ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Jun 21 15 8:06 AM
The federal government has refused to recognise a decision by a US appeals court which ruled that mass collection of telecommunications metadata. Parliament today rejected a motion by Greens communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam that the senate take note the ruling and recognise that “Australians and the global community have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of government electronic surveillance programs”. The Greens also recognise the work of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in exposing mass surveillance programs among the so-called ‘five eyes’ allies of which Australia is a member. The motion was overwhelmingly rejected by 38 votes to 15. Senator Ludlam said that Labor and the Liberals continued to collude on mass surveillance. “This motion called on the Senate, which just months ago passed a data retention scheme, to acknowledge the reality that the US Court of Appeals has ruled the bulk collection of telecommunications metadata by US Government agencies to be unlawful,” Senator Ludlam said.
The federal government has refused to recognise a decision by a US appeals court which ruled that mass collection of telecommunications metadata.
Parliament today rejected a motion by Greens communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam that the senate take note the ruling and recognise that “Australians and the global community have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of government electronic surveillance programs”.
The Greens also recognise the work of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in exposing mass surveillance programs among the so-called ‘five eyes’ allies of which Australia is a member.
The motion was overwhelmingly rejected by 38 votes to 15.
Senator Ludlam said that Labor and the Liberals continued to collude on mass surveillance.
“This motion called on the Senate, which just months ago passed a data retention scheme, to acknowledge the reality that the US Court of Appeals has ruled the bulk collection of telecommunications metadata by US Government agencies to be unlawful,” Senator Ludlam said.
Read more @ http://www.cso.com.au/article/577660/senate-rejects-us-ruling-metadata-snowden-investigation/
The secretive federal court that oversees the nation’s spies is laying the groundwork for temporarily reauthorizing the National Security Agency’s (NSA) sweeping collection of U.S. phone records. In an order released on Friday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said that a brief lapse in some Patriot Act provisions would not bar the court from renewing the NSA's powers. Although the court asserted its ability to renew the controversial NSA program, it has yet to issue an order giving a green light to the spy agency. The court also decided that it doesn’t need the advice of a new expert panel, in its first ever opportunity to use the friend-of-the-court analysis. Earlier this month, President Obama signed the US Freedom Act, giving the NSA six months to end its bulk phone records collection. The program picks up metadata about which numbers people dial, how long their conversation last and when the calls occurred — but not the actual conversations. Passage of the law, however, came after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) forced a two-day lapse of parts of the Patriot Act, drawing attention to the GOP presidential candidate's opposition to NSA powers and dealing a humiliating setback for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has endorsed his White House bid. Before temporarily renewing the NSA’s powers, as the Obama administration urged the court to do this month, the judges first need to decide whether that temporary lapse forced any permanent changes in the law.
The secretive federal court that oversees the nation’s spies is laying the groundwork for temporarily reauthorizing the National Security Agency’s (NSA) sweeping collection of U.S. phone records.
In an order released on Friday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said that a brief lapse in some Patriot Act provisions would not bar the court from renewing the NSA's powers. Although the court asserted its ability to renew the controversial NSA program, it has yet to issue an order giving a green light to the spy agency.
The court also decided that it doesn’t need the advice of a new expert panel, in its first ever opportunity to use the friend-of-the-court analysis.
Earlier this month, President Obama signed the US Freedom Act, giving the NSA six months to end its bulk phone records collection. The program picks up metadata about which numbers people dial, how long their conversation last and when the calls occurred — but not the actual conversations.
Passage of the law, however, came after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) forced a two-day lapse of parts of the Patriot Act, drawing attention to the GOP presidential candidate's opposition to NSA powers and dealing a humiliating setback for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has endorsed his White House bid.
Before temporarily renewing the NSA’s powers, as the Obama administration urged the court to do this month, the judges first need to decide whether that temporary lapse forced any permanent changes in the law.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/245537-spy-court-clears-path-to-renewing-nsa-powers
The secretive court that oversees U.S. spying programs selected to not consult a panel of privacy advocates in its first decision made since the enactment earlier this month of major surveillance reform, according to an opinion declassified Friday. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opted to forgo appointing a so-called "amicus" of privacy advocates as it considered whether the USA Freedom Act could reinstate spying provisions of the Patriot Act even though they expired on June 1 amid an impasse in the Senate. The Court ruled that the Freedom Act's language—which will restore the National Security Agency's bulk collection of U.S. call data for six months before transitioning to a more limited program—could revive those lapsed provisions, but in assessing that narrow legal question, Judge Dennis Saylor concluded that the Court did not first need confer with a privacy panel as proscribed under the reform law.
