Democracy – Page 14

The rise of soft authoritarianism

The mere knowledge of mass surveillance will have a chilling effect on free speech, opposition and an open society. Even if no politician or bureaucrat will say it out loud — this might be a very calculated side effect of modern Big Brotherism.

In UK schools an add-on to its existing Education Pro digital classroom management tool will be used to monitor schoolchildren, bringing the teachers attention to use of “radicalisation keywords”.

“The keywords list, which was developed in collaboration with the Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism organisation that is closely aligned with the government, consists of more than 1,000 trigger terms including “apostate”, “jihadi” and “Islamism”, and accompanying definitions.”

This might flag any pupil working with fully legitime school work as a potential terrorist. The list also includes terms used in a “far right” context and names of groups and individuals defined as “terrorists or extremists”. And, of course, no one will know what words and terms will be on the list in the future. That will be up to tomorrows politicians and bureaucrats to decide. We can only hope that they are fair and decent people. All of them.

“Teachers can also save screenshots or video of a student’s screen which, Impero suggests, could provide “key evidence” to be shared with Channel, the government’s counter-radicalisation programme for young people. The software also features a “confide” function, allowing students to report concerns about classmates anonymously.”

So, British schoolchildren will have to think carefully about what they write in the future. They also must be aware of the fact that other students might act as informants. It is not difficult to see how this will create a climate of fear and uneasiness. (And new forms of bullying.)

And the Chinese have taken soft authoritarianism and informant culture one step further: There your credit score is now affected by your political activities and opinions — and those of your friends. This will apply to everything from your online shopping to your possibility to get a visa for travelling abroad.

This is nightmarish. If you stand up for your ideas, opinions and human rights in China, you will not only put yourself in harms way — but also your friends and your relatives.

This might be a much more effective way to stifle dissent than using classic tools of oppression.

The modern orwellian society seems to be turning out to be more orwellian than George Orwell could ever have imagined.

/ HAX

TTIP: The deceitful EU commissioner

EU:s commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, claims that the negotiations over the new EU-US trade agreement, TTIP, are the most transparent trade negotiations ever.

Well, this might actually be true — as such negotiations normally are conducted in total secrecy. But transparent? No.

There is nothing like an open, democratic process about TTIP. Negotiations are still being conducted behind closed doors. Not even politicians in EU member states or members of the European Parliament are allowed normal access to the documents.

For instance, nothing is known about the TTIP IP chapter — containing issues related to patents and copyright. This is the part of TTIP where it is believed that we (eventually) will find statues restricting openness and freedom on the Internet.

The plan is obvious: The EU and the US are trying to keep TTIP under wraps until there is an final document, that cannot be changed. They believe that an all or nothing approach will make it harder for elected parliamentarians to reject the agreement.

/ HAX

UN proposes web policing and licensing for social networks

The United Nations Broadband Commission for Digital Development just made some controversial and disputable recommendations. They want social networks and platforms to police the Internet and to be “proactive” against harassment and violence against women and girls. Only web platforms doing so should be licensed.

Washington Post reports…

“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads, not only for those “producing and providing the content,” but also everyone with any role in shaping the “technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society.”

How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively.

At one point toward the end of the paper, the U.N. panel concludes that “political and governmental bodies need to use their licensing prerogative” to better protect human and women’s rights, only granting licenses to “those Telecoms and search engines” that “supervise content and its dissemination.”

This is bad, in so many ways.

It is a well-established principle that internet service providers and social networks are not responsible for what their users do. (Mere conduit.) Now, the UN Broadband Commission wants to throw that principle out the window. Meaning that concerned parties will have to monitor everything every user do — to be able to police the net in line with the commissions recommendations.

Then there is the idea of licensing social networks. This is a terrible idea, unacceptable in a democratic society. Period.

And knowing the modus operandi of the UN — you cannot rule out that this report is being encouraged by UN member states with a general interest in limiting a free and open internet.

One might also question the principle that “the respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center”. First of all, everyone deserves respect and security. Second, it is very dangerous to give different groups different rights, advantages or treatment. Everyone should have the same rights and be treated the same way by government.

