Archive | Democracy

The new dissidents

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is stuck in Russia, only being able to reach out to the world by video link. The same goes for Wikileaks Julian Assange, in limbo at Ecuadors embassy in London. Journalist and web activist Barret Brown spends his time in custody, waiting to be sentenced after looking too close into outsourcing of US national security matters.

This is in a way better for the US government than just throwing people in jail.

If you compare this to the case of whistleblower Chelsea Manning–her 35 year prison sentence for exposing the truth is clearly a stain on US reputation.

It’s more convenient for government to corner trouble makers elsewhere in the world or to constrain their actions with seemingly endless legal proceedings. It might not silence them–but it will hamper their work seriously. And you can (normally) do this without enraging human rights activists, hacktivists, the media and the general public too much.

It all bears a chilling resemblance to the way the Soviets treated many of their dissidents during the Cold War.

/ HAX

1

A global “right to be forgotten”?

Worrying reports…

“Google has so far been removing links only from its European sites, for example google.fr in France and google.co.uk in the UK. However, a French court has now ruled that Google is required to remove links globally, and that local subsidiaries can be fined if the company fails to do so.”

Read more:
‘Right to be forgotten’ by Google may extend beyond Europe following court ruling »
Google’s French arm faces daily €1,000 fines over links to defamatory article »

0

How to fight the dark forces of Government

There is this article in The Boston Globe that has been nagging my mind for a few days now: Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change. »

Despite the dramatic headline, this is not about conspiracy theories. It’s about Tufts University political scientist (and former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department) Michael J. Glennon and his book National Security and Double Government.

The core issue is the Obama u-turn on national security.

“But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.”

The thing, according to Glennon, is that politicians are generalists–in the hands of their own administration and its experts. And these experts have many reasons to exaggerate threats.

That sounds like a plausible and reasonable analysis. Even though the word “generalists” might be overly polite.

Now, looking at Europe and the EU we have the same set of experts as in the US–in the Commission, in the Council and to some extent in the European Parliament.

And we have the issue of lobbyism. (Even though public attention is directed towards lobbyists in the Parliament, the real issue ought to be lobbyism directed towards the Commission and its staff.)

Then we have something that few people know about: The European Commission has some 250 different committees with around 7,000 “contributors”. And at least 1,000 (maybe up to 3,000) specialist groups with more than 40,000 “experts”. All of these with an agenda. And this is where EU policy is crafted out.

This is why it is almost impossible to get something done when it comes to e.g. data protection, mass surveillance or copyright reform in the Parliament. The power doesn’t lie with the elected politicians.

So, are we screwed? Is democracy just an illusion? In many cases, the answer seems to be yes. But Glennon gives us a glimmer of hope…

“The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.”

From an European perspective we know that public opinion did put an end to the ACTA agreement (restricting the openness and freedom of the Internet). We also know that such occurrences are very rare. And that they depend on huge efforts from activists, civil society and the media. But–it can be done.

This is the first lesson in fighting the political apparatus: Know thy enemy.

/ HAX

2

Something might be rotten in the state of Denmark…

This week Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm Warg was sentenced to three and a half years in prison, for hacking the Danish branch of (NSA connected) IT company CSC.

The court was not united in its ruling, there were actually no solid evidence and the circumstances were identical to a Swedish case in which GSW was acquitted in high court. Regardless what he might or might not have done, this process has been rather dubious.

GSW (a.k.a. Anakata) is an high profile target for authorities–founding the Pirate Bay, hosting Wikileaks and being a menace to the ruling political class in general.

I cannot free myself from the feeling that the Danish case was just another go at it, when the establishment couldn’t get him convicted in the Swedish case. And yes, they can do that: Under EU mutual recognition of legal systems and the European Arrest Warrant double jeopardy (and possibly also habeas corpus) is being eroded.

It seems that our leaders have got themselves yet another way to silence rebels.

Some links…
Pirate Bay founder guilty in historic hacker case »
Pirate Bay Founder Convicted on Hacking Charges »
Pirate Bay founder handed 3.5 year prison sentence »

/ HAX

0

So, what is Truth?

UK lawmakers prepare to increase the maximum penalty for “cyber bullying” from six months in prison to two years.

