Free Vpn Services For Iphone

the FBI against the case of Apple, where the FBI requires that Apple should write new code for the FBI to decipher a locked iPhone in the case of San Bernadino, starts to set obviously a very important difference: the wiretapping of a modern phone or Internet are not wiretapping a phonecall. It is closer to, but beyond that, reading the most private diary.

As gradually shifted communications on the net POTS (technical jargon for "Plain Old Telephone System"), pursuant to the law required laws to "keep pace". They demanded that the wiretap laws they had been able to use tools like pre investigation were made "technologically neutral" and would apply the same to the Internet.

This huge expansion of surveillance powers passed without any debate among the security forces, saying things like "we're just doing what we have always done, what we have always had the right to do ", and" it is just a technical adjustment to track how people use technology. "

But what happened when the wiretapping was extended to the Internet?

Before this "technical adjustment", law enforcement could wiretap conversations between people .. End of story

Thereafter, the application of law could also tapped the following:

• what news articles you read, for how long and in what order
• Your travel plans
• your dating habits
• what you buy
• what do you plan to buy, but does not have
• Who you are in contact with, but not talk to
• what are you looking for more information about, and when
• what is the relationship (s) that you follow, given a selection
• Your physical movement through the cities, and in a city
• ... the list

this immense extension -. this ridiculously huge extension - the law enforcement monitoring power passed without any political debate at all, simply the weaseling "we just want what we've always had." It is politically repugnant.

(It is important here, however, to note that aligning the application of the law is not the same thing as being ethical. If you use government legislation as your guide to ethics, you 're likely to leave disappointed. Furthermore, even if your own country is a knight in shining armor, you'll probably agree that there are others who are not . not)

however, a journal usually has broad protection in law against search and seizure - the bar is set much higher for the opening and examination of newspaper someone else to intercept correspondence. I would say that a smartphone or laptop for that matter, is much more private than a newspaper again, as you choose what to write in a journal, but a phone or laptop essentially contains a history of your thought process.

an article in Slate today just brings this important point: an iPhone (or Android phone) are not phone your parents and grandparents about legislated - it is actually an extension of your mind. (Unfortunately, the article confuses this important key point in trying to make a point of whether companies or governments are more dangerous instead.)

This debate has yet to happen.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

a decision by the Swedish Supreme Court today says Wikimedia, the Wikipedia editor, must pay compensation to the creators of original sculptures and monuments when publishing own photos to Wikimedia said sculptures and monuments. Note that this is not about the use of photos without permission; photos are used with permission. It is the fact that the photos are public - art - and financed by taxpayers. This is the freedom of Panorama went wrong, and shows one facet of the total breaking of copyright law.

The verdict (in Swedish, full verdict here) states that people have the right to take photos of public art for personal use, and distribute those limited in scope, but only in a non-digital form (yes, really, I do not make this up).

The Supreme Court rules that a "public database" as Wikipedia - or in this case, the specialized site Wikimedia offentligkonst.se (a name that means "art public ") - is different from personal use, and that a database of public art and monuments has significant commercial value, and that value is one of the original creators. It does not matter if the site is commercial reality or not

The Supreme Court concluded that Wikimedia, according to the copyright monopoly law, is forbidden to publish photos public art -. The pictures where the photographer explicitly allowed Wikimedia publish - without the permission of the creators of the original monuments

This decision has a very large number of very big problems .. Take of some them.

First, it is about public art. The Supreme Court is essentially to power someone has represented the image on your retina via reflected photons, or electronic equivalent of your retina. There was a huge fight about it in Europe regarding the so-called Reda report last year which evaluated what works and what does not in the monopoly of European copyright law. Julia Reda, the report's author, wanted a clear and unambiguous freedom of Panorama apply across Europe - you should have a clear right to take and publish any photo. Excluding infants dinosaurs returned fire, and freedom was finally removed from the report. Therefore, this decision can not be appealed - there is no harmonization at EU level of freedom of Panorama

Second, it goes against every grain of common sense for net generation

Third, literally .. having different laws for analogue and digital transmission of art is stupid, especially when a digital less protection of freedom of speech and expression.

Fourth, even if none of the above points were true, original art is always funded by taxpayers. The public has already paid for the construction and development of the art in question during the commissioning of an artist service to create the sculpture, monument, et cetera. To deny the public the right to take a picture of something the same public has already paid for revolt alongside the legal corruption

Wait decision to have significant consequences for Wikipedia operations -. And its presence in Sweden. and Europe

CLARIFICATION: This is displayed on April 4. This is not the joke a little old April Fool. It is too stupid to be a funny joke April fish, anyway

(Hat tip: Sara Goldberger).

recently, there was a hearing before the European Court of justice on the overall legality of data retention. Little is known about what was said - but we know who spoke. It seems that this could be an endgame to mass surveillance in Europe.

"Data Storage" is the technical term for the government spying on all communications and movements for the express purpose of being able to use against you in the future. It is a nasty term that seems technical to something really obvious, like "cardiac arrest", "under-pressure brake fluid" or "legislative excrement."

Unfortunately, the public tends to yawn at all this technique appears as illustrated by John Oliver on as technically sounding subject of net neutrality. This, in turn, is exactly why the authorities do everything would never be accepted if she understood her as technical as possible

But a set of two judgments of the European Court of Justice -. The European equivalent Supreme Court - can halt the practice of permanently ending the mass surveillance of age in Europe and restoring the presumption of innocence. Well, the end of the era of manifest mass surveillance, at least: there is still the NSA and accomplices to take care of. But one step at a time.

One of these decisions prohibiting mass surveillance at European level is already done. What remains is avoided again exactly the same at the state level (countries)

The backstory :. Data retention was an abomination which was precipitated by Europe in the wake of the 04 terrorist attacks in Madrid. Even then, such an invasive mass surveillance have never been accepted by the national parliaments of Europe; notorious surveillance hawks who wanted at all costs - the justice ministers of the four individual European countries: Sweden, Ireland, France and the UK - and blindsiding circumventing their national parliaments to create construction monitoring mass at European level, political force on policies at national level.

The plan worked, and the European Parliament adopted the Directive without precedent, where everyone is under constant surveillance, as if already suspected of a crime, 14 December 05 at this stage, national governments of Europe have made a turnaround oNE-EIGHTY: with the convenient excuse of "we must do" in their pocket, mass surveillance has been deployed in two-thirds of the Country European (one third - nine of 27 -. again blankly refused or had surveillance struck by the courts, while credit where credit is due).

what is remarkable, however, is that when the laws of national "data retention" were created in response to the EU directive for the existence of these laws, two thirds of European governments - with the excuse of "we" - went above and beyond the mandatory minimum in their national surveillance. Thus, all the excuses of "we are obliged to do so" incredibly sounded hollow when accompanied by the action of "luck, we monitor this and more."

