Defender los derechos humanos en el entorno tecnológico. Nuestra apuesta desde América Latina | Derechos Digitales

Derechos Digitales comienza hoy una nueva etapa de trabajo en defensa de los derechos fundamentales en América Latina. Nuestro camino se dirige a la identificación de un entorno cambiante para los usuarios, los gobiernos y la sociedad civil en general.

Fuente: Defender los derechos humanos en el entorno tecnológico. Nuestra apuesta desde América Latina | Derechos Digitales


How pimps keep eluding internet stings | Loretta Stalans & Mary Finn | Opinion | The Guardian

America has always had an underground sex trade, and for decades most pimps followed the same general script: they’d recruit sex workers on the street, in bars and in strip clubs.But over the past 20 years, the internet has become the major marketplace for the sex trade, with online advertisements and recruitment through social media sites greatly expanding the reach and enhancing the elusiveness of pimps.

Fuente: How pimps keep eluding internet stings | Loretta Stalans & Mary Finn | Opinion | The Guardian


Santiago, Smart City: en defensa de las ciudades estúpidas | Oficina Antivigilância

Nadie quiere vivir en una ciudad tonta. La idea de marketing detrás de las Smart Cities -así, en inglés, porque le da un toque de modernidad a lo Silicon Valley- es, en ese sentido, impecable. Pero ¿podemos si quiera considerar a una ciudad como estúpida? Al parecer, para los evangelistas de las ciudades inteligentes, y siguiendo la lógica de los pares binarios (bueno/malo; inteligente/tonto), sí.

Fuente: Santiago, Smart City: en defensa de las ciudades estúpidas | Oficina Antivigilância


A Conversation on Privacy With Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, and Glenn Greenwald

NSA WHISTLEBLOWER Edward Snowden joined MIT professor Noam Chomsky and The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald on Friday for a discussion on privacy rights hosted by the University of Arizona College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. The panel was moderated by Nuala O’Connor, the president of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Fuente: A Conversation on Privacy With Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, and Glenn Greenwald


Is the online surveillance of black teenagers the new stop-and-frisk? | US news | The Guardian

Is the online surveillance of black teenagers the new stop-and-frisk? | US news | The Guardian.

police gangs surveillance Stop-and-frisk was found unconstitutional in 2013. Illustration: Rob Dobi

Taylonn Murphy is sitting in a Harlem beauty salon after hours. Leaning back in his chair and with a calm demeanor, he is talking about keeping young local people out of harm’s way.

Every now and then though, as he speaks, his voice breaks.

In September 2011, his daughter Tayshana, 18, a local basketball superstar and resident of West Harlem’s Grant Houses, was shot dead by two residents of Manhattanville Houses. The killing was described as the result of a rivalry between the two housing projects that dates back decades.

Almost three years after his daughter’s death, on 4 June 2014, helicopters hovered overhead as the first rays of sunlight hit the concrete. At least 400 New York police officers in military gear raided both housing projects, with indictments for the arrest of 103 people.

Starting in January 2010, the community’s children and young adults had been closely watched by police officers – both online and off. The investigation had involved listening in to 40,000 calls from correctional facilities, watching hours of surveillance video, and reviewing over 1m online social media pages.

For Murphy, the revelation of these details was choking: the NYPD had been attentively surveilling both communities for over one and a half years before his daughter was murdered, patiently waiting and observing as the rivalry between crew members escalated.

Online surveillance: the new stop-and-frisk?

In 2013, stop-and-frisk was found unconstitutional by a federal judge for its use of racial profiling. Since then, logged instances have dropped from an astonishing 685,000 in 2011 to just 46,000 in 2014. But celebrations may be premature, with local policing increasingly moving off the streets and migrating online.

In 2012, the NYPD declared a war on gangs across the city with Operation Crew Cut. The linchpin of the operation’s activities is the sweeping online surveillance of individuals as young as 10 years old deemed to be members of crews and gangs.

This move is being criticized by an increasing number of community members and legal scholars, who see it as an insidious way of justifying the monitoring of young men and boys of color in low-income communities.


Technology should be used to create social mobility – not to spy on citizens | Technology | The Guardian

Technology should be used to create social mobility – not to spy on citizens | Technology | The Guardian.

GCHQPrivate eyes are watching you: the British government communications headquarters (GCHQ) is monitoring the communications of millions of people. Photograph: GCHQ / British Ministry of Defence/EPA

Why spy? That’s the several-million pound question, in the wake of the Snowden revelations. Why would the US continue to wiretap its entire population, given that the only “terrorism” they caught with it was a single attempt to send a small amount of money to Al Shabab?

