Blogging for the 5th of July Foundation on Security, Privacy and Liberty
Bitcoin is up about 30% over the last month, and about 50% over the last 3 months. The current price is hovering right around $950. The last time it traded this close to $1,000 was in January 2014 when the price hit $1,023 – right before the giant Mt. Gox-related crash.
Techcrunch: The price of bitcoin is creeping back toward its 3-year high of $1,000 »
There is a legitimate need to protect communications among individuals and between individuals and public and private organisations. Cryptography provides the electronic equivalent of letter cover, seal or rubber stamp and signature. In the light of terror attacks and organised crime, law enforcement and intelligence services have requested to create means to circumvent these protection measures. While their aims are legitimate, limiting the use of cryptographic tools will create vulnerabilities that can in turn be used by terrorists and criminals, and lower trust in electronic services, which will eventually damage industry and civil society in the EU.
It seems that, once again, an important legislative process is being set in motion behind closed doors. With the exception of the Council meeting outcomes document, none of the documents were made public. The lack of transparency around these actions, both at the EU and member state level, undermines the already vulnerable trust between EU citizens, their respective governments, and EU institutions.
EDRi: Council debates encryption and other closed-door matters »
(D)espite the establishment of a parallel system of secret justice, the IPA’s tentacles also enshrine parallel construction into law. That is, the practice where prosecutors lie about the origins of evidence to judges and juries – thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial because he cannot review or question the truth of the evidence against him.
The Register: The UK’s Investigatory Powers Act allows the State to tell lies in court »
The contents of your internet history are more than enough to send you to jail in France. A French man has been sentenced to two years in jail for visiting terrorist websites. According to French sources, the 32-year-old man, whose name is not yet released, had been regularly visiting pro-ISIS websites for two years. On top of the two year sentence, the man will also need to pay a 30,000 Euro fine.
Blocking the content not only leads to a slippery slope — and open questions on choosing what content stays and what content goes — but also presumes that the block is the most effective way to stop the bad behavior associated with terrorists. But it leaves out that blocking such content often only makes those posting it feel like they’re on the right path, and that they’re saying something “so true” that it needs to be blocked. It’s not a path towards stopping terrorism or the spread of terrorist ideology — it just gets those engaged to dig in deeper on their views.
A terrorism Directive put together without a proper consultation, without any impact assessment and without meaningful public debate creates the worst possible outcome
…said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights.
It is too unclear to be implemented in a harmonised way across the EU, too shrouded in secrecy to have public legitimacy and too open to interpretation to prevent wilful abuse by governments seeking to exploit its weaknesses.
EDRi: European Union Directive on counterterrorism is seriously flawed »
Today, the FBI becomes a global adversary and enemy to every security-conscious computer user and to every IT security professional, similar to how the mass surveillance agencies are treated. The FBI has requested, and been granted, the lawful power (in the US) to intrude into any computer in the entire world.
Falkvinge: Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every security professional worldwide »
Something like Facebook could never have emerged within Facebook. It needed an open web within which to gestate.
Despite this, Facebook is taking conscious efforts — like Free Basics — to destroy the open web. It’s destroying the very environment that made its own existence possible.
Quincy Larson @ FreeCodeCamp: I can’t just stand by and watch Mark Zuckerberg destroy the internet »
Net neutrality should not even be a debate. Any market actor who abuses their customers and trust to the level of not respecting net neutrality, on a functioning market, will be dropped like a bad habit. Therefore, the mere existence of a net neutrality debate is a symptom of something much worse: the existence of gatekeepers. That’s the underlying problem that needs to be solved.
Falkvinge: Net neutrality shouldn’t be a debate – it’s a symptom of something worse: gatekeepers »