Surveillance@acamedia.info

Eine Zitatesammlung - Fortsetzung

(Teil 1 liegt hier)

Wenn nicht anders vermerkt, sind alle Texte Zitate.
Daher sind die Zitate der Übersichtlichkeit halber nicht durchweg mit "" gekennzeichnet.
Die Quelle jedes Zitats ist als Link angegeben.



I. Bayerisches Polizeigesetz

I.1 CSU will Polizei in Bayern zum Geheimdienst aufrüsten

Markus Reuter, 08.02.2018 


I.2 Ab Sommer in Bayern: Das härteste Polizeigesetz seit 1945

Marie Bröckling, 24.03.2018 


Das Gesetz kommt einem Ausbau der Polizei zum Nachrichtendienst gleich. Die Exekutive darf künftig präventive Ermittlungen ohne konkrete Hinweise auf Straftaten führen – damit kann die Polizei nun wie der Verfassungsschutz agieren. Zudem dürfen die Beamten künftig in Ausnahmefällen Handgranaten einsetzen, Post von Verdächtigen beschlagnahmen, IT-Systeme durchsuchen, V-Leute einsetzen und Bodycams tragen.


... Zur Anhörung diese Woche im Landtag luden die Parteien ausschließlich Juristen als Sachverständige. Gefragt wurden sie zur Vereinbarkeit des Gesetzesentwurfs mit Urteilen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und dem Unionsrecht. Die Experten wagten kein abschließendes Urteil über die Verfassungskonformität des Vorhabens. Über die Zweckmäßigkeit des Gesetzes oder seine Praxistauglichkeit wurde gar nicht erst gesprochen, dafür waren keine Fachkundigen geladen.


... Zur Anhörung diese Woche im Landtag luden die Parteien ausschließlich Juristen als Sachverständige. Gefragt wurden sie zur Vereinbarkeit des Gesetzesentwurfs mit Urteilen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und dem Unionsrecht. Die Experten wagten kein abschließendes Urteil über die Verfassungskonformität des Vorhabens. Über die Zweckmäßigkeit des Gesetzes oder seine Praxistauglichkeit wurde gar nicht erst gesprochen, dafür waren keine Fachkundigen geladen. Das erweckt den Eindruck, der Bayerische Landtag sei eine Verwaltungsbehörde und kein politisches Organ.


Sachverständige äußerten laute Zweifel an der Verständlichkeit des Gesetzes. Der Rechtswissenschaftler Josef Lindner schreibt in seiner Stellungnahme, dass „das Polizeiaufgabengesetz (PAG) allmählich das Stadium der Unlesbarkeit erreicht hat“. Auch der sachverständige Juraprofessor aus Bayreuth, Markus Möstl, gab zu Protokoll, dass die Fülle und Komplexität der vorliegenden Vorschläge ihn „an Grenzen“ führe.

1.3 Gesetz zur Neuordnung des bayerischen Polizeirechts

abgeordnetenwatch.de, 15 Mai 2018


....

Natascha Kohnen (SPD) kritisierte den Gesetzentwurf und das Verhalten der CSU-Fraktion aufs Schärfste. Sie warf der Staatsregierung vor, die Bedenken von Verfassungsrechtler*innen sowie des Bundesvorsitzenden der Polizei Oliver Malchow zu ignorieren, die das Gesetz als nicht zielführend beschrieben hätten. 


... Hierfür sollen in Bayern mit dem neuen Gesetz unter anderem Daten aus besonders sensiblen Maßnahmen, z. B. aus der Aufzeichnung überwachter Telefongespräche, durch eine unabhängige Stelle vorab gesichtet werden. Diese neue Zentralstelle wird beim Polizeiverwaltungsamt angesiedelt und prüft dann, ob der Eingriff in das Privatleben zu tief gehe.


