Navigation

Archive | Civil liberties

EDRi vs. the EU on internet censorship

By on September 22, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Internet, Rule of law, social media

First, since the Joint Referral Platform has not been “launched”, the Commission argued it did not possess some of the information we asked for. It recognised, however, that it holds relevant documents. Yet, the Commission did not publish any documents because this can undermine public security, commercial interests of the internet industry involved, “jeopardise the protection of integrity of their managers” and undermine a “highly sensitive on-going process”. We would tend to agree that privatising criminal enforcement and putting it in the hands of – generally foreign – internet companies would undermine public security, although this may not be what the Commission meant.

Second, when we asked the Commission about the goals and (legal) principles under which this Joint Referral Platform will be launched, the Commission omitted any information about the legal basis for this. It solely restated the wording of the the Communication of 20 April 2016.

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

0

The narrow Facebook mindset

By on September 11, 2016 in Big Data, Civil liberties, Democracy, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Internet, social media

We live in a time of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and young people being offended by other people’s opinions – to a point where they seem to be perfectly willing to silence others.

For society, this is disastrous. For a community to evolve, different opinions and ideas must be tested against each other in a free and open debate. Especially unconventional or controversial ones. Without a free exchange of thoughts, democracy becomes pointless. Without diversity, our culture will die. Without new input, there will be no progress.

Especially young people ought to question everything, explore new ideas and oppose conformity. Instead, today many of them seem to be narrow-minded, politically conform, anxious, and frantic. I’m pretty sure this is a new phenomenon.

Why are people so easily offended, upset and disgruntled these days?

For young people born in the Facebook era, conflicting information and alternative views are things they might not be used to. Entangled in Facebook’s algorithms they mostly communicate with like-minded people. So when faced with alternative views and opinions, many of them react with hostility. (This is nothing strange. People often react negatively to the new, to the unknown and to things that they might perceive as threatening.)

This is just an observation – not the full or only explanation. But it might be a clue to what’s going on: Facebook is limiting free speech and the development of new ideas.

This is a very sad and unfortunate way to use a tool for instant, unlimited global communication such as the Internet.

/ HAX

Also read satire website The Onions piece: Horrible Facebook Algorithm Accident Results In Exposure To New Ideas »

2

Showdown in the Assange case?

By on September 7, 2016 in affairs, Assange, Civil liberties, Global Politics, Hacktivism, Human rights, UK, US, Wikileaks

The normally so media shy Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny today held a press conference about the Assange case. Nothing new was presented, the prosecutor’s office repeated its talking points and there was mention of yet another half-hearted attempt to interview Mr. Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. (Something Ms. Ny have avoided to do for years, thereby keeping the investigation open and Mr. Assange at bay.)

It might have been her last chance to play the media by her rules. On prime time Swedish national television tonight, the investigative team at SVT Uppdrag Granskning had an hour-long special about the Assange case. (The program in Swedish » | A summary of some of the findings in English ») It is pretty obvious that Swedish authorities are very interested in getting Mr. Assange to Sweden – even though it has been and still is possible to interview him in London in person, online or over the phone.

Here we should keep in mind that Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime. It’s all about interviewing him in order do determine if there is a case against him – in a rather thin case of suspected sexual misconduct in Sweden. Basically, this is total judicial overkill and »special treatment« just because he is a rebel, truth teller and a threat to important people in power.

Even a UN human right panel has voiced protests about the way Mr. Assange is treated, being tucked away in the Ecuadorean embassy year after year.

This Next Friday a Swedish regional high court will – once again – look into the issue of Mr. Assanges’ arrest warrant. The last time, they upheld the decision, as Ms. Ny then was instructed to get the interview done and over with. Again, she didn’t. This coming Friday, the court may not show the same patience. Or it may, as there are powerful interests involved.

Finally, the reason that Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange does not want to go to Sweden for an interview is a fear that he might be extradited to the US. Todays’ tv special made it clear that there might be good reasons to fear such a development. (Even though the UK might also hand him over to the US Justice department, but at a very high political price.)

The general impression is that things might start to move in the Assange case. But I wouldn’t hold my breath…

/ HAX

1

A free and open Internet is crucial for a free and open society

By on August 9, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Business, Big Government, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Hacktivism, Intellectual Property, Internet, Transparency, War on Terror

We live in interesting times.

