Navigation

Archive | EU

EU pairing up with US online companies to censor the Internet

By on October 26, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Business, Censorship, EU, Facebook, Google, Internet

Then we have this one…

“In August 2015, the European Commission confirmed to EDRi that it’s preparing to partner with US online companies to set up an ‘EU Internet Forum’ which apparently includes discussing the monitoring and censorship of communications in Europe. Participants of this Forum include Facebook, Google/YouTube, Ask.fm, Microsoft and Twitter. The first meeting was held on 24 July 2015 and focused on ‘reducing accessibility to terrorist content’.”

Read more at EDRi: EU Commission: IT companies to fix “terrorist use of the Internet” »

0

Big Brother and Your Money

By on October 18, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Bitcoin, Economics, EU, Privacy, surveillance, Sweden

Many governments are getting very nervous. They struggle with debt, over spending, currency emergencies and new strains on the economy like the European refugee crisis.

So they are keen to make sure that all tax revenues that can be collected will be collected. And mass surveillance gives them a tool to do so.

Also, the move towards a cash free society makes it easier for politicians and bureaucrats to keep track of you and your money.

For years, we have sent bulk data about European bank transfers to the US security bureaucracy under the pretext of fighting terrorism and organized crime (TFTP). In the EU, plans are to replace this system with a European one — aimed to register, control and analyze all of our bank transfers.

In some high-tax countries with submissive population, like Sweden, information from data retention of telecommunications is already being used for taxation purposes.

And this is not just about taxes. If your government controls all your monetary assets, it owns you. Which might come in handy if, someday, people in power would like to curb opposition, limit your civil liberties — or just make your life very difficult.

With no private economic sphere, people are totally in the hands of their whimsical governments and its functionaries.

When it comes to “regular” surveillance concerns, having access to information about your transactions will provide the authorities with a cornucopia of information about you. More so than just surveillance of your electronic and telecommunications.

The government will always be able to give some reasons for its actions. Sometimes even seemingly rational ones. Like striking down on tax evasion. But even these reasons must be weighed against your right to privacy. Just passively accepting them could be used for introducing live surveillance of everybody 24/7.

It’s your life. And it’s your money. Period. The government should just get out of everybody’s hair.

If people could get themselves together and bring about a broader use of Bitcoins, we can bypass all of this governmental economic Big Brotherism.

/ HAX

1

TTIP: The deceitful EU commissioner

By on October 1, 2015 in Democracy, EU, Global Politics, Intellectual Property, Internet, TTIP, US

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

0

European Commission tries to evade Data Retention squabble

By on September 16, 2015 in Data Retention, EU, Human rights, Privacy

In April last year the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the EU Data Retention directive. The court found it to be in breach with human rights to collect and store data about all citizens all telecommunications.

Since then some countries have backed down from the idea, some (like Germany) are trying to go forward with some form of Data Retention “light” and some EU states (like Sweden) tries to ignore the ECJ ruling all together, continuing the practice as if nothing happened.

In a rather unexpected statement today, the European Commission (EC) tries to duck out of this controversy.

As the European Commission has repeatedly said since the European Court of Justice annulled the EU Data Retention Directive: the decision of whether or not to introduce national data retention laws is a national decision. The European Commission has no intention to go back on this statement or reopen old discussions.

We are aware that data retention is often the subject of a very sensitive, ideological debate and that sometimes there can be a temptation to draw the European Commission into these debates. The European Commission is not ready to play this game.

We have been very clear that the Commission is not coming forward with any new initiatives on Data Retention. In the absence of EU rules, Member States are free to maintain their current data retention systems or set up new ones, providing of course they comply with basic principles under EU law, such as those contained in the ePrivacy Directive.

We are therefore neither opposing, nor advocating the introduction of national data retention laws.

Link: European Commission statement on national data retention laws »

It’s easy to understand that the Commission would like to keep away from this dispute. But what the EC says in the statement is not self-evident.

The ECJ invalidated the directive on the basis that it is in breach with human rights, such as they are defined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

And if Data Retention was unacceptable as an EU directive, it should also be unacceptable as national law in EU member states. The principal problem with Data Retention is the same, regardless.

