Britannia regains her pride...

The LibDems report on the proposed programme for the new coalition government.

Under Civil Liberties
"The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

 

This will include:

• A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
• The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
• Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
• The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
• Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
• The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
• The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
• The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• Further regulation of CCTV.
• Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences."

More commentary at Heresy Corner.


Can we get Habeus Corpus back too....?

Pullmans malevolent voices: Freedom is too hard for you

"And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth
Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours "


The quote above, and below, are from "Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms" by Philip Pullman, on Times Online.  Written for last years Convention on Modern Liberty, it is the best thing I've read all year...  This is just a snippet ... I encourage you.  Go read  it all...
(My friend in serendipity was Charles Pooter, at Little Man, What Now?...)



"It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.


Inconceivable.
And those laws say:
Sleep, you stinking cowards
Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms
Freedom is too hard for you
We shall decide what freedom is
Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum. "

 
But let's say you are not asleep?  What are you going to do about it???

Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party -  Make your voice heard.

Tips on living under Surveillance: Stockholm Edition....

I've blogged about it before but just today I thought Swedish readers might find themselves in need of advice on how to communicate securely in repressive environments. 

Actually.. it's not just - or not even Sweden - that is under surveillance now that parliament here has for the second time given the thumbs up for the FRA to tap all traffic passing Swedish borders.  It's enough to piss you off....  Whatever happened to principles?

Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party -  Defending your privacy

Human Rights - Churchills legacy

"Conservative parliamentary candidate Jesse Norman and political columnist Peter Oborne today launch ‘Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative case for the Human Rights Act’. The short book, published by Liberty in support of the Common Values campaign, recommends that the Conservatives reclaim their historic position as a party of British liberty and the rule of law by dropping their opposition to the Human Rights Act."

Liberty  issued a press release yesterday announcing this new book -which also includes a synopsys of the arguments contained in the book.  Interesting to see the Conservatives moving towards a more humanitarian position.  The site also has a link to the book in .pdf .  I could link to it but then you'd never go look at what else you can find at Liberty now would you..?

Unwarranted Intrusion: On the Fourth Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'm not a great scholar of history, or an expert in American constitutional law - but this last week I discovered the Fourth Amendment - and more sadly, how it is being bent and broken in American today (although I guess I kind of knew that already).

My starting point was Cory Doctorow's piece on Senator Al Franken, reading out the Fourth Amendment and questioning a Department of Justice official whether the Patriot Act provisions for roving wiretaps on unnamed individuals meet the terms of that amendment.  (You can watch the actual exchange on video at the MN Progressive Project).

The moot point here is do you need to name someone to be allowed to tap them - or more to the point to tap the broad spectrum of their friends, relatives and contacts?  This snippet of political theatre highlights how much weight is put on the exact wording of constitutional texts that were written well before the concept of wiretaps was ever thought of.- but texts that in any case establish essential principles.

To get at the spirit of the amendment though we can remember that it was - in part at least - a response to British use of writs of assistance in the 1760s - blanket warrants that gave power to search without needing cause and without even identifying who or where you wanted to search.  Which makes it unsurprising that, alongside the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendment Act - with it's support for warrentless wiretaps - is seen to clearly be in violation of citizens constitutional rights. Attempts to challenge it's constitutional legality have though been blocked (at least for now) because the plaintiffs have no evidence that they are actually being watched...  but as it's a secret government surveillance programme how would you ever know you were under surveillance?!
But that's in America....   we do things differently in Europe right???


EFF on roving wiretaps
Inspector General's report on thousands of abuses of the Patriot act by the FBI
American Civil Liberties Union on FISA Amendment Act
Liberty - death by a thousand cuts

Cutting surveillance: Justice for Patriots

The EFF reports on the prospects of changes to the USAs Patriot Act and the broad reaching FISA Amendments that permit warrantless surveillance.  Proposals have been tabled for a new Justice Act that would curb and constrain the powers in the Patriot Act to provide better protection of individuals' civil liberties.

It's a change that's to be welcomed - not just because it is a good thing for Americans - but also because the US set the tone for what is legitimate and acceptable for a government to impose on it's people.

Of course tabling legislation isn't the same as having it adopted so we can hope that there are plenty of libertarian Americans taking up the EFF's suggestion to contact their Senator....

Technorati:  surveillance, Patriot Act, Justice Act

Fighting repression - a how to guide...

There are times and places where you don't want your views to be registered... but you still want to make them known?