There is Big Brotherism, censorship of social media, information warfare, the war on terror, the war on drugs and politicians curtailing our civil liberties one small piece at a time. Soon we might have an entirely erratic president in the White House (who e.g. has threatened to close down the Internet) in control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In Russia, it’s all war rhetoric these days. In Turkey, the failed coup d’état has lead to an even more totalitarian political climate. Nationalism, protectionism, xenophobia and authoritarianism seems to be in demand. Corporatism has a firm grip over western politics, and the democratic deficit is growing. Things are shifting.

It is easy to be pessimistic and wise to be cautious.

My hope is with free flows of information. Not top down, but between people.

Information is power. An integrated network of citizens on the Internet limits the possibility for those in power to get away with bullshit. So, politicians hate it. (And they often gang up with other enemies of free information – e.g. the law- and intelligence community, the copyright industry and practically everybody who will never miss an opportunity to throw a moralistic, self-righteous fit.)

On the Internet – people can scrutinize the power elite. Citizen journalists and activists have platforms to publish significant and delicate information – that the ruling political class would prefer to keep away from the public eye. Knowledge, facts, and information are searchable at our fingertips. Lies can quickly be exposed. Authority can be questioned in a meaningful way. Spontaneous networking knows no borders and can give people a chance to look into, understand and change politics.

A free flow of information promotes cooperation. Often in new and unexpected ways. People in different places and countries will work together, spontaneously. The academic world will blossom. Relationships will develop. Good things will happen. Progress will occur. And people will never go to war against each other again. Stability, prosperity, and liberty will be the preferred position.

That is why a free and open Internet is important.

/ HAX

0

The two faces of Big Brotherism

By on August 3, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Business, Big Data, Big Government, Civil liberties, Democracy, Police state, Privacy, social media

There is a huge difference between government mass surveillance and commercial privacy infringements.

The government can use force to make you behave the way politicians and bureaucrats want you to behave. The government can limit your freedom and it tends to curtail your civil rights. In a state with total control, democracy will succumb. Living in a Big Brother society will be unbearable. Government mass surveillance is about control and power.

Commercial players tend to use the data they collect to try to sell you stuff – which basically is about influencing a voluntary relation. Or to evaluate partners (customers, suppliers etc.) that they conduct business with. Never the less, this can be very annoying, intrusive, damaging and even dangerous for the private individual.

We must keep in mind that these are two different issues. They are about totally different relations to the individual. They should be approached in different ways.

Sometimes I get the impression that certain parties in the public debate deliberately is trying to muddle the water. Politicians regularly try to lead the discussion away from government mass surveillance to issues concerning commercial actors. And when asked what they do to protect people’s right to privacy their answers often are about Facebook, Google, advertising and commercial data mining – when it ought to be about mass surveillance, data retention and the relations between citizens and the state.

They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that.

/ HAX

1

Law enforce­ment should be difficult

By on August 2, 2016 in Anonymity, Big Brother, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Hacktivism

“I think law enforce­ment should be difficult. And it should actually be possible to break the law.”

“Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100 percent effective, such that any potential offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed,” he wrote. “How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same-sex marriage should be permitted?”

Wired: Meet Moxie Marlinspike, the Anarchist Bringing Encryption to All of Us »

0

EDRi: Three steps to end freedom of expression

By on July 25, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Rule of law, social media

It is quite clear that removal of material online is a restriction on fundamental rights. It is quite clear that the safeguards in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU are being willfully ignored:

EU Charter: Article 52.1:

Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

EDRi: Three steps to end freedom of expression »

0

Government using private sector censorship for political objectives

By on July 24, 2016 in Big Data, Big Government, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, Human rights, Rule of law, social media, Transparency, Twitter

Censorship is censorship. If you block someone from speaking freely or delete people’s content from the Internet you do censor them.

But there are different sorts of censorship.

One is when the government silences opposition, controversial voices or whatever. That is, in general terms, a violation of freedom of speech and our civil rights. That should not be accepted in a democratic society.

Another form of censorship is when Twitter censors Milo Yiannopolous, when Google censor artist Dennis Cooper or when Facebook is accused of downgrading news depending on political affiliations.

