Here, one can support such actions: http://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/gpes/public/mepsdetail.htm?id=355§ion=NET&category=MEPS http://falkvinge.net/2012/01/26/eu-...sgust-over-disrespect-at-citizens-next-steps/ http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/ACTA_resolution
A critical view of the proposed new "right to be forgotten"... http://techland.time.com/2012/01/30/what-europes-right-to-be-forgotten-has-in-common-with-sopa/ What say you? Is one's "right to be forgotten" (taking ownership of one's online details) a violation of "freedom of speech"? Will it really damage others, if - for instance - one changes, matures, "cleans up", turns a new leaf and... Can we really never change? Is that view of us not being able to learn and grow conservatism and cynicism of the worst kind? It seems to me like two very different views of "human nature" are in the background... No one said there might not be some grey areas in there, just like in the "freedom of speech" principle but...
This guarantees nothing yet but a good move thus far... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46479956/ns/world_news-europe/#.T0VbuR1nkY5
The Forgotten Right Source All these stupid laws they are trying to push, do they adhere to the above ?!
i read that too, gorski, plus the statement that `it will not change anything for users` according to this v.d.Gucht person. which fills me with suspicion; they have still not given up yet.. regards, nodnar..
Seriously, this is why moves like this one by EU are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/o...stic-spying-program.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes Auchhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-info-12-million-apple-users-fbi-laptop.shtml Lovely company, great little "gov agency"... One more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?ref=nationalsecurityagency
One more reason for this right to become reality, enshrined in law and practice: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19887765 [h=1]US judge orders piracy trial to test IP evidence[/h] The case will test whether an IP address is sufficient evidence A landmark case in the US will test whether internet piracy claims made by copyright firms will stand up in court. Such cases rely on identifying the IP address of machines from which content was illegally downloaded as evidence of wrongdoing. Experts have questioned whether the IP address is sufficient evidence because it identifies an internet connection rather than an individual. An adult film studio must take cases to court, a judge has ruled. Malibu Media has instigated 349 mass lawsuits, 43 in Pennsylvania this year. Most of the cases are settled out of court. In one lawsuit, five of the anonymous defendants protested when their internet service providers were ordered to reveal their identities. In a motion filed to the court they accuse Malibu Media of pursuing the cases "to extort settlements". Judge Michael Baylson, of the Pennsylvania District Court, summarised their issues: "Among other things, the declaration asserts that the BitTorrent software does not work in the manner plaintiff alleges, and that a mere subscriber to an ISP is not necessarily a copyright infringer, with explanations as to how computer-based technology would allow non-subscribers to access a particular IP address." He went on: "In other words... there is no reason to assume an ISP subscriber is the same person who may be using BitTorrent to download the alleged copyrighter material." Because of these doubts, he said that a trial was needed "to decide who's right". Because an IP address is assigned to a connection rather than a device it is often unclear who is using it. It is also possible, if a householder has not secured his or her wi-fi connection, for a neighbour or passerby to use it. The TorrentFreak news site, which first reported the news, said: "Without a doubt, the trial is expected to set an important precedent." Disrepute Increasingly copyright holders in the US have begun mass lawsuits against thousands of individuals accusing them of illegally downloading copyrighted material via file-sharing service BitTorrent. By studying BitTorrent sites the copyright owners gather IP addresses linked to illegal files. Via court orders they force ISPs to reveal the identities of the owners of the computers. The UK faced a similar case in 2011 when solicitor Andrew Crossley brought a trial against a group of alleged illegal downloaders. The use of IP evidence was raised but the focus of the case became the way ACS Law had conducted itself, described by the judge as "amateurish and slipshod". Judge Colin Birss QC accused Mr Crossley of bringing the "legal profession into disrepute" and the case was dismissed. Currently, UK-based Ben Dover Productions is pursing claims against 2,845 O2 customers accused of illegally downloading pornographic films.
