Navigation

Archive | Hacktivism

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

By on August 9, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Business, Big Government, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Hacktivism, Intellectual Property, Internet, Transparency, War on Terror

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

0

Law enforce­ment should be difficult

By on August 2, 2016 in Anonymity, Big Brother, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Hacktivism

“I think law enforce­ment should be difficult. And it should actually be possible to break the law.”

“Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100 percent effective, such that any potential offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed,” he wrote. “How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same-sex marriage should be permitted?”

Wired: Meet Moxie Marlinspike, the Anarchist Bringing Encryption to All of Us »

0

Libertarian Presidential candidate: Pardon for Snowden, Manning and others

By on July 29, 2016 in Hacktivism, Manning, Snowden, US

The U.S.’s most popular third-party presidential candidate says he would “consider” pardoning the highest profile convicts of computer-related crimes in the country, including Chelsea Manning, Ross Ulbricht, and Jeremy Hammond.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, also reiterated his possible willingness to pardon Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency analyst who gave a cache of agency documents to journalists in 2013. Snowden currently resides in Russia, which granted him temporary asylum after the U.S. charged him with violating the Espionage Act.

Vocativ: Gary Johnson: I’d Consider Pardoning Snowden, Manning »

0

Make UN member states stand by their word on the Internet and privacy

By on July 4, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Global Politics, Hacktivism, Human rights, Intelligence, Police state, Privacy, Rule of law, surveillance

“1. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;”

These are words from the United Nations Human Rights Council, in a declaration of the 27:th of June. (PDF») It continues…

“8. Calls upon all States to address security concerns on the Internet in accordance with their international human rights obligations to ensure protection of freedom of expression, freedom of association, privacy and other human rights online, including through national democratic, transparent institutions, based on the rule of law, in a way that ensures freedom and security on the Internet so that it can continue to be a vibrant force that generates economic, social and cultural development;”

“9. Condemns unequivocally all human rights violations and abuses, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention, expulsion, intimidation and harassment, as well as gender based violence, committed against persons for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms on the Internet, and calls on all States to ensure accountability in this regard;”

“10. Condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and calls on all States to refrain from and cease such measures;”

Great! Or… what?

I cannot help noticing that Turkey is one of the signing countries… And Poland, despite the country’s ever more dubious approach to free speech.

The United Kingdom (with the GCHQ) and the United States (home of the NSA) have signed the declaration. And countries like Sweden (FRA), Germany (BND) – who are part of the global surveillance network.

Do they really mean what they say? Probably not.

This is a great UN declaration. But the fight for a free and open internet, free speech, privacy and civil rights still needs to be fought by an army of activists. You simply cannot trust governments with this, just because they say so.

It’s like 5 July 2012. The day that gave the 5 July-foundation (who, among other things is running this blog) its name. (Read more») This was the date for an ambitious UN resolution “on the Promotion, Protection, and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet”.

Then, like now, we believe that words are not enough and that the Internet community must engage in the battle to defend the values stated in the resolution.

Today the 5 July-foundation runs several projects for security, privacy and liberty. (Read more»)

Actually, today is also the second anniversary of this blog – trying to identify threats to digital liberty. I hope you enjoy it.

And let’s use this UN resolution as valuable support when our governments go back to Big Brother Business as usual. We have their words on paper. And we demand that they stand by them!

/ HAX

• The Declaration (PDF) »
• UN rights council condemns internet blocking »
• UN rights council condemns the disruption of internet access »
• UN Human Rights Body Condemns Nations Blocking Internet Access »
• UN Human Rights Council Passes Resolution ‘Unequivocally’ Condemning Internet Shutdowns »
• Disrupting Internet Access Is A Human Rights Violation, UN Says »

0

Silicon Valley on mass surveillance: Enough is enough

By on June 17, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Protection, Hacktivism, IT security, Police state, Privacy, surveillance

Washington Post:

Like many Silicon Valley start-ups, Larry Gadea’s company collects heaps of sensitive data from his customers.

Recently, he decided to do something with that data trove that was long considered unthinkable: He is getting rid of it.

The reason? Gadea fears that one day the FBI might do to him what it did to Apple in their recent legal battle: demand that he give the agency access to his encrypted data. Rather than make what he considers a Faustian bargain, he’s building a system that he hopes will avoid the situation entirely.

WP: What’s driving Silicon Valley to become ‘radicalized’ »

0

Now, please focus on Tor and its future

By on June 12, 2016 in Hacktivism, TOR

The Tor community is boiling with infighting as high-profile member Jacob Appelbaum have left the project — after allegations of sexual misconduct (and alleged sociopathic behavior).

I know nothing about what’s really going on. I don’t know the involved parties. And the more I read, the more muddled the whole affair seems to be.

(This has been all over the news, there are allegations, rebuttals, counter-arguments and a lot of discussion and speculations.)

My main concern is: What about Tor?

Tor is an important tool for people all over the world, who need to be anonymous on the Internet. In some cases, it’s really a matter of life or death.

No matter how you view the Appelbaum case. There is an obvious risk that all of this will derail the entire Tor project.

