Navigation

Archive | Global Politics

This category covers subjects that are too broad to fit elsewhere. It possibly overlaps other categories.

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

UN proposes web policing and licensing for social networks

By on September 26, 2015 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Global Politics, Human rights, Internet, surveillance, UN

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 »

1

The EU and a global ban on encryption

By on February 15, 2015 in Cryptography, Data Protection, Democracy, EU, Global Politics, Internet, Privacy, surveillance, US

Will encryption become illegal? Will governments demand “golden keys” to commonly used encryption? If governments will go after encryption, will they make a difference between encryption used in Internet “base traffic” and encryption used by people to protect their mail and hard drives? What about apps? Nobody seems to know. All we do know is that governments would like to have access to all our communications.

Even if they have tried to keep it under wraps EU member states would like to circumvent encryption. In a leaked dokument from the informal meeting with EU justice and home affairs ministers the other week (PDF), we have it in writing…

“Since the Snowden revelations, internet and telecommunications companies have started to use often de-centralized encryption which increasingly makes lawful interception by the relevant national authorities technically difficult or even impossible. The Commission should be invited to explore rules obliging internet and telecommunications companies operating in the EU to provide under certain conditions as set out in the relevant national laws and in full compliance with fundamental rights access of the relevant national authorities to communications (i.e. share encryption keys). “

So, we pretty much know what the EU stance will be at the Global Security Summit, in the US nest week.

Interestingly, the European Parliament seems to have an opposite position. In its resolution on mass surveillance of March 2014, the Parliament states that…

[The EP] calls on the Commission to […] ensure a high level of security of telecommunication networks and services, including by way of requiring state-of-the-art end-to-end encryption of communications.

[The EP] calls for the EU to take the lead in […] rerouting of Internet traffic or full end-to-end encryption of all Internet traffic so as to avoid the current risks associated with unnecessary routing of traffic through the territory of countries that do not meet basic standards on fundamental rights, data protection and privacy.

[The EP] calls for the promotion of … encrypting communication in general, including email and SMS communication.

Apparently the European Parliament takes a very different stand, compared to EU member states.

And the Council of Europe (a parlament-like assembly with representatives from most European countries, including non-EU states) makes its position clear in a report…

“The assembly is deeply worried about threats to internet security by the practice of certain intelligence agencies […] of seeking out systematically, using and even creating “back doors” […] which could easily be exploited also by terrorists and cyber-terrorists or other criminals. […] The creation of “back doors” or any other techniques to weaken or circumvent security measures or exploit their existing weaknesses should be strictly prohibited.”

Again, this is a clear standpoint, the very opposite to that of EU member states.

To continue, we have a study from the European Parliament’s Science and Technology Options Assessment unit stating…

“The only way for citizens to counteract surveillance and prevent breach of privacy consists in guaranteeing uncorrupted end-to-end encryption of content and transport channel in all their communications.”

“The EU should invest in resilient open source implementations of different encryption specifications that can be verified and validated for correctness … providing users with unbreakable cryptographic protection. … The EU should invest in making users aware […] how [they] can reduce their digital footprint by following behavioural rules and applying encryption and anonymising principles.”

To put it simply: EU member states would love to have a ban on encryption or a “golden key”. Other relevant European institutions take an opposite standpoint — valuing and defending encryption.

But it will be the EU member states (and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator) who are present at the Global Security Summit in Washington the coming week. And they will try to make their position global policy.

There is a way to get an encryption ban / golden key out of the summits agenda. That is to make this a public issue, to get the media involved and for people to speak out against this madness.

What we do right now will define our future.

/ HAX

Links:
• Not this again! Europe mustn’t backtrack on its support of encryption and rejection of surveillance »
• Next Week, World Leaders Will Meet to Talk About How Much They Hate Encryption »
• Council of the European Union (EU member states) PDF »
• Council of Europe (PDF) »
• UK Surveillance Consultation Suggests It Is End-Point Security, Not Encryption, That Cameron Wants To Subvert »
• In two weeks time, world leaders may decide to undermine encryption »

0

ISPs to be dragged into the War on Terror?

By on January 12, 2015 in Censorship, EU, Global Politics, Internet, US, War on Terror

Sunday, interior ministers from EU member states, EU Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs Dimitris Avramopoulos, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., U.S. Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, the minister of Public Safety of Canada Steven Blaney and European Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove all met in Paris.

Their mission was to come up with a response to the Paris terror attacks.

“We reaffirm our unfailing attachment to the freedom of expression, to human rights, to pluralism, to democracy, to tolerance and to the rule of law: They are the foundation of our democracies and are at the heart of the European Union.”

OK. Thanks…

“We are concerned at the increasingly frequent use of the Internet to fuel hatred and violence and signal our determination to ensure that the Internet is not abused to this end, while safeguarding that it remains, in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law. With this in mind, the partnership of the major Internet providers is essential to create the conditions of a swift reporting of material that aims to incite hatred and terror and the condition of its removing, where appropriate/possible.”

Somehow, all the reassurances about fundamental rights–in this context–makes me a bit uneasy. From working in the European Parliament, I have learned that when something is wrapped up in this kind of language you should be on your guard.

What it all boils down to is to involve Internet service providers more in removing jihadist sites. It seems.

It’s unclear in what way this changes anything from today. If a site is illegal, normally it will be removed. Is the idea to cut out the judicial process from the operation? Or what?

