Navigation

Archive | UK

Copyright wars, the next step

By on August 7, 2016 in Copyright, EU, Intellectual Property, UK

The UK has just changed its copyright-and-patent monopoly law to extend copyright to furniture and to extend the term of that copyright on furniture with about a century. This follows a decision in the European Union, where member states are required to adhere to such an order. This change means that people will be prohibited from using 3D printing and other maker technologies to manufacture such objects, and that for a full century.

Falkvinge: As 3D printers break through, EU expands copyright to furniture and extends term by a century »

0

UK Brexit Minister in ECJ court case against UK government on privacy

By on July 14, 2016 in Data Protection, ECJ, Privacy, surveillance, UK

This is unusual.

The new UK “Brexit minister” David Davis is involved in a court case in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – suing the British government over personal data rights.

Furthermore, the law he is challenging was introduced by his new boss, Prime Minister Theresa May, during her time as Minister for Home Affairs.

“The choice of Mr Davis is a remarkable one in some ways. A sincere civil libertarian, as well as a pro-Brexit campaigner, he is one of a group of claimants suing the UK government at the European Court of Justice to enforce EU law on an allegedly non-compliant UK in respect of personal data rights. This case — which is reliant on the very charter of fundamental rights loathed by many in his own party — has already seen a decision of the high court saying an act of parliament was incompatible with EU law (though this was not upheld on appeal, it was referred to the ECJ instead).”

FT: David Davis, Brexit and the shapelessness of things to come »

0

Possible new developments in the Sweden vs. Assange case

By on June 23, 2016 in affairs, Assange, Manning, Sweden, UK, US, Wikileaks

There might be a new attempt by Swedish prosecutors to interview Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange.

Assange has been stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than four years – seeking refuge after the UK legal system decided that he should be extradited to Sweden, where he is wanted to be heard about alleged sex crimes.

The reason Assange gives for not wanting to go to Sweden is that he suspect Swedish authorities might extradite him to the U.S. – where a grand jury is looking into the Wikileaks publication of sensitive and embarrassing leaked embassy cables and war diaries. (You should keep in mind that whistleblower Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in U.S. prison for handing this material over to Wikileaks.)

For years Swedish prosecutors refused to go to London to interview Assange at all. Then, for some years now, the question has been in administrative limbo. (Swedish authorities have sent requests with terms that they knew could not be accepted by Ecuador. And they have sent requests with so short a notice that an interview has been impossible to arrange.)

It’s a mess. And the Swedish allegations about sexual misconduct are very thin. Assange hasn’t even been formally charged. This is all about interviewing him.

I would not be surprised if this new attempt to interview Assange also fails. The case against Assange is so thin that it will probably be dropped altogether after another interview. But U.S., British and Swedish authorities seems to be content with having Assange locked up in a small South American embassy in London – where his freedom of action is rather restricted.

/ HAX

The Guardian: Sweden asks to meet Julian Assange inside Ecuador embassy »

1

UK spies cannot handle all the data

By on June 8, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Retention, GCHQ, Privacy, Snowden, UK

“British spies may have put lives at risk because their surveillance systems were sweeping up more data than could be analyzed, leading them to miss clues to possible security threats” according to documents in the Snowden files, now published by The Intercept.

A common analogy when it comes to mass surveillance is “trying to find a needle in a haystack”. Thus, having a bigger haystack might make it harder to find the needle.

Sure enough. The Intercept writes…

Silkie Carlo, a policy officer at the London-based human rights group Liberty, told The Intercept that the details contained in the secret report highlighted the need for a comprehensive independent review of the proposed new surveillance powers.

“Intelligence whistleblowers have warned that the agencies are drowning in data — and now we have it confirmed from the heart of the U.K. government,” Carlo said. “If our agencies have risked missing ‘life-saving intelligence’ by collecting ‘significantly’ more data than they can analyze, how can they justify casting the net yet wider in the toxic Investigatory Powers Bill?”

