Navigation

Archive | Privacy

What you need to know about Passenger Name Records (PNR)

By on December 11, 2015 in Big Brother, Data Protection, EU, PNR, Privacy

The EU is about to adopt a new regulation regarding registration of our air travel.

Passenger Name Records (PNR) has earlier been blocked by the European Parliament, because of privacy concerns. But after the Parris attacks, it seems to be impossible to prevent this form of surveillance.

EDRi has published a detailed FAQ about PNR. »

The Directive is being adopted despite concerns raised by the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and Article 29 Working Party. A study undertaken for the Council of Europe explained that “no serious, verifiable evidence has been produced by the proponents of compulsory suspicionless data collection to show that data mining and profiling by means of the bulk data in general, or the compulsory addition of bulk PNR data to the data mountains already created in particular, is even suitable to the ends supposedly being pursued –let alone that it is effective”

Notice that data will be saved up to five years — not six months (as many politicians would like us to believe).

0

We are all under surveillance: Re-group. Re-think.

By on November 23, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Democracy, Human rights, Police state, Privacy, surveillance, War on Terror

After the Paris attacks politicians, police and the intelligence community are tumbling over each other eager to introduce even more mass surveillance.

This will direct resources away from regular police and intelligence work. It will not protect us, but could rather make us all less safe. But then again, mass surveillance isn’t really about terrorism. Obviously, it’s about control.

Terrorism (plus serious crime, drug trade, trafficking, child protection and the copyright legal framework) is being used as a pretext for doing what politicians cannot openly admit.

But facts are straight forward: We are all under surveillance.

The fight for people’s right to privacy must and will go on. But we also must recognize the fact that we are already living in a Big Brother society. It might be about time to re-group and re-think. Where do we take the fight for a free and open society from here?

There is the political road. Defending human and civil rights, you can punch over your weight. It all boils down to principles about democracy, rule of law and the relation between citizens and the government. In that context, most politicians cannot afford to appear as if they don’t care. Not in public.

And there is the technical road. Let’s start with something reasonable: Could anybody please make strong e-mail encryption really, really user-friendly? It shouldn’t be impossible. Or let’s take a wider approach: Can the entire internet protocol be replaced with something new and more privacy friendly?

The fight will go on. And you can be certain of one thing: Regardless of how much surveillance we have, the ruling political and bureaucratic classes will always find reasons to introduce more.

/ HAX

4

Mass surveillance makes us less safe

By on November 14, 2015 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Democracy, France, Human rights, Intelligence, Privacy, Rule of law, Uncategorized

BanksyParis

Our thoughts are with the victims of the terror attacks in Paris.

But we should not allow ourselves to react in a thoughtless way. Terrorists want to impose fear –leading us away from a free, open and democratic society.

France already has one of the most intrusive regimes of mass surveillance in the western world. Apparently, this did not stop the terrorists.

Actually, it might very well be that mass surveillance makes us all less safe. The number of “false positives” makes serious police work more difficult. Dependence on electronic surveillance systems also directs resources away from old fashion police activites, intelligence operations, informed analysis and “HUMINT” (Human Intelligence).

Naturally, there is a place for advanced forms of electronic surveillance. But it should be focused on individuals and groups who are suspected to prepare for criminal activities. And to identify such targets, HUMINT is essential.

Time and time again it has been revealed that terrorists have been on the security services radar before striking. But the what, where and when is normally never communicated in ways that can be intercepted by mass surveillance. Here you need targeted surveillance, old-fashioned spies and qualified intelligence analysis. This is hard work, it takes time, it is costly and it can be dangerous. But it is what is effective to keep us reasonably safe from terrorism. (If at all possible.)

And given that the whole point of fighting terrorism is to defend our free, open and democratic society — it would be counter-productive to treat all citizens as potential terrorists and criminals. The people is not the problem.

/ HAX

1

Mass surveillance is a perversion of democracy

By on October 28, 2015 in Big Government, Civil liberties, Democracy, Human rights, Privacy

Mass surveillance raises not only questions about privacy, Big Brotherism in general and the surveillance state as such. It is also a matter of democracy.

Proponents of mass surveillance often argue that there is a collective interest that eclipse private individuals right to privacy (which, by the way, is a fundamental human right).

They argue that mass surveillance is necessary to guarantee all citizens security. They say that we must balance the need for security against our fundamental rights. (But the very reason some rights are considered to be fundamental is that they should never be limited or violated, no matter what.) And the nomenklatura suggests that all that they do is done for your benefit and security.

But as we have learned, care for private citizens are not the real concern for NSA, GCHQ & Co. The purpose of mass surveillance is to protect the state — politicians, bureaucrats, special interests and the system. Everything else is just window dressing.

One should recognize that society is not our political leaders and their functionaries. Society is a large number of private individuals, who are unique and free citizens. Not a faceless mass of subordinates.

