Navigation

Archive | Human rights

The Assange case – coming to a close, or not?

By on March 19, 2017 in Assange, Human rights, Rule of law, Sweden, Wikileaks

In the Assange case, Swedish prosecutors seem to be running out of excuses for dragging their feet.

The hearing at the Ecuadorian embassy in London is completed, after many years of delays. The transcript has been translated into Swedish. At least almost. On its web page, the Prosecutors’ Office writes (my translation)…

The prosecutors still awaits the translation of minor sections of the report. These are expected to be completed shortly.

Now, the Prosecutors’ Office will analyze the report and subsequently decide what other investigative meassures could be taken to move the investigation forward.

I suspect that the phrase »other investigative measures« will be of importance.

This case has dragged out for years, partly because of Assange – but mainly because of Swedish prosecutors unwillingness to move the case forward.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect that there are interested parties who are quite happy having Julian Assange tucked away and guarded in a small embassy behind Harrods in London. This will hamper the work of Wikileaks and take a mental toll on Assange himself. Even a U.N. panel has objected to this form of treatment.

Once again, all attention will be directed at the Swedish Prosecutors’ Office. Will it finally decide to move the case forward or maybe close it? The latter would make most sense – if you look at the facts in this case, already well known to the world.

Or will they invent some new »investigative measures« as an excuse to keep Assange in limbo? I wouldn’t be surprised if they do.

This is no longer about justice. It’s about Sweden handling this case in a biased and unjust way – because of who Julian Assange is. And this goes all the way back to the Prosecutors Special Unit for »Advancement« of Sex Crimes re-opening this case after it had been closed by the regular branch of the Prosecutors’ Office.

I guess we’ll know what’s going to happen within the next few weeks. Or maybe not.

/ HAX

1

Facebook, Twitter asked to help Pakistani government to sentence people to death

By on March 18, 2017 in Civil rights, Democracy, Facebook, Human rights, social media

Pakistan has asked Facebook and Twitter to help identify Pakistanis suspected of blasphemy so it can prosecute them or pursue their extradition.

Under the country’s strict blasphemy laws, anyone found to have insulted Islam or the prophet Muhammad can be sentenced to death.

The Guardian: Pakistan asks Facebook and Twitter to help identify blasphemers »

0

Fake news is nothing new

By on March 6, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Business, Big Entertainment, Big Government, Censorship, Civil rights, Data Protection, Democracy, disinformation, Free Information, Free Markets, Freedom of Speech, Hacktivism, Human rights, Intellectual Property, Internet, Privacy, War on Terror

The debate on »fake news« might be new to some. But for us who are activist when it comes to a free and open internet, privacy and civil rights – this is what we have been fighting for a very long time.

Governments strive towards »total information awareness« has always been excused with e.g. the war on terror, the war on drugs, child protection, fighting organized crime and national security.

The same arguments – and some other, like hate speech – have been used to restrict free speech and freedom of information.

Then we have the corporatist battle over copyright vs. the Internet – sacrificing a global, free flow of information to save outdated business models.

When activists find out and go public, the reaction from politicians and bureaucrats is normally that we have got it all wrong. But the swarm is resourceful, and often we find some sort of a smoking gun. In a few cases, we manage to stop what is going on (like ACTA). In some cases, we manage to change details (like the EU telecoms package). But normally we loose. Then the proposals become law. And most things we warned people about is actually happening.

Told you so.

(In some very rare cases – like EU data retention – the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights objects strongly enough to stop what is happening in its’ tracks.)

Today the concept of total information awareness is a reality in countries like the U.S., the U.K., and France. In Germany, it has just been legalized.

And after decades of legal battles, it seems as if Big Entertainment is getting closer to having the Internet Service Providers to police the Internet – leading to extrajudicial filtering and censorship without the possibility to redress.

During the processes leading up to all of this – politicians and bureaucrats have labeled resistance as delusions and activists as tin foil hats. Doing so, they have managed to keep their plans under the radar, away from the public eye and the media. Until it’s too late.

I have seen lots of disinformation, faked news, and cover-ups trough the years. It has been used by politicians, governments, and special interests – forcing their restrictions on our free and open internet, undermining a democratic society and disturbing the free market.

The concept of fake news might have become a bit more obvious lately – but it is nothing new. The only reason it’s such a big thing at the moment is that it has been used by others than governments, mainstream politicians, bureaucrats and special business interests.

