Category: Democracy

Twitter censoring Milo Yiannopolous

The decision to unperson Yiannopoulos was done in secret in some hidden Twitter office, no doubt one with cheerful Twitter blue birds on every wall. His “suspension” was retroactive: His past posts—virtually all of which were once regarded as acceptable—have been vanished just as much as any problematic ones.

It is unclear which was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Nor is it clear which were the past straws. Twitter’s only statement regarding Yiannopolous’s ban was a reiteration of its terms of service, which is akin to reading the criminal code aloud when someone is accused of a crime. There is, however, a very profound difference here. Twitter does not have a Soviet monopoly on the media. It is still largely open to criticism, both on the platform itself and in other venues. This is not a First Amendment issue. But it still remains, quite obviously, an issue.

Observer.com: Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous »

The democratic forces

The Turkish affair ought to be food for thought.

A country steadily being lead away from democracy by a democratically elected sociopath. Or the military overriding democratic elections – allegedly to restore safety and – ta-da! –democracy.

Both scenarios are disturbing.

 

Democracy is a system where power ultimately lies with the people. It is a form of co-existence where the risk for aggression from others and from those in power is reasonably low. I like that.

The problem is – at the same time – democracy is an awful and perverse system. It promotes power struggle instead of the public good. It implies force and it is corrupt. Literally, anything can be done to anyone in a democratic way. And it often is, with horrifying results.

But all alternatives are worse. Sorry to say. Like it or not, this is what we got. Democracy is a life raft for the people. We should use it.

Another problem is, democracy is not done the proper way anymore. If power is to be given to someone by the people – this is not a carte blanche for behaving badly or overly greedy. The idea is not that some should rule over others, but for others.

 

For democracy to work there must be a free flow of thoughts, opinions, ideas, news, facts, data, theories and creativity.

Well, the EU just outsourced to Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook to censor information (“content”) that is deemed to be objectionable (by unknown people and unknown rules). Without the dignity of prior legal formalities. And this is in a spooky way done with the best of intentions, by nominally good people.

This is to curb free speech. You do not do that. Ever. Period. (But, of course, they do. All the time.)

 

Citizen’s civil rights are taken away, piece by piece. Day after day.

You only hear politicians tell us why “we” must reduce and infringe citizens rights, because of… But you never hear them talking about enlarging or deepening democracy. You never see them giving power and civil rights back to the people. It seems to be a non-reversible process.

This is creating a poisonous intellectual climate.

When there is no open, living debate about deeper democratic values in society… Don’t be surprised if the people takes its eye off the ball, as well. Exit: Liberal Western civilisation. Entry: Pokemon Go!

 

But we are not doomed. Democracy can still be saved. We can enter an era of peace, love, and understanding. And wealth. If we act up, and behave like adults. If we win back democracy by participation. If we are willing to give reason and logic a fair chance. If we cooperate on a truly open and free market with the same set of rules for all. If we respect each other. Like it ought to be.

Some despair, because people are not organised. Well – you don’t have to be. Just stand tall and defend democracy and its values such as individual liberty, free speech, the rule of law, transparency, respect for minorities (political as well as ethnic) and freedom of religion and organisation. Always. Make it a priority.

Let use spontaneous human interaction to save democracy! Because… what is the alternative?

/ HAX

Fighting the roots of terrorism

“Dropping bombs on oil refineries or conducting unmanned aerial vehicle strikes against jihadist leaders is easy. By contrast, building strong institutions that can resist corruption and govern fairly and justly is far more difficult. The very failure to build such institutions has given rise to resurgent jihadism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Libya and Mali.

For citizens of corrupt, repressive or even kleptocratic states, jihadism’s utopian message resonates far more loudly — just as Marxism’s did. It is no coincidence that despite their best efforts, the KGB and its affiliated intelligence services found little success in fomenting insurgencies in parts of the West with good, honest governance. The seeds that the communists planted never grew and flourished as they did in places where inept or repressive regimes held power.”

