Om hur en amerikansk myndighet vill kontrollera "sanningen", granska "desinformation" och propaganda" – och vidta insatser mot "social förorening" på internet.
Före valet var Miljöpartiet förespråkare för personlig integritet, och motståndare till massövervakning. Efter att ha suttit fem år i den Gröna gruppen i EU-parlamentet uppfattar jag det som något de uppriktigt tycker. Vi arbetade på alla sätt vi kunde mot alla former av massövervakning, och vi blev jätteglada när EU-domstolen ogiltigförklarade datalagringsdirektivet för att det kränker de mänskliga rättigheterna som står inskrivna i EU-stadgan.
Men i Sverige sitter Miljöpartiet numera i regeringen. Och plötsligt har det blivit knäpptyst från dem vad de tänker göra med den svenska datalagringslagen, som bygger på det olagliga och numera upphävda datalagringsdirektivet från EU.
Kommer regeringen lägga en proposition för att avskaffa den svenska datalagringslagen?
Jag skulle verkligen uppskatta ett rakt svar från Miljöpartiet på den frågan. För jag börjar bli väldigt oroad av den bedövande tystnaden.
(Continued from part 1)
Time passes and our father becomes ill. Peter is worried about what is happening. Our father is old and has severe pains in the leg. After the lung cancer twenty years ago he only has one lung left. He had surgery for the heart and the hip. And this summer his weight has plummeted.
Why does Peter not get day-leave?
Because they are taking revenge.
That is the only plausible explanation.
I say it again: There is no reasons at all, nothing that should stop Peter from getting day-leave. But now there is prestige in it. He wins small battles about (for us on the outside) small things. The Ombudsman does not ignore his filings. The post department is forced to change its routines. The inmates refuse to leave the yard before a full hour has passed. He helps the others with documents and appeals. He pushes through a claim that the department should have its own example of the law book available. He submits appeals and applications. They get annoyed at him. They say: “there is a possibility that you MAY get a day-leave”, but that’s incorrect. According to the law, rights are for the inmates as well. Rights that are not to be used as rewards for docile behaviour, but that is how they are used.
Those who demand their rights, must be punished. “Good news! Your application is rejected!”
Dad gets worse and ends up in hospital. It is the foot, it is the atherosclerosis, it is the herniated disc, it is the lung, it is the severe weight loss, it is the pain and the suspected cancer. The summer of 2014 will go down in history as one of the worst in the history of KSS. The hospital is understaffed. Nurses speak out in media about how they are weeping for not being able to keep up. There is a large shortage of space. And dad is moved between several departments. Peter tries the best he can. He applies for day-leave again and again. And lo and behold, finally the day-leave almost goes through…
The situation is serious but Peter receives no ordinary day-leave. Instead two guards follow along. The trip from Västervik to Skövde is long. Because of this he is only allowed to see his dad for three hours. But sure. It is definitely something. At least he gets to see his sick father.
But they still refuse to give him an ordinary day-leave. The guards that followed along are kind. They understand, everyone understands, who wouldn’t? – that there is absolutely no escape risk. Dad is ill. He wants to see his son. Peter wants to see his father. And he gets to meet his father. This time and one more time.
How does one judge a prisoner’s probability for escaping? How does one make a risk analysis? The system for day-leave is designed in such a way that a succesful day-leave leads to new extended opportunities. Six hours will eventually become twentyfour hours.
Anyone that receives a day-leave also has a right to apply for a transfer to a different department and increased chances of ankle monitor. Those who have not received day-leave have very small chances of either, even though the prison care rules only state that the inmate “should” have had day-leave before an ankle monitor may even become an option. In this system a ‘special guarded day-leave’ is not counted as a normal day-leave.
Therefore it’s as if Peter was never outside the prison walls. He got to see dad. He traveled guarded. He behaved. He has been examplary. But he receives no day-leave. There is no new data to review if he is allowed day-leave. Despite that the deputy chief now tells the lawyer that there is no barriers at all that stops Peter from getting it. But a few days later the boss makes himself unavailable.
Peter would most likely run away, according to the decision.
A correctional facility may not hand out more punishment than what is already sentenced in court. But it’s hard to draw other conclusions, when it comes to Peter’s case, that it’s pure punishment in combination with anxiety and cowardice. If he escapes. Then. Then a media hell awaits the correctional facility that has been criticized by the Ombudsman the most often.
Peter says that they have barbed wire fences with razor blades. That they pay large sums each year in fines for this. They themselves call this “dispensation”. The correctional facility says that they put safety first. They feel that they need razor blades, because of this they break the rules and pay the fines each year. They must have razor blades. Otherwise people escape. The proof on the efficiency of the razor blades? The relatively low number of escapes. But of course it happens that people still escape. On day-leave, for example. Of course it happens.
Dad’s illness turns worse. The summer keeps passing out there on ‘Billingeslänten’. Sweden’s oldest tower for television keeps transmitting signals, just like Sweden’s tallest tower does close to the Västervik correctional facility. But soon the summer is over. And after the vacations the ordinary boss returns. Recently there was an improvement. Peter was about to get an ankle monitor, receive day-leave, granted a transfer. But with autumn approaching the strict regime returns. day-leave is obviously not even a possibility.
Peter should stay where he is.
Because of the system nothing is verifiable. It is hard to gain insight into the penitentiary. It is a closed community within the society, without regulatory authority, with a security classification on most things.
Therefore everything I write is fiction. Nothing is true. Nothing is real. That’s why I treat the fictive guards and bosses as I please. They are nothing but fictionary constructions. This small boss tries to become responsible for security of the entire prison. But, also the other small boss roars every now and then. His face turns red and he calls the inmates things that no one should be called.
At the correctional facility the system is shaped so that the only ones expected to act calm and rational are the inmates. There are urine tests, isolation cells, removed privileges, sudden visitations and interrogations. An employee has no needs for worry. There’s no transparency. Therefore there is no truth either. Then everything is hearsay, delusions and libel.
Everyone knows that this is not the way it happens. There is NO conspiracy. Why would they have a desire to mess with him? It goes without saying. It falls flat on its face. And doesn’t he deserve it, if that is the case? He is sentenced. Sitting in jail should be hard and tedious. It is the ‘chair of shame’ for the society. Isn’t he supposed to sit there? Taking shame for his crimes. Taking his punishment. Don’t rock the boat. And it must be hard for the employees. They only have a few days of training. It’s a harsh environment. Their paychecks are bad. And they only do what they are told.
“You don’t understand how it works in here.”
“But you’re breaking the law.”
“You don’t understand. It would be so much easier for you if you didn’t complain so damn much.”
A statement, an illusion. Even this a fiction since nothing can be verified. Say that this is about a prison in Alaska or Siberia. Then it becomes easier. At this correctional facility, on the tundra, all medication is payed for by the prison (without any help from subsidies). A heart medication has the cost it has. Same for other pills. It is a burden for the correctional facility that does its best to keep the cost down.
When a heavily medicated and psychotic man goes to the doctor the latter has two issues to face. How to make sure that the person doesn’t hurt himself and how to keep the cost down?
The solution is as simple as ingenious. One takes away all the drugs, much of it anxiety dampening, and makes sure the inmate ends up in an isolation cell under guard for a week or two.
And what happens with the heart patient
that is deprived of his expensive medication
in this fiction
He dies, of course.
And it will be cheaper in the long run.
Our father came to Sweden in the 60s. He was one of all those Finns who looked for work and found it quickly. The history has been told many times and is nowadays an important part of the national self-understanding. Dad and his friends arrived in Stockholm on a Saturday. Monday morning they were working at Volvo in Skövde.
Now he was laying in KSS. This is where it all began, he said. We called the nurses to ask about the results of his tests and medications. During a few weeks, almost fifty years ago, he worked onthe construction of the hospital but now he mostly examined the small faults in the room. What a damn construction fraud. The wheel comes loose from the flip screen. The painting hangs tilted on the wall. Small annoying things.
Definitely a professional pride, but also a way to talk about other things. About angles and distances. And it has cost the country nothing that he moved here. For society it was a pure profit deal until he turned ill. All those constructions that he pointed out whilst we drove down the highway. “I was part of building that” “That was when we worked at the airport”.
Then the boss for Peter’s correctional facility said:
“But is it really sure that he is ill? It could be that you’re just saying that he is ill? Now you also received two guarded day-leaves. You should be grateful for the day-leaves you have already received.”
Suspected cancer in the remaining lung. A nonexistant blood circulation in the leg, it turned black and had to be amputated. Gangrene bacteria infected the wound. Within six hours they had spread so much that a new emergency amputation had to be performed. This time they took as much of the leg as they could. Suspected metastasis, hard to control since he only has one lung. The wound did not heal. Maybe the hip prosthesis has to be removed as well, but then that would happen at Sahlgrenska. Although that was probably not a real alternative.
