Democracy – Page 11

Does Google rule the world? Really?

https://youtu.be/TSN6LE06J54

“The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) and Its Unparalleled Power To Influence How We Think”- Robert Epstein of American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.

This is really interesting, even if it in part might be dangerously close to conspiracy theories.

At least, I think that Search Engine Manipulation might be possible and very effective. But is it really done – intentionally or unintentionally? It is difficult to say, especially as all search results seems to be personalised.

Youtube »

Embarrassed German intelligence official trying to discredit Snowden

German intelligence mandarin Hans-Georg Maassen of the Verfassungsschutz has told the Bundestag’s NSA committee that it is “highly plausible” that whistleblower Edward Snowden is a Russian spy.

Obviously, it is very hard if at all possible to know if anyone is a Russian spy. There are even speculations about Chancellor Merkel (who is of East-German descent). But speculations are just speculations.

And when it comes to Maassen, he has some pretty strong incentives to smear Snowden — as the whistleblower’s revelations have left German intelligence with egg on its face.

One should consider the fact that Edward Snowden did not choose Russia as his refuge. The reason he is stuck there is that US authorities had revoked his passport, stranding him in Moscow when in transit. And because all relevant western countries (including Germany) have refused him sanctuary / asylum.

If the German government were to let him into the country, Snowden could be in Berlin pretty quickly. But somehow, I presume Mr. Maassen wouldn’t be all too happy about that.

For the rest of us, it would be of great value and importance to have the whistleblower out of Russia and cooperating with western democratic oversight bodies, e.g. the Bundestag’s NSA committee.

/ HAX

Link: Verfassungsschutzchef hält russische Agententätigkeit Snowdens für plausibel »

The Economist makes a stand for Free Speech

[The] idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. This may sound innocuous. Politeness is a virtue, after all. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me, or about the things I hold dear, such as my ethnic group, religion, or even political beliefs. Since offence is subjective, the power to police it is both vast and arbitrary. (…)

Opinion polls reveal that in many countries support for free speech is lukewarm and conditional. If words are upsetting, people would rather the government or some other authority made the speaker shut up. A group of Islamic countries are lobbying to make insulting religion a crime under international law. They have every reason to expect that they will succeed. (…)

So it is worth spelling out why free expression is the bedrock of all liberties. Free speech is the best defence against bad government. Politicians who err (that is, all of them) should be subjected to unfettered criticism. Those who hear it may respond to it; those who silence it may never find out how their policies misfired. As Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, has pointed out, no democracy with a free press ever endured famine.

The Economist: Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out. »

Also read The Economists report: The muzzle grows tighter »

The beginning of an new era of Internet censorship?

Internet and social media giants Facebook, Twitter, Google’s YouTube and Microsoft on Tuesday pledged to combat online hate speech in Europe as the European Union’s European Commission unveiled a new code of conduct in Brussels designed to avoid the “spread of illegal hate speech.”

The companies vowed to review most valid requests for removal of illegal hate speech within 24 hours and to remove or disable access if necessary.

To be observed. Closely.

THR: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube Vow to Combat Online Hate Speech in Europe »

EU:s EPP group calls for Internet censorship

The centre-right group in the European Parliament, EPP, just released an article on its’ website: The Fight Against Online Radicalisation »

Let me copy paste a few passages…

This would mean limiting the internet reach that ISIS and other extremist groups have on our social media networks. To ban them completely would be impossible as it is difficult enough to figure out who is an extremist recruiter and who isn’t on Facebook and Twitter, but we can certainly limit and delete their Facebook pages and bar their accounts. (…)

It has been agreed that Europol is to obtain greater powers to deal with the tackling of the terrorist threat online. New specialist units, monitored by an European Data Protection Supervisor and a Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group, will be set up that will be able to contact social network providers (Facebook, Twitter etc.) directly to ask that pages and accounts run by ISIS are shut down as fast as possible.

Obviously, we need to make a stand against radical Islamism and others who advocate violence and who do not respect human rights and civil liberties. But is censorship really the right way to do it?

Either you have freedom of speech or you don’t. If you restrict free speech, e.g. by censoring Internet content, per definition you have lost it.

The only acceptable exception would be clearly expressed, substantial threats directed against other people’s life, security or property.

It is true that radical Islamism is a murderous ideology. But so is Communism and Fascism. Banning all bad and dangerous doctrines would have far-reaching implications. And who is to decide what to censor?

If we introduce far-reaching online censorship you can be absolutely sure that it will be extended beyond its’ original purpose.

Actually, we are already there. In many countries, xenophobic and anti-immigration Internet activities are prohibited, censored and can lead to prosecution. What is considered to be acceptable opinions or banned hate speech is a matter of definition. And once again, who is to decide?

The irony of it all is that the same set of rules are used to silence radical Islamism as anti-Muslim, anti-immigration rants.

