Navigation

Archive | Privacy

Enemies of the State, unite!

By on July 10, 2015 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Democracy, Police state, Privacy, surveillance

Have you noticed that they kill people based on meta data? Not in the US and Europe. But people far away. With drones, the targets selected from among other things: meta data from telecommunications.

So… what phone calls did you make yesterday? Last week?

They can. They do. Maybe not where you live. But it is only a matter of time.

But you have nothing to hide — and for that reason nothing to fear, right? (Really? Nothing?)

First of all, it may be up to a machine to decide on that. Without involvement of human reason. Doesn’t your communication patterns appear to be a little… odd?

Frankly, everyones communication patterns look odd — if you look into them in detail and add this with information from other social charts. You almost certainly are only a few common friends away from some seriously bad people. (Phone books are gold mines for people who draw lines between the dots.)

And there are plenty of laws around to make something stick to you. You don’t have to be guilty. But legal trouble can incapacitate you for years and drain all your money away. (The wars on terrorism, drugs and “piracy” can be very useful for the government, in this regard.)

In the US, apparently the Obama administration use the IRS to make life hell for anti-Obama activists. (Link») Captivating.

But it dosen’t have to be party political. You can become an Enemy of the State just by telling the people what their governments and officials really are up to. (Manning, Assange, Snowden, Brown & Co.)

This perverted system is already connected to the killing machines. I sure hope all our leaders are wise, honest and fair people. Always.

/ HAX

0

UK: Cameron sticks to a ban on encryption

By on July 2, 2015 in Big Brother, Cryptography, Privacy, UK

In the House of Commons, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has reaffirmed his commitment to ban encryption.

Or, at least, to demand “back doors” to all encrypted communication tools.

Is this political posturing or genuine ignorance?

Practically everyone who knows anything about encryption can tell you that “back doors”  to encrypted communications is a contradiction in terms. Either you have encryption where only end users with proper keys can read our messages. Or you have non secure systems where not only the government but also foreign governments, criminals, corrupt officials and terrorists will be able to interfere with peoples communications.

And how would the British government enforce a ban on encryption? They would need to scrutinise and pre-approve all communication tools and apps on the market. Even non UK ones. And they would need to scan everything to make sure no one uses stand alone encryption tools in combination with ordinary communication tools such as e-mail.

The only way to uphold a ban on encryption is to control all our electronic communications. And even that will not work.

Furthermore, a ban on encryption would need to be world wide.

Link: David Cameron is going to try and ban encryption in Britain »

/ HAX

1

Bring mass surveillance back on the EU agenda

By on June 22, 2015 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, EU, Human rights, NSA & Snowden, Privacy, Rule of law

At springtime last year the European Parliament was conducting hearings om mass surveillance. In parts, it was rather thrilling and tense. The hearings ended with a resolution, where the MEP:s stated (in a rather vague way) that they are ill at ease with what is going on.

Formally, they could do nothing more — as national security does not fall under EU competence.

But informally, it was important that the peoples elected representatives tried to get to grips with what is going on.

Then came the European elections, a new parliament was elected and mass surveillance was not an issue on the agenda anymore.

It’s about time to bring some new life to this issue, on the EU level.

Even though the European Parliament cannot interfere with national security — it has the authority to make statements when it comes to human rights. (The right to privacy is considered to be a human right, according to binding european statues.)

And the European Commission (the only EU institution that can submit real proposals) is formally the “guardian of the treaties” — including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Also, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights can uphold our civil liberties, as stated in the documents above.

The problems with mass surveillance are still the same as a year ago. As a matter of fact new national laws in some EU member states have made things worse since then.

We need to figure out how to apply renewed pressure on our EU politicians when it comes to mass surveillance. And some judicial activism wouldn’t hurt either.

/ HAX

0

Big Brotherism when the law is an ass

By on June 8, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Government, Democracy, Police state, Privacy, Rule of law

Laws are the tools politicians (and bureaucrats) use to force the people to behave in a certain way. And they have the police to enforce these laws.

In a democratic society it is essential that the laws are the same for all citizens, and applied in the same way for all. Regardless what these laws stipulate, regardless if they are “good” or “bad”. All people should have the same rights (and obligations).

This does not imply that all laws are good. There are plenty of really bad laws. Some are unfair, some are in conflict with fundamental human and civil rights, some are silly, some creates “crimes” without victims and some are plain stupid.

Most people break some laws, most of the time. There are simply too many laws for anyone to have a reasonable grasp of most of them. Some laws we break because we find them unimportant, silly or patronising. And some laws we should break, as they infringe on our fundamental rights.

Laws are always the footprint of the ruling political forces. We have all seen the Internet meme “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). The fact that something is legal is no guarantee that it is right or reasonable.

In a democratic system, the laws can even be used to undermine or nullify democracy itself. In a democratic, orderly way.

Enter: mass surveillance.

Mass surveillance gives the authorities a way to control that the people obey the laws. All the people. All the laws. All the time. Even really bad laws.

This will create a society where everyone must be looking over the shoulder. A society where you must be careful before you talk. An anxious society.

This might be a classic case of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

We need to talk about this: If we are to live in a mass surveillance society (like it or not), it must be a somewhat relaxed, liberal and tolerant society.

To put it in different words: The ruling classes need to give the people some slack. If not, pressure and tensions will build in a dangerous way – when authorities can control almost everything we do.

But politicians do not abide by any live and let live principles. And they certainly do not plan ro roll back mass surveillance.

