Navigation

Archive | Uncategorized

EU centre-right group using Paris tragedy to try to kill data protection directive

By on November 18, 2015 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, EU, Police state, surveillance, Uncategorized, War on Terror

Since the Paris attacks politicians, police and intelligence agencies have pushed for more mass surveillance. And now, it seems they are also trying to undermine the new EU framework for data protection.

The EU data protection directive has been under massive fire from special interests and member states in the council. But the European Parliament has been firm in insisting on a clear and meaningful framework to protect citizens private data.

Now the centre-right group in the parliament, the EPP, is trying to suspend these negotiations.

“In the aftermath of the cruel attacks in Paris on Friday, Axel Voss MEP, in his capacity as EPP Group Shadow Rapporteur for the Data Protection Directive, has called for the immediate suspension of the Data Protection Directive trialogues and a review of the mandate to identify the impact of the draft text on law enforcement capacity to exchange information.” (…)

“According to Axel Voss, the text stipulates major bureaucratic burdens to law enforcement and security entities and would basically transform them into data protection officers when processing personal data for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences and terrorist activities.”

What this is all about, is the EPP trying to use the tragedy in Paris to undermine the demands for authorities to use citizens personal data in a responsible way. But there should and must be rules for authorities as well.

Data protection is more important today than ever before. Especially when authorities are riding on a wave of fear, trying to advance their positions when it comes to surveillance and data mining.

Link: Data Protection Directive trialogue should be suspended »

/ HAX

1

Mass surveillance makes us less safe

By on November 14, 2015 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Democracy, France, Human rights, Intelligence, Privacy, Rule of law, Uncategorized

BanksyParis

Our thoughts are with the victims of the terror attacks in Paris.

But we should not allow ourselves to react in a thoughtless way. Terrorists want to impose fear –leading us away from a free, open and democratic society.

France already has one of the most intrusive regimes of mass surveillance in the western world. Apparently, this did not stop the terrorists.

Actually, it might very well be that mass surveillance makes us all less safe. The number of “false positives” makes serious police work more difficult. Dependence on electronic surveillance systems also directs resources away from old fashion police activites, intelligence operations, informed analysis and “HUMINT” (Human Intelligence).

Naturally, there is a place for advanced forms of electronic surveillance. But it should be focused on individuals and groups who are suspected to prepare for criminal activities. And to identify such targets, HUMINT is essential.

Time and time again it has been revealed that terrorists have been on the security services radar before striking. But the what, where and when is normally never communicated in ways that can be intercepted by mass surveillance. Here you need targeted surveillance, old-fashioned spies and qualified intelligence analysis. This is hard work, it takes time, it is costly and it can be dangerous. But it is what is effective to keep us reasonably safe from terrorism. (If at all possible.)

And given that the whole point of fighting terrorism is to defend our free, open and democratic society — it would be counter-productive to treat all citizens as potential terrorists and criminals. The people is not the problem.

/ HAX

1

European Parliament takes a stand against mass surveillance (again)

By on October 31, 2015 in Uncategorized

This Thursday, the European Parliament took yet another stand against mass surveillance. The short version is that the parliament is frustrated that the European Commission and member states seem to ignore the issue and earlier resolutions.

Too little has been done to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights following revelations of electronic mass surveillance, say MEPs in a resolution voted on Thursday.

As national security is not within EU competence, all the EP can do is to is to focus on human / civil rights and data protection. Even that ought to go a long way. But it doesn’t — as the system is organised in a way that makes it possible for other institutions to totally disregard the stance of the only clearly democratic elected body in the EU.

The best you can hope for is that these EP resolutions will strengthen the European Court of Justices determination to uphold human rights. (As when it invalidated the EU data retention directive.)

And before giving too much praise to the EP, one should keep in mind that Thursdays resolution was approved by 342 votes to 274, with 29 abstentions. The surveillance-industrial complex still has a lot of friends in the European Parliament.

But despite being a toothless resolution that no one will care about — it’s rather OK in most parts.

EP press release » | The resolution »

/ HAX

0

Shaping tomorrows Facebook

By on October 13, 2015 in Uncategorized

The past ten years was the Google years. Now, we seem to enter the Facebook era.

Facebook gives us an easy way to keep in touch with friends and relatives. It serves us with big and small news that are supposed to be relevant for us. It provides an advertising platform that is simple to use and affordable also for small businesses.

Also, Facebook is an internet player that gives Big Media an advantage over independent, alternative media. It co-operates with big, old media corporations — pushing fringe media and blogs aside. It aims to be the main video provider, but without Youtubes revenue sharing. (Resulting in less independent content being produced.)