The BBC reports…

Under the act, which does not apply to Scotland, it is an offence to send another person a letter or electronic communication that contains an indecent or grossly offensive message, a threat or information which is false and known or believed by the sender to be false.

If so, shouldn’t we begin with deciding on what it is that can be considered as offensive? Or should we make that up as we go..?

And what is false information? What about satire, travesty and irony? What is true and what is false when it comes to political issues? Are there absolute truth in culture? And who is to decide?

Naturally, the proponents of these rules will point out that it’s just about cyber bullying, threats and harassment. But with the definition above–any government could use this law to curb free speech and to stifle opposition.

Don’t give the ruling political class such tools. Sooner or later they will be misused.

/ HAX

0

Is it legal… just because they say it is?

There are some interesting similarities when it comes to mass surveillance in the US and in NSA partner countries. There is no doubt that system and judicial designs often are copied directly from the US system.

As an example, in Sweden the Government talking point is that it assumes that (the Swedish NSA partner) FRA is conducting its mass surveillance in accordance with the law.

Yeah, right. The legality of NSA as well as FRA surveillance lies with secret courts, with no effective representation of civil rights or the public interest. In the US it’s the FISA Court and in Sweden the FRA Court.

And here is the “beauty” of it all: What the secret courts says is legal is legal.

So, mass surveillance carried out is legal in a formal sense–regardless of what’s going on.

That is how Sweden has managed to cram hostile IT attacks on systems in other countries into a law that mentions nothing of the sort. If the secret court says it’s legal, it doesn’t matter what laws Parliament has set down.

This is not how things are to be carried out in a democracy. Rules should be decided in an open, democratic process. And the people must be able to hold politicians accountable.

The way mass surveillance is managed in the NSA sphere, it short-circuits democracy as well as rule of law.

This is utterly unacceptable.

/ HAX

2

It just takes one…

Politicians and bureaucrats have given themselves powerful tools for mass surveillance.

It just takes one leading populist or autocratic politician for those tools to be abused.

A system depending on the sanity, honesty and rationality of one person (or a small group of people) is dangerous.

/ HAX

0

When do you become a terrorist?

We have learned that mass surveillance and shady intelligence operations are not just about national security. The wider term “national interest” is often used and it is obvious that some practices in this area are used to curb dissent.

The NSA has engaged in surveillance of economic targets. In my country, Sweden, surveillance laws openly mention national economic interest. Intelligence organisations, counter espionage and the police often have a clearly stated objective to preserve existing structures and status quo in society.

Obviously we can expect some interesting conflicts in this field.

Wikileaks is a high profile example. Truth about what’s really going on is not popular with politicians and in the government apparatchik. So they use what resources they have to silence or to discredit the messenger.

And what will happen when governments realize that they are losing their grip on money?

It doesn’t have to be a breakdown of the traditional monetary system. (Though, it might be.) My guess is that a wider adoption of digital currencies would be enough do the trick. That would move power from the state to citizens in a way most governments cannot tolerate.

Take Cyprus as example: It wouldn’t have been possible for the Cypriot government to confiscate a large portion of citizens bank deposits if people had been using Bitcoins instead of Euros.

Or imagine what will happen if people move to adopt digital currency because it is more stable than government fiat money. This would cause serious political problems. Probably to the extent where governments won’t have it anymore.

The mere possibility that something (that politicians don’t really understand) could undermine national currencies and our centralized, controlled economies will be considered a major worry. Possibly big enough for governments to let the dogs loose. And if that happens, the digital currency community will be considered and treated like other threats to society. Like terrorists.

It will not only be individuals. From the Snowden files we have learned that governments now are labeling categories of people as terrorists, with no need for proof of any “wrongdoing” on an individual level.

Anonymity and cryptography are other concerns for government, that might be serious enough for it to pick a fight over. And tomorrow will bring other, brand new challenges to government power and authority.

We do live in interesting times.

Personally I consider decentralized systems, openness, pluralism, privacy and civil rights to be crucial for a free, democratic and tolerable society. Important enough to fight for. But I also know our enemies. So I fear that we might be in for a bumpy ride.

/ HAX

Some links:
Blacklisted: The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist »
Snowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance and Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks and Its Supporters »
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations »

4