The British government’s Home Office, which handles media requests related to MI5, declined to comment for this story.

And this is not just a general opinion. There are figures.

A top-secret 2009 study found that, in one six-month period, the PRESTON program had intercepted more than 5 million communications. Remarkably, 97 percent of the calls, messages, and data it had collected were found to have been “not viewed” by the authorities.

The authors of the study were alarmed because PRESTON was supposedly focused on known suspects, and yet most of the communications it was monitoring appeared to be getting ignored — meaning crucial intelligence could have been missed.

“Only a small proportion of the Preston Traffic is viewed,” they noted. “This is of concern as the collection is all warranted.”

Then, there is mission creep…

Carlo, the policy analyst with Liberty, said the revelations about MILKWHITE suggested members of Parliament had been misled about how so-called bulk data is handled. “While MPs have been told that bulk powers have been used only by the intelligence community, it now appears it has been ‘business as usual’ for the tax man to access mass internet data for years,” she said.

We told you this would happen.

/ HAX

Links:
• The Intercept: Facing data deluge, secret U.K. spying report warned of intelligence failure »
• Supporting document: Digint Narrative »
• Supporting document: Digint Imbalance »
• BoingBoing: MI5 warning: we’re gathering more than we can analyse, and will miss terrorist attacks »

0

Germany, Snowden and Russia

By on April 18, 2016 in BND, Civil liberties, GCHQ, Germany, Intelligence, NSA, Rule of law, Snowden, UK, US

Last Friday German magazine Focus ran an interview with the country’s two top spies — Gerhard Schindler, of the Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) and Hans-Georg Maaßen, of the Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz (BfV).

In short, they are annoyed that Edward Snowdens exposure of NSA mass surveillance puts Germany and the UK in an uncomfortable spot. They even implied that Snowden could have been acting under the influence of the Russian government.

“Leaking the secret service files is an attempt to drive a wedge between western Europe and the USA – the biggest since the Second World War,” Hans-Georg Maaßen, head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (Verfassungsschutz), told Focus in the double interview.

The translation above from The Local.de. This has gained some attention in the media and Western military circles. So, let’s take a step back and try to look at the wider picture.

Yes, it is a problem that very little is known about mass surveillance carried out by e.g. Russia and China. But you cannot blame Snowden for this. He worked for a contractor to the NSA and leaked what he found to be unacceptable violations of civil rights. Furthermore, the NSA is an intelligence organisation in a democratic country; that should be held responsible under the rule of law. It is not a level playing field. But our western democracies are better than authoritarian and totalitarian states – and our authorities should be held accountable according to a higher standard. Especially when they spy on their own citizens.

Yes, it is a problem that Edward Snowden is stranded in Russia. But that does not make him a Russian spy or mouthpiece. The reason he is in Moscow is: 1) When he arrived there for transit, the US had revoked his passport. 2) No western democracy is willing to grant Snowden asylum. If German authorities are willing to grant him shelter and protection – he can be in Berlin pretty quickly, where a parliamentary inquiry would love to meet with him. (However, I don’t think German intelligence services are all too keen about that prospect.)

And naturally Germany and the UK are being criticized. They deserve to. German intelligence has been spying on companies, businesspeople, and political figures in Germany and allied European nations on behalf of the NSA. And they have lied about it in front of German parliamentarians. In similar ways, the British GHCQ have been acting far beyond its mandate. Both countries are close allies with the US and both countries intelligence authorities have a close cooperation with the American NSA. So, it is not the least strange that German BND has come under scrutiny. But they can blame no one but them selves.

But OK, no one can tell for sure if Snowden is a (knowing or unknowing, willing or unwilling) Russian spy. But that does not alter the fact that his revelations have huge implications for how our democratic societies are run. It is extremely important that this information has come to the public’s knowledge. To defend a free and open society, we must stick to democratic principles, rules, and legal frameworks.

The best, easiest and most decent thing would be to grant Edward Snowden asylum in Germany – and let him testify in front of relevant parliament committees. But I guess that will never happen.

