Navigation

Archive | Human rights

Snowden on whistleblowing

By on May 4, 2016 in Civil liberties, Democracy, Human rights, Manning, NSA & Snowden, Privacy, Rule of law, Snowden, US, Wikileaks

When you first go on duty at CIA headquarters, you raise your hand and swear an oath — not to government, not to the agency, not to secrecy. You swear an oath to the Constitution. So there’s this friction, this emerging contest between the obligations and values that the government asks you to uphold, and the actual activities that you’re asked to participate in. (…)

By preying on the modern necessity to stay connected, governments can reduce our dignity to something like that of tagged animals, the primary difference being that we paid for the tags and they’re in our pockets. It sounds like fantasist paranoia, but on the technical level it’s so trivial to implement that I cannot imagine a future in which it won’t be attempted. It will be limited to the war zones at first, in accordance with our customs, but surveillance technology has a tendency to follow us home.

Edward Snowden in The Intercept: Whistleblowing Is Not Just Leaking — It’s an Act of Political Resistance »

0

Todays TTIP leak and the Internet

By on May 2, 2016 in Big Data, Civil liberties, Data Protection, EU, Human rights, Intellectual Property, Internet, TTIP, US

Today a batch of documents concerning the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has been leaked by Greenpeace.

As suspected there are worrying indications when it comes to the future of a free and open Internet.

• TTIP might result in the EU and US being able to ignore fundamental human rights (such as the right to privacy) when it comes to telecommunications. This is serious, as such issues have been central in previous legislative acts concerning the Internet.

• With the EU-US Privacy Shield still being a pretty open issue, TTIP seems to move the issue of data transfers in favour of Big Data. It is doubtful if there will be any meaningful protection of personal data being transferred from EU to the US.

• When it comes to Intellectual Property (IP), there are signs that TTIP will move to make Internet Service Providers to “voluntary” police the net. In other words, TTIP seems to make another try to re-introduce IP provisions that the European Parliament has already rejected in ACTA.

IP issues in TTIP seems to be open for negotiations and last-minute amendments. EDRi explains…

Concerning so-called “Intellectual Property” (IP), the negotiators seem to take lobbyists’ wish list very seriously. According to the leaked report, “[w]hen confronted with EU warning that bringing sensitive proposals that would require changes in EU law to the table – and doing it at a late stage of the negotiation – may have a negative impact on stakeholders” (which would apparently not include citizens) “and has very limited chances of being accepted”, the US seemed to be prepared to depart from the model of the TPP. Among the proposals the US is thinking of tabling, it includes privatised enforcement measures, that EDRi has been criticising since its inception because they bypass the rule of law and lead to arbitrary corporate decision-making without accountability (cf. “voluntary stakeholder initiatives”). As with ACTA, the US is strongly supportive of “voluntary initiatives” as US-based global giants already impose US copyright law on a global level. The EU (as shown by the recent leak of the Communication on Platforms) supports this approach.

It’s still early days. And there is no lack of warning signals.

So, I guess there will be yet another battle over a free and open Internet. (Frustratingly, in part it seems to be the same battle over IP issues being fought over and over again.)

/ HAX

• Greenpeace: TTIP Leaks »
• EDRi: TTIP leaks confirm dangers for digital rights »
• The Guardian: Leaked TTIP documents cast doubt on EU-US trade deal »
• Europan Commission: EU negotiating texts in TTIP »
• EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström: Negotiating TTIP »

0

Study: The surveillance state breeds fear and conformity and stifles free expression

By on April 29, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, NSA & Snowden, self-censorship, surveillance, US

A newly published study from Oxford’s Jon Penney provides empirical evidence for a key argument long made by privacy advocates: that the mere existence of a surveillance state breeds fear and conformity and stifles free expression. Reporting on the study, the Washington Post this morning described this phenomenon: “If we think that authorities are watching our online actions, we might stop visiting certain websites or not say certain things just to avoid seeming suspicious.”