The secretive court that oversees U.S. spying programs selected to not consult a panel of privacy advocates in its first decision made since the enactment earlier this month of major surveillance reform, according to an opinion declassified Friday.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opted to forgo appointing a so-called "amicus" of privacy advocates as it considered whether the USA Freedom Act could reinstate spying provisions of the Patriot Act even though they expired on June 1 amid an impasse in the Senate.
The Court ruled that the Freedom Act's language—which will restore the National Security Agency's bulk collection of U.S. call data for six months before transitioning to a more limited program—could revive those lapsed provisions, but in assessing that narrow legal question, Judge Dennis Saylor concluded that the Court did not first need confer with a privacy panel as proscribed under the reform law.
Read more @ http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/06/secretive-surveillance-court-skips-talking-privacy-advocates/115864/
The secretive court that oversees US government spying requests has indicated that it will temporarily renew the National Security Agency's bulk phone records collection authority despite a new reform law that ended the dragnet. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) – often seen as a compliant "rubber stamp" for US government spying requests – released an order on Friday positing that lapsed spying powers vested in the Patriot Act – which expired without renewal on June 1 -- would not restrict the court from reauthorizing for six months the phone metadata collection program. The FISC order, though, is not yet an official revival of the NSA's surveillance program. FISC Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote that it “has the authority to grant the applications and issue the requested orders.”
The secretive court that oversees US government spying requests has indicated that it will temporarily renew the National Security Agency's bulk phone records collection authority despite a new reform law that ended the dragnet.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) – often seen as a compliant "rubber stamp" for US government spying requests – released an order on Friday positing that lapsed spying powers vested in the Patriot Act – which expired without renewal on June 1 -- would not restrict the court from reauthorizing for six months the phone metadata collection program. The FISC order, though, is not yet an official revival of the NSA's surveillance program.
FISC Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote that it “has the authority to grant the applications and issue the requested orders.”
Read more @ http://rt.com/usa/268441-surveillance-court-nsa-spying/
The long-running dispute is over: Congress has passed a new incarnation of the Patriot Act. So what has changed in the new version? And what does it say about the place of intelligence in our society, and about the future of counterterrorism? As most people know by now, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been gathering the metadata of American phone calls — meaning the "externals" of a call: what number called what other number, when the call was made, how long it lasted. Contrary to popular belief, this does not include the content of what people are saying on the calls or the names of people calling. To even get a whiff of this data up close, the NSA needed permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — and that court even had to approve the foreign numbers NSA thought to be terrorist-related. If the NSA got a "hit," it typically turned that over to the FBI, where they ran through a whole new set of approvals and a separate new court order before being allowed to look deeper. The demonized program was not illegal; its inner workings and scope were merely secret — until Edward Snowden leaked it two years ago. And in all the ink spilled since then, no one has documented abuses in the program.
The long-running dispute is over: Congress has passed a new incarnation of the Patriot Act. So what has changed in the new version? And what does it say about the place of intelligence in our society, and about the future of counterterrorism?
As most people know by now, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been gathering the metadata of American phone calls — meaning the "externals" of a call: what number called what other number, when the call was made, how long it lasted. Contrary to popular belief, this does not include the content of what people are saying on the calls or the names of people calling. To even get a whiff of this data up close, the NSA needed permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — and that court even had to approve the foreign numbers NSA thought to be terrorist-related. If the NSA got a "hit," it typically turned that over to the FBI, where they ran through a whole new set of approvals and a separate new court order before being allowed to look deeper. The demonized program was not illegal; its inner workings and scope were merely secret — until Edward Snowden leaked it two years ago. And in all the ink spilled since then, no one has documented abuses in the program.
