24 Jan 14 | Digital Freedom, News and features, Religion and Culture, United Kingdom
Illustration: Shutterstock
I had arranged to meet ‘Emma’ in a cafe, at the behest of a mutual friend. As a student of forensic computing informatics, I was asked to help educate Emma about online privacy, a particular passion of mine.
Emma is an unassuming 24-year-old. Nothing about her physical appearance or mannerisms would divulge anything of the abuse she was subjected to at the hands of a former boyfriend.
She explained that she had experienced on-going violence while in a three-year relationship. Her partner had physically, verbally and emotionally abused her. In addition, her former boyfriend monitored and restricted her access to the Internet.
“I didn’t have anything private. I couldn’t do anything without him asking something about my behaviour, or my intentions, or whatever else I was doing. It was physical and psychological entrapment at its worst.” she said.
For Emma, our meeting was about learning to use tools to take control of her privacy in an age of mass monitoring. She was taking back the capabilities that were torn from her by her abusive boyfriend, by becoming empowered to protect herself in the on-line sphere.
During our conversation, I shared various techniques and tools she could use to browse sites anonymously, and I explained the concepts and principles of privacy-enhancing technologies – software including Tor and I2P (Invisible Internet Project), which would enable her to protect her identity.
Unsurprisingly, Emma has become extremely protective of her access to the Internet; a residual scar of the control she found herself being subjected to.
I was mindful also that it was the first opportunity I’d had which humanised a subject I’m deeply passionate about – often ascribed crypto-anarchism – to effect meaningful, beneficial change to someone else’s life. It also acted as a sobering realisation of the technological capabilities and opportunities available to ordinary citizens to thwart mass surveillance perpetrated by the National Security Agency, GCHQ and their ilk.
Technology has shifted traditional notions of personal privacy in unforeseen ways. We’ve entered a new world order, in which tools of oppression and exploitation are often pointed inward by a state acting as the abusive partner.
I couldn’t help but be reminded of Duncan Campbell’s Secret Society episode We’re All Data New: Secret Data Banks, broadcast 26 years ago. It detailed swathes of information being held on the entire populace of Britain in private sector databases; specifically I recalled the horror on the faces of unwitting participants, as Campbell accessed sensitive personal information from a computer terminal with minimal effort.
Councils sell copies of that data for a pittance nowadays; it’s the electoral register. In comparison to today’s data brokers, behemoth custodians of in-depth data held about each and every one of us, the private databases of yesteryear seem almost quaint. Surveillance is as ubiquitous as ever, and so pervasive that it is has merged into an almost indecipherable cacophony from data-mining business models to gluttonous mass surveillance by the government and its agents. Each has a thread in common, a fundamental component.
You.
Or, of most concern to me during our meeting, Emma.
Often the stakes and associated risk of using modern technologies are magnified considerably for those suffering from physical harm, psychological abuse or harassment. This is especially true in those fearful of seeking information or resources in genuine confidence – a capability cherished by those in such strained circumstances. As I listened to her experiences, I grasped from Emma’s tone she was afraid of exposing herself to potential further abuse.
“In some countries,” I told her, “I’d be considered dangerous. The skills I’m teaching you wouldn’t be tolerated, much less encouraged.”
In the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s disclosures, spearheaded by Glen Greenwald, Laura Poitras and The Guardian, of the activities of the United States’ NSA and United Kingdom’s GCHQ, it has become imperative that the sociological impacts of surveillance be recognised and addressed directly, if societies are to protect each and every one of its participants from such endemic spying.
But, too often, the insipid encroachment is interpreted solely as a technological problem, by which it is assumed surveillance must be countered wholly by the same. While technology is a component of a solution, it cannot derail the potential for abuse on its own.
Ultimately, the answer to surveillance on a personal or societal level demands a radical overhaul of attitudes and perceptions. People must share information, techniques and tools to help one-another protect their civil liberties. People must encourage each other to cherish their online and offline privacy. Technological mutual solidarity if you will. Ecosystems and privacy-enhancing technologies such as Tor and I2P, amongst a plethora of others, cater for this exact idealism; privacy by design, rather than by public policy.
Because it isn’t just about personal privacy anymore; nor was it, in fact, ever. It too is about dignity, morality and using technology as a vehicle to emancipate, to facilitate, and to embellish an underlying respect for individuals as citizens, and – especially in Emma’s circumstance – their sanctity as human beings.
Actively manage YOUR online privacy
Tor Project
Privacy-enhancing technology ecosystem, which enables users to communicate and browse anonymously, and circumvent internet censorship by routing traffic via intermediate nodes before transmitted to the intended site; prevents third parties from discovering a user’s location or their browsing habits.
I2P
Software that has similar capabilities to Tor in permitting anonymous or pseudonymous browsing. Can be used as standalone or in conjunction with other pieces of software to enhance a user’s ability to ensure communications remain as confidential as possible. Also contains web-based email among other features within its operating environment, which is accessible only via I2P itself.
TAILS
A Live CD-based operating system, comprising of an entire operating environment, and contains both the aforementioned tools and additional software without disclosing evidence of its use, as it is self-contained on a DVD-R and operates in RAM, erasing evidence of its presence once a machine is switched off.
Off-the-Record Messaging
An instant messenger plug-in, and cryptographic protocol which is used to create secure instant messaging sessions between users in such a manner that conversations are plausibly deniable and affords for confidential, private communication between participants.
This article was published on 24 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
27 Sep 13 | Digital Freedom, News and features, Pakistan
NSA head James R Clapper
Dear Mr Clapper,
We are reaching out to you with important information that may be of crucial value in preserving your organisation’s integrity and purpose. As citizens of Pakistan, we feel there’s an unexplainable bond, a debt if you’d like to call it, that we owe to your agency; after all, we are the second most interesting people in the world in your ever-vigilant eyes. We are therefore writing to raise with you an issue of extreme importance & national security.
The information here is highly critical and can jeopardise our security if leaked; you see, the world does not really recognise whistleblowers as yet. We trust you to keep this to yourself.
The government of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada are both involved in activities that may be considered by you a grave violation of the sovereignty of your organisation. Independent research group The Citizen Lab – truly independent as they do not take government or corporation support – has revealed the presence of Netsweeper and FinFisher equipment in Pakistan, belonging to companies with headquarters in Canada and the United Kingdom respectively.
It is baffling that these two respected governments, your notable allies, have not taken the necessary steps to disable these equipments, or at the very least stopped the trade. FinFisher for one has been used actively in Bahrain, aiding the Bahraini government in cracking down on activists, including an activist your government has lauded and awarded. This seems to us as a painful revelation that shows a lack of faith in your agency from your own allies.
As far as we are concerned, we don’t understand why these companies need to sell this equipment to our government, and why our government needs to spy on us when your organisation has dedicated staff, labour, and, not to forget, extensive budgets to be able to do just that.
With a heavy heart, we hope to keep you informed (just in case you missed out) and hope that you will take strict action to strike down these Weapons of Mass Surveillance that are in blatant disregard, grossly disrespectful, and a gross violation of your integrity and the national security values of your country.
Yours sincerely,
Citizens of the Second Most Interesting Nation in the World
SIGN INDEX’S PETITION AGAINST INTERNET SURVEILLANCE
This article was originally posted on 27 Sept 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
22 May 13 | Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia
Does surveillance and monitoring chill free expression? Is population-wide mass surveillance always a bad idea? Amongst many questions and debates at today’s Stockholm Internet Forum, the answers to these two questions are surely obvious – yes to both, writes Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes from Sweden.
But not for Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister, who made it clear at the conference that he thinks while surveillance invades privacy and needs proper judicial control, it is not a free speech issue.
And European Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom couldn’t quite bring herself to agree that monitoring an entire population is always wrong, suggesting if it were ever necessary then it, too, would need appropriate judicial permission and control.
We have to hope most European politicians have a stronger understanding of human rights online. Certainly, in lively debates at plenary sessions and on the conference twitter feed (#sif13), it was clear their views had little support with intense exchanges over how to protect free speech and other rights online.
Bildt’s view that democratic governments can be trusted with surveillance and censorship online was challenged by many attendees. The idea that the world can be divided into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ countries was a recurring issue with perhaps the predominant view being that neither governments (democratic or not) nor companies should be trusted with our digital freedom but should be challenged, monitored and held to account for the myriad of ways they control the internet space.
Today on Index: South Africa’s secrecy bill signals growing political intolerance | Today is Bassel’s second birthday in prison | Free expression in the news
Index on Censorship Events
Caught in the web: how free are we online? June 10, 2013
The internet: free open space, wild wild west, or totalitarian state? However you view the web, in today’s world it is bringing both opportunities and threats for free expression. More >>>
Big web companies were also challenged in Stockholm. The BBC’s Stephen Sackur asked Google’s head of free expression Ross Lajeunesse if he thought all Google users knew that US laws applied to the search engine even when it operates outside the States (along with local laws). When Lajeunesse said he wasn’t sure, Sackur suggested Google make this clear on its home page. We will see if this happens since Lajeunesse made no commitment. A civil society activist asked from the floor how he could discuss with and lobby Google in the way that in open societies we can lobby governments. Lajeunesse said Google values dialogue. But the question of how we hold companies with large and increasing control of the net to account is a big one. There are no clear answers.
Facebook was challenged on this, too. Asked why the social media giant doesn’t produce a transparency report as Google and Twitter now do, no satisfactory answer was forthcoming. Facebook did announce it is joining the Global Network Initiative which brings web companies and human rights groups together. Index on Censorship is a member of the GNI.
University of Toronto Professor Ron Deibert argued persuasively that cybersecurity will remain dominated by defence, military and foreign affairs departments — with freedom rolled back — unless civil society engages more with security issues. Others disputed this suggesting many government security measures and arguments actually create insecurity. Deibert insisted though that basic democratic checks and balances are being eroded in the name of cybersecurity and civil society must ensure rights online.
Along with the calls to hold governments and companies more strongly to account, there were heated discussions of how to stop the wide misuse and export of surveillance technology, challenges to telecom companies to start to take their human rights responsibilities seriously, calls for more transparency on how takedown decisions are made and a host of other debates. This year’s net forum so far is an equal mixture of disturbing and inspiring – disturbing in the extent and range of threats to digital freedom, inspiring in the energy and ideas of so many of the participants committed to standing up to those threats.