It is important to realize that the European directive adopted in 05 - Directive on data retention - mandated the existence of these national monitoring mechanisms. Essentially, it reversed the concept of surveillance, without suspicion, "absolutely forbidden" to "mandatory". Although there were many screens have tried - especially along the lines of "no, it is not a government oversight because the government mandates telecommunications to real supervision on behalf of the government" ( yes!) At the end of the day it is - and was -. mass surveillance inexcusable

therefore, also said the European Court of Justice on April 8, 2014. The Directive was completely inexcusable and a breach wholesale of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were required to respect in accordance with the decision. The Court did not just settle for canceling the directive from that time; the Court struck down retrospectively , ruling that he never been in effect

The situation today :. Thus, the Directive forcing governments and national parliaments to have this mass surveillance has disappeared. Remarkably, they are now not to withdraw invasive mass surveillance inexcusable and they both lamented that they were coerced to implement. Instead, they seem rather well with it - at least, about two-thirds of European countries that have

There is an important distinction here .. At present, it does there is no level directive in Europe or in power require European states (yes, they are actually called "Member States" in the European Union) to have this data retention. But there is also no legislative or judicial decision Directive prohibit , even if current mass surveillance has been implemented under false pretenses. Therefore, we are currently in a situation where it is up to the individual states to have laws for data retention or not data retention laws, until someone says differently

this is exactly what happens :. Someone may be about to ban these laws at the state level as well. As the European Court of Justice has appointed this kind of legal equivalent mass surveillance "first order of horseshit", we can assume to say, no matter what kind of connected case is brought before it. But it can not rule on cases not brought before it. The only contested so far was the directive at European level.

The next thing therefore challenged the laws of conservation of individual state data that was gleefully implemented under false pretenses. Specifically, the conservation laws of the British and Swedish data are currently being challenged. On April 12, there was a large audience about this challenge to the European Court of Justice. We did not hear anything that was said in the actual audience, but we know that twelve states presented their case, indicating a huge interest in the challenge

What is the next:. On July 19, the European Court of Justice will present its preliminary finding. It does this as a general counsel issuing a recommendation to the Court for a final decision, the Court usually - but not always - follows. The actual decision usually follows about six months after the recommendation of the General Counsel. If the decision indicates that the mass surveillance at the state level is also unacceptable that the mass surveillance at the European level, then it could actually be the beginning of the end of it. This could actually be the final phase of mass surveillance in Europe.

We can hope. The courts have always been the most sense in all this mass surveillance hysteria.

Meanwhile, privacy remains your own responsibility.

Wikipedia begins his analysis on the history of privacy recognizing Aristotle as the beginning of our collective understanding of privacy in humanity.

This is wrong.

Humans have been around a long time. Wikipedia suggests that humans used tools and live in caves, so that there is 2.48 million years. He also said that human communication has been revolutionized by the invention of language there 500,000 years. We also know that the oldest known cave paintings dating back 30,000 years. Finally, humans have created or seeked shelter from the Paleolithic era.

This is the whole story. These are all indisputable truths of our world and of humanity.

The origin of privacy

Humans instinctively used privacy since we started on this planet. In fact, not only all human beings, but all beings on this planet have used privacy to protect against predators since time immemorial.

Privacy has been and always will be, the first line of defense for humanity against predators.

What is hidden in a tree, hiding in a cave hidden under water or behind cryptography, to protect his privacy was and is the only way to achieve freedom. With this freedom, there is education, satisfaction of curiosity, and therefore human prosperity. more, there are freedom of control. Only when you are protected against the constant monitoring will be the true YOU exist in this world.

are not you curious to know who you are?

Umbrella image Philippe Teuwen

Thanks to Caleb for changes!

The European Commission request / require Facebook, Twitter and other to police their networks against unwanted political opinions and bad speech. This is a concern on a number of levels

Facebook has long banned certain topics under discussion - .. Specifically, nothing like nudity

This is an effect of Facebook being a child of the culture, it was founded in the United States of America. If Facebook was built in Germany, nudity was not a problem with Facebook, but it would be rather a complete ban on anything even resembling hate speech rallies, which yi
In this we can observe that all cultures have their taboos and their intolerance of certain subjects. Paul Graham has an excellent essay on the topic called "What you can not tell."

The first problem with this happens when a party obtains the right to determine that everyone is allowed to discuss. Facebook has reached this position. Being the de-facto default chat forum, he actually limited public rights to freedom of expression in its own "Community standards".

This is no small nut to crack from the standpoint of policy. Freedom of expression always assumed that people were talking in public, eye to eye. But when it comes to speech servers to someone else, we have so far accepted that the property rights of these servers replace the freedoms of expression.

But if the word practically only enters such private platforms? Facebook, Twitter, Instagram? What happens when the network effect almost forces you to publish an idea about these private platforms if you hope to reach anyone, and companies have the right to cancel your assignment according to their own policies?

We got to a point quite unexpected, where freedom of expression - in practice , nota bene - came in conflict with property rights. This is a very serious conflict from the perspective of freedom, and we are at the crossroads of this road. Whatever the chosen route, if freedom of speech or property rights is given priority for the future, we pose bases with implications for centuries to come. This is true if we assume that bases by the action or inaction.

The second problem with this is that the picture becomes much more ugly when politicians get involved in this conflict and want to capitalize on it. (This was a kind of common theme for everything related to the Internet, unfortunately.)

The European Commission has recently recruited Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Google (YouTube) to police their networks to eliminate speech that the European Commission deems "undesirable" or violatory its "code of conduct" rather arbitrary

would have been acceptable if the European Commission -. somewhat the equivalent of executive power - has established a Code of Conduct which can be discussed in public? No, of course he would not. In fact, it would be odious.

so we have a problem with private enforcers of limitations to freedom of expression, and suddenly, interfere politicians. However, they do not hesitate to safeguard freedom of expression, but to further reduce it on these private platforms. This is because of deep, deep concern.

The situation is like in the late 19th century, when labor movements had trouble getting their ideas. At that time, newspapers were the medium of choice. However, newspaper printers at the time refused to have anything to do with these unworthy rebels with unhealthy ideas. And can force a printer can take paying customers, they do not want to do business with?

Nevertheless, the end result was similar. To work around this problem, trade union activists of the era usually had to enlist newspaper printers in other countries and activists take them using all means were available

We all know how this finished. Since the ideas were attractive for their time, social democratic parties or labor parties finally took important foothold in Europe. The lesson here is that, at the end of the day, you can not really close the ideas with the staying power

Freedom of expression -. And, indeed, privacy - remain your own responsibility

since 1975, Sweden has taken a DNA sample of all newborns for purposes of medical research, and asked the parents' consent to do this end research. This means that over time, Sweden constructed the DNA database the most comprehensive worldwide all under 43 years. But now the politicians are planning to open this single database DNA research in law enforcement and the private insurance companies.

He was a treasure for the scientific community, while it held great risks to privacy that were not foreseen at the time. Scientists wanted to study Phenylketonuria (PKU), a hereditary deficiency of metabolism which, among other things, aspartame transforms common diet-soda sweetener in a deadly poison. A DNA database of the entire population where genes could be traced as it was a marvel, an Alexandria for research. Since 1975, parents were asked for consent to collect a blood sample from newborns to the medical research database.

as the basis of DNA data filled, he began to attract the attention of law enforcement. As in, "wait, there is a DNA database of the entire population? Not regulated? What would you say he is only for medical research?"

So now, politicians in Sweden came with boneheaded and misleading idea of ​​the opening of the basic search DNA data only (Google Translate link) for use beyond the good of mankind - and use its equipment against those who gave of their genome to it. Politicians have commissioned a report to see if, and how, the database must be open not only for law enforcement, but also for private insurance companies. (Hereditary disease? Go Up your premiums!)

This is, of course, an outrageous and audacious violation of the contract with the parents who have been promised the sample would be used only for the good of humanity terms of health research. The moment there is a suspicion it will be used against newborn sampled in the future - as is currently the case - instead of being used for the good of humanity as a whole, people do not provide the DNA database with more samples, or at least not enough samples to provide a searchable coverage.