Peter then ought to be grateful. He received two brief, guarded day-leaves. The escape risk was significant. The media disaster.
There is no proof that the former chief has said that the possibility of escape is nonexistant for Peter. If he got the question, he would never admit it. But the guards have heard it. The inmates have heard it.
All decisions may be appealed to the person who took the decision, who then makes a new decision, that then can be appealed to the Administrative Court for a procedurial opinion that involves the submission of statement after statement after statement. Then the Administrative Court takes the side of the correctional facility. That is how it works. That is how the state control of the correctional facility works.
And then the choice when dad passes away:
“Would you like to say goodbye now or at the funeral?”
And he chooses the funeral. We want to say goodbye of our father together. We decided that dad should be buried in Sweden. He lived here. He created a new life here. This is where he belonged. And of course, a special day-leave can be arranged. Peter chooses to attend the funeral.
But as the weeks pass by something happens. Somebody escapes from the correctional facility. Someone runs away from the guards. And security must be increased. The ordinary chief is keen on security. Security is the first priority. There is nothing more important in a Swedish correctional facility that aspires for higher security classification. They want to be completely sure around security safety. That means a new deal.
The way the Swedish penitentiary is shaped doesn’t just punish my brother. It punishes me, it punishes my now dead father, it punishes my mother, my family, my relatives and my friends. It has no resemblance, whatsoever, to rehabilitation and care. Instead, it makes people sick. It makes inmates apathetic. It institutionalizes.
In its secret and invisible heart rhe guards are working, despite knowing that they break laws and regulations. They defer to their bosses, they follow orders, afraid to speak up. Some even enjoy the small power they have managed to usurp inside the walls. All criticism, even the one from the Ombudsman, runs off them like water on a greasy goose.
They are proud of the security. They are extremely proud over their security thinking. But I have a hard time seeing how security is compromised if they let my brother go to the funeral without guards.
They now say that my brother would escape if he came with only two guards. And all the risks must be eliminated. The best action had been to deny him completely. To say that it isn’t possible. You have no day-leave. But they aren’t inhuman. They are still named kriminalvård. So he may come. But with guards from the security department.
“But I am to carry my father’s coffin.”
“You can’t count on it. You will have handcuffs.”
“And chains around the stomach.”
That his how security awareness is at the Västervik correctional facility.
That is how you treat inmates in this country.
That is how you create distrust towards the system.
How the state produces hate.
Featured image: CC BY-NC-SA SHARE Conference
"Regeringen ska i Sverige och EU verka för att stärka rättssäkerheten och den personliga integriteten, bland annat när det gäller datalagring. Datainspektionen och den parlamentariska integritetskommissionen ska göra en översyn av befintlig lagstiftning, också i ljuset av att allt fler privata aktörer samlar in information om konsumenter."Två meningar. Thats it.
The prison sentence from The Pirate Bay trial is not the only punishment that Peter Sunde has to endure. His brother wrote a long public post on Facebook about the treatment of Peter Sunde and how it also affects and punishes people close to him. The words below have been translated from Swedish, with permission from the author. You will have to judge the validity of the claims yourself since it’s hard to verify.
I have deliberately said very little about what happened to my brother, Peter Sunde, over the past few months. Partly because he can talk for himself and doesn’t have difficulties making himself heard, despite that he sits in a prison with a high risk classification in Västervik. But the few times prisoners talk about their own difficult situations in prison they are rarely listened to, and what has happened the last few weeks has led to large consequences, even in my life, that I have to say at least something.
A few decades ago there was a consensus about the second part in the term correctional facility [editors note: in Swedish it's called 'kriminalvård' which literally would translate to 'criminal treatment']. Emphasize was put on the treatment part, at least in the political discussions. No matter what the person had done, it was not in the interest of society to break the person down. In order to reduce the crime rate there was instead a demand that the inmate was offered help and support to move away from their criminality. The reality was definitely less idealistic, the prisons had major deficiencies even then. Now the flaws have increased through a tightening of penalties (in combination with creative interpretations of rules) from people in charge at the prison system.
Peter has been sitting locked up in Västervik since May. A class-2 correctional facility that aspires to have as high security as the more famous class-1 correctional facilities ‘Kumla’ and ‘Hall’. Västervik is also the correctional facility that most frequently was criticized by the Ombudsman in recent years.
Why Peter has been placed in Västervik is not clear. Already a few days before the verdict against The Pirate Bay was determined he had been assigned a place there. As a public figure he has ended up in a department with inmates that are either high-profile or in need of peace and seperation from the rest of the inmates. Normally you can choose the correctional facility yourself, since it requires a minimum of activity from the inmates placed there. Peter, has not been given a choice and he won’t be able to apply for a transfer anywhere else either.
When he arrived at the prison the security department did a manditory assesment of him. Not surprisingly the result was that he was considered to have a non-existent risk for both violence and escape attempts. The other prisoners still don’t understand why he is there. Several of the guards shake their heads and say the same thing.
At most he should have been placed in an open prison, considering the verdict that took legal effect. In similar cases an ankle monitor would have been the obvious choice. This time, for obscure reasons the prison determined to do exactly the opposite.
Already when he applies for a day-leave the first time, the head of the department shows up in his room with a smile on his face and says: “I have good news for you Peter, your application is rejected”. He continues by making clear that Peter should not hope for any kind of day-leave at all. No hopes of being moved to another correctional facility either. And forget about any hopes of an ankle monitor.
We talk to each other on phone every day. I hear him talk about collective punishments in the form of mandatory urine testing being used as a deterrent. Even though the Chief Legal Counsel for the penitentiary once answered a written question (from Peter) where he stated that urine tests can only be carried out after an individual assesment.
The guards follow orders, they say. Peter “doesn’t understand how it works” at the correctional facility. Even when he pulls out the law book and points at the paragraph, or to criminal law, they shrug their shoulders, they follow their orders.
They do as they’re told.
That is why they can wait outside while a prisoner goes to the bathroom. That is why they can wait until he leaves the bathroom and then say “now it’s time for a urine test”, and thereafter take him to a bare room where he has to undress and pee in front of two guards. “Did you already pee? Tough luck. Then you wait until you can do it again.”
Several things happen. Stuff that can’t be verified since the insight into correctional facilities is missing. I hear about several persons that go to the dentist (the one that gave the lowest bid in the public procurement). How several of the inmates return in worse conditions than when they went there. The dentist pulled the wrong teeth, there’s splinters left in the gums. The guards shrug their shoulders. It’s not their responsibility to make sure that the prisoner – who in addition to being denied painkillers also bleed through all their sheets – have access to emergency dental care. Even though the law states that emergency dental care ought to be just that, administered straight away. Not in six days. Not in a week and a half. These are things to bring up with the ones who decide, the bosses.
The guards are just doing their job.
They do as they’re told.
I hear how the correctional facility intorduced a system that they begin to unlock the doors at seven in the morning and lock away the inmates a quarter to seven in the evening. This means that they are locked up longer than the twelve hours per day that the law permits.
The guards get no overtime pay. They only follow the regulations of the correctional facility.
“You don’t understand how it works in here”.
Anyone pointing out that they are breaking the law is a troublemaker. You are expected to understand that for practical reasons it doesn’t work as it states it should work. That is why the regulated daily hour outside is equal to fifty minutes. That is why he gets to eat mashed potatoes served with boiled potatoes. And hopefully the kitchen stowed away some extra fruit, since he is vegan. They claim that he is served nutritious and good food, despite the fact that he lost thirteen kilos. The doctor has noted several deficiency disorders. Amongst them iron and B12 deficiencies. The problem is that the doctor should not write perscriptions anymore. It became too complicated when he did so. Thus there is nothing wrong with the food.
I hear how they handle criticism from the Ombudsman. How they, as lackeys, change their routines a little until the storm has blown over. What should they do? The Ombudsman has only words and nothing concrete to threaten with. There is no regulatory authority. Therefore the letters keep being read by the security staff, without being cleared with the obligatory stamps that the correctional facility needs to use, especially if they happen to come from persons that the staff in the post-room recognizes by name.
“You don’t understand how it works here” they say. Then he gets rejected for his next day-leave, followed by the next one. There is no logic, no reasoning for the rejections. According to the law a day-leave should be given even to the ones with the highest escape probability.
It is part of the treatment side of prisons, that even prisoners should have the possibility to see family and friends. It’s about the psycho-social health. But now, when the regular boss is on vacation, it seems to go easier. The deputy chief says it can be arranged. There is, as known, no real risk that Peter will escape. No other inmate has such a low escape probability as him.
Not least given that his father is ill.
Not least given that the punishment is relatively short.
Not least given that his father is ill.