/ HAX

1

Queens Speech and Big Brother

By on May 27, 2015 in Big Brother, Censorship, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Privacy, surveillance, UK

BBC summons up the Queens Speech from todays opening of the British Parliament. Here is what to expect when it comes to Big Brother-related bills…

Extremism Bill

This includes measures to tackle broadcasting of extremist material. The government wants to strengthen watchdog Ofcom so that it can take action against channels that transmit extremist content. The legislation will also propose the introduction of banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of proscription. A new power to allow police and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism will also feature. And employers will be able to check whether an individual is an extremist and barring them from working with children.

Investigatory Powers Bill

“New legislation will modernise the law on communications data,” the speech said. An Investigatory Powers Bill will revive plans to give intelligence agencies new tools to target communications data – branded a “snooper’s charter” by critics. The government says it will equip the police intelligence agencies with the tools to keep people safe.

…and what is not in the Queen’s Speech?

Although it appears in the Queen’s Speech, there is no legislation, either in full or draft form, on a British Bill of Rights. Instead, ministers will consult on the pros of replacing the Human Rights Act with a new legal framework of rights and responsibilities.

Read more at BBC – Queen’s Speech 2015: Bill-by-bill »

0

Reframing the surveillance debate

By on May 16, 2015 in Big Brother, Privacy, surveillance

Fighting mass surveillance is somewhat overwhelming.

But it’s not only a matter of laws, legal issues and government policies. It’s also a matter of mindset.

Too often society focus on the negative, just making things worse. The war on terror seems to have created more terrorists. The war on drugs seems to have caused us more drug related problems. And so on.

So, maybe we ought to shift focus from mass surveillance to privacy.

Instead of fighting a flood of new laws, sneaky intelligence organisations, panic-stricken politicians and bully-boy security contractors on details — maybe we ought to take more time to explain why privacy is so important. Instead of primarily focus on specific elements in legislation — maybe we should fight more often on principle.

Of course we will have to fight at both these front lines. But, seriously, it might be a good thing to put more time and energy into the positive side of this issue.

Politicians, security bureaucrats and the security industry will always have an advantage when we fight by their rules, arguing over details in their schemes. But they will have a much harder time defending mass surveillance if the debate is more about respecting or denying the people its right to privacy.

It’s all about reframing the debate.

One way to do this might be to campaign for various parliamentary assemblies to introduce bills and resolutions declaring that there shall be no surveillance aimed at people who are not suspected for breaking the law.

That might put the shoe on the other foot.

It would place politicians in a situation where — instead of pretending to protect the public from some vague dangers — they will have to explain if they are willing to respect citizens fundamental right to privacy or not.

Such an approach could actually make politicians listen, as it might affect peoples willingness to vote for them.

/ HAX

0

“The Vindication of Edward Snowden”

By on May 11, 2015 in Big Brother, NSA & Snowden, Privacy, US

Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic writes…

Snowden undeniably violated his promise to keep the NSA’s secrets. But doing so was the only way to fulfill his higher obligation to protect and defend the Constitution, which was being violated by an executive branch exceeding its rightful authority and usurping the lawmaking function that belongs to the legislature. This analysis pertains only to the leaked documents that exposed the phone dragnet, not the whole trove of Snowden leaks, but with respect to that one set of documents there ought to be unanimous support for pardoning his disclosure.

Read more: The Vindication of Edward Snowden »

(Via: BoingBoing)

0

Recent court ruling does NOT end NSA mass surveillance

By on May 10, 2015 in NSA & Snowden, Privacy, Uncategorized, US

In an important decision last week an appeals court in New York ruled that NSA collection of Americans’ phone records is unlawful. However, this does not put an end to NSA mass surveillance.

What the court ruling says:

  • NSA collection of metadata is in breach of the Patriot Act, going beyond its mandate.
  • Now it will be possible for others to sue the NSA.
  • The collection of metadata practice will not end here and now, even if it is deemed unlawful.
  • The ball is back with US politicians, now considering to extend the Patriot Act.

What it does not say:

  • That bulk collection of meta data is unconstitutional.
  • That this collection must come to an end.

The ruling is a step in the right direction. But in no way a final victory.

Read more:
• NSA mass phone surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden ruled illegal »
• The courts stood up to NSA mass surveillance. Now Congress must act. »
• The court ruling (PDF) »

/ HAX

0

Snowden: A matter of unintended consequences

By on May 6, 2015 in Big Brother, Democracy, NSA & Snowden, Privacy, surveillance

No, I’m not into conspiracy theories. Yes, I believe that Edward Snowden is a genuine hero and that he is acting from the best of intentions. Nevertheless, there is a side of the Snowden revelations that has been oddly overlooked. A matter of unintended consequences.

Some people already knew. Some were pretty convinced. Some suspected. A lot of people had a hunch. Then came Snowden. Now we all know. That is a good thing.

Unless you are the US Government or the NSA. (Or their international partners.) Then you are furious.

This is what is so intriguing. Shouldn’t people in high places be rather content?

Naturally governments and spy organisations don’t want their methods to be known. But what about the awareness of mass surveillance, as such?

The very notion of blanket surveillance will change people. For the worse, if you ask me. But, giving it some thought, politicians and bureaucrats might have reason to perceive it in another way. From their perspective, the way Big Brotherism changes people doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

It will thwart opposition. It will daunt traditional whistleblowers. It will deter activism. It will silence dissent. It will keep people in check. It will foster servitude.

Now, the people will — sadly enough — know that there are good reasons to fear the government. Suddenly we live in a society where mass surveillance is the new norm. A society where it is safer to keep a low profile.

How… convenient.

I fear it will not take long before this mindset will begin to saturate the ruling classes.

/ HAX

4