Navigation

Archive | Rule of law

Kim Dotcom – NZ extradition ruling

By on February 20, 2017 in Police state, Rule of law

The New Zealand High Court today ruled that Kim Dotcom can be extradited to the US, but it won’t be on copyright grounds. After months of deliberation, Justice Murray Gilbert agreed with the US Government’s position that this is a fraud case at its core, an offense that is extraditable. Dotcom says he will fight on.

TorrentFreak: Kim Dotcom Extradition to Go Ahead, But Not on Copyright Grounds »

BBC: Kim Dotcom can be extradited, New Zealand High Court rules »

0

“What could happen if you refuse to unlock your phone at the US border?”

By on February 15, 2017 in Big Brother, Civil rights, Data Protection, IT security, Police state, Privacy, Rule of law, US

Ars spoke with several legal experts, and contacted CBP itself (which did not provide anything beyond previously-published policies). The short answer is: your device probably will be seized (or “detained” in CBP parlance), and you might be kept in physical detention—although no one seems to be sure exactly for how long.

Ars Technica: What could happen if you refuse to unlock your phone at the US border? »

0

Your password or your freedom

By on February 12, 2017 in Civil rights, Cryptography, Data Protection, Privacy, Rule of law, US

Francis Rawls, a former Philadelphia police sergeant, has been in the Philadelphia Federal Detention Center for more than 16 months. His crime: the fired police officer has been found in contempt of court for refusing a judge’s order to unlock two hard drives the authorities believe contain child pornography. Theoretically, Rawls can remain jailed indefinitely until he complies. (…)

He’s not charged with a crime. Judge demands he help prosecutors build their case.

Ars Technica: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives »

0

The importance of Separation of Powers

By on February 6, 2017 in Democracy, Rule of law, Trump, US

The drama surrounding the US »travel ban« underlines the importance of separation of powers. Wikipedia:

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

This principle will, no doubt, be stress-tested under president Trump.

Donald Trump might be impulsive and be shooting from the hip. This is problematic, as both Democrats and Republicans have granted the President extensive powers. (E.g. killing and detaining people, including US citizens, without due process.)

Those powers ought to be limited. But still, the larger picture is that there is a separation of powers and that the system is working. For now.

And this is where we should be vigilant. President Trump might do stupid and dangerous things. Mainly, these are issues for the everyday political discourse. But if he will try to limit the separation of powers – he will pass a red line. Then, the issue at hand will concern a cornerstone of democracy itself.

This is what is really important, interesting and worrying about the travel ban drama: A new president challenging the separation of powers from start.

/ HAX

0

Sweden – not so neutral, after all?

By on January 9, 2017 in Big Brother, GCHQ, Intelligence, IT security, NSA, Rule of law, surveillance, Sweden, UK, US

Possible targets might be the administrators of foreign computer networks, government ministries, oil, defense, and other major corporations, as well as suspected terrorist groups or other designated individuals. Similar Quantum operations have targeted OPEC headquarters in Vienna, as well as Belgacom, a Belgian telecom company whose clients include the European Commission and the European Parliament. (…)

Significantly, while WINTERLIGHT was a joint effort between the NSA, the Swedish FRA, and the British GCHQ, the hacking attacks on computers and computer networks seem to have been initiated by the Swedes.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Swedish intelligence agency FRA – together with British GCHQ – declined to participate in the European Parliaments hearings on mass surveillance.

The New York Review of Books: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar »

0

Assange on Fox: Governments hate transparency

By on January 8, 2017 in Assange, Big Brother, Big Government, Democracy, Free Information, Hacktivism, Rule of law, Transparency, Wikileaks

“We’re in the business of publishing information about power,” Assange said. “Why are we in the business of publishing information about power? Because people can do things with power, they can do very bad things with power. If they’re incompetent, they can do dangerous things. If they’re evil, they can do wicked things.”

In Part III of the interview, which aired Thursday on the Fox News Channel, Assange also said that governments “hate transparency. They loathe it. Because they have to work harder.” (…)

Governments are “full of incompetent people,” Assange told Hannity. “And the more secretive the area is, the more incompetent it becomes because there’s no proper oversight.” (…)

“If you don’t know what’s happening in the world with powerful individuals, corporations and governments … immoral actors within the state or within those big corporations prosper,” Assange said at the conclusion of the interview.