These are private companies and they choose to whom they want to provide their services. This is clearly stated in these companies voluminous terms and conditions.

So, OK – social media giants can censor people (and ideas). But should they?

The fact that Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter can censor people in a legally »correct« way in no way should protect them from being criticized for doing so.

And they should be criticized! Especially as their dominance on the social media scene is almost total. Their actions have political consequences. And they might very well have a political agenda.

(As a libertarian I run into this issue a lot. Just because I dislike something, I do not have the desire or right to outlaw it. But still, as a consumer, user or concerned citizen I am free to criticize e.g. censorship – and to loudly point out its risks and problems.)

But recently the lines are getting blurred. As I have pointed out in previous blog posts, governments (most recently the EU) are teaming up with major social media players to use the latter’s legal framework to silence voices that politicians dislike. Thus circumventing the legal system and the rule of law – and moving government censorship out of democratic control.

This is a serious, mounting problem.

/ HAX

2

ECJ Advocate General on data retention: Strict conditions must apply

By on July 19, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, Data Retention, ECJ, EU, Human rights, Internet, Privacy, Rule of law, surveillance

Data retention (collection of data about everybody’s phone calls, text messages, e-mails, internet connections and mobile positions) may only be used to combat serious crimes – and only if there are no other options (such as using surveillance only against people who are actually suspected of criminal activities).

This is the essence of the European Court of Justices Advocate Generals recommendation in some ongoing cases about data retention.

From the press release (PDF):

The Advocate General is of the opinion that a general obligation to retain data may be compatible with EU law. The action by Member States against the possibility of imposing such an obligation is, however, subject to satisfying strict requirements. It is for the national courts to determine, in the light of all the relevant characteristics of the national regimes, whether those requirements are satisfied.

First, the general obligation to retain data and the accompanying guarantees must be laid down by legislative or regulatory measures possessing the characteristics of accessibility, foreseeability and adequate protection against arbitrary interference.

Secondly, the obligation must respect the essence of the right to respect for private life and the right to the protection of personal data laid down by the Charter.

Thirdly, the Advocate General notes that EU law requires that any interference with the fundamental rights should be in the pursuit of an objective in the general interest. He considers that solely the fight against serious crime is an objective in the general interest that is capable of justifying a general obligation to retain data, whereas combating ordinary offences and the smooth conduct of proceedings other than criminal proceedings are not.

Fourthly, the general obligation to retain data must be strictly necessary to the fight against serious crime, which means that no other measure or combination of measures could be as effective while at the same time interfering to a lesser extent with fundamental rights.

Furthermore, the Advocate General points out that that obligation must respect the conditions set out in the judgment in Digital Rights Ireland (5) as regards access to the data, the period of retention and the protection and security of the data, in order to limit the interference with the fundamental rights to what is strictly necessary.

Finally, the general obligation to retain data must be proportionate, within a democratic society, to the objective of the fight against serious crime, which means that the serious risks engendered by that obligation within a democratic society must not be disproportionate to the advantages it offers in the fight against serious crime.

Here it is important to remember that the ECJ revoked the EU Data Retention Directive – the document all member states data retention is built upon – in the spring of 2014. This because it violates fundamental human rights, such as the right to privacy. So it is hardly possible to stick to any direct adaptations of the fallen directive.

One thing that seems to be clear is that data retention cannot be used to investigate minor crimes (e.g. illegal file sharing). And it cannot be used for non-criminal proceedings (e.g. by local councils and tax authorities). The infringement of privacy is massive with data retention. It must be in proportion to the seriousness of the suspected crime.

Point four (“which means that no other measure or combination of measures could be as effective while at the same time interfering to a lesser extent with fundamental rights”) is also interesting. Of course, there are other measures – like only using surveillance against people suspected of criminal activities, instead of the entire population.

Later this fall the ECJ will give its final verdict. But it usually follows the Advocate Generals recommendations.

Links:
• ECJ press release (PDF) »
• The Advocate Generals recommendation, full text »
• EDRi – European Court confirms: Strict safeguards essential for data retention »
• Falkvinge – European Supreme Court says “Maybe” to mass surveillance of innocents »

0