Read more @ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/18/ozy-new-patriot-act-making-us-safer/28917357/
Legitimizing State Violence
In spite of their differing perceptions of the architecture of the totalitarian superstate and how it exercised power and control over its residents, George Orwell and Aldus Huxley shared a fundamental conviction. They both argued that the established democracies of the West were moving quickly toward an historical moment when they would willingly relinquish the noble promises and ideals of liberal democracy and enter that menacing space where totalitarianism perverts the modern ideals of justice, freedom, and political emancipation. Both believed that Western democracies were devolving into pathological states in which politics was recognized in the interest of death over life and justice. Both were unequivocal in the shared understanding that the future of civilization was on the verge of total domination or what Hannah Arendt called “dark times.” While Neil Postman and other critical descendants have pitted Orwell and Huxley against each other because of their distinctively separate notions of a future dystopian society,[1] I believe that the dark shadow of authoritarianism that shrouds American society like a thick veil can be lifted by re-examining Orwell’s prescient dystopian fable 1984 as well as Huxley’s Brave New World in light of contemporary neoliberal ascendancy. Rather than pit their dystopian visions against each other, it might be more productive to see them as complementing each other, especially at a time when to quote Antonio Gramsci “The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.”[2] Both authors provide insights into the merging of the totalitarian elements that constitute a new and more hybridized form of authoritarian control, appearing less as fiction than a threatening portend of the unfolding 21st century. Consumer fantasies and authoritarian control, “Big Brother” intelligence agencies and the voracious seductions of privatized pleasures, along with the rise of the punishing state—which criminalizes an increasing number of behaviors and invests in institutions that incarcerate and are organized principally for the production of violence–and the collapse of democratic public spheres into narrow market-driven orbits of privatization–these now constitute the new order of authoritarianism.
In spite of their differing perceptions of the architecture of the totalitarian superstate and how it exercised power and control over its residents, George Orwell and Aldus Huxley shared a fundamental conviction. They both argued that the established democracies of the West were moving quickly toward an historical moment when they would willingly relinquish the noble promises and ideals of liberal democracy and enter that menacing space where totalitarianism perverts the modern ideals of justice, freedom, and political emancipation. Both believed that Western democracies were devolving into pathological states in which politics was recognized in the interest of death over life and justice. Both were unequivocal in the shared understanding that the future of civilization was on the verge of total domination or what Hannah Arendt called “dark times.”
While Neil Postman and other critical descendants have pitted Orwell and Huxley against each other because of their distinctively separate notions of a future dystopian society,[1] I believe that the dark shadow of authoritarianism that shrouds American society like a thick veil can be lifted by re-examining Orwell’s prescient dystopian fable 1984 as well as Huxley’s Brave New World in light of contemporary neoliberal ascendancy. Rather than pit their dystopian visions against each other, it might be more productive to see them as complementing each other, especially at a time when to quote Antonio Gramsci “The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.”[2]
Both authors provide insights into the merging of the totalitarian elements that constitute a new and more hybridized form of authoritarian control, appearing less as fiction than a threatening portend of the unfolding 21st century. Consumer fantasies and authoritarian control, “Big Brother” intelligence agencies and the voracious seductions of privatized pleasures, along with the rise of the punishing state—which criminalizes an increasing number of behaviors and invests in institutions that incarcerate and are organized principally for the production of violence–and the collapse of democratic public spheres into narrow market-driven orbits of privatization–these now constitute the new order of authoritarianism.
Read more @ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/19/orwell-huxley-and-americas-plunge-into-authoritarianism/
In the pink, not à l'orange, for this no-peeking Duck SECURE SEARCH ENGINE DuckDuckGo has seen a 600 percent increase in use since the public disclosure of NSA spying practices in 2013. Head DuckDuckGo honcho Gabe Weinberg told CNBC that the Edward Snowden revelations about initiatives such as the PRISM public data collection project had left people craving a way to search the internet without being tracked. "It's a myth that you need to track people to make money in search. We use keywords. If you type in 'car' you get a car ad," he said. DuckDuckGo had its best day ever on the Friday after the initial Snowden revelations appeared, scoring 2.54 million direct searches in a single 24-hour period. "Already we're doing around three billion searches a year, so we're already pretty mainstream," said Weinberg before going on to quote figures suggesting that 40 percent of Americans would rather use a search engine that isn't tracked. "If you concentrate on search you don't need to track people. That's what most people don't even realise," he explained. Weinberg was referring to the fact that most metadata collection revolves around the additional services companies offer, such as photo storage and personal assistants. DuckDuckGo, on the other hand, has taken things back to basics and has been rewarded with a current Alexa rating of 520. Mozilla employs a similar approach in its business model, which uses keywords to populate sponsored tiles on the new tab page of its browser - its first foray into advertising.
In the pink, not à l'orange, for this no-peeking Duck
SECURE SEARCH ENGINE DuckDuckGo has seen a 600 percent increase in use since the public disclosure of NSA spying practices in 2013.
