Category: Democracy

Assange on Fox: Governments hate transparency

“We’re in the business of publishing information about power,” Assange said. “Why are we in the business of publishing information about power? Because people can do things with power, they can do very bad things with power. If they’re incompetent, they can do dangerous things. If they’re evil, they can do wicked things.”

In Part III of the interview, which aired Thursday on the Fox News Channel, Assange also said that governments “hate transparency. They loathe it. Because they have to work harder.” (…)

Governments are “full of incompetent people,” Assange told Hannity. “And the more secretive the area is, the more incompetent it becomes because there’s no proper oversight.” (…)

“If you don’t know what’s happening in the world with powerful individuals, corporations and governments … immoral actors within the state or within those big corporations prosper,” Assange said at the conclusion of the interview.

Fox: ‘Hannity’ Exclusive: Wikileaks’ Assange: Governments ‘Hate Transparency. They Loathe It’ »

Italian call for state censorship

Pitruzzella, head of the Italian competition body since 2011, said “EU countries should set up independent bodies — co-ordinated by Brussels and modeled on the system of antitrust agencies — which could quickly label fake news, remove it from circulation and impose fines if necessary.”

Zerohedge: Italy Urges Europe To Begin Censoring Free Speech On The Internet »

Politicians vs. human rights

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has – once again – ruled that data retention (storage of data on everybody’s phone calls, text messages, e-mails, Internet connections, mobile positions etc.) is in breach of fundamental human rights.

Nevertheless, politicians in several EU member states are trying their hardest to ignore the court. For them, Big Brotherism carries more weight than human and civil rights.

Let that sink in.

Politicians are more interested in controlling the people than defending its rights. They are more interested in treating ordinary people as potential criminals than upholding principles that are pivotal to a democratic society. They degrade citizens to subordinates, to be ruled over and supervised.

Never, ever expect politicians to defend civil rights. Their agenda is a very different one.

/ HAX

War on fake news and hate speech to open Pandora’s box?

What is truth?

Facebook will start to flag content as »disputed«. Obvious fake news will be flagged by Facebook itself. And disputed »real« news content will be subject to third-party fact-checking with e.g. Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News, the AP, and Politifact.

Are they to draw a line between »fake« and »wrong«? While »fake« in many cases might be assessed on reasonably objective grounds, »right« or »wrong« can be a very complicated and delicate matter.

At the same time, there is a proposal in Germany to fine Facebook € 500,000 for each identified piece of fake news or hate speech that is not removed within 24 hours.

To its nature, »hate speech« is a definition that lies very much in the eye of the beholder. Even where there is a legal definition, things might prove problematic – as such laws often give different groups different sets of »rights« (like protection from verbal or written abuse). This being a deviation from the principle that all people should be equal before the law.

These are extremely complex issues. No doubt these rules will lead to disputes over freedom of speech. Here also lies inherent conflicts between mainstream media and alternative media, between the political elite and popular opposition, and between conflicting sets of values. This might prove to be a modern version of Pandora’s box.

And – in a wider perspective – the very notion that there will be some sort of »Ministry of Truth« is deeply disturbing.

/ HAX

• Wired: Facebook Finally Gets Real About Fighting Fake News »
• Deutsche Welle: 500,000 euro fines for fake news on Facebook in Germany? »
• Quartz: Germany threatens to fine Facebook €500,000 for each fake news post »

EU producing a lot of hot air trying to curb free speech

A press release from the European Commission caught my eye: EU Internet Forum: a major step forward in curbing terrorist content on the internet »

At today’s second high-level meeting of the EU Internet Forum convened in Brussels by Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos and Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King, key internet companies presented an industry initiative, which constitutes a significant step forward in curbing the spread of terrorist content online. As part of the industry-led hash-sharing initiative, participating companies can use hashes to detect terrorist images or videos, review the material against their respective policies and definitions, and remove matching content as appropriate.

Well, that is only a part of the story.

The Commission totally ignores the fact that this form of censorship is conducted outside the rule of law.

The concept is that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft should remove illegal terrorist content. But what is illegal? As a matter of fact, the press release doesn’t touch on this question. The word illegal is not even mentioned. And there might be reasons for that.

In a democratic society, censorship should strictly be a matter for the courts – as they are the ones qualified to make the delicate decisions about what is legal or not. And naturally, there must be a possibility to appeal.