A final reason to keep this door closed is that “respect” and “harassment” are relative terms. This is often in the eye of the beholder. There is a tendency in some circles to label all dissent as harassment. And then we have the “trigger warning” discussion, with countless examples of claims of annoyance and inconvenience used to limit freedom of speech.

Regardless of whether you think those are worthwhile ends, the implications are huge: It’s an attempt to transform the Web from a libertarian free-for-all to some kind of enforced social commons.

This UN report is ill thought out and dangerous for democracy.

/ HAX

Washington Post: The United Nations has a radical, dangerous vision for the future of the Web »

Reclaim democracy!

“If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”

The phrase is well known and frequently used by politicians who are in favour of mass surveillance.

First of all, all people have something to hide. And in the unlikely event that someone really has nothing to hide – this person almost certainly have been trusted with secrets by others (such as friends and their employer).

Second, the very same politicians are not at all interested in letting the people know what they themselves are up to. They loathe transparency and openness. Because they do have things to hide.

Let’s take the secretly negotiated EU–US trade agreement, TTIP, as an example. Already it is almost derailed because of the controversial dispute settlement instrument, ISDS. That was something the people was not supposed to know about. EU and US officials are not at all happy that this detail has been publicly known and put into question.

Most parts of the TTIP are still secret. E.g. the IP chapter concerning copyright and its’ consequences for an open and free internet. By keeping this text under wraps the European Commission and the US administration hope to minimize scrutiny and opposition until the very last moment. (When nothing can be changed.)

Not even the peoples elected representatives in national parliaments and in the European Parliament — the very people who are supposed to approve or reject TTIP — are allowed free access to the latest texts. (Link»)

This is not the way to behave in a democratic society. Instead you should embrace openness, critical analysis and a free debate.

All this secrecy is a very real problem. But what troubles me even more is the blatant double standards. The people is supposed to silently subject itself to mass surveillance — while our leaders claim the right to conduct their business in secret.

It’s time to reclaim democracy!

/ HAX

Link: Politicians can only view secret trade pact in special viewing room »

Enemies of the State, unite!

Have you noticed that they kill people based on meta data? Not in the US and Europe. But people far away. With drones, the targets selected from among other things: meta data from telecommunications.

So… what phone calls did you make yesterday? Last week?

They can. They do. Maybe not where you live. But it is only a matter of time.

But you have nothing to hide — and for that reason nothing to fear, right? (Really? Nothing?)

First of all, it may be up to a machine to decide on that. Without involvement of human reason. Doesn’t your communication patterns appear to be a little… odd?

Frankly, everyones communication patterns look odd — if you look into them in detail and add this with information from other social charts. You almost certainly are only a few common friends away from some seriously bad people. (Phone books are gold mines for people who draw lines between the dots.)

And there are plenty of laws around to make something stick to you. You don’t have to be guilty. But legal trouble can incapacitate you for years and drain all your money away. (The wars on terrorism, drugs and “piracy” can be very useful for the government, in this regard.)

In the US, apparently the Obama administration use the IRS to make life hell for anti-Obama activists. (Link») Captivating.

But it dosen’t have to be party political. You can become an Enemy of the State just by telling the people what their governments and officials really are up to. (Manning, Assange, Snowden, Brown & Co.)

This perverted system is already connected to the killing machines. I sure hope all our leaders are wise, honest and fair people. Always.

/ HAX

Is the German government on Germanys side?

The news that the American spy organisation NSA has targeted the major German magazine Der Spiegel are serious and disturbing. But it is just the tip of the iceberg.

As it turns out the German government knew. But it did nothing to stop it. It didn’t report the issue to relevant democratic oversight bodies. And even worse — it lied about the matter to the German parliament.

To make things even worse it’s still unclear if the NSA obtained it’s information by spying on the newspaper, the Chancellors Office or the entire German political apparatus.