Head DuckDuckGo honcho Gabe Weinberg told CNBC that the Edward Snowden revelations about initiatives such as the PRISM public data collection project had left people craving a way to search the internet without being tracked.
"It's a myth that you need to track people to make money in search. We use keywords. If you type in 'car' you get a car ad," he said.
DuckDuckGo had its best day ever on the Friday after the initial Snowden revelations appeared, scoring 2.54 million direct searches in a single 24-hour period.
"Already we're doing around three billion searches a year, so we're already pretty mainstream," said Weinberg before going on to quote figures suggesting that 40 percent of Americans would rather use a search engine that isn't tracked.
"If you concentrate on search you don't need to track people. That's what most people don't even realise," he explained.
Weinberg was referring to the fact that most metadata collection revolves around the additional services companies offer, such as photo storage and personal assistants.
DuckDuckGo, on the other hand, has taken things back to basics and has been rewarded with a current Alexa rating of 520.
Mozilla employs a similar approach in its business model, which uses keywords to populate sponsored tiles on the new tab page of its browser - its first foray into advertising.
Read more @ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2413997/duckduckgo-has-seen-600-percent-rise-in-trackless-searches-post-snowden
[JURIST] United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression [UN backgrounder] David Kaye on Wednesday issued a report [text, DOC; press release] calling the use of anonymity and encryption software in digital communication vital to free speech. Kaye noted that due to heightened online security and mass and targeted surveillance and data collection, individuals use encryption and anonymity to provide themselves with "online security." However, he recognized such encryption and anonymity have the potential to inhibit criminal investigations pertaining to financial crimes, illicit drugs, child pornography, and terrorism. In concluding, Kaye urged that restrictions on encryption and anonymity must be "strictly limited according to principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and legitimacy in objective."
At The Wall Street Journal’s CFO conference, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden disparaged the idea that the leaking of data collection documents by Edward Snowden was a two-year “nightmare” for the agency. It all came down to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, Hayden explained. At the end of the day, he said, the NSA still has access to the cellphone metadata simply by going to court, and then retrieving the data from the phone companies. “And this is it after two years?” Hayden said. “Cool.”
At The Wall Street Journal’s CFO conference, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden disparaged the idea that the leaking of data collection documents by Edward Snowden was a two-year “nightmare” for the agency.
It all came down to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, Hayden explained. At the end of the day, he said, the NSA still has access to the cellphone metadata simply by going to court, and then retrieving the data from the phone companies.
“And this is it after two years?” Hayden said. “Cool.”
Read more @ http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/former_nsa_director_hayden_dismisses_snowdens_impact_20150616
I am honestly thinking that this man is possessed by something very dark indeed…..
Michael Hayden laughs off reform of ‘that little 215 programme’. A former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) hailed the lack of progress in rolling back the US surveillance state in the wake of the leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden. Speaking at the Wall Street Journal's CFO Network conference, Michael Hayden claimed the only substantive change for the American surveillance group was the so-called 215 programme, which allowed spies to collect American phone metadata en masse. That scheme was based on the Patriot Act's Section 215 which Congress failed to renew this month due to opposition from both the rightwing Republican and leftwing Democrat parties, in a move that was condemned by the American president Barack Obama. However the country's legislature did pass a provision in the so-called USA Freedom Act that lets spies go to court to ask for such data from telecoms companies, which are obliged to retain such records under the bill. Hayden said that if somebody had told him "this Snowden thing" was "going to be a nightmare" for the two years after the leaks in summer of 2013, but would only lead to "that little 215 programme" being altered, his response would be: "Cool!" He also commented on the allegations that China had attacked the US Office of Personal Management, describing the stolen civil service staff records as "a legitimate foreign intelligence target". "If I as director of CIA or NSA would have had the opportunity to grab the equivalent from the Chinese system, I would not have thought twice," he said.
Michael Hayden laughs off reform of ‘that little 215 programme’.
A former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) hailed the lack of progress in rolling back the US surveillance state in the wake of the leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Speaking at the Wall Street Journal's CFO Network conference, Michael Hayden claimed the only substantive change for the American surveillance group was the so-called 215 programme, which allowed spies to collect American phone metadata en masse.
That scheme was based on the Patriot Act's Section 215 which Congress failed to renew this month due to opposition from both the rightwing Republican and leftwing Democrat parties, in a move that was condemned by the American president Barack Obama.