But that is not how the EU Internet Forum / The Joint Referral Platform will work.

It’s all about using these social networks terms and conditions to block content. The decisions will be made by the companies abuse departments, with no possibility of redress. There will be no proper legal procedure, cases will be handled by people who are not legally trained and there is an obvious risk of overreach.

That is not a proper way to approach the delicate issue of free speech.

This is all about EU politicians having established a way to limit free speech without the inconvenience of having to create new law under public scrutiny – and without having to bother with proper legal procedures. It is an approach to limit free speech without getting your fingers dirty.

And there is more.

The same instrument is to be used to curb »hate speech« and other statements that politicians disapprove of. There are no real limitations, no oversight, and no transparency. This project doesn’t have a democratic mandate. And the European Commission has been very secretive and unwilling to share information about what is going on. This is totally inappropriate.

The people’s elected representatives in the European Parliament must look into this matter – to defend our civil rights, democratic process and the rule of law.

/ HAX

Internet on Cuba opening up – to Google

Cuba’s state-run telecommunications company Etecsa has signed a deal with Google that will enable faster access to content from the American company.

Under the deal, the technology giant will install servers in Cuba to improve connectivity speeds to Google services, including Gmail and YouTube. (…)

Even though most Cubans are likely to see the deal with Google as a step forward, it will do little to change the overall online accessibility in the country.

BBC: Cuba signs deal for faster internet access to Google content »

EU:s ambiguous directive on combating terrorism

This week the Human Rights Committee (LIBE) in the European Parliament will finalize the formalities on the new EU directive on combating terrorism. There is little room for changes, as there has been closed door negotiations (trialogue) on the content between the Parliament, the Council (member states) and the Commission. From LIBE the directive will go to the vote in the December Parliamentary plenary session in Strasbourg.

This directive is an odd document as national security is not formally an EU competence. Newer the less, it has been rushed trough the system and is now close to becoming EU law.

The document can be seen as a response to the Paris and Brussels terrorist attacks. It is surely the result of pressure on EU member states interior ministers to be seen to do… something.

The directive is notably vague. Maybe even suspiciously vague.

Among the listed purposes for illegal terrorist actions, we can read the following »seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation«. And on form… »given their nature or context«.

This is vague. And it sounds dangerously close to… suppressing opposition or perfectly legitimate disruptive political activism. Would this label e.g. a tax revolt terrorism?

Threats to »information systems« resulting in »major economic loss« are also mentioned. Exactly where does this place some forms of hacking or maybe a DDoS attack? Will hackers now be deemed to be terrorists?

And exactly what does the following suggest? »Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of one of the offences listed in points (a) to (h) of Article 3(2), where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed, is punishable as a criminal offence when committed intentionally.«

The wording »whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences« is just confusing.

»For an offence referred to in Article 4 and Title III to be punishable, it shall not be necessary that a terrorist offence be actually committed, nor shall it be necessary to establish a link to a specific terrorist offence or, insofar as the offences in Articles 9 to 11 are concerned, to specific offences related to terrorist activities.«

Isn’t that a bit ambiguous?

So it continues. And I’m not the only one being suspicious…

Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Fundamental Rights European Experts (FREE) Group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are warning that the overly broad language of the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism could lead to criminalising public protests and other peaceful acts, to the suppression of the exercise of freedom of expression protected under international law, including expression of dissenting political views and to other unjustified limitations on human rights. The Directive’s punitive measures also pose the risk of being disproportionately applied and implemented in a manner that discriminates against specific ethnic and religious communities.

It seems that the purpose of this directive is to expand the scope of the anti-terror legislation to cover as much as possible. The risk is that it will go too far – labeling opposition, activism, hacking, and some other political activities as terrorism. Especially as it is up to the member states to implement this directive. There are plenty of politicians in Europe just looking for an excuse to silence uncomfortable voices and disruptive political movements.

/ HAX

LIBE meeting documents »

EDRi: European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed »

A post-democratic society?

demokrati_ungdom

Politicians and bureaucrats are transferring power from the people to themselves. There is corporatism, where politicians and Big Business join forces to circumvent a proper democratic process. Our civil rights are being thwarted for a number of different reasons. And there is a noticeable and growing democratic deficit.

Apparently, the people is now drifting into resignation and defeatism. Especially the young. The chart above is from the NYT article: How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’ »

According to the Mounk-Foa early-warning system, signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.

