Navigation

Archive | Rule of law

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

The secret police state: More lies ahead…

By on June 4, 2015 in BND, Democracy, Intelligence, NSA & Snowden, Rule of law, surveillance, War on Terror

So, the German Intelligence Service (BND) lied to Parliament and the democratic oversight body about its cooperation with the NSA. And the NSA has lied to the US Congress about mass surveillance. In Sweden the surveillance institution, the FRA, has lied to Parliament about (possibly illegal) IT-attacks carried out together with the British GCHQ and the NSA. And in the European Parliament hearings on mass surveillance several prominent European surveillance and intelligence bodies declined participating…

Can we trust the Intelligence Community? Seriously. It ought be under some sort of democratic control or oversight.

There is a view that our elected representatives are powerless against the intelligence organisations — simply because the latter knows too much about the former. If that is to be true, we have some serious problems. In that case democracy has been overridden.

But it doesn’t have to be that bad. It could be a matter of sheer political incompetence. (The politicians do not know what questions to ask, as they do not know what they do not know. And there is a thin line between telling lies and not telling the whole truth.)

It can also be the case that some things, politicians do not want to know.

OK, the intelligence community is supposed to keep us all safe, right? And politicians are not known for keeping that kind of secrets. Maybe it’s better not to let the peoples elected representatives in on everything? Who knows, they might be spies? Or some sort of collaborators? Or they might just fuck things up. (Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)

Well… No.

In a democracy the power emanate from the people. The intelligence bodies are branches of government, who should defend the democratic system and carry out the tasks presented to them by our democratically elected representatives. Frankly, it’s up to the people. If we elect unreliable, psychotic maniacs — that is what our different branches of government have to work with. Sorry to say. But to countermand general elections would be nothing less than a coup d’état.

However, I’m not sure that is how the intelligence community perceive things.

This is a complete mess, isn’t it? A minefield.

My personal favourite theory is that most western intelligence organisations feel that they have more in common with each other than with their respective governments (and parliaments). Many screw-ups could be explained by this theory. And it’s not that far fetched. They know things. (At least they think they do.) They share sensitive information. They do things together. And sometimes shit happens. (To get a grip of this theory, I would recommend you to turn to John le Carrés all too realistic novel A most wanted man. And it’s very possible that reality outmatches fiction.)

So? I guess we need our intelligence services. Even if they sometimes get out of control and do stupid, silly or outright dangerous stuff. The only way I can think of to handle this is to elect better politicians. That, however, is not as easy as it sounds.

Until then: More lies ahead…

/ HAX

0

PayPal joins the Dark Side?

By on April 25, 2015 in Bitcoin, Copyright, Economics, Intellectual Property, Internet, Rule of law

PayPal just updated their User Agreement – and went barking mad.

The new paragraph at section 1.3 reads as follows:

“When providing us with content or posting content (in each case for publication, whether on- or off-line) using the Services, you grant the PayPal Group a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any and all copyright, publicity, trademarks, database rights and intellectual property rights you have in the content, in any media known now or in the future. Further, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, you waive your moral rights and promise not to assert such rights against the PayPal Group, its sublicensees or assignees. You represent and warrant that none of the following infringe any intellectual property right: your provision of content to us, your posting of content using the Services, and the PayPal Group’s use of such content (including of works derived from it) in connection with the Services.”

Whut!?!

And what is “content” supposed to be? PayPal is a payment service. So the only content there is, is the online stuff people and companies sell using PayPal as payment provider. Did PayPal just claim control over all of that?

/ HAX

Links:
• Bitcoin is the Future: PayPal Changes Terms of Service to Take Your Content
• PayPal

18

The Intelligence Community and Democracy

By on April 23, 2015 in Big Brother, NSA & Snowden, Rule of law, surveillance, US

In many ways, Germany seems to be an OK country. At a glance.

The Germans have learned their lessons, after Nazi and Communist rule. They have a reasonably functional Constitutional Court and a reasonably decent constitution. The German parliament, Die Bundestag, is the only European national parliament looking into the Snowden files in a serious way. And German politicians will not accept having other countries spying on them, not even the US.

But, does it matter?

This is the German Federal Intelligence headquarters, the Bundesnachrictendienst (BND).

10956395_10152943458932950_204347250478971585_n

Somehow, it reminds me of the ad tag line for that German chocolate Ritter: Kvadratisch. Practich. Gut.

Well, the “Gut” thing… I’m not so sure.

Today Der Spiegel reported that the BND has targeted politicians in friendly European nations and inside Germany for surveillance on behalf of the US National Security Agency (NSA). TheLocal.de reports, in English…

Der Spiegel reported that the US spy agency sent Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrictendienst (BND), huge numbers of “selectors” – computer addresses, mobile phone numbers and other identifying information – which are used to target people’s digital communications.

Die Zeit reported that the NSA asked for a total of 800,000 people to be targeted for surveillance.

This underlines a universal problem. What good are laws, constitutions, enquiries, democratic oversight and politicians who care for real – if the intelligence community does whatever it wants, without asking for permission or telling anyone?

But the true extent of the scandal wasn’t revealed until the Bundestag’s (German parliament) NSA Inquiry Committee submitted a request for evidence to the BND. (…)

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office, to which the BND is directly responsible, was not informed about the spying on friendly targets until after that parliamentary question was asked, in March 2015.

The intelligence services simply doesn’t give a fuck. They do whatever they want. And no matter what is going on in politics – they keep their close bonds with their Mothership, the US intelligence community.

Some might argue that we (the western world) must stick together in these matters. Maybe. Maybe not. But if we should, we ought to be open with it.

And all those intelligence agencies must be under some sort of democratic control. I understand the need for a certain level of secrecy. But, in the end, they are tools for the benefit of our democratic societies. Not the other way around.

/ HAX

3

Agent provocateur

By on April 16, 2015 in Democracy, Police state, Rule of law, surveillance, US

The Intercept has a captivating piece on the new documentary film (T)ERROR.

Apparently, the FBI has some 15,000 informants — or domestic spies — in the US. Most of them are involved in counterterrorism stings. The purpose is to to find would-be terrorists before they attack. Which might be a good idea. In theory.

In practice, however, much of these activities seems only to create a police state — where it is more important to frame people rather than capturing any actual, real terrorists. It all bears resemblance to the old East German Ministry for State Security, the Stasi.

According to the film, FBI informants often provoke or even pay people to take part in suspect and illegal activities. Thus creating pseudo crimes, that would never have taken place otherwise.

In the main case of the film, due to pure incompetence, the FBI unknowingly alerts the person subject to such an entrapment about what is going on. Eager to clear his name, this man contacts lawyers and journalists — and happens to get in touch with the film crew.

Now, this story is being told from both sides…

“The documentary then becomes a house of mirrors, with each side of the FBI’s counterterrorism operation being reflected onto the other, revealing a mash-up of damaged people being exploited by overzealous government agents, with no sign at all of anything resembling terrorism or impending danger to the public.”

This is a disturbing, tragic side of surveillance and the war on terror that is hardly ever exposed.

The US government setting up operations aimed at provoking targets that poses no real threat to society is a waste of taxpayers money, draining resources from investigating real criminals and terrorists — and might actually radicalise the persons targeted, for real, by pissing them off.

Read the whole piece in The Intercept: The FBI Informant Who Mounted a Sting Operation Against the FBI »

/ HAX

0