DOCSLIB.ORG

Democracy, Gender Equality, and Gender Security Ted Piccone

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Democracy, Gender Equality, and Gender Security Ted Piccone Democracy,Democracy gender and cybersecurity equality, and gender security TED PICCONE* SEPTEMBER 2017 TedPOLICY Piccone BRIEF SEPTEMBER 2017 Summary The growing challenges democracies face in managing the complex dimen- sions of cybersecurity have become a defining domestic and foreign policy issue with direct implications for human rights and the democratic health of nations. The progressive digitization of nearly all facets of society and the inherent transborder nature of the internet raise a host of difficult problems when public and private information online is subject to manipulation, hack- About the Project This policy brief is part of a series ing, and theft. of papers on democracy, security, and violent extremism prepared for the Community of Democ- This policy brief addresses cybersecurity as it relates to three distinct subtop- racies’ Democracy and Security ics: democratic elections, human rights, and internet governance. In all three Dialogue. The project seeks to foster greater collaboration areas, governments and the private sector are struggling to keep up with the among democratic governments, positive and negative aspects of the rapid diffusion of digital technology. To donors, civil society and academ- address these challenges, democratic governments, in partnership with civil ics to improve security outcomes and create a more conducive en- society and media and technology companies, should urgently lead the way vironment for the strengthening toward devising and implementing best practices for strengthening free and of democracy around the world. For more on the project and relat- fair electoral processes, defending human rights online, and protecting inter- ed materials, including the final net governance from restrictive lowest common denominator approaches. report, visit www.brookings.edu/ democracy-security-dialogue. * This brief was written with invaluable assistance from Hannah Bagdasar, Carlos Castillo, Jesse Kornbluth, and Mat- thew Koo, with expert feedback from Tarun Chhabra (Brookings Institution), Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe (Stan- ford University), Steven Feldstein (Boise State University), Patrick Merloe (National Democratic Institute), Harold Trinkunas (Stanford University), and researchers at the Institute for Security Studies, as well as members of the Community of Democracies Governing Council and its Civil Society Pillar. Brookings is committed to quality, inde- pendence, and impact in all of its work. Activities supported by its donors reflect this commitment and the analysis and recommendations are solely determined by the scholar. Support for this publication was generously provided through the Permanent Secretariat of the Community of Democracies. What the evidence tells us: both a direct and indirect threat to the integrity of the democratic process as they are often motivated by an in- Democratic elections tention to undermine popular support for democracies, Cyberattacks from authoritarian governments and non- their legitimacy, and their soft power.6 state actors pose a clear and increasing threat to democ- racies across the world through their interference in free Manipulation of information sources for political discourse and fair elections. These attacks take many forms and and decisionmaking is particularly insidious and difficult to can undermine and destabilize democratic processes combat. Distinctive characteristics of contemporary forms and governance in numerous ways. of Russian propaganda, which can feature high-volume content delivered quickly through both social and tradi- There are at least four ways in which cyberattacks can in- tional media, continuously and repeatedly with little com- fluence elections: (1) manipulating facts and opinions that mitment to objective reality or consistency, can be difficult inform how citizens vote, (2) interfering with the act of for independent media and governments to counter.7 Non- voting (e.g., tampering with voter registration rolls), (3) state actors from the radical right and the radical left, and changing the vote results, and (4) undermining confidence those engaged in terrorism, are exploiting the open nature in the integrity of the vote.1 These threats have emanated of the internet for multiple purposes, including influencing from countries like Russia and China, and in the past few public opinion before and during elections.8 years, targeted nations across the democratic West. For example, the Netherlands’ General Intelligence and Se- Human rights curity Service specifically named Russia, China, and Iran The internet can be a tool for both protecting and violat- as national security threats due to cyberattacks.2 The U.S. ing human rights, with direct implications for individu- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of als’ cyber and physical security. The diffusion of digital Homeland Security (DHS) released multiple statements technology has vastly expanded citizens’ opportunities in 2016 detailing Russia’s ties to recent attacks and leaks to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and as- with the intent to influence U.S. elections.3 In May 2017, sociation, to participate in civic life, and to hold public French President Emmanuel Macron accused the Russian officials accountable. Recent