Facebook shares information with different intelligence and surveillance organisations, especially in the US. (Even though the European Court of Justice has invalidated the »safe harbour« agreement, in an attempt to stop European personal data to be transfered to the US.)

Facebook is the ruling classes wet dream. And we must consider the possibility that it is not only used to collect information about people — but also to control what information is distributed to the citizens.

Facebook is also a commercial operation. It must listen to users, be relevant to us and adopt to the market. What you do on Facebook today determines what Facebook will be tomorrow. This is an opportunity. (Frankly, what are the alternatives? There is no real competition. At least not for the moment.)

E.g. you can choose to link to alternative media instead of Big Media. You can put your videos on Youtube and linking to them on Facebook, instead of putting them directly on Facebook. You can push news about mass surveillance and Big Brotherism. Everything you do will be noted by Facebook. And as you are the product — what you do will be noticed and shaping the Facebook of tomorrow.

The message should be loud and clear: Facebook users want pluralism. We love alternative media and blogs. We support revenue sharing content platforms.

/ HAX

1

UN backtracking on web policing and licensing for social networks

By on October 8, 2015 in Uncategorized

Recently the United Nations Broadband Commission for Digital Development suggested that social networks and platforms should police the Internet and to be “proactive” against harassment and violence against women and girls. Only web platforms doing so should be licensed. (Link»)

Now the commission has withdrawn its report after criticism from across the political spectrum. Breitbart.com reports…

“The report was by all accounts incredibly poorly researched, with over 30 per cent of its citations links either broken or missing. Others linked to articles from the early 2000s which accused video game companies of promoting satanism, while another linked to the local hard drive of a researcher.” (…)

“Despite the isolated attempts to defend the report, its flaws became too apparent for even the U.N Broadband Commission to defend. Its withdrawal pending review is an acknowledgement that the launch was a failure. For the friends of web censorship, it will be remembered as a major embarrassment.”

Sometimes protests works.

0

Swedish Assange hearing before end of year?

By on September 1, 2015 in Uncategorized

For years, prosecutor Ms. Marianne Ny has refused to interview Julian Assange about the Swedish sex crime allegations against him. First, she refused to do it at the Swedish Embassy in London. And when Assange was granted asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK, she refused to interview him there. Meanwhile both the British Government and a Swedish High Court have urged Ms. Ny to get her act together.

This spring there was a half-hearted Swedish attempt to move the case forward. But the request from Sweden to Ecuador about an interview was sent with very short notice – resulting in Ecuador asking for a guarantee that Mr. Assange will not be extradited from Sweden to the US (where a Grand Jury is preparing a case against him). Sweden was not prepared to grant such a guarantee (extradition cases can — at least formally — only be handled by courts, not by the government in Sweden).

But yesterday, Monday, there was a statement from the Swedish Ministry of Justice, that seems to have taken some form of control over the situation. There has been a meeting between Swedish and Ecuadorian officials in Stockholm. Ms. Cecilia Riddselius at the ministry is optimistic about an agreement. It seems that there is some sort of general agreement (not just concerning Assange) being negotiated between the two countries. Both Swedish and Ecuadorian representatives are hopeful about establishing such an agreement shortly.

Ms. Riddselius tells the Swedish national broadcaster, Sveriges Radio, that she is hopeful that Swedish prosecutors will be able to interview Julian Assange in London before the end of the year.

That’s about time. After that, hopefully the very thin case against Julian Assange will be dismissed all together — so that he can focus on the important work with Wikileaks.

The question is what will happen when this affair is dealt with. Will Assange be able to safely leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? He is, after all, wanted in the UK for jumping bail. And what about the risk of the Brits extraditing him to the US?

Link to todays’ statement (in Swedish). »

/ HAX

Update: AFP “Sweden eyes Ecuador deal by year-end, paving way for Assange probe” »

1

If we want more whistleblowers to step forward, we must grant Snowden asylum

By on August 4, 2015 in Uncategorized

Two years ago Edward Snowden exposed NSA global mass surveillance. This was very important – revealing the hidden politics of US, UK and other countries.

But, as a matter of fact, much that was exposed in the Snowden files was known earlier. Known, but without real impact. What Snowden did was to verify this information — forcing the media to report and politicians to react (in a good or bad way).

For some 30-40 years journalist Duncan Campbell has reported on UK surveillance and shady intelligence operations. He is maybe best known for his work on ECHELON — the global surveillance network, which existence was hard to believe even for civil rights activists. But it turned out he was right. And today, what he told us then is confirmed in the Snowden files. (Read the Duncan Campbell story here. »)

The late Caspar Bowden exposed US mass surveillance warned the European Parliament about the NSA PRISM programme a year ahead of Snowden blowing the whistle. (Video ») But nobody seems to have taken his warnings seriously enough.

In the US and UK there where scores of whistleblowers before Snowden. (You can listen to some of them in the excellent PBS documentary United States of Secrets. »)

But the mass surveillance controversy didn’t really take off until Snowden.

It had to be done in a very public and newsworthy way. It ment that the whistleblower in question had to leave his life behind and risk everything. It had to involve brave journalists, steadfast publishers and some large media corporations. It had to be done openly, with maximal transparency and standing up to people in powerful positions.

The Snowden files are still very important. But slowly this affair is fading away. The NSA, GCHQ & Co has moved on, developed new methods and adopted to (or circumvented) new rules.

Today, we need more whistleblowers. And we need them to step forward the Snowden way — grabbing the world by the balls.

This is one reason it is so sad that no western democracy seems to be willing to grant Edward Snowden asylum. Because, frankly, who really wants to be stuck in Putins Russia? It must be possible to expose the truth and have a future here in the West.

Surely, there must be some politicians in some country willing to stand up for truth, transparency and democratic core values. Or..?

/ HAX

0

TTIP — What to expect when it comes to Internet related issues

By on July 20, 2015 in EU, Intellectual Property, Internet, TTIP, Uncategorized, US

Just before summer recess the European Parliament adopted a resolution regarding the EU-US trade agreement, the TTIP. It was generally positive to an agreement — even though the actual content of the TTIP still is unknown, in large parts.

Free trade as in free trade is a positive thing. But is this what the TTIP is about? Some would say it’s more about regulations. But we cannot tell for sure. The negotiations are conducted behind closed doors and the legislators in the European Parliament will probably not be allowed to see the entire text until negotiations are over. And then it will be to late to change anything. At that point all they can do is to to adopt or reject the whole package.

That was what happened with the ACTA agreement. It was also negotiated in secret. And it was also a package deal, impossible to change. Due to (among other things) possible limitations to a free and open Internet — the European Parliament surprised everyone by rejecting the deal.

So what’s in store when it comes to “intellectual property” and the Internet in TTIP? We still don’t really know. Some documents have been released (link»). But they are of a rather general nature and reveal very little when it comes to Internet related issues. But we have some indications.

This spring the European Parliaments legal affairs committee made a strong recommendation to exclude Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) from the TTIP (link»). However, in its’ recent resolution the EP failed to follow up on this recommendation (link»).

And we have the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, the TPP. One TPP document leaked by Wikileaks (link») suggests the following…

The 95-page, 30,000-word IP Chapter lays out provisions for instituting a far-reaching, transnational legal and enforcement regime, modifying or replacing existing laws in TPP member states. The Chapter’s subsections include agreements relating to patents (who may produce goods or drugs), copyright (who may transmit information), trademarks (who may describe information or goods as authentic) and industrial design.

The longest section of the Chapter – ’Enforcement’ – is devoted to detailing new policing measures, with far-reaching implications for individual rights, civil liberties, publishers, internet service providers and internet privacy, as well as for the creative, intellectual, biological and environmental commons. Particular measures proposed include supranational litigation tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards. The TPP IP Chapter states that these courts can conduct hearings with secret evidence. The IP Chapter also replicates many of the surveillance and enforcement provisions from the shelved SOPA and ACTA treaties.

It is expected that the TTIP will include something similar.

This suggests that TTIP will be ACTA all over again — when it comes to IPR, Internet related issues and civil rights.

The TTIP has already been heavily criticised when it comes to the “investor state dispute settlement” chapter, ISDS. But due to lack of substantial information civil society, activists and the media have yet not had any opportunity to react to any IPR and Internet related issues.

This might be a lesson the EU and US administrations have learned from ACTA — to play their cards close to their chest. The later this information is released, the harder it will be to build momentum for a campaign like the one that took down ACTA.

However, this is a weak plan. We know that there will be something. And we have some indications about what to expect. We are ready to take on the TTIP in full force and with short notice — to defend a free and open Internet. Like we did with ACTA.

I most strongly do recommend the EU and US administrations to follow the European Parliaments legal affairs committees recommendation to exclude IPR (and Internet related issues) from TTIP if they want this agreement to come true.

But they won’t.

/ HAX

1

European Parliament pushing forward with registration of travel data

By on July 14, 2015 in Uncategorized

Wednesday, 15 July, key committees in the European Parliament will push forward with registration of our travel data (PNR).

EDRi writes…

“The question is simple. In the absence of any evidence of necessity, of usefulness, of proportionality, is it acceptable to treat every citizen as a potential serious criminal? Is it acceptable to indiscriminately collect individual’s information, storing it in stockpiles of data which will become a security risk in their own right? Is it acceptable that, having made this mistake with telecommunications data retention, the European Parliament looks set to make this mistake again?”

Read more »

0