The Intercept: New Study Shows Mass Surveillance Breeds Meekness, Fear, and Self-Censorship »

0

A closer look at Hacking Team

By on April 28, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, Democracy, Human rights, Intelligence, IT security, Privacy, surveillance

Here is an interesting piece in Foreign Policy: Fear this man »

It’s about the Italian firm Hacking Team and its founder and CEO, David Vincenzetti. The article gives an interesting and chilling glimpse into the commercial side of providing governments with IT tools for surveillance – that also is being used by authoritarian regimes for oppression and disinformation.

“Privacy is very important,” Vincenzetti says on a recent February morning in Milan, pausing to sip his espresso. “But national security is much more important.”

0

Germany: Politician arrested for reciting anti-Erdogan poem at rally

By on April 23, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Germany, Human rights

“During a rally supporting comedian Jan Boehmermann, Bruno Kramm, the head of the Berlin branch of Germany’s Pirate Party, was arrested for “insulting a representative of a foreign state” by quoting a line from the comic’s satirical poem slamming Erdogan.

German police arrested Kramm while he was conducting a “literary analysis” of the German comedian’s satirical poem in front of the Turkish embassy in Berlin during a protest held under the slogan “No Power for Erdowahn, Freedom Instead of Erdogan” [Keine Macht dem Erdowahn, Freiheit statt Erdogan], the Morgenpost newspaper reported.”

• Pirate Party’s leader detained in Germany for citing poem about Erdogan »

• Berliner Piraten-Chef bei Erdogan-Demo festgenommen »

0

Next step in EU court case on Data Retention will be July 19

By on April 13, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Retention, ECJ, EU, Human rights, surveillance, Sweden, UK

Very little has been known or reported from yesterday’s hearing on data retention in the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The hearing was conducted as a part of British and Swedish cases – arguing that data retention in the respective countries should end, as a consequence of the ECJ ruling in 2014 overthrowing the EU Data Retention Directive.

As data retention is found to be in breach of human rights on an EU level, the same should apply on a national level – the argument goes.

I will try to find out more about yesterday’s hearing. And if you find any links, please post them in the comments to this blog post.

The next step in this affair is said to be the Advocate Generals recommendation to the court – to be delivered July 19. (Normally the ECJ will follow this recommendation. But the process is slow, taking several months more.)

/ HAX

2

Fierce legal battle over data retention in Sweden

By on April 8, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Retention, ECJ, EU, Human rights, surveillance, Sweden

There is a rather interesting legal battle concerning data retention going on in Sweden. Parties are the ISP Bahnhof and the government oversight authority Post- & Telestyrelsen (PTS).

Two years ago, to the day, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the EU data retention directive — stating that it is in violation of human rights, especially the right to privacy.

However, in Sweden data retention continues — under a cross-party political consensus. This is to be tried in the ECJ, but is still an open issue.

Meanwhile, Swedish police (and other authorities) are using data retention to demand information about Internet users and their activities from the ISPs.

Referring to the ECJ verdict, the ISP Bahnhof, has refused to share information about minor crimes with the police. After all, data retention was supposed to be about terrorism and other serious criminal activities.

To share information from data retention, Bahnhof requires that the police confirm that it will only be used for investigating serious crimes according to relevant Swedish legal definitions. And Bahnhof demands this information from the police in writing.

The police is not happy about this. Not at all. So it has asked PTS to investigate what can be done. This leading to PTS slamming Bahnhof with a penalty of five million Swedish kronor (some 550.000 euros) if not compliant.

Now, we shall remember that there still is an open case about Swedish data retention in the ECJ. Also, a Swedish administrative court has asked the ECJ for guidance when it comes to the Bahnhof case.

This has lead Bahnhof to ask the Stockholm lower administrative court (Förvaltningsrätten) for inhibition of the PTS decision concerning the fines mentioned above.