/ HAX

• The Local.de: German spies imply Snowden leaked files for Russia »
• Focus: Doppel-Interview mit Gerhard Schindler und Hans-Georg Maaßen: Kreml versucht den deutschen Bundestag zu infiltrieren – Russen treiben mit Hilfe des Whistleblowers Snowden einen Keil zwischen Westeuropa und den USA »

0

Next step in EU court case on Data Retention will be July 19

By on April 13, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Retention, ECJ, EU, Human rights, surveillance, Sweden, UK

Very little has been known or reported from yesterday’s hearing on data retention in the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The hearing was conducted as a part of British and Swedish cases – arguing that data retention in the respective countries should end, as a consequence of the ECJ ruling in 2014 overthrowing the EU Data Retention Directive.

As data retention is found to be in breach of human rights on an EU level, the same should apply on a national level – the argument goes.

I will try to find out more about yesterday’s hearing. And if you find any links, please post them in the comments to this blog post.

The next step in this affair is said to be the Advocate Generals recommendation to the court – to be delivered July 19. (Normally the ECJ will follow this recommendation. But the process is slow, taking several months more.)

/ HAX

2

GCHQ and Big Entertainment

By on April 12, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Entertainment, Copyright, File Sharing, GCHQ, Intellectual Property, UK

It was a little-noticed story in the Entertainment and Oddities section: The GCHQ is using its spying network to help the copyright industry prevent “unauthorized distribution of creative works” – meaning ordinary people sharing interesting things with each other. Yes, that spying network which was supposed to prevent horrible terror attacks, and only to prevent horrible terror attacks, to safeguard our very lives as a last line of defense, is now in the service of the copyright industry.

Rick Falkvinge: So GCHQ is already spying on behalf of the copyright industry. Why isn’t there an outcry over this change of mission? »

0

UK: The Lauri Love case

By on April 4, 2016 in Big Brother, Cryptography, Hacktivism, IT security, UK, US

It is a general principle in democracies under the rule of law that a person suspected of a crime should not be forced to incriminate himself. And the European Convention of Human Rights clearly stipulates the presumption of innocence.

Having that in mind, the Lauri Love case in the UK is troublesome.

Love is being accused of hacking U.S. government computer systems a few years back. He is now fighting extradition to the U.S. — and the British authorities when it comes to the contents of his computers.

The Intercept:

Following Love’s arrest in 2013, the National Crime Agency, or NCA, seized computers and hard drives in his possession. He was then served with an order under Section 49 of the U.K’s controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which demanded that he hand over his passwords to open encrypted files stored on the devices.

Years have passed since then — and when Love decided to sue to have his computers and hard drives back, authorities renewed their efforts to access them under Section 49. There will be a court hearing April 12.

“I don’t have any alternative but to refuse to comply,” he told The Intercept. “The NCA are trying to establish a precedent so that an executive body — i.e., the police — can take away your computers and if they are unable to comprehend certain portions of data held on them, then you lose the right to retain them. It’s a presumption of guilt for random data.” (…)

(So I guess you better not have any files with white noise on your hard drive.)

This is not just about Mr. Love. The case can set a dangerous president.

Naomi Colvin, a campaigner for transparency advocacy group the Courage Foundation, told The Intercept that she believed the case could have “huge implications for journalists, activists, and others who need to guard confidential information” — potentially setting a precedent that could make it easier in the future for British police and security agencies to gain access to, or to seize and retain, encrypted material.

In the end, it all boils down to one simple question: Should the government have the right to force you to decrypt encrypted information?

Apart from Ms. Colvins arguments (above), we must consider what would happen if governments are allowed to force you to incriminate yourself. It would shatter presumption of innocence. It could throw court cases into deadlock over evidence that do not exist or cannot be accessed. It would give the prosecution an unfair advantage — especially over innocent individuals, who could be detained until they give up and “confess”.

