Archive | Uncategorized

1989 was a year of disruptive change. The Berlin Wall came down, promising hundreds of millions of people an end to oppression, mass surveillance and restrained markets. The same year the World Wide Web (the http protocol) was born, bringing us all new ways of communication, cooperation and creativity.

The irony of it all is that Big Government and Big Business don’t approve of a free and open internet. So they try to regulate, to hinder free flows of information, to spy on people and to suppress the free market.

— o —

When scientists at Cern launched the WWW (http) they decided not to patent it–but to hand it over to all of mankind. This is the reason we have one common, global network today–instead of a compartmented Internet run by different companies.

Suddenly everyone could share information on a global scale. And information is power. This is where trouble begins. Those in power are not interested in letting go.

Big Government gets panic-stricken by the prospect of losing control. And Big Business (especially in the information monopoly industry) dislike change and fear a truly free market.

When these interests meet, it is a perfect marriage. Governments want control (and covert access to information). Big Copyright wants laws to protect them from technical progress, an ever changing market, new competition and–ultimately–from their own customers.

Big Government and Big Business do not want information to be free. The circle is closing.

So we get mass surveillance. We get laws restricting flows of information and free speech. We get governments going after people exposing the truth. We get limitations of competition and free enterprise. We get special interests manoeuvrering around the democratic process. We get regulations replacing free markets and spontaneous order. Back to the future.

This is the crossroad where we stand today. Should we allow Big Government and Big Business to build new walls? Or should we use technology, encryption, disruptive tools like Blockchain, openness and political activism to defend a free and open society?

Because this fight is not just about the Internet.

/ HAX

Twenty-five years ago this weekend, the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain came down. This also lead to the end of the East German state, DDR.

The DDR was a communist dictatorship, an authoritarian state that did not hesitate to imprison or kill dissidents and those trying to flee. The very symbol of this brutal state was the secret police, the Stasi.

Stasi was known for a widespread system of informants, extensive record-keeping and surveillance. Its’ very existence lead to a silent society. Knowing that everything you said could be recorded and turned against you, people held their opinions private.

Several times I saw this system too close for comfort. And it filled me with rage. So I did what little I could to help the peoples of Eastern Europe in their struggle for freedom.

Fast forward to today…

With NSA mass surveillance, data retention and projects like Indect we are building something that goes far beyond what the DDR leadership could ever imagine: A toolbox for almost total surveillance.

While the DDR could wiretap only a small number of telephones at a time, modern mass surveillance grabs data about all our electronic communications. All the time.

While the DDR kept their huge registers in manual filing systems–our authorities can get most information about us on screen with a few simple commands. And they can just as easily cross reference information about us from an ever growing number of databases.

While the DDR was depending on informants and secret agents–the EU is funding projects like Indect. Tracking camera surveillance, drone monitoring, automated face recognition, automated behavioural analysis, supervision of our web-habits, searching databases… you name it. All in one package, sent to one screen, instantly.

Et cetera, et cetera… It might be that our government is elected by the people, that it has no sinister intentions and that it truly respects our human and civil rights. (OK, I’m stretching it.) But that will not last for ever.

And even if it does, the very awareness of total surveillance will lead to a silent society. Knowing that everything you say is being recorded and can be used against you, people will tend to hold their opinions private. Back to the mindset of the DDR.

This is cause for serious concern.

Then, we have the thing that really pisses me off: The good guys turning bad.

I didn’t spend some twenty years of my youth to fight Big Brotherism in the east–just to find our western democracies of today going down that very same road.

We shouldn’t go there. Because we respect the individual, her dignity and her fundamental rights. Because we know better. Because we have seen where that road will lead.

I have seen Big Brother up close. And I hate him. It’s personal.

Frankly, that might be what really makes me keep on fighting.

/ HAX

At Virgin.com Dominic Frisby has this noteworthy post: Why Bitcoin will do to banking what the cell phone did to communication »

Only two billion people are ‘banked’ and participate in ecommerce. Yet about 5.5 billion have at least some access to the internet. That’s a potential 3.5 billion people who could participate in ecommerce but don’t, because they don’t have access to the necessary financial infrastructure.

Thanks to Bitcoin and other forms of mobile money, this lack of basic financial services is no longer a barrier to entry. You don’t need a bank account or any of that stuff. That’s history. All you need to participate in ecommerce is some internet access. Most of the world’s population will have that long before they have proper sanitation, education or healthcare.

Spontaneous order, free markets, decentralization and “democratization” at work.

Youtube »

We live in a surveillance state where you must be aware that everything you say or do can be used against you.

The institutor of the secret police, French Cardinal Richelieu is attributed to having said…

“Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him.”

Thats really it, isn’t it? Can you explain all your words and actions? Especially if they are taken out of context or associated with some sort of pattern haphazardly connected to bad things? Can you prove your innocence?

What does such a society do to people?

Personally I am conducting even rather mundane conversations by encrypted channels these days. Using encryption is, in itself, a good thing. But what is disturbing is that I feel that I have to do it.

Using the phone, apps on a smartphone or tablet or just surfing the Internet we all have to consider our actions in advance. (What did you google today?) And it is not just about us. With government agencies building charts and sociograms from our communications, what we do can have consequences for our friends, family and others.

German studies about data retention shows that even “passive” surveillance will have a chilling effect on human behaviour. It makes us avoid doing things and to communicate about things that are sensitive, that could be misunderstood or that are rather private.

