Democracy – Page 9

The democratic legacy of Wikileaks

Ten years ago today, the whistleblower site Wikileaks went online.

There has been controversy, turbulence, and drama. It has been ten very interesting years. Books have been written about Wikileaks and its editor in chief, Julian Assange. And more books are to be written, for sure.

But a day like this, I would like to address the core issue: Wikileaks contribution to a democratic society.

For democracy to be at all meaningful, the people must know what its political leaders are up to. Voters can elect or remove politicians and governments. They can hold people in power accountable for their actions. But to be able to do this, the people must be informed about what their leaders are and have been up to – in the name of the nation, in the name of the people and on taxpayers expense.

These ten years, Wikileaks has exposed politicians cheating, lying, double-crossing, betraying, misleading and robbing the public in countries all over the world.

All of this in a landscape where traditional media organisations sometimes have been unable or even unwilling to investigate and expose those in power.

This is what really matters. This is the democratic legacy of Wikileaks.

/ HAX

Pardon for Chelsea Manning!

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is not the only one who deserve a US presidential pardon.

Wikileaks source Chelsea Manning is serving a 35-year prison sentence – allegedly having exposed the truth to the people.

Manning is accused of leaking the so-called Iran and Afghanistan war diaries, exposing what US military has been up to in the name of the American people, paid for with American tax dollars. This glimpse into reality is unacceptable, according to the US military and the US administration. They seem to take the position that the people cannot handle the truth.

Manning is also accused of leaking a vast number of classified US embassy cables. These have been a real embarrassment to the White House and the US State Department – as they expose how the government has been sending double messages. It has told the American people one thing – but in reality done something totally different. This is a very real democratic problem: How can the American voter make an informed decision who to vote for, if he or she is kept in the dark about what the country’s leaders are up to?

And then we have the war video Collateral Murder, exposing the awful reality of war – as a US helicopter kills a group of journalists, their translators, and guides in Iraq. This was clearly something the general public was never supposed to know about.

Chelsea Manning has contributed to transparency and democracy. She has made the American people aware of what is really going on in its name. She has exposed lies, disloyalty, falseness, and two-facedness. She ought to be given a medal, not a prison sentence.

Manning has already spent many years in imprisonment. It is time for president Obama to pardon her.

Youtube »

Also read: Experts decry solitary confinement for Chelsea Manning after suicide attempt »

Don’t stay silent when the EU take our civil rights away

The EU has formed an alliance with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to block Internet content that aims to radicalize people – and hate speech. It is called the Joint Referral Platform.

This is, per definition, about limiting free speech. As such, this taps into democratic core issues.

The plan is to have the social networks and platforms to carry out this censorship, referring to their user terms and conditions – that more or less allows them to censor or ban anyone. They don’t have to explain their actions. There is no possibility to appeal or redress.

Naturally, this is something that civil rights organisations and Internet activists must look into, analyse and keep a close eye on. Here is an apparent possibility for the political system to restrict free speech without getting its own hands dirty, without having to deal with legislation or the judicial system.

But when European Digital Rights, EDRi, asked for information – the European Commission first stalled their request and then refused to share information.

The reason presented by the Commission is notable. It is said that openness could undermine a highly sensitive on-going process. No shit, Sherlock.

The entire point is that this is highly sensitive. It’s about a public-private partnership to limit free speech. That is why transparency is of immense importance.

To make things even worse, the Commission seems to be unwilling to provide information about the legal basis for the Joint Referral Platform.

This is not how to conduct things in a democratic society.

Sadly, this is typical for how the EU apparatus works. Democratic principles and core values are brushed aside. Rule of law is disregarded. Human and civil rights are ignored.

And they usually get away with it.

This time, it’s about free speech online. Regardless of what people think of limiting what can be said on the Internet – everyone ought to agree that limitations of fundamental rights must be handled with extreme care and in an open, democratic process.

We must try to get the European Parliament to look into this. The MEP:s are democratically elected – and are, as such, at least somewhat uncomfortable with ignoring strong and loud public opinion.

This might also be a case for the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights.

You simply cannot stay silent when they take our civil rights away.

/ HAX

EDRi: Joint Referral Platform: no proof of diligent approach to terrorism »

The gatekeepers are dead. Long live the World Wide Web!

Information is power, control, and supremacy.

Until recently the tools for mass communication were expensive and in the hands of a small number of gatekeepers. Then, the price rapidly fell towards zero. With the Internet and the World Wide Web (that just turned 25 years old) anyone can communicate with the world by words, pictures, sound, and video – 24/365 – on a shoestring budget.

Still, people need to know about you. So fame, reputation, and status are factors to take into consideration. But content, quality (in some sense) and virality is the new gold standard.

This has upset the people who used to be in power, like bigwig politicians. They used to have their press releases copy-pasted into the media news flow without too much hassle. Today they still are visible in the slowly dying mainstream media. But on the Internet, they have to compete for attention with everybody and everything else.

Also, media proprietors, the copyright industry and the big brick and mortar chains are upset – just to mention a few.

It could have been very different.

Tim Berners-Lee – who invented the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) together with his friends at W3C at Cern – decided not to patent this method of connecting the dots in the Matrix, but to give it to the world.

Alternatively, the Internet could have been in the hands of a few: Microsoft, Times Warner, Disney, Universal and some television conglomerates. It could have been compartmentalized with different protocols, specialized gadgets and used mainly to send information rather than allowing interaction.

Probably, there would also have been some sort of popular alternative run by enthusiasts – but it would have nothing like the impact of the WWW, where everybody interacts on the same platform.

Still, there are those who try to turn back time and change the outcome. This is the underlying context of the copyright war, the rationale behind political initiatives like ACTA, and an issue where Big Government and Big Business have coinciding interests.