Now, this court has granted Bahnhof inhibition — until it has reached a final verdict after careful investigation in the wider context of data retention. However, PTS still can appeal against the inhibition. If so, the case will move up the three-tier Swedish administrative court system.

The bottom line is that a relatively small ISP — backed up by the first ECJ ruling — is prepared to take a fight against the government on data retention. And that the Swedish government is trying to circumvent the ECJ verdict, to maintain mass surveillance.

This is a story to be continued.

/ HAX

Disclaimer: The 5:th of July-foundation, running this blog, is the VPN provider for Bahnhof (and others). Bahnhofs lawyer is also a member of the board of the 5:th of July foundation.

1

Amnesty: Encryption is about Human Rights

By on April 3, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Human rights, Privacy

In the digital age, access to and use of encryption is an enabler of the right to privacy. Because encryption can protect communications from spying, it can help people share their opinion with others without reprisals, access information on the web and organize with others against injustice. Encryption is therefore also an enabler of the rights to freedom of expression, information and opinion, and also has an impact on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, association and other human rights. Encryption is a particularly critical tool for human rights defenders, activists and journalists, all of whom rely on it with increasing frequency to protect their security and that of others against unlawful surveillance.

• Amnesty: Encryption: A Matter of Human Rights »

• EFF: Amnesty International: Encryption is a Human Rights Issue »

0

Time for activists and Silicon Valley to join forces against government

By on February 22, 2016 in Apple, Big Brother, Big Entertainment, Big Government, Civil liberties, Cryptography, Data Protection, Hacktivism, Human rights, IT security, Privacy, Snowden

The infotech war has begun, for real.

First we had the fight over illegal file sharing, creating a divide between Big Entertainment backed up by Big Government and a large portion of the general public. (Young people in particular.) Parallel we have had the fights between Big Telecom and activists campaigning for a free and open internet. And the struggle between Big Intelligence and civil rights / privacy advocates.

Then came Edward Snowden, providing actual proof of what our governments are up to. This created an even bigger splash, still causing ripples.

And with the San Bernardino iPhone backdoor/unlock case between the FBI and Apple the tech sector will have to choose between loyalty to its’ customers or abiding by overreaching anti-terrorism and anti-privacy legislation. That ought to be easy enough. The money is with staying loyal to customers and their right to privacy. But it’s not. Not even Silicon Valley might be able to stand up against the state monopoly on violence.

The stakes are sky high. The San Bernardino case is not just about that single case or even just about privacy. It’s about secure encryption – imperative for safe communications, online banking, medical records, confidential information, trade secrets and public affairs. Apple cannot back down on this one.

This might be what finally will unite all sorts of activists and the Valley. I rather hope so. Alone, it’s very difficult to stand up against the government (and related special interests). But if the Internet generation, net activists, civil rights defenders and tech companies stand together — we might stand a chance.

Unjust laws will stay unjust if no one stands up and fight them. Civil rights will be eroded if no one stands up to defend them. There are no limits to what governments will try to justify under the pretext of security — that, by the way, is an illusion.

The government will always try to “balance fundamental rights and security”, time and time again until there are no fundamental rights left.

Now is the time for activists (who know how to actually change politics) to team up with Silicon Valley (where the money needed to make campaigning effective is).

We can win this one — and at the same time establish a red line that governments will have to recognize.

But it will be dirty. It’s all about power and control.

/ HAX

Related: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector »

0

China to tighten control over online content

By on February 19, 2016 in Big Brother, China, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet

Radio Free Asia reports…

The ruling Chinese Communist Party has announced new regulations that will ban foreign companies from publishing online media, games and other “creative” content within China’s borders from next month.

The “Regulations for the management of online publishing services” also ban foreign-invested joint ventures from engaging in online content provision, according to a copy of the rules posted on the official website of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

And any Chinese companies wishing to produce online creative content, including audio, video, games and animations, must first seek official approval from the country’s media regulator.

This is big news — changing the situation in China from bad to worse.

China to Ban Foreign Companies From Online Media Business »

1