You are currently browsing the archive for the democracy category.
Eugene kaspersky have some very strange ideas on what would be good for the Internet:
Q: That’s it? What’s wrong with the design of the Internet?
A: There’s anonymity. Everyone should and must have an identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of people–hundreds, or maybe thousands. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong…to introduce it in the same way.I’d like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation–Internet passports, Internet police and international agreement–about following Internet standards. And if some countries don’t agree with or don’t pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off.
Emmm.. OK. Speechless. Overall it’s a very bad idea. I’m guessing it’s some kind of russian way of looking at society, mixed up with some orweillian influences.
Doing this would make identity theft so much easier, and also more fun & profitable for “the bad guys”… It would not solve a thing, just make it worse and probably bring more AFK violence into the picture.
What is it about some corporate leaders and politics? Something that they might want to consider is to pay at least some respect to the bigger picture, and to try to propose solutions that do not only target the symptoms but the root of the problem.
In this case, people from the eastern block (Russia, Ukraine etc.) that make millions on malware…
I agree with Paperghost… just a terrible idea. More discussion over at The Register as well.
UPDATE:
Eugene Kaspersky follows up with an article on ThreatPost meant to explain his statements. None of his arguments are valid though, and they’re shredded in the underlying comments.
I’m just going to comment on his first point, as the rest are just words without substance:
“Common users are NOT anonymous for police and governments. Today the authorities can find any person they are after easily. There is a wrong perception about Internet anonymity – very few people realize that it does not exist for ordinary users. But the worst part of the story is that the ones who are truly anonymous are professional cyber criminals, because they know what to do to hide their real identities in the Internet. That is why we have millions of malicious programs and successful network attacks every year, and we don’t know who’s behind them.”
And this will change how? Having an endpoint authenticate with (supposedly) secure credentials will not change one thing. All botnet C&C-servers, as an example, is run on other peoples machines and the authors are always bouncing through other computers on their way there. It simply will not change a thing.
All this will do is make regular Joe more vulnerable to identity theft and exposure to corrupt regimes, while still leaving the bad guys anonymous. You might even consider the bad guys more secure, as they’re hiding behind someone elses credentials. Instead of sponsoring insane schemes that would fit into a George Orwell book, try to attack the core of the problem.
If lobbying for something, a good starting point for Mr. K would probably be at home. A lot of malicious sites and campaigns are run out of Russia (and other countries in the eastern block). Try to put pressure on legislators in these countries so we can capture the criminals with good old investigative police work instead.
As it is now, police in these countries are either ignoring the problem or just do not have the resources they need.
A survey carried out by one of the most respected surveying institute in Sweden (SIFO) show that a majority of the population is opposed to the new IPRED legislation (Swedish).

Photo: Delta407 on Flickr. Edited by me. CC BY-SA.
On April 1st copyright owners will have the mandate to go to court and demand the name of a subscriber behind an IP-adress. If judging from earlier implementations, they will then send a mail (through normal post) demanding a specific sum threatening to start a civil lawsuit if their demands are not met.
The Swedish implementation, because of our previous civil lawsuit and IP legislation, also allows them to freeze all funds for their victims and do home searches with the aid of the Swedish Enforcement Authority (that usually comes by to evict people or confiscate stuff for unpaid bills).
Now when it has even been statistically proven that one out of two Swedes do not want this legislation, we’re still on the go ahead with the law. The Minister of Justice, Beatrice Ask, insists that the law is proportional and says that “Sometimes you have to take uncomfortable decisions as a politician”… OK? Sure… but you do not have to make decisions that the citizens do not want you to make! That’s the whole point of a democracy!
Her statements are now being hacked to pieces by the blogging community and the despise of politicians is on the rise again. People respect politicians and lawmakers less and less and this is not a good thing, and it needs to stop. If people have no respect for the lawmakers, they’ll lose respect for all laws in the long run. Unfortunately this process is all in the politicians hands and they are the only ones that can stop it, and that won’t happen.
Sweden runs the web, and we will not stop doing so just because unbalanced copyright legislators try to stop the technological evolution. We are however running a great risk at loosing the publics faith in the democratic system along the way, and no one wants to see that happen.
The total stats of the survey was:
32% Want to implement the IPRED1 directive in the way now done.
48% Does not want the IPRED1 implementation now made into law.
19% Have doubts or did not know how.
And at the same time as the established politicians are acting as tools for lobbyists, the amount of members of the Swedish Pirate Party keeps rising and we’re now closing in on 12500 members.
It is now 65 days until the EU-elections, vote Pirate!
Tags: 48 percent, beatrice ask, ipred, sweden runs the web

