Navigation

Archive | Privacy

The real cost of free WiFi?

By on May 31, 2017 in Big Brother, Civil rights, Data Retention, EU, Free Information, Free Markets, Freedom of Speech, Intelligence, Internet, Privacy, surveillance

EU Observer:

The European Commission, Parliament and Council (representing member states) agreed on Monday to a €120-million plan to install free wi-fi services in 6,000 to 8,000 municipalities across the EU by 2020. The scheme had been proposed by EU commission president Jean-Claude Juncker last September. How the system will be funded will have to be discussed and agreed before local authorities can start applying to it.

How kind. I guess a lot of people will be happy. But there might be unintended and unwanted consequences.

First of all, there is no such thing as a free lunch. In the end, this is €129M that somehow, forcefully will be taken from taxpayers.

Second, there must be much merriment within various mass surveillance organizations. This will make controlling the people that much easier.

And if you read the parliaments statement, there is mention of a »single authentication system valid throughout the EU«. This will have huge privacy implications. Can we please have a discussion about this first?

Third, it usually doesn’t end well when politicians start to meddle with what is supposed to be a free market. Is this at all fair competition? What will the consequences be when it comes to developing better and quicker commercial connections?

Finally, communal WiFi run by your local bureaucracy. What can possibly go wrong? Will it even work? How will surplus metadata that you generate be used? By whom? Wich web pages will be blocked?

/ HAX

0

War on terror: We are doing it wrong

By on May 29, 2017 in Big Brother, Civil rights, Deep State, Human rights, Intelligence, Police state, Privacy, surveillance, UK, War on Terror

Time and time again it turns out that terrorists have been known to authorities before their attacks.

In the tragic Manchester case, there had been numerous reports on the perpetrator. But these warnings were ignored. (This also happened under PM Theresa Mays watch as UK Secretary of State for the Home Department.)

• Manchester attack: UK authorities missed several opportunities to stop suicide bomber Salman Abedi »
• Manchester Bomber Was Repeatedly Reported to Authorities Over Five Years »
• Manchester attacks: MI5 probes bomber ‘warnings’ »

Despite of this – governments insist that the way to fight terrorism is more mass surveillance, infringing on ordinary, decent peoples right to privacy.

This approach is counterproductive – and will make us all less safe.

Clearly, surveillance should be focused on people we have reason to believe are dangerous to others.

And most of these people can be identified, e.g. by their association with others or after having traveled to places of certain types of war and conflict.

Authorities refusal to take a reasonable approach to this issue raises questions about the real purpose of government surveillance schemes.

/ HAX

0

UK to move against end-to-end encryption after general election

By on May 29, 2017 in Big Brother, Cryptography, Deep State, Privacy, UK

Once again there are indications the UK government intends to use the law to lean on encryption. A report in The Sun this week quoted a Conservative minister saying that should the government be re-elected, which polls suggest it will, it will move quickly to compel social media firms to hand over decrypted data.

Techcrunch: Could the UK be about to break end-to-end encryption? »

0

»Theresa May to shut down the internet as we know it«

By on May 22, 2017 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil rights, Deep State, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Internet, Privacy, surveillance, UK

“Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet,” it states. “We disagree.”

The Independent: Theresa May to Crete New Internet that would be Controlled and Regulated by Government »

Pull the various tech-related manifesto pledges together and – if the polls are correct and May wins a majority in next month’s election – the Conservatives could have a mandate from the British public for a significant extension of internet regulation, all based on the idea that a government’s duty to protect citizens exists just as much on the internet as it does in the real world.

Buzzfeed: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet »

“Balances” freedoms? Freedoms aren’t supposed to be “balanced.” They’re supposed to be supported and protected. And when you have your freedoms protected, that also protects users. Those two things aren’t in opposition. They don’t need to be balanced. As for “obligations for businesses and platforms” — those five words are basically the ones that say “we’re going to force Google and Facebook to censor stuff we don’t like, while making it impossible for any new platform to ever challenge the big guys.” It’s a bad, bad idea.

Techdirt: Theresa May Plans To Regulate, Tax And Censor The Internet »

0

The future of profiling

By on May 21, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Data, Data Protection, Democracy, Privacy, social media

Even worse, profiling and similar techniques are increasingly used not just to classify and understand people, but also to make decisions that have far-reaching consequences, from credit to housing, welfare and employment. Intelligent CCTV software automatically flags “suspicious behaviour”, intelligence agencies predict internet users’ citizenship to decide they are foreign (fair game) or domestic (usually not fair game), and the judicial system claims to be able to predicts future criminals.

As someone once said: it’s Orwell when it’s accurate and Kafka when it’s not.

Privacy International » Cambridge Analytica Explained: Data and Elections »

0

The Internet after UK elections?

By on May 19, 2017 in Big Government, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Internet, Privacy, UK

UK Prime Minister and noted authoritarian Theresa May has promised that if she wins the upcoming general election, her party will abolish internet access in the UK, replacing it with a government-monitored internet where privacy tools are banned and online services will be required to vet all user-supplied content for compliance with rules about pornography, political speech, copyright compliance and so on — and search engines will have to employ special British rules to exclude banned material from their search results.

BoingBoing: Theresa May promises a British version of Iran’s Halal Internet »

0

WTISD-17: The two faces of Big Data

By on May 17, 2017 in Big Data, Civil rights, Data Protection, Privacy

Big data has a potential to improve society – much like electricity or antibiotics. From health care and education to urban planning and protecting the environment, the applications of big data are remarkable. However, big data comes with big negative impacts. Big data can be used – by both advertisers and government agencies – to violate privacy. The power of big data can be exploited to monitor every single detail of people’s activities globally.

EDRi: Big Data for Big Impact – but not only a positive one »

0

EDRi on data mining

By on April 21, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Data, Big Government, Data Protection, Democracy, Privacy

Did Donald Trump become president because he hired the data mining firm Cambridge Analytica, which uses profiling and micro-targeting in political elections? Some say yes, many say no. But what we know is that we are subjected to extensive personalised commercial and political messaging on the basis of data, including metadata, collected and used without our awareness and consent. It can result in changes in our behaviour, at least to some extent.

EDRi: Data mining for profit and election result – how predictable are we? »

0