Radical Islamism aiming at limiting other people’s freedom, human rights and/or civil rights must be opposed. Strongly. But it must be done in a frank debate and by good examples.

You simply cannot defend a free and open society by limiting people’s human and civil rights (such as freedom of speech).

/ HAX

German court censors Böhmermanns Erdogan poem

A German court, Landgericht Hamburg, has decided that tv presenter Jan Böhmermann can not repeat parts of his infamous poem about Turkish President Erdogan.

The court finds passages in the text abusive and defamatory. Frankfurter Allgemeine reports that refusal to follow this ruling can lead to an administrative fine of up to 250,000 euros or administrative detention of up to six months.

Böhmermann now has the possibility to appeal against the verdict.

However, this is not the main trial. The Section 103 case will be tried by the Mainz Criminal Court at a later point.

Turkish President Erdogan has also applied for an injunction against Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner. This following Springers support for Böhmermann. The injunction is to be tried by the Cologne Landgericht. But this court has already indicated that it will not recognize the case. This can, in turn, be appealed against by Erdogan’s lawyers.

This is a can of worms.

The entire case is troublesome from a freedom of speech perspective. Especially as it also concerns freedom of the press and artistic expressions. And it gets outright awkward and absurd when German courts are deconstructing Böhmermann’s poem to decide what parts should be considered as acceptable humor and what parts should not.

There were, at one point, hopes that the German legal system would simply throw out President Erdogan’s complaints and make a firm stand for free speech. But now it seems as if the case will take a different turn.

What makes the case even worse is the fact that the German government allowed President Erdogan’s complaints on political grounds. Germany simply needs Turkey to stem the flow of refugees from Syria (and other countries). So much so that the government is prepared to put free speech on the line.

This will be a defining moment for German democracy.

/ HAX

• Gericht verbietet Teile von Böhmermanns „Schmähgedicht“ »
• Erdogan geht auch gegen Springer-Chef Döpfner vor »

Update:
• BBC: German court rules against comic Boehmermann over Erdogan poem »

Edward Snowden on unchecked government

A lot of people laud me as the sole actor, like I’m this amazing figure who did this. I personally see myself as having a quite minor role. I was the mechanism of revelation for a very narrow topic of governments. It’s not really about surveillance, it’s about what the public understands—how much control the public has over the programs and policies of its governments. If we don’t know what our government really does, if we don’t know the powers that authorities are claiming for themselves, or arrogating to themselves, in secret, we can’t really be said to be holding the leash of government at all.

CJR – Snowden interview: Why the media isn’t doing its job »

Surveillance: Who owns you and your life?

There are many dimensions to the concept of privacy.

A fundamental question is: Who owns you and your life?

If you are not the owner of your person – that will open up for abominations like slavery, organ farming, and some absurd utilitarian concepts.

But if you are the owner of your person – this must include your body as well as your mind and your faculties.

So… if you are the owner of your person – does anybody else (a private person or a collective of persons) have the right to look into your mind, your thoughts and your beliefs? Does anybody else have the right to look into your relations to other people, your quest for knowledge or your personal habits and preferences?

Because that is exactly what is done when government snoops around in your communications, among your files and in your social networks.

The only reason I can find for allowing this is if a person is threatening other peoples’ security or property.

A person who is no threat to others should be left alone. And this is actually what is said e.g. in the European convention on human rights. People have the right to privacy and private correspondence unless they are a threat to others or to society. (Obviously, it might be debated what constitutes a threat to society. But you get the general rule.)

However, governments do not care. They want mass surveillance. They want to collect as much information as possible about as much people as possible.

The ruling political class simply does not treat us as free citizens but as serfs.

You should keep that in mind next time there is a general election.

/ HAX

Snowden on whistleblowing

When you first go on duty at CIA headquarters, you raise your hand and swear an oath — not to government, not to the agency, not to secrecy. You swear an oath to the Constitution. So there’s this friction, this emerging contest between the obligations and values that the government asks you to uphold, and the actual activities that you’re asked to participate in. (…)

By preying on the modern necessity to stay connected, governments can reduce our dignity to something like that of tagged animals, the primary difference being that we paid for the tags and they’re in our pockets. It sounds like fantasist paranoia, but on the technical level it’s so trivial to implement that I cannot imagine a future in which it won’t be attempted. It will be limited to the war zones at first, in accordance with our customs, but surveillance technology has a tendency to follow us home.

Edward Snowden in The Intercept: Whistleblowing Is Not Just Leaking — It’s an Act of Political Resistance »

A closer look at Hacking Team

Here is an interesting piece in Foreign Policy: Fear this man »

It’s about the Italian firm Hacking Team and its founder and CEO, David Vincenzetti. The article gives an interesting and chilling glimpse into the commercial side of providing governments with IT tools for surveillance – that also is being used by authoritarian regimes for oppression and disinformation.

“Privacy is very important,” Vincenzetti says on a recent February morning in Milan, pausing to sip his espresso. “But national security is much more important.”