Der Spiegel writes…

“It remains unclear just who US intelligence originally had in its scopes. The question is also unlikely to be answered by the parliamentary investigative committee, because the US appears to have withheld this information from the Chancellery. Theoretically, at least, there are three possibilities: The Chancellery — at least in the person of Hans Josef Vorbeck. SPIEGEL journalists. Or blanket surveillance of Berlin’s entire government quarter. The NSA is capable of any of the three options. And it is important to note that each of these acts would represent a violation of German law.”

In Germany the constitution and the freedom of the press is taken seriously. What has been going on is in direct conflict with principles clearly laid out by the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe.

“If it is true that a foreign intelligence agency spied on journalists as they conducted their reporting in Germany and then informed the Chancellery about it, then these actions would place a huge question mark over the notion of a free press in this country. Germany’s highest court ruled in 2007 that press freedom is a “constituent part of a free and democratic order.” The court held that reporting can no longer be considered free if it entails a risk that journalists will be spied on during their reporting and that the federal government will be informed of the people they speak to.”

This affair is now snowballing, putting the Chancellors Office under serious pressure. In a special editors note, Der Spiegel notes…

“The fact that the press no longer has a special protected status and can be spied upon in the same way as corporations, associations or government ministries, lends a new quality to the spying scandal. That the press appears to have been betrayed by its own government is outrageous. For this reason, SPIEGEL decided this week to file a complaint with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office on suspicion of intelligence agency activity.”

It seems that the German intelligence services and the Chancellors Office have neglected both democratic and judicial requirements to keep good working relations with the Americans.

This leading up to a situation where leading German officials appears to have sided with US intelligence services — rather than with the German constitution, German law, the German parliament and the German people.

/ HAX

Big Brotherism when the law is an ass

Laws are the tools politicians (and bureaucrats) use to force the people to behave in a certain way. And they have the police to enforce these laws.

In a democratic society it is essential that the laws are the same for all citizens, and applied in the same way for all. Regardless what these laws stipulate, regardless if they are “good” or “bad”. All people should have the same rights (and obligations).

This does not imply that all laws are good. There are plenty of really bad laws. Some are unfair, some are in conflict with fundamental human and civil rights, some are silly, some creates “crimes” without victims and some are plain stupid.

Most people break some laws, most of the time. There are simply too many laws for anyone to have a reasonable grasp of most of them. Some laws we break because we find them unimportant, silly or patronising. And some laws we should break, as they infringe on our fundamental rights.

Laws are always the footprint of the ruling political forces. We have all seen the Internet meme “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). The fact that something is legal is no guarantee that it is right or reasonable.

In a democratic system, the laws can even be used to undermine or nullify democracy itself. In a democratic, orderly way.

Enter: mass surveillance.

Mass surveillance gives the authorities a way to control that the people obey the laws. All the people. All the laws. All the time. Even really bad laws.

This will create a society where everyone must be looking over the shoulder. A society where you must be careful before you talk. An anxious society.

This might be a classic case of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

We need to talk about this: If we are to live in a mass surveillance society (like it or not), it must be a somewhat relaxed, liberal and tolerant society.

To put it in different words: The ruling classes need to give the people some slack. If not, pressure and tensions will build in a dangerous way – when authorities can control almost everything we do.

But politicians do not abide by any live and let live principles. And they certainly do not plan ro roll back mass surveillance.

/ HAX

The secret police state: More lies ahead…

So, the German Intelligence Service (BND) lied to Parliament and the democratic oversight body about its cooperation with the NSA. And the NSA has lied to the US Congress about mass surveillance. In Sweden the surveillance institution, the FRA, has lied to Parliament about (possibly illegal) IT-attacks carried out together with the British GCHQ and the NSA. And in the European Parliament hearings on mass surveillance several prominent European surveillance and intelligence bodies declined participating…

Can we trust the Intelligence Community? Seriously. It ought be under some sort of democratic control or oversight.

There is a view that our elected representatives are powerless against the intelligence organisations — simply because the latter knows too much about the former. If that is to be true, we have some serious problems. In that case democracy has been overridden.

