Washington Times: FBI admits no major cases cracked with Patriot Act snooping powers »
Archive | surveillance
Reframing the surveillance debate
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
Snowden: A matter of unintended consequences
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
Meet the Hacktivists
https://youtu.be/0hAtLCBk4gc
This is a film you really ought to see, while it’s still on Youtube: The Hacker Wars
The Intelligence Community and Democracy
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).
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
Agent provocateur
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
The Big Question…
Techdirt: Why Don’t Surveillance State Defenders Seem To Care That The Programs They Love Don’t Work? »
The war on truth about… truth
One common practice when it comes to surveillance is to prohibit ISP:s, telecoms operators and tech companies to disclose that there is or has been any warrants or other demands for information from the authorities. (In the US this is known as national security letters.)
Some companies have worked their way around this by so called warrant canaries. In short this means that they state in e.g. their transparency or annual report that there has been no secret warrants. If they, the next year, leave that information out — they have communicated that there has been one or several secret warrants. But in an indirect, subtle way — without breaching the actual secret warrant in question.
This practice is now going to be illegal in Australia, when it comes to the government spying on journalists. BoingBoing explains…
Section 182A of the new law says that a person commits an offense if he or she discloses or uses information about “the existence or non-existence of such a [journalist information] warrant.” The penalty upon conviction is two years imprisonment.
This making it illegal… to or not to indicate to the public that… you are or are or are not not… telling the truth. Or a lie.
Orwell would have been amazed.
Or, in plain words: The Australian government does not appreciate the truth.
/ HAX
US tech gigants to Obama: End bulk collection mass surveillance
TechCrunch reports that US “technology companies, tech trade groups and privacy organizations sent a letter today to the President Barack Obama, various members of Congress, and governmental security officials, urging reform of the U.S. government’s surveillance practices.” From the letter…
“There must be a clear, strong, and effective end to bulk collection practices under the USA PATRIOT Act, including under the Section 215 records authority and the Section 2 214 authority regarding pen registers and trap & trace devices. Any collection that does occur under those authorities should have appropriate safeguards in place to protect privacy and users’ rights.”
TechCrunch: Tech Giants Call For “Clear, Strong And Effective End” To NSA’s Phone Metadata Surveillance »
The coming War on Cash
War on terror has become an convenient excuse for governments to start a war on cash.
Naturally, cash can be used by terrorists. But it will not mainly be terrorists who suffer from tighter control. It will be ordinary people.
One of the real reasons behind tighter cash regulations are convenient is quite obvious: taxation.
If you want support for this theory, take a look at the EU directive against money laundering. Where implemented strictly (like in Sweden) it makes handling of any substantial amount of cash almost impossible.
The latest is the French tightening the regulations on cash. From Mises.org…
“These measures, which will be implemented in September 2015, include prohibiting French residents from making cash payments of more than 1,000 euros, down from the current limit of 3,000 euros. Given the parlous state of the stagnating French economy the limit for foreign tourists on currency payments will remain higher, at 10,000 euros down from the current limit of 15,000 euros. The threshold below which a French resident is free to convert euros into other currencies without having to show an identity card will be slashed from the current level of 8,000 euros to 1,000 euros. In addition any cash deposit or withdrawal of more than 10,000 euros during a single month will be reported to the French anti-fraud and money laundering agency Tracfin. French authorities will also have to be notified of any freight transfers within the EU exceeding 10,000 euros, including checks, pre-paid cards, or gold.”
The whole idea is based on the presumption that people are up to something suspicious. This seems to be the new default mode, replacing the presumption of innocence (that happens to be one of the fundaments of rule of law).
But this is not just about distrusting citizens with their own money. The common European currency, the Euro, is in a precarious state. Cash regulations can (and will) be used to stop people from rescuing their own money when the shit hits the fan. Just see what happened when the Euro-crisis overwhelmed Cyprus. The government confiscated money directly from peoples bank accounts — and most people had no possibility to rescue their savings.
“Coincidentally” mass surveillance is an excellent tool for governments to enforce financial regulations aimed at the general public…
Is this the moment when people finally will have to turn to free digital currencies in a big way? Is this the tipping point?
/ HAX