Archive | War on Terror

Wikileaks on CIA / Vault 7

“Year Zero” introduces the scope and direction of the CIA’s global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of “zero day” weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones. (…)

These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking the “smart” phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.

Wikileaks » Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed »

0

Fake news is nothing new

The debate on »fake news« might be new to some. But for us who are activist when it comes to a free and open internet, privacy and civil rights – this is what we have been fighting for a very long time.

Governments strive towards »total information awareness« has always been excused with e.g. the war on terror, the war on drugs, child protection, fighting organized crime and national security.

The same arguments – and some other, like hate speech – have been used to restrict free speech and freedom of information.

Then we have the corporatist battle over copyright vs. the Internet – sacrificing a global, free flow of information to save outdated business models.

When activists find out and go public, the reaction from politicians and bureaucrats is normally that we have got it all wrong. But the swarm is resourceful, and often we find some sort of a smoking gun. In a few cases, we manage to stop what is going on (like ACTA). In some cases, we manage to change details (like the EU telecoms package). But normally we loose. Then the proposals become law. And most things we warned people about is actually happening.

Told you so.

(In some very rare cases – like EU data retention – the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights objects strongly enough to stop what is happening in its’ tracks.)

Today the concept of total information awareness is a reality in countries like the U.S., the U.K., and France. In Germany, it has just been legalized.

And after decades of legal battles, it seems as if Big Entertainment is getting closer to having the Internet Service Providers to police the Internet – leading to extrajudicial filtering and censorship without the possibility to redress.

During the processes leading up to all of this – politicians and bureaucrats have labeled resistance as delusions and activists as tin foil hats. Doing so, they have managed to keep their plans under the radar, away from the public eye and the media. Until it’s too late.

I have seen lots of disinformation, faked news, and cover-ups trough the years. It has been used by politicians, governments, and special interests – forcing their restrictions on our free and open internet, undermining a democratic society and disturbing the free market.

The concept of fake news might have become a bit more obvious lately – but it is nothing new. The only reason it’s such a big thing at the moment is that it has been used by others than governments, mainstream politicians, bureaucrats and special business interests.

/ HAX

 

0

US: No reform of mass surveillance

The Trump administration does not want to reform an internet surveillance law to address privacy concerns, a White House official told Reuters on Wednesday, saying it is needed to protect national security.

• Reuters » White House supports renewal of spy law without reforms: official »
• Techdirt » Trump Administration Wants A Clean Reauthorization For NSA Surveillance »

An anonymous comment at Techdirt: This wouldn’t be the same guy who was screaming bloody murder about Trump towers being under surveillance, would it?

0

What is wrong with the EU Terrorism Directive?

Tomorrow – Thursday 16 February – the European Parliament votes on the EU Terrorism Directive. EDRi lists some of the things being wrong with this directive:

  • There are gaps in the harmonisation of the definition of terrorist offences. The Directive uses ambiguous and unclear wording, giving an unacceptably wide margin of manoeuvre to Member States. For example, the Directive criminalises “glorifying” terrorism without clearly defining it. This won’t prevent abuses experienced in countries like France.
  • “The criminalisation of the attempt is also extended to all offences…with the exception of receiving training and facilitating travel abroad”. This creates risks for fundamental rights and legal certainty. In addition, the European Parliamentary Research Service has recognised that “establishing a ‘terrorist intention’ may prove a challenge.”
  • The Directive’s scope touches on activities with little to no direct relationship to actual terrorist acts. For instance, hacking-related activities can be terrorist offences. Attempting or threatening to hack an information system can be punished as a terrorist offence in a Member State. Teaching somebody how to attack an information system (e.g. hacking) can be a terrorist offence. Seeking information on how to conduct an attack to an information system, can lead to a charge for committing a terrorist offence. In addition, inciting somebody to teach how to hack an information system can be a criminal offence.
  • Establishment of new offences, such as “receiving training for terrorism”, which includes consulting (non-defined) terrorist websites. Consulting (non-defined) terrorist websites can be a terrorist offence if the person is judged to have had a terrorism-related purpose and intention to commit a terrorist offence. However, the Directive says that criminal intent can be inferred from the type of materials and the frequency in which an individual consults websites, for example. On top of this, it will not be necessary for a terrorist offence to be committed or to “establish a link” to other offences in order to be punished. The Directive also says that inciting someone to consult “terrorist websites” can be punishable by Member States.
  • Member States can impose criminal liability on companies failing to remove or block terrorist websites.
  • The process for adopting the proposal avoided all of the elements of good law-making. It was made in December 2015 without meaningful consultation, public debate or even an impact assessment. To give an idea of the importance of impact assessments, we recall that the impact assessment for amending the Framework Decision 2002 looked at the available information and opted not to recommend the adoption of blocking measures because, among other dangers, it creates a risk of jeopardising investigations and prosecutions. The 2007 impact assessment also stated that “the adoption of blocking measures … can only be imposed by law, subject to the principle of proportionality, with respect to the legitimate aims pursued and to their necessity in a democratic society, excluding any form or arbitrariness or discriminatory or racist treatment.”. In the Terrorism Directive, blocking measures can be imposed by non-legislative action. In addition, it is not even clear whether regulating non-regulated “voluntary” measures by internet companies falls under the legal basis of the Directive.