Some of the wordings shows similarities to what has been discussed when it comes to copyright infringements. And in that setting, the purpose has been to make ISPs responsible for policing the net.

So, are they trying to make ISPs responsible for tracking down and censoring jihadist sites?

We don’t know. Yet.

The EU officials will continue their talks at the “informal” Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) in Riga on January 29. And it will be on the agenda at the next EU summit. Then, in February all the people from the Paris meeting will come together again, in the U.S..

Be vigilant. Before you know it ISPs might find themselves between a rock and a hard place. In the front line of the War on Terror.

/ HAX

DW: Data sharing, tighter EU outer border, urged at Paris talks »
Joint statement from the Paris meeting (PDF) »

2

Intellectual property and trade agreements vs. a free and open internet

By on September 19, 2014 in EU, Global Politics, Intellectual Property, Internet, TTIP

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights is often included in various international trade agreements.

Sometimes this is done in general terms, not making any distinction between e.g. patents, copyright, trademarks and geographical indications. Politicians just look at the supposed value of IP–and decide that they want to protect it. (A rather blunt approach.)

In other cases IP issues are very specific, like in the (rejected) ACTA agreement. In ACTA the text suggested “voluntary cooperation” between copyright holders and internet service providers (ISP:s) to curb online piracy. This would, had the agreement been approved, have led to ISP:s having to police the net. And to police the net, you need to inspect and analyze all internet traffic.

Both approaches are problematic. Especially as international trade agreements normally are negotiated by bureaucrats behind closed doors–in effect impossible to influence for the general public and our elected representatives. This is a serious problem, as these agreements often will have the same impact as laws.

Naturally, you must be able to distinguish between different sorts of IP.

And you must make sure that international trade agreements are in line with important legal principles–as mere conduit in the EU E-Commerce Directive, ensuring that internet service providers are not liable for the information transmitted.

The next international trade agreement that might try to enforce IP rights is the EU-US free trade agreement, TTIP.

Naturally, free trade as in free trade is commendable. And if the interested parties are serious about setting up a transatlantic area of free trade–they ought to go easy on the IP chapter (or leave it out all together).

Any new attempts to enforce certain IP rights by trade agreements will backfire the same way ACTA did.

Links:
Cato Institute on Intellectual Property in Trade Agreements »
The ACTA demon rises. Again. And again. And again… »
Electronic Commerce Directive (EU) »
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) »

/ HAX

0

The enemy stands at our gates

By on July 29, 2014 in Big Brother, Big Government, Democracy, Global Politics, Internet

Twitter, TOR, encryption and P2P-solutions for safe communications have been important tools for democracy activism in many far away countries. And now we in Europe must realize that a free and open Internet might be of the utmost importance–for exactly the same reason–for us.

Government is getting more and more non-transparent. War on terror is eroding democracy. War on drugs is wearing down the rule of law. The close cooperation between some European countries and the NSA is undermining our civil rights.

And in some places authoritarian tendencies are now being hailed to become official policy. For example in Hungary, where prime minister Viktor Orbán recently declared that the era of liberal democracy is over. Now he points to countries like Russia, Turkey, Singapore and China as successful role models.

This is serious stuff. We didn’t stop the ruling political class from obtaining very strong and far reaching tools for mass surveillance. And now–an EU nation is actually deliberating to leave the road of democracy and civil liberties.

Actually, most tools for surveillance and censorship that are used to control people in dark places are not created exclusively for those countries. It is the default configuration for practically all our telecoms systems, placed there on request from our own police forces, our own intelligence bureaucrats and with the blessing from our own politicians.

And then, suddenly the political system changes towards authoritarian and totalitarian standards.

Oups.

We urgently need to reinforce our systems for encryption, anonymity and safe communications. The enemy stands at our gates.

/ HAX

1

NSA mass surveillance weakens western demoracy

By on July 11, 2014 in Global Politics, NSA & Snowden

So, the Germans finally lost their patience.

First the Snowden files exposed massive US surveillance of the German public. Then came information about the NSA having bugged chancellor Merkels phone. And the last few days we have found out about two US spies inside German intelligence. And possible surveillance of German politicians involved in Bundestags special NSA committee.

Apparently the US government is willing to give German politicians as much bullshit as they can take. But finally, the Germans have made it clear that enough is enough. The head of the CIA Berlin station is asked to leave the country.

Now, this does not only complicate things in US–German relations. It creates a European surveillance divide, as some national intelligence agencies in the EU–such as British GCHQ and Swedish FRA–are very close to the NSA. These countries stand with the US in this matter, not with Germany.

One can only picture what the implications will be at places such as EU:s INTCEN and NATO:s SITCEN. And imagine the delight in Moscow…

Overambitious surveillance carried out by a pretentious NSA and the inept handling of this matter by the White House has led to a crisis for western intelligence community as such.

And, as a matter of fact, this community do have a role to play–to protect us from external enemies.

By insisting to harvest information about ordinary, innocent, honest citizens telecoms and internet activities–the NSA is about to destroy the things about intelligence and spycraft that actually might be useful and important.

This ought to worry even those who are hawks in international security matters: NSA is killing trust, creating a divide between western allies. By arrogance and overreaching, the NSA is actually weakening western democracies.

The incompetence.

/HAX

0