Navigation

Archive | Privacy

EU to end Bitcoin anonymity

By on July 5, 2016 in Anonymity, Big Brother, Bitcoin, Economics, EU, Privacy, War on Cash, War on Terror

Today, the European Commission has released details on the new EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive – aiming at combating terrorist financing. Among the details, we find some disturbing news on digital currencies such as Bitcoin:

Tackling terrorist financing risks linked to virtual currencies: to prevent misuse of virtual currencies for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes, the Commission proposes to bring virtual currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers under the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive. These entities will have to apply customer due diligence controls when exchanging virtual for real currencies, ending the anonymity associated with such exchanges;

Gah!

Anonymity is not a crime!

But then, again, this is not really about terrorism. It’s about giving the government control over your money.

Then we have this blow to all those terrorists shopping around for missiles…

Tackling risks linked to anonymous pre-paid instruments (e.g. pre-paid cards): the Commission also proposes to minimise the use of anonymous payments through pre-paid cards, by lowering thresholds for identificationfrom €250 to €150 and widening customer verification requirements. Proportionality has been taken into account, with particular regard paid to the use of these cards by financially vulnerable citizens;

Again, this will only make life more complicated for ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

And there will be cross-border control of all bank accounts:

Give Financial Intelligence Units swift access to information on the holders of bank- and payment accounts, through centralised registers or electronic data retrieval systems.

“Centralised registers.” Like in total control.

This might come in handy for our governments when the next Euro crisis calls for a citizen haircut – like when Cyprus confiscated parts of people’s bank savings.

Your money is no longer yours. You are no longer free.

/ HAX

European Commission:
• Commission strengthens transparency rules to tackle terrorism financing, tax avoidance and money laundering »
• Questions and Answers: Anti-money Laundering Directive »

Related reading: Bargeld ist Freiheit »

2

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

Belgian court: Facebook can keep tracking non-users

By on July 3, 2016 in Big Data, Data Protection, Facebook, Privacy

A Belgian court has overturned a ruling that would have forced Facebook to stop tracking non-users who had visited its pages, The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. A Brussels appeals court found that the Belgian Privacy Commission, which brought a case against Facebook last year, does not have jurisdiction over the company’s Ireland-based European headquarters. As The Guardian reports, it also rejected a claim that the case was urgent and needed to be expedited.

This reverses a decision made last year, when a court ordered Facebook to stop using cookies to keep tabs on the web browsing of people who were not logged into accounts or had otherwise opted out of tracking

The Verge: Facebook wins Belgian privacy case over tracking logged-out users »

Ars Technica: Facebook wins privacy case, can track any Belgian it wants »

0

Data Protection: Is the EU just incompetent or… evil?

By on July 1, 2016 in Big Business, Big Data, Data Protection, EU, Privacy, US

According to usually well informed sources the Council of the European Union (the member states representatives) is ready to greenlight the so called EU US Privacy Shield.

The Privacy Shield is supposed to replace the previous Safe Harbour agreement on protection of personal data being transferred from the EU to the US. The latter was used in a sloppy way by US companies and it did not offer sufficient protection against US mass surveillance. The European Parliament has frequently called for the Safe Harbour agreement to be revoked – and finally the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated it on grounds that it did not respect European citizens right to privacy.

Since then, the EU and US have been working hard to secure a new agreement – the Privacy Shield.

The problem is that the Privacy Shield, ruffly speaking, has the same problems as the Safe Harbour agreement. So much so that the ECJ have found that it ought to look into the matter once again. (The Max Schrems case, part 2.)

So, why is the EU so eager to give the Privacy Shield its approval? First off all both the EU and the US is under pressure from Big Data to get this stumbling block out of the way. Second, some US government agencies are getting quite frustrated. Third, the EU screwed up in the negotiations, but hopes that no one will notice (!) if they hurry to adopt the agreement.

In other words, protection of European citizens data and privacy has not been an EU priority. The Council (and the Commission) seems to be more interested in good relations with the NSA and Big Data.

Is the EU just incompetent or… evil?

/ HAX

Links:
• Previous blog post on the EU US Privacy Shield, with many useful links »
• The latest leaked EU documents (PDF) »
• Reuters: EU, United States agree on changes to strengthen data transfer pact »
• German IT Law: Data flows to the US: Why the EU Model Clauses may soon be no longer state of the art »
• The Irish Times: Data protection groups seek to join key High Court case »
• NSA Mass Surveillance: US Government wants to intervene in European Facebook-Case (PDF) »

Thanks to Amelia Andersdotter and Dataskydd.net for digging up relevant links and documents.

1

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

Does Google rule the world? Really?

By on June 11, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Google, Internet, Privacy

https://youtu.be/TSN6LE06J54

“The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) and Its Unparalleled Power To Influence How We Think”- Robert Epstein of American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.

This is really interesting, even if it in part might be dangerously close to conspiracy theories.

At least, I think that Search Engine Manipulation might be possible and very effective. But is it really done – intentionally or unintentionally? It is difficult to say, especially as all search results seems to be personalised.

Youtube »

2

Big Brotherism – the next step

By on June 11, 2016 in Data Protection, Facebook, Privacy, social media

A British startup has created a system for offering landlords continuous surveillance of their tenants’ online activity to determine whether they are likely to be asset risks. The system, named Tenant Assured, connects to the tenants’ social media accounts and mines their status updates, photos and private messages, feeding them to an algorithmic model, which is claimed to find potential signs of financial stress (which include posts with keywords like “loan” or “staying in”) or crime. The landlord gets an online dashboard, showing the tenant’s social connections, and a histogram of their online activity times, as well as flagging up any potential danger signs, as well as a five-factor psychometric profile of the tenant, annotated with what a landlord should look for.

Via Metafilter: Renting in the panopticon »

Main article, Washington Post: Creepy startup will help landlords, employers and online dates strip-mine intimate data from your Facebook page »

0

UK spies cannot handle all the data

By on June 8, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Retention, GCHQ, Privacy, Snowden, UK

“British spies may have put lives at risk because their surveillance systems were sweeping up more data than could be analyzed, leading them to miss clues to possible security threats” according to documents in the Snowden files, now published by The Intercept.

A common analogy when it comes to mass surveillance is “trying to find a needle in a haystack”. Thus, having a bigger haystack might make it harder to find the needle.

Sure enough. The Intercept writes…

Silkie Carlo, a policy officer at the London-based human rights group Liberty, told The Intercept that the details contained in the secret report highlighted the need for a comprehensive independent review of the proposed new surveillance powers.

“Intelligence whistleblowers have warned that the agencies are drowning in data — and now we have it confirmed from the heart of the U.K. government,” Carlo said. “If our agencies have risked missing ‘life-saving intelligence’ by collecting ‘significantly’ more data than they can analyze, how can they justify casting the net yet wider in the toxic Investigatory Powers Bill?”

The British government’s Home Office, which handles media requests related to MI5, declined to comment for this story.

And this is not just a general opinion. There are figures.

A top-secret 2009 study found that, in one six-month period, the PRESTON program had intercepted more than 5 million communications. Remarkably, 97 percent of the calls, messages, and data it had collected were found to have been “not viewed” by the authorities.

The authors of the study were alarmed because PRESTON was supposedly focused on known suspects, and yet most of the communications it was monitoring appeared to be getting ignored — meaning crucial intelligence could have been missed.

“Only a small proportion of the Preston Traffic is viewed,” they noted. “This is of concern as the collection is all warranted.”

Then, there is mission creep…

Carlo, the policy analyst with Liberty, said the revelations about MILKWHITE suggested members of Parliament had been misled about how so-called bulk data is handled. “While MPs have been told that bulk powers have been used only by the intelligence community, it now appears it has been ‘business as usual’ for the tax man to access mass internet data for years,” she said.

We told you this would happen.

/ HAX

Links:
• The Intercept: Facing data deluge, secret U.K. spying report warned of intelligence failure »
• Supporting document: Digint Narrative »
• Supporting document: Digint Imbalance »
• BoingBoing: MI5 warning: we’re gathering more than we can analyse, and will miss terrorist attacks »

0

Big Government and Big Data fighting over control of your online activities. Blockchain is the obvious alternative.

By on June 6, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Big Government, Blockchain, decentralization, EU, Facebook, Free Software, Google, Internet, Privacy, social media

For many years, the EU has taken many small steps towards introducing an EU ID card: eIDAS. (Or at least a strict common EU standard for nationally issued ID cards.)

An ID card proving the holders identity is one thing. (However, a mandatory ID card as such is a very controversial concept in some member states.) One interesting point is if there is going to be a common personal EU identification number. Another is what information the cards chip will contain and how it is going to be used. No doubt, an EU ID card can be used as a very effective tool for various forms of Big Brotherism.

It is in the light of the EU slowly trying to introduce a common, mandatory ID card that various EU schemes should be scrutinised.

Last week some sites, e.g. Breitbart London ran this story: The European Commission Wants You To Log Into Social Media Accounts With Govt-Issued ID Cards »

Well, that might be a bit oversimplified. What the EU suggests is that it should be possible to use national (EU harmonised) ID cards to log into various online platforms instead of logging in using e.g. Facebook or Google. Thus giving you the possibility of being controlled by Big Government or Big Data.

Giving people a possibility to choose is a good idea, as such. But I’m not sure that I would like Big Government or Big Data to have the control over my online life.

And you should be very suspicious! The moment there is an established platform for online registration (or signing transactions) with an EU approved ID card – this system can be rolled out all over the place. For example, the EU would love to have a system where you have to use your ID card to be able to log on to the Internet. I have met several people in the EU apparatus promoting that idea.

But how should you go about if you don’t want nor Big Government or Big Data to be in control of your online activities?

Actually, it can be done quite easily – by using Blockchain technology, decentralised solutions, and open source software. Ideal, there should be a couple of different such ID providers, competing with each other over providing competent privacy protection.

(All of this might even be possible to achieve using the already existing Bitnation World Citizen ID.)

This can be one of those forks in the road of history: Do we want our online activities to be controlled by Big Government and Big Brother, by Big Data – or a decentralised system with a high level of security, respecting users right to privacy and controlled by no one?

/ HAX

Links:
• The European Commission Wants You To Log Into Social Media Accounts With Govt-Issued ID Cards »
• EU: Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe »

1