One obvious answer is: because they can. Spying is cheap, and cheaper every day. Many people have compared NSA/GCHQ mass spying to the surveillance programme of East Germany’s notorious Stasi, but the differences between the NSA and the Stasi are more interesting than the similarities.

The most important difference is size. The Stasi employed one snitch for every 50 or 60 people it watched. We can’t be sure of the size of the entire Five Eyes global surveillance workforce, but there are only about 1.4 million Americans with Top Secret clearance, and many of them don’t work at or for the NSA, which means that the number is smaller than that (the other Five Eyes states have much smaller workforces than the US). This million-ish person workforce keeps six or seven billion people under surveillance – a ratio approaching 1:10,000. What’s more, the US has only (“only”!) quadrupled its surveillance budget since the end of the Cold War: tooling up to give the spies their toys wasn’t all that expensive, compared to the number of lives that gear lets them pry into.

IT has been responsible for a 2-3 order of magnitude productivity gain in surveillance efficiency. The Stasi used an army to surveil a nation; the NSA uses a battalion to surveil a planet.

Spying, especially domestic spying, is an aspect of what the Santa Fe Institute economist Samuel Bowles calls guard labour: work that is done to stabilise property relationships, especially the property belonging to the rich.

The amount a state needs to expend on guard labour is a function of how much legitimacy the state holds in its population’s reckoning. A state whose population mainly views the system as fair needs to do less coercion to attain stability. People who believe that they are well-served by the status quo will not work to upset it. States whose populations view the system as illegitimate need to spend more on guard labour.


White House: racial slurs in NSA intelligence material 'unacceptable' | World news | theguardian.com

White House: racial slurs in NSA intelligence material ‘unacceptable’ | World news | theguardian.com.

FBI and NSA to review policy after leaked documents suggest training materials referred to targets using offensive language

 

 

NSA HQ in Fort Meade, Maryland
It is at least the second time the White House has ordered a review of agency training materials said to include offensive language. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP

 

The White House has instructed US security agencies to review their training and policy materials for racial or religious bias after documents leaked by Edward Snowden showed training material for the intelligence agencies referring to “Mohammed Raghead”.

After an extensive investigation by the Intercept on Wednesday reported that the NSA and the FBI spied on the emails of five prominent US activists and attorneys with Muslim backgrounds, White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said that the administration took accusations of the slurs “extremely seriously.”

“Upon learning of this matter, the White House immediately requested that the director of national intelligence undertake an assessment of intelligence community policies, training standards or directives that promote diversity and tolerance, and as necessary, make any recommendations changes or additional reforms,” Hayden said.

It is at least the second time the White House has ordered a review of agency training materials said to include offensive language.

The Intercept cited the “Mohammed Raghead” epithet as a placeholder for a target in a surveillance training document from 2005.

Vanee Vines, a spokeswoman for the NSA, said that she would not comment on “the authenticity of any leaked material,” but said the NSA “has not, and would not, approve official training documents that include insulting or inflammatory language. Any use of racial or ethnic stereotypes, slurs, or other similar language by employees is both unacceptable and inconsistent with NSA policy and core values.”

Hayden declined to provide additional detail on the scope or duration of the investigation. But it is reminiscent of an earlier incident in which the White House ordered the government’s vast counter-terrorism apparatus to find and purge inflammatory training material, particularly that which singled out Muslims for particular scrutiny.

In 2011, this reporter published FBI training material instructing newer counter-terrorism agents that Islam itself was a threat to US national security and compared the prophet Muhammad to a cult leader. Initial FBI pushback gave way to an inquiry, at the instruction of the White House, that removed significant quantities of offensive or imprecise training material.


Internet y el control social: Sin un lugar donde esconderse

Internet y el control social: Sin un lugar donde esconderse.

Escrito por Paul Walder / Punto Final
Jueves, 19 de Junio de 2014 11:57

A inicios de junio la prensa nacional informaba que el 95 por ciento del territorio habitado de Chile cuenta con Internet, cobertura que en un par de años llegará al 98 por ciento. Otras cifras ubican a Chile como el segundo país latinoamericano con mejor conexión a Internet (el primero es Uruguay), en tanto datos de la Subtel de 2012 señalan que más del 40 por ciento de la población cuenta con acceso a la red, sea ésta por red WiFi o telefonía móvil. En números absolutos, casi cinco millones de personas usan Internet.