Thus, politicians have destroyed medical research alluding they even considering break the initial contract. But even if research has been effectively destroyed, most parents do not know the blood sample can be used to give newborns higher insurance premiums in the future, so continue to consent to enter their newborn in the (now) enforcement. DNA Database

confidentiality remains your responsibility

UPDATE :. Andy Halsall tweets in response and adds: "If the data exists, it will be used", which is blunt but true

Scumbag Bitcoin Miner

for most Bitcoiners, it is a well known fact that there is a significant risk in the currency peer-to-peer decentralized on the chopping power. To maintain a fully democratic Internet currency, no single entity should never have control of 51% or more of the total power of the hash network.

Today, one of our researchers found that, according Blockchain. INFO, a minor 85,214,124,168 currently about 15% of the total output of hash. This, in itself, is all the news of the day. However, the strange fact or even scary is that it produces empty blocks (single transaction block). If this 15% is converted to 51%, it could have the potential to kill Bitcoin. Why do they do this? There are a few possible reasons:

1. The entity may have discovered a method to increase the return on investment of mining, and essentially, is winning its 50 bitcoins block much faster than others. In general, when looking for a block hashes for each transaction must be calculated. When calculating 1 transaction per block 100 against, you can imagine it would be more expensive than the old. However, this means that the entity does not receive fees for processing transactions. It is difficult at present to determine whether it would be beneficial.

2. The entity is ready to blow money on mining dummy blocks. Essentially, this could lead to a complete stop in the treatment of Bitcoin transactions. If the entity obtains 51% of the power of hash and completely stop the processing operations while mining only against its own blocks, the block chain will become useless. Some people who could do the governments, banks, competing currencies, or ridiculously rich and bored individuals who have a vendetta against bitcoin.

3. This could also be a botnet that does not deal with the hassle of sending continuously all pending transaction information to its zombies. It would be to simplify the coding rather than for financial gain.

Starting today, there is still very little risk. Furthermore, assuming that the entity falls under # 1 listed above (ie, not quite illegal), the worst thing that will happen is that the Bitcoin transaction confirmations will be slowed by what percent the power they are hashing "contribute" Jerry McGuire and will shout "Show me the money!"

So what? Is it an entity generously increasing their return on investment, or is it to attack and support? With recent security advisories and, of course, the highly publicized hacks, it seems that the WWW (Wild Wild West) is in full effect.

tl; dr Ripple (XRP) is a new Bitcoin currency as decentralized that does not require a blockchain or mining. The Ripple network also supports sending and negotiation between a currency for genuine decentralized CTB exchanges. Ripple and Bitcoin can work together to expand the reach of everyone. We are the first to accept VPN Ripple.

As Bitcoin is approaching the $ 30 mark for the second time, we are proud to announce that we are the first VPN to accept a new currency marks, Ripple, the first cryptocurrency who really a blow to rival Bitcoin. Up to this point, all other decentralized digital currency that tried to compete were essentially cheap knockoffs of Bitcoin. Ripple is the first real innovation in decentralized cryptocurrencies from Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin released.

We would like to start with a simple list of advantages and disadvantages of Ripple over Bitcoin. Ripple has not blockchain, no mining and no strict limit on the number of transactions per second. Therefore, its transactions can be fully confirmed in seconds rather than hours. As there is no mining, no attack by 51%, allowing Bitcoin someone who invests enough money to spend either double or closed throughout the network . It also makes a Ripple cryptocurrency "green" as any "unnecessary" calculation must go in the confirmation of transactions.

Ripple major drawback to Bitcoin is that it begins with 100% of the credits Ripple (XRP or ripples) being completely controlled by their author, company, OpenCoin Inc. (founded by Jed McCaleb of MtGox and eDonkey fame ). However, bitcoins started does not exist at all, but it came into existence through mining, a process open to anyone who was so inclined to participate. OpenCoin will be in a few years to try to distribute 80% of all XRP as fairly as possible. While most of bitcoins were extracted with a small amount of individuals early (for a price much cheaper than today), wants to distribute OpenCoin ripples in a more even fashion between a larger number of people. While some say Ripple is just because of this, while others say it is less just because one organization manages the process rather than a free market mechanism. Other than the distribution mechanism of XRP is the same as the BTC, there is a fixed supply currency applied by all peers, and once you have them, they are yours. There is no counterparty risk and they are yours until you choose to send them to someone else. Another obvious disadvantage of Ripple is that it is much alpha as Bitcoin. While Bitcoin is still very alpha and technology, he resisted quite well so far. It will be years before Ripple can truly claim to be one of invulnerable payment processing network.

But none of these questions, Bitcoin and Ripple were made for each other. Ripple how Bitcoin will scale, both in technological sense, as well as in adoption. Bitcoin has a strict limit on the number and size of transactions it can process per second. Although there is much debate in the Bitcoin community about lifting that limit, to be equivalent to creating a new Bitcoin network and migrate everyone on it. Not an easy task to say the least. two greatest achievements Ripple solve the problem of double expense without blockchain and invent a decentralized way to send and exchange currency non Ripple on its network. This allows two things that will really allow Bitcoin to develop: 1) Most of Bitcoin transactions can be made through the Ripple network to be set to blockchain when absolutely necessary. 2) exchange of True decentralized Bitcoin will now be possible via trading on the Ripple network.

Easy to understand is one of the things Ripple is not, but we will try to give an example of how you might pay a merchant via the BTC Ripple network. The first thing to understand is that the Ripple network will be many bridges that hold the real currency that is traded on Ripple. Anyone can start their own gateway and hold the currencies of other. So let's say there are two gateways, gateway A and gateway B. You trust your gateway A with BTC and the merchant you want to pay the gateway trusts B with their BTC. This means that there are actually two types of BTC on the Ripple network: BTC / A and BTC / B. Even though they both represent CTB are not equivalent. Since the merchant does not trust gateway A, he can not do anything with CTB / A. This is where the exchange comes in. There are market makers on the Ripple network that will convert to and from a currency pair. So let's assume someone has an open trading 1 BTC / A to 1 BTC / B. When you try to send 1 BTC to the merchant, Ripple will you BTC / A, he wants BTC / B, and trade between them exist. All at once, he will deduct the BTC in your account, execute the order, conversion of BTC / A in BTC / B, and credit the merchant's account. Now the dealer can either stick with BTC in the Ripple network or send it to its gateway (gateway B) and remove the "real" BTC them on blockchain Bitcoin.

The impressive thing about the above process is that it works for any currency, not only BTC. You can do the same with dollars, thereby making transactions effectively, you USD in private outside the traditional banking system. As mentioned above you can also convert between USD and any other currency of your choice in a fully decentralized way. This opens a world of possibilities.

We, access to private Internet are delighted to be the first VPN to accept this game changing new currency. If you want to try and get free undulations there are two ways. If you are a member of the head bitcointalk.org there that OpenCoin is giving XRP free to all members. If you are not a member of bitcointalk, we were granted a limited number of XRP for distribution. Send a tweet to @buyvpnservice with a link to this post and Ripple your address and we will send you a (first come, first served, not bitcointalk members only) (we're all out!). And of course, subscribe to our VPN with undulations or any other currency please go buy VPN.

For more technical details about Ripple check https://ripple.com/wiki or #ripple on freenode.

People in general are still dismissive of the dangers of surveillance mass: as you mention the words Big Brother and 1984 further argued that such a dystopia can not get to where they live. Let's take a look closer, be it 1984 yet.

