Navigation

Archive | War on Terror

EU to end Bitcoin anonymity

By on July 5, 2016 in Anonymity, Big Brother, Bitcoin, Economics, EU, Privacy, War on Cash, War on Terror

Today, the European Commission has released details on the new EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive – aiming at combating terrorist financing. Among the details, we find some disturbing news on digital currencies such as Bitcoin:

Tackling terrorist financing risks linked to virtual currencies: to prevent misuse of virtual currencies for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes, the Commission proposes to bring virtual currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers under the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive. These entities will have to apply customer due diligence controls when exchanging virtual for real currencies, ending the anonymity associated with such exchanges;

Gah!

Anonymity is not a crime!

But then, again, this is not really about terrorism. It’s about giving the government control over your money.

Then we have this blow to all those terrorists shopping around for missiles…

Tackling risks linked to anonymous pre-paid instruments (e.g. pre-paid cards): the Commission also proposes to minimise the use of anonymous payments through pre-paid cards, by lowering thresholds for identificationfrom €250 to €150 and widening customer verification requirements. Proportionality has been taken into account, with particular regard paid to the use of these cards by financially vulnerable citizens;

Again, this will only make life more complicated for ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

And there will be cross-border control of all bank accounts:

Give Financial Intelligence Units swift access to information on the holders of bank- and payment accounts, through centralised registers or electronic data retrieval systems.

“Centralised registers.” Like in total control.

This might come in handy for our governments when the next Euro crisis calls for a citizen haircut – like when Cyprus confiscated parts of people’s bank savings.

Your money is no longer yours. You are no longer free.

/ HAX

European Commission:
• Commission strengthens transparency rules to tackle terrorism financing, tax avoidance and money laundering »
• Questions and Answers: Anti-money Laundering Directive »

Related reading: Bargeld ist Freiheit »

2

EU rushing new directive on combating terrorism

By on July 5, 2016 in Big Brother, EU, surveillance, War on Terror

Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights (EDRi) on the new EU Directive on “combating terrorism”:

Speed is being prioritised over quality. The calculation appears to be that it is better for the EU to be seen to be doing “something” rather than taking its time to adopt legislation that is actually fit for purpose.

EDRi: Rush to “fight terrorism” threatens our fundamental rights and security »

0

European Parliament in new attempt to introduce web blocking

By on June 20, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Internet, War on Terror

Tomorrow the Europeans Parliaments civil liberties (LIBE) committee will vote on new EU regulation to combat terrorism.

In the committee, German MEP Monika Hohlmeier (EPP) has introduced an amendment stating that member states “may take all necessary measures to remove or to block access to web pages publicly inciting to commit terrorist offences”.

EP LIBE meeting documents »

In a comment in Ars Technica, EDRi says…

“This leaves the door wide open for private companies to police content and very likely over-block or delete any content they are unsure about,” EDRi (European Digital Rights) head Joe McNamee told Ars. He added that European law requires that any blocking or content restriction measures “must be provided for by law, subject to initial judicial control and periodic review.”

If adopted in the LIBE committee, this proposal will be voted in plenary, probably as soon as 4-7 July.

Jennifer Baker in Ars Technica: Web content blocking squeezed into draft EU anti-terrorism law »

EDRi: Terrorism and internet blocking – is this the most ridiculous amendment ever? »

terrorism_directive_20160620-768x379

/ HAX

0

EDRi: Next year, you’ll complain about the Terrorism Directive

By on May 26, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Human rights, War on Terror

Next year, when your Member State starts blocking websites, without quite knowing why, when it starts imposing restrictions on Tor and proxy servers, without quite knowing why, when unaccountable, unclear legislation leads to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and your government says that it is “EU law that it is obliged to implement” and you wonder why the press never reported on it, when you search in vain for who is accountable for a weak and dangerous text, come back and read this again.

EDRi: Next year, you’ll complain about the Terrorism Directive »

0

EU:s EPP group calls for Internet censorship

By on May 24, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, War on Terror

The centre-right group in the European Parliament, EPP, just released an article on its’ website: The Fight Against Online Radicalisation »

Let me copy paste a few passages…

This would mean limiting the internet reach that ISIS and other extremist groups have on our social media networks. To ban them completely would be impossible as it is difficult enough to figure out who is an extremist recruiter and who isn’t on Facebook and Twitter, but we can certainly limit and delete their Facebook pages and bar their accounts. (…)

It has been agreed that Europol is to obtain greater powers to deal with the tackling of the terrorist threat online. New specialist units, monitored by an European Data Protection Supervisor and a Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group, will be set up that will be able to contact social network providers (Facebook, Twitter etc.) directly to ask that pages and accounts run by ISIS are shut down as fast as possible.

Obviously, we need to make a stand against radical Islamism and others who advocate violence and who do not respect human rights and civil liberties. But is censorship really the right way to do it?

Either you have freedom of speech or you don’t. If you restrict free speech, e.g. by censoring Internet content, per definition you have lost it.

The only acceptable exception would be clearly expressed, substantial threats directed against other people’s life, security or property.

It is true that radical Islamism is a murderous ideology. But so is Communism and Fascism. Banning all bad and dangerous doctrines would have far-reaching implications. And who is to decide what to censor?

If we introduce far-reaching online censorship you can be absolutely sure that it will be extended beyond its’ original purpose.

Actually, we are already there. In many countries, xenophobic and anti-immigration Internet activities are prohibited, censored and can lead to prosecution. What is considered to be acceptable opinions or banned hate speech is a matter of definition. And once again, who is to decide?