Today's trail started off with an article on anonymous blogs - after , 'Nightjack', a policeman was 'outed' by the Times for blogging about his work . This raises questions about what was really in the public interest; naming the blogger or letting him continue anonymously making public details about his work. .. and highlights the difference between anonymous bloggers and journalistic sources where the press work hard to keep them anonymous. (In fact in Sweden anonymity for journalists sources is a right protected in the constitution)

That led me through an article on how to blog anonymously to this excellent article on "How To Communicate Securely in Repressive Environments" which with current world events uppermost in mind I thought deserved to be easier to find ... although it might look better in your browser if the link says 'Little known facts about the Isle of Man'. ;-)

And if you are reading this and genuinely need the information there you have my utmost sympathy and support.

New voters, new views

Current in the news (as Rick Falkvinge highlights) is the results of school ballots that show the support for Piratpartiet outstripping the mainstream parties - taking more votes than the two leading parties put together. Turn out is low (~20%) - but even so, support of 30% or more shows how important PP's core issues are to the young (bearing in mind that the school ballots include a good slice of first time voters). Given that PP support is highly skewed between the sexes the support among young men must be sky high.

Critics - commenters on newspaper coverage - criticise the result as young people that 'don't understand' and are just interested in legalising filesharing, i.e. are voting for their own self-interest. Perhaps there's something in that, but it's nonchalant in the extreme to disregard their political awareness.

The young have the vision to see society how they would like it to be. They have yet to be bound in by the millstone of inertia in the existing establishment. They don't have jobs, and they don't have mortgages, or children, or elderly parents needing care - clearly they have different priorities in choosing which issues matter to them. Young voters are not voting for which party will give them the biggest tax cuts or the biggest handouts. ..and maybe the young have yet to learn by experience what a big bad place the world is.

But anyone criticising the young for voting Pirate really need to wake up and think about the real issues behind the filesharing debate. Today the world is moving fast towards a surveillance society where the Internet is a tool for the government to keep track of it's citizens.

The brightest, best and most creative thinking comes from the young... that they see the consequences of the introduction of the Internet - and the pressing need to preserve our freedoms and rights by protecting it's freedom from censorship and surveillance - should be a wake up call. What have you lost sight of?

Filesharing is a part of youth culture - and of course that means there is interest in defending that culture from 'the evils of industry'. But if that leads young people to be informed and engaged on issues of personal freedom and integrity then for me that is a great thing. ...a whole new generation that clearly see the need to defend rights and to create a better more open society.

Update: Check out Pure Nandi's description of a school political debate - and notice that it's integrity and not filesharing that is under the spotlight. (in swedish..)

They shall not pass....

This is one of my favourite songs... remembering the sacrifice made by the volunteers of the International Brigade in the fight against fascism in the Spanish Civil War.



That I found this video tonight is thanks to a clip on Leon Rosselson's MySpace page commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Jamara. At 45 minutes though it's quite long..
It ends with this quote from the leader of the Spanish communist party.

"Sometimes you must be prepared to fight, even without a prospect of victory.. for in that way you leave a heritage, you prepare future battles.
So we fought."



Footnote: Jack Jones MBE, union leader and veteran of the XV International Brigade died last week aged 92. May he Rest in Peace.

Privacy on the frontline

The verdict on The Pirate Bay trial is due tomorrow - and will surely get a lot of coverage in the press.  But since the trial ended the legal landscape here has changed with the introduction of IPRED - legislation allowing copyright owners to gain access to the identities behind an IP address.

So before tomorows hype, how is it going with IPRED?

So far it seems three applications have been made to the courts, and all three raise issues of one sort or another.

The first related to someone allegedly making lots of Swedish literature freely available as e-books on the web.  It sounded fairly clearcut until it came out that the site is not an open site but an FTP server with secure access - raising significant concerns about just how the Antipiratbyrån got access to the site without breaking legislation on data security. 

The second case is interesting.  A company is seeking information on an IP address that gained unauthorised access to their company systems (including copyrighted information).  The evidence presented reportedly doesn't include evidence of any copied work so it's hard to see it getting approved - but it highlights how this legislation is open to scope-creep...  Using other legislation would man a police investigation, and this way you can investigate yourself (with greater powers than the police).

The third case is a Pirate party member seeking information on who is downloading their songs.  This is meant mostly to test the system - can anyone armed with a screen dump or two go to the courts - and do rights owners really have the same support under the new law that corporate media interests do?  Interesting to watch that one...

More recently it's reported that Internet Service Provider Bahnhof (who offer 'integrity-marked' broadband) don't, and aren't going, to save records of who used which IP address when.  They point to existing laws that require operators to anonymise traffic records 'when they are no longer needed'.   A survey in Göteborgs-Posten shows despite this that all the broadband operators questioned do in fact keep copies of IP Address records.