Zusätzlich gibt die Staatsregierung als wesentliches Ziel der Gesetzesnovelle die Weiterentwicklung der präventiv-polizeilichen Eingriffsbefugnisse an. Der technische Fortschritt und erhöhte Terrorgefahr machten es notwendig, hier Kompetenzen zu erweitern. Die Polizei soll künftig folgende Maßnahmen umsetzen können:



Das PAG-Neuordnungsgesetz sieht darüber hinaus vor, die Einfügung der Gefahrenkategorie der „drohenden Gefahr“ für bedeutende Rechtsgüter einzuführen. Die Bayerische Staatsregierung ist der Auffassung, der Rechtsstaat dürfe nicht warten, bis tatsächlich etwas passiert, sondern er müsse rechtlich dazu in der Lage sein, Taten wie z. B. Anschläge im Vorfeld zu verhindern.


Mit Blick auf das Urteil des BVerfG könnte dies im Sinne der Prävention terroristischer Anschläge hilfreich sein. Kritiker*innen bemängeln jedoch anhand der nicht ausreichend definierten Gefahrenkategorie auch die Möglichkeit, diese auf normale Straftaten anzuwenden, bevor diese überhaupt begangen werden.


2. Ist die Bekämpfung einer „drohenden Gefahr“ nicht eigentlich etwas Gutes?

... nun liegt die Entscheidung darüber, wer eine Bedrohung darstellt, bei der Polizei. Bisher musste ein Gericht beschließen, dass tatsächlich Gefahr von einer Person ausgeht. Erst dann durften beispielsweise ihre Nachrichtenverläufe überwacht werden. Ohne richterliches Urteil können Sie auch nach der Änderung nicht auf unbegrenzte Zeit in Präventivgewahrsam genommen werden. Trotzdem stellt sich die Frage, welches Verhalten eigentlich als verdächtig eingestuft wird, wer das bestimmt und wie Änderungen in der Einschätzung vorgenommen werden. Und welche*r Polizeibeamte wann zu welcher Einschätzung kommt. Diese neuen Kompetenzen könnten auch zu einem härteren Durchgreifen von Polizist*innen führen, warnt Prof. Tobias Singelnstein, Kriminologe der Ruhr Universität Bochum, in einem Interview mit Krautreporter.de. Sie stünden nämlich unter umso höherem Erwartungsdruck, je mehr Entscheidungsfreiheit sie hätten.


...




I.4 Thilo Weichert: „Es geht um das Schüren von Bedrohungsgefühlen“

Interview mit Thilo Weichert, Gesprächspartner: Markus Klöckner, nachdenkseiten, 21.5.2018


Das Polizeiaufgabengesetz, das PAG, regelt nicht nur die Aufgaben, sondern auch die Befugnisse der Polizei in Bayern. ... Ausweitungen 


Neu eingeführt werden 


Viele der informationellen Befugnisse können schon bei einer „drohenden Gefahr“ zum Einsatz kommen, also wenn die Polizei bloß mutmaßt, eine Gefahr könnte entstehen (hoheitliche Sicherheit vor demokratische Freiheit).


Es wird also eine neue Runde angestoßen, die das Bundesverfassungsgericht, den bayerischen Verfassungsgerichtshof und voraussichtlich irgendwann einmal den Europäischen Gerichtshof erreichen wird.


... Eine Ironie im Ablauf der Ereignisse liegt darin, dass Seehofer die jüngste Sicherheitsstatistik veröffentlichen musste, die aufzeigt, dass es derzeit weniger Straftaten denn je gibt – und das ohne all die neuen PAG-Befugnisse. ... Dabei werden rechtsstaatliche Instrumente geschleift: die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, die Meinungsfreiheit, die Gewaltenteilung, die Neutralität der Staatsgewalt.


... Das Problem dieses Gesetzes besteht darin, dass es keine gravierendsten Eingriffe gibt; alles ist gravierend und erst recht in der Gesamtheit. Es gibt aber neben den klassischen modernen Instrumenten der Telekommunikationsüberwachung und der Datenbeschlagnahme einige neue Befugnisse, die bisher noch wenig erörtert wurden und neue Überwachungsdimensionen eröffnen: 


Per Drohnen soll Überwachung künftig verstärkt aus der Luft zulässig sein. Da Drohnen in der Luft kaum erkannt werden können und damit der öffentliche Raum flächendeckend kontrolliert werden kann, wird im Wortsinn eine neue Überwachungsdimension hinzugefügt. Ähnliches gilt für die Zulassung von Genanalysen, der sog. DNA-Phänotypisierung, für die damit geworben wird, dass diese es ermöglichen würde, per Genetik Fahndungsfotos erstellen zu können. Diese Propaganda ist wissenschaftlich nicht haltbar, zugleich aber hochgefährlich, weil damit ohne jegliche Sicherungen die Pforte zur polizeilichen Genanalyse geöffnet wird. Aus unseren Genen lässt sich Höchstpersönliches ableiten, etwa Dispositionen für Krankheiten oder für Charaktereigenschaften.