technological advances also official media of disseminating deceitful propaganda and have helped shed light on human rights abuses committed fake news with the intention of influencing the election across the world. Victims’ groups now post, livestream, results in favor of his opponent. and crowdsource videos and photos of abuses on YouTube and other platforms, in hopes they eventually may be used These attacks were preceded in 2007 by Russian inter- as evidence in accountability proceedings. Human rights ference, for example, in Estonia’s government, political investigators used satellite imagery to expose abuses in parties, and banks in a cyberattack that inhibited inter- North Korean political prisons and potential mass graves net usage for two weeks.4 Similar attacks are becoming in Burundi that otherwise could have gone undiscovered.9 increasingly frequent, with more hackings of public and private enterprises; the disruption of internet commu- Recent years, however, have also seen an ongoing dete- nications of the lower house of the German parliament; rioration of human rights online, despite clear declara- and the spread of disinformation campaigns and false tions from the United Nations General Assembly and news before the Dutch referendum on Ukraine, the Ital- the Human Rights Council that offline rights established ian constitutional referendum, and the U.S. presidential under international human rights law also are protected election, all in 2016 alone.5 Cyberattacks can serve as online.10 Everyone is entitled to the same rights online Democracy and cybersecurity 2 that they have off the internet, such as to privacy, and Not only do internet shutdowns impair national security from mass surveillance and unlawful attacks.11 Interna- through the suppression of free speech, they also can cause tional law essentially guarantees the same rights to pri- panic and raise public health concerns. By cutting access vacy and security of one’s online data as they would to to crucial communication tools, emergency services, and the files in their home.For example, mass internet sur- reliable public safety information, shutdowns endanger the veillance, practiced even in established democracies, is a physical safety of citizens.18 Such breaches also undermine direct breach of the security of an individual’s personal the international rules-based system for internet gover- data, as is vague legislation with significant discretionary nance, and encourage state competition in developing in- authority to monitor one’s digital life.12 Internet service trusive legal codes and offensive cyber capabilities. Lastly, providers and telecommunications companies are falling it is important to point out that deteriorating online rights dramatically behind in offering consumers hardware and are not only a tactic of authoritarian regimes, but of demo- software products that adequately protect them from a cratic governments as well. The lack of effective regulatory multitude of cyberattacks.13 The rise in the availability of or oversight mechanisms of private companies’ role in pro- licit and illicit trade of sophisticated cyber weapons and tecting citizens’ data is another element of the dilemma. surveillance tools is facilitating these kinds of attacks, as seen in the worldwide “WannaCry” attacks of 2017. Despite these cyber threats to human rights, some coun- tries have been on the forefront of adopting laws and codes Malicious exploitation of technology also can affect the of conduct to protect their citizens’ online rights. In Brazil, physical security of individuals and of states. For starters, the 2014 Marco Civil da Internet law “guarantees the right the increased digitization of the past two decades has cre- to free expression, protects users’ privacy, precludes liabili- ated a “chilling effect” on free speech, where citizens in cer- ty for web content generated by third parties, and preserves tain countries feel less safe to assert their opinions, know- Internet neutrality.”19 Also in 2014, the Tallinn Agenda for ing that their personal data are monitored or archived.14 Freedom Online was established, in which the members Through location tracking, social media, and internet shut- of the Freedom Online Coalition, including
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report Legal Research Assistance That Can Make a Builds
    EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF BIOMETRIC MASS SURVEILLANCE PRACTICES IN GERMANY, THE NETHERLANDS, AND POLAND By Luca Montag, Rory Mcleod, Lara De Mets, Meghan Gauld, Fraser Rodger, and Mateusz Pełka EDRi - EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS 2 INDEX About the Edinburgh 1.4.5 ‘Biometric-Ready’ International Justice Cameras 38 Initiative (EIJI) 5 1.4.5.1 The right to dignity 38 Introductory Note 6 1.4.5.2 Structural List of Abbreviations 9 Discrimination 39 1.4.5.3 Proportionality 40 Key Terms 10 2. Fingerprints on Personal Foreword from European Identity Cards 42 Digital Rights (EDRi) 12 2.1 Analysis 43 Introduction to Germany 2.1.1 Human rights country study from EDRi 15 concerns 43 Germany 17 2.1.2 Consent 44 1 Facial Recognition 19 2.1.3 Access Extension 44 1.1 Local Government 19 3. Online Age and Identity 1.1.1 Case Study – ‘Verification’ 46 Cologne 20 3.1 Analysis 47 1.2 Federal Government 22 4. COVID-19 Responses 49 1.3 Biometric Technology 4.1 Analysis 50 Providers in Germany 23 4.2 The Convenience 1.3.1 Hardware 23 of Control 51 1.3.2 Software 25 5. Conclusion 53 1.4 Legal Analysis 31 Introduction to the Netherlands 1.4.1 German Law 31 country study from EDRi 55 1.4.1.1 Scope 31 The Netherlands 57 1.4.1.2 Necessity 33 1. Deployments by Public 1.4.2 EU Law 34 Entities 60 1.4.3 European 1.1. Dutch police and law Convention on enforcement authorities 61 Human Rights 37 1.1.1 CATCH Facial 1.4.4 International Recognition Human Rights Law 37 Surveillance Technology 61 1.1.1.1 CATCH - Legal Analysis 64 EDRi - EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS 3 1.1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’
    ‘The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’ ABSTRACT This article considers the feasibility of the adoption by the Council of Europe Member States of a multilateral binding treaty, called the Intelligence Codex (the Codex), aimed at regulating the working methods of state intelligence agencies. The Codex is the result of deep concerns about mass surveillance practices conducted by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The article explores the reasons for such a treaty. To that end, it identifies the discriminatory nature of the United States’ and the United Kingdom’s domestic legislation, pursuant to which foreign cyber surveillance programmes are operated, which reinforces the need to broaden the scope of extraterritorial application of the human rights treaties. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the US and UK foreign mass surveillance se practices interferes with the right to privacy of communications and cannot be justified under Article 17 ICCPR and Article 8 ECHR. As mass surveillance seems set to continue unabated, the article supports the calls from the Council of Europe to ban cyber espionage and mass untargeted cyber surveillance. The response to the proposal of a legally binding Intelligence Codexhard law solution to mass surveillance problem from the 47 Council of Europe governments has been so far muted, however a soft law option may be a viable way forward. Key Words: privacy, cyber surveillance, non-discrimination, Intelligence Codex, soft law. Introduction Peacetime espionage is by no means a new phenomenon in international relations.1 It has always been a prevalent method of gathering intelligence from afar, including through electronic means.2 However, foreign cyber surveillance on the scale revealed by Edward Snowden performed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA), the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and their Five Eyes partners3 1 Geoffrey B.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Surveillance
    Thematic factsheet1 Update: July 2018 MASS SURVEILLANCE The highly complex forms of terrorism require States to take effective measures to defend themselves, including mass monitoring of communications. Unlike “targeted” surveillance (covert collection of conversations, telecommunications and metadata by technical means – “bugging”), “strategic” surveillance (or mass surveillance) does not necessarily start with a suspicion against a particular person or persons. It has a proactive element, aimed at identifying a danger rather than investigating a known threat. Herein lay both the value it can have for security operations, and the risks it can pose for individual rights. Nevertheless, Member States do not have unlimited powers in this area. Mass surveillance of citizens is tolerable under the Convention only if it is strictly necessary for safeguarding democratic institutions. Taking into account considerable potential to infringe fundamental rights to privacy and to freedom of expression enshrined by the Convention, Member States must ensure that the development of surveillance methods resulting in mass data collection is accompanied by the simultaneous development of legal safeguards securing respect for citizens’ human rights. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it would be counter to governments’ efforts to keep terrorism at bay if the terrorist threat were substituted with a perceived threat of unfettered executive power intruding into citizens’ private lives. It is of the utmost importance that the domestic legislation authorizing far-reaching surveillance techniques and prerogatives provides for adequate and sufficient safeguards in order to minimize the risks for the freedom of expression and the right to privacy which the “indiscriminate capturing of vast amounts of communications” enables.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Surveillance
    Mass Surveillance Mass Surveillance What are the risks for the citizens and the opportunities for the European Information Society? What are the possible mitigation strategies? Part 1 - Risks and opportunities raised by the current generation of network services and applications Study IP/G/STOA/FWC-2013-1/LOT 9/C5/SC1 January 2015 PE 527.409 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment The STOA project “Mass Surveillance Part 1 – Risks, Opportunities and Mitigation Strategies” was carried out by TECNALIA Research and Investigation in Spain. AUTHORS Arkaitz Gamino Garcia Concepción Cortes Velasco Eider Iturbe Zamalloa Erkuden Rios Velasco Iñaki Eguía Elejabarrieta Javier Herrera Lotero Jason Mansell (Linguistic Review) José Javier Larrañeta Ibañez Stefan Schuster (Editor) The authors acknowledge and would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this report: Prof. Nigel Smart, University of Bristol; Matteo E. Bonfanti PhD, Research Fellow in International Law and Security, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa; Prof. Fred Piper, University of London; Caspar Bowden, independent privacy researcher; Maria Pilar Torres Bruna, Head of Cybersecurity, Everis Aerospace, Defense and Security; Prof. Kenny Paterson, University of London; Agustín Martin and Luis Hernández Encinas, Tenured Scientists, Department of Information Processing and Cryptography (Cryptology and Information Security Group), CSIC; Alessandro Zanasi, Zanasi & Partners; Fernando Acero, Expert on Open Source Software; Luigi Coppolino,Università degli Studi di Napoli; Marcello Antonucci, EZNESS srl; Rachel Oldroyd, Managing Editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism; Peter Kruse, Founder of CSIS Security Group A/S; Ryan Gallagher, investigative Reporter of The Intercept; Capitán Alberto Redondo, Guardia Civil; Prof. Bart Preneel, KU Leuven; Raoul Chiesa, Security Brokers SCpA, CyberDefcon Ltd.; Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • We Only Spy on Foreigners": the Myth of a Universal Right to Privacy and the Practice of Foreign Mass Surveillance
    Chicago Journal of International Law Volume 18 Number 2 Article 3 1-1-2018 "We Only Spy on Foreigners": The Myth of a Universal Right to Privacy and the Practice of Foreign Mass Surveillance Asaf Lubin Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil Recommended Citation Lubin, Asaf (2018) ""We Only Spy on Foreigners": The Myth of a Universal Right to Privacy and the Practice of Foreign Mass Surveillance," Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 18: No. 2, Article 3. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol18/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “We Only Spy on Foreigners”: The Myth of a Universal Right to Privacy and the Practice of Foreign Mass Surveillance Asaf Lubin Abstract The digital age brought with it a new epoch in global political life, one neatly coined by Professor Philip Howard as the “pax technica.” In this new world order, government and industry are “tightly bound” in technological and security arrangements that serve to push forward an information and cyber revolution of unparalleled magnitude. While the rise of information technologies tells a miraculous story of triumph over the physical constraints that once shackled mankind, these very technologies are also the cause of grave concern. Intelligence agencies have been recently involved in the exercise of global indiscriminate surveillance, which purports to go beyond their limited territorial jurisdiction and sweep in “the telephone, internet, and location records of whole populations.” Today’s political leaders and corporate elites are increasingly engaged in these kinds of programs of bulk interception, collection, mining, analysis, dissemination, and exploitation of foreign communications data that are easily susceptible to gross abuse and impropriety.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effectiveness of Surveillance Technology: What Intelligence Officials Are Saying
    Delft University of Technology The effectiveness of surveillance technology What intelligence officials are saying Cayford, Michelle; Pieters, Wolter DOI 10.1080/01972243.2017.1414721 Publication date 2018 Document Version Final published version Published in Information Society Citation (APA) Cayford, M., & Pieters, W. (2018). The effectiveness of surveillance technology: What intelligence officials are saying. Information Society, 34(2), 88-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1414721 Important note To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10. THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 2018, VOL. 34, NO. 2, 88–103 https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1414721 The effectiveness of surveillance technology: What intelligence officials are saying Michelle Cayford and Wolter Pieters Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY In recent years, Western governments have come under sharp criticism for their use of surveillance Received 5 October 2016 technology. They have been accused of sweeping up massive amounts of information without Accepted 27 November 2017 evidence of the technologies being effective in improving security.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveillance by Intelligence Services: Services: Intelligence by Surveillance
    FREEDOMS FRA Surveillance by intelligence services – Volume II: field perspectives and legal update II: field perspectives – Volume services intelligence by Surveillance Surveillance by intelligence services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU Volume II: field perspectives and legal update This report addresses matters related to the respect for private and family life (Article 7), the protection of personal data (Article 8) and the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47) falling under Titles II ‘Freedoms’ and VI ‘Justice’ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). Photo (cover & inside): © Shutterstock More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 FRA – print: ISBN 978-92-9491-766-9 doi:10.2811/15232 TK-04-17-696-EN-C FRA – web: ISBN 978-92-9491-765-2 doi:10.2811/792946 TK-04-17-696-EN-N © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Printed by Imprimerie Centrale in Luxembourg Neither the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights nor any person acting on behalf of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information.
