Lawsuit Seeks Transparency as Searches of Cellphones and Laptops Skyrocket at Borders

A number of recent cases in the media have revealed instances of U.S. citizens and others being compelled by CBP agents to unlock their devices for search. In some instances, people have claimed to have been physically coerced into complying, including one American citizen who said that CBP agents grabbed him by the neck in order to take his cellphone out of his possession.

Fuente: Lawsuit Seeks Transparency as Searches of Cellphones and Laptops Skyrocket at Borders


Relator especial de la ONU pide que la privacidad sea una prioridad para los gobiernos del mundo | R3D: Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales

“Hay poca o ninguna evidencia para persuadirme de la eficacia o la proporcionalidad de algunas medidas extremadamente intrusivas presentes en las nuevas leyes de privacidad de Francia, Alemania, el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos”, asegura Cannataci, en un comunicado de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de Derechos Humanos de la ONU.

Fuente: Relator especial de la ONU pide que la privacidad sea una prioridad para los gobiernos del mundo | R3D: Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales


U.K. Parliament Approves Unprecedented New Hacking and Surveillance Powers

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the new law is that it will give the British government the authority to serve internet service providers with a “data retention notice,” forcing them to record and store for up to 12 months logs showing websites visited by all of their customers. Law enforcement agencies will then be able to obtain access to this data without any court order or warrant. In addition, the new powers will hand police and tax investigators the ability to, with the approval of a government minister, hack into targeted phones and computers.

Fuente: U.K. Parliament Approves Unprecedented New Hacking and Surveillance Powers


Fears raised over Google’s DeepMind deal to use NHS medical data

“DeepMind/Google are getting a free pass for swift and broad access into the NHS, on the back of persuasive but unproven promises of efficiency and innovation,” said Ms Powles. “We do not know——and have no power to find out——what Google and DeepMind are really doing with NHS patient data, nor the extent of Royal Free’s meaningful control over what DeepMind is doing.”

Fuente: Fears raised over Google’s DeepMind deal to use NHS medical data


How old do you look? I wouldn’t ask the internet | Tim Dowling | Opinion | The Guardian

The how-old.net website – which uses photos to judge your age – didn’t work for me. For women and refugees, of course, there’s the Daily Mail

Fuente: How old do you look? I wouldn’t ask the internet | Tim Dowling | Opinion | The Guardian


Derechos Humanos y vigilancia en América Latina, un panorama preocupante | Derechos Digitales

América Latina tiene un triste historial de autoritarismo y gobiernos que han buscado utilizar el aparato estatal para controlar a sus ciudadanos. Más preocupante que esta constatación es el hecho de que, pasadas varias décadas del período dictatorial de nuestro continente, los gobiernos latinoamericanos parecen empecinados en retroceder, en vez de avanzar, en estándares de Derechos Humanos en temas de vigilancia y privacidad.

Fuente: Derechos Humanos y vigilancia en América Latina, un panorama preocupante | Derechos Digitales


Internet or Splinternet? by Joseph S. Nye – Project Syndicate

The Internet is a network of networks. Each of the separate networks belongs to different companies and organizations, and they rely on physical servers in different countries with varying laws and regulations. But without some common rules and norms, these networks cannot be linked effectively. Fragmentation – meaning the end of the Internet – is a real threat.

Fuente: Internet or Splinternet? by Joseph S. Nye – Project Syndicate


Bulk data collection vital to prevent terrorism in UK, report finds | World news | The Guardian

The bulk collection of personal data by British spy agencies is vital in preventing terrorist attacks, an independent review of draft security legislation has found.David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, concluded that laws giving MI5, MI6 and GCHQ the right to gather large volumes of data from members of the public had a “clear operational purpose”.

Fuente: Bulk data collection vital to prevent terrorism in UK, report finds | World news | The Guardian


“La ciberguerra sería una forma de terrorismo de Estado”

El libro pretende incentivar la mirada crítica entre el gran público ante los acontecimientos calificados de “ciberguerra” y alertar de la coartada que puede proporcionar el tremendismo sensacionalista en estos temas a quienes pretenden recortar libertades o privacidad.

Fuente: “La ciberguerra sería una forma de terrorismo de Estado”


Don’t break crypto, go easy on the algorithms—global Internet commission | Ars Technica UK

Crypto backdoors, the overuse of opaque algorithms, turning companies into law enforcement agencies, and online attacks on critical infrastructure have all been attacked by the Global Commission on Internet Governance in a new report published on Wednesday.

Fuente: Don’t break crypto, go easy on the algorithms—global Internet commission | Ars Technica UK


Your kids want to make Minecraft YouTube videos – but should you let them? | Technology | The Guardian

Don’t put your daughter on the stage, Mrs Worthington. But in 2016, what if the stage is YouTube, and your daughter (or son) is demanding to be put on it, playing Minecraft?That’s the dilemma facing a growing number of parents, whose children aren’t just watching YouTube Minecraft channels like The Diamond Minecart, Stampy and CaptainSparklez – they want to follow in their blocky footsteps.

Fuente: Your kids want to make Minecraft YouTube videos – but should you let them? | Technology | The Guardian


Surprise! NSA data will soon routinely be used for domestic policing that has nothing to do with terrorism – The Washington Post

A while back, we noted a report showing that the “sneak-and-peek” provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy.

Fuente: Surprise! NSA data will soon routinely be used for domestic policing that has nothing to do with terrorism – The Washington Post


Paraguay y Uruguay en polémica por adquirir software espía

Paraguay y Uruguay están inmersos en la polémica tras haber adquirido distintos software avanzados para intervenir comunicaciones como parte de su estrategia nacional de seguridad, un tema que se debate entre la defensa de la privacidad de los ciudadanos y las tácticas para identificar a posibles cibercriminales. Lo anterior pone en duda ¿hasta dónde es válida la vigilancia de comunicaciones privadas por parte de los Estados?

Fuente: Paraguay y Uruguay en polémica por adquirir software espía


¿Qué sigue con la Ley Telecom? – Derechos Digitales

México tiene una de las regulaciones menos garantistas de derechos humanos en la región en cuanto a vigilancia de comunicaciones: sin orden judicial, obliga a las empresas de telefonía a entregar información a todo tipo de autoridades, forzando la retención de datos y la localización geográfica en tiempo real. El proceso por anular esas reglas parece acercarse a su fin.