Deleting IP details like this has been discussed in the press as a loophole - but it is a pre-existing legal requirement and ought to be an existing part of all operators processes.  IPRED doesn't require operators to store information - only to give out the information they have  when ordered by the court.  "We don't have that information" ought then to be the most legitimate answer they can give...

..at least until they change the law.

Speak up for liberty

"Vi kommer att bli rädda och det är djävligt obehagligt att vara rädd. Men det finns bara ett medel. Hur rädda vi än blir får vi inte tystna.

Tystnar vi blir världen totalitär.  Då går demokratin under"

Anders Widén, forfattare, writes on the threat to democracy -  of laws that hand over our privacy to the state - or worse, to private interests in search of profit.

"We are going to be scared and it's bloody unncomfortable to be scared.  But there is only one way. However scared we are we can't be silent.
If we are silent the world will be totalitarian. Then democracy goes under."

Anders belongs in this quote...

"The foundations of our liberty reside in highly energized and focused minds that insist upon their independence. There are no shortcuts, no structures or doctrines that can be erected, no hallowed documents to be revered, to save us the effort of continually challenging those who would presume to exercise authority over our lives."
— Butler Shaffer

Or as George Orwell put it..

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

Well said that man!

Infiltrating the Vegan Underground

By a kind of circuitous route I ended up at an interesting blog post on Greenisthenewred with the interesting title "10 easy ways to be labelled a "Terrorist" by the government". ..meaning of course the American government.

I liked number 8 - attend Vegan Potlucks.......

..but ... the article gives a scary reminder that legislation aimed at stopping suicide bombers and plane hijacks gets pointed at a completely different scale of activity - including things that are explicitly legal (not least in constitutional America). Running a website reporting on activist activities for instance.

In a separate piece the same author - Will Potter - highlights the hypocracy in labelling activists as 'Eco-terrorists' when it is in fact big corporations that are actively polluting the environment - and at times breaking the law to do so.

Public Consultation on ACTA - in Canada

Michael Geist - who holds the Canadian Research chair in Internet and E-Commerce law has made public on his blog a copy of the Canadian governments public consultation on ACTA from 2008. It doesn't say so very much on the tabled agreement - and as it assembles 'stakeholder' views it contains a wide range of conflicting views - but it's interesting reading nevertheless.

Curiously - at various points the document uses underlining to highlight a particular opinion. Almost exclusively this is used for opinions supporting the status quo and in opposition to increased legislative powers, restriction on users rights etc. It is good to see that stakeholders a full spectrum of views are represented - but at the same time - when one is considering change shouldn't the starting point for consideration be that what we have is good enough?

Should it be remarkable to hold the view that:

• ACTA should not increase the criminal penalties for 'counterfeiting and copyright'.
• provisions under the agreement should not invest 'police type' search and seizure measures in private sector organisations
• the enforcement of IPR must not preclude, replace or assume the domestic adjudication and interpretation of the scope and limits of IPRs at the judicial level
• statutory damages for non commercial infringement should be lowered
• ACTA should not include provisions on Technical Preventive measures or technologies to circumvent such measures.
• obligations under ACTA should not shift liability onto Internet Sevice Providers

But then what faith can the public have in a negotiation framework that is by design outside of public scrutiny?

To Dig & Sow

                   This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

                                                                      
It's 360 years since Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers earned their place in English history - with a political doctrine arguing for the rights for the common man to earn their keep from the land, working collectively and in common. They were turbulent times - the monarchy had fallen and been replaced by the English Commonwealth, but still a ruling elite were steadily seizing common land to private ownership - and the poor were starving.

The movement involved relatively few people but the political ideas they put forward - argued from their religious faith - have sent ripples down the centuries. Their tale is well told in Leon Roselssons 'The World Turned Up Side Down' - here on Youtube..

With 360 years being in some degree full circle I thought I'd mark the occassion with some work of my own - a series of watercolours of which this is the first....

Found: In Pandora's box

I just found this in Rick Falkvinge's blog... a report from the EU on basic rights on the Internet that seems to be fundamentally critical of much that is happening in Europe today to legislate and encroach on personal integrity and privacy rights on the net. Seems almost to good to be true...

And just this time Rick has it in English....

Go Read!

