Navigation

Archive | Civil liberties

EU in new attempt to make ISP:s police and censor the Internet

By on November 12, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Copyright, EU, Freedom of Speech, Intellectual Property, Internet, Rule of law

Joe McNamee, EDRi: EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of free speech »

The proposed Directive:
1) requires internet companies to install filtering technology to prevent the upload of content that has been “identified by rightsholders”
2) seeks to make internet providers responsible for their users’ uploads
3) gives internet users no meaningful protection from unfair deletion of their creations

So, ISP:s will have to check on all content uploaded by users – i.e. scrutinize everything that is uploaded to the Internet.

What is to be allowed or censored will not be a matter of rule of law – but falls under company terms and conditions that can state… whatever.

There will be no legal means of redress or appeal.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information will be in the hands of ISP:s who are to be liable for all user uploads. There is good reason to fear that these companies will be overly anxious and cautious – censoring everything with even a remote possibility of being an infringement of copyright.

This is yet another attempt to get around the eCommerce-directives principle of »mere conduit« stating that net operators can not be liable for what users are doing in their cables.

And imagine the burden on the ISP:s, having to police all of the users net activities.

This proposal is an assault on »mere conduit«, free speech, privacy and the rule of law. It must be stopped.

/ HAX

1

Trump won – now what?

By on November 9, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Democracy, IT security, surveillance, US

In some sort of a reaction against the political elite, a corrupt system, and political correctness – the US has elected Donald Trump as president.

On the one hand, it is more or less impossible to foresee the president elects politics on IT, mass surveillance, and civil rights. (OK, he has opened up for torture of suspected terrorists – but I’m not sure that he himself will remember or stand by that.)

On the other hand, he might quickly become a prisoner of the system. When it comes to day-to-day politics elected politicians have surprisingly limited powers. It is also possible that president Trump will leave everything but big, symbolic issues to governments civil servants.

And with two houses of Congress and the Supreme Court – the US has a reasonably well-founded and stable system when it comes to separation of powers. The system ought to be able to handle one branch going a bit la-di-da.

However, Donald Trump has very little understanding of the Internet, IT-related issues and the principles of human and civil rights. Caution is recommended.

And, by the way – what will happen to Julian Assange?

Here are some other voices on the president-elect:
• What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About? »
• A madman has been given the keys to the surveillance state »
• Donald Trump elected US president: What it means for tech and science »

/ HAX

2

The UN is morally corrupt

By on November 3, 2016 in Civil liberties, Democracy, Global Politics, Human rights, UN

A majority of the members of the United Nations Human Rights Council are non-democratic. Obviously, this is a problem – if we presume human rights to have anything to do with fundamental democratic principles such as free speech, a free press and free and fair elections.

With countries such as China, Cuba, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the council – one must also doubt what it will and can do when it comes to the right to fair trials, the issue of cruel and unusual punishments and the death penalty.

A Human Rights Council that is not committed to democracy and human rights is a travesty, a mockery of the UN:s own declaration of human rights.

The Council members are appointed by the UN General Assembly. So, obviously, not even the UN:s central body can be trusted when it comes to human rights issues. Sorry to say, I am not surprised.

The UN is morally corrupt.

/ HAX

1

Rule of law or private censorship?

By on October 21, 2016 in Big Data, Big Entertainment, Censorship, Civil liberties, Intellectual Property

But what do we do when the same threats aren’t the result of a law or the practices of an individual company, but the result of a private industry agreement? For example, agreements between copyright holders and Internet companies that give copyright holders the ability to effectively delete users’ content from the Internet, and agreements on other topics such as hateful speech and terrorism that can be used to stifle lawful speech. Unlike laws, such agreements (sometimes also called codes, standard, principles, or guidelines) aren’t developed with public input or accountability. As a result, users who are affected by them are often completely unaware that they even exist.

EFF: Shadow Regulation: the Back-Room Threat to Digital Rights »

EFF: Fair Processes, Better Outcomes »

0

Yet another ill-conceived EU idea on fighting copyright infringements

By on October 20, 2016 in Big Entertainment, Civil liberties, Copyright, EU, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Internet

The European Commission has a new idea – to fight copyright infringements by targeting companies who advertise on file sharing sites. To nobody’s surprise, what the commission suggests is a mess.

EDRi:s Joe McNamee:

It is currently discussing “guiding principles” for withdrawal of services by advertising companies to penalise and prevent “commercial scale” infringements. Tellingly, the final paragraph of the “guiding principles” contains very similar wording to the ill-fated “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA) that was rejected in 2012.

Like ACTA, the “guiding principles” include illusory “safeguards”, such as references to non-existent legal terms like “fundamental principles” and “fair process” (not due process). Like ACTA, it refers to “commercial scale”, as if this was a safeguard. The European Commission itself has previously said that the term is too vague in existing law.

The text also refers to a “right to access lawful content”, even though there is no such “right”. We have a right to freedom of movement (not a right to legal movement), we have a right to freedom of communication. The implication of the expression “right to access lawful content” is that everything we do or say should be assumed to be illegal until proven otherwise. This is profoundly objectionable.

Why is it that every time the European Commission address issues like copyright, file sharing and a free and open Internet – they totally loose it?

The commissioners are supposed to be the elite of European bureaucracy and they have top legal advisors. But do they even know what they are doing? Or do they deliberately conspire to deceive the public?

/ HAX

EDRi: “Follow the money” on copyright infringements »

2

Don’t stay silent when the EU take our civil rights away

By on September 23, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, Rule of law, social media

The EU has formed an alliance with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to block Internet content that aims to radicalize people – and hate speech. It is called the Joint Referral Platform.

This is, per definition, about limiting free speech. As such, this taps into democratic core issues.

The plan is to have the social networks and platforms to carry out this censorship, referring to their user terms and conditions – that more or less allows them to censor or ban anyone. They don’t have to explain their actions. There is no possibility to appeal or redress.

Naturally, this is something that civil rights organisations and Internet activists must look into, analyse and keep a close eye on. Here is an apparent possibility for the political system to restrict free speech without getting its own hands dirty, without having to deal with legislation or the judicial system.

But when European Digital Rights, EDRi, asked for information – the European Commission first stalled their request and then refused to share information.

The reason presented by the Commission is notable. It is said that openness could undermine a highly sensitive on-going process. No shit, Sherlock.

The entire point is that this is highly sensitive. It’s about a public-private partnership to limit free speech. That is why transparency is of immense importance.

To make things even worse, the Commission seems to be unwilling to provide information about the legal basis for the Joint Referral Platform.

This is not how to conduct things in a democratic society.

Sadly, this is typical for how the EU apparatus works. Democratic principles and core values are brushed aside. Rule of law is disregarded. Human and civil rights are ignored.

And they usually get away with it.

This time, it’s about free speech online. Regardless of what people think of limiting what can be said on the Internet – everyone ought to agree that limitations of fundamental rights must be handled with extreme care and in an open, democratic process.

We must try to get the European Parliament to look into this. The MEP:s are democratically elected – and are, as such, at least somewhat uncomfortable with ignoring strong and loud public opinion.

This might also be a case for the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights.

You simply cannot stay silent when they take our civil rights away.

/ HAX

EDRi: Joint Referral Platform: no proof of diligent approach to terrorism »

1