Link: What The Cold War Can Learn Us About Jihadism »

Cyber war capabilities and mass surveillance

We definitely need cyber defence capabilities. Foreign powers, terrorists, and criminal networks have the capability to harm key functions in our societies.

We also need capacity for offensive cyber operations. No doubt, this will be a part of tomorrow’s conflicts and there is an ongoing cyber war arms race. Several western countries affiliated with NSA is adapting to this. (E.g. Sweden has recently made changes to legalise offensive operations, that according to the Snowden documents are already in place.)

First of all, the threshold for cyber attacks is lower than for conventional military conflicts. At the same time, most countries have made it clear that they will consider cyber attacks as an actual act of war. So there are reasons to tread carefully.

This is a grey area. It is difficult to be sure if a cyber attack originates from another nation or a criminal or terrorist organisation. In the same way, it is difficult to know who you engage in defensive or offensive cyber operations. Things might easily escalate.

Second, there is no clear line separating conventional mass surveillance and cyber warfare. One can easily spill over into the other. The lines are muddled. The rule of law can easily be circumvented by labelling surveillance that would be illegal in “civil” law enforcement as secret “military” operations.

Third, cyber warfare capabilities are frequently outsourced to private contractors. This will make it even harder to uphold democratic oversight and accountability.

I would argue that one major problem with cyber warfare capabilities is that they might be used to conceal domestic intelligence operations outside the realm of the law.

This calls for vigilance.

/ HAX

Statewatch » Council documents: responses to offensive cyber operations; “cyber capacity building” in non-EU countries; implementation report on Cyber Defence Policy Framework »

Make UN member states stand by their word on the Internet and privacy

“1. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;”

These are words from the United Nations Human Rights Council, in a declaration of the 27:th of June. (PDF») It continues…

“8. Calls upon all States to address security concerns on the Internet in accordance with their international human rights obligations to ensure protection of freedom of expression, freedom of association, privacy and other human rights online, including through national democratic, transparent institutions, based on the rule of law, in a way that ensures freedom and security on the Internet so that it can continue to be a vibrant force that generates economic, social and cultural development;”

“9. Condemns unequivocally all human rights violations and abuses, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention, expulsion, intimidation and harassment, as well as gender based violence, committed against persons for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms on the Internet, and calls on all States to ensure accountability in this regard;”

“10. Condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and calls on all States to refrain from and cease such measures;”

Great! Or… what?

I cannot help noticing that Turkey is one of the signing countries… And Poland, despite the country’s ever more dubious approach to free speech.

The United Kingdom (with the GCHQ) and the United States (home of the NSA) have signed the declaration. And countries like Sweden (FRA), Germany (BND) – who are part of the global surveillance network.

Do they really mean what they say? Probably not.

This is a great UN declaration. But the fight for a free and open internet, free speech, privacy and civil rights still needs to be fought by an army of activists. You simply cannot trust governments with this, just because they say so.

It’s like 5 July 2012. The day that gave the 5 July-foundation (who, among other things is running this blog) its name. (Read more») This was the date for an ambitious UN resolution “on the Promotion, Protection, and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet”.

Then, like now, we believe that words are not enough and that the Internet community must engage in the battle to defend the values stated in the resolution.

Today the 5 July-foundation runs several projects for security, privacy and liberty. (Read more»)

Actually, today is also the second anniversary of this blog – trying to identify threats to digital liberty. I hope you enjoy it.

And let’s use this UN resolution as valuable support when our governments go back to Big Brother Business as usual. We have their words on paper. And we demand that they stand by them!

/ HAX

• The Declaration (PDF) »
• UN rights council condemns internet blocking »
• UN rights council condemns the disruption of internet access »
• UN Human Rights Body Condemns Nations Blocking Internet Access »
• UN Human Rights Council Passes Resolution ‘Unequivocally’ Condemning Internet Shutdowns »
• Disrupting Internet Access Is A Human Rights Violation, UN Says »

Snowden: Norway gives no guarantees

Norway can issue no guarantee that Edward Snowden will not be extradited to the US, should he visit the country. This a Norwegian court decided Monday. The court argues that such guarantees can not be given when it comes to someone who is not presently inside the country.