We now know that the spy agencies of both governments want to see every letter we type, every thought that we are, and every image we transmit on the net we are almost 24 per secure-7. Yet many people reject this as being far from a 1984 type scenario.

There was even news of the NSA and GCHQ watch webcams people right into people's homes, and about 10% of cases (as GCHQ), watching people in their home in the nude. We also know that the conversations and online activities of people are constantly monitored, and more importantly, saved.

There is of course no way to know if you are being watched at any given time. How often, or on what system, the government attaches to an individual wire was guesswork. It is even conceivable they watch everyone all the time. But in any case, they can connect to your son when they want.

Do you feel safer? Are we 1984 yet? Most people would still say 'no'.

There is a single take with it. Noted in paragraph bold above? This is a direct quote book 1984 . The only difference is that the time has been changed to present, and "thought police" replaced by "government." The paragraph continues:

You have to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you make is heard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized

still true. If you shake a webcamera or a mobile phone, we know that this is now true.

What would you do if you lived in 1984? Does the thought crossed your mind? If you have not yet thought about it, the time is very late to do - we are now able to quote General Book framework to describe recent developments

Your private life is your own responsibility

The day of the new year, it is tradition to make some predictions that can be displayed true or false in a year. With nearly a decade of global geopolitical game level in my back, we'll see what we can do with current trends. Often, it is equally interesting to see what will not change as this will likely change

So, here are my five predictions for privacy in 2014 :. Snowden will continue to shock those who understand what it says, oldmedia continue not to care, the average person does not understand what is happening and will continue not to understand, the politicians continue to pretend nothing happened , and laws enabling mass surveillance will not change or go in the wrong direction unless the politicians lose their jobs over it.

1. Snowden continue to shock those who understand the implications of his revelations. When Appelbaum made a presentation to the Chaos Communications Congress just before the start of the year and presented a number of methods of the NSA, including their ability to hijack a Windows XP computer several miles away, and an infection rate of 100 percent of all iPhone they wanted, these are capabilities that we had not known about and did not protect against. With this last observation while Apple iDevice is out the window if you are conscious privacy; not your phone, it is the NSA With the former, the importance of network security at home against remote injected packets -. Not to mention detect when it happens anyway - is really important. How many of us know how to do this? How many of us are security conscious at this level? We better start learning.

2. Oldmedia continue not to care. Glenn Greenwald was spotted painfully when he accused oldmedia (TV, radio, newspapers) to be essentially in bed with mass surveillance equipment today, having fled and abandoned their role administration of watchdogs. Royal baby from the UK got a ton more coverage than the fact that the administration of the United Kingdom was to abolish all shred and appearance of civil law in the UK and even the US. Politicians and senior officials are lying to protect their interests - it should not be any kind of surprise to anyone who has studied more than five minutes of political history - but oldmedia ceased to question their word, taking the truth. "Oh, are you sure you are not violating anyone, despite these documents? Well then, thank you for your time."

3. The average person does not including what happens When I explained the imminent FRA law for people on the streets of Stockholm, Sweden, they shook their heads and accused me of lying to their faces. - Despite the fact that I was reading the text directly in the bill. They would not accept that Sweden was about to introduce no general wiretap warrant in bulk; just could not happen in their country. This was one of the most frustrating moments in my time as an activist; it was not that people were't aware of what was happening in their country, it is they were actively choose to disbelieve This almost continuous :. if you were to say to the average person on the street that the US governments, the UK, and their national government listened all - all - phone calls, they would probably not believe you

4. politicians will continue to pretend nothing happened. As late as today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Sweden, Carl Bildt, published an editorial calling what fine moral example is Sweden to the world with privacy, net freedom and civil liberties. This is despite the fact that the Swedish FRA Act mentioned is one of the worst in the world. It is blatant propaganda and lies, and politicians (as Carl Bildt) get with it, far (see prediction # 2). The propaganda is so far from reality that it qualifies for "What's the weather like on your planet?" - Enter comments. It is up to us to call them lies, and bring this kind of national propaganda in English so that more people can call the cards.

5. The laws allow mass surveillance will not disappear unless someone loses his office above. The first problem in the mind of every politician is how to get elected. The second problem in the mind of every politician is how re elected. Whatever the problem comes third is so far behind the first two it is not really reflected in the routine day to day. This means that no one should expect career politicians to care about it in the least, unless - and this is an important warning - politicians risk losing their jobs during the monitoring mass. Unless this happens, it will continue as if nothing had happened

Let's take it again, because it is important :. unless someone may lose their office, the policy will not change . That is why it is so important to threaten the jobs of politicians on the really important issues, because it works in reverse too :. The moment a politician to lose their office on a policy, it tends to change on a dime

In conclusion, things go wrong, and we must remain vigilant. There is a European Parliament elections coming up in a few months, and I want to encourage everyone in Europe to vote not only for good candidates on these issues in the largest economy in the world, but also to make it clear as you do, if you choose to go this route. This is the only way open to change.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

The advertising industry has created a private nightmare of mass surveillance on the web, and more ghosts of the government. One suggestion resurfacing solve this was an option "no supervision please", known under the banner "Do Not Track". Such a flag, even if the legal mandate, can not possibly work. That's why.

Privacy remains a major issue on all related Internet. A problem that keeps resurfacing is that individuals can easily be tracked as they move between web sites to build profiles of them, until the point where they are completely identitied individual level. When this happens mass , it is actually another form of mass surveillance, but we invented and built by the private sector.

Advertisers have been one of the first players to follow individuals that way with DoubleClick be a famous player in this field, and where they would throw a headache for each individual in the worst style of swashbuckling: if you have submitted an email address there, they remember; a phone number here, a first name. Your identity will be gradually supplemented by small pieces you gave away what appeared to be completely different entities.

In this way, every website you visited would know exactly who you were when you landed on it. he was a Big Brother nightmare, but created by the advertising industry. To solve this problem, a "Do Not Track 'flag has been repeatedly suggested, where you simply ask websites you visit not to track and identify you.

The problem is that the Internet is required to honor any request, and that this is by design. This can be trivially observed with requests from the other way: someone running a adblocker when surfing knows they do not actually have to see the requested web page to the way the server asks him be displayed - you can display the parts you want the page and happily ignore the rest, not even showing unwanted parts (such as advertising). Such is the case with almost all Internet protocols, which is by design.

Just as your web browser is free to ignore what the application server, for example
as display ads on a Web page, any web server is always free to ignore what the Web browser application. Therefore, a "do not follow" flag can not possibly work, because the Internet was not designed to honor this kind of forced behavior, and can be modified to have without a new Internet.

Therefore, the problem of huge oversight created by the advertising industry can not be resolved by regulation, and ironically, it is easier to illustrate by technical shut commercials and 'advertising industry entirely from the Internet experience for people.

the problem comes down to this: there is not, and can not be, a legal requirement for any computer to do what you want. (Anyone who has ever worked with a computer will recognize the impossibility of this.)

In summary, you can not ask someone else to take responsibility for your privacy, and transmission a "Do Not track 'flag within your commnication with Web servers would be such an issue. The Internet was not designed that way on purpose

Therefore, this column ends with a very familiar note: ..

Privacy rest your own responsibility

so, it happened again. Each application of the law becomes over time the ability to censor websites, it always gets applied too broadly, beyond the prescribed original scope, and whenever someone states that the same application the law used their powers of censorship to cover negligence in their own transgressions.

censorship is a very controversial topic in many parliaments. The copyright industry has long pushed for websites containing child abuse images being censored the net at the ISP level, with the ulterior motive that such censorship regime could be extended to also include websites that the copyright industry does not like, in general. (Yes, really.)

