Experts: No to encryption back doors

From the New York Times…

“An elite group of security technologists has concluded that the American and British governments cannot demand special access to encrypted communications without putting the world’s most confidential data and critical infrastructure in danger.”

“Such access will open doors through which criminals and malicious nation-states can attack the very individuals law enforcement seeks to defend,” the report said. “The costs would be substantial, the damage to innovation severe and the consequences to economic growth hard to predict. The costs to the developed countries’ soft power and to our moral authority would also be considerable.”

Raed more:

Security Experts Oppose Government Access to Encrypted Communication »

Computer Security Experts Release Report Slamming Proposals To Backdoor Encryption, As FBI Makes Latest Push »

Is the German government on Germanys side?

The news that the American spy organisation NSA has targeted the major German magazine Der Spiegel are serious and disturbing. But it is just the tip of the iceberg.

As it turns out the German government knew. But it did nothing to stop it. It didn’t report the issue to relevant democratic oversight bodies. And even worse — it lied about the matter to the German parliament.

To make things even worse it’s still unclear if the NSA obtained it’s information by spying on the newspaper, the Chancellors Office or the entire German political apparatus.

Der Spiegel writes…

“It remains unclear just who US intelligence originally had in its scopes. The question is also unlikely to be answered by the parliamentary investigative committee, because the US appears to have withheld this information from the Chancellery. Theoretically, at least, there are three possibilities: The Chancellery — at least in the person of Hans Josef Vorbeck. SPIEGEL journalists. Or blanket surveillance of Berlin’s entire government quarter. The NSA is capable of any of the three options. And it is important to note that each of these acts would represent a violation of German law.”

In Germany the constitution and the freedom of the press is taken seriously. What has been going on is in direct conflict with principles clearly laid out by the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe.

“If it is true that a foreign intelligence agency spied on journalists as they conducted their reporting in Germany and then informed the Chancellery about it, then these actions would place a huge question mark over the notion of a free press in this country. Germany’s highest court ruled in 2007 that press freedom is a “constituent part of a free and democratic order.” The court held that reporting can no longer be considered free if it entails a risk that journalists will be spied on during their reporting and that the federal government will be informed of the people they speak to.”

This affair is now snowballing, putting the Chancellors Office under serious pressure. In a special editors note, Der Spiegel notes…

“The fact that the press no longer has a special protected status and can be spied upon in the same way as corporations, associations or government ministries, lends a new quality to the spying scandal. That the press appears to have been betrayed by its own government is outrageous. For this reason, SPIEGEL decided this week to file a complaint with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office on suspicion of intelligence agency activity.”

It seems that the German intelligence services and the Chancellors Office have neglected both democratic and judicial requirements to keep good working relations with the Americans.

This leading up to a situation where leading German officials appears to have sided with US intelligence services — rather than with the German constitution, German law, the German parliament and the German people.

Read more: An Attack on Press Freedom: SPIEGEL Targeted by US Intelligence »

/ HAX

UK: Cameron sticks to a ban on encryption

In the House of Commons, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has reaffirmed his commitment to ban encryption.

Or, at least, to demand “back doors” to all encrypted communication tools.

Is this political posturing or genuine ignorance?

Practically everyone who knows anything about encryption can tell you that “back doors”  to encrypted communications is a contradiction in terms. Either you have encryption where only end users with proper keys can read our messages. Or you have non secure systems where not only the government but also foreign governments, criminals, corrupt officials and terrorists will be able to interfere with peoples communications.

And how would the British government enforce a ban on encryption? They would need to scrutinise and pre-approve all communication tools and apps on the market. Even non UK ones. And they would need to scan everything to make sure no one uses stand alone encryption tools in combination with ordinary communication tools such as e-mail.

The only way to uphold a ban on encryption is to control all our electronic communications. And even that will not work.

Furthermore, a ban on encryption would need to be world wide.

Link: David Cameron is going to try and ban encryption in Britain »

/ HAX

There is a working currency for Greece — and everybody else

The Greek crisis is throwing the country into turmoil. Banks are closed, ATM-machines will only give people small change and coming payments of salaries and pensions are in danger.

Yet there is a working currency, available for all people in Greece. And in the rest of the world: Bitcoin.

Anyone can get a Bitcoin wallet and start accepting payments the very next minute.

Bitcoins may be volatile and there have been problems. But still, Bitcoins are more reliable than the euro for people living in European countries with shaky economies.