In other words: Go to Norway first. Then we will see what happens.

This is hardly reassuring, as Norway is a Nato member with close ties to the US.

It is notable that the Norwegian court does not seem to subscribe to the general human rights principle that no one should be extradited for political “crimes”.

Why Norway? Reuters:

Snowden was granted asylum in Russia, which borders Norway, in 2013. He had been invited to Norway to receive a freedom of speech award from the local branch of writers’ group PEN International, but worried that he would be handed over to the United States, his lawyers have said.

Business as usual. No western democracy is willing to offer Snowden refuge.

At the same time, western politicians and intelligence mandarins are trying to use the fact that Snowden is staying in Russia to discredit him – thus creating an absurd example of circular reasoning.

It is not just about Snowden. As long as this goes on, our political leaders clearly demonstrate that they side with the forces of mass surveillance – not with the people.

And they get away with it, as nobody seems to care.

/ HAX

Reuters: Norwegian court rejects Edward Snowden lawsuit on free passage »

Meanwhile, in Poland….

In response to the Polish government’s new counter-terrorism and surveillance laws, which allow authorities to block websites and telecommunications, limit the freedom of assembly, and allow secret surveillance of virtually the whole population, Freedom House issued the following statement:

“Granting open-ended powers to intelligence agencies to counter terrorism at the cost of every citizen’s privacy and freedom marks a clear abuse of power by the government,” said Daniel Calingaert, executive vice president. “The government seems determined to allow police and intelligence agencies to monitor all personal data and all communications without needing to establish the existence of any actual threat, a disturbing step toward removing checks and balances on government action.”

Via Techdirt »

Corporatism vs. free speech

Politics should stick to lawmaking. Companies should stick to making business.

When the two mix, the result is usually damaging. Politicians lose their focus on principles, their mandate from the voters and the public good. Companies who lobby for subsidies and (often competition reducing) special laws will find themselves worse of in the long run, as they detach from the realities of the market.

Nevertheless, politicians and businessmen are often involved in mutual back-scratching.

Lately, the political EU-apparatus and big data companies have ganged up to curb free speech. The EU, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft have decided on a mutual approach to keep back hate speech and religious radicalisation on the net.

In other words, the EU encourages private companies to censor statements on the Internet that the politicians do not approve of.

If you are to limit free speech at all — the rules must be clearly set out in law. If there should be any censorship at all — it must be decided in a court of law, in accordance with the laws. And if anyone is being censored — there must be a possibility to appeal the decision.

All these three principles are being thrown out in the EU-Big Data agreement.

And there is nothing you can do about it. Having signed e.g. various social networks terms and conditions, you have essentially given up your rights.

From a political point of view, the EU is acting in a deceptive way. When there are no legal means to censor voices they would like to silence – they turn to private companies to do what they themselves cannot accomplish. (It’s just like when US authorities had PayPal, credit card companies, and the banks to throttle the stream of donations to Wikileaks.)

The EU is short-circuiting the rule of law and democracy itself – in order to curb the people’s civil rights.

This is totally unacceptable.

/ HAX

CoE on blocking of Internet content and rule of law

EDRi reports…

Several European countries lack clear legal provisions and transparent procedures when it comes to blocking and removal of online content. A comparative study published by the Council of Europe stresses that any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be provided for by law, be proportionate and follow legitimate objectives. Blocking should only be a measure of last resort and applied with great caution. Furthermore, if a state endorses voluntary blocking measures by private companies, the authors of the study ascribe full responsibility to the state for not placing such a system on a legislative basis, accepting insufficient judicial review and the possibility of overblocking.

EDRi: CoE study: Blocking content has to respect fundamental rights »

Council of Europe: Filtering, blocking and take-down of illegal content on the Internet »