The imagery of child abuse is one of the few things that provoke censorship net actually occurs, which can be observed in country after country. And every time this censorship was in place, the list of censored websites has himself been declared secret (as it is argued, it would otherwise be an unlawful directory). Then, inevitably, he fled, and appears to have barely any illegal material at all about it (low percent to single digits), but tons and tons and tons of material completely legal that was censored illegally for years without control or transparency.

The next step in the application of the law is as predictable as the movement of a grandfather clock: add exposure for their own negligence and crimes against freedom of expression to the list censorship, censorship actually the freedom of the press exposing abuse of power. What has happened in many countries:

In Finland, when Internet activist Matti Nikki exposed the list of censorship as being basically just a violation of rights, the vast majority censorship ordinary legal material, exhibition site itself was added to the list of censorship to prevent transparency in the abuse of power. The Finnish Supreme Court has recently confirmed that it was a proper movement; that censorship of abuse of censorship is okay, as long as - wait for it -. the reason is to protect children

In Sweden, a similar list - when a leak - was ridiculed publicly after he was discovered to censor, among other things, the Association of Korean producers Bonsai. (No, there is really nothing more than pretty little tree there.) Again, the law enforcement has tried to have the list - and their abuse of power neglective - censored. (The list is secret.)

And now, in Germany, the same thing again. Techdirt wrote how the German government attempts to censor the publication of the list of censored websites, and it is again the same story.

Censorship is never really the answer. Maybe it worked in the past. But if it ever did, it does not do more. One thing that has been constant throughout history, however, is that people have used and abused their own powers to maintain their own power, in particular, cover their own mistakes.

This is why it's a horrible idea to give anyone - anyone - the power to censor the Internet, which in this day and the average age of the free press, the right to meeting and freedom of expression. What you get is a first rule of censorship Club, which says that you are not talking of censorship Club.

Fortunately, VPNs and similar technologies can easily circumvent censorship where its purpose is not justified or justifiable, for example when law enforcement is trying to hide their own abuse of power.

many news surfaced about VPN this week, each of them about how the copyright industry does not like. This is when you know the VPN serve a good purpose in society.

In the words of Galadriel, the world has changed . It used to be that the copyright industry could establish different rules, different prices, different distributions for each country. They always claim that this is how the world works

This is not the hackers mind paying for good service -. Every hacker knows that it is just the copyright industry who do not. I pay subscriber number # 110 (hundred and ten) for Pandora (music player), for example, more than 150 million today. See there? Pirates are early adopters, too, when it comes to services that provide value.

No wonder the copyright industry has tried every trick in the book to close Pandora, because he does not play by their rules. For example, in Sweden, I could not access Pandora for a while. Then the Internet community was fed up with all the nonsense and pretend that national borders exist on the net, and has developed a number of solutions to this.

VPN is such a solution.

For Pandora, I'm using a plugin for Chrome called "Hola Better Internet." When I go to Pandora Internet Radio, the "Getting lost" briefly flashes since I am located in Europe. Then Hola kicked, and suddenly the Hola plugin tells me that I am now egressing somewhere in the United States for access to Pandora and Pandora loads well. Everything happens in a split second. It is even difficult. (If I want, I could go out in other countries, too.)

It is not surprising that the copyright industry is trying to crack down against this obvious technology. (Just as they cracked down on the AutoPlay piano, phonograph, speaker, and so on.) In the last line, it says on TorrentFreak that the copyright industry is pressuring Netflix to ban all users ( pay users!) coming to Netflix via VPN.

Apparently paying subscribers Netflix 'in Australia are so disappointed with the selection there, they choose to exit the United States and use Netflix from there. instead

Let's take it again: In Australia, the Netflix selection is so poor that his pay users, keyword being pay , choose to use the service they pay to another country instead.

in any market principle, it is not correct, what is expected and completely normal. But it disrupts the fantasies of power jam, segment, and control the copyright industry market - in segments that do not exist any longer. It is obviously not in the interest Netflix to lock their customers from a better offer, it remains to see what the copyright industry is barking here. (Also, it should be noted that the Hulu service is already mistreats its customers this way.)

The next step is predictable debate on SOPA - it has put pressure on the payment providers to refuse service to VPN services, in a blatant display of cartelization of the few payment providers. (There are only two reasons to use a VPN that accepts Bitcoin, right there. Trying to cut bitcoin payments)

It is also interesting to see how effective VPN is to protect end users who make unauthorized copies of knowledge and culture of the copyright industry monopolized - apparently, the people behind the Expendables 3 is a continuing party, but hit a no-VPN log on address end is literally a dead end - there is nowhere to go from there. (This is another reason to use only the VPN services that a) create any newspaper, b) does not require personal information in the first place -. As for paying with Bitcoin)

The copyright industry is start looking displeased with VPN services, which is a technical measure that can guarantee civil liberties. It is a sign that they perform an important function in society.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

politicians and police are always on the alarmist campaigns against encryption. These campaigns are morally corrupt. You have as much moral right to defend your data, you must defend your territory. You are in the moral law when buying a safe, and you are in the moral right when you encrypt your data and correspondence.

Let's take a look at where encryption phones and phonecalls down on the list of our seven intimacies :. the intimacies of the body, correspondence, data, finance, identity, location and territory

This is just as important and well card to another. Since the data and correspondence are fuzzy concepts, we will instead look the privacy of territory. Do you have the right to an enclosed space where others can not intrude? Specifically, do you have the right to block a piece of territory, so that person else can open it?

Do you have a moral right to have a safe?

If you have a moral right to have a safe, and therefore a moral right to privacy of the territory (even in the face of legitimate opponents), then you also have the right moral encryption, which provides data confidentiality and correspondence

. It used to be that encryption is only used by one) tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists and b) the technically savvy people when they had a sensitive subject to discuss. Therefore, it was allowed to slip into the suspicion in itself. There is nothing suspicious about encryption, and above all, there is nothing immoral about it.

is the territory. digital territory. Everyone has the right to defend their terrority, and nobody has the obligation to help someone else - including specifically the law enforcement officers - to invade the territory. (If you have a safe, it is the police to open if they want to open, you are not obliged either to help the invasion of your territory.)

of course, you have a moral right to have a safe, and this translates directly intimacies data and correspondence. Encryption is not only appropriate. It is the morally correct thing to do and defend.

"But if encryption is legal," the object clueless politicians, "the criminals will be able to use it!"

This is true.

This is also true for a safe common. This does not change the fact that we consider an inalienable right to lock our stuff in the safe, so no one but us will be able to access it

in fact, this idea specifically includes the enforcement .: an opponent is an opponent, regardless of whether they are acting legally or not. Now, the application of the law will not likely be able to break a safe with a casual effort and limited budget, but given the time and resources, they will probably be able to break safely. in other words, a safe are just like encryption

This is also an important guarantee :. If law enforcement can not break a safe (or encryption) without the expense and effort, which also means privacy invasions won 't - can not - be used without carefully examining each individual case. We lost that account. We need to do things to bring it back. Like encrypt.

Privacy remains your own responsibility. Encrypt your data and correspondence.

One year ago, we posted forecast for 2014 developments in the field of privacy. As the year draws to a close, it is time to consider before trying to look into the crystal ball for 2015.

In January, I posted these five predictions. Let's review.