Now, both the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights are parts of the EU treaties. And the EC is the Guardian of the Treaties. Hence, the EC should have an obligation to uphold the ECJ ruling on Data Retention — in all of the EU, at all levels.

But it won’t. As usual in the EU, rules and treaties only apply when in line with what the EU elite wants.

/ HAX

Update: The EU eService Directive mentioned in the statement | Wikipedia » | Eur-Lex »

0

EU-US data protection agreement: Good news or bad?

By on September 9, 2015 in Big Brother, Data Protection, EU, PNR, US

The EU and US have reached a data protection “Umbrella agreement”.

The spin in the news is “EU citizens will have the right to sue US in case of privacy breaches”. (Link»)

And on the European Commissions web site eurocrats are trying to white wash the agreement. (Link»)

What is the EU-US data protection “Umbrella Agreement”?

The EU-US data protection “Umbrella Agreement” puts in place a comprehensive high-level data protection framework for EU-US law enforcement cooperation. The Agreement covers all personal data (for example names, addresses, criminal records) exchanged between the EU and the U.S. for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, including terrorism.

The Umbrella Agreement will provide safeguards and guarantees of lawfulness for data transfers, thereby strengthening fundamental rights, facilitating EU-U.S. law enforcement cooperation and restoring trust.

In particular, EU citizens will benefit from equal treatment: they will have the same judicial redress rights as US citizens in case of privacy breaches. This point was outlined by President Juncker in his political guidelines, when he stated: “The United States must […] guarantee that all EU citizens have the right to enforce data protection rights in U.S. courts, whether or not they reside on U.S. soil. Removing such discrimination will be essential for restoring trust in transatlantic relations”

Given the current, rather lawless, situation this is a step in the right direction.

But in a wider perspective, this might be bad news: It will open the flood gates when it comes to EU transferring sensitive personal data (e.g. concerning air traffic passenger information and European bank transfers) to the US. And this will serve as an argument for the European Commission to ignore the European Parliaments call to repeal the much criticized and abused Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

So, at the end of the day, this will be a carte blanche to transfer sensitive European personal data to the US. I’m not sure that is a good thing.

/ HAX

Update: The agreement has been leaked. Link 1 » | Link 2 »

0

EU: Parliament just came out in favour of Snowden, open-source, encryption, digital freedom and anonymity

By on September 8, 2015 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Data Retention, EU, Free Software, NSA & Snowden, Privacy, Rule of law, surveillance

Today, the European Parliament adopted a resolution called “Human rights and technology in third countries” (2014/2232(INI)).

This is just a resolution, not legislation, but very interesting nevertheless. The European Parliament…

3. Believes that the active complicity of certain EU Member States in the NSA’s mass surveillance of citizens and spying on political leaders, as revealed by Edward Snowden, has caused serious damage to the credibility of the EU’s human rights policy and has undermined global trust in the benefits of ICTs;

Shame on the Brits, French, Germans and Swedes. (And several others.)

6. Calls for the active development and dissemination of technologies that help protect human rights and facilitate people´s digital rights and freedoms as well as their security, and that promote best practices and appropriate legislative frameworks, while guaranteeing the security and integrity of personal data; urges, in particular, the EU and its Member States to promote the global use and development of open standards, and of free and open-source software and cryptographic technologies;

Nice. This is one we should remind the European Parliament about over and over again–when it tries to make decisions going in the other direction.

9. Urges the EU itself, and in particular the EEAS, to use encryption in its communications with human rights defenders, to avoid putting defenders at risk and to protect its own communications with outsiders from surveillance;

Welcome to the real world.

10. Calls on the EU to adopt free and open-source software, and to encourage other actors to do so, as such software provides for better security and for greater respect for human rights;

This is not the first time the EP makes such a statement. But real progress seems to be very slow.