Across numerous countries, including Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States, the percentage of people who say it is “essential” to live in a democracy has plummeted, and it is especially low among younger generations.

Naturally, one can understand why people are disillusioned about democracy. Politicians are accumulating power – but are not in contact with ordinary people, their lives, and their worries. One could argue that our political leaders are not even in contact with reality. The political elite seems to be incompetent while at the same time being arrogant and condescending.

People being fed up with politics and bureaucracy is quite understandable. But what is the alternative?

I fear that it will not be enlightened philosopher kings that will rule us. Nor will it be a libertarian minarchism where people are free and live in harmony. Other, more aggressive, forces will be at play.

Authoritarian populists, the military, communists, SJW, fascists… The »alternatives« to democracy are all rather unpleasant, will lead to oppression – and will not respect the individual, her civil rights, and freedoms.

I can agree that democracy in some ways is a problematic system with very real built-in dilemmas and faults. I also fully agree that most of today’s politicians are dimwits and that many of them are dangerous.

But, still – I find democracy the least bad system.

However, democracy would gain greatly from being trimmed down – focusing on society’s core functions, doing what is important well – and then leaving people free to live their lives pretty much as they want. Maybe that is the only way to save democracy, in the long run.

/ HAX

Civil rights are not in the interest of the ruling political class

Democracy and civil rights. It would be difficult to find anyone in the western world who does not subscribe to these principles. At least in public.

Yet, we are steadily moving away from these values.

It is being done in many small steps. Always justified with the best of intentions – like security, fighting serious crime, child protection, the war on drugs, copyright protection and combating hate speech. Just to mention a few.

Nevertheless – without a doubt – we are limiting privacy, free speech, rule of law and equal rights. It seems to be a non-reversible process. And sooner or later, the many small steps will end up being a giant leap.

Democracy and civil rights can only be curtailed so many times before the consequences will be dire.

»We have to strike a balance between fundamental rights and security« politicians say. And every time that is being done, civil rights are hollowed out. When you repeat this process time and time again – fundamental rights will be reduced to empty words.

This is extremely serious. But nobody really seems to care.

One day we will wake up to a society where you cannot speak your mind, where everything you do is observed and scrutinized, where courts no longer is a guarantee for fair trials, and where it doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty – you will have everything to fear.

You will have to be blind not to see the writing on the wall.

Please, do not trust politicians with upholding our fundamental rights. They have a different agenda. They are the ones limiting them.

Our civil rights can only be upheld, protected and won back by the people. It is in no one else’s interest.

/ HAX

Sweden to outlaw… what, exactly?

For years, online hate speech and cyber-bullying have been on the political agenda in Sweden. Now there will be some new laws, covering a wide range of actions and statements.

Let’s have a look at »Insulting behaviour« (PDF, summary in English, page 42-43).

Under the wording we propose, criminal liability will presuppose that someone through accusations, disparaging comments or humiliating behaviour acts against another person in a way that is intended to violate the other person’s selfesteem or dignity.

What does this even mean in real terms? OK, there is an attempt to clarify…

The assessment is to be based on the circumstances in the individual case. However, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of a generally held norm for what represents unacceptable behaviour and what individuals should not be expected to tolerate. This is expressed by the provision stating that the act must have been intended to violate someone’s self-esteem or dignity.

First of all, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity for a law. »Disparaging comments« – isn’t that in the eye of the beholder? »Self-esteem« and »dignity« is something personal, referring to experiences and feelings about a certain situation. It’s very subjective. And »a generally held norm«? Who is to define what that is?

I guess the Supreme Court will have some very difficult decisions to make.

This is sloppy lawmaking in the »safe space« era, where the line between real insults and arguments is blurred. And it gets worse. Page 34, »Our starting points«:

Protection of privacy is also protection of the free formation of opinions and, ultimately, of democracy. There may be a risk that threats against journalists, debaters or opinion-makers result in the person threatened refraining from expressing him- or herself or participating in the public debate.

First of all, take note of the Orwellian twist: To defend free speech, we must limit it.

Second, as one would suspect, it’s not really about teenage bullying in school – but to protect the inner peace and self-image of e.g. journalists and politicians. Suddenly the term »disparaging comments« stands out, in a new light.

So, colorful criticism of politicians might or might not be illegal – on a case by case basis.

Big Brother will be busy.

/ HAX