The U.S. government quietly began requesting that select foreign visitors provide their Facebook, Twitter and other social media accounts upon arriving in the country, a move designed to spot potential terrorist threats that drew months of opposition from tech giants and privacy hawks alike.
Politico: U.S. government begins asking foreign travelers about social media »
Techcrunch:
The highest court in Europe today ruled that “general and indiscriminate” data retention directives contravene European Union law — dealing a significant blow to governments and organizations who have been pushing for stronger surveillance and data collection, and giving a boost to privacy advocates in the process.
• Ars Technica: Investigatory Powers law setback: Blanket data slurp is illegal—top EU court »
• Techcrunch: EU court rejects data retention law, throwing cold water on UK’s ‘Snooper’s Charter’ »
A press release from the European Commission caught my eye: EU Internet Forum: a major step forward in curbing terrorist content on the internet »
At today’s second high-level meeting of the EU Internet Forum convened in Brussels by Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos and Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King, key internet companies presented an industry initiative, which constitutes a significant step forward in curbing the spread of terrorist content online. As part of the industry-led hash-sharing initiative, participating companies can use hashes to detect terrorist images or videos, review the material against their respective policies and definitions, and remove matching content as appropriate.
Well, that is only a part of the story.
The Commission totally ignores the fact that this form of censorship is conducted outside the rule of law.
The concept is that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft should remove illegal terrorist content. But what is illegal? As a matter of fact, the press release doesn’t touch on this question. The word illegal is not even mentioned. And there might be reasons for that.
In a democratic society, censorship should strictly be a matter for the courts – as they are the ones qualified to make the delicate decisions about what is legal or not. And naturally, there must be a possibility to appeal.
But that is not how the EU Internet Forum / The Joint Referral Platform will work.
It’s all about using these social networks terms and conditions to block content. The decisions will be made by the companies abuse departments, with no possibility of redress. There will be no proper legal procedure, cases will be handled by people who are not legally trained and there is an obvious risk of overreach.
That is not a proper way to approach the delicate issue of free speech.
This is all about EU politicians having established a way to limit free speech without the inconvenience of having to create new law under public scrutiny – and without having to bother with proper legal procedures. It is an approach to limit free speech without getting your fingers dirty.
And there is more.
The same instrument is to be used to curb »hate speech« and other statements that politicians disapprove of. There are no real limitations, no oversight, and no transparency. This project doesn’t have a democratic mandate. And the European Commission has been very secretive and unwilling to share information about what is going on. This is totally inappropriate.
The people’s elected representatives in the European Parliament must look into this matter – to defend our civil rights, democratic process and the rule of law.
/ HAX
A terrorism Directive put together without a proper consultation, without any impact assessment and without meaningful public debate creates the worst possible outcome
…said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights.
It is too unclear to be implemented in a harmonised way across the EU, too shrouded in secrecy to have public legitimacy and too open to interpretation to prevent wilful abuse by governments seeking to exploit its weaknesses.
EDRi: European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed »
(W)hile having provisions to promote freedom of expression will be a step forward, the latest US made a proposal in TiSA which does not respect the rule of law and would remove rights to freedom of expression. The proposal is that internet companies would not be liable for any damage caused by voluntary restrictions of individuals’ free speech if they undertake such restrictions “in good faith” because they feel that the communications are “harmful or objectionable”.
EDRi: New leaks confirm TiSA proposals that would undermine civil liberties »
TiSA = Trade in Services Agreement
Democracy and civil rights. It would be difficult to find anyone in the western world who does not subscribe to these principles. At least in public.
Yet, we are steadily moving away from these values.
It is being done in many small steps. Always justified with the best of intentions – like security, fighting serious crime, child protection, the war on drugs, copyright protection and combating hate speech. Just to mention a few.
Nevertheless – without a doubt – we are limiting privacy, free speech, rule of law and equal rights. It seems to be a non-reversible process. And sooner or later, the many small steps will end up being a giant leap.
Democracy and civil rights can only be curtailed so many times before the consequences will be dire.
»We have to strike a balance between fundamental rights and security« politicians say. And every time that is being done, civil rights are hollowed out. When you repeat this process time and time again – fundamental rights will be reduced to empty words.
This is extremely serious. But nobody really seems to care.
One day we will wake up to a society where you cannot speak your mind, where everything you do is observed and scrutinized, where courts no longer is a guarantee for fair trials, and where it doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty – you will have everything to fear.
You will have to be blind not to see the writing on the wall.
Please, do not trust politicians with upholding our fundamental rights. They have a different agenda. They are the ones limiting them.
Our civil rights can only be upheld, protected and won back by the people. It is in no one else’s interest.
/ HAX
For years, online hate speech and cyber-bullying have been on the political agenda in Sweden. Now there will be some new laws, covering a wide range of actions and statements.
Let’s have a look at »Insulting behaviour« (PDF, summary in English, page 42-43).
Under the wording we propose, criminal liability will presuppose that someone through accusations, disparaging comments or humiliating behaviour acts against another person in a way that is intended to violate the other person’s selfesteem or dignity.
What does this even mean in real terms? OK, there is an attempt to clarify…
The assessment is to be based on the circumstances in the individual case. However, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of a generally held norm for what represents unacceptable behaviour and what individuals should not be expected to tolerate. This is expressed by the provision stating that the act must have been intended to violate someone’s self-esteem or dignity.
First of all, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity for a law. »Disparaging comments« – isn’t that in the eye of the beholder? »Self-esteem« and »dignity« is something personal, referring to experiences and feelings about a certain situation. It’s very subjective. And »a generally held norm«? Who is to define what that is?
I guess the Supreme Court will have some very difficult decisions to make.
This is sloppy lawmaking in the »safe space« era, where the line between real insults and arguments is blurred. And it gets worse. Page 34, »Our starting points«:
Protection of privacy is also protection of the free formation of opinions and, ultimately, of democracy. There may be a risk that threats against journalists, debaters or opinion-makers result in the person threatened refraining from expressing him- or herself or participating in the public debate.
First of all, take note of the Orwellian twist: To defend free speech, we must limit it.
Second, as one would suspect, it’s not really about teenage bullying in school – but to protect the inner peace and self-image of e.g. journalists and politicians. Suddenly the term »disparaging comments« stands out, in a new light.
So, colorful criticism of politicians might or might not be illegal – on a case by case basis.
Big Brother will be busy.
/ HAX
Jim Killock, the executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. The state has unprecedented powers to monitor and analyse UK citizens’ communications regardless of whether we are suspected of any criminal activity.”
The Guardian: ‘Extreme surveillance’ becomes UK law with barely a whimper »
Britain has passed the ‘most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy’.
The law forces UK internet providers to store browsing histories — including domains visited — for one year, in case of police investigations.
In fact, a new Democratic Party orthodoxy took hold under Obama: the right of a president to detain people, or even assassinate them, without charges or a whiff of judicial oversight. This included even American citizens.
Glenn Greenwald in Washington Post: Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them. »