However the country's legislature did pass a provision in the so-called USA Freedom Act that lets spies go to court to ask for such data from telecoms companies, which are obliged to retain such records under the bill.
Hayden said that if somebody had told him "this Snowden thing" was "going to be a nightmare" for the two years after the leaks in summer of 2013, but would only lead to "that little 215 programme" being altered, his response would be: "Cool!"
He also commented on the allegations that China had attacked the US Office of Personal Management, describing the stolen civil service staff records as "a legitimate foreign intelligence target".
"If I as director of CIA or NSA would have had the opportunity to grab the equivalent from the Chinese system, I would not have thought twice," he said.
Read more @ http://www.cbronline.com/news/cybersecurity/data/former-nsa-chief-celebrates-two-years-of-failed-reform-after-snowden-leaks-4604184
NEW YORK – Marketed as pro-privacy reform of the rancid Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act is about to become law. Though nothing could be further from the truth, many Americans will believe that the National Security Agency (NSA) is being reined in, and move on another issue. The Freedom Act has been characterized as another vindication of Edward Snowden — and, considering the fact that we wouldn’t be discussing the balance between individual privacy rights and national security if he hadn’t made the NSA’s spying against us public, it is. We’re also being told that the Freedom Act will protect us from the NSA. It won’t. “This is more than symbolic,” said Georgia Tech professor Peter Swire, who worked on an Obama task force that studied NSA surveillance in the wake of the Snowden revelations. No. It isn’t. Symbolic is exactly what the Freedom Act is. As The New York Times reports, most of the fascism-lite Patriot Act will remain in force under the Freedom Act: “only three provisions that temporarily expired Monday are now at issue, two of which have apparently been used only rarely.” The Freedom Act mainly affects the collection of “telephony metadata”: times of phone calls, the numbers of you called and were called from, how long you were on the phone, where you were, and so on. Telephony metadata is the tip of the iceberg. Programs like Gumfish, through which NSA agents turn on Americans’ computer cameras to spy on them at their homes — and take photos of them nude and/or while having sex — are unaffected. So will programs like Mystic, which records and stores the voice recordings of your calls for at least five years. As I write in my upcoming biography of Snowden, so do many, many of the NSA’s Orwellian assaults on decency and personal freedoms. Within the narrow sphere of telephony metadata, the Freedom Act creates one major reform: “It would take the government out of the business of bulk collection of telephone and Internet data like the numbers, times and duration of phone calls, leaving that information in the hands of telecommunications companies instead. But the government would still have the power to systematically gain access to the data in order to analyze indirect links between callers, just as it had under the old program.” How exactly will the NSA “systematically gain access” to metadata under the Freedom Act? It will file a request with the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court. Which will always say yes.
NEW YORK – Marketed as pro-privacy reform of the rancid Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act is about to become law. Though nothing could be further from the truth, many Americans will believe that the National Security Agency (NSA) is being reined in, and move on another issue.
The Freedom Act has been characterized as another vindication of Edward Snowden — and, considering the fact that we wouldn’t be discussing the balance between individual privacy rights and national security if he hadn’t made the NSA’s spying against us public, it is.
We’re also being told that the Freedom Act will protect us from the NSA.
It won’t.
“This is more than symbolic,” said Georgia Tech professor Peter Swire, who worked on an Obama task force that studied NSA surveillance in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
No. It isn’t.
Symbolic is exactly what the Freedom Act is.
As The New York Times reports, most of the fascism-lite Patriot Act will remain in force under the Freedom Act: “only three provisions that temporarily expired Monday are now at issue, two of which have apparently been used only rarely.”
The Freedom Act mainly affects the collection of “telephony metadata”: times of phone calls, the numbers of you called and were called from, how long you were on the phone, where you were, and so on.
Telephony metadata is the tip of the iceberg.
Programs like Gumfish, through which NSA agents turn on Americans’ computer cameras to spy on them at their homes — and take photos of them nude and/or while having sex — are unaffected. So will programs like Mystic, which records and stores the voice recordings of your calls for at least five years. As I write in my upcoming biography of Snowden, so do many, many of the NSA’s Orwellian assaults on decency and personal freedoms.
Within the narrow sphere of telephony metadata, the Freedom Act creates one major reform: “It would take the government out of the business of bulk collection of telephone and Internet data like the numbers, times and duration of phone calls, leaving that information in the hands of telecommunications companies instead. But the government would still have the power to systematically gain access to the data in order to analyze indirect links between callers, just as it had under the old program.”