But it doesn’t have to be that bad. It could be a matter of sheer political incompetence. (The politicians do not know what questions to ask, as they do not know what they do not know. And there is a thin line between telling lies and not telling the whole truth.)

It can also be the case that some things, politicians do not want to know.

OK, the intelligence community is supposed to keep us all safe, right? And politicians are not known for keeping that kind of secrets. Maybe it’s better not to let the peoples elected representatives in on everything? Who knows, they might be spies? Or some sort of collaborators? Or they might just fuck things up. (Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)

Well… No.

In a democracy the power emanate from the people. The intelligence bodies are branches of government, who should defend the democratic system and carry out the tasks presented to them by our democratically elected representatives. Frankly, it’s up to the people. If we elect unreliable, psychotic maniacs — that is what our different branches of government have to work with. Sorry to say. But to countermand general elections would be nothing less than a coup d’état.

However, I’m not sure that is how the intelligence community perceive things.

This is a complete mess, isn’t it? A minefield.

My personal favourite theory is that most western intelligence organisations feel that they have more in common with each other than with their respective governments (and parliaments). Many screw-ups could be explained by this theory. And it’s not that far fetched. They know things. (At least they think they do.) They share sensitive information. They do things together. And sometimes shit happens. (To get a grip of this theory, I would recommend you to turn to John le Carrés all too realistic novel A most wanted man. And it’s very possible that reality outmatches fiction.)

So? I guess we need our intelligence services. Even if they sometimes get out of control and do stupid, silly or outright dangerous stuff. The only way I can think of to handle this is to elect better politicians. That, however, is not as easy as it sounds.

Until then: More lies ahead…

/ HAX

Queens Speech and Big Brother

BBC summons up the Queens Speech from todays opening of the British Parliament. Here is what to expect when it comes to Big Brother-related bills…

Extremism Bill

This includes measures to tackle broadcasting of extremist material. The government wants to strengthen watchdog Ofcom so that it can take action against channels that transmit extremist content. The legislation will also propose the introduction of banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of proscription. A new power to allow police and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism will also feature. And employers will be able to check whether an individual is an extremist and barring them from working with children.

Investigatory Powers Bill

“New legislation will modernise the law on communications data,” the speech said. An Investigatory Powers Bill will revive plans to give intelligence agencies new tools to target communications data – branded a “snooper’s charter” by critics. The government says it will equip the police intelligence agencies with the tools to keep people safe.

…and what is not in the Queen’s Speech?

Although it appears in the Queen’s Speech, there is no legislation, either in full or draft form, on a British Bill of Rights. Instead, ministers will consult on the pros of replacing the Human Rights Act with a new legal framework of rights and responsibilities.

Read more at BBC – Queen’s Speech 2015: Bill-by-bill »

Snowden: A matter of unintended consequences

No, I’m not into conspiracy theories. Yes, I believe that Edward Snowden is a genuine hero and that he is acting from the best of intentions. Nevertheless, there is a side of the Snowden revelations that has been oddly overlooked. A matter of unintended consequences.

Some people already knew. Some were pretty convinced. Some suspected. A lot of people had a hunch. Then came Snowden. Now we all know. That is a good thing.

Unless you are the US Government or the NSA. (Or their international partners.) Then you are furious.

This is what is so intriguing. Shouldn’t people in high places be rather content?

Naturally governments and spy organisations don’t want their methods to be known. But what about the awareness of mass surveillance, as such?

The very notion of blanket surveillance will change people. For the worse, if you ask me. But, giving it some thought, politicians and bureaucrats might have reason to perceive it in another way. From their perspective, the way Big Brotherism changes people doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

It will thwart opposition. It will daunt traditional whistleblowers. It will deter activism. It will silence dissent. It will keep people in check. It will foster servitude.

Now, the people will — sadly enough — know that there are good reasons to fear the government. Suddenly we live in a society where mass surveillance is the new norm. A society where it is safer to keep a low profile.

How… convenient.

I fear it will not take long before this mindset will begin to saturate the ruling classes.

/ HAX