Having seen the Swedish and the German Pirate Parties going down in flames after infighting, I can recognize some sort of underlying tone in the Tor dispute. Conflicts in tech-oriented communities often tend to spiral out of control and reason.

This will lead to no good, believe me.

Now, please focus on Tor and its future.

/ HAX

0

The Closing of the Net

By on May 13, 2016 in Big Data, Big Entertainment, Big Government, Copyright, Data Retention, Hacktivism, Intellectual Property, Internet, Privacy

Monica Hortens new book The Closing of the Net is now available.

In a mail to colleagues, fans and friends she writes…

I am delighted to announce that my new book “The Closing of the Net” has been released.

“The Closing of the Net” discusses how political decisions are influencing the future direction of Internet communication. As the interests of powerful businesses are manipulating governments and policymakers, and become more embedded in the online world, so these corporations seek greater exemption from liability. The book confronts the deepening cooperation between large companies and the state. Political manoeuvrings, it argues, suggest that the original vision of a free and democratic Internet is rapidly being eclipsed by a closed, market-led, heavily monitored online ecosystem. “The Closing of the Net” tackles the controversies surrounding individual rights today, addressing policy agendas such as net neutrality, copyright and privacy. It includes research that I have not previously published on topics including Megaupload, the EU Data Retention Directive, UK copyright lawsuits, and more.

“The Closing of the Net” is published by Polity Press http://tinyurl.com/zhqz5j6 and is available from Amazon http://amzn.to/1S6zxJ7 It has been described as “thriller-esque”! I do hope you enjoy it.

Monica Horten gave us a lot of important input about the Telecoms Package and other net oriented dossiers when I worked with the Pirate Party in the European Parliament.

0

Chelsea Manning winner of Blueprint Enduring Impact Whistleblowing Prize

By on May 10, 2016 in Civil liberties, Hacktivism, Manning, Transparency, Wikileaks

Chelsea Manning, the former Army soldier convicted of the biggest leak of classified documents in U.S. history, was honored in absentia Monday at a London ceremony for her role in providing Wikileaks with secret documents concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manning, 35, was named the winner of this year’s Blueprint Enduring Impact Whistleblowing Prize during an event hosted by Blueprint for Free Speech, a Melbourne-based nonprofit, at the London offices of the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“The award recognizes the exceptional importance of the disclosures by Manning in revealing the illegal practice of torture and detention, and in increasing the public understanding of the impact of war on civilians.”

The Washington Times: Chelsea Manning honored with award, cash prize for WikiLeaks disclosures »

0

UK: The Lauri Love case

By on April 4, 2016 in Big Brother, Cryptography, Hacktivism, IT security, UK, US

It is a general principle in democracies under the rule of law that a person suspected of a crime should not be forced to incriminate himself. And the European Convention of Human Rights clearly stipulates the presumption of innocence.

Having that in mind, the Lauri Love case in the UK is troublesome.

Love is being accused of hacking U.S. government computer systems a few years back. He is now fighting extradition to the U.S. — and the British authorities when it comes to the contents of his computers.

The Intercept:

Following Love’s arrest in 2013, the National Crime Agency, or NCA, seized computers and hard drives in his possession. He was then served with an order under Section 49 of the U.K’s controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which demanded that he hand over his passwords to open encrypted files stored on the devices.

Years have passed since then — and when Love decided to sue to have his computers and hard drives back, authorities renewed their efforts to access them under Section 49. There will be a court hearing April 12.

“I don’t have any alternative but to refuse to comply,” he told The Intercept. “The NCA are trying to establish a precedent so that an executive body — i.e., the police — can take away your computers and if they are unable to comprehend certain portions of data held on them, then you lose the right to retain them. It’s a presumption of guilt for random data.” (…)

(So I guess you better not have any files with white noise on your hard drive.)

This is not just about Mr. Love. The case can set a dangerous president.

Naomi Colvin, a campaigner for transparency advocacy group the Courage Foundation, told The Intercept that she believed the case could have “huge implications for journalists, activists, and others who need to guard confidential information” — potentially setting a precedent that could make it easier in the future for British police and security agencies to gain access to, or to seize and retain, encrypted material.

In the end, it all boils down to one simple question: Should the government have the right to force you to decrypt encrypted information?

Apart from Ms. Colvins arguments (above), we must consider what would happen if governments are allowed to force you to incriminate yourself. It would shatter presumption of innocence. It could throw court cases into deadlock over evidence that do not exist or cannot be accessed. It would give the prosecution an unfair advantage — especially over innocent individuals, who could be detained until they give up and “confess”.

Equally important, in my mind, is that your personal information is closely connected to your person. It is of less importance if this information is stored in your mind or on an encrypted hard drive. The information you possess is a part of who you are and your life. As long as people are regarded as self-owning individuals (and not the property of the government) everyone should have the right to respect for their own person. (And for private and family life, home, and correspondence.)

But I’m not too hopeful. The Intercept:

Court documents show that the agency requested — and a judge approved — that witness statements and skeleton arguments should not be disclosed “to the press, the public, or any third party save with the leave of the court until after the final hearing, and then only in relation to such matters as are referred to in open court or as permitted or directed by the court.”

/ HAX

Read the full story in The Intercept: British authorities demand encryption keys in case with “huge implications” »

4