Otros estudios hilan más fino. Un informe del estadounidense Pew Research Center, publicado en febrero, ubica a Chile como uno de los países que hacen un uso intensivo de Internet: un 66 por ciento de los usuarios dice conectarse todos los días y un 79 por ciento ingresa con frecuencia a las redes sociales. Hilando aún más fino, un 96 por ciento dice ingresar a las redes sociales para mantener contacto con amigos, un 76 por ciento para compartir opiniones sobre cine y música, en tanto un 38 por ciento lo hace para debatir sobre política. Si éste es un sondeo que abarca a toda la población, entre los grupos más jóvenes el uso de Internet, y en especial de las redes sociales, tiene una cobertura total.

Sobre las cifras de la Subtel podemos inferir que un millón y medio comparte opiniones políticas a través de Internet. Si comparamos esa cifra con las personas que buscan la información política en los medios de comunicación de masas tradicionales, probablemente no es un número relevante, pero sí lo es por su interrelación. Con todos los matices y tendencias posibles, la red es usada por más de un millón de personas como un espacio donde ejercer su derecho a la libre expresión.

Internet y las redes sociales han reemplazado el espacio público, como las plazas, terrazas, bares y otros lugares de reunión. Es el área de la comunicación, la aldea global de Mac ­ Luhan, un espacio vital, un área en la cual se ejercen derechos fundamentales, como es la libre expresión y comunicación. Para las nuevas generaciones, y no sólo para aquéllas, perder este espacio es una sensible pérdida de libertades básicas.


Guardian's Edward Snowden revelations receive backing in poll | Media | theguardian.com

Guardian’s Edward Snowden revelations receive backing in poll | Media | theguardian.com.

YouGov finds 37% of the British people thought it right to publish while 22% thought it wrong

 

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden: a majority of Britons back the Guardian’s reporting. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

 

A public opinion poll has found that more Britons think it was right for the Guardian to publish Edward Snowden‘s NSA leaks about surveillance than think it was wrong that the paper did so.

According to the YouGov poll, 37% of the British people thought it right to publish while 22% thought it wrong. Asked whether it was good or bad for society, 46% considered it good against 22% who regarded it as bad.


Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize | World news | theguardian.com

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize | World news | theguardian.com.

  • theguardian.com
Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden will be one of scores of names being considered by the Nobel prize committee. Photograph: The Guardian/AFP/Getty Images

Two Norwegian politicians say they have jointly nominated the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden for the 2014Nobel peace prize.

The Socialist Left party politicians Baard Vegar Solhjell, a former environment minister, and Snorre Valen said the public debate and policy changes in the wake of Snowden’s whistleblowing had “contributed to a more stable and peaceful world order”.

Being nominated means Snowden will be one of scores of names that the Nobel committee will consider for the prestigious award.


Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real enemy in the NSA affair | World news | The Observer

Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real enemy in the NSA affair | World news | The Observer.

Most people don’t seem to worry that government agencies are collecting their personal data. Is it ignorance or apathy?

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden’s revelations exposed a terrifying level of ‘passive acceptance’ of surveillance. Photograph: Sergei Grits/AP

One of the most disturbing aspects of the public response to Edward Snowden‘s revelations about the scale of governmental surveillance is how little public disquiet there appears to be about it. A recent YouGov poll, for example, asked respondents whether the British security services have too many or too few powers to carry out surveillance on ordinary people. Forty-two per cent said that they thought the balance was “about right” and a further 22% thought that the security services did not have enough powers. In another question, respondents were asked whether they thought Snowden’s revelations were a good or a bad thing; 43% thought they were bad and only 35% thought they were good.

Writing in these pages a few weeks ago, Henry Porter expressed his own frustration at this public complacency. “Today, apparently,” he wrote, “we are at ease with a system of near total intrusion that would have horrified every adult Briton 25 years ago. Back then, western spies acknowledged the importance of freedom by honouring the survivors of those networks; now, they spy on their own people. We have changed, that is obvious, and, to be honest, I wonder whether I, and others who care about privacy and freedom, have been left behind by societies that accept surveillance as a part of the sophisticated world we live in.”

I share Henry’s bafflement. At one point I thought that the level of public complacency about the revelations was a reflection simply of ignorance. After all, most people who use the internet and mobile phones have no idea about how any of this stuff works and so may be naive about the implications of state agencies being able to scoop up everybody’s email metadata, call logs, click streams, friendship networks and so on.

But what is, in a way, more alarming is how relaxed many of my professional peers seem to be about it. Many of them are people who do understand how the stuff works. To them, Snowden’s revelations probably just confirm what they had kind of suspected all along. And yet the discovery that in less than three decades our societies have achieved Orwellian levels of surveillance provokes, at most, a wry smile or a resigned shrug. And it is this level of passive acceptance that I find really scary.