In the Garcia vs. Google case, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals states “The appeal teaches a simple lesson—a weak copyright claim cannot justify censorship in the guise of authorship.”
Read more:
Finally! Victory for Free Speech in Garcia v. Google »
Court: Actor Can’t Force Removal of Innocence of Muslims Trailer »
Fighting mass surveillance is somewhat overwhelming.
But it’s not only a matter of laws, legal issues and government policies. It’s also a matter of mindset.
Too often society focus on the negative, just making things worse. The war on terror seems to have created more terrorists. The war on drugs seems to have caused us more drug related problems. And so on.
So, maybe we ought to shift focus from mass surveillance to privacy.
Instead of fighting a flood of new laws, sneaky intelligence organisations, panic-stricken politicians and bully-boy security contractors on details — maybe we ought to take more time to explain why privacy is so important. Instead of primarily focus on specific elements in legislation — maybe we should fight more often on principle.
Of course we will have to fight at both these front lines. But, seriously, it might be a good thing to put more time and energy into the positive side of this issue.
Politicians, security bureaucrats and the security industry will always have an advantage when we fight by their rules, arguing over details in their schemes. But they will have a much harder time defending mass surveillance if the debate is more about respecting or denying the people its right to privacy.
It’s all about reframing the debate.
One way to do this might be to campaign for various parliamentary assemblies to introduce bills and resolutions declaring that there shall be no surveillance aimed at people who are not suspected for breaking the law.
That might put the shoe on the other foot.
It would place politicians in a situation where — instead of pretending to protect the public from some vague dangers — they will have to explain if they are willing to respect citizens fundamental right to privacy or not.
Such an approach could actually make politicians listen, as it might affect peoples willingness to vote for them.
/ HAX
From Wikileaks…
“Today, Tuesday 12 May, WikiLeaks releases ten months of transcripts from the ongoing German Parliamentary inquiry into NSA activities in Germany. Despite many sessions being technically public, in practice public understanding has been compromised as transcripts have been withheld, recording devices banned and reporters intrusively watched by police.”
“WikiLeaks is releasing 1,380 pages of transcripts from the unclassified sessions, covering 34 witnesses – including 13 concealed witnesses from Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). The transcripts cover from the start of the inquiry in May 2014 through to February 2015.” (…)
“One of the biggest scandals to emerge from the inquiry so far is the recent “selector” spy target list scandal where a BND official revealed that the agency was expected to spy on thousands of targets at the instruction of the NSA. These targets included members of the French government and European industry. This put into question Germany’s suitability in taking a leadership role in the European Union. It also showed that international co-operation on mass surveillance, which has been marketed in public as a counter-terrorism measure, is in practice also used by the United States for the purposes of industrial espionage and geopolitical advantage vis-a-vis members of the European Union.”
Glyn Moody at TechDirt: Wikileaks Releases Transcript Of German Inquiry Into Growing NSA Spy Scandal »
Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic writes…
Snowden undeniably violated his promise to keep the NSA’s secrets. But doing so was the only way to fulfill his higher obligation to protect and defend the Constitution, which was being violated by an executive branch exceeding its rightful authority and usurping the lawmaking function that belongs to the legislature. This analysis pertains only to the leaked documents that exposed the phone dragnet, not the whole trove of Snowden leaks, but with respect to that one set of documents there ought to be unanimous support for pardoning his disclosure.
Read more: The Vindication of Edward Snowden »
(Via: BoingBoing)
In an important decision last week an appeals court in New York ruled that NSA collection of Americans’ phone records is unlawful. However, this does not put an end to NSA mass surveillance.
What the court ruling says:
What it does not say:
The ruling is a step in the right direction. But in no way a final victory.
Read more:
• NSA mass phone surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden ruled illegal »
• The courts stood up to NSA mass surveillance. Now Congress must act. »
• The court ruling (PDF) »
/ HAX
No, I’m not into conspiracy theories. Yes, I believe that Edward Snowden is a genuine hero and that he is acting from the best of intentions. Nevertheless, there is a side of the Snowden revelations that has been oddly overlooked. A matter of unintended consequences.
Some people already knew. Some were pretty convinced. Some suspected. A lot of people had a hunch. Then came Snowden. Now we all know. That is a good thing.
Unless you are the US Government or the NSA. (Or their international partners.) Then you are furious.
This is what is so intriguing. Shouldn’t people in high places be rather content?
Naturally governments and spy organisations don’t want their methods to be known. But what about the awareness of mass surveillance, as such?
The very notion of blanket surveillance will change people. For the worse, if you ask me. But, giving it some thought, politicians and bureaucrats might have reason to perceive it in another way. From their perspective, the way Big Brotherism changes people doesn’t have to be a bad thing.
It will thwart opposition. It will daunt traditional whistleblowers. It will deter activism. It will silence dissent. It will keep people in check. It will foster servitude.
Now, the people will — sadly enough — know that there are good reasons to fear the government. Suddenly we live in a society where mass surveillance is the new norm. A society where it is safer to keep a low profile.
How… convenient.
I fear it will not take long before this mindset will begin to saturate the ruling classes.
/ HAX
Rick Falkvinge makes an interesting point in a recent blog post…
On February 13, 2014, the European Court of Justice – the Supreme Court of the European Union – appears to have ruled that anything published on the web may be re-published freely by anybody else. The case concerned linking, but the court went beyond linking in its ruling. This case has not really been noticed, nor have its effects been absorbed by the community at large.
If Rick is right, this might be a game changer. Reactions? Input?
The German BND-NSA scandal seems to snowball. Focus is now shifting towards Chancellor Angela Merkel.
German Intelligence, BND — acting directly under the Chancellor Office — is accused for spying on European political and economical targets on behalf of the American surveillance authority NSA. Now the question is: What did Merkel know?
Chancellor Merkel is known for taking moral high ground when it turned out that she had been under NSA surveillance, stating that “you do not spy on your friends”. And now it turns out Germany did. (If we assume that e.g. France and the EU are Germanys “friends”.)
On top of all this, there are the (allegedly 12,000) cases where Germany did not assist the NSA. All documentation about these cases seems to have been deleted.
It seems that the German government and/or the Chancellor Office might have been missleasing the Reichstag (parliament). If so, the question is if the Reichstag can trust the highest political leaders of the country. This is a very serious question of confidence.
From another perspective, the BND/NSA affair underpins the notion that whatever politicians tell the people — the transatlantic intelligence cooperation continues unmoved.
The Local: Pressure on Merkel rises over BND affair »
/ HAX
https://youtu.be/0hAtLCBk4gc
This is a film you really ought to see, while it’s still on Youtube: The Hacker Wars
I appreciate Googles concerns when it comes to our online security. However, I think we might have a case of unintended consequences.
If you log on to your Google services from a new (or unknown) piece of hardware or from a new place, Google seems to block this attempt — often demanding that you change your password. I can see the logic behind that.
But if this happens often (and for some it does) it will lower the quality of the chosen new password. Having to figure out a new password/phrase (that you can remember) on the go simply doesn’t give you time to consider a strong and impregnable one.
Just sayin’.
/ HAX