...  Europarechtler und Verfassungsjuristen sind sich weitgehend einig, dass das PAG in vieler Hinsicht gegen höheres Recht verstößt, gegen die Europäische Grundrechtecharta und gegen unser Grundgesetz. Es gibt inzwischen eine weitgehend gefestigte Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs, des EuGH, und des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, die unter Verweis auf die Grundrechte, etwa das Grundrecht auf Datenschutz, viele Regelungen aufhebbar machen.


... Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in seiner Volkszählungsentscheidung 1983 und vielen weiteren Entscheidungen darauf hingewiesen, dass Überwachung dazu führt, dass die Menschen nicht mehr wissen, wer was wann und bei welcher Gelegenheit an Informationen gegen sie sammelt und einsetzt. Wer damit rechnet, dass zum Beispiel seine Teilnahme an einer Versammlung oder einer Bürgerinitiative behördlich registriert wird, der wird möglicherweise auf die Ausübung seiner entsprechenden Grundrechte verzichten. Selbstbestimmung ist eine elementare Funktionsbedingung eines auf Handlungs- und Mitwirkungsfähigkeit der Bürger begründeten freiheitlichen demokratischen Gemeinwesens.


I.5 Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte: Legal challenge against Bavarian Police Act

By Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, 30. May 2018

EDRi observer Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) is preparing a joint constitutional complaint to be brought before the German Constitutional Court against the newly passed Bavarian Police Act (PAG) and has started a crowdfunding campaign for that case. In the last couple of weeks Germany has seen major protests against the Bavarian Police Task Act (#noPAG) – but nevertheless, the law was passed by the Bavarian state parliament on 15 May and went into force on 25 May.


Critics have seized especially on a definition shift in the Christlich-Soziale Union (CSU) government’s law for the threshold for police intervention from “imminent danger” (konkrete Gefahr) to “looming danger” (drohende Gefahr). as the threshold for police intervention. “Not only does the police get a whole new set of competences to restrict civil rights, but they can also act much earlier. Previously, there were clear requirements as to when the police should be allowed to act, and police action could be tested by administrative courts. In the future, it can hardly be regulated if a given situation is actually presented a “looming danger”, explains Ulf Buermeyer, chairman of Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte. “Now, the police is in fact almost free to intervene at their own discretion”. 


This law will impact digital rights on a whole range of issues, like 


I.6 Auf dem Weg zur totalen Überwachung

nachdenseiten, 22.5.2018


China baut derzeit ein System auf, das das Verhalten seiner Bewohner in allen Lebensbereichen bewertet. Das chinesische sogenannte “Sozialkreditsystem” soll möglichst alles erfassen: Zahlungsmoral, Strafregister, Einkaufsgewohnheiten, Partei-Treue und soziales Verhalten. Das chinesische Big Data Projekt ist in Größe und Ausmaß weltweit beispiellos.

II. „Die Freiheit bleibt vollkommen auf der Strecke“

Interview mit Volker Tripp, 05.03.2018 (im Cache)


Staatstrojaner

[Es] sind unterschiedliche Grundrechte betroffen: 


Die Eingriffsvoraussetzungen sind in beiden Fällen höchst unterschiedlich. Die Frage ist: Ist der Staatstrojaner überhaupt in der Lage, trennscharf zwischen diesen unterschiedlichen Eingriffen zu unterscheiden und dementsprechend auch die unterschiedlichen Eingriffsvoraussetzungen zu wahren? Das ist technisch recht schwer zu gewährleisten. Ich würde mich also weit aus dem Fenster lehnen und sagen: Es gibt keinen verfassungskonformen Staatstrojaner. Es ist technisch nicht möglich, ihn auf diese Art und Weise zu programmieren. ...


