08 Aug 13 | Czech Republic, Digital Freedom, News and features, Politics and Society
When the Guardian published the news about the Prism case, it soon became clear that the Czech Republic was also one of the countries monitored by the NSA. In a country in the midst of political turmoil, the news of mass surveillance generated little interest from the media or the public.
“Friends should not be spied on,” commented Angela Merkel on the discovery that US intelligence spied on European citizens and authorities by exploiting their private data gained from internet companies, including Google. But no such clear comments have been made by the majority of Czech politicians.
Both the Czech president Miloš Zeman and prime minister Jiří Rusnok have remained quiet about the revelations. Only one member of the largest party in parliament, the Social Democrats, criticised both the surveillance itself and the fact that Edward Snowden broke his confidentiality agreement with the NSA. “It is an unprecedented insult to the mutual trust with the EU,” wrote the Social Democrat Libor Rouček, who is vice president of the European Parliament, on his official blog. “The USA should put maximum effort both into arresting Snowden as well as explaining why they spied on their European allies,” Rouček wrote. The second largest party, the Civic Democratic Party, has made no official statement on the issue.
The Communist Party (currently holding 11% seats in parliament) did not comment either, but their sister organisation, the Communist Youth Union, has published numerous articles on their website, calling the spying “a brutal attack on freedom“, and praising Snowden as a hero. The party that has offered Snowden the most support is the non-parliamentary Czech Pirate Party (holding 2. 2% support in the opinion polls). The Pirates asked the interior minister to grant Snowden asylum, but they did not receive an answer before the government’s summer recess, which began in early July.
Surveillance: no longer big news?
Just a few hours after the Guardian and the Washington Post broke the news on Prism in June 2013, the Czech media reported on it . But most of the coverage has been neutral and very few comment pieces have been published regarding the issue. In the commentaries that have been published, Snowden has been portrayed as an ambivalent character. He has been criticised for breaking his contract with his employer, but also praised for his courage to speak out about what has been suspected for a long time. Most commentators have stressed that the idea that information has been obtained through spying on big companies such as Google is not a new thing.
“It has been known for a long time that the NSA has been building big IT centres with super fast computers,” writes Jiri Sobota, a leading commentator for the weekly Respekt. “On the other hand, we are all involved in the same thing on a daily basis,” freely allowing Google to do basically the same thing: analyse our data “in order to ‘understand’ us better”.
It is hard to sum up the public reaction as there has been no Czech opinion poll on the Prism case, but a brief look at social media shows interest is on the wane. The revelations have been discussed more on social media than in regular media outlets. On Facebook, which is used by every third Czech, it was a heavily debated topic in the first half of June, but then the interest soon declined. Twitter, used by about one Czech in a 100, has seen more consistent coverage of the news. There have been about 3,500 tweets on Snowden since the Prism case started. For comparison, the hottest current issue discussed in the country – the love affair of the former prime minister Petr Necas with the head of the government´s office Jana Nagyova, who spied on Necas’s wife with the help of the state security and helped scuttle the Necas government — was tweeted about 4, 000 times in the same time period.
End mass surveillance! Sign the petition
EU leaders: Stop mass surveillance | Лидеры Евросоюза: прекратите массовую слежку! | Líderes europeos: Paren la vigilancia masiva | Dirigeants européens: Arrêtez la surveillance de masse! | Europas Staats-und Regierungschefs: Stoppen Sie die Massenüberwachung! | Liderzy Unii Europejskiej: zaprzestańcie masowej inwigilacji! | Лидери на ЕС: Cпрете масовото наблюдение |
Worry-free Czechs
In general, the Snowden case has created little interest in the Czech Republic. That may be surprising due to the 2012 Eurobarometer survey. While, according to the survey, 25 % of Europeans said they were worried about spying on the internet, the number was much higher among Czechs: 37%. However, though they may be worried, Czechs do not have a very strong tradition of public protest and they have never protested against mass surveillance.
When Germans protested heavily against the Google Street View recording in 2011, Czechs remained without one critical word towards the very same activity in their country. The public also remain relatively mute to the government’s draft legislation that would enable the state institutions to monitor the cell phones of every citizen in the country.