Fuente: ¿Qué sigue con la Ley Telecom? – Derechos Digitales


US warns of risks from deeper encryption – FT.com

US warns of risks from deeper encryption – FT.com.

 

Jeh Johnson©Getty

Jeh Johnson

The head of the US Department of Homeland Security has warned the cyber security industry that encryption poses “real challenges” for law enforcement.

In a speech at a cyber security conference, RSA in San Francisco, Jeh Johnson called on the industry to find a solution that protected “the basic physical security of the American people” and the “liberties and freedoms we cherish”.

“The current course on deeper and deeper encryption is one that presents real challenges for those in law enforcement and national security,” he said.He said he understood the importance of encryption for privacy but asked the audience to imagine what it would have meant for law enforcement if, after the invention of the telephone, all the police could search was people’s letters.

Mr Johnson’s comments echo those of FBI director James Comey who called on Congress last year to stop the rise of encryption where no one held a key and so law enforcement agencies could not unlock it.

In the UK, the director of GCHQ criticised US technology companies last year for becoming “the command and control networks of choice” for terrorists by protecting communications. Across Europe, police forces have become concerned by their inability to track the communications of people who plan to travel to the Middle East to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis).

 


DEA sued over secret bulk collection of Americans' phone records | US news | The Guardian

DEA sued over secret bulk collection of Americans’ phone records | US news | The Guardian.

US phone data Human Rights Watch alleges that the bulk surveillance puts its work in jeopardy. Photograph: Felix Clay

Human rights campaigners have prepared a federal lawsuit aiming to permanently shut down the bulk collection of billions of US phone records – not, this time, by the National Security Agency, but by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Human Rights Watch, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed their lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court on Wednesday morning to stop the DEA from hoovering up billions of records of Americans’ international calls without a warrant.

The reach of the program, exposed by USA Today, lasted for two decades and served as a template for the NSA’s gigantic and ongoing bulk surveillance of US phone data after 9/11.

Though US officials insist the DEA is now out of the bulk-collection business, the revelation of mass phone-records collection in the so-called “war on drugs” raises new questions about whether the Obama administration or its successors believe US security agencies continue to have legal leeway for warrantless bulk surveillance on American citizens, even as officials forswear those powers publicly.


How Big Business Is Helping Expand NSA Surveillance, Snowden Be Damned – The Intercept

How Big Business Is Helping Expand NSA Surveillance, Snowden Be Damned – The Intercept.

Featured photo - How Big Business Is Helping Expand NSA Surveillance, Snowden Be Damned

Since November 11, 2011, with the introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, American spy agencies have been pushing laws to encourage corporations to share more customer information. They repeatedly failed, thanks in part to NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass government surveillance. Then came Republican victories in last year’s midterm Congressional elections and a major push by corporate interests in favor of the legislation.

Today, the bill is back, largely unchanged, and if congressional insiders and the bill’s sponsors are to believed, the legislation could end up on President Obama’s desk as soon as this month. In another boon to the legislation, Obama is expected to reverse his past opposition and sign it, albeit in an amended and renamed form (CISPA is now CISA, the “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act”). The reversal comes in the wake of high-profile hacks on JPMorgan Chase and Sony Pictures Entertainment. The bill has also benefitted greatly from lobbying by big business, which sees it as a way to cut costs and to shift some anti-hacking defenses onto the government.

For all its appeal to corporations, CISA represents a major new privacy threat to individual citizens. It lays the groundwork for corporations to feed massive amounts of communications to private consortiums and the federal government, a scale of cooperation even greater than that revealed by Snowden. The law also breaks new ground in suppressing pushback against privacy invasions; in exchange for channeling data to the government, businesses are granted broad legal immunity from privacy lawsuits — potentially leaving consumers without protection if companies break privacy promises that would otherwise keep information out of the hands of authorities.

Ostensibly, CISA is supposed to help businesses guard against cyberattacks by sharing information on threats with one another and with the government. Attempts must be made to filter personal information out of the pool of data that is shared. But the legislation — at least as marked up by the Senate Intelligence Committee — provides an expansive definition of what can be construed as a cybersecurity threat, including any information for responding to or mitigating “an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or serious economic harm,” or information that is potentially related to threats relating to weapons of mass destruction, threats to minors, identity theft, espionage, protection of trade secrets, and other possible offenses. Asked at a hearing in February how quickly such information could be shared with the FBI, CIA, or NSA, Deputy Undersecretary for Cybersecurity Phyllis Schneck replied, “fractions of a second.”

Questions persist on how to more narrowly define a cybersecurity threat, what type of personal data is shared, and which government agencies would retain and store this data. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who cast the lone dissenting vote against CISA on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declared the legislation “a surveillance bill by another name.” Privacy advocates agree. “The lack of use limitations creates yet another loophole for law enforcement to conduct backdoor searches on Americans,” argues aletter sent by a coalition of privacy organizations, including Free Press Action Fund and New America’s Open Technology Institute. Critics also argue that CISA would not have prevented the recent spate of high-profile hacking incidents. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Mark Jaycox noted in a blog post, the JPMorgan hack occurred because of an “un-updated server” and prevailing evidence about the Sony breach is “increasingly pointing to an inside job.”

But the intelligence community and corporate America have this year unified behind the bill. For a look into the breadth of the corporate advocacy campaign to pass CISA, see this letter cosigned by many of the most powerful corporate interests in America and sent to legislators earlier this year. Or another letter, reported in the Wall Street Journal, signed by “general counsels of more than 30 different firms, including 3M and Lockheed Martin Corp.”


Apple and Google 'FREAK attack' leaves millions of users vulnerable to hackers | Technology | The Guardian

Apple and Google ‘FREAK attack’ leaves millions of users vulnerable to hackers | Technology | The Guardian.

The Apple logo inside an Apple store in Tokyo. The company is working to fix a potential security issue which could leave devices vulnerable to hackers. The Apple logo inside an Apple store in Tokyo. The company is working to fix a potential security issue which could leave devices vulnerable to hackers. Photograph: Yuya Shino/Reuters

Millions of people may have been left vulnerable to hackers while surfing the web on Apple and Google devices, thanks to a newly discovered security flaw known as “FREAK attack.”