It’s a mess. A dangerous mess.

Read more and get all the links at EDRi: The time has come to complain about the Terrorism Directive »

0

Big Brother in Austria

New legislation in Austria:

  • Networked CCTV monitoring
  • Automatic license plate recognition
  • Government spyware
  • Data Retention Directive 2.0
  • Registration of prepaid SIM cards
  • Electronic tags for non-convicted “endangerers”
  • The government wants to establish a criminal offense for the expression of opinions which undermine the authority of the state

EDRi: Proposed surveillance package in Austria sparks resistance »

0

In the Face of Oppression

Many people fear the new U.S. president, Donald Trump. They might be right. Or not. But I think that we might oversimplify this issue.

Yes, Mr. Trump has the image of a despot. But it might be dangerous to judge a book by its’ cover. Not that we should »underestimate« Trump – but because it might lead to a false sense of security in other cases.

Presidents Bush and Obama were the ones expanding the Surveillance State that has now been handed over to the new administration. Their responsibility is immense. And the way they themselves used mass surveillance justifies very strong criticism.

In Europe, democratically elected leaders are rolling out the most massive mass surveillance regime in history. May in the UK, the »Großkolaition« in Germany and the French – they are all creating tools that can very easily be used to oppress the people. This even goes for countries with strong(ish) democratic and human rights credentials, like Sweden.

The EU is setting up the first major system for selective censorship of the Internet. And it’s being done outside the democratic process and institutions, outside the rule of law.

There is every reason to closely watch what the new U.S. administration is up to. But there are equally strong reasons to watch what is going on in the rest of the western world, under the cloak of parliamentary democracy.

It’s not just about what first meets the eye, but what is being done.

/ HAX

0

Amnesty on European Bigbrotherism

The old adage goes ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’, but a detailed analysis of the human rights cost of the fast-expanding security state in Europe suggests otherwise. (…)

Overly broad definitions of terrorism are a big part of the problem. Because there is no universally agreed definition, states and international bodies have created their own. But in that process, definitions of terrorism have become increasingly vague, so that they can be arbitrarily applied, meaning law-abiding citizens can be subjected to unwarranted surveillance, administrative orders which restrict their liberties, intrusive searches and worse.

Amnesty International » Dangerously disproportionate: The ever-expanding National Security State in Europe »

0

Germany towards a centralised Police State?

German interior minister Thomas de Maiziere has announced a series of proposals that revolve around giving the German federal government more power over security agencies, cyber attacks, policing and deportations; permitting the deployment of the military internally; expanding the scope of the proposed EU Entry/Exit System and loosening the the EU definition of “safe third countries”.

There is this German proverb: History does not repeat itself. But it rhymes.

Statewatch » Interior ministry “wish list”: strengthen central government security, policing and deportation powers »

0

EU proposal: All travel to be registered

I cannot say that I am surprised. I have seen this coming, for a long time:

Jambon’s plan takes this initiative [PNR] and applies it to other means of transport. It will mean that anyone wanting to travel by rail, sea or by bus to another EU country will have to register their information.

Fighting terrorism is just a pretext. Politicians want ever more control and surveillance of the people. They will not be satisfied until there is total control.

• Euractiv: Belgium prepares to present passenger data plans to rest of EU »
• Techdirt: Belgium Wants EU Nations To Collect And Store Personal Data Of Train, Bus And Boat Passengers »

0