At the same time, the Internet changes other markets like transportation and the hotel business. There is an emerging sharing economy. The Internet of things will change our lives in unforeseen ways.

The other side of the coin is that this technology might invade our privacy and be used for mass surveillance and political control.

This is a mix of spontaneous development (that politicians should keep away from) and some very political questions about privacy, data protection and the relation between citizens and the government.

A free and open Internet will provide endless possibilities and progress. And it will need Internet activism to stay free and open for all. That is, for instance, what this blog is all about.

/ HAX

Clinton strategist: Kill Julian Assange

It seems like some Hillary Clinton supporters are now fully on-board with the time-tested mafia-favored strategy of “kill-the-guy.” Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, referring to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told a Fox Business host panel that “a dead man can’t leak stuff,” and that someone should “illegally shoot the son of a b*tch.” These comments come after the famed whistle-blower implied that 27 year-old DNC staffer Seth Rich, recently (and mysteriously) murdered in Washington DC, was a Wikileaks source connected to the DNC email scandal.

Clinton Strategist: “Kill Julian Assange — A Dead Man Can’t Leak Stuff” »

A free and open Internet is crucial for a free and open society

We live in interesting times.

There is Big Brotherism, censorship of social media, information warfare, the war on terror, the war on drugs and politicians curtailing our civil liberties one small piece at a time. Soon we might have an entirely erratic president in the White House (who e.g. has threatened to close down the Internet) in control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In Russia, it’s all war rhetoric these days. In Turkey, the failed coup d’état has lead to an even more totalitarian political climate. Nationalism, protectionism, xenophobia and authoritarianism seems to be in demand. Corporatism has a firm grip over western politics, and the democratic deficit is growing. Things are shifting.

It is easy to be pessimistic and wise to be cautious.

My hope is with free flows of information. Not top down, but between people.

Information is power. An integrated network of citizens on the Internet limits the possibility for those in power to get away with bullshit. So, politicians hate it. (And they often gang up with other enemies of free information – e.g. the law- and intelligence community, the copyright industry and practically everybody who will never miss an opportunity to throw a moralistic, self-righteous fit.)

On the Internet – people can scrutinize the power elite. Citizen journalists and activists have platforms to publish significant and delicate information – that the ruling political class would prefer to keep away from the public eye. Knowledge, facts, and information are searchable at our fingertips. Lies can quickly be exposed. Authority can be questioned in a meaningful way. Spontaneous networking knows no borders and can give people a chance to look into, understand and change politics.

A free flow of information promotes cooperation. Often in new and unexpected ways. People in different places and countries will work together, spontaneously. The academic world will blossom. Relationships will develop. Good things will happen. Progress will occur. And people will never go to war against each other again. Stability, prosperity, and liberty will be the preferred position.

That is why a free and open Internet is important.

/ HAX

The two faces of Big Brotherism

There is a huge difference between government mass surveillance and commercial privacy infringements.

The government can use force to make you behave the way politicians and bureaucrats want you to behave. The government can limit your freedom and it tends to curtail your civil rights. In a state with total control, democracy will succumb. Living in a Big Brother society will be unbearable. Government mass surveillance is about control and power.

Commercial players tend to use the data they collect to try to sell you stuff – which basically is about influencing a voluntary relation. Or to evaluate partners (customers, suppliers etc.) that they conduct business with. Never the less, this can be very annoying, intrusive, damaging and even dangerous for the private individual.

We must keep in mind that these are two different issues. They are about totally different relations to the individual. They should be approached in different ways.

Sometimes I get the impression that certain parties in the public debate deliberately is trying to muddle the water. Politicians regularly try to lead the discussion away from government mass surveillance to issues concerning commercial actors. And when asked what they do to protect people’s right to privacy their answers often are about Facebook, Google, advertising and commercial data mining – when it ought to be about mass surveillance, data retention and the relations between citizens and the state.

They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that.

/ HAX

Government using private sector censorship for political objectives

Censorship is censorship. If you block someone from speaking freely or delete people’s content from the Internet you do censor them.

But there are different sorts of censorship.

One is when the government silences opposition, controversial voices or whatever. That is, in general terms, a violation of freedom of speech and our civil rights. That should not be accepted in a democratic society.

Another form of censorship is when Twitter censors Milo Yiannopolous, when Google censor artist Dennis Cooper or when Facebook is accused of downgrading news depending on political affiliations.

These are private companies and they choose to whom they want to provide their services. This is clearly stated in these companies voluminous terms and conditions.

So, OK – social media giants can censor people (and ideas). But should they?

The fact that Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter can censor people in a legally »correct« way in no way should protect them from being criticized for doing so.

And they should be criticized! Especially as their dominance on the social media scene is almost total. Their actions have political consequences. And they might very well have a political agenda.

(As a libertarian I run into this issue a lot. Just because I dislike something, I do not have the desire or right to outlaw it. But still, as a consumer, user or concerned citizen I am free to criticize e.g. censorship – and to loudly point out its risks and problems.)

But recently the lines are getting blurred. As I have pointed out in previous blog posts, governments (most recently the EU) are teaming up with major social media players to use the latter’s legal framework to silence voices that politicians dislike. Thus circumventing the legal system and the rule of law – and moving government censorship out of democratic control.

This is a serious, mounting problem.

/ HAX

Meanwhile, in France…

“The State of Emergency in France has been extended until January. In reaction to violence shaking the country and with the presidential election of 2017 only a few months away, political leaders are indulging an ignominious orgy of security-driven policy. Not satisfied with merely prolonging the state of emergency, lawmakers have also amended the 2015 Intelligence Act passed last year to legalize domestic mass surveillance.”

La Quadrature du Net » French State of Emergency: Overbidding Mass Surveillance »