On Liberty

"When a People once permits Government to violate the genuine Principles of Liberty, Encroachment will be grafted upon Encroachment; Evil will grow upon Evil; Violation will follow Violation, and Power will engender Power, till the Liberties of ALL will be held at despotic command"

London Correspondence Society, 1798

Virtual rights

There is lots happening to regulate use of the internet - and allow unwarranted surveillance of individual use of the medium. Rick Falkvinge has written an excellent piece that highlights the fundamental point that use of the Internet should have the same rights and protection as conventional media. Something that seems to completely have passed regulators by...

..but as it's written in Swedish I'll put my translation of it here:

"People talk of a the Internet being a lawless land with Internet advocates wanting different rules to those that normally apply "In Real Life".. but they are missing an important point - we want the complete opposite. We want the same rules on the net as apply outside the net.

Since the 1960s it's been possible to copy for example a poem or drawing and send it to someone through the post. It is absolutely forbidden for anyone to open a letter to see if it contains a photocopy of something, notwithstanding copyright. The integrity of the post is sacrisanct.
We demand that the same rules apply on the net as off it.

Since the 1700s it has been possible to send letters anonymously and act anonymously to drive social or political questions, send tips to reporters etc.
We demand that the same rules apply on the net as off it.

Since the 1850s it's been possible to get access to all current culture and knowledge without limits, even without paying for your own copy, by using a library.
We demand that the same rules apply on the net as off it.

It is completely tabu for the state or others to register who sends letters to each other or to monitor who reads what at the library.
We demand that the same rules apply on the net as off it.

Since roman times there has been full immunity for the bearer of messages. That's to say that the bearer has no form of responsibility for the content of communication carried between two other parties.
We demand that the same rules apply on the net as off it.

Ever since there have been post and telephone companies it has been absolutely tabu to try and restrict communication to or from specific adresses or telephone numbers based on any moral other viewpoint.
We demand that the same rules apply on the net as off it.

The lawmakers don't seem to understand that civil rights apply even to communication that citizens conduct on the Internet. That lack of understanding sets the whole concept of civil rights at risk."

News travels...

I read a blog item on Henrik Alexandersson's blog on the shifting boundaries of legislation in the surveillance state... with a link to a Swedish article about the latest proposals in the UK to give councils and other agencies access to stored information on your calls and internet access.

But that article was a citing an article at Times Online about the governments proposals for implementing the EU directive covering monitoring of telecoms usage. The comments to the article were full as you might expect with criticism of the heavy hand of Big Brother. ..but one in particular caught my eye...

"It clearly infringes on everyone's right to privacy. What will those control freaks devise next - a scheme by which everyone's mail will be opened and logged, or will they just demand that the populace is microchipped and fitted with tracking devices "to prevent crime"?

Paul C. Dickie, Stockport, UK"

Welcome to Sweden!

Death by a thousand cuts?

“The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away,
for expedients, and by parts”.

Edmund Burke, 1777

Or as Benjamin Franklin put it...

"Any society that would give up a little liberty
to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Clean flour in the bag… A Miller’s tale?

A phrase you see a lot in the debate here on state surveillance is ‘jag har rent mjöl i påsen’. I have clean flour in my bag… so please go ahead and keep watch on everything I say. It’s a phrase and an argument that makes me want to scream NOooooooo!!!! every time I hear it.

The corollary to the argument is ‘If you’re against this law, what have you got to hide?’. It’s an argument I find extremely offensive. Privacy is a recognized right. I don’t need to defend why I want privacy, it is for those wanting to remove that right to demonstrate that that is justified.

What I find most offensive with this argument is the arrogant and selfish supposition that says that because surveillance is acceptable to me in my life as it is here and now today it must be acceptable to all other people regardless of their views and circumstances. Together with this is the equally offensive nationalist assumption that if we can protect the communication and rights of swedish people then it doesn’t matter what we do to others.

One of the misconceptions that often underpins this blind faith in the system is that surveillance is looking for people committing crimes. It isn’t. The FRA is looking out for external threats to Sweden - which mostly has nothing to do with illegal activity. Agitating against government legislation for instance is quite legal but (certainly in some other parts of the world) could see you classed as an enemy of the state. So if you’ve not done anything wrong and it’s not illegal why are you being monitored? And why are they monitoring you if they are not going to actively use that information?

The other thing that people don’t seem to understand is that it’s not you that decides what ‘clean’ means. Is your life organic wholemeal, or plain bleached white? Are you gluten free??? Which one fits (or more to the point doesn’t fit) the political agenda of the day???

And remember, in an environment where Sweden is trading or selling intelligence to other powers, it’s not Sweden’s nice likeable trustworthy politicians that are deciding what clean is either…