1. Snowden continue to shock those who understand the implications of his revelations. has not entirely come true, to be honest. While Greenwald has really spun up The Intercept , and Mike Masnick is doing an incredible job as always on the Techdirt , an increasing amount of material does not come from Snowden more. The real motherfuckers in 2014 was not material Snowden -. But again, those of us who understand privacy is required shocked

2. Oldmedia continue not to care Yes, this -. The very foundations of democracy - remain a strictly underground subject. The irony of this is overwhelming. There were millions of credit card numbers leakage, and nobody says anything. There was a leak of a hundred nude photos, and all of a sudden there was an uproar in the old media. It's quite depressing. Is that a leak of privacy really be something people shake in order to call attention to oldmedia of what a serious problem this is?

3. The average person does not understand what is happening. Come true. If you ask someone in the street at the end of 2014 if it is reasonable that a random person is basically able to watch their screens on all of their devices in real time, they dismiss it as unrealistic or, worse, think that they have "nothing to hide". There is some skepticism against big companies, but they are not the ones that break your door at dawn if they like what they see.

4. Politicians will continue to pretend nothing happened. In fact, it came out worse than expected. Some politicians began fessing to wiretapping and gone all chest-thumping about it, posturing as if it is the moral wiretap everybody all the time. If you want an example, look at how Cheney defended Gitmo torture and human experimentation on innocent: "I would do it again in a heartbeat" very disturbing

.. 5. the laws allow mass surveillance will not disappear unless someone loses his office above. no, and they have not. This trend is still true. the first problem a politician career trying to solve is how to get elected. the second problem they are trying to solve is how to get re-elected. Whatever it in third place is so far behind it really matters.

next week, the end of the year we will examine the trends and try to predict where in 2015 some heads.

As always, privacy remains your own responsibility.

a French court ruled that a challenge under Facebook service under French law can go forward in a French court. A man had his account suspended for publishing nude French art on Facebook, and sued Facebook for violation of freedom of expression. A French court will now decide if the fundamental human rights were illegally restricted by Facebook.

Frédéric Durand-Baissas, a teacher in France, published a famous painting of the 19th century by Gustave Courbet called "The Origins of the World" on his Facebook account. The painting depicts a female reproductive organ, celebrating the birth and origin - in addition to being a piece of great importance for the community of art historians. Facebook, according to its position on noncompromising any nudity, quickly locked monseiur Facebook account Durand-Baissas.

The French decided to challenge it in court and argued that his freedom of expression had been unlawfully restricted, and that French law should apply. Arguably, when he publishes in France with a company that does business in France, it is not an unreasonable position.

However, this cutting obviously both directions. If local law can take precedence over the terms of service of a global company, under the provision that they operate in the territory where the law seeks to apply, then it is true not only for France, but as China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. However, we have already seen the blade cut in that particular direction. Several global services have adapted to the restrictions of various dictatorships in the freedom of expression to do business at all

Therefore, it is beyond refreshing to see the blade cut in other direction too. - An opening for the possibility that the Facebook ban on natural and artistic nudity must give way to real freedom of speech, as required by the fundamental rights. It does not go in the direction of allowing less freedom of speech - this is the first time there was an opening to allow more freedom of speech as desired by the company in question.

at the end of the day, it is the fact that the public square, where freedom of expression used to run, has evolved as umbrella terms-and-services of a private company, where they apply their own arbitrary limits of what can be expressed and no. This means that our fundamental rights have actually moved into private hands. I welcome a challenge to this doctrine and application of freedom of expression, once public discussion forum - like Facebook - has grown large enough to be a public place de facto, if not on de facto public location.

and if you can not express your opinion on a topic you want, or expressing nonsexual nudity and art in a public place, then there is a problem much more important than being promised in March bases and get Facebook instead.

as I wrote in my last column expiration of the Patriot Act does not mean anything that the NSA does or does not do. They were wiretapping phonecalls since at least 1976 and are in no way, shape, or form depending on the Patriot Act which was enacted in 01 - when they had done this for 25 years. However, one thing has changed fundamentally, and that is the ability to win against the NSA.

At this time, a game is played in the United States Congress that the NSA is considered the problem child, rather than the security guard. This change in attitude is the enormous political victory here - not the exact wording of the laws that come out of the game

The NSA will continue to do exactly what they did, legal or not. simply because they can, and have to get with it. Their work is so secret, for whatever reason made, they are not responsible - person power to hold them accountable. The attitude of the NSA is the point where it is reminiscent antagonists caricature in games

"We do what we must, because we can." -. Aperture Science

But two things come out of this debate, whatever the final result on 31 May in respect of the infamous Article 215 of the Patriot Act. Two good things.

First, it is possible to gain politically against the NSA, even if it will not change wiretaps in the short term practice because of their inertia, pride and feelings of untouchability. Such a victory is a huge sign of progress and a huge morale boost. Small victories are here important every long walk begins with one step, and these measures should be celebrated heartfeltly.

Second, the NSA is more immune to political pressure. It is easy to observe that when the basic problem is that the NSA do not care what the law says, the entire solution can not simply change what the law says. However, changing the law to say that the NSA can not do, in combination with the NSA being a problem child, logically leads to Step 2 -. They (and other supervisors) put under political and judicial control

One step at a time. A win at a time. Perhaps, after all, we can still save the Internet and civil liberties.

Meanwhile, your private life is your own responsibility.

people who do not care about their privacy missing a vital piece of the puzzle: everyone is saving their own privacy and key elements of the privacy of others. By lowering the need for their own privacy and the right to keep secrets, they also say that no one should ever trust a secret to them.

Privacy is often confused with an individual privilege, when there is a collective need.

Without privacy, laws can not be broken. And if laws - formal and informal - can not be broken, they are rarely questioned. When rules are not questioned, a company stops in its tracks.

There are no long, people who are born homosexuals were criminal from birth. Long after that had been abolished, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. (In Sweden, the classification-as-a-disease ended when thousands and thousands of people called sick one morning, declaring that they "felt a little gay today.")

If today's mass surveillance laws had been introduced in 1950, there would have been a civil rights movement. There never would have been a human rights movement to establish gender equality. People who are born homosexuals are still criminal from birth, only to be born in a certain way. And that's just one of many areas where values ​​rose - and rose for the better

This demonstrates the collective damage caused by the mass surveillance, and frankly, by law enforcement that is too effective

But there is another collective aspect of private life that went unquestioned - and that is the fact that people are not only keep the secrets of their own; they also keep other secrets entrusted to them, for individuals, businesses, or even spiritual reasons if necessary.

After all, if you do not mind the government read your mail and text with the usual careless shrug, "I have nothing to hide", it means that you do bother reading the conversations you meet with other people . and this correspondence was not only a secret yours ;. , it was also the people of the respective secret you were corresponding If someone confides in you that they were attacked, for example, "I have nothing to hide" means that you will abandon not only the secrets of your own, but the secrets confided to you too , including someone close to you was assaulted.

It comes down to the observation that the statement "I have nothing to hide "translates to" you can not trust anything in me for some reason. "

confidentiality remains your own responsibility.

again, an electronic listening skills NSA was discovered - or made credible, anyway - which highlights two completely incompatible faces the National Security Agency in the United States. It turns out that the NSA has (probably) been able to wiretap many encrypted traffic on the net, due to poor cryptographic implementations combined with hundreds-de-million-dollars-worth of cracking the pre NSA -calculs. Again, this shows that the NSA can not protect citizens against the government and protect the government against the citizens simultaneously.

