Navigation

Archive | Rule of law

EU:s ambiguous directive on combating terrorism

By on December 4, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil rights, Democracy, EU, Human rights, Police state, Rule of law, War on Terror

This week the Human Rights Committee (LIBE) in the European Parliament will finalize the formalities on the new EU directive on combating terrorism. There is little room for changes, as there has been closed door negotiations (trialogue) on the content between the Parliament, the Council (member states) and the Commission. From LIBE the directive will go to the vote in the December Parliamentary plenary session in Strasbourg.

This directive is an odd document as national security is not formally an EU competence. Newer the less, it has been rushed trough the system and is now close to becoming EU law.

The document can be seen as a response to the Paris and Brussels terrorist attacks. It is surely the result of pressure on EU member states interior ministers to be seen to do… something.

The directive is notably vague. Maybe even suspiciously vague.

Among the listed purposes for illegal terrorist actions, we can read the following »seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation«. And on form… »given their nature or context«.

This is vague. And it sounds dangerously close to… suppressing opposition or perfectly legitimate disruptive political activism. Would this label e.g. a tax revolt terrorism?

Threats to »information systems« resulting in »major economic loss« are also mentioned. Exactly where does this place some forms of hacking or maybe a DDoS attack? Will hackers now be deemed to be terrorists?

And exactly what does the following suggest? »Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of one of the offences listed in points (a) to (h) of Article 3(2), where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed, is punishable as a criminal offence when committed intentionally.«

The wording »whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences« is just confusing.

»For an offence referred to in Article 4 and Title III to be punishable, it shall not be necessary that a terrorist offence be actually committed, nor shall it be necessary to establish a link to a specific terrorist offence or, insofar as the offences in Articles 9 to 11 are concerned, to specific offences related to terrorist activities.«

Isn’t that a bit ambiguous?

So it continues. And I’m not the only one being suspicious…

Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), European Digital Rights (EDRi), the Fundamental Rights European Experts (FREE) Group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are warning that the overly broad language of the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism could lead to criminalising public protests and other peaceful acts, to the suppression of the exercise of freedom of expression protected under international law, including expression of dissenting political views and to other unjustified limitations on human rights. The Directive’s punitive measures also pose the risk of being disproportionately applied and implemented in a manner that discriminates against specific ethnic and religious communities.

It seems that the purpose of this directive is to expand the scope of the anti-terror legislation to cover as much as possible. The risk is that it will go too far – labeling opposition, activism, hacking, and some other political activities as terrorism. Especially as it is up to the member states to implement this directive. There are plenty of politicians in Europe just looking for an excuse to silence uncomfortable voices and disruptive political movements.

/ HAX

LIBE meeting documents »

EDRi: European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed »

0

TiSA and corporate censorship

By on November 28, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Free Information, Rule of law

(W)hile having provisions to promote freedom of expression will be a step forward, the latest US made a proposal in TiSA which does not respect the rule of law and would remove rights to freedom of expression. The proposal is that internet companies would not be liable for any damage caused by voluntary restrictions of individuals’ free speech if they undertake such restrictions “in good faith” because they feel that the communications are “harmful or objectionable”.

EDRi: New leaks confirm TiSA proposals that would undermine civil liberties »

TiSA = Trade in Services Agreement

0

Civil rights are not in the interest of the ruling political class

By on November 25, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Privacy, Rule of law

Democracy and civil rights. It would be difficult to find anyone in the western world who does not subscribe to these principles. At least in public.

Yet, we are steadily moving away from these values.

It is being done in many small steps. Always justified with the best of intentions – like security, fighting serious crime, child protection, the war on drugs, copyright protection and combating hate speech. Just to mention a few.

Nevertheless – without a doubt – we are limiting privacy, free speech, rule of law and equal rights. It seems to be a non-reversible process. And sooner or later, the many small steps will end up being a giant leap.

Democracy and civil rights can only be curtailed so many times before the consequences will be dire.

»We have to strike a balance between fundamental rights and security« politicians say. And every time that is being done, civil rights are hollowed out. When you repeat this process time and time again – fundamental rights will be reduced to empty words.

This is extremely serious. But nobody really seems to care.

One day we will wake up to a society where you cannot speak your mind, where everything you do is observed and scrutinized, where courts no longer is a guarantee for fair trials, and where it doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty – you will have everything to fear.

You will have to be blind not to see the writing on the wall.

Please, do not trust politicians with upholding our fundamental rights. They have a different agenda. They are the ones limiting them.

Our civil rights can only be upheld, protected and won back by the people. It is in no one else’s interest.

/ HAX

3

Sweden to outlaw… what, exactly?

By on November 21, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Rule of law, self-censorship, Sweden

For years, online hate speech and cyber-bullying have been on the political agenda in Sweden. Now there will be some new laws, covering a wide range of actions and statements.

Let’s have a look at »Insulting behaviour« (PDF, summary in English, page 42-43).

Under the wording we propose, criminal liability will presuppose that someone through accusations, disparaging comments or humiliating behaviour acts against another person in a way that is intended to violate the other person’s selfesteem or dignity.