s**t! How does this square with the EU efforts?!?!?!? https://www.bof.nl/2012/10/18/dutch-proposal-to-search-and-destroy-foreign-computers/ On 15 October, the Dutch ministry of Justice and Security proposed powers for the police to break into computers, install spyware, search computers and destroy data. These powers would extend to computers located outside the Netherlands. Dutch digital rights movement Bits of Freedom warns for the unacceptable risks to cybersecurity and calls on other countries to strongly oppose the proposal. Three new powers: spy, search and destroy The proposal (Dutch, PDF, see here for an unofficial English translation) would grant powers to the Dutch police to break into computers, including mobile phones, via the internet in order to: install spyware, allowing the police to overtake the computer; search data on the computer, including data on computers located in other countries; and destroy data on the computer, including data on computers located in other countries If the location of the computer cannot be determined, for example in the case of Tor-hidden services, the police is not required to submit a request for legal assistance to another country before breaking in. Under the current text, it is uncertain whether a legal assistance request would be legally required, or merely preferred, if the location of the computer is known. The exercise of these powers requires a warrant from a Dutch court. Hacking proposal poses unacceptable cybersecurity risk This proposal poses unacceptable risks. If the Dutch government gets the power to break into foreign computers, this gives other governments the basis to break into Dutch computers which infringe the laws of their country. The end result could be less security for all computer users, instead of more. This is even more true with regard to the power to destroy data on foreign computers; it is likely that other governments would be very interested in using such a power against Dutch interests. Furthermore, providing the government the power to break into computers provides a perverse incentive to keep information security weak. Millions of computers could remain badly secured because the government does not have an incentive to publish vulnerabilities quickly because it needs to exploit these vulnerabilities for enforcement purposes. In addition, spyware is difficult to control. Research from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrates that, even though spyware from the German police was intended to be used to intercept only Skype calls, it could in practice be extended to take over the entire computer. In addition, the spyware itself could be remotely hacked by criminals as well, allowing them to take over the computer of a suspect. The risks above do not even touch on the privacy-issues yet. Breaking into a computer infringes the privacy not only of the suspect, but of all non-suspects whose data is also on the computer. And, somewhat related to this, the value of evidence gathered via these methods is at the least less obvious and will be harder to assess in court. The digital nature of the investigation makes it harder to prove that evidence was not fabricated or perhaps destroyed by the police. International opposition is necessary A legislative text implementing the highly controversial proposal will be introduced to parliament in the coming months. The law does not only concern the Netherlands: it concerns all countries whose IT-infrastructure may be affected. Bits of Freedom therefore calls on other countries to oppose the proposal. Laws like these make the internet a more dangerous place. Some brains...
yes indeed, gorski my friend, and how does it square with dutch liberal tradition?? i saw it a week ago, the only thing that conforted me is the knowledge that my esteemed government is like a toddler, in ict matters. they bungle everything they try, at twice the [prohibitive] cost they projected.. electronic voting was cancelled here, back to pencil and paper, due to various leaks.. not long ago they managed to get most of their municipal websites infected.. the blunders go on and on.. nevertheless, is it a sad sign of the kind of times we live in, that they take the `right`to try this on.. if a country with a liberal tradition like mine is thinking about it, we can bet our boots that less scrupulous nations are already actively doing it, without the ict blunders..
Everywhere but increasingly in India, there are rules for aam aadmi (common man) and then no rules for the khas aadmi (the influential which in India is a unholy nexus of politicians and rich businesses). Do you know that recently the son in law of the most powerful person in India (Ms. Sonia Gandhi, originally from Italy) called Indian people `mango people in a banana republic'. Mango in Hindi is `aam' which is common hoi-polloi. Of course, we are a banana republic when politicians loot the country and then make everyone pay. The good news is that as people are becoming educated, these things are at least brought to light and noise created, but no action. The Elections in India are electronic voting and increasingly fair with increasingly stringent laws. The flipside is that we have General Elections every 3-5 years and some state elections every few months in some state (India has >30 states). Because of the need to ensure adequate manpower and minimise fraud, elections stretch for a month. For that month and 2-3 months before that, the Govt. takes no major decisions.
It's the people that are allowing all these things to happen. Most of us are perfectly happy to sit on our backsides and watch the government we elected go out an do anything it feels like without being answerable. We need to make them answerable, power to the people. The answer is simple, want to put Hollywood and the Music industry to their proper place, stop buying their products. If you want to get your government inline then stop voting for them, demand proper people run for public office or put forward your own candidate and just vote them into office. The middle class outnumbers the plutocracy so the plutocracy can never win in a democracy unless the middle class is sitting on its' backside doing nothing, which is exactly the problem right now. Use your bloody brains people.