What was crypto strong this morning, may be weak crypto tomorrow. It just happened again, with many implementations 1024-bit Diffie-Hellman key exchange is apparently wiretappable NSA, due to the implementation of shortcuts that seemed inconsequential at the time - in particular, first hardcoded number seeds in some SSH, HTTPS and VPN software. Accordingly, if the NSA cracked a special 1024-bit prime number (a hardcoded seed), it would be able to wiretap two thirds of previously encrypted VPN traffic and a quarter of SSH traffic. Another, and he would be able to decipher about 20% of HTTPS traffic. This seems to have been the case.

Now, to their credit, the NSA a was gently pushing people may not be used key exchange Diffie-Hellman, but use Elliptic key exchange of curve instead. Considering that the NSA has actively sabotaged the specification and implementations of Elliptic Curve Cryptography, though, to make the deliberately low and crackable, people have rightly been skeptical - even downright dismissive - to nudge the NSA to a standard or family of standards, they were found to have deliberately weakened. It was seen as an attempt to get people to use weak crypto - .. Another word for non-crypto

This highlights the absurdity of the NSA's value proposition in the first place

what (wrongly!) since government security is the ability to wiretap anyone and everyone at will, to get the information coveted advantage . Citizen safety however depends on having a so-called sphere of private life, defined by the seven intimacies (body, correspondence, data, finance, identity, location and territory) where the Government can not encroach, or as it has evolved, at least not intrude without special treatment and a good reason. When a single organization's mission is to protect both, it will sell. We know that one gave way.

(In the long run, however, it is a complete mistake to government security depends on the wiretap its citizens. Citizens are hiring a government, well, govern the nation. Wiretapping your boss is bad management, real long term safety results from the safety of individual citizens decentralized components of a nation, not the temporary safety of a centralized power base fortified)

You can not have the same agency. responsible wiretapping everyone the same and to protect everyone in the same wiretap at the same time. Who thought that was a good or even any reasonable sound idea?

Oh, and as a final note, as is the blog of private Internet access VPN and it was estimated that two-thirds VPNs are vulnerable to this attack and therefore wiretappable, our technical team jumped to investigate and found that PIA not vulnerable - PIA uses a key 2048-bit Diffie-Hellman normally, and a key 1536 bits for its special iOS. In no event uses the now low-key of 1024 bits.

What you say in clear today can and will return to chase you in twenty years by a different government with different values. Once you realize this, you really still have freedom of speech?

The US police, when they stop someone, is supposed to read someone their rights in a formed sentence that includes the phrase "anything you say can and will be used against you. "This phrase has gained knowledge worldwide through dissemination of Hollywood culture, so I'll be using it for the sake of argument

the book and the 1984 film were seminal in that they portrayed -. Or tried to portray. - the effects of being under constant surveillance, where everything you said in your daily life could and would be used against you Qu'est- what happens when you can be watched at any time, maybe you are, maybe you are not, and there is no way to tell.

The telescreen . received and transmitted simultaneously All her that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; Moreover, while it remains in the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way to know if you were monitored at one time. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on an individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But in any case, they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted. You have to live - did live, from habit that became instinct -. Assuming that everything you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized

However, Orwell made an important support of his time: only people watching other people, and if they do not catch something happens when he arrived, that the action has never been observed. This means that a person watching a person (or a few at most). Today, the monitoring is performed by machines able to watch thousands or even millions of conversations at once. In addition, the shares may not be observed retrospectively Orwell did not have a time machine where you could go back someone's life and see everything they have said during the past year, you were so inclined.

Well, we have now.

first of all, everything is bugged all the time. Even encrypted communications, but even if they can not be deciphered, they are still exploited.

It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time.

It's kind of depressing how not new it is. It started with the Echelon program in 1970 (!!) and has been refined since. Today, we should expect an automatic transcription of wiretap all telephone calls from being a reality for all major languages, with certain keywords pointing to the conversation if and when they are pronounced. But more importantly, we should expect all wiretaps to be stored indefinitely

This is a significant deviation from the Orwellian plot line -. And a significant aggravation of it, even Orwell could provide. This means that if you raise a red flag for twenty years down the line, the monitoring agencies have the opportunity to go back and look at everything you have done retrospectively between now and then, even if it does not attract attention at the time.

For can you predict realistically how values ​​change five years in the future? Ten? Twenty?

If anyone has considered your private conversations of it twenty years ago, is it likely that they contained values ​​(reflection of society so contemporary) that could be used against you today ? Yes; yes, of course it probable, if not absolutely certain. Similarly, if someone twenty years from now review the conversations you are having right now, is it likely that you express thoughts and values ​​that seem repugnant twenty years on from today, which will be used against you?

When authorities on mere ability to hold you accountable for what you say private today, out of context and seen from a completely different set of values at any time in the future, do you really have the freedom of expression?

Privacy remains your own responsibility. Encrypt all.

Yesterday, the United States and the EU announced they had reached an agreement on the EU's future use of personal data of US companies after the European Court of justice struck down the so-called agreement Safe Harbor precedent. However, a closer look shows the new "deal" to be little more than an attempt to save face.

The European Union has long leaned back to give the US everything it has requested on its own citizens. The United States requested PNR on all flights in the EU, and received ( "PNR"). The United States has requested data on all financial transactions ( "SWIFT") and received.

One has to ask why this is in the interest of the European Union. It is generally not, actually. But the EU is a bureaucracy multifaceted with many competing interests, and the executive power - the European Commission - has always been more willing to sell out the interests of EU citizens when the US request. It was not only evident in the above case, but also with lopsided "trade agreements" such as ACTA. The primary counterweight to the Commission are the European Parliament, which elected representatives and is an equivalent of the legislative branch and the European Court of Justice, which is the equivalent of the judicial branch.

It is in the light of the previous arrangement that "Safe Harbor" of the Commission was annulled by the European Court of Justice. There are very strong privacy safeguards for personal data in the European Union and the Commission have essentially said that as US companies promise to adhere to these guarantees, they are free to take the data to servers elsewhere.

now, the European Court of Justice cleared his throat, said, "NSA," said "mass surveillance", and said that US companies do not have agency to make such a promise as long as the US government is doing what it does, and quickly canceled the arrangement "Safe Harbor" of the Commission. It was a shame for the European Commission and the United States as well (the latter trying to pretend that mass monitoring does not exist, or at least does not matter).

It is in light of this embarrassment yesterday's announcement must be understood.

There are no new case. There are no new text of a new agreement. It is, at most, an agreement to come to an agreement that does not yet exist.

This is an attempt to try to save face.

The essence of the agreement that are not still seems to be some sort of guarantee from the United States to exempt data of citizens of the European Union for mass surveillance when he is managed by American companies, as a prerequisite for US companies of data processing EU citizens in the first place. But this is a contradiction in terms: mass surveillance can not be said of the European data outside other data without first looking and sniffing. The sort of action requires observation.

If the European Commission is moving forward with a new Safe Harbor that looks like this, or like the former, the European Court of Justice will just nix again. This will only face-saving in the long term.

Executive a Facebook was arrested (and released) in Brazil for refusing to hand over the WhatsApp metadata to authorities. This story highlights how the reality hits you sometimes deal with non-English countries and you missed all the developments that led to that moment. There is no shortage of news, nuance, and analysis of the UK and the US, but how do you follow the nuances of changes in non-English speaking country?