/ HAX

 

0

EU tech still used to suppress democracy

By on February 23, 2017 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Civil rights, EU, Global Politics, Human rights

In order to prevent dictatorships from abusing European technology to crack down on political opposition, the EU started regulating the export of surveillance technology a few years ago. But that has far from stopped the exports to problematic countries, a cross-border investigation reveals.

A problem is that non-democratic countries use European standard configurated IT-systems – that have mass surveillance functions as a default feature.

Information.dk: Europe’s exports of spy tech to authoritarian countries revealed »

0

What is wrong with the EU Terrorism Directive?

By on February 15, 2017 in Big Brother, Civil rights, EU, Human rights, Police state, War on Terror

Tomorrow – Thursday 16 February – the European Parliament votes on the EU Terrorism Directive. EDRi lists some of the things being wrong with this directive:

  • There are gaps in the harmonisation of the definition of terrorist offences. The Directive uses ambiguous and unclear wording, giving an unacceptably wide margin of manoeuvre to Member States. For example, the Directive criminalises “glorifying” terrorism without clearly defining it. This won’t prevent abuses experienced in countries like France.
  • “The criminalisation of the attempt is also extended to all offences…with the exception of receiving training and facilitating travel abroad”. This creates risks for fundamental rights and legal certainty. In addition, the European Parliamentary Research Service has recognised that “establishing a ‘terrorist intention’ may prove a challenge.”
  • The Directive’s scope touches on activities with little to no direct relationship to actual terrorist acts. For instance, hacking-related activities can be terrorist offences. Attempting or threatening to hack an information system can be punished as a terrorist offence in a Member State. Teaching somebody how to attack an information system (e.g. hacking) can be a terrorist offence. Seeking information on how to conduct an attack to an information system, can lead to a charge for committing a terrorist offence. In addition, inciting somebody to teach how to hack an information system can be a criminal offence.
  • Establishment of new offences, such as “receiving training for terrorism”, which includes consulting (non-defined) terrorist websites. Consulting (non-defined) terrorist websites can be a terrorist offence if the person is judged to have had a terrorism-related purpose and intention to commit a terrorist offence. However, the Directive says that criminal intent can be inferred from the type of materials and the frequency in which an individual consults websites, for example. On top of this, it will not be necessary for a terrorist offence to be committed or to “establish a link” to other offences in order to be punished. The Directive also says that inciting someone to consult “terrorist websites” can be punishable by Member States.
  • Member States can impose criminal liability on companies failing to remove or block terrorist websites.
  • The process for adopting the proposal avoided all of the elements of good law-making. It was made in December 2015 without meaningful consultation, public debate or even an impact assessment. To give an idea of the importance of impact assessments, we recall that the impact assessment for amending the Framework Decision 2002 looked at the available information and opted not to recommend the adoption of blocking measures because, among other dangers, it creates a risk of jeopardising investigations and prosecutions. The 2007 impact assessment also stated that “the adoption of blocking measures … can only be imposed by law, subject to the principle of proportionality, with respect to the legitimate aims pursued and to their necessity in a democratic society, excluding any form or arbitrariness or discriminatory or racist treatment.”. In the Terrorism Directive, blocking measures can be imposed by non-legislative action. In addition, it is not even clear whether regulating non-regulated “voluntary” measures by internet companies falls under the legal basis of the Directive.

It’s a mess. A dangerous mess.

Read more and get all the links at EDRi: The time has come to complain about the Terrorism Directive »

0

Told you so

By on January 30, 2017 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Democracy, Human rights, Police state, surveillance, TTIP, US

Do criticize and protest against president Trump. He deserves it.

But do not forget that you were warned against mass surveillance and other forms of Bigbrotherism long before Trump.

When people now react to the Trump-administrations ideas of having all who travel to the US to hand over social media information and cell phone contacts…

Miller also noted on Saturday that Trump administration officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose all websites and social media sites they visit, and to share the contacts in their cell phones. If the foreign visitor declines to share such information, he or she could be denied entry.

…they should remember that this is the brainchild of the Obama administration. Then it was voluntarily, but none the less.

A bad idea is a bad idea, whoever comes up with it. This should have been stopped in its tracks, from the beginning.

It’s not about liking or trusting a certain politician or a political party. It’s a matter of principle.

You should never give government tools for mass surveillance (or other tools that can be used to oppress the people) that wouldn’t be safe regardless of whose hands it ends up in.

Ignorance and partisanship brought us here.

And yet, we have no idea of how President Trump is going to use or abuse the powers of the CIA and the technical capabilities of the NSA.

/ HAX

0