The irony of it all is that the same set of rules are used to silence radical Islamism as anti-Muslim, anti-immigration rants.

Radical Islamism aiming at limiting other people’s freedom, human rights and/or civil rights must be opposed. Strongly. But it must be done in a frank debate and by good examples.

You simply cannot defend a free and open society by limiting people’s human and civil rights (such as freedom of speech).

/ HAX

1

What to learn from the Abdesalam fiasco

By on April 30, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil liberties, Data Retention, Intelligence, Privacy, Rule of law, surveillance, War on Terror

Surveillance should only be directed against people who are suspected of (or to commit) serious crimes.

Mass surveillance – of everyone – only creates a bigger haystack, more false positives, and hamper police and intelligence authorities in their efforts to identify real threats.

Take the Abdesalam brothers in the Paris attacks as an example…

Both were known to Belgian authorities; both were suspected to prepare “an irreversible act”. For years.

This is a case of sloppiness, lacking resources and being Belgian.

Belgium might be a dysfunctional mess, but the problem is the same in other countries. The more mass surveillance data, the more police officers gazing at computer screens – the less security and safety.

Authorities all over would need to get serious, pretty quickly. There is no room for public sector inefficiency when it comes to fighting terrorism. There is no room for incompetence and idleness.

And there are no (valid and publicly acceptable) reasons to replace human intelligence with mass surveillance of the entire population.

The Americans might do it. The Russians and Chinese also do it, for sure. But that is no reason that Europe should. This is exactly what makes our liberal democracy so special. In Europe, we trust ordinary and law-abiding people enough to keep out of their private lives.

The Paris attacks were very real, sad and terrifying. The Abdesalm brothers are very real terrorists. This reality underlines that we need other methods to protect us from danger rather than mass surveillance and data retention. We need wise and competent people, knowing what they are doing. If there are any.

/ HAX

• Link: Belgian police knew since 2014 that Abdeslam brothers planned ‘irreversible act’ »

0

European Parliament to approve PNR next Thursday

By on April 7, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, EU, PNR, Privacy, surveillance, War on Terror

The European Parliament will have what is believed to be its’ final vote on EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) in Strasbourg next Thursday, April 14.

For years, the Parliament has tried to stop registration of sensitive personal information related to air travel. But after the latest terrorist attacks, pressure has mounted, and everything suggests that the dossier will be approved during next week’s session.

From the European Parliaments webpage:

Passenger Name Record (PNR) data is information provided by passengers and collected by air carriers during reservation and check-in procedures. Non-carrier economic operators, such as travel agencies and tour operators, sell package tours making use of charter flights for which they also collect and process PNR data from their customers.

PNR data include several different types of information, such as travel dates, travel itinerary, ticket information, contact details, baggage information and payment information.

Parliamentarians have had serious concerns about the impact of PNR on fundamental rights and data protection.

Now he PNR dossier is said to be voted together with the EU Data Protection package – at least allowing some coordinated approach.

Formally, EU PNR is about information regarding passengers arriving on flights from non-EU countries. But there is no doubt this will also apply to intra-EU flights.

So, governments will store information about all of people’s air travel, in detail. This is to be added to information about e.g. all of our telecommunications and our bank transactions. The grip tightens.

(It could have been even worse. Earlier on in the process, the U.K. put forward the idea that all our train travel, car rentals, and hotel stays should also be registered. But I guess they decided to take this one step at a time.)

If nothing short of a miracle occurs, next Thursday the EU will take its’ next step towards Big Brotherism.

/ HAX

Links:
• EP: Final votes on PNR and data protection package »
• News on PNR from the EP (16 July 2015) »
• EP: Much Ado About PNR (19 Jan. 2015 »
• EP: EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) proposal: an overview (14 Dec. 2015) »
• MEPs refuse to vote on PNR before Council strengthens data protection (9 March 2016) »

1

What to expect after the Brussels attacks. And why it will not work.

By on March 22, 2016 in Big Brother, Intelligence, Police state, Privacy, surveillance, War on Terror

Once again terrorists have struck.

No doubt, this will be followed by new calls for mass surveillance.

But mass surveillance doesn’t really work. It’s rather draining the police and intelligence services of resources – making us all less safe.

Not even a system with 99% accuracy would be useful. It would give 10,000 false positives per million people’s communications scanned. That’s simply not workable. (And it would lead to dramatic consequences for totally innocent people.) Also, there are no systems even close to being 99% accurate.

After the Paris attacks Waldemar Ingdahl wrote in Spiked:

And yet, despite the vast array of new powers granted to security agencies over the past 15 years, they still find it difficult to connect the dots in the lead-up to a terrorist attack. In fact, the Madrid train bombings in 2004 and the London bombings in 2005 were undertaken despite the fact that some of the perpetrators were already under surveillance.

What we need is more traditional police and intelligence work — not security bureaucrats behind computer screens, trying to find suspicious patterns in ordinary people’s communications.

Human intelligence is hard, often dangerous and expensive. But that is what it takes. Everything else is part of a counter-productive security theatre.

But then again, fighting terrorism might just be a pretext for mass surveillance of the general public.

/ HAX

Spiked, November 2015: Why mass surveillance misses terrorists »

0

EU to coordinate member state intelligence?

By on December 28, 2015 in Big Brother, EU, Intelligence, surveillance, War on Terror

(EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator) De Kerchove, who stressed in front of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) earlier this year to “never let a serious crisis go to waste”, now told the European Observer that “[y]ou don’t want people to know (…) that you have Big Brother interception by satellite or that you have people infiltrating computers”.

EDRi: EU encourages cooperation between intelligence agencies »

0