Prison managements think differently. Their reasoning goes: There is certainly no risk for him running off. But… if he escapes…
That would lead to a media disaster.
That is why the rejection states that there is – not just a large – but a probable escape risk. That is how it works at the correctional facility.
If you can verify what I say is true? That is unlikely, there is no transparency. No possibility of really viewing what happens inside a Swedish security classed correctional facility. However, there are witnesses. And there are lawyers. And there are opportunities to never let go and give up the fight against a system that is so obviously aimed towards breaking down rather than building up people. But the possibilities are small. Västervik has previously been criticized by the Ombudsman for editing information, erasing notes and not letting the inmates have copies on decisions. They won’t restrict themselves to deny someone a chance to review them, if someone would get such an idea.
Not at all, answers the correctional facility, we follow the rules. We offer the inmates several programs. We offer education for example! Peter got to borrot hew “Spanish for beginners”. He has it on his room now.
This article is in two parts. Part two.
Featured image CC BY-SA Pirate Times
”The Internet is the biggest thing that has happened to mankind since the printing press,” I have repeated innumerable times at various speaking engagements in Brussels, when I was a member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for the Pirate Party. This was and is one of the cornerstones of pirate movement’s political ideology.
Cyber philosophers Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist say the same thing in their new book Syntheism- Creating God in the Internet Age, and put the observation in its information historical context. The list four information technological advances that each fundamentally changed both society itself and the dominating metaphysical world view. These technological advances are:
Since information technology is the most important tool for power that there is, it makes sense to use it to divide human history into ages, Bard & Söderqvist argue. And it makes more sense than ever right now, when we are entering the information age. They write: [p. 69]
Forget the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age and the other mythological constructions of industrialism, produced for precisely the purpose of writing history so that it culminates in the smoking factories of industrialism. Let us instead regard all societies in all forms and stages of development as various kinds of information societies, and let us view history as a story of the battle for power over the means of communication. Because whoever controls the channels for communicating truth and ideas can also be said to own and dictate the truth and the ideas.
Completely forgetting the division of history into stone age, bronze age etc., as Bard & Söderqvist suggest, is perhaps going a bit too far. Presumably, it is a relevant division from a practical archaeological point of view, if nothing else.
But it is true that the focus on the tools for physical production rather sneakily introduces a mindset where history becomes a tale of how mankind conquered and tamed nature with ever more sophisticated tools, and where the one who controls the most advanced tools, the capitalist and factory owner, sits rightfully at the top of the pyramid. Nobody is suggesting that there was a conscious conspiracy among the philosophers that gave us the world view that dominates us today. But we can take note of the fact that this is a world view that is very much in line with the interests of the people who are the most powerful in today’s society.
An information historical perspective is likely to give us a better understanding of societies at different stages, and the philosophical paradigms associated with each of the information historical milestones. Each of the previous milestones in the history of information technology — spoken language, writing, and the printing press — led to new types of societies, based on new philosophical paradigms. We have every reason to believe that the Internet will lead to the same kind of changes to our society. This makes it interesting to look at the philosophical paradigms that emerged from each of the previous information historical turning points.
Spoken Language — Tribal Societies — Primitivism
Bard & Söderqvist write: [p. 74]
Primitivism is the first paradigm; it is based on the revolutionary emergence of spoken language and is characterized by nomadism, hunting, fishing, and gathering. Primitivist metaphysics is based on reverence for one’s ancestors and respect for the tribe’s oldest members, since these are the collective’s most reliable and resource-rich knowledge bank, and thus also the key to survival, the engine of primitivist metaphysics. The narrative of nomadism revolves around the concept of history as circular, with the regular return of the seasons as the dominant symbol. Existence in not linear, has no direction, time instead runs in recurring cycles; there is no development, everything is instead repeated ad infinitum. To be a human being is to be a member of a tribe, and within the limits of the tribe’s structures, to take responsibility for ensuring that this perpetual repetition is maintained. Strangers constitute competitors for the tribe’s resources, wherefore one either flees from them or beats them to death when one happens upon them. The human being that does not belong to the tribe is therefore not a human being at all, but an animal that can basically be treated as nonchalantly or as brutally as one pleases.
This way of viewing other people is not something we would want back. It is rampant xenophobia taken to the extreme. One of the big problems of our world today is that the primitivist pattern of xenophobia is still so strong, and so easy for individuals and communities to fall into.
But other aspects of primitivism can serve as an inspiration in our times. Primitivism is also associated with a holistic view of nature and our place in it. Nature is seen as something that we as humans are part of, rather than an external object to be exploited at will. Primitive religions usually stress how all living things are connected to the same web, including us humans. This is a perspective that many people today feel attracted to, as a potential improvement compared to our current society’s mechanistic and objectified view of nature.
Syntheism picks up and makes use of paganism’s community-building properties and its pantheistic search for an existentially trancendental experience.
Writing — Feudal Civilizations — Feudalism and Monotheism
Feudalism is the second paradigm, based on the appearance of written language, Bard & Söderqvist continue. With the invention of writing, agricultural local societies could turn themselves into large agricultural feudal empires. Writing was a truly revolutionary technology.
The human brain has clear and present limitations on how much it can remember and retell. Writing allowed us to transcend these limitations. With writing you can share more complex thoughts with more people at a lower cost. You can create more complex structures that involve more individuals. The amount of information that can be stored is no longer limited to what an individual can recall. Writing made it possible to copy and share information like never before. Written orders could be sent from the capital and be expected to arrive intact in the provinces, where they could be implemented as directed. The technology of writing turned out to be a powerful tool for both bookkeeping and propaganda, making it possible to create and control great empires.
The most prominent product of the feudal philosophical paradigm is the law, Bard & Söderqvist write. With the arrival of the law as an almost magical cornerstone of the world view, a metaphysical system develops where all forms of social mobility are seen as an anarchist threat to society, a threat that has to be fought. In the feudal society, stability and obedience is everything, with no room for openness or questioning the prevailing social order. The state is portrayed as the creator and guardian of the holy law, and all the good values it is claimed to represent, in the same way as the monotheistic religion preaches that God is the creator and guardian of existence as a whole. Monotheism becomes the perfection of the feudal paradigm, with its hierarchical society built on eternal laws.
Bard & Söderqvist write: [p77]
What is brilliant about the law is that it is based on a clear representation of the divine. Although it pays homage to God — to pay homage to someone who anyway never interferes costs nothing, and it is therefore the oldest metaphysical trick in the book — but what is important is not to whom the law pays homage, but that it is based on something physically absent so that, with the homage as camouflage, it can furtively hand over the actual power to the (self-appointed) representative of the object of homage. The monarch who is present therefore becomes the representative on Earth of the absent god (with ancient Egypt’s pharaoh as the most flagrant example). To obey the monarch is thus in practice to obey God, which must be seen as a powerful incentive. Power thereby ends up with the monarch and his allies, the landed aristocracy and their common truth producer, the monotheist religion. The feudal paradigm’s power triangle is thus complete. The monarch, the aristocrat, and the High Priest can sit down to an expensive and well-prepared dinner in peace and quiet together, and in complete understanding share the power and the glory between themselves.
The Printing Press — The Industrial Society — Individualism and Capitalism
When Johannes Gutenberg managed to put together the first efficient moveable type printing press around 1439, it was an invention that in just a few centuries would transform the world like none before it. In just a few decades, the technology of the printing press spread like wildfire over medieval Europe. This lead first to the renaissance, with its rediscovery of the ancient Greek and Roman cultures, and then to the enlightenment, when philosophers develop a new metaphysical paradigm for the industrial and capitalist era.
The philosophers of the enlightenment remove God as the unifying metaphysical concept. Deism downgrades God to someone who exists, but does not intervene in the functioning of the natural world in any way, and can therefore be ignored for all practical purposes. Atheism takes this idea to its logical conclusion, and eliminates God altogether. Instead, focus shifts to the individual as the existential atom and cornerstone of the world view. This leads to the capitalist paradigm, where the purpose of being a human is to one day build a factory filled with obedient workers, and where nature is seen as an external object to be exploited by any individual that can.
Bard & Söderqvist write: [p. 82]
According to the information technology writing of history, the capitalist and industrialist paradigm was enabled by the arrival of the printing press in the mid-15th century. The publication of books and newspapers in Europe gradually increases and at an ever-increasing pace, an increasing number of readers entail an increasing number of authors, and vice versa. From the 17th century onwards the banknote presses also start running. The new paradigm becomes widely accepted during the 18th century, which is clearly manifested by the French Revolution, for example, which was initiated with the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The streets of Paris filled with the burgeoning bourgeois class, which was united in its newly-acquired literacy, its books, newspapers and banknote presses, and in its hated of the old feudal paradigm’s aristocratic superiority. An entirely new power structure — consisting of the politicians, the bourgeoisie, and the universities — emerged and took over, while the old power troika — consisting of the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the Church — was caught off guard to the extent that it never succeeded in recovering again. The social conditions that brought the old troika to power quite simply no longer prevailed, and consequently monarchy, aristocracy, and Church were reduced to museum exhibits: curiosities from a nostalgically glowing past, robbed of all power and all influence and relegated to a growing capitalist tourist industry, which exploits them with considerable success.
But for all its successes and achievements in the last centuries, Bard & Söderqvist do not see the capitalist paradigm as sustainable: [p. 87]
With the march of capitalism across the world, there also followed the markedly superstitious belief in the invisible hand as an eternal guarantor of never-ending growth. Exactly how naive this notion really is has now dawned on thinking people across the world as the crisis-ridden nation states, one after another, drift away towards the precipice while impotent politicians and bureaucrats sit in fruitless meetings dreaming of a dramatic increase in growth that never eventuates. The Western welfare state, which is based on precisely such institutionalised wishful thinking about strong and continuous growth, is looking more and more like a cynical pyramid scheme. Future generations are welcomed with gigantic debts and badly eroded benefits. Not to mention the escalating environmental problems that arise as a result of capitalism’s intemperate, ruthless exploitation of the planet.
The Internet — The Information Society — What?
So if capitalism and individualism are not sustainable any more, and a new milestone in information technology has brought us to the brink of yet another paradigm shift anyway, what’s it going to be then?
På måndag den 20 oktober är jag inbjuden av föreningen Heimdal i Uppsala att berätta om sakskrivare, kopiering och historien kring Det Missionernade Kopimistsamfundet.
Datum: 20 oktober
Plats: Heimdal, S:t Larsgatan 10 Uppsala.
Paris, 16 October 2014 — After two days of debate, the French Senate just passed the “Terrorism” Bill [fr] on its first and only reading. While some senators have courageously fought against the intrusive provisions led by the Minister of Interior, Bernard Cazeneuve, La Quadrature du Net regrets that the truncated1 legislative debate has failed to correct the unsuitable and dangerous provisions [fr] of this text. It will be examined by a Joint Commission in the coming weeks, where it will likely be adopted without any substantial change.
During the afternoon, Bernard Cazeneuve refused any change in his position, and all alerts coming from the civil society. The Bill was voted with all its dangerous provisions: ban from leaving the country, creation of individual terrorist entreprise offense, administrative blocking of websites, substantial changes to the criminal procedure beyond terrorist actions.
Even worse, the French Senate commited a serious violation of the equality principle before criminal law by reintegrating into the Bill the Article 4 concerning the glorification and provocation to terrorism into the press law of 1881 unless it is commited on the Internet. In the spirit of the Minister and few senators, the Internet is a danger in itself that needs derogatory measures: the vote of this amendment introduces a serious inequality between the Internet and other medias, a serious confusion between mean and content. This inequality has already been condemned by the Constitutional Court2.
The choice of the government to race the debate on this text using a totally unjustified accelerated procedure3 will have allowed to avoid any in-depth examination of the more dangerous dispositions – especially as 1/3 of the lowed Chamber was renewed right before the vote – despite the brave attempts of a few senators. The text, slightly different from that voted by the higher Chamber will be harmonised by a Joint Commission within the coming weeks before final adoption with mere changes.
“If the senators have made a real effort on this harmful bill, it has unfortunately been voted with all the dangerous dispositions that were denouced during the last months by La Quadrature du Net, an important number of Internet's actors and defensors of public liberties. Could we hope for a spark of courage from our representatives in order to carry that text in front of the Constitutional Court in order to verify its conformity with the founding text of the 5th Republic? In a democracy, the representatives should not fear such an examination. We cannot tolerate an inadapted treatment of this utterly important matter, that is the fight against terrorism”, declares Adrienne Charmet, campaign coordinator at La Quadrature du Net.
Bryce Case Jr, known in the world of geek/nerd hip-hop as YTCracker, is releasing a full-length album (“Introducing Neals“) on 5 November 2014. It’s a concept album covering topics such as net neutrality, privacy, hacking and surveillance, all dear to a Pirate’s heart. The musical style fuses rap with cyberpunk/synthwave and is groundbreaking. YTCracker is possibly the only music artist in the world who can both speak to these technology/political topics with in-depth, first-hand knowledge and engage a broad and deep base of passionate music listeners.
I believe that the Pirate Party will benefit from getting its message out to YTCracker’s fan base, as the two groups have interests that are perfectly aligned. We intend to help the Party do just that through this music and one or two surprises I can’t disclose quite yet. I’m also convinced that the Pirate Party can reap rewards in general from using culture, music and art to propagate its message in ways not possible through traditional means and channels. Culture is so much more genuine and powerful than mere marketing. We are providing one such piece of culture and it’s our hope that others will follow, encoding the Pirate philosophy in the most interesting and beautiful of human creations. Pirates may be more receptive to this idea than those subscribing to other political philosophies.
Leading up to 5 November, YTCracker will be leaking fake newscasts from San Secuestro (the fictional city in which the album’s story takes place). These are serious and quite humorous at the same time and I think you’d enjoy them. You can find them on the Introducing Neals page on Facebook.
The world stands to benefit.
Guest Author: Juan Irming
Juan is a music composer/producer, software developer and registered California Pirate Party voter. He is interested in using music and art to communicate important issues to the world, reaching those too jaded to otherwise pay attention. More about Juan.
På Svt Play går det att se en dokumentär om Aaron Swartz.
Dokumentären beskriver hur den amerikanska staten försökte förstöra Aarons liv, för att han hotade deras makt.
Aaron hade laddat ner en stor databas av akademiska artiklar, som han aldrig hann göra något med. Den statliga åklagaren menade att Aaron hade kriminella anledningar att kopiera hem tusentals artiklar (som till stor del var skrivna av forskare på universiteten). För detta hotades han med 35 års fängelse och miljontals kronor i böter.
Berättelsen om Aaron Swartz visar att det går att förändra lagar fast att motståndarna har miljontals av företagspengar.
Uppdatering: Hos Svt kan man endast se dokumentären under ett begränsat antal dagar. Hos Internet Archive går det att så dokumentären för alltid.
Basinkomstgrupperna i Sverige ordnade en mycket trevlig paneldiskussion om garanterad basinkomst i fredags, där jag var en av paneldeltagarna. Nu har signaturen Subsistens publicerat en sammanfattning av diskussionen som en kommentar här på bloggen. Jag tycker den är så bra så jag lyfter upp den som ett blogginlägg här.
För den som redan är insatt i saken var väl tillställningen inte så rafflande, i och med att det inte var någon debatt, med bara förespråkare i panelen. Det blev en trivselkväll med alla sex deltagarna.
En stor poäng låg det dock i att höra höga företrädare från riksdagspartierna S och V komma ut som anhängare.
Abe Bergegårdh, V, var den som representerade Vänstern.
Annika Lillemets, MP, är känd som drivande frågan i riksdagen sedan länge.
Layla Assaoui, FP, dök tyvärr inte upp. Annars hade man fått med en Alliansen-företrädare också. Det hade varit intressant att höra från vilket håll hon hade tagit upp saken.
Hillevi Larsson, S-riksdagsledamot sedan 10 år, talade – om jag får göra min egen sammanfattning som jag minns det – om sin inblick i hur illa socialförsäkringssystemen fungerar – inte längre som de är tänkta – i den nya ekonomin, och vi är redan väldigt nära basinkomst/negativ inkomstskatt/ grundtrygghet – vad än det kan komma att heta. Vad som fattas är bara en opinion för saken. Det är egentligen inte ”dom däruppe” som står i vägen. Det gäller ”bara” att vända opinionen. När den finns, när opinionen inte längre med fientlighet möter tanken på att man kan dela ut pengar utan krav på motprestation, är politikerna redan redo att följa. Verkligheten kallar redan på en basinkomst-reform. Endast invanda fördomar står emot.
Det är mitt sätt att sammanfatta vad jag tycker att Hillevi Larsson sa, och jag håller fullständigt med – vad som behövs är en avdramatisering av basinkomsttanken. Denna S-företrädare tycker jag var den stora positiva överraskningen. (Mitt bidrag till avdramatisering av basinkomst kan man finna om man klickar här.)
Men kvällens höjdpunkt tycker jag vår favorit-EU-parlamentariker, Christian Engström, Pirat, stod för. Han ställde sig frågande till vilken människosyn de har som tror att det inte skulle funka att dela ut ett existensminimum kravlöst, för att då skulle alla sluta lönearbeta. Följdsatsen brukar vara att det är en rutten människosyn för det är väl klart att alla VILL jobba och bidra och ”göra rätt för sig” och skulle inte sluta upp med det bara för att de kan få en kravlös basinkomst.
Men Christian vände på saken – vilken optimistisk människosyn de har! Att folk skulle nöja sig med den lilla basinkomsten, stanna hemma och hitta på saker med familjen, vara med barnen, göra meningsfulla saker gratis, sånt jobb som man gör (som vi gör här) på Internet t ex gratis – Wikipedia etc. ”Tyvärr tror jag inte att folk är så fria från materialism – så basinkomst skulle inte innebära att folk slutade lönearbeta”
Det var djärvt… det var bra… han fick till det bättre än jag nu… Det var Piratskt!
Läs mer i Facebookgruppen för basinkomst
Currently our only source of revenue for Pirate Times is through our Flattr donations. At the moment we don’t have many expenses but at the current level we’re not quite getting by. Thus we either need to start promoting flattr more or find an alternative source for more revenue. Thanks a lot to the 8 people that supported us in August and the 7 persons that did so in September!
In August 2014 we had 23 things flattred by 8 unique users. In total we were flattred 29 times this month and received Euro 4.20 in support for our work.
In September 2014 we had 17 things flattred by 7 unique users. In total we were flattred 25 times last month and received Euro 6.90 in support for our work.
Flattr is a microdonation service that allows you to give a small amount of money each month to content you would like to give support. It can be compared to a “Facebook super-like” with money attached. Users act like patrons of work or people they want to support and ”many small streams” adds up to something larger.
|Pirate_Times on Flattr||3||0.995|
|Flattr Appreciation During July 2014, Euro 5.94||3||0.530|
|Pirate Times website||1||0.400|
|Trainee Position with Julia Reda in the European Parliament||2||0.362|
|Piracy and Conferences in Istanbul: An Interview with a Turkish Pirate||1||0.112|
|Pirate Parties International GA 2015 Location Decided||1||0.112|
|Effective Pirating: Winning Discussions – tu quoque||1||0.112|
|What Do Pirate Parties Share on Twitter?||1||0.112|
|RoadTrip with Kim Dotcom | The Internet Party||1||0.112|
|Two Years of Pirate Times – Help Us Continue||1||0.112|
|Slovenian Pirates Achieved 1.34% in Elections||1||0.112|
|A Hollywood Director’s Message to Pirates Part 2||1||0.112|
|According to Spanish Law, internet piracy is the same as torture||1||0.112|
|How Sweden Found an Effective Way of Broadening their Politics||1||0.112|
|Alex Arnold Becomes the First Elected Pirate Mayor!||1||0.112|
|PPI blocked from becoming observer members of WIPO||1||0.112|
|Become a Pirate Times Contributor||1||0.111|
|Pirate Times wins the “Pirate Blogger of the Year” award||1||0.111|
|Pirate Times Review 01 – 07 April 2013||1||0.111|
|The Pirate Times Pirate Party Policy Comparison Table||1||0.111|
|Happy Birthday Pirate Times! 1 Year of Pirate News||1||0.111|
|Flattr fee||- 0.467|
|Total sum for 23 things flattred by 8 unique users||4.20|
|Flattr Appreciation During July 2014, Euro 5.94||2||2.793|
|Pirate_Times on Flattr||4||1.198|
|New Zealand’s Election Results||1||0.714|
|Piratpartiet (PPSE) Below 1% in Swedish Elections||2||0.367|
|Winning Discussions: False Dilemma (Effective Pirating)||2||0.343|
|Trainee Position with Julia Reda in the European Parliament||1||0.175|
|Winning Discussions: Affirming the Consequent (Effective Pirating)||1||0.175|
|Alex Arnold Becomes the First Elected Pirate Mayor!||1||0.175|
|Pirates Without Borders International Orga Weekend||1||0.175|
|PPI blocked from becoming observer members of WIPO||1||0.175|
|A Hollywood Director’s Message to Pirates Part 2||1||0.175|
|According to Spanish Law, internet piracy is the same as torture||1||0.175|
|Two Years of Pirate Times – Help Us Continue||1||0.175|
|How Sweden Found an Effective Way of Broadening their Politics||1||0.175|
|The Transphobic Trials of Chelsea Manning||1||0.105|
|Flattr fee||- 0.766|
|Total sum for 17 things flattred by 7 unique users||6.90|
Featured image: CC-BY-NC-ND, HowardLake
In 2011 the FFII discovered that some European Parliament decisions regarding the ratification of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) were not recorded in any known document. A hidden class of documents (“coordinators’ minutes”) seemed to exist, but the Parliament denied the existence. The FFII filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman.
The ombudsman found a systemic failure regarding the listing of documents in the Parliament’s registry of documents. In response, the Parliament took measures to better comply with EU law. However, the Parliament’s measures are limited. It did not take measures to ascertain all its documents are properly registered. Questions remain, as we will see below.
The European Parliament has committees, which usually meet in public and produce committee minutes. Committees have coordinators to prepare the meetings. The coordinators meet behind closed doors and can take certain decisions. The FFII requested minutes of coordinators’ meetings. The Parliament denied the existence of these minutes. But if that was correct, then certain decisions were not recorded. The FFII insisted. In cases the FFII could provide proof of the existence of these minutes the Parliament released them, but it maintained that other coordinators’ minutes did not exist.
On 1 February 2012 I filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament for systematically lying about the existence of documents.
The Ombudsman reformulated my complaint to: “Parliament fails to register all existing Parliament documents in its electronic Register of documents.” The ombudsman formulated as claim: “Parliament should register all existing Parliament documents in its electronic Register of documents, in particular the minutes of the meetings of Parliament Committee Coordinators.”
During the process another hidden document surfaced.
In its draft decision the ombudsman found a “systemic failure by Parliament to mention, in the public register of documents, the existence of a whole series of documents that relate to the work of MEPs”, found the failure to amount to an instance of maladministration, and recommended: “When minutes of meetings of Committee Coordinators are drawn up, Parliament should include the minutes in its public register of documents and make them, in principle, directly accessible, in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation 1049/2001″ (Ombudsman, paragraphs 16-18).
Note the draft decision was more limited than the original claim. As we saw above the claim stated “Parliament should register all existing Parliament documents”, the draft decision only refers to coordinators’ minutes.
The Parliament stated that the recommendations or decisions adopted by the coordinators will be included in the public committee minutes.
Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 262/2012/OV against the European Parliament:
“Parliament has taken appropriate measures to implement the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation.”
The ombudsman added a further remark:
“In the light of Parliament’s positive reply to the draft recommendation, the Ombudsman trusts that, for the sake of consistency with its new policy adopted after the draft recommendation, Parliament will include in its public register existing minutes of meetings of Committee Coordinators adopted during the 2009-2014 parliamentary term.”
The Parliament declared that “in principle the committee secretariats will not prepare any separate minutes of coordinators’ meetings”. What will happen if they act contrary to the principle, if they do prepare separate minutes? Will the document(s) be recorded in the register of documents?
The Legal Affairs committee made a coordinators’ workspace, accessible only to the coordinators, political advisors working with the committee on Legal Affairs and the staff of the secretariat. Are the documents in this workspace recorded in the register of documents? Are coordinators’ notes recorded in the register, or is this a hidden class of documents?
How many committees have a coordinators’ workspace? And are there any further “walled gardens” out of sight of the registry?
Via Biblioteksföreningen fick jag veta att Vetenskapsrådet söker kommentarer på sina nya riktlinjer om öppen access. Man kan lämna kommentarer här: http://www.vr.se/omvetenskapsradet/regeringsuppdrag/regeringsuppdrag/nationellariktlinjerforoppentillgangtillvetenskapliginformation/kommenteravetenskapsradetsutkasttillnationellariktlinjer.4.70a7940b146b8f93794b3d6c.html
Jag svarade så här:
SSRN och Arxiv har nått stor framgång med öppet tillgängligt forskningsmaterial. Jag instämmer i att det kan nämnas. Väldigt bra att Gold ges företräde över Green när det gäller offentligt finansierat material! Oklart varför vi behöver vänta ända till 2025?
Jag tror också att man är betjänt av att göra tydligare specifikationer kring vilka CC-licenser man vill se. När det gäller forskningsdata är det stor skillnad mellan CC-BY-ND-NC som inte tillåter att man automatiskt gräver data eller använder delar av underlaget i ny forskning, och CC-BY, som tillåter det. Även för vetenskapliga artiklar, fotografier, et c, gör det skillnad. Man kan inte citera ett fotografi/graf/plot - får man då använda ett CC-BY-NC-ND/CC-BY-NC/CC-BY-ND-fotografi/graf/plot i ny forskning för att stödja sin tes? CC-BY är också en bättre licens att använda för XML-kod som underligger formatterade dokument (metadatan som "skapar" formatteringen kan alltså vara behäftad med egna upphovsrätter!). De fullständiga nivåerna av upphovsrätter på olika plan av framställningen av forskningsresultat behöver tydliggöras, och tydligare licensieringmodeller utvecklas för var och en av dessa nivåer. Undersök vidare deltagandet på konferensen "Rigour and Openness", Oxford University http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMTlvw9SH0
Konferensen Rigour and Openness som ordnades av Oxfords universitets fysikavdelning var över huvud taget upplyftande och informativ. Att skapa ett bra licenssystem för XML-filer som ligger till grund för presentation av forskningsmaterial tillåter lärare och studenter att själva generera materialet på det sätt som är bäst för dem - blindanpassat, skojigt, mer radavstånd, mindre radavstånd, vad man nu kan tänkas ha för formatteringskrav.
Nedanstående är en remix av ett antal inlägg jag skrev som kommentarer i en tråd på Facebook, där en diskussion uppstod med anledning av att nakenbilder läckts på kändisar. Väldigt många – obehagligt många – tycker att det hela kokar ner på att personerna som tagit dessa privata bilder har sig själva att skylla som använt sig av molntjänster. Men jag gillar inte “skyll dig själv”-argumentationen, särskilt när den sker under ett politiskt tak, där man tagit ett ansvar för att försvara privatliv och integritet. Detta behöver diskuteras ordentligt, som jag ser det.
Jag vill berätta om den skammens rodnad som bränner på mina kinder när jag läser igenom den sortens diskussioner och ser pirater delta i den. Skulle nån av de, som suttit och nedvärderat en människas rätt till integritet pga dennes kön eller det faktum att hen är “kändis”, skulle nån drabbas skulle jag tveklöst dra en lans till dennes försvar och er rätt till privatliv. Jag skulle ställa upp för er alldeles oavsett om ni är kvinnor, män, var ni kommer ifrån, har för sexualitet eller vilken etikett man än kan tänka sig. Jag skulle kämpa för er och er livsviktiga rätt till att få besluta om era egna kroppar och era egna identiteter. För det är det jag gör med mitt engagemang i Piratpartiet. Det är det mitt engagemang grundar sig på.
Det finns nyanser här – bristande kunskap om säkerhetstänk, bristande förmåga att ta ansvar för egna handlingar, bristande insyn i lagstiftning och dess konsekvenser, bristande kunskaper rent allmänt. Men i den stund du gör de som drabbas av övergrepp till skyldig, så sviker man den viktigaste av Piratpartiets kärnfrågor: allas rätt till integritet. Detta måste folk förstå, en gång för alla. Integritet är inte förhandlingsbart, det är i själva verket den sortens attityd som Piratpartiet valt att bedriva politisk verksamhet kring, och det är ur det perspektivet fruktansvärt pinsamt att detta ens diskuteras.
Var ska vi dra gränsen för när man får “skylla sig själv”? Ska vi skylla oss själva för FRA? Ska vi skylla oss själva för datalagringsdirektivet? Ska vi lägga oss ner och självdö, och skita i att bedriva politiskt arbete för mota bort den sortens kränkningar som sker DAGLIGEN, varje minut, varje sekund, mot våra privatliv och vår integritet, och acceptera skulden för den själva? När/om dina privata tankar eller bilder (eller varför inte ditt bankkonto) sprids, så kommer jag att försvara dig också, och inte säga till dig att du får skylla dig själv som över huvud taget “väljer” att använda dig av digitala verktyg i din vardag. För det är vårt löfte i Piratpartiet. Kämpar för din rätt att få ha hemligheter. Det gäller även de som tar privata nakenbilder.
Jag tänker att det hela kokar ner på “vem man identifierar sig med”. Som pirat måste man försöka släppa den mycket allmänmänskliga begränsningen att inte uppleva människor som “människor” om de inte har samma identifikationsmarkörer som en själv. Det måste till mer än att kunna identifiera sig med någon som får sin integritet kränkt om man engagerar sig politiskt i frågor kring just privatliv och integritet.
Alldeles för ofta ser jag ursäkter göras för att slippa ta hänsyn till någons rätt att ta beslut i sina liv, för att man helt enkelt inte identifierar sig med denne. Detta är en brist, en diskvalificerande brist ur ett politiskt perspektiv, om man säger att det gäller “alla” och bara menar några få. Jag vill verkligen att alla tar sig en ordentligt funderare över sitt engagemang mot övervakning och privatlivskränkningar, och sträcker ut den att verkligen inbegripa alla och inte bara “de som är som jag själv”.
Detta är en princip som är oomkullrunkelig för Piratpartiet, inga ursäkter, inga men, inga krumbukter. Vi är här för att försvara den personliga integriteten, vi har tagit på oss det ansvaret. Vi ber människor rösta på oss av den anledningen. Det går inte att välja och vraka och sen tro att man ska på något vis framstå som särskilt valbar, konsekvent eller ens hederlig, om man börjar förhandla om vilka grupper som har rätt till ett privatliv.
Detta är skitviktigt och handlar om hela vår politiska trovärdighet.
Det finns definitivt en aspekt av skambeläggande, som egentligen inte borde ingå i ett modernt samhälle om din invändning handlar om att om det inte var skamligt med naket skulle det inte vara några problem. Och det finns det alldeles särdeles goda skäl att kämpa mot. Men det handlar inte om nakenbilder i sig, det handlar om att göra ett intrång för att man kan och för att det ger en makt över människor. För att vända på det: om det var helt skuldbefriat att vara naken, om det var helt okej med nakna människor överallt, så är det fortfarande det egna, personliga, fria valet som är grejen. När saker “läcker” är det utanför ens kontroll och per definition en överträdelse.
Vi kan inte å ena sidan varna för att saker läcker och vara emot datainsamling av människors privatliv, för att i nästa ögonblick – när det händer – säga att det är de som drabbats av läckan har sig själva att skylla. Det bor en jättedissonans där som var och en verkligen behöver fundera över.
Denna överträdelse kan vara ursäktlig när det handlar om hemligheter som inte borde hållas, av politiker gentemot väljare, till exempel. Det är inte som att det aldrig är ursäktligt att begå dataintrång, så att säga. Att begå övergrepp mot andra, att göra något mot deras uttryckliga vilja, när det handlar om personliga saker av privat natur är däremot ett problem och inte ursäktligt.
Ponera att det inte handlar om skam för det nakna. Ponera att kändisen är helt okej med sin nakenhet och inte skäms för det. Ponera att vad det handlar om är att det gjordes en kränking av dennes privatliv. Att någon grävde fram något djupt personligt och privat, och spred det vidare. Förresten, du behöver inte ponera det, det var precis vad som hände. Det är helt enkelt två olika saker här – och inte motstående. Ja, det är för jävligt att det är skämmigt med nakenhet. Men ja, det är alldeles åt helvete att ge sig in i någons privatliv och hänga ut personliga saker för sitt höga nöjes skull.
Vad jag försöker säga är att det är inte ditt fel när systemen failar dig. Det är inte de som drabbas när de som vet mer och/eller har mer makt använder sig av dig och ditt privatliv. Min poäng är att som engagerad i Piratpartiet, så är det inte enskilda individers fel att världen ser ut så här som den gör, och att vårt engagemang borde inte gå till att skuldbelägga människor som drabbas, utan helt enkelt vara de föredömen som så akut behövs politiskt.
Integriteten är något vi som parti sagt oss vilja ställa upp som beskyddare för. Det finns liksom inte några omständigheter där det är “okej” att integritet och privatliv kränks. Det är inte den som drabbas som bär skulden – såklart det är bra att veta hur man krypterar av den anledningen, det är bra att veta att man bör undvika Facebook, det är bra att tänka sig för vad man delar vidare, men det är fortfarande inte de individers fel som beslutat sig för att lita på olika tjänster att oetiska grejer görs mot en.
Det är som att man försöker separera en princip från sig själv, och det fungerar helt enkelt inte. Nån gång försöker någon smeta på dig att du får skylla dig själv, som finns på Facebook. Eller har digitalt bankkonto. Eller har något digital över huvud taget, för du borde veta bättre, borde ha gömt ditt liv under en analog madrass. Varför är detta ett så svårt koncept att förstå?
Ibland måste det vara lite skit i hörnen för att man inte ska behöva leva i ett rent helvete. Paparazzis är ett bra exempel på hur svårt det är att få till lagstiftning som fungerar utan att bli skadligt för samhället i stort, men för den sakens skull så anser nog få att deras offer har sig själva “att skylla”. Precis som folk antagligen borde fundera på att inte köpa den typen av skvallertidningar som göder den marknaden, borde folk antagligen fundera på att inte köpa reflexen att de som drabbas av intrång har sig själva att skylla.
Själv ser jag den här reflexen som vi sett prov på i de här diskussionerna, som en variant av “rent mjöl i påsen”. Om man inte har något att dölja, alternativt, om man varit alldeles för dålig på att dölja saker. Hela gejmet blir riggat, du har aldrig rätt, alldeles oavsett. Döljer du saker är du fel ute och antagligen skum, döljer du inte saker ordentligt är du fel ute och antagligen dum.
Hur man än gör går det inte att få respekt eller förståelse, och jag tycker det är allvarligt, som sagt, att denna situation uppstår och den efterföljande diskussionen nästan helt handlar om att man inte ska “tycka synd om sig själv” eller rent av skylla sig själv, som får sin integritet trampad på. Pirater värnar om integriteten och ska vi tas på allvar behöver vi leva upp till det på riktigt. Det finns alldeles för många krafter i samhället som vill sätta hela grupper på undantag – hela befolkningar till och med – och det borde vi hålla oss för goda för att delta i.
In the ecosystem of Pirate activities, there are currently two big players in terms of project management: Redmine and Trello. Both answer to a specific need: Redmine allows detailed tracking of issues and integrates with common version control systems (Git); Trello allow a quick overall view of independent tasks and their different stages.), (such as
But a new cool kid has spawned from the Madrid-based team Kaleido
Taiga’s plan is to bring together the best of both worlds: a detailed issue tracker, with points and stages (as featured in Github, Launchpad, Bugzilla and others popular bug trackers) and a so-called “post-it view” reminiscent of Trello that lets users see in seconds what is currently being done in a project and the state of all issues. Launched on 2 October, in what was meant to be a stealthy manner
As with its predecessors, Taiga is free software (as in AGPL
But can it really compete with the experience gathered by its competitors? We have tested Taiga ourselves, and here are our conclusions: it will probably be a great replacement for Redmine and Trello, but not yet.
Before going further, it is worth noting that it is still in beta, and that it will probably improve rapidly. It still lacks several features that make Redmine and Trello great. Firstly, compared to Redmine, the lack of VCS integration is really impairing the usability. One of the big advantages of Redmine is its almost seamless interactions with Git and its homologues, allowing issue tracking for code independently of distributed VCS platforms. Without this feature, despite distributing a migration tool, there is still work to convert Redmine users in Taiga. Secondly, compared to Trello, the cards are still quite crude and lack a proper discussion system (with the convenient checklists). That makes synchronisation between team members harder than with Trello. Finally, the design still seems mostly software (and particularly web-app oriented), which may not suit the needs for all Pirate teams.
For now, it seems that Taiga is not yet ready for use by our needs, but we have reasons to hope that it will happen in the future. Firstly, the gorgeous visual design of Taiga, and the care that has been taken in providing several interfaces (including a vintage ncurses client) is really refreshing in a world of clunky and bloated interfaces. Secondly, if they are still not on par with our current tools, it will eventually provide both ways of tracking projects in the same tool, allowing a better communication between technical and non-technical teams and an easier learning curves for Pirates moving from one realm to the other. Finally, the dedication to innovation and agile philosophy shows everywhere in the design of Taiga, and we can simply not believe that it will let its current issues unresolved. After all, that’s what a project tracker is for, isn’t it?
What do you think of Taiga?
Som allting annat utvecklas reklamen över tid
Jag hade nöjet att få vara med i diskussionen
Om branschen och dess utveckling och sån reklam varvid
var konsument får känna sig som del i kreationen;
I Bryssel har vi diskuterat dataskydd i tre år
marknadsföringsindustrin är rätt antagonistisk
Men i panelen hörde jag hur tongångarna går -
det verkar inte finnas skäl att vara pessimistisk
för framtidens reklam bär ändå knappast några spår
av överdriven övervakning, spårning och statistisk
behandling av demografier funkar inte om
det snarare är fråga om att låta folk få prata
"en storm i vattenglaset" verkade det som
att reklamarna har förutspått sin egen undergång
om privatliv inte kränks, och rättigheter skyddas
de har inte behov av våra personliga data
utan hellre att vi lockas att ge dem våra ord -
låter oss själva bidra till deras kommunikation.
-- Om Interpartners sammankomst för europeiska reklamare i Bryssel, torsdagen 9 oktober 2014.
As local election results from the Czech Republic keep rolling in, it is quickly becoming clear that the Pirate Party has had an excellent election, entering many local parliaments with large numbers, including at least one clear majority. Many cities, including Prague, are still counting, and more positive results may still come.
The largest success so far is without a doubt the city of Mariánské Lázně, where the Pirates won a majority with 21.01% and five councilors. It is quite possible that the next mayor of the city will be a Pirate. Majetín gave the Pirates 11.15% and one councilor, while Prostějov gave them 10.44% and one councilor. In a lot of cities the Pirates ran in coalitions with other parties, which in many cases led to large numbers of votes but few or no pirates elected.
At the time of writing many cities, including the capital of Prague, are still counting votes. Martin Punkie Šmída, chairman of the Olomouc region, is excited about the results as Pirate Times contacted him late Saturday evening:
Results are surprisingly positive. We were expecting some representatives, but our expectation overcame victory in elections in Mariánské Lázně, and also we are about to gain representation in our capital, Prague. It is a serious success for the Czech Pirates, but also for the international Pirate community.
The Pirates now have four years ahead of them showing the real results of their policies. The Czech Pirate Party puts a lot of focus into transparency, corruption of public finances, registration of lobbyists, and transparent municipal finances.
The co-chairperson of Pirate Parties International Maša Čorak said:
‘I’m overjoy to see that the first results coming in are positive. I will be completely honest and say that pirate movement desperately needs a victory, needs back that optimism we lost after elections in Germany and Sweden and even the EU ones. Since I’m following the work of Czech PP, I have no doubt that every single Czech pirate that succeeds in being an elected official will do a tremendous job in promoting our core goals and ideas and putting them back in the public spotlight. That is, after all, the beauty of this movement; a victory in just one country can be and will be a huge step forward throughout entire Europe.
The Pirate Times will follow up with more information as the votes are finalized for Prague and other cities.
The Pirates have at least four seats in Prague (01:45 12 October 2014)
Featured image: Mariánské Lázně, CC BY Axel.
Nu har Tjeckien haft sina kommunval, och det står klart och tydligt att Piratpartiet gjort ett fantastiskt val. De har kommit in i många olika städer, och blivit klart största partiet med 21.01% i minst en, Mariánské Lázně. Många städer, inklusive huvudstaden Prag, räknar fortfarande.
Jag pratade med Martin Punkie Šmída, ordförande för regionen Olomouc, som sade:
Results are surprisingly positive. We were expecting some representatives, but our expectation overcame victory in elections in Mariánské Lázně, and also we are about to gain representation in our capital, Prague. It is a serious success for the Czech Pirates, but also for the international Pirate community.
Nu har de tjeckiska piraterna fyra år på sig att visa vad de går för. Det tjeckiska Piratpartiet har i valkampanjen fokuserat mycket på transparens, att stoppa korruption, lobbyistregistrering, och transparenta kommunfinanser.
Bild av Mariánské Lázně, CC BY Axel.
- Does God exist?
- That depends on what you mean by ”God”, and what you mean by ”exists”. But having said that: Yes.
This is the answer that cyber philosophers Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist give in their new book Syntheism- Creating God in the Internet Age, which was launched at the Frankfurt Book Fair yesterday.
Bard & Söderqvist argue that it is not only possible to create a new god and a new world view for our times. They also feel that it is absolutely necessary to do so, in order to help us understand our increasingly complex civilization, and save the world from ecological collapse. Syntheism is a philosophical view with political implications.
They write [p. 50]:
Syntheism is the religion that the Internet created. The dedicated political struggle for a free and open Internet is based on the blind faith that the network has a sacred potential for humanity. The Internet is thereby transformed from a technological into a theological phenomenon. The Internet is the God of a new age, and furthermore extremely appropriate for an age characterised by an unlimited faith in the possibilities of creativity. Thus, the Internet a god that even those who regard themselves atheists can devote themselves to. Syntheologically, we say that the Internet is a manifestation of Syntheos, the new god that we humans are creating rather than the old god which, according to our ancestors, is said to have created us once upon a time in a distant past.
This is a quite different god from the God of Abraham, the great bearded patriarch that Christians, Muslims, and religious Jews worship. The Abrahamic god is supposed to have existed before the Universe, and to have created it by laying down eternal laws. The Syntheist god is a not preexisting Creator, but an emergent phenomenon that appears within a creative and ever-changing universe.
One of the stated goals of Syntheism is to unite atheism and theism, science and religion. To achieve this, it must present a god that is believable and reasonable to modern, educated people. It should not contradict science in areas where science can speak with authority. But it must add spirituality to the mechanistic world view that seems to suggest that the universe is just a giant billiard table, where particles bounce around aimlessly according to deterministic and eternal natural laws.
The Syntheist god is the swarm. God is created in the meeting between people who believe, and nowhere else. The Internet can be seen as an incarnation of god, not because it connects billions of computers, but because it connects billions of people. ”God is no longer a patriarchal creator of worlds from the past, or a longed-for savior on a white horse, but the de facto name of the collective utopian vision of the collective itself in the future,” Bard & Söderqvist write.
Today, 3 billion people are connected to each other on the Internet. This is a completely new thing in the history of mankind. People have been connected to each other before, but never so many so closely and so immediately. The Internet is quite clearly the biggest thing that has happened to mankind since the printing press, probably even bigger.
The printing press resulted, after a few hundred years, in the agrarian feudal system of the Middle Ages being replaced by the modern industrial society. The accompanying change in the generally accepted philosophical paradigm, the common world view, was just as dramatic. The monotheistic ideal was a static and unchanging world with a (conveniently inaccessible) God at the top, and the king and local elite as his divinely authorized representatives down on Earth. The industrial age replaced this paradigm with a new one, with the individual at the center, and with God relegated to the land of fairy tales for the feeble-minded.
Individualism brought many improvements compared to the previous paradigm of feudalism and monotheism, but it also brought new problems that now need to be addressed. Bard & Söderqvist see the individualistic paradigm, where nature is seen as just an external object to be conquered and used, as a root cause driving us towards over-exploitation of planet Earth’s limited resources. Thus, they see a new paradigm to replace the individualism of the industrial age not only as inevitable, because of the fundamental changes to society that the Internet is bringing along, but also as desperately, urgently needed, in order to save us from ecological collapse.
Although Syntheism – Creating God in the Internet Age deals with the subject of God, it is a philosophical book rather than a religious one. Much of the focus is on showing how the syntheist ideas relate to the ideas of other philosophers, and how syntheism fits into the general framework of western philosophy. There are many names of philosophers, living and dead, and there are quite a lot of unusual words that have a specific meaning within the realm of philosophy. This is not a book that you read casually on the beach.
But it is not an inaccessible book, even if you are not familiar with all the philosophers referenced. Both the various philosopher’s ideas, and the words they have used to describe them, are usually explained as they are introduced in the book. And if you find some particular philosophical argument hard to follow without more background, just continue to the next one. There are many interesting ideas presented in this book, so even if you just pick up on the ones you like the most, you will get plenty of food for thought.
It is indisputable that we are entering a new age in the history of mankind, the information age. And we can already feel quite confident that this will lead to society developing and adopting a new metaphysical paradigm, to fit with the new reality of global hyperconnectivity. The people and the societies who first figure out what this new paradigm will be, and how to adopt to it, will be the winners of the information age. I believe Syntheism – Creating God in the Internet Age will prove a very valuable resource for anybody interested in taking part in this metaphysical quest.
On Wednesday 24 September 2014, after having listened to two witnesses and giving a statement in a legal case against him, Sven Clement walked out of the courtroom feeling confident and amused. He had just plead guilty to intrusion of a protected database, but not guilty to (aggravated) theft. The combination of these charges could lead up to 10 years in prison and a 25,000 Euro fine. So how did it come to this? The Pirate Times interviewed Sven about what happened and presents his side of the story to you.
Sven Clement is the (co)founder and current president of the Piratepartei in Luxembourg. Being only 25 years old, he is proud to point out that he is currently the longest serving president of a Pirate Party worldwide. Sven has been the president of the party ever since its foundation on 4 October 2009. During his spare time, Sven enjoys playing volleyball, which is what caused him to get caught up in this bizarre lawsuit against him.
In Luxembourg athletes are required, by law, to get a medical exam every 3 years to make sure that they are still fit to play their sport. When Sven realized he couldn’t play a weekend in early January 2012 (unless he got his required exam), he quickly scheduled an appointment with a doctor in order to adhere to the law. At the appointment he was left alone in the doctor’s office with a laptop sitting unattended on the desk in front of him. On the laptop was a sticky note with some characters written on it, they seemed to be a username and password combination. Sven became concerned about the implications and decided to photograph the sticky note for evidence. More than 2.5 years later, a prosecutor would argue in front of a judge that taking this photograph should be regarded as being the equivalent of theft.
Medical data that comes from the required exams is stored in a database of the governmental ‘service médico-sportif‘ (sports medical service). Although this database was never legally registered, it is being managed by the Luxembourg government, of which one might expect a high standard in regard to security and privacy. Two days after the doctor visit, Sven remembered the incident and decided to attempt to log in to see whether his suspicions were correct. Sven was worried that he had stumbled upon the physician’s login credentials for the database. To his surprise and shock, he found that he had access to over 48,000 medical files on licensed athletes in Luxembourg (dating back to 2005). All medical data, such as injuries and surgeries are noted in the files, as well as personal details (including addresses and information on the parents).
Being a Pirate, Sven knew that this indicated an unacceptable negligence in protecting medical and other personal data. Thus he contacted the Computer Incident Response Center Luxembourg (CIRCL). Which is the ‘government-driven initiative designed to gather, review, report and respond to computer security threats and incidents’. Following their advice, he took screenshots of his own personal data within the database as evidence, disconnected from it and never reconnected again. After a week of no adequate actions being taken, he decided to bring this breach of confidentiality to the attention of the public by contacting the press on his birthday, 19 January 2012.
Throughout January, the Luxembourg press reported the incident. It was suggested that a member of the Piratepartei was involved, which was neither denied nor confirmed by Piratepartei.
“Had police contacted the party, we would have been willing to cooperate, ofcourse. They never contacted the party or myself, though.” – Sven Clement
By the end of that month the news reports about ‘medicoleak’ (as it had been called) died down, only to flare up again in April when police raided the home of Sven Clement. Additionally, the home of an employee of CIRCL, Steve Clement (who happens to have the same last name as Sven) was also searched. Laptops, iPhones and other hardware was confiscated for investigation by the police. Sven fully cooperated and before being taken down to the police station for questioning he requested to be allowed to take a shower.
“I told them that they could join me in the shower if they were concerned that I would run away.” – Sven Clement
He was amused to find that police took this comment seriously enough to post an officer next to him as he took a shower.
The Chaos Computer Club of Luxembourg and the Déi Gréng (Green Party of Luxembourg) openly showed support by criticizing the legal proceedings against Sven and Steve. The Piratepartei Vice-President, Jerry Weyer, gave a statement in which he expressed the party’s full support and criticized the government’s lack of adequate measures to prevent such a leak in the future. Although the incident had been dubbed #medicoleak in the media, no data has been leaked to this day. Sven and CIRCL merely looked to bring this problem to the attention of the government. Firstly when the government failed to respond and take action was when Sven took it to the press, in order to inform the public.
Meanwhile the Sports Minister Romain Schneider and the Minister of Justice François Biltgen claimed that Sven had ‘stolen’ the password and that by taking screenshots of a database that was owned by the government he had infringed on its copyright. Of course this charge did not hold up in court when the decision was made that Sven would be prosecuted. Although the ‘chambre de conseille’, a panel of three judges who advice the prosecutor whether or not to move forward with the case, concluded that prosecuting for aggravated theft would be a stretch, they did permit the case to go to trial.
The implications of this case may be more grave than one would think on first glance. Considering that copyright infringement is civil law in Luxembourg and theft is penal law, Sven could face some serious consequences for trying to bring this negligence to the light.
“If a judge rules that taking a photograph is the equivalent of theft, then that would change all the copyright laws in Luxembourg. These old white men in suits don’t understand that taking a photograph or other type of copy is not stealing.” – Sven Clement
The Piratepartei has published a statement in support of Sven, saying that:
“We can only be amazed at the incredibly large definition of ‘stealing’ that the prosecution wants to construct in this case. Taking a photo of a password on a post-it is definitely not the same as stealing that post-it. The former government didn’t understand how to responsibly set-up databases and instead of acknowledging their negligence, they are punishing the person who tried to make the public aware of this deficit.”
An independent journalist, who believes the trial is “kafkaesk”, started a crowdfunding website to raise funds for his defense and possible fine. Sven has already paid more than 5.000 Euros in legal bills and the trial is not over yet. To support Sven in his case against the Luxembourg government, please visit medicoleak.lu to make a donation.
Since the interview, Sven Clement was re-elected as the President of Piratepartei during the general assembly of the party (that took place one day after the party’s anniversary on 5 October 2014). Sven was voted in as President with a staggering 93,3% of the votes.
Featured image by Eiren McLoughlin, CC BY-SA 2.0