14. Draws attention to the plight of whistleblowers and their supporters, including journalists, following their revelations of abusive surveillance practices in third countries; believes that such individuals should be considered human rights defenders and that, as such, they deserve the EU’s protection, as required under the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Member States to examine thoroughly the possibility of granting whistleblowers international protection from prosecution;

65. Calls for the scope for international protection of whistleblowers to be extended, and encourages the Member States to table laws to protect whistleblowers;

Very nice. But still, no EU member state is prepared to grant Edward Snowden refuge or asylum.

19. Calls for the inclusion of clauses in all agreements with third countries that refer explicitly to the need to promote, guarantee and respect digital freedoms, net neutrality, uncensored and unrestricted access to the internet, privacy rights and the protection of data;

So, if the EU-US Trade Agreement (TTIP) will include copyright enforcement threatening digital freedom and privacy–the EP will vote no?

We must be sure to make a note of that one. And the next…

20. Urges the EU to counter the criminalisation of human rights defenders’ use of encryption, censorship-bypassing and privacy tools, by refusing to limit the use of encryption within the EU, and to challenge third-country governments that level such charges against human rights defenders;

21. Urges the EU to counter the criminalisation of the use of encryption, anti-censorship and privacy tools by refusing to limit the use of encryption within the EU, and by challenging third-country governments that criminalise such tools;

61. Calls for each individual to be entitled to encryption, and for the conditions needed to allow encryption to be created; takes the view that controls should be a matter for the end user, who will need the skills required to carry out such controls properly;

62. Calls for the introduction of ‘end to end’ encryption standards as a matter of course for all communication services, so as to make it more difficult for governments, intelligence agencies and surveillance bodies to read content;

As far as I can understand, the European Parliament just came out strongly against a ban on encryption.

27. Considers mass surveillance that is not justified by a heightened risk of terrorist attacks and threats to be in violation of the principles of necessity and proportionality, and, therefore, a violation of human rights;

63. Emphasises the special responsibility of government intelligence services to build trust, and calls for an end to mass surveillance; considers that the monitoring of European citizens through domestic and foreign intelligence services must be addressed and stopped;

So, what’s about EU member states continuing data retention?

40. Calls for the development of policies to regulate the sales of zero-day exploits and vulnerabilities to avoid their being used for cyber-attacks, or for unauthorised access to devices leading to human rights violations, without such regulations having a meaningful impact on academic and otherwise bona fide security research;

In your face, NSA…

45. Condemns the weakening and undermining of encryption protocols and products, particularly by intelligence services seeking to intercept encrypted communications;

…and the GCHQ.

46. Warns against the privatisation of law enforcement through internet companies and ISPs;

This ought to be seen as a clear warning not to go down that road in the TTIP.

49. Calls explicitly for the promotion of tools enabling the anonymous and/or pseudonymous use of the internet, and challenges the one-sided view that such tools serve only to allow criminal activities, and not to empower human rights activists beyond and within the EU;

Actually, I’m overwhelmed. But then again, this is not legislation.

However all of the above can be very useful as a reminder when the EU Commission and Council tries to get the Parliament to do the opposite. Or when the Parliament suddenly goes bananas on its own. (It frequently does. It surely will happen again very soon.)

The text as PDF »

/ HAX

3

Euro crisis and the case for Bitcoin

By on September 5, 2015 in Bitcoin, EU

The European common currency, the Euro, is in trouble. As usual.

The past week the European Central Bank (ECB) gave a bleak forecast. The BBC reports…

The European Central Bank (ECB) has cut its inflation and growth forecasts for 2015 and the next two years.
It expects inflation in the eurozone to remain “very low” for some years as threats to economic growth increase.
ECB president Mario Draghi said Europe’s economic recovery would continue, “albeit at a somewhat weaker pace than expected”.
The euro fell sharply as Mr Draghi also hinted that the bank could expand its stimulus programme if necessary.
He was speaking after the ECB kept its main interest rate on hold at 0.05%.
The ECB is now forecasting economic growth in the eurozone of 1.4% in 2015, down from 1.5%, and 1.7% in 2016, compared with its previous projection of 1.9%.
However, Mr Draghi said that risks to the outlook for economic growth and inflation had worsened since mid-August, when the latest projections were calculated.

The Euro was doomed from the beginning–and is only kept alive by political prestige and with taxpayers money. But that can only go on for so long.