How exactly will the NSA “systematically gain access” to metadata under the Freedom Act? It will file a request with the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court.
Which will always say yes.
Read more @ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/06/07/commentary/world-commentary/why-the-new-usa-freedom-act-is-worthless/
A new groundbreaking report undermines the lawfulness of the NSA’s invasive snooping. Around the world repressive governments are trying to stop Internet users from either posting anonymously or using encryption to communicate securely. Russia requires bloggers with more than 3,000 visitors to register with the state and identify themselves; pseudonyms are outlawed in Vietnam; Ecuador requires commenters on websites to use their real name; Pakistan’s government must grant approval for the use of encryption; and Ethiopia convicted members of the dissident blogging collective Zone 9 on terrorism charges based in part on participation in an online encryption workshop. In a groundbreaking report that was formally presented to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council on Wednesday (and is already available on its website now), David Kaye, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for the freedom of expression, has determined that such actions violate international law. Kaye’s argument is simple and elegant and basically goes like this: The ability to seek and receive information is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law. In order to fully exercise this right—particularly in an environment of growing state surveillance and targeted violence perpetrated by criminal and militant groups—people must be able to communicate securely. A government may only breach this private realm when its actions are established in law; when they serve to achieve a legitimate state objective, such as thwarting a terror plot or investigating criminal activity; when they are necessary to achieving this objective; and when they are a proportionate response, meaning the objective cannot be achieved through some less intrusive means. The opinions of the Special Rapporteur are non-binding, but highly influential. While Kaye’s report won’t stop repressive governments from doing whatever they want to do to restrict speech, it makes clear that such actions are neither legitimate nor legal. In the best-case scenario, his findings will spur countries committed to international legal principles to loosen restrictions on the use of anonymous speech and encryption to bring themselves into compliance. But what is not stated explicitly in Kaye’s report may be the most consequential finding. The legal reasoning that Kaye uses to conclude encryption and anonymity are necessary to the exercise of freedom of expression leads pretty much in a straight line to the conclusion that mass surveillance violates international law. “The right to hold opinions without interference also includes the right to form opinions,” Kaye notes. “Surveillance systems, both targeted and mass, may undermine the right to form an opinion.” Targeted surveillance—in which governments monitor the communication of a specific individual—may be necessary and proportionate to thwart an identifiable threat. But mass surveillance by its nature is not proportionate because it involves governments sucking up vast quantities of information in response to vague threats in the hope of finding useful intelligence at some point in the future.
Around the world repressive governments are trying to stop Internet users from either posting anonymously or using encryption to communicate securely. Russia requires bloggers with more than 3,000 visitors to register with the state and identify themselves; pseudonyms are outlawed in Vietnam; Ecuador requires commenters on websites to use their real name; Pakistan’s government must grant approval for the use of encryption; and Ethiopia convicted members of the dissident blogging collective Zone 9 on terrorism charges based in part on participation in an online encryption workshop.
In a groundbreaking report that was formally presented to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council on Wednesday (and is already available on its website now), David Kaye, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for the freedom of expression, has determined that such actions violate international law.
Kaye’s argument is simple and elegant and basically goes like this: The ability to seek and receive information is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law. In order to fully exercise this right—particularly in an environment of growing state surveillance and targeted violence perpetrated by criminal and militant groups—people must be able to communicate securely. A government may only breach this private realm when its actions are established in law; when they serve to achieve a legitimate state objective, such as thwarting a terror plot or investigating criminal activity; when they are necessary to achieving this objective; and when they are a proportionate response, meaning the objective cannot be achieved through some less intrusive means.
The opinions of the Special Rapporteur are non-binding, but highly influential. While Kaye’s report won’t stop repressive governments from doing whatever they want to do to restrict speech, it makes clear that such actions are neither legitimate nor legal. In the best-case scenario, his findings will spur countries committed to international legal principles to loosen restrictions on the use of anonymous speech and encryption to bring themselves into compliance.
But what is not stated explicitly in Kaye’s report may be the most consequential finding. The legal reasoning that Kaye uses to conclude encryption and anonymity are necessary to the exercise of freedom of expression leads pretty much in a straight line to the conclusion that mass surveillance violates international law. “The right to hold opinions without interference also includes the right to form opinions,” Kaye notes. “Surveillance systems, both targeted and mass, may undermine the right to form an opinion.”