Equally important, in my mind, is that your personal information is closely connected to your person. It is of less importance if this information is stored in your mind or on an encrypted hard drive. The information you possess is a part of who you are and your life. As long as people are regarded as self-owning individuals (and not the property of the government) everyone should have the right to respect for their own person. (And for private and family life, home, and correspondence.)

But I’m not too hopeful. The Intercept:

Court documents show that the agency requested — and a judge approved — that witness statements and skeleton arguments should not be disclosed “to the press, the public, or any third party save with the leave of the court until after the final hearing, and then only in relation to such matters as are referred to in open court or as permitted or directed by the court.”

/ HAX

Read the full story in The Intercept: British authorities demand encryption keys in case with “huge implications” »

4

UK one step closer to ban anonymous porn surfing

By on February 16, 2016 in Censorship, Data Protection, Internet, Porn, Privacy, UK

With a public consultation, the British government now is one step closer to demanding age verification at internet porn sites.

This is a bad idea in itself. But what makes it even worse is that it will make anonymous porn surfing impossible (at least for the not so tech-enlightened).

BBC: Government launches porn site age checks consultation »

Daily Mail: Porn sites will have to make users prove they’re over 18: New laws will make them use age verification software or face up to £250,000 fines »

First of all, is it at all wise to ban people under the age of 18 from watching porn online? After all, they are allowed to enjoy sexual activities from the age of 16. But they shouldn’t be allowed to see depictions of other people fucking? Really?

Second, there is a strong case for anonymous porn surfing: Many people might want to explore alternatives to heterosexual missionary position sex. But they might not want the government, the ISP:s, the credit card companies or the site owners to know about it. And rightly so. People have a right to sexual privacy.

My third objection is about security. One of the options in the consultation is that people should have to check in to porn sites (even free porn sites) by using their credit card. Thus exposing themselves to obvious risks. This way porn sites (real ones, that can be hacked and fake ones, set up for skimming) will become a very popular tool for credit card fraud.

The whole project will become a morass of unintended and unwanted consequences.

/ HAX

1

The Assange dilemma

By on February 7, 2016 in Assange, Human rights, Sweden, UK, UN, US, Wikileaks

I stand with Julian Assange. But I think his case took a turn for the worse this week.

First, to recapitulate: Julian Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden. This ridiculous situation is the result of a Swedish prosecutor refusing to interview him about alleged sexual misconduct, in a case that is very thin. Assange has reasons to fear that Sweden might surrender him to the US, where a Grand Jury is preparing his case. Sweden has handed over people to the CIA without prior judicial process on an earlier occasion. And the Wikileaks whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The situation for Julian Assange looks very much like that of a political dissident kept under house arrest.

Article 9 in The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

This declaration has been signed by Sweden as well as the United Kingdom. Now a UN panel under the Human Rights Commissioner has ruled that the way Assange is treated is in breach of this central principle. It is the same panel that e.g. took on the case of Aung San Suu Kyi. Usually, these rulings are held in high. But this time, the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Clearly the UK and Sweden only honor the UN panel when they are not the culprits.

Never the less, this has been lost on most people. It’s all too complicated and sublime.

The British and Swedish governments, on the other hand, only had to deliver simple one-liners. The UK foreign secretary Philip Hammond brands the UN panel’s ruling “ridiculous”. The Swedish government’s line is that this will not change anything.

Also, some media has deemed the UN approach as nonsensical. Remember, it’s simply not enough to be right — if this cannot be communicated in a way that makes an impact.

In practice, very little has changed. And the case against Assange will stay open until August 2020.

Somehow, I have a feeling that the UK, Sweden and the US feel rather content having Julian Assange in limbo at the Ecuadorean embassy in London. There his actions will be limited. And with an open investigation on alleged sex crimes, his reputation will stay tarnished. All of this having a negative impact on Wikileaks possibilities to expose wrongdoings and the dirty little secrets of the power elites.

That is exactly why the UN panel’s report is relevant.

/ HAX

Affidavit of Julian Paul Assange »

 

1