Navigation

UK: Tax authorities (and others) to get access to everybody’s surf history

By on November 25, 2016 in Big Brother, UK

The Investigatory Powers Bill, which was all but passed into law this week, forces internet providers to keep a full list of internet connection records (ICRs) for a year and to make them available to the Government if asked. Those ICRs in effect serve as a full list of every website that people have visited, rather than collecting which specific pages are visited or what’s done on them.

ICRs will be made available to a wide range of government bodies. Those include expected law enforcement organisations such as the police, the military and the secret service, but also includes bodies such as the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, councils and the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust.

The Independent: Everyone who can now see your entire internet history, including the taxman, DWP and Food Standards Agency »

0

Civil rights are not in the interest of the ruling political class

By on November 25, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Government, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Privacy, Rule of law

Democracy and civil rights. It would be difficult to find anyone in the western world who does not subscribe to these principles. At least in public.

Yet, we are steadily moving away from these values.

It is being done in many small steps. Always justified with the best of intentions – like security, fighting serious crime, child protection, the war on drugs, copyright protection and combating hate speech. Just to mention a few.

Nevertheless – without a doubt – we are limiting privacy, free speech, rule of law and equal rights. It seems to be a non-reversible process. And sooner or later, the many small steps will end up being a giant leap.

Democracy and civil rights can only be curtailed so many times before the consequences will be dire.

»We have to strike a balance between fundamental rights and security« politicians say. And every time that is being done, civil rights are hollowed out. When you repeat this process time and time again – fundamental rights will be reduced to empty words.

This is extremely serious. But nobody really seems to care.

One day we will wake up to a society where you cannot speak your mind, where everything you do is observed and scrutinized, where courts no longer is a guarantee for fair trials, and where it doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty – you will have everything to fear.

You will have to be blind not to see the writing on the wall.

Please, do not trust politicians with upholding our fundamental rights. They have a different agenda. They are the ones limiting them.

Our civil rights can only be upheld, protected and won back by the people. It is in no one else’s interest.

/ HAX

3

Facebook, China & censorship

By on November 24, 2016 in Censorship, China, Facebook

A New York Times report that Facebook is developing a system that could censor information to appease the Chinese government is the talk of the tech industry right. The timing couldn’t be worse: domestically, Facebook is under pressure for failing to adequately manage the influence of fake news on the U.S. election, yet here it is seemingly prepared to quash legitimate information on user timelines to kowtow to the Chinese government and further its interests in a country of 1.3 billion people.

Jon Russell @ Techcrunch: Facebook is unlikely to succeed in China, even if it compromises on free speech »

0

Sweden to outlaw… what, exactly?

By on November 21, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Rule of law, self-censorship, Sweden

For years, online hate speech and cyber-bullying have been on the political agenda in Sweden. Now there will be some new laws, covering a wide range of actions and statements.

Let’s have a look at »Insulting behaviour« (PDF, summary in English, page 42-43).

Under the wording we propose, criminal liability will presuppose that someone through accusations, disparaging comments or humiliating behaviour acts against another person in a way that is intended to violate the other person’s selfesteem or dignity.

What does this even mean in real terms? OK, there is an attempt to clarify…

The assessment is to be based on the circumstances in the individual case. However, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of a generally held norm for what represents unacceptable behaviour and what individuals should not be expected to tolerate. This is expressed by the provision stating that the act must have been intended to violate someone’s self-esteem or dignity.

First of all, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity for a law. »Disparaging comments« – isn’t that in the eye of the beholder? »Self-esteem« and »dignity« is something personal, referring to experiences and feelings about a certain situation. It’s very subjective. And »a generally held norm«? Who is to define what that is?

I guess the Supreme Court will have some very difficult decisions to make.

This is sloppy lawmaking in the »safe space« era, where the line between real insults and arguments is blurred. And it gets worse. Page 34, »Our starting points«:

Protection of privacy is also protection of the free formation of opinions and, ultimately, of democracy. There may be a risk that threats against journalists, debaters or opinion-makers result in the person threatened refraining from expressing him- or herself or participating in the public debate.

First of all, take note of the Orwellian twist: To defend free speech, we must limit it.

Second, as one would suspect, it’s not really about teenage bullying in school – but to protect the inner peace and self-image of e.g. journalists and politicians. Suddenly the term »disparaging comments« stands out, in a new light.

So, colorful criticism of politicians might or might not be illegal – on a case by case basis.

Big Brother will be busy.

/ HAX

1