China is reinforcing its censorship of the internet with a campaign to crack down on unauthorized connections, including virtual private network (VPN) services, that allow users to bypass restrictions known as the Great Firewall. (…)
The ministry said it was forbidden to create or rent communication channels, including VPNs, without governmental approval, to run cross-border operations.
Reuters: China cracks down on unauthorized internet connections »
Many people fear the new U.S. president, Donald Trump. They might be right. Or not. But I think that we might oversimplify this issue.
Yes, Mr. Trump has the image of a despot. But it might be dangerous to judge a book by its’ cover. Not that we should »underestimate« Trump – but because it might lead to a false sense of security in other cases.
Presidents Bush and Obama were the ones expanding the Surveillance State that has now been handed over to the new administration. Their responsibility is immense. And the way they themselves used mass surveillance justifies very strong criticism.
In Europe, democratically elected leaders are rolling out the most massive mass surveillance regime in history. May in the UK, the »Großkolaition« in Germany and the French – they are all creating tools that can very easily be used to oppress the people. This even goes for countries with strong(ish) democratic and human rights credentials, like Sweden.
The EU is setting up the first major system for selective censorship of the Internet. And it’s being done outside the democratic process and institutions, outside the rule of law.
There is every reason to closely watch what the new U.S. administration is up to. But there are equally strong reasons to watch what is going on in the rest of the western world, under the cloak of parliamentary democracy.
It’s not just about what first meets the eye, but what is being done.
/ HAX
The old adage goes ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’, but a detailed analysis of the human rights cost of the fast-expanding security state in Europe suggests otherwise. (…)
Overly broad definitions of terrorism are a big part of the problem. Because there is no universally agreed definition, states and international bodies have created their own. But in that process, definitions of terrorism have become increasingly vague, so that they can be arbitrarily applied, meaning law-abiding citizens can be subjected to unwarranted surveillance, administrative orders which restrict their liberties, intrusive searches and worse.
Amnesty International » Dangerously disproportionate: The ever-expanding National Security State in Europe »
EDRi: 2017 – another extremely challenging year for digital rights »
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has – once again – ruled that data retention (storage of data on everybody’s phone calls, text messages, e-mails, Internet connections, mobile positions etc.) is in breach of fundamental human rights.
Nevertheless, politicians in several EU member states are trying their hardest to ignore the court. For them, Big Brotherism carries more weight than human and civil rights.
Let that sink in.
Politicians are more interested in controlling the people than defending its rights. They are more interested in treating ordinary people as potential criminals than upholding principles that are pivotal to a democratic society. They degrade citizens to subordinates, to be ruled over and supervised.
Never, ever expect politicians to defend civil rights. Their agenda is a very different one.
/ HAX
Cuba’s state-run telecommunications company Etecsa has signed a deal with Google that will enable faster access to content from the American company.
Under the deal, the technology giant will install servers in Cuba to improve connectivity speeds to Google services, including Gmail and YouTube. (…)
Even though most Cubans are likely to see the deal with Google as a step forward, it will do little to change the overall online accessibility in the country.
BBC: Cuba signs deal for faster internet access to Google content »
This week the Human Rights Committee (LIBE) in the European Parliament will finalize the formalities on the new EU directive on combating terrorism. There is little room for changes, as there has been closed door negotiations (trialogue) on the content between the Parliament, the Council (member states) and the Commission. From LIBE the directive will go to the vote in the December Parliamentary plenary session in Strasbourg.
This directive is an odd document as national security is not formally an EU competence. Newer the less, it has been rushed trough the system and is now close to becoming EU law.
The document can be seen as a response to the Paris and Brussels terrorist attacks. It is surely the result of pressure on EU member states interior ministers to be seen to do… something.
The directive is notably vague. Maybe even suspiciously vague.
Among the listed purposes for illegal terrorist actions, we can read the following »seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation«. And on form… »given their nature or context«.
This is vague. And it sounds dangerously close to… suppressing opposition or perfectly legitimate disruptive political activism. Would this label e.g. a tax revolt terrorism?
Threats to »information systems« resulting in »major economic loss« are also mentioned. Exactly where does this place some forms of hacking or maybe a DDoS attack? Will hackers now be deemed to be terrorists?
And exactly what does the following suggest? »Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of one of the offences listed in points (a) to (h) of Article 3(2), where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed, is punishable as a criminal offence when committed intentionally.«
The wording »whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences« is just confusing.
»For an offence referred to in Article 4 and Title III to be punishable, it shall not be necessary that a terrorist offence be actually committed, nor shall it be necessary to establish a link to a specific terrorist offence or, insofar as the offences in Articles 9 to 11 are concerned, to specific offences related to terrorist activities.«
Isn’t that a bit ambiguous?
So it continues. And I’m not the only one being suspicious…
Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Fundamental Rights European Experts (FREE) Group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are warning that the overly broad language of the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism could lead to criminalising public protests and other peaceful acts, to the suppression of the exercise of freedom of expression protected under international law, including expression of dissenting political views and to other unjustified limitations on human rights. The Directive’s punitive measures also pose the risk of being disproportionately applied and implemented in a manner that discriminates against specific ethnic and religious communities.
It seems that the purpose of this directive is to expand the scope of the anti-terror legislation to cover as much as possible. The risk is that it will go too far – labeling opposition, activism, hacking, and some other political activities as terrorism. Especially as it is up to the member states to implement this directive. There are plenty of politicians in Europe just looking for an excuse to silence uncomfortable voices and disruptive political movements.
/ HAX
EDRi: European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed »
Democracy and civil rights. It would be difficult to find anyone in the western world who does not subscribe to these principles. At least in public.
Yet, we are steadily moving away from these values.
It is being done in many small steps. Always justified with the best of intentions – like security, fighting serious crime, child protection, the war on drugs, copyright protection and combating hate speech. Just to mention a few.
Nevertheless – without a doubt – we are limiting privacy, free speech, rule of law and equal rights. It seems to be a non-reversible process. And sooner or later, the many small steps will end up being a giant leap.
Democracy and civil rights can only be curtailed so many times before the consequences will be dire.
»We have to strike a balance between fundamental rights and security« politicians say. And every time that is being done, civil rights are hollowed out. When you repeat this process time and time again – fundamental rights will be reduced to empty words.
This is extremely serious. But nobody really seems to care.
One day we will wake up to a society where you cannot speak your mind, where everything you do is observed and scrutinized, where courts no longer is a guarantee for fair trials, and where it doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty – you will have everything to fear.
You will have to be blind not to see the writing on the wall.
Please, do not trust politicians with upholding our fundamental rights. They have a different agenda. They are the ones limiting them.
Our civil rights can only be upheld, protected and won back by the people. It is in no one else’s interest.
/ HAX
In fact, a new Democratic Party orthodoxy took hold under Obama: the right of a president to detain people, or even assassinate them, without charges or a whiff of judicial oversight. This included even American citizens.
Glenn Greenwald in Washington Post: Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them. »
Suddenly, after the US presidential election, people seems to realize that mass surveillance is a problem.
Time Magazine: President Obama Should Shut Down the NSA’s Mass Spying Before It’s Too Late »
Well, yes. But…
Isn’t mass surveillance a problem, regardless of who is in power?
Isn’t it naive to assume that others will not and do not misuse the surveillance apparatus?
Time writes:
During the Obama administration, warrantless spying programs have vastly expanded, giving the government more power than ever before to constantly monitor all of us by collecting our emails, texts, phone records, chats, real-time locations, purchases, and other private information en masse. This indiscriminate spying isn’t just happening in some National Security Agency bunker. It has reportedly spread throughout dozens of agencies, from local police departments to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and more.
Trump has repeatedly called for more government surveillance. And he has made it very clear exactly how he would use such powers: to target Muslims, immigrant families, marginalized communities, political dissidents, and journalists.
This describes pretty well what the problem is and who is responsible.
The danger of all of this one day falling into the »wrong« hands ought to have been obvious from the very beginning.
It’s naive to claim that Big Brotherism is a problem in just some cases, used by some political forces, with some specific justifications. Mass surveillance is a problem by its very nature and to its core – regardless who is in power. Always.
Naturally, the mass surveillance apparatus in the hands of Donald Trump is a deeply disturbing notion.
But you should have considered such a risk from the very beginning. You were warned. Repeatedly.
/ HAX