What does this even mean in real terms? OK, there is an attempt to clarify…

The assessment is to be based on the circumstances in the individual case. However, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of a generally held norm for what represents unacceptable behaviour and what individuals should not be expected to tolerate. This is expressed by the provision stating that the act must have been intended to violate someone’s self-esteem or dignity.

First of all, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity for a law. »Disparaging comments« – isn’t that in the eye of the beholder? »Self-esteem« and »dignity« is something personal, referring to experiences and feelings about a certain situation. It’s very subjective. And »a generally held norm«? Who is to define what that is?

I guess the Supreme Court will have some very difficult decisions to make.

This is sloppy lawmaking in the »safe space« era, where the line between real insults and arguments is blurred. And it gets worse. Page 34, »Our starting points«:

Protection of privacy is also protection of the free formation of opinions and, ultimately, of democracy. There may be a risk that threats against journalists, debaters or opinion-makers result in the person threatened refraining from expressing him- or herself or participating in the public debate.

First of all, take note of the Orwellian twist: To defend free speech, we must limit it.

Second, as one would suspect, it’s not really about teenage bullying in school – but to protect the inner peace and self-image of e.g. journalists and politicians. Suddenly the term »disparaging comments« stands out, in a new light.

So, colorful criticism of politicians might or might not be illegal – on a case by case basis.

Big Brother will be busy.

/ HAX

1

EU in new attempt to make ISP:s police and censor the Internet

By on November 12, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Copyright, EU, Freedom of Speech, Intellectual Property, Internet, Rule of law

Joe McNamee, EDRi: EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of free speech »

The proposed Directive:
1) requires internet companies to install filtering technology to prevent the upload of content that has been “identified by rightsholders”
2) seeks to make internet providers responsible for their users’ uploads
3) gives internet users no meaningful protection from unfair deletion of their creations

So, ISP:s will have to check on all content uploaded by users – i.e. scrutinize everything that is uploaded to the Internet.

What is to be allowed or censored will not be a matter of rule of law – but falls under company terms and conditions that can state… whatever.

There will be no legal means of redress or appeal.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information will be in the hands of ISP:s who are to be liable for all user uploads. There is good reason to fear that these companies will be overly anxious and cautious – censoring everything with even a remote possibility of being an infringement of copyright.

This is yet another attempt to get around the eCommerce-directives principle of »mere conduit« stating that net operators can not be liable for what users are doing in their cables.

And imagine the burden on the ISP:s, having to police all of the users net activities.

This proposal is an assault on »mere conduit«, free speech, privacy and the rule of law. It must be stopped.

/ HAX

1

EDRi on censorship of free speech in the EU

By on November 12, 2016 in Censorship, EU, Freedom of Speech, Internet, Rule of law, social media

EDRi on the EU agreement with social media to censor e.g. hate speech and radicalization, the »Joint Referral Platform«…

Both incitement to violence and violence itself are utterly unacceptable. However, this abhorrent behaviour must also not result in attacks on core principles of our society. In particular, any restrictions must be proportionate, necessary and genuinely meet their objectives. This means that we need clear laws and clear responsibilities for all parties involved: states, providers and civil society. (…)

The restrictions are not provided for by law ‒ terms of service take precedence. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the German parliamentary question, the proportionality cannot be assessed as the State is not in possession of useful data.

EDRi FAQ: EU Code of Conduct on illegal hate speech »

0

Trump and mass surveillance: You were warned

By on November 10, 2016 in Big Brother, Human rights, Privacy, Rule of law, surveillance, US

Suddenly, after the US presidential election, people seems to realize that mass surveillance is a problem.

Time Magazine: President Obama Should Shut Down the NSA’s Mass Spying Before It’s Too Late »

Well, yes. But…

Isn’t mass surveillance a problem, regardless of who is in power?

Isn’t it naive to assume that others will not and do not misuse the surveillance apparatus?

Time writes:

During the Obama administration, warrantless spying programs have vastly expanded, giving the government more power than ever before to constantly monitor all of us by collecting our emails, texts, phone records, chats, real-time locations, purchases, and other private information en masse. This indiscriminate spying isn’t just happening in some National Security Agency bunker. It has reportedly spread throughout dozens of agencies, from local police departments to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and more.

Trump has repeatedly called for more government surveillance. And he has made it very clear exactly how he would use such powers: to target Muslims, immigrant families, marginalized communities, political dissidents, and journalists.

This describes pretty well what the problem is and who is responsible.

The danger of all of this one day falling into the »wrong« hands ought to have been obvious from the very beginning.

It’s naive to claim that Big Brotherism is a problem in just some cases, used by some political forces, with some specific justifications. Mass surveillance is a problem by its very nature and to its core – regardless who is in power. Always.

Naturally, the mass surveillance apparatus in the hands of Donald Trump is a deeply disturbing notion.

But you should have considered such a risk from the very beginning. You were warned. Repeatedly.

/ HAX

0