Navigation

Archive | Privacy

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

Data protection: EU-US standoff

By on April 25, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Data Protection, EU, Privacy, US

The EU-US Privacy Shield is to replace the so-called safe harbour agreement about the transfer of personal data between EU and the US — after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the latter.

As reported earlier, the privacy shield is a principal agreement that yet has to be filled with substance. Even though the European Commission and Washington claim to have struck a deal, it is far from being finalised.

Actually, things are moving the opposite way. Reuters:

Last week, the EU’s 28 data protection authorities – known as the Article 29 Working Party – published a non-binding opinion on the framework which called for more reassurances over U.S. surveillance practices and the independence of a new U.S. privacy ombudsman.

Leaving some of the regulators’ concerns unaddressed could increase the chances of the Privacy Shield being challenged in court by privacy advocates, much as its predecessor was.

This is a mess. Obviously, the EU is not strong enough to stand up to the US on data protection. And the US is not interested in respecting a strong European legal framework in this field.

Some links:
• EU data enforcers demand privacy shield fixes »
• Privacy panel trips up transatlantic data deal »
• US businesses: Start preparing for the EU’s new privacy regulation »
• U.S. reluctant to change data pact after EU watchdogs’ concerns »

Earlier posts:
• “EU-US Privacy Shield must be sent back to negotiators” »
• The EU-US Privacy Shield: EU presents a pointless proposal »
• The EU-US Privacy Shield Illusion »
• An EU-US Privacy Shield? »

/ HAX

0

EFF vs. DoJ

By on April 20, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, EFF, Privacy, surveillance, US

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit today against the Justice Department to shed light on whether the government has ever used secret court orders to force technology companies to decrypt their customers’ private communications, a practice that could undermine the safety and security of devices used by millions of people.

EFF Sues for Secret Court Orders Requiring Tech Companies to Decrypt Users’ Communications »

0

“Microsoft sues government for secret searches”

By on April 14, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Microsoft, Privacy, surveillance, US

Microsoft filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday, taking a stand against the way federal agents routinely search its customers’ personal information in secret.

The company accuses the federal government of adopting a widespread, unconstitutional policy of looking through Microsoft customers’ data — and forcing the company to keep quiet about it, sometimes forever.

CNN: Microsoft sues government for secret searches »

0

European Parliament to approve PNR next Thursday

By on April 7, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, EU, PNR, Privacy, surveillance, War on Terror

The European Parliament will have what is believed to be its’ final vote on EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) in Strasbourg next Thursday, April 14.

For years, the Parliament has tried to stop registration of sensitive personal information related to air travel. But after the latest terrorist attacks, pressure has mounted, and everything suggests that the dossier will be approved during next week’s session.

From the European Parliaments webpage:

Passenger Name Record (PNR) data is information provided by passengers and collected by air carriers during reservation and check-in procedures. Non-carrier economic operators, such as travel agencies and tour operators, sell package tours making use of charter flights for which they also collect and process PNR data from their customers.

PNR data include several different types of information, such as travel dates, travel itinerary, ticket information, contact details, baggage information and payment information.

Parliamentarians have had serious concerns about the impact of PNR on fundamental rights and data protection.

Now he PNR dossier is said to be voted together with the EU Data Protection package – at least allowing some coordinated approach.

Formally, EU PNR is about information regarding passengers arriving on flights from non-EU countries. But there is no doubt this will also apply to intra-EU flights.

So, governments will store information about all of people’s air travel, in detail. This is to be added to information about e.g. all of our telecommunications and our bank transactions. The grip tightens.

(It could have been even worse. Earlier on in the process, the U.K. put forward the idea that all our train travel, car rentals, and hotel stays should also be registered. But I guess they decided to take this one step at a time.)

If nothing short of a miracle occurs, next Thursday the EU will take its’ next step towards Big Brotherism.

/ HAX

Links:
• EP: Final votes on PNR and data protection package »
• News on PNR from the EP (16 July 2015) »
• EP: Much Ado About PNR (19 Jan. 2015 »
• EP: EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) proposal: an overview (14 Dec. 2015) »
• MEPs refuse to vote on PNR before Council strengthens data protection (9 March 2016) »

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

Apple vs. the FBI — who won?

By on March 29, 2016 in Apple, Big Brother, Cryptography, Data Protection, FBI, IT security, Privacy, US

From the Associated Press Washington desk:

The FBI said Monday it successfully used a mysterious technique without Apple Inc.’s help to hack into the iPhone used by a gunman in a mass shooting in California, effectively ending a pitched court battle between the Obama administration and one of the world’s leading technology companies.

The government asked a federal judge to vacate a disputed order forcing Apple to help the FBI break into the iPhone, saying it was no longer necessary. The court filing in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California provided no details about how the FBI did it or who showed it how.

Justice Department cracks iPhone; withdraws legal action »

But is this really a mystery? I wrote about this some three weeks ago. That was when the ACLU demonstrated that breaking locked iPhones is almost common knowledge in the tech community:

One of the FBI’s Major Claims in the iPhone Case Is Fraudulent »

Never the less many questions remain unanswered. And the FBI is not about to open up. Ars Technica:

Apple likely can’t force FBI to disclose how it got data from seized iPhone »

Here, it is important to understand what this really has been all about:

[The FBI] is not as interested in solving the problem as they are in getting a legal precedent, [Richard] Clarke said. “Every expert I know believes the NSA could crack this phone. They want the precedent that government could compel a device manufacturer to let the government in.”

The Register: Former US anti-terror chief tears into FBI over iPhone unlocking case — They’d just send it to the NSA if they really wanted access, says Clarke »

Now, what about Apple? Have all of this bruised the iPhones reputation when it comes to security?

Well, it shouldn’t. As mentioned, there already are known ways to break into a locked iPhone.

But facts is not the same as the public perception. The general notion is that this is something entirely new.

And, as a matter of fact, the authorities can open up a locked iPhone. Apple do have a very real public relations problem on its’ hands.

Inevitably, Apple will have to beef up the iPhones security shortly. That may, in turn, lead to new conflicts with the FBI & Co.

/ HAX

0

What to expect after the Brussels attacks. And why it will not work.

By on March 22, 2016 in Big Brother, Intelligence, Police state, Privacy, surveillance, War on Terror

Once again terrorists have struck.

No doubt, this will be followed by new calls for mass surveillance.

But mass surveillance doesn’t really work. It’s rather draining the police and intelligence services of resources – making us all less safe.

Not even a system with 99% accuracy would be useful. It would give 10,000 false positives per million people’s communications scanned. That’s simply not workable. (And it would lead to dramatic consequences for totally innocent people.) Also, there are no systems even close to being 99% accurate.

After the Paris attacks Waldemar Ingdahl wrote in Spiked:

And yet, despite the vast array of new powers granted to security agencies over the past 15 years, they still find it difficult to connect the dots in the lead-up to a terrorist attack. In fact, the Madrid train bombings in 2004 and the London bombings in 2005 were undertaken despite the fact that some of the perpetrators were already under surveillance.

What we need is more traditional police and intelligence work — not security bureaucrats behind computer screens, trying to find suspicious patterns in ordinary people’s communications.

Human intelligence is hard, often dangerous and expensive. But that is what it takes. Everything else is part of a counter-productive security theatre.

But then again, fighting terrorism might just be a pretext for mass surveillance of the general public.

/ HAX

Spiked, November 2015: Why mass surveillance misses terrorists »

0