Theresa May. Hayden and Alexander's generals. Home office. NDAA. patriot act. NSA. GCHQ. We hear all these occasionally. What is the equivalent for those in China and Russia? In Spain? Brazil? India? ? Even Germany

How developments in Brazil leading to a manager of a parent being arrested - arrested for not complying with an order to invade privacy in a way that n has not been technically possible ... how can such developments occur completely under the radar?

More importantly, what other important developments are taking place now that are intensely discussed, just out of sight for the people of the international community used to discuss in English?

There were a number of things that took place in sight. The Spaniards Ley Sinde . The German Bundestrojaner . And of course, the Chinese firewall. But overall, there is a huge white spot on the map for the development of civil liberties in areas that do not naturally discuss developments in English, and when the media are either complicit or do not see it as a value reporting.

There are two strategies for winning civil liberties. Either you create a shining example of freedom for others to follow (through technological or political means), or trying to grow where and when bad ideas appear so they do not receive hatching. Right now, both approaches fail; bad and dangerous ideas seem to be synonymous with career politicians, and worse, it happens most of the time out of the light of the international discussion of the sun (and the International Action capacity).

How can we solve this problem?

Let's imagine a hypothetical telecommunications regulator is chosen as new leader ICANN and the consequences it could have. ICANN is the organization regulating many critical infrastructure of the Internet, and there was an ongoing power struggle between the values ​​of Internet transparency and openness against the values ​​dinosaur wall Telecommunications gardens, monopolization and monitoring.

Imagine a telecommunications regulator directs the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority in a small country that is so small and insignificant most people on the net just world-politics ignore. Therefore, this particular controller is able to claim all the CV he loves, as nobody checks the claims with the real Internet community in this small country, and would be able to apply - say - a job directs the work more important, it is defend the values ​​of the Internet, which is the head of ICANN.

Imagine this particular controller turns a blind eye to its completely mobile operator zero-tight selection of streaming music services, despite the European Parliament demanding net neutrality throughout Europe and ban completely this practice, how "Basics Free" was recently killed in India and the neutrality of the net retained. This kind of eyes is quite unusual for a telecommunications regulator -. At least one carrying values ​​of the Internet seriously and proudly

Imagine this particular regulator blindly adhere to the hated data retention on ISPs in the small country, despite highly questionable legal basis and completely contradicts the core values ​​of the Internet, to stop the implementation of the monitoring moment when the European Supreme Court found the practice quite illegal, commissioning of its own assessment, then immediately require the same ISP to start mass surveillance. Why?

Imagine regulator hate transparency so that they would prefer illegally disappear evaluating their own authority on the legality of the monitoring and conservation of mass data when the report found mass surveillance was very probably illegal under European protection of human rights:

Director of Post and Telecom Authority, Göran Marby, said it was "inappropriate" to file the assessment of authority of the decision of the European Supreme Court against data retention with the Parliamentary Committee on legal Affairs. If the assessment has been made correctly, it would become public, which Marby did not happen.

Imagine it takes a court in the small country for this particular telecommunications regulation to comply with the very constitution of requirements for transparency documents of authority

Every citizen has the right to access public folders by [paragraph in the Constitution]. […] According to the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal, evaluation [of the legality of data retention] is completed, and thus a uniform document. Therefore, it is a public record. It is so ordered ...

After this decision, two things happen with the hypothetical telecoms regulator: decision authority over mass surveillance is challenged on two accounts, the once on the overall legality and previous Supreme Court precedents on European conservation hated data apply only to very serious crimes -. which means six months in prison or more, and the data is delivered only after a sort of formal legal assessment

first, the general challenge is expected to be called all the way to the Supreme European Court (Court European Court of justice, Court of justice), which has already once said that the practice is illegal, which makes many people consider some exercise and waste time - especially considering our hypothetical own regulatory assessment telecommunications in their own authority has already said the same thing.

The second challenge on the retention of data for serious crimes only, and be opened only after a judicial evaluation has already been decided in the Court of Justice. That did not stop this particular regulator to require ISPs to comply by force, anyway -. Try to bypass due process only by using the superior strength of the blunt authority

"Post and Telecom Authority requires the ISP under threat of heavy fines to ... hand over to the police monitoring data or any other authority where there is a suspicion of crime, regardless of the penalty, if any, for such a crime. "

"this is a typical slippery slope. Initially we were told was the retention of data on terrorism and serious crime. Now the Post and Telecom Authority wants to open this monitoring to various authorities and solitary police officers the request authority and require almost anything they want, "said Jon Karlung, head of ISP Bahnhof.

in summary, imagine that particular regulator in the small country has been completely disagree with the Internet community in that country and the Internet values ​​for their entire career as a telecommunications regulator. Imagine they are so against transparency when it works against them, they prefer removal of documents and reports; imagine they are so unconcerned about due process, they use their power of authority to refine the FAI who banged on their own clients before the court case challenging their right to do all this is even decided. Do you see such a person from head to ICANN of all organizations?

There's just one catch to this scenario. The person in question is not hypothetical.

His name is Göran Marby, and it starts ICANN CEO position in a month, unless ICANN changes his mind by then.

Life under such ICANN, would certainly remain your own responsibility.

[1945008lacoalitionaupouvoirde] Germany has decided to abolish the responsibility for infringements of copyright users and other behaviors when using an open wi-fi access point. This strange and anachronistic responsibility seriously hampered the organic net growth in Germany, and has recently been challenged at European level. It is anticipated that the revised law will take effect this fall.

Germany has long been an exception to the wholesome laws regarding wireless open, as the gateway operators are legally responsible for what their users are doing through a point open access. Indeed, it prevented the silver-bullet Wireless open defense for people sharing culture and knowledge of their homes, but it also prevented strong growth of chance, the organic connectivity startup entrepreneurs (who, coincidentally, is something that traditional industries do not want to happen)

the law of responsibility has recently been challenged by the German Pirate Party activist Tobias McFadden, who -. in a limited scenario - challenged the responsibility and has taken to the European Court of Justice. He was operating a commercial establishment providing wi-fi free and open for its customers, and argued that this gave him messenger immunity under the e-commerce directive of the EU. Very surprising for the copyright industry, and embarrassing for Germany, the adviser to the European Court of Justice agreed with the interpretation of activist hackers law.

This seems to have triggered a frantic activity to remove this annoyance to Germany, and just today, it was reported that the ruling coalition has agreed to the access point to the responsibility of anachronistic - the Störerhaftung - for good. It is anticipated that the revised law will take effect later this year, which is very fast processing, especially for Germany

This mechanism of accountability is something that was against two millennia legal tradition :. messenger immunity (non-liability to a message carried on behalf of someone else) has roots all the way back to the Roman Empire, and perhaps even earlier. This had been an attack vector for the copyright industry to prevent future forward, and as usual, if that crushes two millennia of established legal rights and tradition, they would not care .

which held until the case was intensified at EU level, where this complacency copyright industry has become a German embarrassment. So finally, Germany is brought in the future when the rest of Europe is -. Many thanks to the play of individual activists legs

It should be noted, though lawmakers from Germany probably does not realize it yet, that the elimination of the Störerhaftung allows use of defense open wireless in Germany, according to a decision of the Supreme Court of Denmark (which will affect Germany, the court ruled on the EU directives). Germany is still ripe with the practice of the shadow speculative invoicing - sending legal threats to people with torrent "offer they can not refuse" - and this change in law will be very probably end this shady practice, too, once a few people realize that they now have the means to fight.