This form of self censorship is becoming more common the more the surveillance state is rolled out. But it is very hard to estimate what effects it will have on society.

Terrorist attacks can be measured in value of damaged property and in the number of injured or killed people. (For instance you are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. You are also three times more likely to be killed by lightening than by terrorists. You are even more likely to die from falling of a chair than from terrorism.)

Even if those numbers are more or less neglectable, they are numbers. And those numbers will be used (normally out of context) by politicians as an excuse to expand mass surveillance.

Here we have a problem without an adequate solution. On the one hand you have soft values that are very difficult to measure (the effects of self censorship). On the other hand you have something rather well-defined (the number of people killed by terrorists).

I’m not an utilitarian–but if you are going to get politicians and bureaucrats to back down, you need facts and hard numbers. Sorry to say, but it’s all about beancounting.

Nevertheless, there are serious consequences from self censorship. It’s damaging to democracy. It’s toxic to culture. It’s harmful for business. It has a chilling effect on all of society.

This ought to be a given subject for a scientific dissertation.

/ HAX

Live demo: World’s First Blockchain ID. (Direct link »)

More information: World Citizenship – Creating Affordable Decentralised Passport Services Using Available Cryptographic Tools »

Here we go, again. More totalitarian gestures from the British Government.

The Guardian reports…

Government plans that mean computer users deemed to have damaged national security, human welfare, the economy or the environment will face a life sentence have been criticised by experts who warn that the new law could be used to target legitimate whistleblowers.

Politicians claim that this is all about cyberterrorism. But it is obvious that such a legal framework easily can be used against whistleblowers.

And–as usual–it’s all about how you define things.

What is “national security” anyway? It can be almost anything. “Human welfare” is a very broad description. Computer users “damaging” the economy or the environment? (Sounds more like something the Government is doing.)

And notice the word “deemed”.

Well, the definition will be made by… the Government. How convenient.

UK politicians are just about to give themselves yet another legal tool that can be used to curb opposition. This is becoming a pattern.

I cannot understand how they are thinking. OK, politicians see themselves as fair and decent people. That might go for the bureaucracy as well. But you know nothing about how things will be tomorrow. And politics is a volatile business.

To put it in simple words: Never create legal tools that you wouldn’t be prepared to trust in the hands of your worst enemy.

The Guardian: Computer users who damage national security could face jail »

/ HAX

A US federal agency (The National Science Foundation) has been granted close to a million USD of taxpayers money to study “social pollution”.

Ajit Pai in the Washington Post…

The project is being developed by researchers at Indiana University, and its purported aim is to detect what they deem “social pollution” and to study what they call “social epidemics,” including how memes — ideas that spread throughout pop culture — propagate. What types of social pollution are they targeting? “Political smears,” so-called “astroturfing” and other forms of “misinformation.”

And it gets worse…

The Truthy team says this research could be used to “mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate.”

So, the US Government is trying to get on top of what’s going on in social media, such as Twitter?

If you are to act on misinformation and propaganda–you first will have to decide what the truth is. And that’s not always all that obvious.

To do that you will have to side with one party in ongoing public debate. And in this case truth is to be defined by a government agency…

That’s scary. For real.

Ajit Pai in the Washington Post: The government wants to study ‘social pollution’ on Twitter »

/ HAX

Music, film, games, e-books… In default mode that piece of entertainment or culture you just bought comes with built in copy protection, DRM (Digital Rights Management).

DRM takes away your control and actual ownership. (You know, those Amazon e-books that your Kindle app wrongfully claims “is not licensed for this unit”.) It prevents fair use. Normally DRM comes with special software for your gadget, out of your control. Sometimes such software has been proven harmful–and it is likely that it will spy on you and your habits.

In most places it is illegal to break DRM or even to provide information on how to get round it. (This puts some information about consumer electronics, software and content outside the realm of free speech.)

DRM is a menace. And it seems like we are stuck with it. (It is not only protected by national laws. Often it’s included in new trade agreements like the TPP and the TTIP.)

But DRM can also present a possibility–for startups, self publishers, independent filmmakers, new artists, disruptive ventures and brave entrepreneurs.

The possibility it opens up is not to have it. To use open formats and standards instead.

This is marketing judo. Making a point of not harassing fans and customers. Not demanding special software to play or read something. Not to tamper with peoples gadgets and not to spy on them.

The main sales points would be usability and being friendly to fans and customers. I also believe that most people would catch the “moral” aspect of supporting artists, publishers, record labels and film producers who trust them.

Providing Open Content could become some sort of coveted “moral quality label”. (This is, to some extent, already the case with content under Creative Commons licenses.)

OK, but… Will such content not be pirated? To some extent, yes it will be.

But for most content producers, being unknown is a worse problem than file sharing. There are lots and lots of examples of content taking off just because it has found a loyal following on the file sharing scene. Today, there are even bands and artists promoting their work by putting it on The Pirate Bay.

(To dig deeper into all of this, read Chris Andersons well known and easily digestible book Free: The future of a radical price.)

My point is that Big Business (with help from lawmakers and Big Government) is trying to strengthen its grip over the content industry by beefing up copyright / IP-law–and by technical means, such as DRM.

These dinosaurs are so totally focused on saving their outdated business models that they don’t manage to see, understand or adopt to the ever changing market. That will make them vulnerable to disruptive ideas–to concepts that are more in line with an online society, with the market and with popular demand.

Open Content can be such a disruptive business model.

/ HAX