Photo: Carlo Nicora on Flickr – CC BY-NC-SA.
Laugh? Cry? or what…
I think the Swedish democracy is messed up, but in the UK they’re a couple of steps ahead of us…
From British Journal of Photography (via BoingBoing) on a new “Anti-Terror” law in the UK:
“The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places.”
10 YEARS IN PRISON??? Come on for gods sake. This is just sick.
Tags: 10 years, fine, photography, police, uk
Been having a million things to do both at home and at work during the last couple of weeks, that’s why I haven’t been posting. I’ve also been trying to get used to a good nights sleep every now and then, and so far it seems to be working out
In a couple of weeks the trial against TPB is going to start and the word on the street is that they’re going to slammed in the first instance (Tingsrätten, District court) as these are run in part by politically elected lay judges.
You can have any feelings you want about The Pirate Bay and file-sharing, but always remember what this trial really is about.
It’s not about file-sharing, if that’s what you thought. It’s really about is whether or not we are going to further impede the freedom of speech and ban linking to content that might contain copyrighted material as that is all that they (TPB) do.
That means that any sucker that links to a YouTube video might be raided (as of the IPRED1 implementation) by the copyright owners, and then you have not even embedded the Video on you site.
I would like all Swedish politicians, judges and people of influence in these matters to listen to this presentation by Lawrence Lessig:
It won’t take much time (~40 mins maybe) and it’s worth every second. He really pinpoints the effects of todays black/white climate in the debate and what the effects of this might be on society.
People do not trust the decision makers (rightfully so) to make the right choices, and the erroneous laws being passed are not respected. As people are not respecting these laws, this leads to the notion that all laws that has been created and or managed by them are not worth caring about. This leads to a general despise of politicians and their mandate with the people is lost.
We are starting to see the effects of this already in many forums. Just read what I’ve written earlier about politicians from my former political party (Folkpartiet, supposed to be the Liberal party) and you’ll get the picture.
Anyways, the trial starts on the 16th of February and I’m going to relay as much of the Swedish information published as possible in English.

Photo: hughelectronic on Flickr. CC BY-NC-SA
The use of warrantless hacking is soon a reality in Great Britain. Yes, that is Police breaking into citizens computers in order to see if they’ve done something wrong or not without evidence or a court order.
From The Times (via HAX (Swedish)):
THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.
The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.
The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.
Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.
Read the full article over at The Times.
This isn’t really news and the Swedish Government has similar propositions being prepared. Another step to the total control society indeed.
To protect yourself you can do several things out of which installing and using Linux (and keeping it up to date) might be the first. If you’re stuck in a Windows environment you should keep up with your patches and install an Anti-Malware (anti-virus) application that does not solely rely on signatures as some vendors agree to exclude certain states spy-tools from scanning by those. Choose one that has behavioral blocking of some sort or other mechanisms for detecting hostile code without having an exact signature. Also choose a solution which has some kind of personal firewall shipped with it so you can see the applications that tries to connect to the outside world and pay attention to its warnings.
If you are in need of a wireless network, buy an AP (Access Point) that you then connect to your router (another separate unit) in a port which is isolated from the rest of your internal network. There are guides on how to do this in your manual (if not, buy a new router) and you can also leave a comment if you need further help. I’m can also do ultra-cheap consulting for those that need help evaluating their current security during evenings and weekends.
And yes, these are the same basic instruction that I give to home users when educating them on how they can protect themselves from getting their credit cards and/or identity stolen…
What’s wrong with the people suggesting and implementing these laws?
God damned idiots…
Tags: hacking, police, rättssäkerhet, remote searching, warrantless, yttrandefrihet

