ECJ to rule that providing open internet connection is not a crime?
In a recommendation the Advocate General to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) states that business who provide free, open Wi-Fi to customers should not be responsible for copyright infringements carried out on their network.
But there might still be national restrictions. Glyn Moody at ArsTechnica:
However, the Advocate General ruled that national courts may issue injunctions against the provider of free Wi-Fi services in the case of copyright infringement provided they are “particular, effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and “that they are aimed at bringing a specific infringement to an end, and do not entail a general obligation to monitor.” Moreover, courts must strike a fair balance between “freedom of expression and information and the freedom to conduct business, as well as the right to the protection of intellectual property.”
The Advocate General goes on saying that there need to be no obligation to secure an open network with a password. It might even be possible that a shop or a café providing open Wi-Fi might be covered by the mere conduit principle. (Under the mere conduit principle of the EU E-Commerce Regulations of 2002, network operators have no legal liability for the consequences of traffic delivered via their networks.)
Now it is up to the ECJ to draw its final conclusions. But the court normally rules in line with the Advocate Generals recommendations.
This is good news for an open, creative society where people work and use their devices in public establishments. Providing free internet connection should not be a crime.
ArsTechnica: Free Wi-Fi providers not liable for user’s piracy, says top EU court lawyer »
/ HAX
“EU-US Privacy Shield must be sent back to negotiators”
A group of leading digital rights organisations on both sides of the Atlantic has called for the Privacy Shield arrangement between the EU and US to be sent back to the negotiators. In a letter to senior EU officials, the group says that without “substantial reforms” to ensure protection for fundamental rights of individuals, the Privacy Shield will “put users at risk, undermine trust in the digital economy, and perpetuate the human rights violations that are already occurring as a result of surveillance programs and other activities.”
ArsTechnica: Privacy Shield deal must be sent back to negotiators, say digital rights warriors »
John Oliver on Encryption
Richard Clarke on the Apple vs. FBI case
By HAX on March 15, 2016 in Apple, Big Brother, Cryptography, Data Protection, FBI, NSA, Privacy, US
“[The FBI] is not as interested in solving the problem as they are in getting a legal precedent,” Clarke said. “Every expert I know believes the NSA could crack this phone. They want the precedent that government could compel a device manufacturer to let the government in.”
The Goovernment
By HAX on March 14, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Civil liberties, Data Protection, Democracy, Google, NSA, Privacy, surveillance, Transparency
You know the saying that Google will know if you are gay before you do?
Almost the same, but a little different, can be said about the government.
The government knows who you have been talking to on the phone and who your friends are – and who their friends are. The government knows where you have been and who else might have been in the same place at the same time. The government knows when you connected to the internet, who you sent an email and the people that have emailed you. Data is stored about your every text message, and in some countries that go for the content of the messages as well.
In the UK Big Brother will even keep an eye on your web searches, if the government gets it its way.
The government knows who your friends are and what people you are trying to avoid. It can tell who you do business with and what people you sleep with. It can figure out your hobbies and your whereabouts. And it can flag you if a friend of your friend is someone the people in power do not approve of.
With Google – at least, it’s about selling you stuff, to expose you to “relevant” ads and to make a buck. (But World Domination, really?)
But with the Goovernment – it’s all about control. And power. Over you. For real.
Put one on top of the other, and it gets even more scary. (The government doesn’t need Google to cooperate in this. Much of the data is out on the market.)
All of this while government doings are getting more opaque, more secretive and more dubious.
This is not the way to do things in an open, democratic society.
/ HAX
WhatsApp vs. the FBI
In Saturday’s edition of the New York Times, Matt Apuzzo reports that the Department of Justice is locked in a “prolonged standoff” with WhatsApp. The government is frustrated by its lack of real-time access to messages protected by the company’s end-to-end encryption. The story may represent a disturbing preview of the next front in the FBI’s war against encryption.
Back to the future
Rick Falkvinge: Obama repeats 600-year-old argument against printing press at SXSW, only directed at the Internet »
No Mr President, that is not a problem
By HAX on March 12, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Government, Bitcoin, Blockchain, Cryptography, Economics, US
If in fact you can’t crack that all, if the government can’t get in, then everybody is walking around with a Swiss Bank account in their pocket.
US President Barack Obama on encryption at the SXSW.
That is the perspective from a politician who thinks that people cannot be entrusted with their own money.
The real issue with the San Bernardino shooters iPhone
By HAX on March 10, 2016 in Apple, Big Brother, Cryptography, Data Protection, IT security, Privacy, US
The trench war over the San Bernardino shooters iPhone continues. The FBI demands that Apple should create a special OS to circumvent the “auto erase” function that, if activated, would make the phones contents unavailable after ten failed attempts to unlock it. And Apple is fighting the request.
However, it turns out that all of this might be unnecessary. There are other ways to access the content, as demonstrated by the ACLU.
It is unlikely that FBI didn’t know about this possibility — as it is a commonly used technique in the industry.
ACLU:s Technology Fellow Daniel Kahn Gillmor explains…
“All the FBI needs to do to avoid any irreversible auto erase is simple to copy that flash memory (which includes the Effaceable Storage) before it tries 10 passcode attempts. It can then re-try indefinitely, because it can restore the NAND flash memory from its backup copy.”
So, what is going on here?
“If this generally useful security feature is actually no threat to the FBI, why is it painting it in such a scary light that some commentators have even called it a “doomsday mechanism”? The FBI wants us to think that this case is about a single phone, used by a terrorist. But it’s a power grab: law enforcement has dozens of other cases where they would love to be able to compel software and hardware providers to build, provide, and vouch for deliberately weakened code. The FBI wants to weaken the ecosystem we all depend on for maintenance of our all-too-vulnerable devices. If they win, future software updates will present users with a troubling dilemma. When we’re asked to install a software update, we won’t know whether it was compelled by a government agency (foreign or domestic), or whether it truly represents the best engineering our chosen platform has to offer.”
Of course, it might just be about government incompetence. But never the less, the result would be the same: A judicial trojan horse for weakening device security all over the line.
Having seen what US government agencies have been up to — it is more likely than not that this is all about Big Brother deceptiveness.
• ACLU: One of the FBI’s Major Claims in the iPhone Case Is Fraudulent »
• Security Affairs: Snowden accuses the FBI of lying about his ability to unlock the iphone of the San Bernardino terrorist. “that’s horse sh*t.” he said. »
/ HAX