Targeted surveillance—in which governments monitor the communication of a specific individual—may be necessary and proportionate to thwart an identifiable threat. But mass surveillance by its nature is not proportionate because it involves governments sucking up vast quantities of information in response to vague threats in the hope of finding useful intelligence at some point in the future.
Read more @ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/06/mass_surveillance_violates_international_law_david_kaye_s_report_to_the.html
New York lawyer Ben Wizner told chief reporter Martin Shipton his views on the state of world civil liberties and whistleblower Edward Snowden's situation Ben Wizner, a New York lawyer representing Edward Snowden, the former American security agent who exposed the extent of state surveillance in the western world, has been speaking at a major conference at Cardiff University. Chief Reporter Martin Shipton asked Wizner what had changed as a result of Snowden’s disclosures and what comes next for the fugitive whistle-blower, who currently lives in Moscow. Q What is your core message for the conference? I think we hear from some quarters that for all of the drama of the Snowden disclosures, not much has actually changed. We hear that from some sincere people who are concerned there has not been enough reform, but we also hear it from defenders of the security state who essentially want to show their strength and show that Snowden’s act of conscience was in vain, to deter future conduct like that and to demoralise the reform community. I want to give the perspective from across the pond that in the United States there have actually been extraordinary changes, and some of them are more changes in atmosphere than changes in law. Nonetheless they’re very important. In four areas – how the courts in the US have responded to the Snowden disclosures, our legislature, the technology community and the media –the public has emerged stronger and the security state weaker. Q How do you react to those people who say we face a threat of global terrorism and need to have strong security and surveillance to ensure the terrorists don’t get away with it. The debate is not about whether there should be surveillance or not. Surely there are people who are against all surveillance, but you won’t find many of them in the human rights community. The question is surveillance under law – targeted surveillance authorised by judges or these kind of mass, bulk surveillance programmes that passively collect all the communications of everyone, which not only violate rights, we think, but also are demonstrably ineffective in stopping terrorism. If you collect the world’s biggest haystack, it’s harder to find needles. But I also think we need our leaders to have a more mature conversation with the public about what terrorism is – a non-existential but non-eradicable threat. The biggest surveillance system in the world can’t stop two people with guns who want to cause mayhem. Our leaders should be talking to us about resilience and about how strong our societies are, not about how frightened we should be and how powerful terrorists are. Q There have been situations in the UK, including actually in Cardiff, where police forces have infiltrated civil liberty groups, environmental groups, to the extent where some of these people have established sexual relationships with environmentalists in order to spy on them. Has anything like that happened in the US? As far as we know, to that extent not recently. Certainly the US has had a history of that kind of infiltration and manipulation by security services, by the FBI.
Ben Wizner, a New York lawyer representing Edward Snowden, the former American security agent who exposed the extent of state surveillance in the western world, has been speaking at a major conference at Cardiff University.
Chief Reporter Martin Shipton asked Wizner what had changed as a result of Snowden’s disclosures and what comes next for the fugitive whistle-blower, who currently lives in Moscow.
I think we hear from some quarters that for all of the drama of the Snowden disclosures, not much has actually changed.
We hear that from some sincere people who are concerned there has not been enough reform, but we also hear it from defenders of the security state who essentially want to show their strength and show that Snowden’s act of conscience was in vain, to deter future conduct like that and to demoralise the reform community.
I want to give the perspective from across the pond that in the United States there have actually been extraordinary changes, and some of them are more changes in atmosphere than changes in law.
Nonetheless they’re very important. In four areas – how the courts in the US have responded to the Snowden disclosures, our legislature, the technology community and the media –the public has emerged stronger and the security state weaker.
The debate is not about whether there should be surveillance or not. Surely there are people who are against all surveillance, but you won’t find many of them in the human rights community.
The question is surveillance under law – targeted surveillance authorised by judges or these kind of mass, bulk surveillance programmes that passively collect all the communications of everyone, which not only violate rights, we think, but also are demonstrably ineffective in stopping terrorism. If you collect the world’s biggest haystack, it’s harder to find needles.
But I also think we need our leaders to have a more mature conversation with the public about what terrorism is – a non-existential but non-eradicable threat.
The biggest surveillance system in the world can’t stop two people with guns who want to cause mayhem. Our leaders should be talking to us about resilience and about how strong our societies are, not about how frightened we should be and how powerful terrorists are.
As far as we know, to that extent not recently. Certainly the US has had a history of that kind of infiltration and manipulation by security services, by the FBI.