Mass surveillance is an indication that the ruling classes considers themselves — not the people — to be the core of democracy. That is a perversion of the word democracy. True public interest must focus on respecting all citizens and their fundamental rights.

In a democratic society, you only apply surveillance against people who are suspected for serious crime — not the general public. In a decent society, you trust people until there is substantial reason to do otherwise.

Simply, you cannot defend a free and open democratic society by violating the people’s fundamental civil and human rights.

/ HAX

0

Big Brother and Your Money

By on October 18, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Bitcoin, Economics, EU, Privacy, surveillance, Sweden

Many governments are getting very nervous. They struggle with debt, over spending, currency emergencies and new strains on the economy like the European refugee crisis.

So they are keen to make sure that all tax revenues that can be collected will be collected. And mass surveillance gives them a tool to do so.

Also, the move towards a cash free society makes it easier for politicians and bureaucrats to keep track of you and your money.

For years, we have sent bulk data about European bank transfers to the US security bureaucracy under the pretext of fighting terrorism and organized crime (TFTP). In the EU, plans are to replace this system with a European one — aimed to register, control and analyze all of our bank transfers.

In some high-tax countries with submissive population, like Sweden, information from data retention of telecommunications is already being used for taxation purposes.

And this is not just about taxes. If your government controls all your monetary assets, it owns you. Which might come in handy if, someday, people in power would like to curb opposition, limit your civil liberties — or just make your life very difficult.

With no private economic sphere, people are totally in the hands of their whimsical governments and its functionaries.

When it comes to “regular” surveillance concerns, having access to information about your transactions will provide the authorities with a cornucopia of information about you. More so than just surveillance of your electronic and telecommunications.

The government will always be able to give some reasons for its actions. Sometimes even seemingly rational ones. Like striking down on tax evasion. But even these reasons must be weighed against your right to privacy. Just passively accepting them could be used for introducing live surveillance of everybody 24/7.

It’s your life. And it’s your money. Period. The government should just get out of everybody’s hair.

If people could get themselves together and bring about a broader use of Bitcoins, we can bypass all of this governmental economic Big Brotherism.

/ HAX

1

Some links…

By on September 29, 2015 in Big Brother, BND, GCHQ, Germany, NSA & Snowden, Privacy, TPB, UK, US

The Intercept: PROFILED – From Radio to Porn, British Spies Track Web Users’ Online Identities »

Falkvinge: GCHQ Is Building A Stasi Archive On Steroids: Why Are People Still Surprised? »

EU Law Analysis: American Mass Surveillance of EU citizens: Is the End Nigh? »

Netzpolitik: Strategic Initiative Technology: We Unveil the BND Plans to Upgrade its Surveillance Technology for 300 Million Euros »

The Daily Dot: FBI and DEA under review for use of NSA mass surveillance data »

TorrentFreak: Pirate Bay Founder Finally Free After Three Years »

0

European Commission tries to evade Data Retention squabble

By on September 16, 2015 in Data Retention, EU, Human rights, Privacy

In April last year the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the EU Data Retention directive. The court found it to be in breach with human rights to collect and store data about all citizens all telecommunications.

Since then some countries have backed down from the idea, some (like Germany) are trying to go forward with some form of Data Retention “light” and some EU states (like Sweden) tries to ignore the ECJ ruling all together, continuing the practice as if nothing happened.

In a rather unexpected statement today, the European Commission (EC) tries to duck out of this controversy.

As the European Commission has repeatedly said since the European Court of Justice annulled the EU Data Retention Directive: the decision of whether or not to introduce national data retention laws is a national decision. The European Commission has no intention to go back on this statement or reopen old discussions.

We are aware that data retention is often the subject of a very sensitive, ideological debate and that sometimes there can be a temptation to draw the European Commission into these debates. The European Commission is not ready to play this game.

We have been very clear that the Commission is not coming forward with any new initiatives on Data Retention. In the absence of EU rules, Member States are free to maintain their current data retention systems or set up new ones, providing of course they comply with basic principles under EU law, such as those contained in the ePrivacy Directive.

We are therefore neither opposing, nor advocating the introduction of national data retention laws.

Link: European Commission statement on national data retention laws »

It’s easy to understand that the Commission would like to keep away from this dispute. But what the EC says in the statement is not self-evident.

The ECJ invalidated the directive on the basis that it is in breach with human rights, such as they are defined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

And if Data Retention was unacceptable as an EU directive, it should also be unacceptable as national law in EU member states. The principal problem with Data Retention is the same, regardless.

Now, both the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights are parts of the EU treaties. And the EC is the Guardian of the Treaties. Hence, the EC should have an obligation to uphold the ECJ ruling on Data Retention — in all of the EU, at all levels.

But it won’t. As usual in the EU, rules and treaties only apply when in line with what the EU elite wants.

/ HAX

Update: The EU eService Directive mentioned in the statement | Wikipedia » | Eur-Lex »

0