Blogging for the 5th of July Foundation on Security, Privacy and Liberty
Germany’s ruling coalition has decided to abolish the liability for users’ copyright infringements and other behavior when operating an open wi-fi access point. This weird and anachronistic liability has seriously hampered the organic net growth in Germany, and was recently challenged at the European level. The revised law is expected to take effect as early as this fall.
Falkvinge – Finally: Germany to abolish open wi-fi liability for users’ behavior »
In other words, there is no central repository of plain-text messages that the company can access to comply with a court subpoena. Nor is there a “universal key” that can be used as a government backdoor to decrypt information. When a user sends a message on WhatsApp, he or she can feel fairly confident that no confidence man in the middle lurks between them and the intended recipient of a message. Such security is a very strong selling point in this age of constant data breaches and headache-inducing identity thefts.
Reason: Why We Should All Care About Brazil’s War on WhatsApp »
In relation to the real motivation behind the privatised censorship proposals (copyright), the draft talks about platforms “which make available copyright-protected content uploaded by end-users”. The wording is very deliberate. While the E-Commerce Directive gives liability protection to hosting companies that passively host content on behalf of their users, “making available” is an active use of content for which the rightsowner has a “exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public”. As a result, any “making available” by online platforms without prior consent of the rightsholder would be a breach of copyright, for which the platform would be liable. The only option for being liable for a “making available” by your customers is to subject any uploads to prior checking, filtering and/or takedown in cases of doubt. Online platforms already delete vast amounts of perfectly legal content uploaded by users, so this new incentive would make the situation even worse.
EDRi: Leaked EU Communication – Part 1: Privatised censorship and surveillance »
A newly published study from Oxford’s Jon Penney provides empirical evidence for a key argument long made by privacy advocates: that the mere existence of a surveillance state breeds fear and conformity and stifles free expression. Reporting on the study, the Washington Post this morning described this phenomenon: “If we think that authorities are watching our online actions, we might stop visiting certain websites or not say certain things just to avoid seeming suspicious.”
The Intercept: New Study Shows Mass Surveillance Breeds Meekness, Fear, and Self-Censorship »
Here is an interesting piece in Foreign Policy: Fear this man »
It’s about the Italian firm Hacking Team and its founder and CEO, David Vincenzetti. The article gives an interesting and chilling glimpse into the commercial side of providing governments with IT tools for surveillance – that also is being used by authoritarian regimes for oppression and disinformation.
“Privacy is very important,” Vincenzetti says on a recent February morning in Milan, pausing to sip his espresso. “But national security is much more important.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit today against the Justice Department to shed light on whether the government has ever used secret court orders to force technology companies to decrypt their customers’ private communications, a practice that could undermine the safety and security of devices used by millions of people.
EFF Sues for Secret Court Orders Requiring Tech Companies to Decrypt Users’ Communications »
“Blanket retention of communications data, without suspicion, creates a honeypot of information for criminals and hackers, and this case will have implications for personal privacy and the security of individual personal data.”
The Guardian: European court to consider legality of UK surveillance laws »
Update, also see:
The Guardian: MP calls for limit on UK surveillance powers as EU test case opens »
The U.S. broadband association USTelecom, a trade association representing many ISPs, is taking a stand against abusive takedown notices and a recent push to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. They argue that ISPs are not required to pass on takedown notices and stress that their subscribers shouldn’t lose Internet access based solely on copyright holder complaints.
TorrentFreak: U.S. ISPs Refuse to Disconnect Persistent Pirates »
Linking to pirated content that is already available to the public can not be seen as copyright infringement under the European Copyright Directive. This is the advice Advocate General Melchior Wathelet has sent to the EU Court of Justice, in what may turn out to be a landmark case.
TorrentFreak: Linking to Pirated Content Is Not Copyright Infringement, Says EU Court Adviser »