Quotes

Libertarian Presidential candidate: Pardon for Snowden, Manning and others

The U.S.’s most popular third-party presidential candidate says he would “consider” pardoning the highest profile convicts of computer-related crimes in the country, including Chelsea Manning, Ross Ulbricht, and Jeremy Hammond.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, also reiterated his possible willingness to pardon Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency analyst who gave a cache of agency documents to journalists in 2013. Snowden currently resides in Russia, which granted him temporary asylum after the U.S. charged him with violating the Espionage Act.

Vocativ: Gary Johnson: I’d Consider Pardoning Snowden, Manning »

Can you trust Twitter?

Twitter lit up Friday night with allegations that it tried to suppress news that secret-leaking website Wikileaks exposed thousands of emails obtained from the servers of the Democratic National Committee.

Friday afternoon, users noted, “#DNCLeaks” was trending, with more than 250,000 tweets about it on the platform. By Friday evening, it vanished completely from the site’s “trending” bar for at least 20 minutes. It returned as “#DNCLeak” after users erupted, though it was too late to quell their rage.

Twitter accused of suppressing DNC Wikileaks story »

Twitter censoring Milo Yiannopolous

The decision to unperson Yiannopoulos was done in secret in some hidden Twitter office, no doubt one with cheerful Twitter blue birds on every wall. His “suspension” was retroactive: His past posts—virtually all of which were once regarded as acceptable—have been vanished just as much as any problematic ones.

It is unclear which was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Nor is it clear which were the past straws. Twitter’s only statement regarding Yiannopolous’s ban was a reiteration of its terms of service, which is akin to reading the criminal code aloud when someone is accused of a crime. There is, however, a very profound difference here. Twitter does not have a Soviet monopoly on the media. It is still largely open to criticism, both on the platform itself and in other venues. This is not a First Amendment issue. But it still remains, quite obviously, an issue.

Observer.com: Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous »

Fighting the roots of terrorism

“Dropping bombs on oil refineries or conducting unmanned aerial vehicle strikes against jihadist leaders is easy. By contrast, building strong institutions that can resist corruption and govern fairly and justly is far more difficult. The very failure to build such institutions has given rise to resurgent jihadism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Libya and Mali.

For citizens of corrupt, repressive or even kleptocratic states, jihadism’s utopian message resonates far more loudly — just as Marxism’s did. It is no coincidence that despite their best efforts, the KGB and its affiliated intelligence services found little success in fomenting insurgencies in parts of the West with good, honest governance. The seeds that the communists planted never grew and flourished as they did in places where inept or repressive regimes held power.”

Link: What The Cold War Can Learn Us About Jihadism »

And now… automated web censorship

Automated systems to identify child abuse material (and flag it for removal) on the Internet is now going to be used to combat “extremist” and “hateful” content on social media.

“However, the definition of “extremist content” is everything but clear; CEP’s algorithm does not (and logically cannot) contain this definition either. Even if it were to use a database of previously identified material, that still would create problems for legitimate quotation, research and illustration purposes, as well as problems regarding varying laws from one jurisdiction to another.”

“The Joint Referral Platform has the potential to automate Europol’s not-formal-censorship activities by an automatic detection of re-upload. However, it remains unclear whether any investigative measures will be taken apart from the referral – particularly as Europol’s activities, bizarrely, do not deal with illegal material. There is obviously no redress available for incorrectly identified and deleted content, as it is not the law but broad and unpredictable terms of service that are being used.”

What could possibly go wrong..?

EDRi: Algorithms – censorship à la carte? »

FAQ: EU-US Privacy Shield

“There are a few improvements, the most obvious being on the purpose limitation and the duration of data retention by private companies. But even here, the EU standard that data can only be stored as long as this is “necessary” is watered down to “relevant”. Of course, any data can be relevant for the company, but that does not mean it meets the necessity test.”

“At the very least, it should get a sunset clause and expire in two years, when the new EU data protection rules have to be applied. The negotiations should in the meantime continue with the next US administration, which also should amend its laws in the next two years. I know this is difficult given the current situation on Capitol Hill in Washington, but we can’t give US companies such privileged access to EU data transfers market if they don’t follow our standards.”

“All I have seen is a funny attempt to define “bulk collection” as not being “mass surveillance”. The US government is still allowed to do bulk data collection in at least six cases, including gathering “foreign intelligence information”, which can be information on anything from illicit arms trade to legitimate trade agreement protests.”

German Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.

Link: EU-US “Privacy Shield” – Background and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) »

EU to adopt EU-US Privacy Shield shotrly

Privacy Shield—the much maligned replacement to the Safe Harbour deal between the European Union and the US—looks set to be approved by national representatives on Friday, Ars understands.

The scheme, which will allow the transfer of personal data from the EU to the US despite privacy and data protection concerns, has faced an uphill battle. Brussels officials who negotiated the deal on behalf of the EU have been desperate to push it through in the face of criticism from the European Data Protection Supervisor, national data protection authorities, and the European Parliament, in order to give some legal certainty to companies that rely on transatlantic data flows. (…)

The agreement is expected to be formally adopted by the European Commission next Monday, followed by the deal being inked by justice commissioner Vera Jourová and US secretary of commerce Penny Pritzker on Tuesday.

Jennifer Baker in Ars Technica: Privacy Shield to be dragged across finish line—sources »

Europols web censorship under fire

Europol’s Internet Referral Unit (IRU) celebrated its first birthday at the weekend, but civil liberties organisations are worried that it goes too far in its efforts to keep the Web free from extremist propaganda. (…)

However AccessNow a global digital rights organisation said Europe’s approach to dealing with online extremism is “haphazard, alarming, tone-deaf, and entirely counter-productive.”

According to AccessNow, “the IRU is outside the rule of law on several grounds. First, illegal content is just that—illegal. If law enforcement encounters illegal activity, be it online or off, it is expected to proceed in dealing with that in a legal, rights-respecting manner.”

Ars Technica: Europol’s online censorship unit is haphazard and unaccountable says NGO »

EU rushing new directive on combating terrorism

Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights (EDRi) on the new EU Directive on “combating terrorism”:

Speed is being prioritised over quality. The calculation appears to be that it is better for the EU to be seen to be doing “something” rather than taking its time to adopt legislation that is actually fit for purpose.

EDRi: Rush to “fight terrorism” threatens our fundamental rights and security »

Belgian court: Facebook can keep tracking non-users

A Belgian court has overturned a ruling that would have forced Facebook to stop tracking non-users who had visited its pages, The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. A Brussels appeals court found that the Belgian Privacy Commission, which brought a case against Facebook last year, does not have jurisdiction over the company’s Ireland-based European headquarters. As The Guardian reports, it also rejected a claim that the case was urgent and needed to be expedited.

This reverses a decision made last year, when a court ordered Facebook to stop using cookies to keep tabs on the web browsing of people who were not logged into accounts or had otherwise opted out of tracking

The Verge: Facebook wins Belgian privacy case over tracking logged-out users »

Ars Technica: Facebook wins privacy case, can track any Belgian it wants »