One of the explanations of the lack of interests in the Prism case is also the fact that it came in the middle of the biggest political turmoil the country has witnessed since the fall of the Iron Curtain, so the focus has generally been more on domestic politics. Also, Czechs — unlike Germans, British or other nationalities — have not yet witnessed a major scandal related to mass surveillance yet, so the public fear of such activities might be lower.
Historically, the general perception of the US has been very positive in the Czech Republic, which is why some commentators are saying that had another country been caught spying the reaction would have been stronger.
05 Aug 13 | Digital Freedom, News and features, Russia
(Photo: David von Blohn / Demotix)
Открытое письмо Эдварду Сноудену
Dear Ed,
Yesterday I learned that you have managed to gain temporary asylum in Russia. Congratulations on behalf of progressive people everywhere. At last, you are safe.
Here in Russia no one would dream of harassing you for exposing the security services when they listen to telephone conversations and read others letters without a warrant. Russia, thank God, is a law-abiding State and ever since 2008 our security services have had a quite legal right to listen to whatever people are talking about on the phone and to read their e-mails.
Everyone is aware of this, and there is nothing here in Russia to expose.
While you are only just beginning to get acquainted, however, with the aspects of liberty in our society, let me give you some modest advice. Russia, It goes without saying, has its own way of doing things and it would be better if you knew about this in advance.
One, feel free to take up whatever activity you like.
This is not the USA, Ed, where exposing the activities of the government carries unpleasant consequences. There is nothing of the kind here. On the contrary, people who expose the American government are given all kinds of rewards and can enjoy a fine career, which I wish for you. I would just remind you not to forget which government you are fighting against. For were you, in the heat of the moment, to get confused about this you would have to return to a little room again (and this time, most likely, it would not be at the airport).
Two, it would be best, old chap, if you grasp from the beginning that Russia is a spiritual country.
Perhaps in the USA they taught you that Russia’s wealth lies in its oil and its timber. Well, that has long ceased to be the case. All the oil was stolen back in 2004 by Mikhail Khodorkovsky and all our forest reserves will soon have been stolen by Alexei Navalny. So today our spiritual wealth can best be expressed as “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Populism”. Orthodoxy is a very liberal religion. You may drink alcohol, eat pork, or, like Abbot Timothy, drive your BMW roadster while under the influence – in short, do whatever you like. You mustn’t dance, that’s the main thing. Dancing is a crime. But you’re no dancer, Ed, so it’s not a problem as far as you’re concerned. Autocracy is Russia’s form of democracy. It’s very spiritual and you’ll like it. Every few years we re-elect Vladimir Putin. Putin recently caught the biggest catfish in the world. The very biggest was caught by Lukashenko. That’s all you need to know about politics in the Commonwealth of Independent States – if you don’t want to return, that is, to a little room in a hotel somewhere like Krasnokamsk. Populism: that means the national spirit and you can get acquainted with it by listening to the songs of Stas Mikhailov, though my advice to you would be, Don’t.
Three, please don’t imagine I have any objections, it’s a matter of indifference to me, but it would be better if you’re not gay. If you are, well, don’t leave the hotel. If you’re Jewish then you won’t be able to work as a rural schoolteacher. Does that strike you as silly advice? Ed, I know what I’m talking about. Take my word for it.
I hear that your defence lawyer Kucherena has given you Crime and Punishment. It’s an excellent book. Do read it, and do so BEFORE you encounter a certain middle-aged lady called Yelena Mizulina. Don’t do anything you might come to repent of later! No matter how noble the idea that guided your actions.
Lastly, a couple of practical suggestions.
Do not commit any offences when you’re out driving until you have been elected deputy of one assembly or another. Don’t waste your money buying a flat – all you have to do is become friendly with Ramzan Kadyrov. Learn to play badminton and if someone offers to help you run for Mayor of Moscow, do not agree. It’s a trap! There are three simple rules you must remember: Do not wear white, at least not when you’re near Bolotnaya Square; Don’t walk about in tight-fitting garments anywhere within sight of the State Duma; and Don’t Dance within the vicinity of a church.
Please don’t imagine that I am trying to scare you. On the contrary. You can do everything else that I haven’t mentioned above. If you want to tell lies, go ahead; if you want to steal, be my guest, thirteen years in a row: and no problem. Just remember my advice and, to be safe, don’t leave the hotel. I can’t explain – and anyway, you wouldn’t understand. It’s just better if you stay inside,
Roman Dobrokhotov / @Dobrokhotov
Note
It would take at least as many words as the author uses to decipher the allusions in this short letter. Here it’s worth noting the following.
In 2008 the various Russian security services were allowed by law to use a “technical system to support investigative activities” (its acronym is SORM) which gave them access to communication networks without seeking prior permission. Such access is now a condition of registration for any new website, and providers must foot the bill themselves for installing the necessary equipment and software. For an account of SORM in action see this link.
Why Duma deputy Yelena Mizulina, singer Stanislav Mikhailov, rural schoolteacher Ilya Faber and Abbot (higumenos) Timothy have become famous or notorious can be learned from the Internet.
The author of the letter Roman Dobrokhotov is a Moscow-based blogger, and a journalist with the internet news-site slon.ru.
In 2012 he was described by Al Jazeera in the following terms: “Roman has been arrested 120 times. His actions – part performance art, part comedy and part political statement – are daring and entertaining but his cause is deadly serious.” Dobrokhotov’s targets, according to the TV broadcaster, are “Putin, the Orthodox church and ultra-nationalists”.
— John Crowfoot is a translator and writer
29 Jul 13 | Comment, Digital Freedom, News and features, United Kingdom, United States
(Illustration: Shutterstock)
In the 1970s, mass surveillance was seen as especially a Cold War thing – what the Soviet bloc did to its own citizens, while also spying on the West. The West ‘only’ targeted a few Soviet spies and perhaps some left-wingers too — but mainly focusing on the Soviet Union and its satellites. From phone taps to opening letters, to directly observing someone, mass population surveillance was certainly undertaken by the Stasi and others, with their armies of informers. But mass snooping was not seen as a domestic concern or risk at home in the West.
Today and every day, we leave our digital footprints all over the place. Our digital trail is collected by telcos, web hosts, social media and others. And as the Snowden/NSA revelations have shown, our data is especially hoovered up from all these sources and more by the US, UK and other governments – covering millions of people around the world.
Prism, Tempora and other programmes indicate a major intelligence dragnet that surely constitutes mass surveillance, with little legal justification, and one that invades and undermines our right to privacy and our freedom of speech – since if everything we write, say and do is recorded and collected then how we behave as individuals and social animals surely changes.
Not so say some. Mass data retention isn’t snooping and surveillance until you analyse it and use it – and then there are various laws that allow targeting of suspicious individuals or groups. After all, if companies like Google, Facebook and Yahoo accumulate masses of our data, and analyse it for advertising purposes, then why should we worry that governments hoover up our data too?
This is a slippery argument and worth unpacking. If a government and its intelligence services want to spy on their own or another population, there is very little transparency and accountability as to how they do that, or what the legal justification, if any, is – and as the underwater cable taps by GCHQ indicate, often with very little need to approach the web hosts or anyone else to ask permission to intercept data.
Mass surveillance needs various elements to work for those carrying it out. You need to collect the data, analyse it according to your interests and needs, and then act on it in some way. For sure the Stasi, like authoritarian regimes and actors today, also understood well that even the act of collection could be, and was intended to be, chilling and fear-inducing.
But what of the US or British or French governments today? Is their collecting of data on all of us – around the world not just their own populations – just big data, to be used for targeted analysis? Or is it an inevitably chilling act, on the basis of which fishing expeditions are carried out, groups and individuals are identified on a large scale as potentially suspicious through the data analysis, and further monitoring and arrests, through to extraordinary rendition or drone attacks, may be the follow up.
The huge quantities of data collected on us in one programme – such as Tempora – can be analysed to build a multi-dimensional picture of our individual personal lives. And with little or no transparency as to who can access the data, or how the analysts are themselves monitored and regulated.
Mass data collection on all our digital communications challenges our rights to freedom of speech and privacy, and more broadly puts at risk our democracy – how can governments be held accountable, if journalists’ sources are no longer anonymous or campaign groups are fully monitored?
The huge overreach by the US and UK governments in deliberately collecting up our data around the world has set up the framework and data for mass surveillance. It’s a core part of monitoring us all. If we are to stop it, then we have to stop the reckless hoovering up of our data (to an extent that puts companies in the shade) and return to a more proportionate and targeted approach.
Mass data retention is a central element in mass surveillance. It needs to stop.
22 Jul 13 | Comment, Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia, News and features, United Kingdom, United States
There have been some sharply contrasting political reactions to the US and UK’s mass surveillance programmes in European countries in recent days. Could the US perhaps play divide and rule in managing the fallout from Snowden’s revelations in Europe? Or is there enough common ground between German, UK or even Russian politicians to push for real changes in US (and UK and French) snooping?
(Photo: Gonçalo Silva / Demotix)
At first glance, it seems the issue is being damped down in the UK in contrast to angry and sustained political debate in Germany, and a more nationalist and opportunistic response by Russian politicians.
Last week British MPs on parliament’s intelligence and security committee confirmed that GCHQ, the UK’s signals intelligence HQ, had indeed obtained intelligence from the US Prism programme. But they concluded, remarkably quickly (no long investigation here), that allegations of law-breaking were “unfounded”. Whether the MPs are right or not, their report in fact only concerns part of Prism – the ‘content’ data GCHQ accessed and not the reams of metadata which can be equally or more revealing about individuals’ activities; and it doesn’t touch at all on the so-called Tempora programme by which, according to Snowden, the UK has been accessing massive amounts of data, by tapping into underwater cables, on a scale that goes beyond even US activities.
Meanwhile in Berlin last week, German politicians on the Bundestag’s control committee – were demanding answers on the NSA revelations from interior minister Hans-Peter Friedrich, who admitted he was still trying to get enough information out of the US on the reach of American surveillance. The following day, German journalists grilled Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman for an hour and half about what the German government and security services already knew about US snooping, and how they will stop it.
Merkel has called on Obama to respect German laws though adding, rather curiously, “on German territory” – snooping on Germans on servers in the US or as their communications pass through underwater cables are side-lined by this emphasis. Merkel is also pushing for action at EU level, promising she will demand much tougher EU data protection laws – due to be agreed in the coming months. Germany’s political response seems in a much higher gear than in the UK.
Over in Moscow, some Russian MPs too are emphasising safeguards to protect personal data from US snooping. But with demands for big companies like Google and Facebook to respect Russian laws and pass on user data when requested (just as they have been in the US), this is not a sudden shift to political support for digital freedom in Russia. It is simple political opportunism taking full advantage of the NSA’s activities and revelations to reinforce Russia’s determined attempts domestically and internationally to control, monitor and impede a free and open internet.
But German, British or EU criticism of Russia’s attacks on digital freedom will be ignored and labelled hypocritical unless there is a much stronger condemnation of mass surveillance from European leaders and action to limit future abuses. Nor is this simply about whether intelligence services are operating within the law (and whose laws) important though that is. It is about ensuring laws do not allow the sort of mass surveillance domestically and internationally that the NSA, GCHQ – and it would seem France too – have been carrying out.
Here the report from the MPs on the British intelligence and security committee potentially opens up a vital debate. Incautious language, the MPs say that existing legislation is “expressed in general terms” and that GCHQ itself was right to put more detailed practices into place to ensure compliance with UK human rights law. Crucially, though a studied understatement, they say that the “complex interaction” between UK human rights laws and security laws needs further consideration – and commit the security committee to investigate further.
So more digging will happen in the UK, in Germany – and too at EU level thanks to the efforts of the European Parliament.
But the UK is clearly as complicit as the US in mass surveillance. And there is growing and sharper questioning in Germany of how much the government and the security services previously knew about US and UK snooping.
So where new revelations and investigations will take European countries in the coming weeks is an open question. And whether we will see a united defence of digital freedom in Europe and an end to mass surveillance is at best unclear for now and, more probably, highly unlikely.
Kirsty Hughes is the CEO of Index on Censorship. She tweets @Kirsty_Index
