Berlingske skriver i deres business sektion 6/7
Førende eksperter i kryptering advarer i fællesskab EU mod at gennemføre et lovforslag, som vil tvinge appudbydere og online-tjenestertil at overvåge brugernes beskeder, e-mail, billeder samt tale- og videoopkald – og om fornødent scanne direkte på den enkelte mobiltelefon, tablet eller pc, hvis datatrafikken er krypteret, for at beskytte mod hackerangreb og snushaner fra for eksempel efterretningstjenester.
Flere en 300 forskere og eksperter fra 32 lande – heriblandt flere førende danske forskere på området – opfordrer Europa-Parlamentet og de 27 lande ril at droppe de sikkert velmenende tanker om at gribe ind på denne måde for at medvirke til at standse seksuel udnyttelse og seksuelt misbrug af børn.
Vejen til helvede er brolagt med gode intentioner og ingen er bedre end beskyttelsen af børn. Og det er ikke bare i EU man har den slags tanker, også i det ellers frie Storbritannien. Her prøver den konservative parlamentariker Damian Collins, at sætte hensynet til ideen om den totale lovhåndhævelse over selve friheden til at være anonym og ikke overvåget at nogen myndighed overfor direktøren for Signal Foundations Meredith Whittaker
@mer__edith : Encryption either protects people or it doesn’t. It is either safe or it is vulnerable. What’s being proposed in this bill — if we can get back to the provision that we’re concerned about — is a mechanism that would allow the evisceration of privacy, safety, and encryption.
@DamianCollins : How do you do it? Do you just take the police’s word for it or —
Meredith: Do you wanna shadow me at work for a week?
Damian: No, I just —
Meredith — is that what you’re asking? That’s
Damian: What I’m saying is, how do you do it? You say you take action, but how?
Meredith: It depends on the situation. And we don’t discuss confidential encounters with law enforcement.
Damian: Do you investigate the account — the user’s account?
Meredith: Absolutely when, when warranted. But we’re not going into those details…. What we are talking about here is the UK is poised to set a damning precedent if we break encryption, if this mass surveillance provision goes forward. We have authoritarian countries around the world that are looking to the UK to set the precedent — and let’s be real about this. The International Human Rights Organization, Freedom House has classified about 40% of the world’s population as living under repressive regimes point. So we’re looking at Iran —
Damian: No. Cause we’re not going to require de-encryption. What we will require is companies —
Meredith: But then you need to clarify the bill.
Cathay: Can it be amended? Clarified?
Meredith: It absolutely can be amended and clarified. There’s amendment 205 that clarifies that this provision will not be used to break encryption.
Cathay: What’s wrong with taking up that minimum?
Damian: Oh, because, uh, we don’t need to set out things the bill’s not gonna do. We set up the bill…. the things it is gonna do, and what it is gonna do is require companies to use available technologies… Now there are different sorts of messaging platforms. As I said before, if you’ve got a messaging platform that isn’t encrypted available, technologies will help it detect things it can already see and find. If a messaging services is encrypted, we’re not gonna require that encryption to be broken or redesigned.
Meredith: I am committed to holding Big Tech accountable. And indeed, I joined Signal because I wanted to protect people from the kind of surveillance that big tech perpetrates every day. I want to protect the teens in Uganda where they just passed a law that makes being gay punishable by murder. I want to protect the young women in Iran who are protesting democracy. I want to protect the people on the front lines in Ukraine, who are, who are fighting Putin. And all of this requires on being able to communicate safely and securely outside of this nexus of surveillance.
Cathy: This bill — some of your colleagues say is an illiberal mess. That your punishing the good guys like Meredith?
Damian: Well, no, we’re not, because we’re not good. I don’t have any chance to say this. We’re not going to require companies to deencrypt or create back doors into
Meredith: Specify that, and I’ll go home and we’ll be happy.
Damian: The legislation doesn’t say, doesn’t say that now. So we’re not taking anything out. We don’t need to because the bill is really —
Cathy: But the broader point, have you clarified that you have you, because of the abuse is of big tech as a whole ended up overreaching with this bill?
Damian No, not at all.
Cathy: And it’s become a mess. It’s become a Frankenstein’s monster
Hvad de beder om er aflytning af folks telefoner (jeg er en gammel mand og det er min reference). Michael Schellenberger fik selvfølgelig også straks en association til Das Leben der Anderen. “Spying On Fellow Citizens Makes You A Monster”, skrev han og uddybede
The name of that monster is the Stasi, the East German secret police who spied on their fellow citizens, immortalized in the brilliant film, “The Lives of Others.”
Consider what Collins is saying: no more private messages because criminals use them. What’s next, cameras in every home? Warrantless searches?
Yes, it’s true: grotesque criminals can use private messages to hide their vile activities. But they can also use the postal service. So governments should read every letter?
It’s true not spying on everyone constantly means some people will get away with crime. That’s a bummer, but that’s the price of freedom. Our ancestors had this debate hundreds of years ago. And lovers of freedom defeated totalitarians.
