Navigation

Archive | surveillance

Australia leading new »Five Eyes« attack on encryption

By on June 26, 2017 in Big Brother, Cryptography, IT security, Privacy, surveillance

Ars Technica: Australia advocates weakening strong crypto at upcoming “Five Eyes” meeting »

Two top Australian government officials said Sunday that they will push for “thwarting the encryption of terrorist messaging” during an upcoming meeting next week of the so-called “Five Eyes” group of English-speaking nations that routinely share intelligence.

Techcrunch: Australia wants Five Eyes to squeeze tech firms on encryption »

“I will raise the need to address ongoing challenges posed by terrorists and criminals using encryption,” Australian Attorney General Senator Brandis is quoted as saying, ahead of the meeting of the group next week.

“These discussions will focus on the need to cooperate with service providers to ensure reasonable assistance is provided to law enforcement and security agencies.”

The Five Eyes countries are: the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Techdirt: Australia To Push For Encryption Backdoors At Next ‘Five Eyes’ Meeting »

So far, there’s very little real evidence criminals and terrorists are using encrypted services at a higher rate than non-criminals/terrorists. There have been several statements made to that effect and backed by public displays of devices law enforcement officials claim can’t be unlocked, but most post-attack investigations show terrorists are still mostly using unencrypted communications platforms. Available evidence also shows investigations of normal criminal activity is rarely thwarted by device encryption. At this point, backdoors are a “solution” in need of a problem.

0

Why you should trust no politician on Bigbrotherism

By on June 26, 2017 in Big Brother, Civil rights, Deep State, Human rights, surveillance

Within living memory, our loved ones were persecuted, hounded to suicide, imprisoned for activities that we recognize today as normal and right: being gay, smoking pot, demanding that settler governments honor their treaties with First Nations. The legitimization of these activities only took place because we had a private sphere in which to agitate for them.

Doctorow on Trudeau and Obama: What happens after the ‘good’ politicians give away our rights? Cory Doctorow shares a cautionary tale. »

0

The German »Staatstrojaner« mission creep

By on June 22, 2017 in Big Brother, Germany, IT security, Law enforcement, Police state, Privacy, surveillance

A new law allowing the German police to hack into mobile phones for even minor crimes, is expected to be passed by the German parliament this week [update: the law has now been passed]. Currently, the use of a “Staatstrojaner” – government trojan – is only permitted in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. Under the new law, the authorities will be allowed to implant surveillance malware to help secure convictions for over 70 types of crime. These include serious ones such as genocide, treason and murder, but also less serious crimes such as money counterfeiting, vehicle theft, computer fraud, rigged sports betting and tax evasion. Two kinds of trojans will be available. The first allows the authorities to eavesdrop on calls made with the mobile phone, whether using standard telephony or VoIP, while the second gives access to all information held on the device.

Glyn Moody on PNI: Police use of trojans to hack into mobile phones will become routine under new German law »

0

Japans new pre-crime surveillance

By on June 15, 2017 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Democracy, Human rights, Police state, Privacy, surveillance

Earlier today, after an intentionally rushed consideration process, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe passed a new mass surveillance law conveniently called the “anti-conspiracy bill.” The new law creates a list of 277 acts, and makes it illegal to plan any of these acts. With the vague wording of the bill, anyone suspected of planning any of these acts could be put under targeted surveillance. Of course, the Japanese government has promised not to overstep their boundaries and emphasized that the new law is only meant to increase security before the 2020 Olympics.

The »criminal acts«? Some of them are planning any of the following: Copying music. Conducting sit-ins to protest against the construction of apartment buildings. Using forged stamps. Competing in a motor boat race without a license. Mushroom picking in conservation forests. Avoiding paying consumption tax.

An anti-conspiracy bill! Really!?! And how can you even know if someone plans to download a song or pick a rare mushroom?

The worst laws seem to rest on the most absurd justifications.

Privacy News Online: New law in Japan lets police arrest and surveil those merely planning or discussing certain acts, like copyright violation »

0

Really, how much surveillance is enough?

By on June 12, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Human rights, Police state, Rule of law, surveillance

Imagine mass surveillance as a line from 0 to 100. Zero is total anarchy and no control at all. One hundred is total control and surveillance of all the people, in all places, all the time.

So, where are we today? At 45? 60? 75?

Second, in which direction are we moving? Right you are, towards 100.

At which point will this become dangerous, for real? Should we say stop? Can we say stop? Is it too late to say stop? Discuss.

There are international conventions for moments like this. They enshrine our fundamental human rights. One of them is the right to privacy. The right to be left alone.

However, we constantly hear Big Government say that we must compromise, that we must strike a »balance« between security, crime fighting, copyright protection, child protection, the war on drugs, the fight against tax evasion, trafficking, terror propaganda, hate speech, the occasional outburst of moral panic – and our fundamental rights.

The only way to strike such a »balance« is to restrain and undermine citizens rights. And that must not happen. This is the red line. This is why these fundamental rights are set down in very serious European, EU, and UN Conventions.

You simply do not fiddle around with fundamental human rights.

Still, this is exactly what governments all over are doing – striking a »balance«. Taking away our rights towards the ruling political class and our bureaucratic overlords. And this is always done formally correct, within our democratic parliamentarian systems. Because there are not enough people who say No.

Considering that our fundamental human rights are there to protect the people from the state – I really think that the people ought to defend and protect them better. Because our elected representatives will not. They are not on the peoples’ side on this one. They are the state, they are Big Government. They have a different agenda.

To be overly clear: This is about the state taking away your protections against… the whims of the state and its functionaries. This is very bad.

Furthermore, we can not know who might rule the state tomorrow. Please, learn from history. Don’t put dangerous tools of control and mass surveillance in the hands of dangerous people.

All of this must end now – or we will no doubt slide into a more authoritarian society.

/ HAX

1

Theresa May should blame herself, not the Internet

By on June 5, 2017 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, Privacy, Rule of law, surveillance, UK, War on Terror

To nobody’s surprise also the London Bridge assassins were known to the authorities. One of them has been in a tv-documentary about jihadism. And he was reported trying to convert children he met in a park to Islam. According to himself, he would be prepared to kill his own mother in the name of Allah.

Responsible for the authorities that are supposed to handle things like this was – between 2010 and 2016 – now Prime Minister Theresa May.

Today her only comment is that she would like to censor the Internet.

Censoring information and maximizing surveillance of the people is not the way to defend democracy. That would rather be to support the terrorists strive to destroy our open and free society. And it would do very little to stop religious radicalization.

To Theresa Mays defense, it should be said that it is not all that easy to know what to do. You can hardly lock people up who have not (yet) committed any crime. You cannot jail people because of their skin color, their cultural background, their faith or their political beliefs. And you should not punish entire ethnic groups because of the deeds of a few.

There must be better ways to defeat terrorism.

/ HAX

A few links:

London Bridge terrorist ‘was in Channel 4 documentary about British jihadis’ »

Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It »

‘Blame the internet’ is just not a good enough response, Theresa May »

Tim Farron warns of win for terrorists if web is made surveillance tool »

2

Bruce Schneier on NSA and WannaCry

By on June 2, 2017 in Big Brother, Cyberwar, Internet, IT security, NSA, surveillance

People inside the NSA are quick to discount these studies, saying that the data don’t reflect their reality. They claim that there are entire classes of vulnerabilities the NSA uses that are not known in the research world, making rediscovery less likely. This may be true, but the evidence we have from the Shadow Brokers is that the vulnerabilities that the NSA keeps secret aren’t consistently different from those that researchers discover. And given the alarming ease with which both the NSA and CIA are having their attack tools stolen, rediscovery isn’t limited to independent security research.

Bruce Schneier in Foreign Affairs: Why the NSA Makes Us More Vulnerable to Cyberattacks »

0

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