Read more @ http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/fugitive-security-agent-edward-snowdens-9482339
A new official report suggests the UK intelligence agencies should be allowed to keep mass spying activities including its metadata gathering powers. In a 373-page report published on Thursday, official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws has also proposed some changes saying the power to issue interception warrants should be transferred from ministers to judges. The report was commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron last year. The findings are likely to feed into proposed legislative changes on spying announced in the Queen’s speech at the beginning of Cameron’s second term in office. “But trust requires verification. Each intrusive power must be shown to be necessary, clearly spelled out in law, limited in accordance with human rights standards and subject to demanding and visible safeguards”, David Anderson QC said while introducing his report entitled “A Question of Trust”. “I think there is one positive aspect because David Anderson who has done this report has gone some way to identify the defect in the current system and what he actually said that the current system is undemocratic and in the long run it will be intolerable. But we have to wait and see that how much protection the new system they are putting together may provide” Alan Hart, a London-based researcher and author told Press TV. ‘Breach of privacy’ The report which comes in response to revelations by former CIA-NSA contractor Edward Snowden includes enough points to make GCHQ and other British spy agencies happy as they successfully fought to retain their metadata collection powers.
A new official report suggests the UK intelligence agencies should be allowed to keep mass spying activities including its metadata gathering powers.
In a 373-page report published on Thursday, official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws has also proposed some changes saying the power to issue interception warrants should be transferred from ministers to judges.
The report was commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron last year. The findings are likely to feed into proposed legislative changes on spying announced in the Queen’s speech at the beginning of Cameron’s second term in office.
“But trust requires verification. Each intrusive power must be shown to be necessary, clearly spelled out in law, limited in accordance with human rights standards and subject to demanding and visible safeguards”, David Anderson QC said while introducing his report entitled “A Question of Trust”.
“I think there is one positive aspect because David Anderson who has done this report has gone some way to identify the defect in the current system and what he actually said that the current system is undemocratic and in the long run it will be intolerable. But we have to wait and see that how much protection the new system they are putting together may provide” Alan Hart, a London-based researcher and author told Press TV.
‘Breach of privacy’
The report which comes in response to revelations by former CIA-NSA contractor Edward Snowden includes enough points to make GCHQ and other British spy agencies happy as they successfully fought to retain their metadata collection powers.
Read more @ http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/06/11/415385/Let-UK-intel-agencies-do-mass-spying
Belgium follows other EU countries that have already scrapped their own data retention laws A Belgian law requiring telecommunications operators and ISPs to store customer metadata for police investigations was axed by the Constitutional Court of Belgium on Thursday because it violates fundamental privacy rights. Under the law, customer metadata such as call logs as well as location and Internet data had to be stored for one year for law enforcement to use when investigating serious crimes and terrorism. The law went into effect in 2013 and was based on the now defunct EU Data Retention Directive that was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) last year, also because it violated fundamental privacy rights. The Belgian law was challenged by the League for Human Rights and the Order of French-speaking and German-speaking Lawyers shortly after it was introduced. They wanted the law annulled, arguing it was unconstitutional and violated European human rights. In its verdict, the Constitutional Court said it decided to scrap the law for the same reasons as the CJEU invalidated the Data Retention Directive. The Belgian law also violates articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which cover the right of individuals to privacy in their lives and communications as well as the protection of their personal data. The law also violates article 52, which states that limitations on people's freedoms may only be made if they are necessary and genuinely meet the objectives of general interest.
Belgium follows other EU countries that have already scrapped their own data retention laws
A Belgian law requiring telecommunications operators and ISPs to store customer metadata for police investigations was axed by the Constitutional Court of Belgium on Thursday because it violates fundamental privacy rights.
Under the law, customer metadata such as call logs as well as location and Internet data had to be stored for one year for law enforcement to use when investigating serious crimes and terrorism.
The law went into effect in 2013 and was based on the now defunct EU Data Retention Directive that was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) last year, also because it violated fundamental privacy rights.
The Belgian law was challenged by the League for Human Rights and the Order of French-speaking and German-speaking Lawyers shortly after it was introduced. They wanted the law annulled, arguing it was unconstitutional and violated European human rights.
In its verdict, the Constitutional Court said it decided to scrap the law for the same reasons as the CJEU invalidated the Data Retention Directive.
Read more @ http://www.techworld.com.au/article/577249/belgian-data-retention-law-axed-by-constitutional-court/
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact