21 June 2017

Så får vi ordning på våra problemförorter


Vi har problem med våld, stök och gängkriminalitet i våra förorter. Antalet »problemförorter« a.k.a. »no-go-zoner« ökar – och polisen ber resten av samhället om hjälp för att hantera ett par hundra kriminella nätverk, som omfattar uppskattningsvis 5.000 personer.

Många faktorer spelar in, men polisen säger själv att det stora problemet är narkotikan.

Här skall man komma ihåg att Sverige sedan 40-50 år tillbaka har en drogpolitik som är bland Europas mest restriktiva och repressiva. Någon kontroll över hanteringen av drogerna har man dock inte lyckats åstadkomma. Däremot ligger de drogrelaterade dödsfallen i Sverige fem gånger högre än snittet i EU (där de flesta lander har en mer liberal drogpolitik).

Med andra ord: Den svenska drogpolitiken har misslyckats på så gott som alla områden – och leder dessutom till uppgörelser och (ibland dödligt) våld i det offentliga rummet.

Vilka ytterligare bevis krävs för att den rådande politiken är kontraproduktiv?

Vill man slå undan benen för de kriminella nätverken – då bör man gå rakt motsatt väg.

Till att börja med bör man legalisera innehav av droger för personligt bruk.

  • Det skulle minska det onödiga lidande som missbrukare utsätts för när de som i dag stigmatiseras av samhället, istället för att erbjudas hjälp.
  • Det skulle innebära att polisen slutar lägga resurser på att jaga icke-problematiska brukare, som varken skadar eller hotar någon annan.
  • Det skulle frigöra de 2-4.000 årstjänster inom polisen som i dag går åt till att jaga brukare. (Här är inte de resurser som läggs på att bekämpa tillverkning, smuggling och kriminella nätverk medräknade.)
  • Det skulle innebära att många skulle odla sitt gräs själva, istället för att köpa droger på gatan. Vilket vore en bra sak.

Detta vore ett stort steg framåt i sig – och skulle innebära att polisen istället kan fokusera på verkliga problem, på att hantera människor som hotar andras liv, säkerhet och egendom. Vilket i sig skulle ge oss ett tryggare samhälle.

Men för att verkligen komma åt de kriminella grupperna bör man ta steget fullt ut och göra som till exempel Portugal: Att de facto-legalisera drogerna fullt ut.

Då rycker man dels undan den ekonomiska grunden för de flesta kriminella nätverk – samtidigt som de farligaste och sämsta drogerna försvinner från marknaden. Allt kommer att bli mycket bättre om det sköts öppet av det civila samhället istället för av kriminella grupper.

Man kan i vart fall göra som i många amerikanska delstater och legalisera de lättare och mer välkända drogerna. (I Colorado har legaliseringen av marijuana lett till ökade skatteinkomster, fler jobb, mindre bråk och våld, färre elever som hoppar av skolan och kapade band till internationella drogkarteller.) Och vem behöver pröva nya, sämre och farligare droger om det finns marijuana av känd styrka och kvalitet att köpa i vanliga affärer?

Avkriminalisering eller legalisering skulle ta en knepig faktor ur samhällsekvationen – om man vill skapa en tryggare och bättre livsmiljö i våra förorter och i samhället i övrigt.

Naturligtvis finns det även annat som spelar in. Unga människor kommer säkert att söka andra sätt att skaffa snabba pengar. Vissa kommer att fortsätta bråka för bråkandets egen skull. Men en radikalt omlagd drogpolitik är det enskilt viktigaste man kan göra för att återupprätta ordning och säkerhet i vårt land.

Detta är dock inget våra politiker vill förstå. Allt de har att komma med är att tala om hårdare straff – vilket i sig bara kommer att höja insatserna, göra problemen värre och leda till mer våld.

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-21 16:21:00)

20 June 2017

5 juli-podden 58: Kanadas hen-lag, ECJ om The Pirate Bay, terrorism och demokrati

5 juli-podden – för dig som vill vara uppdaterad i debatten om internet, övervakning och fri- & rättigheter.



Vårt nyhetssvep över nätvärlden tar oss denna vecka hit:

  • EU propagerar för Open Access - allmän åtkomst till universitetens forskningsresultat.
  • EDRi läxar upp EU i fråga om e-evidence - samma krav på åklagarbeslut bör gälla på nätet som i hemmet när polisen vill rota i ens saker.
  • EU-domstolen dömer till holländska upphovsrättslobbyorganisationen Breins fördel i Pirate Bay-fallet.
  • Intervju med Glyn Moody som driver Copybuzz.com.
  • Terroristbekämpning lider av information overload, enligt en Guardianskribent.
  • FNs särskilda rapportör varnar för att det fria ordet är hotat.
  • Kina kräver att skvallersajter sprider socialistisk propaganda.
  • Japan inför massövervakning genom att kriminalisera planering av småbrott.
  • Vi diskuterar Kanadas nya lag om användandet av könsneutrala pronomen.
  • Och allra sist tar vi upp Roberto Stefan Foas och Yascha Mounks studie som visar att unga människor världen över tappar tron på demokratin.

Youtube:


5 juli-podden görs av Karl Andersson och Henrik HAX Alexandersson. Varje tisdag.

Soundcloud » | Youtube » | iTunes »RSS-feed (via Soundcloud) » | Ladda hem filen (MP3) »

Feedback, läsarbrev och insändar-inslag (MP3) kan sändas till: karl[at]5july.org

Publicerad under Creative Commons (Soundclouds CC-licens: CC=BY&NC)

HAX 5 juli-blogg (på engelska) »

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-20 11:42:00)

Makt gör dåliga saker med människor


Läs min senaste krönika hos Mårtensson:


"Det parlamentariska systemet har reducerat demokratin till ett tomt skal – vars främsta syfte är att ge något slags formell legitimitet åt den härskande politiska klassen. Samtidigt gröps våra medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter ur, rättsstaten försvagas, transparensen minskar och allt fler beslut fattas bakom stängda dörrar. Det medborgerliga inflytandet är så gott som obefintligt – och folket ställs ständigt inför fullbordat faktum."

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-20 06:30:00)

19 June 2017

Hjärntvätt - så funkar det






"In this lecture we investigate the phenomenon of brainwashing. We describe the 20th century British psychiatrist William Sargant's ideas regarding how the victim of brainwashing is similar to the religious convert and the therapy patient who undergo 'sudden conversions'. We finish the lecture by looking at how fear can be used as tool for 'mass brainwashing'."

Youtube »

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-19 17:27:00)

Datorer kan aldrig bli intelligenta – men Internet kanske kan

imagesJag var programmerare innan jag halkade in i politiken, och jag tycker AI-diskussionen som försigår lite överallt är fascinerande.

Men det finns inget sätt för ett dataprogram att utvecklas till en självständig intelligens av samma slag som människan. Det skulle strida mot själva grunden för vad ett dataprogram är och hur datorer fungerar.

Ett dataprogram, hur komplicerat det än är, är bara en matematisk formel som för varje uppsättning indata genererar en viss uppsättning utdata. Dataprogram kan vara stora och komplicerade och bestå av miljontals rader kod, men i grunden fungerar de på precis samma sätt som de enkla formler vi lärde oss i matematiken och fysiken i skolan. Stoppar man in vissa värden i formeln kommer det ut vissa andra värden. Processen är helt deterministisk, och om man kör om ett dataprogram med exakt samma indata får man alltid exakt samma resultat.

För att förstå kan man jämföra med en enkel formel från skolan, till exempel formeln A = b * h som räknar ut arean på en rektangel. För bestämda värden på b och h kommer formeln alltid att leverera exakt samma värde på A som utdata. Precis så fungerar varje dataprogram. Samma indata genererar alltid samma utdata, på ett helt och hållet mekaniskt och upprepningsbart sätt.

Att räkna ut areor är iofs förknippat med intelligens: människor kan det, men schimpanser och daggmaskar kan det inte. Skriver vi ett dataprogram som räknar ut arean på rektanglar kommer det programmet uppvisa ett beteende som för en utomstående betraktare kan framstå som lika smart som en femteklassare. Men själva formeln är inte intelligent. Den har inget medvetande, och det beror inte bara på att det är en väldigt enkel formel som kan skrivas på en enda rad. Även om formeln/dataprogrammet består av en miljon rader, är det fortfarande bara ett mekaniskt räkneschema, inte en intelligens. Så länge det inte uppstår något hårdvarufel i datorn som programmet körs på, blir det alltid exakt samma utdata från en viss uppsättning indata, enligt de mekaniska reglerna i formeln/dataprogrammet.

Det här gäller även så kallade ”självlärande” program. När ett program ”lär sig” innebär det inte att något medvetande inne i programmet får djupare insikter, som det gör när en människa lär sig något. Det enda som händer när ett dataprogram ”lär sig” är att vissa interna parametrar i programmet får bättre värden, så att programmet blir bättre på att leverera det önskade resultatet.

Det går att skriva fullständigt fantastiskt användbara program på det här sättet, och vi är alla djupt imponerade av framstegen som görs med ”självlärande” program för bildanalys, rösttolkning, bilkörning, schack/backgammon/go eller vad som helst. Men hela ”inlärningsprocessen” är precis lika mekanisk och förutbestämd som allting annat som en dator gör. Med en viss uppsättning indata kommer programmet alltid ”lära sig” exakt samma sak, och därefter bete sig på exakt samma sätt varje gång det körs med samma indata.

Om vi för resonemangets skull ändå tänker oss att ett (tillräckligt komplicerat) dataprogram på något sätt skulle kunna utveckla ett medvetande, då skulle jag tycka väldigt synd om det medvetandet. Det skulle i så fall befinna sig i samma situation som en människa som har medvetandet och alla sinnen helt intakta, men är totalförlamad utan någon som helst möjlighet att kommunicera med omvärlden. För hur intelligent och medvetet dataprogrammet än skulle vara, finns det inget sätt för det att påverka vad det blir för utdata när programmet körs. Vad det blir för utdata är ju fullständigt och entydigt bestämt av de matematiska uttrycken som är skrivna i dataprogrammet. Även om formeln A = b * h på något magiskt sätt kunde bli sjävmedveten och intelligent och känna att arean av en rektangel borde vara något annat än vad formeln säger, skulle ju den intelligensen inte kunna påverka vad resultatet blir när man tillämpar formeln.

Det enda sätt som dataprogrammets tänkta medvetande skulle kunna påverka vad det blir för utdata skulle vara om det på någon sorts telekinetisk väg kunde förorsaka exakt rätt hårdvarufel i datorn där programmet körs, så att resultatet blir något annat än det som var skrivet i programkoden. Men att det skulle fungera på det viset tror jag ingen av oss tror, så den möjligheten kanske vi kan bortse ifrån. Och om vi utesluter holistisk telekinesi finns det inget annat sätt för det tänkta medvetandet att påverka omvärlden. Datorer är uttryckligen konstruerade för att göra exakt det som det står i programkoden, varken mer eller mindre. Därmed finns det inget ”wiggle room” som en hypotetisk datorbaserad intelligens skulle kunna använda för att ta sig ur programkodens deterministiska boja. Det enda ett tänkt medvetande i ett dataprogram skulle kunna göra vore att med bestörtning och frustration se på när datorn slaviskt följer varje instruktion i dataprogrammet om och om igen, hur dum det artificiella medvetandet än tycker att den ursprungliga programkoden är. En dator kan helt enkelt aldrig bli intelligent, för det skulle strida mot hur datorer är konstruerade.

Men tittar man på internet som helhet, då är det inte omöjligt att det är en framväxande intelligens. Hade internet bara bestått av en massa sammankopplade datorer, då hade invändningen att datorer är deterministiska också gällt för internet som helhet. Massor av deterministiska delar sammankopplade med varandra på ett deterministiskt sätt, blir fortfarande en deterministisk helhet.

Men internet består inte av miljarder sammankopplade datorer. Det består av miljarder sammankopplade människor. Därmed faller invändningen att delarna är deterministiska, för det är de ju inte när noderna utgörs av människor istället för maskiner.

Själv är jag fullständigt övertygad om att internet som vi känner det idag är början på en emergent intelligens, med människor som noder. Det är otroligt spännande. Det är förstås ingenting jag kan bevisa, men det är vad jag personligen tror, och det som är viktigt i det här sammanhanget: Det faktum att datorer bara är deterministiska räknesnurror motsäger inte på något sätt hypotesen att miljarder sammankopplade människor skulle kunna bilda något som är mer än summan av delarna. I varje enskild mänsklig nod finns det wiggle room så det räcker och blir över, så ”internet of people” är inte en mekanisk maskin som kan beskrivas i matematisk programkod. Det uppvisar en massa spännande egenskaper som vi normalt förknippar med intelligens och medvetande.

I och med det blir hela den etiska och filosofiska diskussionen om AI relevant igen, även om vi accepterar att varken datorer eller nätverk av datorer kan göra något annat än att räkna ut matematiska uttryck utan att förstå varför. Det är inte sladdarna och programkoden som håller ihop internet som gör det intressant. Det är människorna som använder internet för att koppla ihop sig med varandra som är det fantastiska. Och att en massa intelligenta noder tillsammans skulle kunna bilda en hyperintelligens som går utöver vad någon enskild nod kan prestera, det tycker jag varken känns omöjligt eller ens konstigt.

Jag är helt övertygad om att det är det som vi nu ser hända inför våra ögon, och att det är det mest magiska som har hänt mänskligheten sedan en apa kom på att krossa skallar med ett ben. Men om jag har rätt på den punkten eller inte återstår förstås att se.


Kommentera! (by Christian Engström at 2017-06-19 13:15:58)

18 June 2017

Ett samhälle utan frihet blir ett samhälle där ingen tar ansvar


Jag förstår precis varför folket inte kräver sin frihet. Sådan medför nämligen ansvar – när man får göra som man vill, inte endast som man blivit tillsagd att göra. Då får handlingar plötsligt konsekvenser. Då måste man tänka till och använda sitt omdöme.

Ansvar vill allt för få ha. Inte för egen del. Inte på jobbet. Inte i förvaltningen. Inte i politiken.

Vilket märks. Vem tar till exempel ansvar för att reda ut det här med polisen? Var ligger ansvaret när offentliga idiotbyggen skenar iväg ekonomiskt? Vem står upp för den liberala, demokratiska rättsstatens principer nu när de allt oftare hotas av de mest skiftande krafter?

Genom att inskränka människors frihet har den härskande politiska klassen skapat en ny kultur  – där samhällelig kärnverksamhet inte fungerar och ansvar varken bärs eller kan utkrävas.

Våra politiska herrar är varken mer kompetenta, klokare, ädlare eller bättre än vanligt folk och marknaden. Tvärt om. Våra politiker är snarare sämre på att tillhandahålla till exempel sjukvård än civilsamhället och marknaden – med de senares all samlade kompetens och dynamiska kraft.

Politiker vill bara ha makt. Nu för tiden tycks de inte ens veta varför. De har inte längre några principer. Bilden av dem som folkets valda, osjälviska tjänare är inte längre trovärdig. De gör det här för sin egen skull. De har en egen agenda. De parasiterar på systemet.

Och tyvärr – jag tror inte att vi har några bättre politiska herrar att hoppas på. Därför bör politikens makt minskas och de medborgerliga fri- & rättigheterna stärkas.

Omfamna sedan friheten och alla dess fantastiska möjligheter.

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-18 16:53:00)

16 June 2017

Tyranni utan en tyrann


»The greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one could argue, to whom one could present grievances, on whom the pressures of power could be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant.«

Hannah Ahrendt, Reflections on Violence, The New York Review of Books, 1969

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-16 21:53:00)

15 June 2017

Övervakningskameror istället för poliser?


Det kommer politiska signaler om att det skall bli enklare för polisen att sätta upp övervakningskameror, där den så önskar.

Naturligtvis är detta en inskränkning i den enskilda individens rätt till privatliv. Speciellt nu för tiden, när kameraövervakning allt oftare kombineras med ansiktsigenkänning och beteendeanalys.

Tyvärr verkar folk i allmänhet inte bry sig. Vi får möjligen vänta tills integritetsintrånget blir överväldigande innan någon reagerar. Och då kommer det förmodligen redan att vara för sent.

Men det finns en omedelbar risk med ökad polisiär kameraövervakning: Vi kommer att få ännu färre poliser på våra gator och torg.

SR Studio Ett intervjuade i går en butiksägare i Järva-området i norra Stockholm. Han klagade över att den ökade kameraövervakning som redan sker i området har drivit buset och dess förehavanden från torget och de öppna ytorna – och istället in i hans affär.

Vilket naturligtvis är betydligt värre för honom. Det gör det dessutom ännu svårare att utreda de brott som då begås. Och några poliser ser han inte till, inte ens om han ringer efter dem.

Det där är rätt talande för utvecklingen. Fler övervakningskameror kommer inte nödvändigtvis att göra oss tryggare. Tvärt om kommer de att leda till färre poliser i det offentliga rummet.


Youtube »

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-15 16:51:00)

14 June 2017

Encryption, security and liberties: position of the "Observatoire des Libertés et du Numérique"

Paris, 14 june 2017 — For some time, political authorities are trying to question the technical and legal protections guaranteed by encryption tools. To oppose these dangerous proposals, the Observatoire des Libertés et du Numérique (Freedoms and Digital Observatory)1 publishes its position on the defence of the right to encryption, a tool indispensable to protect freedoms in the digital age.

Press release by the Observatoire des libertés et du numérique (OLN)

Right click here to download the full position (PDF)

Position summary

In the digital age, legal and technical surveillance capabilities of States have become so advanced that fundamental right to privacy, cornerstone of freedoms of expression, opinion and information, has been challenged lately in France as well as throughout the world.

As such, the capability of encrypting digital communication and data is mandatory in order to preserve fundamental rights and liberties. Encryption remains one of the last barrier against arbitrary and illegal intrusions, either from States, the private sector or criminals.

However, encryption goes far beyond human’s right concerns: since digital technologies are now a part of all human activities, weakening encryption, no matter the technique used, would weaken the economy as a whole, as well as our collective public safety.

It is worth repeating that no technique of systemic weakening of encryption could only targets criminal activities: every citizen could also be a potential target. There is no encryption-weakening technique which would only benefit to “well-meaning actors”. If a backdoor is created for State activities (police, justice, intelligence services…), any other actor (other States, criminal organisations, hackers...) could potentially use it as well.

Is encryption used by criminals? Yes, because of their inner illegal nature, criminals try to hide their activities. But encryption is also used on a daily basis by every citizen, for almost every digital activity. Criminals can plan their activities in a closed car. Nobody would even think about banning cars, or systematically put a wire inside recording information directly accessible by State authorities.

However, this is the logic defended by those in favour of the criminalization or weakening of encryption. In the same way, technical capabilities for recording places (such as a car) where criminal activities may occur exists, and should be regulated by law, the technical and legal frameworks surrounding State capabilities for interception and decryption have been largely expanded in the last years, giving State agencies many opportunities to gather evidence against suspected criminal organisations.

Benefits provided by further weakening of encryption to fight criminality seem very low, if not uncertain. What is certain though, are the devastating consequences for citizens’ rights and liberties, for the country's economy and safety, and for society as a whole.

Proposals of the Observatoire des libertés et du numérique

Both technical and legal capabilities for surveillance in today’s digital age are such that the fundamental right to privacy that guarantees freedom of expression, opinion and information in a democratic society has been severely challenged for the past few years, both in France and the rest of the world.
In these circumstances, the capacity to encrypt one's digital communication and data is an essential condition for collective security and the proper functioning of the economy, on one hand, and for the preservation of fundamental rights and liberties on the other, as it prevents arbitrary and illegal intrusion of numerous actors, be they state actors, private companies, or criminals.

The “Observatoire des libertés et du numérique” calls on public and private actors in the digital sector to:

  • abstain from all initiatives, be they technological or legal, that would weaken encryption tools;
  • consult relevant civil society stakeholders and institutions sufficiently in advance of any project that would have consequences on encryption;
  • guarantee all individuals access to strong encryption, an essential tool for the respect of privacy in the digital sphere;
  • promote the importance of data and communication encryption to the public, and facilitate the use and development thereof.

The full position is available here (PDF)

Members of the OLN : Amnesty International France, Le CECIL, Creis-Terminal, La Ligue des Droits de l'Homme (LDH), La Quadrature du Net (LQDN), Le Syndicat des Avocats de France (SAF), Le Syndicat de la Magistrature (SM).

AttachmentSize
201701.oln_.encryptionsecurityandliberties.trad_.pdf388.66 KB

(by neurone259 at 2017-06-14 09:07:34)

13 June 2017

ePrivacy : no time for weakness

Paris, 13 June 2017 — June will be a decisive month for the future of our privacy and the confidentiality of our electronic communications. The future "ePrivacy" Regulation now being debated in the European Parliament is divisive, brings back unpleasant memories from when the General Data Protection Regulation was negotiated. Since the publication for opinion of two utterly opposing reports, all eyes are now turned toward the main rapporteur, Marju Lauristin, who is supposed to present her text on June 21. Will we see courage or weakness in the face of the lobbies? Civil liberty and innovative models, or exploitation and surveillance capitalism? La Quadrature du Net has made its choice, and will certainly continue to defend it over the long months of negotiation ahead.

For the past year, the question of privacy and confidentiality of electronic communications has been on the agenda of European institutions.
By means of a revision an old 2002 "ePrivacy" directive, the EU wants to review the rules surrounding the confidenciality of our communications and devices (phones, computers, etc.). This is a very sensitive topic, because it aims to protect our personal privacy at a time when it's being seriously endangered by state surveillance and the constant tracking by private actors, mostly for commercial purposes.

After the European Commission presented its draft proposal in January, the file was sent to Parliament, which is now working on it. La Quadrature du Net -- along with other fundamental rights organizations -- has worked within the Parliament since the beginning of the year to assert the importance of strong, ambitious rules to break from the status quo and provide real protection for European citizens. Unfortunately is comes up against industry's furious lobbying and the ever-present argument over the "balance" we're supposed to find between fundamental rights and business.

This rhetoric of "balance" is intolerable, because it seeks to make us believe that today's "balance" currently leans in favor of protecting our rights and liberties, and that we have to re-balance things in favor of industry and business. That's a lie. Individuals have no power compared to service providers. Their personal information is wrenched from them without their free, informed consent, when it isn't simply ignored. This creation of wealth, created in the ignorance of users, also feeds the enormous databases that governments love to use for surveillance, and companies for social control, profiling, and advertising.

MEPs have a grave responsibility, because with the ePrivacy rule they have the chance to create a framework that truly protects our rights and liberties, which will lead European digital actors to invest in better models, and in that way to stand out from their competitors.

The rapporteur designated by Parliament to write the draft regulation is the Estonian Social Democrate Marju Lauristin. Her report, which should be presented to the Commission on Civil Liberties (LIBE) on June 21, is eagerly awaited. Familiar with these subjects, the rapporteur has a good understanding of the issues around ePrivacy, but she must remain firm and resist the power of industry lobbies, which will be many and diverse (telecoms operators, American net giants, the online advertising industry, the press, etc.).

Two other committees want to have a hand in the dossier: the committee for industry, research, and energy (ITRE), and the committee for the internal market and consumer protection (IMCO).

Within ITRE, the liberal Kaja Kallas has issued a half-hearted advisory. She actually improves the Commission's initial proposal on certain points:

  • Consent should be given freely and thus should not be a required compensation to access a service -- in other words, you can't be denied access to a service whose economic model is based exclusively on targeted advertising, only because you refuse to let your personal data be exploited;
  • Offline tracking of our devices should be subject to consent;
  • Member states derogations should be limited;;
  • End-to-end encryption should be encouraged and back doors forbidden.

Unfortunately Ms Kallas's report fails to limit the blank check given to service providers to exploit the data of electronic communications. Contrary to what La Quadrature recommended, consent from only one participant in a communication would be enough, according to her, to permit communications data (metadata or content) to be exploited. Moreover, Kaja Kallas didn't want to include in her report the possibility of really effective class actions for users, and hasn't increased the sanctions for enterprises which violate the rules on confidentiality for end devices.

Within IMCO, Eva Maydell (PPE) makes her business orientation quite clear, and nothing is worth keeping from her report. We won't bother listing here all the points that would have to be amended, but to sum up, Ms Maydell's report:

  • refuses to consider that the electronic communications sector requires specific reinforced protection, and instead adds exceptions to turn user consent on its head, framed as 'further purposes';
  • opposes requiring all users in a communication to consent to metadata or content collection;
  • shamelessly suppresses the entirety of Article 7, which requires service providers to delete or render anonymous the content of communications they handle, as well as metadata no longer needed to assure the communication and its billing.

Just these few examples -- if they were adopted by the IMCO committee, or worse, later picked up by the LIBE committee -- would considerably weaken the already-unambitious European commission proposal. La Quadrature calls on the European deputies of the IMCO committee to reject massively Eva Maydell's unacceptable and dangerous report.

Following on these two reports for opinion, rapporteur Marju Lauristin's proposal will be decisive, because it will be the one to guide how future debates and amendments will be organized. Should we continue to defend the few gains from the 2016 General Regulation on Data Protection (such as that consenting to the processing of personal data cannot be required for access to a service) and fight to not lower the standards set in the former 2002 ePrivacy directive (e.g., saying that consent is the sole legal basis for processing personal data)? Or should we finally abandon this defensive posture, turn to the future, and become a force in putting forward a truly innovative ePrivacy regulation? Right now the lobbying offensive, the positions of some member states, and IMCO's advisory report would tend to make us lean towards the former, but rapporteur Lauristin's proposal might -- with a bit of courage -- reverse that balance.

See also:

  • La Quadrature's reaction to the European Comission's project for a report (January 2017);
  • the recommendations for Eurodeputies on ePrivacy (March 2017). More up-to-date recommendations are being prepared;
  • LQDN's wiki on the project for the ePrivacy regulation.

(by neurone648 at 2017-06-13 10:14:55)

12 June 2017

Hur mycket övervakningsstat tål vi?


Jag vill rekommendera den milt revolutionära rant jag just lagt upp på HAX.5July.org:


"This is about the state taking away your protections against... the whims of the state and its functionaries. This is very bad."

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-12 18:55:00)

Peter Sunde på TNW Conference: Technology is neither good nor bad: you are

240px-The_Pirate_Bay_logo.svg

En mycket intressant presentation av Peter Sunde på The Next Web konferensen i Amsterdam, där han tar upp några historier och lärdomar från The Pirate Bay phenomenet. Presentationen innehåller också en intressant klipp av en interview med George Orwell där han pratar om hur han tror att framtiden skulle se ut och hur det inspirerade hans bok “1984”

 

Aveen Ismail

Kommentera! (by aveen at 2017-06-12 14:56:35)

Piratfika den 14 juni – Tema: Utbildning, fortsättning

fika1

Hej Piratvänner

Glöm inte piratfikat nu på onsdag kl 18 i Café Belmondo i Drottninggatan. De kommande piratfika kommer dessutom att ha olika teman där vi kan diskutera specifika politiska frågor. Piratpartiet Stockholm kommer att använda de diskutionerna som bas till att bygga partiprogrammet som vi kan gå till kommunalval med 2018. Temat nu på onsdag är Utbildning, fortsättning från förra piratfikat.

Nu på onsdag kl 18 i Café Belmondo i stan. Kom gärna och diskutera PP-politik kring Utbildning.

Café Belmondo
Drottninggatan 71A
Tunnelbana: T-Centralen

Vi ses där
Piratpartiet Stockholmsregionen
stockholmsregionen@piratpartiet.se

Kommentera! (by aveen at 2017-06-12 10:06:05)

07 June 2017

Under the hood: Vote for a decentralised telecom infrastructure!

Paris, 7 June 2017 — The future of the decentralised nature of the Internet is at stake with the negotiations on the European Electronic Communications Code. La Quadrature du Net publishes its first voting lists on amendments that have been tabled in committees1 and refers to the factsheets (pdf) drafted by netCommons. As anticipated, the lobbying of the telcos has been very useful with many amendments - especially from the right wing - that aim to protect oligopolistic positions of major telcos, undermining any attempt of openess for new actors and rights of users.

As part of the overhaul of the Telecom Package, the European Commission has decided to create a European Code of Electronic Telecommunications. This very complex and massive bill sets the rules for co-investment, radio frequencies, access of small actors to the networks of incumbents, encryption, connectivity country planning, etc. We already wrote about this text in our piece about the main rapporteur's, Mrs Pilar Del Castillo, report.

The list of amendments to be voted on 22 June in the IMCO committee and on 11 July on ITRE committee are tabled and negotiations on so-called "compromise amendments" are ongoing. The compromise amendments reflect a very opaque and undemocratic process where, through backroom deals, Members of the EU Parliament try to shorten and simplify the vote by "mixing" their different stances on the text according to the respective weight of political groups.

Despite the fact that all compromise amendments are not published yet2, La Quadrature du Net offers an appraisal of the tabled amendments in IMCO and ITRE committees. These "voting lists" were drafted with the goal of safeguarding rights in the Code for telecommunications, and making sure that the telecom sector can open up to smaller actors, and in particular Community Networks (note that this voting list does not consider the bad amendments tabled by Pilar del Castillo that should all to be rejected).

What is at stake:

Spectrum - Radio frequencies licenses

Mrs del Castillo along with oligopolistic operators wants to extend the length of those licenses to an unreasonable amount of time: 25 to 30 years! While the bigger actors will sit on their pile of licenses and their so-called "market certainty", other actors such as smaller telecom companies and non-profit actors, will be excluded from accessing the spectrum commons. The on-going negotiations for compromise amendments should promote shared and unlicenced access spectrum, which would favor smaller operators and boost diversity in the telecom sector. To avoid the privatisation and deplation of the public radio ressource, compromise amendments should also ensure that national regulatory authorities (NRAs) will deprive an operator from their exclusive licenses if they fail to deliver on its commitments to make an effective and relevant use of the allocated band.

Access to network

To encourage local control adapted to local needs ("granularity"), and the diversity of ISPs in telecom markets, it is necessary to get both active and passive wholesale access. All actors must be able to connect themselves to the network either through reasonable passive offers (at the individual line level for example) or through active access if the size of the operator does not enable it to get passive access. The current inequality of offering for smaller actors leads to an inequality in access of the market especially for smaller localities, with significant consequences on competition, innovation, concentration of knowledge and territorial cohesion and development.

The compromise amendments must not give a priority on passive access over the active access. On the contrary, offering both wholesale reasonable passive and active access would ensure the development of small and local actors and thus enhance competition, especially on the market for private companies.3

Co-investment and competition

The major challenge for co-investment policies is to allow smaller actors to contribute and participate in the development and establishment of new infrastructures, as a way to foster innovation and economic development. Current provisions for co-investment practices do not allow non-profit or local ISPs to take part to investments, restricting this opportunity only to larger and incumbent actors. Although Community Networks and local SMEs have proven successful in connecting underprivileged communities both in urban and rural areas, it would be only normal to consider them as equal members of the telecoms ecosystem, thus giving them fair and equal access to co-investment opportunities.
Moreover, co-investment in a certain area must be considered an oligopoly of a few powerful actors (on the local level), as the FDN Federation showed in their analysis of the fixed market written for a consultation of the ARCEP in 2016. These oligopolies work as a cartel. The co-investors, in a given area, should be regarded as having the position of the incumbent in that area. Such symmetric regulation would allow welcoming all actors into the market.

Open Wifi

Several national laws seek to prevent the sharing of Internet connections amongst several users by making people liable for all communication made through their Wi-Fi connection. In 2017, two German courts have found individuals sharing their Wi-Fi connection liable for copyright infringements committed by their users, which contravene the important principles for intermediary liability set out in the Directive 2000/31/EC (Information Society Directive, also known as the "eCommerce directive"). They were found liable because, despite having been warned by rights-holders about such infringements, they did not take measures to prevent them. Such liability is a major threat for small wireless community network and a clear distortion of competition since 'traditional' Internet access providers cannot be liable for infringements committed by their users, even if they are aware of them, as provided by article 12 of Information Society Directive.

Encryption and privacy

Encrypting communications content from end to end by default is the only way to effectively minimise the impact of security incidents. Any other measure would barely have any effect. Furthermore, encryption is the main technical means by which to implement the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, article 5(1), which prohibits any “kinds of interception or surveillance of communications (...) by persons other than users, without the consent of the users concerned”. It is also an efficient way for users to implement their right to the art 7 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights that protects communications. The EECC should thus include provisions ensuring that electronic communications are encrypted from end-to-end.

Besides, the Code must comply with the CJEU ruling from 21 December 2016 (cases C-203/15 and C-698/15, “Tele2”), and include a provision that prohibits blanket data retention of traffic and location data for all subscribers and registered users.

Free software on terminals

Article 3.3(i) of Directive 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council provides that device manufacturers have to check every software which can be loaded on the device regarding its compliance with applicable radio regulations (e.g. signal frequency and strength). Such a provision is not only a severe burden for manufacturers but also violating the customers' rights of free choice. They will be locked in to software of the manufacturers because they cannot choose the software and hardware independently anymore. This aspect is crucial because alternative, especially Free Software, often satisfies special requirements regarding security, technical features and standards.

It may severely hinder the development of radio local area networks by Community Networks, which are often managed by individual volunteers using custom Free Software adapted to such networks. Since Free Software may be freely studied and improved by anyone, they should not be subject to the restriction imposed by article 3.3(i) and the adoption of the Code is the opportunity to remove such restrictions.

Universal Service

Today and tomorrow, an Internet connection is at the centre of everyone's life. Being connected to the Internet cannot be restricted to a slow and uneven connection. Considering the importance of a public service, especially in allowing less privileged people to participate in society, the USO mechanism should be enhanced in order to enable the beneficiaries to get a broadband access. We support the draft compromise amendments from IMCO4 that seek to ensure an equality between consumer benefiting from USO and other consumers.

The European Electronic Communication Code is the only opportunity before many years to break the oligopolistic disaster in telecommunications in most Member States. We must look at the positive consequences on competition, on local socio-economic fabric and users' civil rights that the funding and development of sustainable networks will have. The threat is big and the main rapporteur, known for her close interests with corporate telcos, takes advantage of this recast to reinforce the status quo. Members of European Parliament must refuse corporate lobbies' blackmail and support initiatives that have already been successful to develop those local and sustainable networks.

Read more:

(by neurone1000 at 2017-06-07 15:23:48)

06 June 2017

5 juli-podden 56: EU till beslut om nätcensur och länkskatt, UK vill förbjuda kryptering och införa censur

5 juli-podden – för dig som vill vara uppdaterad i debatten om internet, övervakning och fri- & rättigheter.



Glad nationaldag!

  • På torsdag beslutar EU-parlamentets utskott om censurmaskinen och länkskatten i EUs upphovsrättspaket.
  • HAX problematiserar EUs idé om att satsa 120 miljoner euro på gratis wifi i 6-8.000 europeiska städer.
  • Storbritanniens premiärminister Theresa May vill förbjuda kryptering och införa censur.

Youtube:


5 juli-podden görs av Karl Andersson och Henrik HAX Alexandersson. Varje tisdag.

Soundcloud » | Youtube » | iTunes »RSS-feed (via Soundcloud) » | Ladda hem filen (MP3) »

Feedback, läsarbrev och insändar-inslag (MP3) kan sändas till: karl[at]5july.org

Publicerad under Creative Commons (Soundclouds CC-licens: CC=BY&NC)

HAX 5 juli-blogg (på engelska) »

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-06 11:17:00)

05 June 2017

Övervaka de vi tror är farliga, inte vanligt folk


Läs min senaste krönika hos Mårtensson:


"Det är principiellt problematiskt när staten övervakar folket. Därför vore det mycket olyckligt om denna övervakning samtidigt inriktas fel, är ineffektiv eller rent av kontraproduktiv."

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-05 22:59:00)

01 June 2017

Net neutrality: one year after, a dark picture

Paris, 1 June 2017 — On the first anniversary of the adoption of the EU regulation on the Open Internet which governs the aspects of Net neutrality, and as the ARCEP (French Telco regulator) publishes its first report on the state of the Internet, we paint a dark picture of its implementation in France and within the EU.

While the ARCEP report reveals some positive points, it also draws too elegiac an assessment, leaving in the dark everything that is not progressing. La Quadrature thus wishes to draw its own —darker— assessment of the state of Net neutrality, and more broadly, of the role of technical intermediaries in exercizing fundamental freedoms in the digital environment.

On all these points the regulator has been alerted by us and by others. On all these points, it is informing itself. But it is not taking action. And while there is incontestable basis for action, ARCEP sometimes prefers to wait for users to make it force operators to comply with the European rules. The regulator is too cautious to step forward, to say what it has concluded, preferring to hide behind individuals or consumer associations.

A year ago ARCEP's president invited us to judge them on their results. A year later, the regulator hasn't acted. He told us yesterday that, now that the preliminary dialogue phase is over, ARCEP would now begin to act. He's been inviting us implicitly to wait for us to judge their actions… That's twice. And that's too much.

La Quadrature du Net has no imperative position, nor really any opinion on how the regulator should operate. But all we can see is that no results are coming.

"What we want are not studies, sanctions, reports, dialog, legislation or voodoo. What we would like is for the operators to end their abusive behaviours toward their subscribers. ARCEP is the authority in charge of that matter, and it is making no progress with it." said Benjamin Bayart, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net.

While, generally speaking, ARCEP is doing things right, this policy of stalling in some areas is a blot its activity. Sébastien Soriano talked about grey areas of the regulation. Here's a grey area of his action:

IPv6: no rush, but even so…

BEREC's1 guidelines (§16) presuppose the provision of a fixed IP address (either IPv4 or IPv6), and we shared our misgivings regarding the implementation as early as last September. Today IPv6 deployment is slow, and the lack of fixed IP addresses, or even public IP addresses for mobile phones, prevents users from providing self-hosted contents or applications, whereas that right appears explicitly in Net neutrality's definition in Europe. Furthermore, the growth in the number of devices can only make the problem worse, restricting "some applications or usages, limiting the Internet's open aspect and the users' freedom."2 ARCEP has nevertheless taken on this job by opening an observatory of the transition to IPv6 in France. That transition is still quite slow, and a simple observatory is without doubt not enough.

VOD and managed services: they are all equal, but some are more equal than others

Regarding VOD or VOIP, some operators take advantage of their situation to push their own offering, or that of a partner, favouring the traffic of that service. This kind of practice is utterly contrary to the regulation on open Internet access 3. Thus, all the market's offerings of VOD (or VOIP), regardless of provider, should go through this prioritized access, otherwise preventing the creation of new services that don't benefit from the same advantages: barriers to market entry, but also limited user choice depending the choice of operator.

Prioritizing traffic is not a problem in itself. It is the fact that this prioritisation is for only a single VOD (VOIP) service that is a problem, and that the service which benefits is chosen by the operator and not by the end user.

Until now the regulator hasn't gone past the "proactive dialogue" stage with the operators, but as long as this kind of practice continues, it seems necessary to move on to the next phase, without waiting for consumers' complaints.

Mobile DNS, intrusive proxies and captive portals

Among mobile phone operators, lying DNS, intrusive proxies (which modify content and track users) and captive portals are common, and the 'proactive dialog' from ARCEP is late in becoming a strong intervention from the regulator to end those unacceptable practices. Nonetheless those practices prevent users from circumventing the operators' private censorship, and on the contrary, permits the operators to act on content (redirection to advertising, filtering, compression etc.) without transparency nor ways for users to protect themselves.

5G blackmail

The operators' dominant theme, including in the framework of negotiating the telecom package, is that the only way to correctly handle the 5G network, to cover the investment costs and to encourage innovation is to roll back the European regulation guaranteeing Net neutrality.

None of those arguments is really valid, and Net neutrality, in contrast, is a true fulcrum for innovation and the development of competition and new uses, enabling all the users and actors identical access to the network to offer and use the services. ARCEP appears unreceptive to those arguments from the operators, and that's good news. However, we would expect the French regulator, as well as the European Commission, to denounce that blackmail from the main operators clearly.

Which freedom to choose an end device?

The European regulation states that the end user can use any end device of his choice, a rule necessary to ensure an open Internet. ARCEP has work under way on this point, though there is no visible progress, not for lack of talking about it.

As of today, the end user is still subject to tied sales from fixed operators (the box) and cannot decide to opt for a terminal of his choice, even though this is fundamental to be able to choose free and open-source software, or have control over the connection to the network, making him independent from operators who do not always respect full neutrality in access to the network.

ARCEP analyses rather well the issues with mobile end devices: the ubiquity of closed offers within constrained environments (iOS and Android), the closing of alternative application stores, the de facto duopoly, the restrictive position of technical third parties in accessing the network, etc. A report on this issue has been published at the same time as the one on the status of the Internet. But this topic is easier for the regulator to analyse because it's not within their competency: it's easy to analyse when you don't have to act.

Zero rating is regaining momentum

The situation has worsened in some member states. The "zero-rating" approved by the Belgian regulator and by justice in the Netherlands is contradictory to the intentions in preparing the regulation. The operators choose what their subscribers are supposed to be able to watch without restrictions, grabbing abnormal power over how citizens access information. In Germany too, an offer from "Deutsch Telekom" has been infringing Net neutrality since April, with no reaction from the regulator.

Lack of clarity in the BEREC's guidelines cannot guarantee uniform application of the regulation throughout the EU, and BEREC's coordination mechanism — currently presided over by Sébastien Soriano — seems insufficient. Will it be necessary to take action at the EU Court of Justice (ECJ)?

It is a real concern, because European regulators identified zero-rating as risky and undesirable, but it is still spreading. That disastrous effect forces us to reflect. In protecting the public interest and limiting abuse by the powerful, is telecom regulation a useless tool?

Worrying commercial offers

The rise of big corporations which own the network, entertainment production and the media, and the creation of product offerings which bundle those diverse services, raises the question of freedom of expression, of freedom of access to the information, and also of the diversity of media.

Thus consideration 7 of the regulation4 takes into account the harmful effects on rights and freedom of the products offered by the service providers who dominate the market. What is there to say then about the now-common TV packages, as well as the 'SFR Presse' offer or the press package from Bouygues?

On these topics, again, ARCEP contents itself with waiting for complaints to be filed. Once again, regrettable.

  • 1. Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications
  • 2. from press release by ARCEP the 30th of September 2016 on "Transistion to IPV6".
  • 3. See especially the article 3 of the regulation
  • 4. Recital 7 : "In order to exercise their right to access and distribute information and content, and to use and provide applications and services of their choice, end-users should be free to agree with providers of Internet access services on tariffs for specific data volumes and speeds of the Internet access service. Such agreements, as well as any commercial practices of providers of Internet access services, should not limit the exercise of those rights and thus circumvent provisions of this Regulation safeguarding open Internet access. National regulatory and other competent authorities should be empowered to intervene against agreements or commercial practices which, by reason of their scale, lead to situations where end-users’ choice is materially reduced in practice. To this end, the assessment of agreements and commercial practices should, inter alia, take into account the respective market positions of those providers of internet access services, and of the providers of content, applications and services, that are involved. National regulatory and other competent authorities should be required, as part of their monitoring and enforcement function, to intervene when agreements or commercial practices would result in the undermining of the essence of the end-users’ rights."

(by neurone130 at 2017-06-01 10:34:21)

Priset kan bli högt när EU vill ordna gratis WiFi

Det är alltid gratis ost i råttfällan

Nybloggat på HAX.5July.org:


EU försöker göra sig populärt genom att erbjuda gratis WiFi i 6-8.000 städer. Men det kan få oförutsedda och oönskade konsekvenser.

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-06-01 09:49:00)

31 May 2017

Stoppa EU:s nätcensur och länkskatt


Det drar ihop sig till beslut om ny EU-lagstiftning om upphovsrätten. Bland annat föreslås att nätplattformar skall tvingas kontrollera och censurera material som laddas upp av deras användare – samt en »länkskatt« som är en avgift för den som länkar till artiklar i gammelmedia.

Läs mer:
• Just 9 days left to reject the worst version of EU copyright expansion plans yet »
• ACT NOW! In 9 days, the European Parliament could pass a truly terrible copyright expansion »

Stoppa dessa förslag! Kontakta dina ledamöter i Europaparlamentet!

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-05-31 16:11:00)

30 May 2017

5 juli-podden 55: Farligt feltänk i kriget mot terrorismen

5 juli-podden – för dig som vill vara uppdaterad i debatten om internet, övervakning och fri- & rättigheter.



Återigen har en terrorist varit känd av ett lands säkerhetstjänst innan han begick sitt brott. Ändå fortsätter politiker att propagera för massövervakning av hela befolkningen.

Men först veckans nätnyheter:

  • Undertexter kan infektera medieservrar med skadlig kod.
  • Tyska Sky har lyckats få hårdvara förbjuden av domstol i Tyskland pga piratstreamning av sportevenemang.
  • Disney slår historiskt vinstrekord på 7 miljarder dollar - trots att Hollywood klagar på att piratkopiering snor deras vinster.
  • EU vill satsa 120 miljoner euro på gratis wifi i 6-8000 europeiska städer.
  • NetzDG: Det tyska lagförslaget om att Facebook med flera ska böta upp till 50 miljoner om de inte tar bort vissa poster inom 24 timmar kritiseras i öppet brev till EU.
  • Ministrarna i EUs medlemsländer vill att videoplattformar ska ha minst 30 procent europeiskt innehåll och att de ska bidra till europeisk filmindustri. Detta förutom de tidigare censurkraven.
  • Storbritannien kommer med stor säkerhet förbjuda kryptering om de konservativa, som förväntat, vinner valet den 8 juni 2017.


5 juli-podden görs av Karl Andersson och Henrik HAX Alexandersson. Varje tisdag.

Soundcloud » | Youtube » | iTunes »RSS-feed (via Soundcloud) » | Ladda hem filen (MP3) »

Feedback, läsarbrev och insändar-inslag (MP3) kan sändas till: karl[at]5july.org

Publicerad under Creative Commons (Soundclouds CC-licens: CC=BY&NC)

HAX 5 juli-blogg (på engelska) »

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-05-30 11:07:00)

A first for international Pirates: An online & asynchronous council meeting

PPEU

Since the 28th of May the second Council Meeting of the European Pirates (PPEU) is going on. Unlike the previous Council Meetings, the founding meeting and the first council meeting, this one is different. Both previous events took place in Brussels, a traditional “away from keyboard” meeting, were all delegates meet in one physical location to discuss the matters at hand. This year the meeting will be held online and asynchronous during the time span of several weeks. From the 28th of May to the 15th of June to be more precise.

To facilitate this type of meeting an online platform named VoteIT is used. VoteIT is a free and open source tool to facilitate the organization of online democratic and participatory meetings. It can keep agenda, discussion, proposals and polls. This project was started in 2009 by the Swedish gaming federation and made possible with the help of a government grant. If you want to follow the meeting you need to register, after you login the actual discussions can be read. Meeting minutes can be read without registration.

Besides the necessary discussions around rules of procedures and statutes, this meeting will also elect a new board, decide on the admission of new members and another agenda point, that might be of interest to many, is the planned discussion on membership fees.

After some initial delays caused by inexperience using this new tool for the first time, the meeting seems to be progressing in an orderly and constructive fashion. After June 15th Pirate Times will report back on the results of this Council meeting.

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Koen De Voegt at 2017-05-30 08:43:08)

28 May 2017

Support the Referendum on Catalan Independence

referendum for independence

Direct democracy, citizen participation, and the right to self-determination are three of the most important tenets of Pirate Parties International. In a recent letter, to all fellow members of Pirate Parties International, the Pirates of Catalonia have requested public declarations of support for the referendum on Catalan independence. At Present time there is no referendum scheduled partly because Spain’s national government has refused to allow the region to hold a binding referendum.

In 2014, a non-binding referendum on Catalan independence saw the region vote overwhelmingly in favor of independence. This came after Spain’s authorities declared the vote “illegal” before it was to be held and then forced the regional government to convert the election from a referendum to a “citizen initiative,” which carried no weight.

Citizens in Catalonia, the region in Spain whose capital is Barcelona, have fought for independence from Spain for decades. The Franco dictatorship repressed all expressions of Catalan sovereignty for many years, including a ban on the use of the Catalan language. After democracy began to be restored in the late 1970s, Catalonia has been granted a degree of autonomy within the Spanish Republic.

Since 2011, when the ongoing anti-austerity 15-M Movement was launched in Spain, the people of Catalonia have taken to the streets in astonishing numbers each year to demonstrate in favor of Catalan independence. The most conservative estimates of the size of the demonstrations each year put the number of protesters near a half a million people each time.

A consortium of pro-referendum political parties has published a manifesto called the “National Pact for the Referendum” in favor of finding a solution to the so-far intractable problem of holding a binding referendum on independence that both sides—the anti-Catalan-independence Spanish government and the pro-independence Catalan voters—will respect, regardless of the results of the vote.

“We declare that democratic culture demands political solutions to political problems. This is done by appealing to the fundamental mechanism available to contemporary societies: acknowledging and validating the majority will of the people in the form of a vote,”

the manifesto continues:

“We urge the governments of Catalonia and Spain to overcome the political obstacles and their preconceptions, and to finally reach an agreement that establishes the conditions and the fair and necessary guarantees for holding a referendum recognized by the international community, the result of which should be politically binding and effective.”

Pirates are urged to sign the manifesto and then send an email to inform the Pirate Party of Catalonia that they have signed.

 

Featured image: Public domain, the ballot corresponding to the past 9N consultation (2014)
————————
This was a guest post by Mark Aldrich.

pirate part catalonia independence

I have been writing about social justice issues for decades, most recently at my website TheGadAboutTown.com

Since January 30, 2017, I have written several features about green card holders detained by ICE in the U.S. I have participated in the social media movement to free Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi since January 2015 and four of my articles were re-published on his foundation’s website. Articles I have written about the imprisoned Egyptian photojournalist Shawkan have been highlighted on the website Movements.org. An article about the imprisoned Eritrean-Swedish journalist Dawit Isaak was featured last year on the website AllAfrica.com.

The website is unaffiliated with any organization, and I am an independent blogger with credentials from the U.S. Press Association. In 1997, my newspaper column was recognized with a “Best Humor Column” award from the New York Press Association.

I have been a member of Pirate Parties International since 2017. With its full embrace of grass-roots solutions to our neo-conservative/neo-liberal political and economic problems and its core value of liberty for the individual, the Pirate Party has an enthusiastic supporter in me.

Twitter: @Mark_S_Aldrich

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Guest Author at 2017-05-28 09:00:02)

26 May 2017

G7-gruppen enad om att begränsa det fria ordet


Läs min senaste bloggpost på HAX.5July.org:


"Please – do not limit the freedom of speech. We cannot silence or put people in prison, simply because we do not agree with whatever they are saying."


Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-05-26 21:14:00)

24 May 2017

The Pirate Times is “Under the Weather”

medicines

You may have noted that the Pirate Times is not posting as regularly as usual recently. This is due to a combination of illness and injury to some of our key team members. We will endeavour to resume normal service as soon as we can. We are looking for some writers to fill the gap and if you are interested in providing an article or two then now would be a good time to step forward.

We are also looking for more guest posts. Whenever you have anything newsworthy to tell the international pirates then write together a short (or long?) article. Our editorial team will help with proofreading and ensuring an objective tone is used before publication. Send your articles to guestpost@piratetimes.net

We hope and expect to be back to normal in a month or two. In plenty of time for some events and elections that will be of interest to all Pirates and associated parties and movements around the world.

We thank you for your patience,

Your Pirate Times Team.

 

Featured image: CCO (public domain)

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Andrew Reitemeyer at 2017-05-24 16:38:47)

23 May 2017

5 juli-podden 54: Svenska blocklistan och Storbritanniens statsinternet

5 juli-podden – för dig som vill vara uppdaterad i debatten om internet, övervakning och fri- & rättigheter.


  • Ettårsjubileum för 5 juli-podden märks av tragisk terrorattack i Manchester.
  • Tories valmanifest föreslår brutala regleringar av internet i Storbritannien.
  • Svenska Institutets blocklista får uppmärksamhet i utlandet. Vi lyssnar på hur journalisten Tim Pool reagerade när han fick reda på att han fanns på listan.
  • Anders Ygemans statstrojan.
  • WannaCry - NSA var medvetna om risken.
  • EU-parlamentarikers metadata på Twitter avslöjar mer än själva tweeten.
  • Turkisk-islamska unionen DİTİB missnöjda med att tilldelas Big Brother Award i Tyskland.
  • Visselblåsaren Chelsea Manning är fri och Sverige har lagt ner förundersökningen kring Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange.
  • Facebooks interna regelverk för vilket innehåll som ska tas bort har läckt - igen.
  • Och så tipsar vi om Googles utvecklarkonferens I/O 2017 som ägde rum i veckan.
Hela videon med Tim Pool går att se här »


5 juli-podden görs av Karl Andersson och Henrik HAX Alexandersson. Varje tisdag.

Soundcloud » | Youtube » | iTunes »RSS-feed (via Soundcloud) » | Ladda hem filen (MP3) »

Feedback, läsarbrev och insändar-inslag (MP3) kan sändas till: karl[at]5july.org

Publicerad under Creative Commons (Soundclouds CC-licens: CC=BY&NC)

HAX 5 juli-blogg (på engelska) »

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-05-23 12:19:00)

22 May 2017

Letter to EU Institutions: WIFI4EU must promote diversity, locality and Human rights

Paris, 22 May 2017 — As the EU Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission enter the dark rooms of trialogues on the WIFI4EU draft regulation, European community networks and the open-wifi community wanted to remind them of the importance of the inclusion of all actors in the development of local connectivity.

Object: WIFI4EU — EU must promote diversity in the telecom sector and resist the commodification of publicly-funded networks

Dear Sir, Madam

Delegations of Members of the EU Parliament are currently finalising trialogue negotiations on the WIFI4EU draft regulation. The regulation will allow local authorities to open WiFI hotspots to boost Internet access, particularly in underserved communities.

WIFI4EU is an initiative announced last year by President Juncker in his "State of the Union" speech in Strasbourg. To deliver on this promise "to equip every European village and every city with free wireless Internet ac­cess around the main centres of public life by 2020", the EU will unleash 120 million between by 2017-2019 to roll out WiFi hotspots in at least 6,000 to 8,000 local communities.

But as the trialogue draw to a close, there is a huge risk of seeing this laudable initiative miss the opportunity of fostering diversity in the telecom sector as well as human rights. Recent negotiations show that Member State governments seek to keep small and local access providers out of the scheme, favouring incumbent multinational corporations while allowing them to spy on users' communications.

To overcome these risks, we call on the EU Council and the EU Commission to endorse the constructive proposals put forward by the European Parliament, and ask that the letter stand firm to safeguard the public interest in EU telecom policies.

Making room for SMEs and non-profit entities

In recital 4 of the regulation, the European Parliament insists on the involvement of organisations such as "not-for-profit cooperatives" and "community centres" as entities that could offer wireless connectivity. In the same vein, at recital 9b, the EP wants to promote local SMEs and not-for profit actors as key beneficiary for the procurement and installation of equipment 1. Such language ensures that small, local actors — including for-profit SMEs as well as many non-profit community networks — will be eligible to WIFI4EU funds. By directing the funds to these small but competent players, WIFI4EU would promote local employment, spread of technical skills as well as diversity in the telecom sector, rather than favouring already dominant players in the industry. This is all the more shocking considering that many non-profit community networks are already rolling out the kind open wireless networks promoted by WIFI4EU, with little or no public support. By directing EU funds to these actors when possible, WIFI4EU has the potential of helping them grow and expand their activities at the local level. Unfortunately, the EU Council is trying to remove these recitals arguing that they lack any legal basis, and paving the way for dominant actors to reap most of WIFI4EU subsidies.


Recital 4

Protecting the right to privacy by renouncing to prior authentication

In recital 2, both the EU Parliament and EU Council are promoting a solution for a single authentication system that can be used across the EU. This solution favouring authentication system to regulate access to "open" networks is not backed by any substantial reasoning, and runs counter to human rights. We understand the co-legislators' goal of making access to these public networks as easy as possible for people travelling across the EU, but the most simple way to do so is to ensure these are, indeed, open networks without authentication. If the goal of having an authentication system is to prevent illegal activities, co-legislators should be reminded that Advocate General of the CJEU recently explained in the case C‑484/14 (McFadden) that imposing on Wi-Fi network operators an obligation “to identify users and to retain their data” would be “clearly disproportionate” as it “would not in itself be effective (...) in preventing specific infringements”. In the final ruling, the Court agreed that such an obligation should only be imposed after a specific targetting injunction requiring a WiFi operator to do so. To minimise privacy risks associated with data retention and foster ease of use, WIFI4EU should not promote authentication systems in what are meant to be open and free access points.


Recital 2

Keeping advertising and commercial surveillance out of public wireless networks

WIFI4EU should not commodify publicly-funded services by allowing advertising schemes enabled by commercial surveillance. Unfortunately, the Council is trying to undermine the protection suggested by the EP in recital 2, which precludes the use of traffic data for advertisement purposes or other commercial uses. The EP and Council must keep the EP version to be fully in line with the data protection framework and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, commercial use of data cannot be justified within an implementation of public utilities —especially when funded through public money.

Offering free, open and neutral access to those who need it the most

The number one priority for WIFI4EU must be to develop open and free wireless networks that boost Internet access in underserved communities. The Council's proposal to delete the policy objective of "preventing remote locations and rural areas from lagging behind" and of making these publicly-funded networks both "free of charge and free from restrictions" is dangerous. It suggests that WIFI4EU networks might not be free, nor open, nor even respect the Net neutrality principle enshrined in the EU regulation on the telecom single market. The language put forth by the EU Parliament must be upheld.


Recital 4a


Recital 2§2c

We count on you to ensure that the proposals of the EU Parliament, which serves the general interest and specific goals of EU broadband policy, are safeguarded in the final text.


Read the full document here (pdf)

Signatories:

  • Aquilenet (France)
  • BlueLink Civic Action Network (Bulgaria)
  • CAFAI (France)
  • Colectivo Helianto (Navarra)
  • Common Grounds (Germany)
  • Chaos Computer Club Lëtzebuerg (Luxembourg)
  • exo.cat (Spain)
  • FDN (France)
  • FFDN (France)
  • Free Knowledge Institute (Europe)
  • Frënn vun der Ënn (Luxembourg)
  • Funkfeuer Wien (Austria)
  • Guifi Foundation (Spain)
  • IGWAN.NET (France)
  • Ilico (France)
  • La Quadrature du Net (France)
  • LibreMesh (Global)
  • wlan slovenija, open wireless network (Slovenia)
  • netCommons (EU)
  • NetHood (Switzerland)
  • Open Technologies Alliance - GFOSS (Greece)
  • Progetto Neco (Italy)
  • Sarantaporo.gr Non Profit Organization (Greece)
  • SCANI (France)
  • Tetaneutral.net (France)
  • Viviers Fibre (France)
  • Wireless België (Belgium)
  • Xnet (Spain)
  • WirelessPT.net (Portugal)
  • 1. In this context, the text mentions only "SMEs", but these are defined in EU law as "entit[ies] engaged in an economic activity, irrespective of its legal form." The notion can therefore include many non-profits that already work at the local level to provide flexible and affordable Internet access. See: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/15582/attachments/1/translations

(by neurone130 at 2017-05-22 08:44:34)

19 May 2017

Assange – vad händer nu?

Nybloggat på HAX.5July.org:

The Assange case – now what? »

Åklagare Marianne Ny har beslutat att lägga ner förundersökningen kring Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange. Så vad händer nu?

På 5 juli-bloggen ger jag en översiktlig bild av läget. Räkna dock med att situationen kan komma att förändras snabbt.

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-05-19 12:13:00)

18 May 2017

Allt är medias fel


Läs min senaste krönika hos Mårtensson:


"Vem bestämmer vad samhällsdebatten skall handla om? Vilka är det som försöker uppfostra oss och tala om vad vi skall tycka? Politiker och byråkrater i all ära, men media (med public service och DN i frontlinjen) är den stora uttolkaren av ett nytt och annorlunda (men inte nödvändigtvis bättre) Sverige."

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-05-18 22:28:00)

Ygeman-trojanen gör oss mindre säkra


Bakom kulisserna pågår (i stor politisk enighet) arbetet med en lag om hemlig dataavläsning.

Det handlar om att staten i hemlighet skall få installera spionprogram på våra datorer, telefoner och surfplattor.

Här finns två problem. Det första gäller vår rätt till privatliv. Staten vill ha tillgång till våra telefonsamtal, våra meddelanden och vår e-post. Storebror vill kunna se våra bilder och videoklipp, lyssna på våra inspelade ljud, avlyssna oss i realtid via prylarnas kameror och mikrofoner, få tillgång till våra kontakter och se allt vi gör i våra appar (inklusive »säkra« meddelandeappar).

Det andra handlar om IT-säkerhet. För att staten skall kunna installera Ygeman-trojaner på våra datorer måste den använda bakdörrar, säkerhetsbrister och offensiva IT-angrepp. Vilket innebär att staten, istället för att varna för säkerhetsbrister kommer att tiga om dem – i syfte att använda dessa för sina egna syften.

På så sätt lämnar man – medvetet – dessa säkerhetshål öppna även för till exempel cyber-brottslingar och främmande makt. Vilket är att be om problem.

Detta bevisar inte minst förra veckans stora cyber-attack, WannaCry.

Där användes säkerhetsluckor som var kända och som används av amerikanska myndigheter. Information om dessa hade stulits och/eller läckts från nämnda myndigheter. Vilket knappast var oväntat.

Nu tänker alltså Sverige göra samma sak. Om Ygeman & Co får som de vill – då kommer de att göra hela vår IT-miljö mindre säker. Då öppnar de för attacker (och spionage) mot till exempel företag, privatpersoner, infrastruktur, bankväsende, distributionskedjor, allmänna transporter, myndigheter och försvarsmakten.

Det enda rimliga är att alla säkerhetsbrister på IT-området alltid skall rapporteras in, delas med de drabbade och snarast åtgärdas. (Samma princip som gäller för till exempel trafikflyget.)

Kommentera! (by Henrik Alexandersson (noreply@blogger.com) at 2017-05-18 13:12:00)

13 May 2017

Vad skulle Lars Ulrich göra?


Det bästa med Star Wars – ja, det enda som är bra faktiskt, är musiken. Den är komponerad av John Williams, som också gjort musiken till ungefär alla Steven Spielbergs filmer. Det är något visst med just John Williams kompositioner. Något jag inte kan sätta fingret på, men det finns där. Inte bara att han är träffsäker i att göra musik i rätt stämning för den film han komponerar till, det finns det flera som kan, men han har något särskilt som gör att hans musik verkligen sätter sig.

Jag snubblade över ett klipp där två musiker, Bryce Hayashi och Michael Miller, ställer sig utanför John Williams hus och tutar ledmotivet till Star Wars. Jag vet inte bakgrunden till varför, men det är en kul grej. En sån där feelgood-video att ha i bakfickan.

Notera också att John Williams i egen hög person kommer ut och ler uppskattande och tar i hand, istället för att bussa sina advokater på dem för upphovsrättsintrång. Det är ett sätt att hantera det hela. Det är inte utan att man undrar hur Lars Ulrich hade hanterat det.

Jag har en vision av hur ett par hugade fans ställer sig utanför utanför Lars Ulrichs hus och river av några strofer från Enter Sandman, varpå Lasse själv kommer utspringande i morgonrock och tofflor och jagar dem med käppen som vore de några simpla äppelpallare. Hela tiden vrålandes en osammanhängande kakafoni av danska och engelska, okvädningsord och juridik. Kanske har han också ett par dobbermanliknande advokater i nithalsband kopplade därhemma som ständigt är redo att kasta sig över alla potentiella hot och slita dem i stycken.

Nu hoppas jag att ni också har den visionen. Och att ni lyssnar på Bryce Hayashis och Michael Millers version av Star Wars-temat.


Andra bloggar om: , , ,

Flattr this!

Kommentera! (by Joshua_Tree at 2017-05-13 17:50:42)


Piratpartiet