Using Bitcoins is also cheeper and quicker than bank transfers.

Angry frogs

So, the NSA seems to have bugged the phones of the latest three French presidents.

The French are furious. Rightfully so. This is a serious breach of protocol. It is not a way to treat allies. It might even be in conflict with the Vienna Convention.

But, frankly — it’s a bit amusing.

Two years ago, the French daily Le Monde exposed the french surveillance apparatus. It seems that the French also “collects it all”. And they seem to be rather generous to share this information with all French authorities who ask for it.

And today French representatives adopted a new, draconian surveillance law. The irony.

In other words: It’s totally OK with the French elite to use mass surveillance against the people. But to bug the president, that’s a big non.

/ HAX

Bring mass surveillance back on the EU agenda

At springtime last year the European Parliament was conducting hearings om mass surveillance. In parts, it was rather thrilling and tense. The hearings ended with a resolution, where the MEP:s stated (in a rather vague way) that they are ill at ease with what is going on.

Formally, they could do nothing more — as national security does not fall under EU competence.

But informally, it was important that the peoples elected representatives tried to get to grips with what is going on.

Then came the European elections, a new parliament was elected and mass surveillance was not an issue on the agenda anymore.

It’s about time to bring some new life to this issue, on the EU level.

Even though the European Parliament cannot interfere with national security — it has the authority to make statements when it comes to human rights. (The right to privacy is considered to be a human right, according to binding european statues.)

And the European Commission (the only EU institution that can submit real proposals) is formally the “guardian of the treaties” — including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Also, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights can uphold our civil liberties, as stated in the documents above.

The problems with mass surveillance are still the same as a year ago. As a matter of fact new national laws in some EU member states have made things worse since then.

We need to figure out how to apply renewed pressure on our EU politicians when it comes to mass surveillance. And some judicial activism wouldn’t hurt either.

/ HAX

The Snowden spin war

The Sunday Times ran an article this weekend about the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. It claims that Russia and China have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by Snowden – and that the MI6 is believed to have pulled out spies because of this.

The whole piece is filled with strange statements, contradictions and obvious disinformation.

Here is some recommended reading, debunking the anti-Snowden spin…

Ryan J Gallagher: Questions About The Sunday Times Snowden Story »

Shami Chakrabarti in The Guardian: Let me be clear – Edward Snowden is a hero »

A comment from The Sunday Times » — (And a slightly longer version »)

Update: The Intercept — The Sunday Times’ Snowden Story is Journalism at its Worst — and Filled with Falsehoods »

Update 2: Techdirt — News Corp. Sends DMCA Notice Over Glenn Greenwald Trashing The Sunday Times’ Ridiculous Snowden Story »

Update 3: Techdirt — Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times ‘Snowden’ Propaganda Admits That He’s Just Writing What UK Gov’t Told Him »

Big Brotherism when the law is an ass

Laws are the tools politicians (and bureaucrats) use to force the people to behave in a certain way. And they have the police to enforce these laws.

In a democratic society it is essential that the laws are the same for all citizens, and applied in the same way for all. Regardless what these laws stipulate, regardless if they are “good” or “bad”. All people should have the same rights (and obligations).

This does not imply that all laws are good. There are plenty of really bad laws. Some are unfair, some are in conflict with fundamental human and civil rights, some are silly, some creates “crimes” without victims and some are plain stupid.

Most people break some laws, most of the time. There are simply too many laws for anyone to have a reasonable grasp of most of them. Some laws we break because we find them unimportant, silly or patronising. And some laws we should break, as they infringe on our fundamental rights.

Laws are always the footprint of the ruling political forces. We have all seen the Internet meme “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). The fact that something is legal is no guarantee that it is right or reasonable.

In a democratic system, the laws can even be used to undermine or nullify democracy itself. In a democratic, orderly way.

Enter: mass surveillance.

Mass surveillance gives the authorities a way to control that the people obey the laws. All the people. All the laws. All the time. Even really bad laws.

This will create a society where everyone must be looking over the shoulder. A society where you must be careful before you talk. An anxious society.

This might be a classic case of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

We need to talk about this: If we are to live in a mass surveillance society (like it or not), it must be a somewhat relaxed, liberal and tolerant society.

To put it in different words: The ruling classes need to give the people some slack. If not, pressure and tensions will build in a dangerous way – when authorities can control almost everything we do.

But politicians do not abide by any live and let live principles. And they certainly do not plan ro roll back mass surveillance.

/ HAX