There’s no evidence so far that any hackers have exploited the weakness, which companies are now moving to repair. Researchers blame the problem on an old government policy, abandoned over a decade ago, which required US software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas due to national security concerns.

Many popular websites and some internet browsers continued to accept the weaker software, or can be tricked into using it, according to experts at several research institutions who reported their findings Tuesday.

They said that could make it easier for hackers to break the encryption that’s supposed to prevent digital eavesdropping when a visitor types sensitive information into a website.

About a third of all encrypted websites were vulnerable as of Tuesday, including sites operated by American Express, Groupon, Kohl’s, Marriott and some government agencies, the researchers said.


Internet of things: Connect your TV, home, even your body, to the internet. But beware hackers | Technology | The Guardian

Internet of things: Connect your TV, home, even your body, to the internet. But beware hackers | Technology | The Guardian.

Electrolux smart fridge

 An Electrolux internet-connected fridge. Many firms are developing similar ‘smart’ appliances. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Observer

You may have noticed that there’s a lot of talk about the “internet of things” – things that aren’t computers but with connectivity, such as appliances and sensors. Think of an internet-connected lightbulb, thermostat, door lock, washing machine or oven you can control from inside or outside your house. Think of a bridge that can communicate when its concrete structure is starting to show signs of ageing in places that can’t be reached by normal inspection. Think of a car that communicates with other cars about traffic and road conditions.

It’s a thrilling concept if you believe in the power of the internet to transform our lives, and connectivity and intelligent (or at least constantly monitoring) systems to improve our wellbeing. And that’s before you get into the question of how many of the “things” might be objects that you swallow or have otherwise inserted into your system, temporarily or longer term. There’s already a system for rotating computer hard drives called Smart that often gives you a warning if your drive is ill (drives can fail without Smart warning you, but a warning ahead of time should be taken seriously). What if you could have a similar warning for your boiler, or oven, or your heart?

That’s the sort of promise that the internet of things holds, which is why lots of companies are putting serious money into it. Samsung is investing $100m. Meanwhile, UK telecommunications regulator Ofcom has set out plans “to ensure the UK plays a leading role”, noting that there are already 40m devices connected via the IoT in the UK, and that is expected to grow eightfold by 2022.

However, while I like the possibilities, I worry just a bit about the implementation. Remember the denial-of-service attacks that took Sony’s PlayStation network and Microsoft’s Xbox Live networks offline at Christmas? Security experts reckon the source was largely reliant on home routers – yes, those things that pipe the internet into your house – which had been subverted because they all used the same factory-default password, and all accepted direct logins. At which point everyone slaps their forehead and says, really? Did millions of routers ship with a simple default login user and password (say, “admin” and “password”) that people weren’t encouraged to change, or perhaps couldn’t change? And the answer is yes: pretty much all of them do, and you’ll find them listed at Routerpasswords.com, which ought to scare you. (BT’s Home Hub, which is used by millions, is manufactured by Huawei; however, they come preconfigured with a non-default password and internet administration turned off.)


Samsung rejects concern over 'Orwellian' privacy policy | Technology | The Guardian

Samsung rejects concern over ‘Orwellian’ privacy policy | Technology | The Guardian.

A Samsung Electronics SUHD smart TV at its launch event in Seoul, February 5, 2015.

 A Samsung Electronics SUHD smart TV at its launch event in Seoul, February 5, 2015. Photograph: Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters

Users of Samsung’s Smart TV devices have raised concerns over the device’s privacy policy, which seems to suggest that they should not discuss any sensitive topics in their living room while the television is plugged in.

The warning relates to the product line’s voice recognition services, which lets users control their television with voice commands input through a microphone on the set’s remote control.

Samsung privacy policy warns: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of voice recognition.”

The third-party mentioned is thought to be Massachusetts-based voice recognition company Nuance, which provides the technology to Samsung as a white-label service.

Parker Higgins, an activist for San Francisco-based advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation who brought the privacy policy to light, compared the feature to the telescreens in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.


La reforma de la NSA se queda a medio camino un año después | Internacional | EL PAÍS

La reforma de la NSA se queda a medio camino un año después | Internacional | EL PAÍS.


Algunos de los cambios anunciados por Obama no se han materializado

  • Enviar a LinkedIn3
  • Enviar a Google +0
  • Comentarios1

Centro de datos de la NSA, en Utah. / RICK BOWMER (AP)

El teléfono de J. Kirk Wiebe suena desde hace unos meses con menos frecuencia. Wiebe fue uno de los primeros filtradores de la Agencia Nacional de Seguridad. Tras jubilarse en 2001, denunció, junto a dos veteranos exanalistas, que la NSA tenía cada vez más acceso a datos personales. Lograron poca atención y fueron perseguidos en la justicia. Pero en junio de 2013, adquirieron notoriedad gracias a las revelaciones deEdward Snowden sobre los largos tentáculos de la NSA: empezaron a dar muchas más charlas en Estados Unidos y Europa sobre su experiencia e influencia.

“Snowden nos había visto diciendo que intentamos ir por los canales internos del Gobierno y no conseguimos nada”, subraya Wiebe en alusión a que, tras fracasar ellos, Snowden optase por filtrar secretos a la prensa en vez de formular una queja interna en la NSA.

Pero ahora, al año y medio de las filtraciones de Snowden y al año de anunciarse la reforma de los programas de vigilancia, se habla mucho menos del joven exanalista refugiado en Rusia y del espionaje masivo. “La excitación ha bajado un poco, pero a la gente sigue sin gustarle [la NSA]”, agrega en una entrevista telefónica Wiebe, de 70 años, 30 de ellos en la agencia. La percepción pública sobre la NSA apenas ha variado: en octubre de 2013, un 54% tenía una opinión favorable; en enero de este año, un 51% (sobre todo jóvenes), según una encuesta del centro Pew.

Al año y medio de las filtraciones de Snowden y al año de anunciarse la reforma de los programas de vigilancia, se habla mucho menos del joven exanalista refugiado en Rusia y del espionaje masivo

Sin embargo, buena parte del debate en EE UU sobre los límites de la recopilación masiva de datos ha quedado eclipsado. El contexto ha cambiado, lo que puede propiciar retrocesos: crecen las voces que, ante el auge del yihadismo, se oponen a restringir los programas de vigilancia, y reclaman que las autoridades tengan plenos poderes para desbloquear la encriptación de teléfonos móviles.

La reforma de la NSA se ha quedado, por ahora, a medio camino. En enero de 2014, el presidente de EE UU, Barack Obama, anunció un conjunto de cambios para limitar la interceptación de datos sin mermar la protección de la seguridad nacional. Su objetivo era atenuar las preocupaciones de ciudadanos estadounidenses y gobiernos extranjeros aliados sobre posibles injerencias a la privacidad.


Barack Obama and David Cameron fail to see eye to eye on surveillance | US news | The Guardian

Barack Obama and David Cameron fail to see eye to eye on surveillance | US news | The Guardian.


British prime minister takes tougher line on internet companies than US president at White House talks on Islamist threats

In Washington, David Cameron announces the creation of a joint group between the US and the UK to counter the rise of domestic violent extremism in the two countries

Barack Obama and David Cameron struck different notes on surveillance powers after the president conceded that there is an important balance to be struck between monitoring terror suspects and protecting civil liberties.

As Cameron warned the internet giants that they must do more to ensure they do not become platforms for terrorist communications, the US president said he welcomed the way in which civil liberties groups hold them to account by tapping them on the shoulder.

Obama agreed with the prime minister that there could be no spaces on the internet for terrorists to communicate that could not be monitored by the intelligences agencies, subject to proper oversight. But, unlike Cameron, the president encouraged groups to ensure that he and other leaders do not abandon civil liberties.

The prime minister adopted a harder stance on the need for big internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter to do more to cooperate with the surveillance of terror suspects. In an interview with Channel 4 News he said they had to be careful not to act as a communications platform for terrorists.


Obama coloca la ciberseguridad en el centro del debate en EE UU | Internacional | EL PAÍS

Obama coloca la ciberseguridad en el centro del debate en EE UU | Internacional | EL PAÍS.

El presidente propone un paquete legislativo en un momento de crecientes ataques informáticos y tras el inicio del nuevo Congreso

Obama, en su discurso sobre ciberseguridad. / Evan Vucci (AP)

Varios ataques informáticos recientes han colocado la ciberseguridad entre los grandes debates políticos en Estados Unidos. El presidente Barack Obama busca aprovechar este contexto favorable y la nueva legislatura en el Congreso -con mayoría republicana- para tratar de sacar adelante un paquete legislativo que endurece la lucha contra la piratería informática.

La Casa Blanca presentó en 2011 una propuesta de ley sobre ciberseguridad, que avanzó en la Cámara de Representantes republicana, pero no prosperó en el Senado, controlado hasta hace una semana por el Partido Demócrata de Obama. Este martes, el presidente hizo un nuevo intento al anunciar una iniciativa que coincide en grandes líneas con la de hace cuatro años.

“Las amenazas cibernéticas son urgentes y un peligro creciente”, afirmó Obama en un breve discurso en el Centro Nacional de Ciberseguridad, a las afueras de Washington. “El ataque a Sony, la cuenta de Twitter [del Ejército] pirateada [el lunes] por simpatizantes de yihadistas islámicos demuestran que el sector público y privado tienen que hacer mucho más trabajo en fortalecer nuestra ciberseguridad”, había dicho en una reunión con los líderes del Congreso, poco antes de desvelar su plan.

El paquete legislativo forma parte de las iniciativas que Obama expondrá el próximo martes en su discurso anual en el Capitolio sobre el estado de la Unión. La semana pasada, el presidente ya avanzó otra propuesta sobre el sistema universitario. No es habitual que un presidente anticipe con tanto detalle algunas claves de su discurso. Con ello, Obama busca crear un terreno favorable en la opinión pública y entre los legisladores.

Su propuesta en ciberseguridad medirá el apetito del Congreso en endurecer la ley en ese ámbito en un momento de crecientes ataques informáticos en EE UU. Al margen de Sony y las redes del Ejército, las incursiones también han afectado en los últimos meses a grandes empresas, como Target, Home Depot y JPMorgan. El plan del presidente también determinará el peso del respeto a la privacidad -que ha hecho descarrilar las iniciativas legales anteriores- en el debate político un año y medio después de destapar el exanalista Edward Snowden el espionaje masivo de la Agencia Nacional de Seguridad (NSA).

Obama propone actuar en tres ámbitos: conceder protección legal a las empresas que compartan con el Gobierno información sobre amenazas informáticas, dotar de más poderes a la justicia para investigar y perseguir a los autores de ataques y la compraventa de información sustraída a empresas y particulares; y armonizar la amalgama de leyes estatales que obligan a las compañías a notificar a los clientes si sus datos pueden haber sido robados.


Why MI5 does not need more surveillance powers after the Paris attacks | Henry Porter | Comment is free | The Guardian

Why MI5 does not need more surveillance powers after the Paris attacks | Henry Porter | Comment is free | The Guardian.


The terrorists wanted to undermine liberty and openness. We must resist the urge to do the same
Andrew Parker, MI5 director general
MI5 director general Andrew Parker. ‘Be it monitoring the Kouachi brothers or Lee Rigby’s killers, the authorities had all the powers they needed.’ Photograph: MI5/PA

Soon after the attacks in Paris last week, the director general of MI5, Andrew Parker, said of the jihadi threat: “Whenever we lose visibility of what they are saying to each other, so our ability to understand and mitigate the threat they pose is reduced.”

Few would disagree with this sentiment, or in any way underestimate the enormous responsibility counter-terrorist agencies face after the killings, but the coded suggestion that MI5 needs further sweeping surveillance powers to track down terrorists is more controversial, because it doesn’t take into account the facts.

The Kouachi brothers were part of what is known as the Buttes-Chaumont network and were being watched, on and off, as far back as 2005. In terms of monitoring, much the same is true of the killers of Lee Rigby, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale; the Boston bomber, Tamerlan Tsnarnaev; and the killer in the attack in Sydney late last year, Man Haron Monis. The authorities had all the powers they needed to monitor the activities of these men, both physically and electronically.

This is not to blame the agencies concerned, for it is impossible to predict the behaviour of any number of individuals – and agency resources, even in the US, are always going to be finite. The agencies have to make a call and sometimes that call will be wrong, which is all part of their extraordinarily difficult job. What is incoherent, and may be regarded as slightly opportunistic, is the agitation for new powers when they already have powers to observe and follow these individuals, and to intercept their communications.


