Navigation

EU: Junckers’ mixed signals on mobile networks

By on September 14, 2016 in Copyright, EU, Free Markets, Internet, surveillance

Today the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, gave his “State of the Union” speech in the European Parliament.

EU Observer reports…

Every city in the EU will offer free wireless internet access in its centre by 2020, EU commission president Juncker promised in his state of the EU speech on Wednesday. “We need to be connected. Our economy needs it. People need it,” said Juncker. He also said that a faster mobile network, known as 5G, should be “fully deployed” in the EU by 2025.

Two reflections:

First, it is becoming ever harder for cafés, restaurants, and others to provide free internet access for their customers. The reason is that they can become liable for any copyright infringements their customers may commit. (Mainly because of EU regulations.)

Doesn’t this apply for “cities” as well? Will there be separate rules for free WiFi provided by private and public entities?

Second, there is the matter of what you see and what you don’t see. Free WiFi sounds like a good idea for most people. But what will the effects be on commercial networks? As you cannot compete with free (or rather stuff paid for by the taxpayers) – will this hamper the deployment of e.g. “faster mobile networks”? It seems like Juncker is sending mixed and conflicting signals.

Finally, one must put free, public networks into the context of mass surveillance. Exactly who will operate them – and what law enforcement agencies will these operators collaborate with?

/ HAX

0

ECJ: Worldwide privacy class action against Facebook

By on September 13, 2016 in Big Data, Data Protection, ECJ, Facebook, Privacy

A worldwide class-action privacy lawsuit against Facebook, initiated by Max Schrems, has been referred to Europe’s top court. (…)

Schrems first brought his suit in 2014, and accuses Facebook of breaking EU privacy law in multiple ways, including supporting the NSA’s Prism surveillance program. Later, 25,000 Facebook users from around the world—except those in the US and Canada, where different rules apply—joined Schrems in a class action under Austrian law by assigning their rights to him.

Ars Technica: Worldwide privacy class action against Facebook heads to EU’s highest court »

0

Fighting copyright trolls by logging policies

By on September 12, 2016 in Uncategorized

Swedish Internet service provider Bahnhof continues to fight against copyright holders that target alleged file-sharers. The company explains that it has setup its logging policies in such as way that it can refuse requests for IP-address information from so-called copyright trolls, suggesting that other ISPs should follow suit.

Torrent Freak: ISP Deletes IP-address Logs to Fend Off Piracy “Extortion Letters” »

0

The narrow Facebook mindset

By on September 11, 2016 in Big Data, Civil liberties, Democracy, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Internet, social media

We live in a time of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and young people being offended by other people’s opinions – to a point where they seem to be perfectly willing to silence others.

For society, this is disastrous. For a community to evolve, different opinions and ideas must be tested against each other in a free and open debate. Especially unconventional or controversial ones. Without a free exchange of thoughts, democracy becomes pointless. Without diversity, our culture will die. Without new input, there will be no progress.

Especially young people ought to question everything, explore new ideas and oppose conformity. Instead, today many of them seem to be narrow-minded, politically conform, anxious, and frantic. I’m pretty sure this is a new phenomenon.

Why are people so easily offended, upset and disgruntled these days?

For young people born in the Facebook era, conflicting information and alternative views are things they might not be used to. Entangled in Facebook’s algorithms they mostly communicate with like-minded people. So when faced with alternative views and opinions, many of them react with hostility. (This is nothing strange. People often react negatively to the new, to the unknown and to things that they might perceive as threatening.)

This is just an observation – not the full or only explanation. But it might be a clue to what’s going on: Facebook is limiting free speech and the development of new ideas.

This is a very sad and unfortunate way to use a tool for instant, unlimited global communication such as the Internet.

/ HAX

Also read satire website The Onions piece: Horrible Facebook Algorithm Accident Results In Exposure To New Ideas »

2

The issue of the iPhones audio jack

By on September 8, 2016 in Apple, Big Data, Big Entertainment, Copyright, DRM

The new iPhones doesn’t have a traditional 3.5 mm audio jack. Some say this is just a natural step in development, like when the computer floppy disks were dropped. But there might be more into it than that.

Nilay Patel in the Verge:

Restricting audio output to a purely digital connection means that music publishers and streaming companies can start to insist on digital copyright enforcement mechanisms. We moved our video systems to HDMI and got HDCP, remember?

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing:

Once all the audio coming out of an Iphone is digital — once there’s no analog output — Apple gets a lot more options about how it can relate to its competitors, and they’re all good for Apple and bad for Apple’s customers. Just by wrapping that audio in DRM, Apple gets a veto over which of your devices can connect to your phone. They can arbitrarily withhold permission to headphone manufacturers, insist that mixers be designed with no analog outputs, or even demand that any company that makes an Apple-compatible device must not make that device compatible with Apple’s competitors, so home theater components that receive Apple signals could be pressured to lock out Samsung’s signals, or Amazon’s.

Perhaps worst of all is the impact on security research: because the DMCA has been used to attack researchers who disclosed defects in DRM-restricted technologies, they are often unable or unwilling to come forward when they discover serious vulnerabilities in technologies that we rely on. The Iphone audio interface is two-way: it supports both input and output. A bug in that interface turns the phone to carry with you at all times, to all places, into a covert listening device. A DRM system on that interface makes that bug all-but-unreportable, guaranteeing that it will last longer and hurt more people before it finally becomes public.

EFF:

When you plug an audio cable into a smartphone, it just works. It doesn’t matter whether the headphones were made by the same manufacturer as the phone. It doesn’t even matter what you’re trying to do with the audio signal—it works whether the cable is going into a speaker, a mixing board, or a recording device. (…)

In other words, if it’s impossible to connect a speaker or other audio device to an iPhone without Apple software governing it, then it’s simple for Apple to place restrictions on what devices or functions are allowed. Because US law protects DRM technologies, it may be illegal to circumvent that restriction, even if you’re doing it for completely lawful purposes. Having created the possibility of restricting audio output to select devices, Apple will be under pressure to use it. TV and film producers insist on having the power to decide which devices can receive video. Can we really believe they will leave audio alone if outputs become entirely digital?

Links:
• EFF: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM »
• TechDirt: Why Apple Removing The Audio Jack From The iPhone Would Be A Very, Very, Very, Bad Move »
• The Verge: Taking the headphone jack off phones is user-hostile and stupid »
• BoingBoing: How a digital-only smartphone opens the door to DRM (and how to close the door) »

0

Showdown in the Assange case?

By on September 7, 2016 in affairs, Assange, Civil liberties, Global Politics, Hacktivism, Human rights, UK, US, Wikileaks

The normally so media shy Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny today held a press conference about the Assange case. Nothing new was presented, the prosecutor’s office repeated its talking points and there was mention of yet another half-hearted attempt to interview Mr. Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. (Something Ms. Ny have avoided to do for years, thereby keeping the investigation open and Mr. Assange at bay.)

It might have been her last chance to play the media by her rules. On prime time Swedish national television tonight, the investigative team at SVT Uppdrag Granskning had an hour-long special about the Assange case. (The program in Swedish » | A summary of some of the findings in English ») It is pretty obvious that Swedish authorities are very interested in getting Mr. Assange to Sweden – even though it has been and still is possible to interview him in London in person, online or over the phone.

Here we should keep in mind that Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime. It’s all about interviewing him in order do determine if there is a case against him – in a rather thin case of suspected sexual misconduct in Sweden. Basically, this is total judicial overkill and »special treatment« just because he is a rebel, truth teller and a threat to important people in power.

Even a UN human right panel has voiced protests about the way Mr. Assange is treated, being tucked away in the Ecuadorean embassy year after year.

This Next Friday a Swedish regional high court will – once again – look into the issue of Mr. Assanges’ arrest warrant. The last time, they upheld the decision, as Ms. Ny then was instructed to get the interview done and over with. Again, she didn’t. This coming Friday, the court may not show the same patience. Or it may, as there are powerful interests involved.

Finally, the reason that Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange does not want to go to Sweden for an interview is a fear that he might be extradited to the US. Todays’ tv special made it clear that there might be good reasons to fear such a development. (Even though the UK might also hand him over to the US Justice department, but at a very high political price.)

The general impression is that things might start to move in the Assange case. But I wouldn’t hold my breath…

/ HAX

1

France, Germany and crypto backdoors

By on September 7, 2016 in Big Brother, Cryptography, France, Germany, IT security, surveillance

In a world where terrorists deliberately encrypt their connections, how big is the chance that a terrorist would (continue to) use a service that is known to be insecure? Our guess: as soon as the European Commission introduces legislation forcing services such as Telegram to decrypt secure communications, terrorists will turn to alternative tools. (…)

The idea that the way to gain access to terrorists’ communications is by backdooring services such as Telegram, is preposterous. Let’s be clear, the French and German proposal will undermine the security of every single person, under the populist guise of improving security. Or, in the words of cryptographer Phil Zimmerman: When crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto.

EDRi: When crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto »

1