Fox: ‘Hannity’ Exclusive: Wikileaks’ Assange: Governments ‘Hate Transparency. They Loathe It’ »

0

War on fake news and hate speech to open Pandora’s box?

By on December 19, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Democracy, Facebook, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Germany, Media, Rule of law, social media

What is truth?

Facebook will start to flag content as »disputed«. Obvious fake news will be flagged by Facebook itself. And disputed »real« news content will be subject to third-party fact-checking with e.g. Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News, the AP, and Politifact.

Are they to draw a line between »fake« and »wrong«? While »fake« in many cases might be assessed on reasonably objective grounds, »right« or »wrong« can be a very complicated and delicate matter.

At the same time, there is a proposal in Germany to fine Facebook € 500,000 for each identified piece of fake news or hate speech that is not removed within 24 hours.

To its nature, »hate speech« is a definition that lies very much in the eye of the beholder. Even where there is a legal definition, things might prove problematic – as such laws often give different groups different sets of »rights« (like protection from verbal or written abuse). This being a deviation from the principle that all people should be equal before the law.

These are extremely complex issues. No doubt these rules will lead to disputes over freedom of speech. Here also lies inherent conflicts between mainstream media and alternative media, between the political elite and popular opposition, and between conflicting sets of values. This might prove to be a modern version of Pandora’s box.

And – in a wider perspective – the very notion that there will be some sort of »Ministry of Truth« is deeply disturbing.

/ HAX

• Wired: Facebook Finally Gets Real About Fighting Fake News »
• Deutsche Welle: 500,000 euro fines for fake news on Facebook in Germany? »
• Quartz: Germany threatens to fine Facebook €500,000 for each fake news post »

0

EU producing a lot of hot air trying to curb free speech

By on December 15, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Democracy, EU, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Internet, Rule of law, social media

A press release from the European Commission caught my eye: EU Internet Forum: a major step forward in curbing terrorist content on the internet »

At today’s second high-level meeting of the EU Internet Forum convened in Brussels by Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos and Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King, key internet companies presented an industry initiative, which constitutes a significant step forward in curbing the spread of terrorist content online. As part of the industry-led hash-sharing initiative, participating companies can use hashes to detect terrorist images or videos, review the material against their respective policies and definitions, and remove matching content as appropriate.

Well, that is only a part of the story.

The Commission totally ignores the fact that this form of censorship is conducted outside the rule of law.

The concept is that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft should remove illegal terrorist content. But what is illegal? As a matter of fact, the press release doesn’t touch on this question. The word illegal is not even mentioned. And there might be reasons for that.

In a democratic society, censorship should strictly be a matter for the courts – as they are the ones qualified to make the delicate decisions about what is legal or not. And naturally, there must be a possibility to appeal.

But that is not how the EU Internet Forum / The Joint Referral Platform will work.

It’s all about using these social networks terms and conditions to block content. The decisions will be made by the companies abuse departments, with no possibility of redress. There will be no proper legal procedure, cases will be handled by people who are not legally trained and there is an obvious risk of overreach.

That is not a proper way to approach the delicate issue of free speech.

This is all about EU politicians having established a way to limit free speech without the inconvenience of having to create new law under public scrutiny – and without having to bother with proper legal procedures. It is an approach to limit free speech without getting your fingers dirty.

And there is more.

The same instrument is to be used to curb »hate speech« and other statements that politicians disapprove of. There are no real limitations, no oversight, and no transparency. This project doesn’t have a democratic mandate. And the European Commission has been very secretive and unwilling to share information about what is going on. This is totally inappropriate.

The people’s elected representatives in the European Parliament must look into this matter – to defend our civil rights, democratic process and the rule of law.

/ HAX

4

UK: State now allowed to lie in court

By on December 8, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil rights, Rule of law, UK

(D)espite the establishment of a parallel system of secret justice, the IPA’s tentacles also enshrine parallel construction into law. That is, the practice where prosecutors lie about the origins of evidence to judges and juries – thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial because he cannot review or question the truth of the evidence against him.

The Register: The UK’s Investigatory Powers Act allows the State to tell lies in court »

0