When it comes to surveillance, there is everything to play for | James Ball | Comment is free | theguardian.com

When it comes to surveillance, there is everything to play for | James Ball | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

Against a backdrop of hacks and terror attacks, it’s possible that surveillance powers will be further strengthened
Man looking through binoculars
‘Major players are starting to regard privacy as a selling point: Google and others are encrypting ever more of their traffic.’ Photograph: Tom Jenkins

Looking back at 2014 from the perspective of a surveillance reformer is a short and dispiriting task: almost nothing good happened.


Apple encryption: Stop the hysteria (Opinion) – CNN.com

Apple encryption: Stop the hysteria (Opinion) – CNN.com.

By Bruce Schneier
October 4, 2014 — Updated 1641 GMT (0041 HKT)
It all started with a truck driver in St. Louis. Ok, if we're being honest, it all started with a Swedish engineer named Lars Magnus Ericsson and <a href='http://www.ehow.com/about_5426865_history-car-phones.html ' target='_blank'>some electrical wires</a>... but let's skip ahead a few decades. The first mobile call was made on an<a href='http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/46mobile.html ' target='_blank'> AT&amp;T car phone</a> in 1946. But owning a car phone didn't become mainstream until the 1980s. Now <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/10/03/cell.phones.numbers.gallery/index.html '>85% of American adults</a> own a cell phone, and we're annoyed when we can't get service. In celebration of the <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/tech/mobile/apple-iphone-announcement/index.html'>iPhone 4S's release</a>, take a look back at the evolution of popular mobile phones in the U.S.

It all started with a truck driver in St. Louis. Ok, if we’re being honest, it all started with a Swedish engineer named Lars Magnus Ericsson andsome electrical wires… but let’s skip ahead a few decades. The first mobile call was made on an AT&T car phone in 1946. But owning a car phone didn’t become mainstream until the 1980s. Now 85% of American adults own a cell phone, and we’re annoyed when we can’t get service. In celebration of theiPhone 4S’s release, take a look back at the evolution of popular mobile phones in the U.S.

HIDE CAPTION
Evolution of the mobile phone
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Schneier: Apple closed serious security vulnerability in the iPhone, enabling wide encryption
  • He says law enforcement overreacted in saying it is a major form of protection for criminals
  • Law enforcement always complains about encryption but is little stymied by it, he says
  • Schneier: The benefits in protecting privacy far outweigh the costs

Editor’s note: Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and the chief technology officer of Co3 Systems. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) — Last week Apple announced that it is closing a serious security vulnerability in the iPhone. It used to be that the phone’s encryption only protected a small amount of the data, and Apple had the ability to bypass security on the rest of it.

From now on, all the phone’s data is protected. It can no longer be accessed by criminals, governments, or rogue employees. Access to it can no longer be demanded by totalitarian governments. A user’s iPhone data is now more secure.

To hear U.S. law enforcement respond, you’d think Apple’s move heralded an unstoppable crime wave. See, the FBI had been using that vulnerability to get into peoples’ iPhones. In the words of cyberlaw professor Orin Kerr, “How is the public interest served by a policy that only thwarts lawful search warrants?”

Bruce Schneier

Bruce Schneier

Ah, but that’s the thing: You can’t build a “back door” that only the good guys can walk through. Encryption protects against cybercriminals, industrial competitors, the Chinese secret police and the FBI. You’re either vulnerable to eavesdropping by any of them, or you’re secure from eavesdropping from all of them.

Back-door access built for the good guys is routinely used by the bad guys. In 2005, some unknown groupsurreptitiously used the lawful-intercept capabilities built into the Greek cell phone system. The same thing happened in Italy in 2006.

In 2010, Chinese hackers subverted an intercept system Google had put into Gmail to comply with U.S. government surveillance requests. Back doors in our cell phone system are currently being exploited by the FBI and unknown others.

This doesn’t stop the FBI and Justice Department from pumping up the fear. Attorney General Eric Holder threatened us with kidnappersand sexual predators.

The former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division went even further, conjuring up kidnappers who are also sexual predators. And, of course, terrorists.

FBI Director James Comey claimed that Apple’s move allows people to place themselves beyond the law” and also invoked that now overworked “child kidnapper.” John J. Escalante, chief of detectives for the Chicago police department now holds the title of most hysterical: “Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile.”

It’s all bluster. Of the 3,576 major offenses for which warrants were granted for communications interception in 2013, exactly one involved kidnapping. And, more importantly, there’s no evidence that encryption hampers criminal investigations in any serious way. In 2013, encryption foiled the police nine times, up from four in 2012 — and the investigations proceeded in some other way.


US threatened Yahoo with $250,000 daily fine over NSA data refusal | World news | theguardian.com

US threatened Yahoo with $250,000 daily fine over NSA data refusal | World news | theguardian.com.

Company releases 1,500 documents from failed suit against NSA over user data requests and cooperation with Prism compliance

 

 

Yahoo in Geneva
Yahoo attempted to refuse user data to the NSA and filed suit in the secretive Fisa court. Photograph: DENIS BALIBOUSE/REUTERS

 

The US government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 a day if it refused to hand over user data to the National Security Agency, according to court documents unsealed Thursday.

 

In a blogpost, the company said the 1,500 pages of once-secret documents shine further light on Yahoo’s previously disclosed clash with the NSA over access to its users’ data.

 

The papers outline Yahoo’s secret and ultimately unsuccessful legal battle to resist the government’s demands for the tech firm to cooperate with the NSA’s controversial Prism surveillance program, revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden last year.

 

“The released documents underscore how we had to fight every step of the way to challenge the US government’s surveillance efforts,” said company general counsel Ron Bell in a Tumblr post.

 

The US government amended a key law to demand user information from online services in 2007. When Yahoo was asked to hand over user data the company objected arguing the request was “unconstitutional and overbroad”.

 

Yahoo took its case to the foreign intelligence surveillance court, also known as the Fisa court, which oversees requests for surveillance orders in national security investigations. The secretive Fisa court provides the legal authorities that underpin the US government’s controversial surveillance programs. Yahoo lost its case, and an appeal.