This ought to be a golden opportunity for Bitcoin.

From Greece and Cyprus we have learned that banks might close or limit withdrawals–or simply take peoples money. When the next crisis hits the Euro (we don’t know when or where, but it will happen over and over again) people simply cannot trust the banking system.

  • Bitcoin provides a firewall between banks, the government and peoples money.
  • Bitcoin provides a free, swift and simple method for payments even when banks are closed.
  • Bitcoin stands free from political manipulation, bureaucratic intervention and national economic meltdowns.

Everyone ought to have at least a few bitcoins. Before you know it, this might be the only workable way to send and receive funds. Seriously.

/ HAX

On the Euro: BBC | The Guardian | The Telegraph | NYT | Bloomberg

A good introduction to Blockchain and Bitcoin, from the BBC (radio) »

0

Industry wants NSA access to European personal data

By on August 27, 2015 in Big Brother, Data Protection, EU, Google, NSA & Snowden

The EU is in the process of modernising data protection — in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

One key point is that European personal data, stored in Europe should be protected under European law. Companies should be able to deny requests for personal data from non-member countries. Politico.eu explains…

A small section, Article 43a, says companies should not always comply with requests from courts, tribunals and administrative authorities in non-EU countries for the personal data of Europeans. The only exceptions would be under law enforcement treaties or relevant agreements between those countries and the EU, or individual European countries.

This ought to be a no-brainer. But it has turned out to be highly controversial. One reason might be that US intelligence and law enforcement would like to have access to as much as possible. (And sadly they probably will, under other agreements and treaties. But it shouldn’t be the default mode.)

This is the position of the European Parliament. However, EU member states in the European Council are not at all happy with this article. Apparently, their allegiance does not lie with the citizens and European business.

And now the Industry Coalition for Data Protection (ICDP) composed of Big Data, IT- and telecoms multinationals have stepped in to kill article 43a.

The coalition sent a letter this week to Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová, parliamentary rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP, and the Luxembourg presidency of the Council of the EU — the key representatives of the three institutions that are currently negotiating the regulation’s text.

The letter from ICDP said that adopting a “unilateral approach” would create deliberate conflicts of law and severely undermine “both the principles of reciprocity in diplomatic relations as well as the credibility of the EU data protection reform.”

Apparently, these companies are more concerned about their relations with US authorities than data protection.

Politico.eu: Industry issues plea over data reform »

/ HAX

0

Reclaim democracy!

By on August 15, 2015 in Democracy, EU, Intellectual Property, TTIP, US

“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 »

0

A first sign of an EU ban on encryption?

By on August 1, 2015 in Big Brother, Cryptography, EU, NSA & Snowden, Sweden

I noticed that UK Prime Minister Camerons idea that governments should be able to circumvent encryption (the “backdoor” concept) has been echoed by the leader of the Swedish parliamentary opposition, the centre-right partys (Moderaterna) Anna Kinberg Batra.

At a glance this seems to be rather insignificant. But you should know that under the former Swedish centre-right government Sweden established itself as a very close partner to US NSA and British GCHQ. The Snowden files reveals that Sweden (code name: Sardine) is in so close cooperation with the US lead “five eyes coalition” that you could actually talk of a “six eyes coalition”. When the Swedish electronic surveillance organisation Försvarets Radioanstalt (FRA) was given extended mandate it is said that the US helped the Swedish government to draft the new law. And many of the shady details of the FRA law seems to be copied from the US legislative framework.

The Swedish opposition leader wouldn’t do anything concerning mass surveillance without consulting with the US and the UK. (And the present Swedish red-green government is just as compliant.)

This is what is significant. When Swedish politicians echo what is being said in Washington and London – you can be almost certain that there is some coordinated political action going on. And when it comes to Big Brotherism, Sweden is a really bad influence on other EU member states.

This might very well be the first sign that a ban on encryption is to be coordinated at a European level. (It is open to question if this is within EU competence. But if not, the member states probably will do as usual: Coordinate national legislation after an informal conclusion in the Council.)

/ HAX

1