    [Show full text]
  • Right to Privacy and State Policy on Cyber Security
    Przegląd Strategiczny 2020, Issue 13 Robert MACIEJEWSKI DOI : 10.14746/ps.2020.1.23 University of Applied Sciences in Wałcz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1153-8688 RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND STATE POLICY ON CYBER SECURITY. NECESSITY OR THREAT FROM THE STATE The state, as a politically organised community, has a duty to ensure that its citi- zens, on the one hand, have the right to privacy (right to be alone), which is one of the fundamental rights of every human being, and, on the other hand, it has a duty to guar- antee the safety of its citizens, including safety in cyberspace. It therefore seems es- sential that the state strikes a balance between citizens’ rights to privacy and their duty to act for their security, including cyber security. However, the emerging omnipotence of the state in cyber security is becoming an increasing threat to citizens and their right to privacy. Under the guise of ensuring the security of its citizens, the state interferes in almost every aspect of life, and repeatedly does so in a way that can hardly be con- sidered compatible with the standards of a democratic rule of law. Particular attention should be paid to the activities of state bodies in cyberspace. The use by state services of programs for so-called mass surveillance, without the control of judicial authorities, causes that from a democratic state it starts to transform into a total state from where it is not far from a totalitarian one. The main research objective of this article is to attempt to answer the question whether and what kind of threat to the fundamental rights of citizens, in particular the right to privacy and consequently to the democratic rule of law, posed by the State’s actions to ensure security in cyberspace.
    [Show full text]
  • National Programmes for Mass Surveillance of Personal Data in Eu Member States and Their Compatibility with Eu Law
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR MASS SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONAL DATA IN EU MEMBER STATES AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH EU LAW STUDY Abstract In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillance programmes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillance practices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillance practices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligence gathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillance programmes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between data protection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collective freedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member states selected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scale interception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels and discrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. The study argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside the realm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i) an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law framework where fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute key standards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as a whole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potential spillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Democratic Oversight of Signals Intelligence Agencies
    Strasbourg, 15 December 2015 CDL-AD(2015)011 Study No. 719/2013 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) REPORT ON THE DEMOCRATIC OVERSIGHT OF SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 102nd Plenary Session (Venice, 20-21 March 2015) on the basis of comments by Mr Iain Cameron (Member, Sweden) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2015)011 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 3 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7 II. The scope of the present study – definitions ................................................................ 7 III. Is there a need for (improved) democratic control? ...................................................... 8 A. What is strategic surveillance? .................................................................................. 8 B. Weaker controls over strategic surveillance? ........................................................... 10 C. Mass surveillance? .................................................................................................. 12 IV. Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 15 V. Accountability – constitutional and organisational contexts .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • NSA) Surveillance Programmes (PRISM) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Activities and Their Impact on EU Citizens' Fundamental Rights
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS The US National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programmes (PRISM) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) activities and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights NOTE Abstract In light of the recent PRISM-related revelations, this briefing note analyzes the impact of US surveillance programmes on European citizens’ rights. The note explores the scope of surveillance that can be carried out under the US FISA Amendment Act 2008, and related practices of the US authorities which have very strong implications for EU data sovereignty and the protection of European citizens’ rights. PE xxx.xxx EN AUTHOR(S) Mr Caspar BOWDEN (Independent Privacy Researcher) Introduction by Prof. Didier BIGO (King’s College London / Director of the Centre d’Etudes sur les Conflits, Liberté et Sécurité – CCLS, Paris, France). Copy-Editing: Dr. Amandine SCHERRER (Centre d’Etudes sur les Conflits, Liberté et Sécurité – CCLS, Paris, France) Bibliographical assistance : Wendy Grossman RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Mr Alessandro DAVOLI Policy Department Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in MMMMM 200X. Brussels, © European Parliament, 200X. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Unfollowme Campaign Against Mass Surveillance
    Q&A: #UnfollowMe campaign against mass surveillance Why is Amnesty International launching a global campaign against mass surveillance? The Internet has revolutionized the way we communicate. Every day, three billion Internet users connect to the web to publish, share and access billions of pieces of information and communicate with each other instantaneously across the world. But it also allows governments to record and store all this information, giving them unprecedented knowledge about what we do, think and say. Everyone who uses the internet today is at risk of having their communications monitored by their government and in some cases, by foreign governments. As everyday appliances, from TVs and watches to fridges and cars become connected to the Internet, governments will have access to data about everything we do. As computers become more powerful and algorithms become more intelligent, so will governments’ ability to make assumptions about us based on our actions, from large-scale profiling to predictive analysis. If we don’t act now, we risk living in societies where privacy doesn’t exist. Why should I care about mass surveillance if I have nothing to hide? The question should be: if I have done nothing wrong, why is my privacy being violated? Ordinarily, governments conduct targeted surveillance - the monitoring of a person’s communications, actions or movements. Governments can only lawfully conduct surveillance if it is targeted at a person or a group for specified legitimate reasons. To do this, the authorities would obtain permission from a judge, for example, to monitor the phone or internet use of a target person or group they suspect of criminal activities.
    [Show full text]