 

Federal judge William Bryson, presiding judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court of review, which reviews denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants, unsealed the documents on Thursday.

 

Disclosures in the Guardian and the Washington Post about the Prism program, which was discontinued in 2011, prompted an international backlash over allegations of overreach in government surveillance and against the tech companies which cooperated with it.

 

“Despite the declassification and release, portions of the documents remain sealed and classified to this day, unknown even to our team. The released documents underscore how we had to fight every step of the way to challenge the US government’s surveillance efforts. At one point, the US government threatened the imposition of $250,000 in fines per day if we refused to comply,” wrote Bell.


Cómo es el 'Google' secreto de la NSA y cuáles son sus peligros

Cómo es el ‘Google’ secreto de la NSA y cuáles son sus peligros.


La última filtración de los “papeles de Snowden” revela la creación del buscador ICREACH para rastrear entre los metadatos espiados

La herramienta pudo servir para detenciones e interrogatorios de sospechosos

El anterior director de la NSA, Keith Alexander, ahora consultor privado, fue su promotor

Cárcel de Guantánamo. Foto: EFE

Aunque hace más de un año empezaron a salir a la luz las prácticas de espionaje masivo de la NSA con la publicación del rastreo de las llamadas de los usuarios de Verizon, el caso está lejos de cerrarse.

El último de los programas conocidos, revelado por “The Intercept” la semana pasada, es “ICREACH”, un buscador que la NSA habría desarrollado en secreto para rastrear entre miles de millones de metadatos obtenidos en sus actividades de espionaje indiscriminado.

Se trata, entre los sistemas de espionaje hasta ahora desvelados, de uno de los más graves por la cesión de millones de datos registrados a otras agencias como la CIA, el FBI o la DEA (que carecen del control y autorización excepcional con que supuestamente contaría la NSA), porquehabría servido para detenciones e interrogatorios a quienes se consideraban sospechosos “a la luz” del tratamiento de dichos metadatos.

Estas prácticas vulnerarían, tal como apuntaron enseguida las primeras reacciones, la Cuarta Enmienda de la Constitución norteamericana que establece que solo se podrá ser objeto de investigación o detención por causas “razonables”:

“El derecho de los habitantes de que sus personas, domicilios, papeles y efectos se hallen a salvo de pesquisas y aprehensiones arbitrarias, será inviolable, y no se expedirán al efecto mandamientos que no se apoyen en un motivo verosímil…”


ICREACH: How the NSA Built Its Own Secret Google -The Intercept

ICREACH: How the NSA Built Its Own Secret Google -The Intercept.

 

architecture
By 200

The National Security Agency is secretly providing data to nearly two dozen U.S. government agencies with a “Google-like” search engine built to share more than 850 billion records about phone calls, emails, cellphone locations, and internet chats, according to classified documents obtained by The Intercept.

The documents provide the first definitive evidence that the NSA has for years made massive amounts of surveillance data directly accessible to domestic law enforcement agencies. Planning documents for ICREACH, as the search engine is called, cite the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration as key participants.

ICREACH contains information on the private communications of foreigners and, it appears, millions of records on American citizens who have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Details about its existence are contained in the archive of materials provided to The Intercept by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Earlier revelations sourced to the Snowden documents have exposed a multitude of NSA programs for collecting large volumes of communications. The NSA has acknowledged that it shares some of its collected data with domestic agencies like the FBI, but details about the method and scope of its sharing have remained shrouded in secrecy.


Meet the Muslim-American Leaders the FBI and NSA Have Been Spying On – The InterceptThe Intercept

Meet the Muslim-American Leaders the FBI and NSA Have Been Spying On – The InterceptThe Intercept.

By  and 

The National Security Agency and FBI have covertly monitored the emails of prominent Muslim-Americans—including a political candidate and several civil rights activists, academics, and lawyers—under secretive procedures intended to target terrorists and foreign spies.

According to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the list of Americans monitored by their own government includes:

• Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush;

• Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases;

• Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University;

• Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights;

• Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country.

The individuals appear on an NSA spreadsheet in the Snowden archives called “FISA recap”—short for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the Justice Department must convince a judge with the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there is probable cause to believe that American targets are not only agents of an international terrorist organization or other foreign power, but also “are or may be” engaged in or abetting espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The authorizations must be renewed by the court, usually every 90 days for U.S. citizens.

The spreadsheet shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008. Many of the email addresses on the list appear to belong to foreigners whom the government believes are linked to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Among the Americans on the list are individuals long accused of terrorist activity, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

But a three-month investigation by The Intercept—including interviews with more than a dozen current and former federal law enforcement officials involved in the FISA process—reveals that in practice, the system for authorizing NSA surveillance affords the government wide latitude in spying on U.S. citizens.

The five Americans whose email accounts were monitored by the NSA and FBI have all led highly public, outwardly exemplary lives. All five vehemently deny any involvement in terrorism or espionage, and none advocates violent jihad or is known to have been implicated in any crime, despite years of intense scrutiny by the government and the press. Some have even climbed the ranks of the U.S. national security and foreign policy establishments.


UK privacy watchdog seeks 'stronger powers' and better funding | Technology | theguardian.com

UK privacy watchdog seeks ‘stronger powers’ and better funding | Technology | theguardian.com.

Snowden leaks, the right to be forgotten and the care data scare have swelled the workload of the Information Commissioner’s Offices, according to its annual report

 

 

Edward Snowden’s leaks around GCHQ’s access to citizens’ data have increased the ICO’s workload.
Edward Snowden’s leaks around GCHQ’s access to citizens’ data have increased the ICO’s workload. Photograph: The Guardian/AFP/Getty Images

 

The UK’s privacy regulator has asked for increased funding from government as it seeks to deal with a mounting workload sparked by a series of controversies around data security and privacy.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has been swamped with more complaints than ever before, according to its annual report released today, with its in-tray unlikely to clear any time soon.

That is partly due to a recent EU ruling on people’s right to have entries removed from Google’s search results as part of their “right to be forgotten”, which has since led to a heated debate about censorship of information that is in the public interest.

The ICO is also already dealing with a number of complaints around the data practices of social networks, including investigating a psychology study conducted by Facebook, in which researchers attempted to manipulate users’ moods.

Other factors cited by the ICO in its appeal for more funding include NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s leaks about GCHQ’s access to British citizens’ data, and the government-led Care.data project, with its plans to give GPs and hospitals access to shared databases of people’s healthcare records also running into opposition.


The surveillance law is a threat to criminals, not privacy | Brian Paddick | Comment is free | theguardian.com

The surveillance law is a threat to criminals, not privacy | Brian Paddick | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

In this world there has to be a trade-off between security and civil liberties. But Lib Dem safeguards ensure it comes down on the right side

 

 

GCHQ Surveillance
GCHQ, Britain’s surveillance agency. ‘The new legislation does not create more intrusive powers, but ensures that existing powers can be exercised when data is handled abroad.’ Photograph: Greg Blatchford/Barcroft Media

 

Opponents of the new legislation on surveillance being pushed through parliament this week say that it contains “sweeping new powers” to require communications and internet companies overseas to respond to requests from British government agencies for data.

But two issues appear to have been confused. The first is that of privacy, and the extent to which it is being eroded. The second is the geographic scope of the legislation. At the moment, if you are suspected of a crime, the police, security services and other agencies can request details from your mobile phone company about, for example, the time and date of calls you made or received and, using cell site analysis, where you were when the calls were made. True, everyone’s data is kept and there is the potential for abuse. But it has proved invaluable as an investigative tool in many serious cases of crime and terrorism.

So the question is not about greater intrusion into people’s privacy but extending the reach of existing legislation. If terrorists email each other and the communication is handled by servers based overseas, there is currently some doubt that an interception warrant would be successful, whereas if the servers were in Britain there would be no problem. The new legislation does not create more intrusive powers, but ensures that existing powers can be exercised when data is handled abroad. This is not about blanket surveillance, but targeted surveillance on specific suspected criminals.

The civil liberties lobby should be pressing for stronger safeguards regarding the use of the data, rather than protesting against the storage of it under any circumstances. That is why Liberal Democrats in government have, since a recent judgment of the European court of justice, been negotiating hard to build in greater protections. We have taken the opportunity that the judgment has given us to insist on a fundamental review of surveillance legislation to establish what the current threats to security are, and what a proportionate response to those threats might look like. To make sure this is done, no matter who forms the next government the new legislation will expire at the end of 2016.


Emergency surveillance bill to be fast-tracked despite 49 MPs' opposition | Politics | theguardian.com

Emergency surveillance bill to be fast-tracked despite 49 MPs’ opposition | Politics | theguardian.com.

 

Parliament approves timetable motion for Drip bill as government accepts Labour amendments to strengthen safeguards
Tom Watson Labour MP

The Labour MP Tom Watson described the move to rush the bill through parliament as ‘democratic banditry’. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Forty-nine MPs have voted against rushing the government’s emergency surveillance legislation through all its Commons stages in just one day.

A deal between the three major parties, however, secured the fast-track timetable by 436 votes to 49, despite accusations from one Labour MP that the move amounted to “democratic banditry resonant of a rogue state”.

The vote on the timetable motion for the data retention and investigatory powers bill, known as the Drip bill, came as it emerged that the home secretary was to accept Labour amendments strengthening its safeguards.

The government has accepted that the promised longer-term review of all surveillance legislation, known as Ripa, should be written into the Drip bill to put it on a statutory footing, and that there should six-monthly reviews of its operation by the interception commissioner.

The former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis told ministers that the rush to push through the Drip bill undermined parliament’s role.


This surveillance bill puts our hard-won freedom in peril | Harry Leslie Smith | Comment is free | theguardian.com

This surveillance bill puts our hard-won freedom in peril | Harry Leslie Smith | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

All the data retention and investigatory powers bill will do is put a leash on the human spirit and deaden the hearts of those who desire to live in a free and liberal nation
A person writing a text on a mobile phone

‘It will needlessly compel phone and internet companies to retain our online lives, browsing history, texts, emails and intimate, mundane conversations with friends, family and colleagues.’ Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Politicians and the media are wont to tell us we live in a time rife with dangers, plots and calumnies. Since 9/11 we have received a daily barrage of news warning us of far-off countries populated by people who have no respect for human life or our democratic institutions. We have been lectured by newsreaders, prime ministers and security pundits that terrorism will invade our shores and take away our freedoms, unless we allow our state, spy agencies and police departments to monitor us through endless trawling of our meta data, emails and private phone conversations.

Yet despite this epidemic of fear, Britain is still sceptical about womb-to-tomb government observation. In fact, a recent Ipsos Mori poll found 68% of those surveyed were concerned about information being collected about them by the government. However, in spite of this overwhelming distrust by the public, the PM and his coalition, along with the Labour party, persist in telling us that there are dark forces which threaten our safety, requiring the government to enact and maintain this invasive, encompassing scrutiny of free citizens.

I grant that we live in perilous times, but I have encountered far worse. As a young man I witnessed the dark clouds of German bombers swarm like malevolent hornets above this country’s cities in the second world war, intent on obliterating every man jack of us. Today, despite the chaos that Isis, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram have created, we as a civilisation are not about to be annihilated by terrorism.

There are more pressing threats to national health and stability than fifth columnists and terrorist sleeper cells. Income inequality, the lack of opportunity for our young, the decline of the NHS, housing poverty, and food and fuel poverty are real dangers to this country’s ability to progress and thrive.

The introduction next week of the data retention and investigatory powers bill by this government is therefore disturbing because it will needlessly compel phone and internet companies to retain our online lives, browsing history, texts, emails and intimate, mundane conversations with friends, family and colleagues. It is being hammered through parliament because Cameron tells us he does not wish to see a catastrophic terrorist attack while he is in charge. I grant his intention is noble, but if parliament doesn’t properly, honestly debate this bill they will make a mockery of democracy and the Westminster system.


México: Cómo afectará tu privacidad la #LeyTelecom – FayerWayer

México: Cómo afectará tu privacidad la #LeyTelecom – FayerWayer.

 (cc) Randi Deuro / Flickr

La nueva ley entrará en vigor en los próximos días y elimina por completo la privacidad de los usuarios de comunicaciones móviles.

Luego de que el Senado de la República aprobara el sábado pasado la legislación secundaria en materia de telecomunicaciones, ésta fue turnada a la Cámara de Diputados para su análisis. Una vez ahí, los legisladores le dieron un trámite excesivamente rápido que culminó la mañana de este miércoles con la aprobación del paquete de leyes sin hacer una sola modificación.

Si bien el paquete de leyes implica algunos beneficios para los usuarios de los servicios de telecomunicaciones y las audiencias de radio y televisión, la nueva ley de telecomunicaciones contiene disposiciones que vulneran totalmente la privacidad de los primeros. En particular, se trata de los artículos 189 y 190, referidos a la colaboración con la justicia.

Geolocalización

Artículo 190. Los concesionarios de telecomunicaciones y, en su caso, los autorizados deberán:

I. Colaborar con las instancias de seguridad, procuración y administración de justicia, en la localización geográfica, en tiempo real, de los equipos de comunicación móvil, en los términos que establezcan las leyes.

(…)

Es interesante -y divertido hasta la indignación– el argumento defendido incluso en la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación: “los equipos de comunicación no tienen derechos humanos”. Sin embargo, es imposible negar que estos dispositivos son utilizados por personas.

De esta forma, localizar geográficamente un dispositivo, equivale a rastrear a su usuario. El problema es que la aplicación de esta violación a la privacidad no se encuentra limitada para que una autoridad judicial evite abusos por parte de las instancias contempladas para utilizarla.

Registro de datos personales

Artículo 190. Los concesionarios de telecomunicaciones y, en su caso, los autorizados deberán:

(…)

II. Conservar un registro y control de comunicaciones que se realicen desde cualquier tipo de línea que utilice numeración propia o arrendada, bajo cualquier modalidad, que permitan identificar con precisión los siguientes datos:

(…)

La lista está compuesta por siete elementos, cada uno más perturbador que el anterior. En conjunto, los metadatos almacenados permiten conocer buena parte de los comportamientos y hábitos de un usuario:

  • Nombre y domicilio del suscriptor
  • Tipo de comunicación -voz, datos, conferencia- y servicios- suplementarios, de mensajería o multimedia- empleados
  • En telefonía móvil: datos para conocer el origen y destino de las comunicaciones
  • Fecha, hora y duración de la comunicación
  • Fecha, hora y ubicación de la primera activación del equipo
  • Datos de identificación y características técnicas de los equipos
  • Geolocalización digitalizada

El conjunto de datos estará almacenado por 12 meses para que las autoridades -no especificadas- accedan en tiempo real y otros 12 meses para que accedan en un plazo máximo de 48 horas, para dar un total de 2 años de almacenamiento. Como se puede ver, la disposición aplica para teléfonos -sean inteligentes o no- y cualquier dispositivo que se conecte a la red de una operadora de telecomunicaciones, como las tabletas con acceso móvil a Internet.

Vigilancia masiva

Artículo 190. Los concesionarios de telecomunicaciones y, en su caso, los autorizados deberán:

(…)

III. Entregar los datos conservados a las autoridades a que se refiere el artículo 189 de esta Ley, que así lo requieran, conforme a sus atribuciones, de conformidad con las leyes aplicables.

(…)


Los derechos humanos como moneda de cambio: el caso de la #LeyTelecom – ONG Derechos Digitales

Los derechos humanos como moneda de cambio: el caso de la #LeyTelecom – ONG Derechos Digitales.

Los derechos humanos como moneda de cambio: el caso de la #LeyTelecom

Todo indica que la polémica Ley de Telecomunicaciones en México terminará siendo promulgada sin cambios sustanciales. Pero más allá de lo que dice la ley, los procesos políticos detrás de su tramitación parecen aún más graves: consideran a los derechos humanos como una moneda de cambio.

En ONG Derechos Digitales colaboramos con R3D de México para hacer internetlibre.mxEn ONG Derechos Digitales colaboramos con R3D de México para hacer internetlibre.mx [CC BY ONG Derechos Digitales]

Las noticias no son buenas. Pese a todos los esfuerzos de la sociedad civil mexicana, elproyecto de Ley de Telecomunicaciones de México está casi listo para convertirse en ley.

La preocupación por esta ley es ampliamente justificada. Su aproximación a temas tales como la regulación de medios, neutralidad de la red y diversas facultades que se le entregan a funcionarios públicos, especialmente aquellas relacionadas con requerir cortes de servicio en áreas geográficas determinadas o implementar medidas de vigilancia desproporcionadas e innecesarias.

La iniciativa es tan crítica que concilió la atención internacional. De hecho, ONG Derechos Digitales colaboró en varias ocasiones con otras organizaciones en México para buscar mejoras en los puntos críticos de la ley.

Pero más allá de los puntos específicos problemáticos de la Ley de Telecomunicaciones, persiste una sensación amarga respecto de los procesos políticos que subyacen a estas decisiones: por un lado, por la poca participación y transparencia del proyecto, y por otro, por el tono general del proyecto y las concepciones de interés público y derechos humanos que allí asoman.

Una de los principales causantes de esta sensación, es la nefasta idea respecto a que los derechos humanos serían un activo negociable en nombre de la eficiencia del mercado, la inclusión social, la penetración digital o la seguridad pública. Bajo este planteamiento, si un proyecto de ley sacrifica algunos de estos derechos, aquello no sería problema pues ya aparecerán los defensores de los DD.HH. y otros actores relevantes para poner los puntos sobre las íes y “asunto arreglado”.


Cameron announcing emergency surveillance legislation: Politics live blog | Politics | theguardian.com

Cameron announcing emergency surveillance legislation: Politics live blog | Politics | theguardian.com.

• Details of the emergency surveillance legislation
• Miliband’s letter to Labour MPs explaining why Labour backs the bill
• Lunchtime summary, including highlights from the Cameron/Clegg press conference

 

 

David Cameron and Nick Clegg at a press conference, where they announced emergency surveillance legislation. David Cameron and Nick Clegg at a press conference, where they announced emergency surveillance legislation. Photograph: POOL/REUTER

 

 

 

Human Rights Watch has criticised the government for rushing this bill through parliament. This is from Izza Leghtas, a Human Rights Watch researcher.

Given what we know about the UK’s involvement in mass surveillance, it is outrageous that the government wants to rush through emergency legislation that allows the government to monitor people not suspected of any wrongdoing.

A proper debate about how to reform surveillance powers is long overdue and it has to happen now, not in 2016.