One level up this happens: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data [h=1]How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages[/h] • Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism • Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch • Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls • Company says it is legally compelled to comply Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian. The files provided by Edward Snowden illustrate the scale of co-operation between Silicon Valley and the intelligence agencies over the last three years. They also shed new light on the workings of the top-secret Prism program, which was disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post last month. The documents show that: • Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal; • The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on Outlook.com, including Hotmail; • The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide; • Microsoft also worked with the FBI's Data Intercept Unit to "understand" potential issues with a feature in Outlook.com that allows users to create email aliases; • In July last year, nine months after Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA boasted that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being collected through Prism; • Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a "team sport". The latest NSA revelations further expose the tensions between Silicon Valley and the Obama administration. All the major tech firms are lobbying the government to allow them to disclose more fully the extent and nature of their co-operation with the NSA to meet their customers' privacy concerns. Privately, tech executives are at pains to distance themselves from claims of collaboration and teamwork given by the NSA documents, and insist the process is driven by legal compulsion. In a statement, Microsoft said: "When we upgrade or update products we aren't absolved from the need to comply with existing or future lawful demands." The company reiterated its argument that it provides customer data "only in response to government demands and we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers". In June, the Guardian revealed that the NSA claimed to have "direct access" through the Prism program to the systems of many major internet companies, including Microsoft, Skype, Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo. Blanket orders from the secret surveillance court allow these communications to be collected without an individual warrant if the NSA operative has a 51% belief that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time. Targeting US citizens does require an individual warrant, but the NSA is able to collect Americans' communications without a warrant if the target is a foreign national located overseas. Since Prism's existence became public, Microsoft and the other companies listed on the NSA documents as providers have denied all knowledge of the program and insisted that the intelligence agencies do not have back doors into their systems. Microsoft's latest marketing campaign, launched in April, emphasizes its commitment to privacy with the slogan: "Your privacy is our priority." Similarly, Skype's privacy policy states: "Skype is committed to respecting your privacy and the confidentiality of your personal data, traffic data and communications content." But internal NSA newsletters, marked top secret, suggest the co-operation between the intelligence community and the companies is deep and ongoing. The latest documents come from the NSA's Special Source Operations (SSO) division, described by Snowden as the "crown jewel" of the agency. It is responsible for all programs aimed at US communications systems through corporate partnerships such as Prism. The files show that the NSA became concerned about the interception of encrypted chats on Microsoft's Outlook.com portal from the moment the company began testing the service in July last year. Within five months, the documents explain, Microsoft and the FBI had come up with a solution that allowed the NSA to circumvent encryption on Outlook.com chats A newsletter entry dated 26 December 2012 states: "MS [Microsoft], working with the FBI, developed a surveillance capability to deal" with the issue. "These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012." Two months later, in February this year, Microsoft officially launched the Outlook.com portal. Another newsletter entry stated that NSA already had pre-encryption access to Outlook email. "For Prism collection against Hotmail, Live, and Outlook.com emails will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption." Microsoft's co-operation was not limited to Outlook.com. An entry dated 8 April 2013 describes how the company worked "for many months" with the FBI – which acts as the liaison between the intelligence agencies and Silicon Valley on Prism – to allow Prism access without separate authorization to its cloud storage service SkyDrive. The document describes how this access "means that analysts will no longer have to make a special request to SSO for this – a process step that many analysts may not have known about". The NSA explained that "this new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response". It continued: "This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking and collection solution established." A separate entry identified another area for collaboration. "The FBI Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) team is working with Microsoft to understand an additional feature in Outlook.com which allows users to create email aliases, which may affect our tasking processes." The NSA has devoted substantial efforts in the last two years to work with Microsoft to ensure increased access to Skype, which has an estimated 663 million global users. One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14 July 2012. "The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete 'picture'," it says. Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011. According to the NSA documents, work had begun on smoothly integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010, but it was not until 4 February 2011 that the company was served with a directive to comply signed by the attorney general. The NSA was able to start tasking Skype communications the following day, and collection began on 6 February. "Feedback indicated that a collected Skype call was very clear and the metadata looked complete," the document stated, praising the co-operation between NSA teams and the FBI. "Collaborative teamwork was the key to the successful addition of another provider to the Prism system." ACLU technology expert Chris Soghoian said the revelations would surprise many Skype users. "In the past, Skype made affirmative promises to users about their inability to perform wiretaps," he said. "It's hard to square Microsoft's secret collaboration with the NSA with its high-profile efforts to compete on privacy with Google." The information the NSA collects from Prism is routinely shared with both the FBI and CIA. A 3 August 2012 newsletter describes how the NSA has recently expanded sharing with the other two agencies. The NSA, the entry reveals, has even automated the sharing of aspects of Prism, using software that "enables our partners to see which selectors [search terms] the National Security Agency has tasked to Prism". The document continues: "The FBI and CIA then can request a copy of Prism collection of any selector…" As a result, the author notes: "these two activities underscore the point that Prism is a team sport!" In its statement to the Guardian, Microsoft said: We have clear principles which guide the response across our entire company to government demands for customer information for both law enforcement and national security issues. First, we take our commitments to our customers and to compliance with applicable law very seriously, so we provide customer data only in response to legal processes. Second, our compliance team examines all demands very closely, and we reject them if we believe they aren't valid. Third, we only ever comply with orders about specific accounts or identifiers, and we would not respond to the kind of blanket orders discussed in the press over the past few weeks, as the volumes documented in our most recent disclosure clearly illustrate. Finally when we upgrade or update products legal obligations may in some circumstances require that we maintain the ability to provide information in response to a law enforcement or national security request. There are aspects of this debate that we wish we were able to discuss more freely. That's why we've argued for additional transparency that would help everyone understand and debate these important issues. In a joint statement, Shawn Turner, spokesman for the director of National Intelligence, and Judith Emmel, spokeswoman for the NSA, said: The articles describe court-ordered surveillance – and a US company's efforts to comply with these legally mandated requirements. The US operates its programs under a strict oversight regime, with careful monitoring by the courts, Congress and the Director of National Intelligence. Not all countries have equivalent oversight requirements to protect civil liberties and privacy. They added: "In practice, US companies put energy, focus and commitment into consistently protecting the privacy of their customers around the world, while meeting their obligations under the laws of the US and other countries in which they operate." – • This article was amended on 11 July 2013 to reflect information from Microsoft that it did not make any changes to Skype to allow Prism collection on or around July 2012.
A M$ TV commercial of the IE extra pronounces that 'Your privacy is important to us' ...sure I knew all the time what they really have meant with it... Never trust an US American imperialist / monopoly / govt..... this rule had been valid all the time.......hypocrisy and paranoia are their attributes....actually I am speachless when I read the news..Snowden and so on.... some words of timothy leary about the US American govt come into my mind again.....how right he had been in the past already....too much of LSD for him or not...btw....... I do not say other secret services / govt are 'better' in this regard.... but to mimic the USA as a perfect example is rather fatal....
Concerning the politics of the USA I have been always skeptical....many years ago already. Friends did not share my opinion and said I am too much anti-USA....I said : "From the US govt there comes nothing really good...and the EU is too much USA friendly....when having a closer look much reveals to be fake....too much of ego too much capitalism, ...to be great doesn't mean to be social and global......and to have weapons running around....what shall I say...focus on Asia who really needs USA govt... as an idol?.... " I do no want to create a political tension here, but I express my opinion.
Any Democracy that fails/falters to represent the will of it's people/citizenry ultimately loses the right to be called a democracy .. Any politically aware person can see the U.S. is on a path where the voice of it's people has/is been/being undermined by corporate interests .. With the recent meltdown of the Global economy (2009) and the Great recession that emerged from it a clear message emerged that the biggest U.S, banks and their "to Big To Fail" posture was the cause .. Since 2009 the four biggest banks in the U.S. have grown 30% .. They must be dismantled .. It will be a true test of our democracy if the political will is there to do so .. For the other emerging democracies of the world, they would do well not to allow this corporate takeover of their collective voice
For starters they should be forced to sign all the agreements and conventions etc. they force everybody else to sign but they refuse... Then, they should be judged and boycott not lifted until they actually respect those agreements, conventions etc. they sign... And only then should they be allowed to have a say in which way the world should head next... All the UN institutions should be changed radically and WB, IMF etc. ignored! Every piece of paper/money printed from the US should be vetted! If no collateral - meaningless!!! Down with monopolies!!! Need I say more?
What makes me angry most atm is that the German Bundeskanzler Merkel plays dumb and says nothing to have known about it before....tsss the BND (German secret service) knew it, and the Bundeswehr (army) also. She wants to ask the USA govt to clarify the matter..... Hello Mr. Obama, please explain to me what had happened???? Come on!
I feel your anger and would add that for some citizens in the U.S. it is the same when such a tepid explanation is marched out here as well .. The wholesale exposure of the privacy of a nations citizens data is both troublesome and a sign our times .. However people have to take a certain responsibility in educating themselves as to what their exposure is when using the internet .. The DATA is retrievable it's just a matter of who is retrieving it .. I see the ability of some rogue operative imposing a scenario where the assault on a network can be blamed on a nation or people and the global outrage which escalates from that action was the intended consequence .. Such actions certainly can be expected but the worrisome part is that whole wars might emerge out of those actions which may have been the intention of the operative from the beginning