Archive | Human rights
The UN is morally corrupt
A majority of the members of the United Nations Human Rights Council are non-democratic. Obviously, this is a problem – if we presume human rights to have anything to do with fundamental democratic principles such as free speech, a free press and free and fair elections.
With countries such as China, Cuba, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the council – one must also doubt what it will and can do when it comes to the right to fair trials, the issue of cruel and unusual punishments and the death penalty.
A Human Rights Council that is not committed to democracy and human rights is a travesty, a mockery of the UN:s own declaration of human rights.
The Council members are appointed by the UN General Assembly. So, obviously, not even the UN:s central body can be trusted when it comes to human rights issues. Sorry to say, I am not surprised.
The UN is morally corrupt.
/ HAX
Meanwhile, in Vietnam…
Pardon for Chelsea Manning!
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is not the only one who deserve a US presidential pardon.
Wikileaks source Chelsea Manning is serving a 35-year prison sentence – allegedly having exposed the truth to the people.
Manning is accused of leaking the so-called Iran and Afghanistan war diaries, exposing what US military has been up to in the name of the American people, paid for with American tax dollars. This glimpse into reality is unacceptable, according to the US military and the US administration. They seem to take the position that the people cannot handle the truth.
Manning is also accused of leaking a vast number of classified US embassy cables. These have been a real embarrassment to the White House and the US State Department – as they expose how the government has been sending double messages. It has told the American people one thing – but in reality done something totally different. This is a very real democratic problem: How can the American voter make an informed decision who to vote for, if he or she is kept in the dark about what the country’s leaders are up to?
And then we have the war video Collateral Murder, exposing the awful reality of war – as a US helicopter kills a group of journalists, their translators, and guides in Iraq. This was clearly something the general public was never supposed to know about.
Chelsea Manning has contributed to transparency and democracy. She has made the American people aware of what is really going on in its name. She has exposed lies, disloyalty, falseness, and two-facedness. She ought to be given a medal, not a prison sentence.
Manning has already spent many years in imprisonment. It is time for president Obama to pardon her.
Also read: Experts decry solitary confinement for Chelsea Manning after suicide attempt »
Don’t stay silent when the EU take our civil rights away
By HAX on September 23, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, Rule of law, social media
The EU has formed an alliance with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to block Internet content that aims to radicalize people – and hate speech. It is called the Joint Referral Platform.
This is, per definition, about limiting free speech. As such, this taps into democratic core issues.
The plan is to have the social networks and platforms to carry out this censorship, referring to their user terms and conditions – that more or less allows them to censor or ban anyone. They don’t have to explain their actions. There is no possibility to appeal or redress.
Naturally, this is something that civil rights organisations and Internet activists must look into, analyse and keep a close eye on. Here is an apparent possibility for the political system to restrict free speech without getting its own hands dirty, without having to deal with legislation or the judicial system.
But when European Digital Rights, EDRi, asked for information – the European Commission first stalled their request and then refused to share information.
The reason presented by the Commission is notable. It is said that openness could undermine a highly sensitive on-going process. No shit, Sherlock.
The entire point is that this is highly sensitive. It’s about a public-private partnership to limit free speech. That is why transparency is of immense importance.
To make things even worse, the Commission seems to be unwilling to provide information about the legal basis for the Joint Referral Platform.
This is not how to conduct things in a democratic society.
Sadly, this is typical for how the EU apparatus works. Democratic principles and core values are brushed aside. Rule of law is disregarded. Human and civil rights are ignored.
And they usually get away with it.
This time, it’s about free speech online. Regardless of what people think of limiting what can be said on the Internet – everyone ought to agree that limitations of fundamental rights must be handled with extreme care and in an open, democratic process.
We must try to get the European Parliament to look into this. The MEP:s are democratically elected – and are, as such, at least somewhat uncomfortable with ignoring strong and loud public opinion.
This might also be a case for the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights.
You simply cannot stay silent when they take our civil rights away.
/ HAX
EDRi: Joint Referral Platform: no proof of diligent approach to terrorism »
The miserable treatment of Chelsea Manning
She’s charged with “resisting” when the “force cell team” went to her cell to respond to her suicide attempt. “Resisting” in this case being that she was unconcious. Really.
Showdown in the Assange case?
By HAX on September 7, 2016 in affairs, Assange, Civil liberties, Global Politics, Hacktivism, Human rights, UK, US, Wikileaks
The normally so media shy Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny today held a press conference about the Assange case. Nothing new was presented, the prosecutor’s office repeated its talking points and there was mention of yet another half-hearted attempt to interview Mr. Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. (Something Ms. Ny have avoided to do for years, thereby keeping the investigation open and Mr. Assange at bay.)
It might have been her last chance to play the media by her rules. On prime time Swedish national television tonight, the investigative team at SVT Uppdrag Granskning had an hour-long special about the Assange case. (The program in Swedish » | A summary of some of the findings in English ») It is pretty obvious that Swedish authorities are very interested in getting Mr. Assange to Sweden – even though it has been and still is possible to interview him in London in person, online or over the phone.
Here we should keep in mind that Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime. It’s all about interviewing him in order do determine if there is a case against him – in a rather thin case of suspected sexual misconduct in Sweden. Basically, this is total judicial overkill and »special treatment« just because he is a rebel, truth teller and a threat to important people in power.
Even a UN human right panel has voiced protests about the way Mr. Assange is treated, being tucked away in the Ecuadorean embassy year after year.
This Next Friday a Swedish regional high court will – once again – look into the issue of Mr. Assanges’ arrest warrant. The last time, they upheld the decision, as Ms. Ny then was instructed to get the interview done and over with. Again, she didn’t. This coming Friday, the court may not show the same patience. Or it may, as there are powerful interests involved.
Finally, the reason that Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange does not want to go to Sweden for an interview is a fear that he might be extradited to the US. Todays’ tv special made it clear that there might be good reasons to fear such a development. (Even though the UK might also hand him over to the US Justice department, but at a very high political price.)
The general impression is that things might start to move in the Assange case. But I wouldn’t hold my breath…
/ HAX
EDRi: Three steps to end freedom of expression
By HAX on July 25, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Rule of law, social media
It is quite clear that removal of material online is a restriction on fundamental rights. It is quite clear that the safeguards in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU are being willfully ignored:
EU Charter: Article 52.1:
Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
Government using private sector censorship for political objectives
By HAX on July 24, 2016 in Big Data, Big Government, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, Human rights, Rule of law, social media, Transparency, Twitter
Censorship is censorship. If you block someone from speaking freely or delete people’s content from the Internet you do censor them.
But there are different sorts of censorship.
One is when the government silences opposition, controversial voices or whatever. That is, in general terms, a violation of freedom of speech and our civil rights. That should not be accepted in a democratic society.
Another form of censorship is when Twitter censors Milo Yiannopolous, when Google censor artist Dennis Cooper or when Facebook is accused of downgrading news depending on political affiliations.
These are private companies and they choose to whom they want to provide their services. This is clearly stated in these companies voluminous terms and conditions.
So, OK – social media giants can censor people (and ideas). But should they?
The fact that Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter can censor people in a legally »correct« way in no way should protect them from being criticized for doing so.
And they should be criticized! Especially as their dominance on the social media scene is almost total. Their actions have political consequences. And they might very well have a political agenda.
(As a libertarian I run into this issue a lot. Just because I dislike something, I do not have the desire or right to outlaw it. But still, as a consumer, user or concerned citizen I am free to criticize e.g. censorship – and to loudly point out its risks and problems.)
But recently the lines are getting blurred. As I have pointed out in previous blog posts, governments (most recently the EU) are teaming up with major social media players to use the latter’s legal framework to silence voices that politicians dislike. Thus circumventing the legal system and the rule of law – and moving government censorship out of democratic control.
This is a serious, mounting problem.
/ HAX
ECJ Advocate General on data retention: Strict conditions must apply
By HAX on July 19, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, Data Retention, ECJ, EU, Human rights, Internet, Privacy, Rule of law, surveillance
Data retention (collection of data about everybody’s phone calls, text messages, e-mails, internet connections and mobile positions) may only be used to combat serious crimes – and only if there are no other options (such as using surveillance only against people who are actually suspected of criminal activities).
This is the essence of the European Court of Justices Advocate Generals recommendation in some ongoing cases about data retention.
From the press release (PDF):
The Advocate General is of the opinion that a general obligation to retain data may be compatible with EU law. The action by Member States against the possibility of imposing such an obligation is, however, subject to satisfying strict requirements. It is for the national courts to determine, in the light of all the relevant characteristics of the national regimes, whether those requirements are satisfied.
First, the general obligation to retain data and the accompanying guarantees must be laid down by legislative or regulatory measures possessing the characteristics of accessibility, foreseeability and adequate protection against arbitrary interference.
Secondly, the obligation must respect the essence of the right to respect for private life and the right to the protection of personal data laid down by the Charter.
Thirdly, the Advocate General notes that EU law requires that any interference with the fundamental rights should be in the pursuit of an objective in the general interest. He considers that solely the fight against serious crime is an objective in the general interest that is capable of justifying a general obligation to retain data, whereas combating ordinary offences and the smooth conduct of proceedings other than criminal proceedings are not.
Fourthly, the general obligation to retain data must be strictly necessary to the fight against serious crime, which means that no other measure or combination of measures could be as effective while at the same time interfering to a lesser extent with fundamental rights.
Furthermore, the Advocate General points out that that obligation must respect the conditions set out in the judgment in Digital Rights Ireland (5) as regards access to the data, the period of retention and the protection and security of the data, in order to limit the interference with the fundamental rights to what is strictly necessary.
Finally, the general obligation to retain data must be proportionate, within a democratic society, to the objective of the fight against serious crime, which means that the serious risks engendered by that obligation within a democratic society must not be disproportionate to the advantages it offers in the fight against serious crime.
Here it is important to remember that the ECJ revoked the EU Data Retention Directive – the document all member states data retention is built upon – in the spring of 2014. This because it violates fundamental human rights, such as the right to privacy. So it is hardly possible to stick to any direct adaptations of the fallen directive.
One thing that seems to be clear is that data retention cannot be used to investigate minor crimes (e.g. illegal file sharing). And it cannot be used for non-criminal proceedings (e.g. by local councils and tax authorities). The infringement of privacy is massive with data retention. It must be in proportion to the seriousness of the suspected crime.
Point four (“which means that no other measure or combination of measures could be as effective while at the same time interfering to a lesser extent with fundamental rights”) is also interesting. Of course, there are other measures – like only using surveillance against people suspected of criminal activities, instead of the entire population.
Later this fall the ECJ will give its final verdict. But it usually follows the Advocate Generals recommendations.
Links:
• ECJ press release (PDF) »
• The Advocate Generals recommendation, full text »
• EDRi – European Court confirms: Strict safeguards essential for data retention »
• Falkvinge – European Supreme Court says “Maybe” to mass surveillance of innocents »