from now? No, we can’t. Can we even take our national sovereignty for granted in the future? Sadly, no.

The only thing we can be certain of is that bad things will happen, sooner or later. So it is thoughtless to give the government tools that can be used to harm and oppress the people. And if we still do, we must make sure that we can disable them if there is a risk that they will be abused or fall into the wrong hands. Even when the change to the worse is gradual.

But that’s not what’s happening, is it? Evidently, today’s political leaders have learned nothing from history.

/ HAX

0

Sweden to censor the Internet?

By on January 23, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Internet, Sweden, Uncategorized

Is Sweden to join the likes of Turkey, China and Cuba?

It turns out that the Swedish government is looking into the possibility to censor non-licensed online gambling sites.

The pretext is the health and safety of the Swedish people. But the real reason is rather glaring: Money.

The state-owned national gambling company, Svenska Spel, sends a lot of money to the treasure. But that’s just the beginning. Let’s follow the money.

The Social Democrats, who are in government at present, are also the owners of one of the few licensed Swedish gambling companies, A-lotterierna. From this, the party pockets some five million euros a year.

Furthermore, the Swedish foreign minister — Margot Wallström — was recruited from a senior policy position at another licensed gambling company, Postkodlotteriet. This company has been sending millions of euros to the Clinton Foundation. Just between friends.

So, of course, the Swedish government doesn’t want the Swedish people to go to other, foreign gambling sites. The money should stay in the country, preferably in Party hands.

This is preposterous.

So the idea, now being aired, is to block access to all non-licensed gambling sites. (And there are quite a few in the world.)

Opening the doors for Internet censorship — what could possibly go wrong?

I can imagine the ruling political class could fancy blocking quite a few sites that annoys it, if that option becomes available.

Swedish Internet censorship is still under consideration. Now, the civil rights movement will have to sound the alarm and try to stop the idea before it reaches Parliament.

The Swedish government also has a plan B: To block payments to non-licensed gambling companies.

That also is a terrible idea, but in a different way.

/ HAX

2