Did Collins skip his high school civics class? Is he unaware of how privacy protects us from being victimized by the police and military? Privacy rights are hundreds of years old.
Britain’s Magna Carta was put in place in 1215. According to the British Parliament, “It was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power and placed limits on royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.”
Collins says he just wants to protect kids, but it’s clear he doesn’t. He wants to turn the Internet — worldwide — into a police state. He appears to be working with Americans. He was with Stanford Senate ally Mark Warner in 2018, hyping Russian “disinformation.”
I’m not a body language expert, but by the end, Collins looked like a little boy who was caught lying and misbehaving. He looked down. He looked guilty. He twisted his hands and grew red. Whittaker, for her part, stared directly at him.
The exchange should wake the West up to the danger posed by our military and security agencies and their allies in universities, congresses, and parliaments.
The censorship Renees are shameless. They will wrap themselves in child abuse in order to spy upon and censor their fellow citizens. The only thing that will stop them is standing up to them, as a growing number of people around the world are starting to do.
Der er altid en grund til at overvåge. I Frankrig er begrundelsen at kunne slå ned på den muslimske opstand, man selv har inviteret til landet. Guardian skriver
Emmanuel Macron is facing a backlash after threatening to cut off social media networks as a means of stopping the spread of violence during periods of unrest.
Élysée officials and government ministers responded on Wednesday by insisting the president was not threatening a “general blackout” but instead the “occasional and temporary” suspension of platforms.
The president’s comments came as ministers blamed young people using social media such as Snapchat and TikTok for organising and encouraging rioting and violence after the shooting dead of a teenager during a police traffic stop in a Paris suburb last week.
“We need to think about how young people use social networks, in the family, at school, the interdictions there should be … and when things get out of hand we may have to regulate them or cut them off,” Macron told a meeting of more than 250 mayors, whose municipalities were hit by the violence, on Tuesday.
(…)
Véran said the government had made a “firm request” to social media platforms to take down materials encouraging violence as quickly as possible and remove the anonymity of those possibly breaking the law.
“A young person should know he cannot sit behind his screen and write, organise or do whatever he wants. Anonymity in terms of offences doesn’t exist. You have to understand this can have consequences and the consequences can lead to punishment,” Véran said.
Asked if it meant suspending social media, the Véran added: “It could be something like suspending a function, such as geolocalisation.”
Hvordan man end vender og drejer det, kan man ikke have frihed med et større kontingent muslimer i landet. Enten er de så mange, at de kan diktere, hvad vi andre ikke må tegne, spise eller sige. Eller også er de mange nok til, som i Frankrig, at myndigheder fratager os friheden for at holde freden – indtil muslimerne bliver mange nok til selv at tage den fra os.
Og i USA er undskyldningen, blandt mange andre, at forhindre at Trumps tilhængere nogensinde igen vil kræve gennemsigtighed ved en valghandling
MSNBC’s @ryanjreilly argues the FBI isn’t policing social media enough: “It’s not as though the FBI has been going in & saying, ‘Hey, take down this post.’ … The FBI’s not very good at monitoring social media. Look what happened on Jan 6th. There are all of these warning signs”
Og så kan man bruge grønthøsteren, som Glenn Greenwald skriver
A once-secret, now-revealed report prepared for Biden’s Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, details a remarkably invasive spying program aimed at American citizens. The report was prepared for Haines by a team of senior advisors in January, 2022, and was marked “secret” – making it a crime for anyone to discuss it – because its contents were never intended for public viewing. But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), to his credit, badgered Haines for months until she finally released the report, and its admissions are genuinely stunning.
The crux of the report describes how the CIA, NSA and other U.S. security state agencies are purchasing enormous amounts of highly intrusive data about the activities of American citizens. This data is so personal, and enables such a comprehensive view into the private lives of Americans, that it would be unquestionably prohibited for these intelligence agencies to collect it on their own without first obtaining a “probable cause” search warrant. Yet by purchasing the data en masse – using the taxpayer dollars of the very citizens on whom they are spying – the U.S. intelligence community insists that it is merely acquiring “publicly available information” and thus has no barriers, legal or constitutional, on the dossiers they can compile, store, analyze and utilize on American citizens.
(…)
Putting legalities and constitutional limits aside for the moment, what possible legitimate motive does the U.S. Government have for purchasing, collecting and storing sweeping dossiers about the private lives of American citizens? Why should the CIA and NSA be handed American tax dollars which it then uses to purchase information about where American citizens go, what they do, with whom they do it, with whom they speak – all without the slightest suspicion that those citizens have done anything wrong, let alone possessing “probable cause” to believe they are engaged in criminal activity or other wrongdoing?
The demand for basic privacy rights by the Founders is evident in multiple amendments in the Bill of Rights. By itself, the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and the additional protection that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” demonstrates how contrary this program is to core constitutional values.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar