Loss of Privacy

Keeping you informed on recent losses to privacy and civil rights worldwide.

Browsing Posts tagged Politics

freedom of speech and express

The Turkish government continues its push to have more control over the Internet. A new bill would give the prime minister and communication minister the ability to block webpages without court order for 24 hours, providing those webpages threaten national security and public order.

“According to this study, if a situation concerning public order is in question, on matters concerning public order and national security, upon a demand by the related minister or the prime ministry, TİB [Telecommunications Directorate] will be able to temporarily remove content or block access. However, still, there is an obligation to file for a court within 24 hours and an obligation for the implementation of the court order,” said Transportation, Maritime Affairs and Communications Minister Lütfi Elvan told reporters yesterday during a visit to the Black Sea province of Bartın.

“The decision of the authorized agency shall be submitted for approval by the judge having jurisdiction within 24 hours. The judge shall announce his decision within 48 hours from the time of [action]; otherwise, the [prohibition] shall automatically be lifted. Public establishments or institutions where exceptions to the above may be applied are defined by law,” said the same article.

“It is an arrangement which is completely in line with Article 22 of our Constitution,” Elvan said, when asked whether the Constitutional Court might return the new legislation as well.

flattr this!

This video was made on purpose to be serious and not satire.

The video is mind-bogglingly stupid. If any child took a gun to school and plopped it on their teacher’s desk, they would never get to idiotic asking for them to take the gun away. The child would be lucky to only be arrested for bringing a gun onto school property.

Once the kid was in jail, the mother would be arrested for negligence and everyone would get a criminal record.

In a press release, The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms listed how many crimes were depicted in the 3-minute video.

“The series of crimes depicted in this video is simply astonishing,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We’re talking about felony theft of a firearm, illegal possession of a handgun by a minor, having a gun in a school, illegal concealed carry by a minor, brandishing and maybe one or two other crimes, depending upon thejurisdiction.

“The fact that the gun appears to be a very real-looking BB pistol is not the point,” he noted. “The scenario obviously depicts what some youngster should do with a real handgun. Besides, even bringing a BB gun to school is against the law, and at the very least, the boy in this video would wind up being arrested and face felony charges.

“We understand from published reports that angry messages have been showing up on this company’s Facebook page,” Gottlieb said, “and rightly so. The message of this video is so monumentally stupid that if any youth does something like this after watching it, the producers should face charges. If someone is hurt, they should face both criminal and civil liability.”

“This video isn’t a public service announcement,” he said, “but a public dis-service and the producers ought to be ashamed.”

Teaching gun safety, apparently, wasn’t an option before making this video.

The original video, which is now private, included a message at the end that said, “Special thanks to the North Oakland Community Charter School.”

flattr this!

Minister of law, Anders Anundsen, on the matter, December 13th:

“If this is true, such surveillance is completely unacceptable.”

Fast forward one single day to December 14th, and Anders Anundsen publishes a bill proposing that the police be able to use IMSI catchers — the exact same piece of equipment that it’s apparently unacceptable to set up close to The Storting — to surveil the mobile network without the need to go court for permission, and without any suspicion of crime.

More at Aftenposten and Reddit.

flattr this!

jm121014_COLOR_Cheney_Torture_Report_ISIL[1] (2)

Source.

flattr this!

privacy

Richard Posner is an influential judge in the United States. In a recent conference, he said the NSA should be able to collect whatever information it needed in the name of stopping terrorism.

“I think privacy is actually overvalued,” Judge Richard Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said during a conference about privacy and cybercrime in Washington on Thursday.

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Perhaps Posner would be okay with everyone looking at his private information, following him wherever he travels and knowing what he is up to. Wanting privacy doesn’t mean you are concealing anything unsavory. It means your life is not anyone else’s business to be snooping into just because they can.

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects — for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies — but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

Let the vacuuming commence with all of Judge Posner’s activities. He’s made it clear he doesn’t have a problem with this sort of behavior.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state — very dangerous.”

The world has always been in a turbulent state. It has always been dangerous. I think Posner might have wanted to say, “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.”

Posner criticized mobile OS companies for enabling end-to-end encryption in their newest software. “I’m shocked at the thought that a company would be permitted to manufacture an electronic product that the government would not be able to search,” he said.

Then let Posner be the one to lead by example and start letting the government search his cell phone at will.

Other speakers at Thursday’s event, including Judge Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, disagreed with Posner, saying legal limits on government surveillance are necessary. With much of U.S. privacy law based on a reasonable expectation of privacy, it’s difficult, however, to define what that means when people are voluntarily sharing all kinds of personal information online, she said.

This is true, but for those who choose not to share personal information online, they shouldn’t be subjected to random vacuuming of information because the NSA wants to go on a fishing expedition. The people who advocate for privacy aren’t the ones dumping their personal information online. When they do, they know it’s public information.

David Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center also disagreed with Posner.

Some recent court cases, including the Supreme Court’s 2014 Riley v. California ruling limiting law enforcement searches of mobile phones, have moved privacy law in the right direction, he said.

Posner questioned why smartphone users need legal protections, saying he doesn’t understand what information on smartphones should be shielded from government searches. “If someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat, some phone numbers, some email addresses, some email text,” he said. “What’s the big deal?

“Other people must have really exciting stuff,” Posner added. “Do they narrate their adulteries, or something like that?”

This is the problem with Posner. He doesn’t understand why someone other than himself wouldn’t want their information freely available and automatically believes they must be up to no good. Yet, this judge most likely doesn’t have his home address listed publicly for security reasons. People have reasons why they don’t want their information spread, including safety, security and peace of mind.

Smartphones can contain all kinds of information that people don’t want to share, including medical information, visits to abortion doctors and schedules for Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, Cole said. “Your original question, ‘what’s the value of privacy unless you’ve got something to hide?’ that’s a very short-sighted way of thinking about the value of privacy,” he said.

They may also contain information about upcoming political protests. If they cannot organize and protest freely, then this is not a free society. If Posner is not willing to step up and allow collection of his personal and private records at any time and for any reason, then he truly is ignorant or is spouting a government line and knows exactly what agenda he is pushing. Considering Posner tried to hide the name of a trust on his 2013 tax return, he likes his privacy just fine.

flattr this!