Photo: Improbulus on Flickr. CC BY-NC-SA.
UK has one CCTV camera per fourteen citizens according to a research paper released in 2002 and in the harsh financial climate now facing the world the local councils in Britain has started slashing the funding used to actually monitor the cameras.
From Daily Mail (via Schneier):
“Once, Britain was the most watched nation in the world, with more than 4 million CCTV cameras monitoring our every move.
But now in these difficult economic times, it seems that Big Brother isn’t actually watching, in fact no one is.
As cash-strapped police forces and councils around the UK are forced to tighten their belts in the recession, CCTV cameras around town centres are being left unmanned as they can’t afford to pay anyone to watch out for crime as it happens.
Instead, entire networks of surveillance cameras are being effectively put on auto-pilot, with police reviewing tapes only after a reported incident.”
Does it take a recession to make people realize that an annual expense of ~£50 million on CCTV is excessive? That it never was useful? That the cost is too high in relation to what you might gain (if any)? This just verifies that the presented image of CCTV as a tool for crime prevention is false.
An another citation from the same article as above:
While in Dorset, police resorted to advertising for unpaid civilian volunteers to monitor CCTV footage after claiming that it was not cost effective to pay trained professionals.
In June Dorset Police appealed for members of the public to watch live images from street security cameras in Wimborne, Blandford, Shaftesbury and Gillingham to help spot crimes and anti-social behaviour.
Civilian volunteers? Spot “anti-social behaviour”? Since when does an untrained civilian make an educated decision on when someone is acting anti-social? That’s like asking for false positives… deluxe version…
Read the full article…
Tags: big brother, cctv, economy, funds, united kingdom
Yep… From AP (via Bruce Schneier):
Also Tuesday, the Senate voted to create a registry of cell phone owners to combat kidnappings and extortions in which gangs often use untraceable mobile phones to make ransom demands.
Telecoms would be required to ask purchasers of cell phones or phone memory chips for their names, addresses and fingerprints, and to turn that information over to investigators if requested.
At present, unregulated vendors sell phones and chips for cash from streetside stands. It is unclear how such vendors would be made to comply with the new law.
The saying; “The path to hell is paved with good intentions”, comes to mind.
My guess is that black market imported cellphones will be hot items, even for lawful citizens. I know I wouldn’t leave my fingerprints when buying a cellphone from a streetside stand
Tags: cell phone, fingerprint, mexico, register
There’s been discussions here in Sweden on non-english blogs and forums in regards to just when a citizen should stand up and say “Stop this madness!”, instead of being caught in a machinery where you can’t protest, as you’ll be shot or jailed when doing so.
My guess is that the United Kingdom is not that very far from that point and now would be the time to stand up against the madness going on on their island. Caught this little poster via BoingBoing (with creds to Shardcore):

*shrug*
I mean please. This single statement is an outright lie as it has been broken several times. They might provide a marginal level of increased security around the specific streets where they are, but in some cases just move the crimes to other streets in the vicinity. Not even this has been fully established though. Even Scotland Yard says CCTV monitoring do not prevent crime for crying out loud!
It feels like they’re trying to say it like a Japanese manga character or something, like “More CCTV!!! *big eyes* Means More Security For You!!!! *freakishly large smile* *happy* *happy*”… Maybe it’s just in my brain
Another thing I react to as a person working with security is that there can’t be a sound risk assessment in the bottom of the decisions to put up more camera’s and set up more monitoring stations. The risk of a crime does not motivate the cost of the “protection” so to speak. This is something that Bruce Schneier mentions in his article from which I stole all the links above.
Anyways, I think that the UK is setting a bad example for Europe and the risk for the rest of the countries in the region is that our governments point at them saying “It works over there!” even though it doesn’t and then we’re back were we are with the FRA-law, EU IPRED1 and the EU Data Retention.
Tags: cctv, surveillance, uk
For those that doesn’t know this already, Australia is one of the countries that are actively filtering and censoring the internet. They are doing this to “protect” their citizens from the big bad wolves that reside in the internet tubes without giving their citizens liberty even a second glance.
Read this on the Australian security firm Sûnnet Beskerming’s blog:
“In the lead up to last year’s national election in Australia there were a range of promises made by the incumbent government, under the name NetAlert, which was reported to be for a range of projects including Internet blocking software at the user end, tracking down online predators, and filtering of traffic on the network.
It seems that the new government has now taken the proposals one step further, moving to enforce the legislation that they pushed through at the start of this year. At the time of the NetAlert announcements, the opposition (now the government) were seen to be tacitly approving of the initial presentation and the Labor party had previously been ridiculed over their approaches to, and ideas of, online censorship.
Although the Federal Government has promised to listen to “the best advice”, it seems that they are only listening to the advice that validates and otherwise affirms their approach to online censorship.”
[...]
“There can be no other way to put it other than to suggest that these efforts are being pushed through out of an ignorance of the structure and nature of the Internet, even when accurate information is readily available.”
It’s really frightening to see how fast things can go bad. So far we have not seen this kind of lunacy here in Sweden but it feels like we’re getting there.
The internet’s content is not to be controlled by any unique institution or governing organization, as the whole idea of it is then lost. The Internet is a place that should be a free, unbiased, space for information of all kinds from all sources. Sure some will be hostile, but this is not a reason to filter it.
Doesn’t the Australian politicians relate what they’re doing to what dictatorships are doing? Can’t they see that they’re heading down a very dangerous path by restricting free speech? Besides this being a anti-democratic thing, remember that a society that closes on itself and censors it’s citizens never can evolve at the same speed as the world surrounding them, and therefor the country will suffer both economically and culturally.
The Internet was born free and should remain that way. If we can’t do that, then the whole idea behind it is dead and it’s time to form a new network.
Are you with me?
Tags: australia, censorship, filtering, sunnet beskerming




