19 Aug 13 | Campaigns, Counter Terrorism
On Sunday, David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has been instrumental in revealing mass surveillance programmes run by the US, was detained at London Heathrow. He was held for almost nine hours and questioned under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the law which allows the police to stop, detain and question any individuals at airports and other border areas.
According to the New York Times, Brazilian citizen Miranda was travelling between Berlin and Rio De Janeiro, where he lives with Greenwald. Miranda had met journalist Laura Poitras in Germany, apparently in order to exchange documents. Greenwald said that the Guardian had paid for Miranda’s trip.
The broad powers that the Terrorism Act 2000 has given to the police were supposed to be used to clamp down on terrorism. However, as the example of David Miranda shows when such powers are not controlled they can be easily abused. The Terrorism Act creates a situation in which all of us, whenever we are at airports or other border areas can become potential terrorism suspects. As a result the most crucial human rights that all people have are put into question.
Under the Terrorism Act people detained or questioned are not automatically allowed to have access to a lawyer. If they exercise their right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination they may be charged with a separate offence for refusing to cooperate with the police. The detention of David Miranda makes it difficult to escape the conclusion that the Terrorism Act allows the authorities to target journalists and others such as human rights defenders.
Index Chief Executive Kirsty Hughes commented: “The Terrorism Act should not be used to directly or indirectly intimidate journalists. If David Miranda was detained because of his association with Glenn Greenwald, it is not only a misuse of the Terrorism Act but a direct challenge to free speech in this country and internationally.”
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.