Vorratsdatenspeicherung


Überwachung

In einer Situation, in der ich in der Öffentlichkeit nicht mehr anonym bin und in der mein Verhalten permanent von Algorithmen bewertet wird, wird zwangsläufig ein „Chilling-Effect“ einsetzen. Das heißt, Menschen werden sich überlegen, ob sie von bestimmten Grundrechten lieber keinen Gebrauch machen, weil es unter Umständen dazu führen könnte, dass man sie als verdächtig einstuft. Daher widerspricht speziell eine flächendeckende intelligente Videoüberwachung diametral dem Geist einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft.


.... In einem Rechtsstaat muss sich der Staat für jede Einschränkung der Freiheiten seiner Bürger ... rechtfertigen und nicht umgekehrt. In dem Augenblick, in dem der Staat sagt: „Wer nichts zu verbergen hat, hat nichts zu befürchten“, muss ich mich als Bürger aber dafür rechtfertigen, dass der Staat nicht in meine Rechte eingreift.


Evidenz-Basieren und Evaluieren

Ich habe ganz erhebliche Zweifel daran, dass die überbordenden Überwachungsmaßnahmen, die wir haben, zu irgendeinem Schutz führen. In Frankreich, wo es seit 2006 die Vorratsdatenspeicherung gibt, konnten sich zahlreiche Attentate ereignen. Ich würde mir wünschen, dass wir zu einer evidenzbasierten Sicherheitspolitik zurückkehren. Eine, die zunächst fragt, was eine Maßnahme genau bringt, und die Maßnahmen regelmäßig evaluiert – mit der Bereitschaft, diese auch zurückzunehmen, wenn die Evaluierung negativ ausfällt.


Einfluss der EU

... im Bereich der Sicherheitsgesetze [haben] die Innenminister über den Ministerrat und auch die Sicherheitspolitiker über die entsprechenden Gremien im Europaparlament einen relativ starken Einfluss .... Es gibt wenige Institutionen, die aus bürgerrechtlicher Sicht dagegenhalten.

Wir haben zwar den europäischen Datenschutzbeauftragten und die Artikel-29-Gruppe, aber deren Stellungnahmen fallen im Verhältnis zu der Vielzahl an Stellungsnahmen, die von der anderen Seite kommen, kaum ins Gewicht. Insofern kann man sagen, dass die Innenminister im Ministerrat starke Treiber der europäischen Entwicklung zu mehr Überwachung sind.


Auf der anderen Seite haben wir mit dem Europäischen Gerichtshof (EuGH) eine Instanz, die im Vergleich zum Bundesverfassungsgericht noch deutlich stärker bürgerrechtlich orientiert urteilt. Ich erinnere an die bahnbrechenden Urteile des EuGH zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung und auch an das Gutachten zur „Passenger Name Record“-Vereinbarung mit Kanada. In beiden Fällen hat der EuGH ganz klar gesagt: Anlasslose massenhafte Datenspeicherungen sind unverhältnismäßig. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat sich bisher nicht getraut, in dieser Klarheit zu urteilen, gerade was anlasslose Speicherungen angeht.


Algorithmen

... Jeder Algorithmus beinhaltet Wertentscheidungen und Überlegungen, die seine Programmierer ihm bewusst oder unbewusst eingepflanzt haben. ... die Freiheit bleibt dabei aber vollkommen auf der Strecke. Die Freiheit, jederzeit entscheiden zu können „jetzt verhalte ich mich anders“, ist jedoch der Kern menschlichen Seins. Daher halte ich eine kybernetische Betrachtungsweise der Gesellschaft für grundweg unvereinbar mit einer wirklich freiheitlichen Gesellschaft.


Mit dem Staatstrojaner ist der Weg in einen Überwachungsstaat wie China geebnet

Sven von Storch, 2. Juni 2018


PETITION: 

GEGEN DIE AUSSPÄHUNG DURCH DEN STAATSTROJANER

Deutschland ist zu einem totalen Überwachungsstaat geworden. Versteckt in einem anderen Gesetz hat die Bundesregierung ohne parlamentarische Debatte und öffentliche Diskussion das weitreichendste Überwachungsgesetz in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik durch den Bundestag verabschieden lassen.

Demnach dürfen jetzt nicht nur Terrorverdächtige und Mitglieder der organisierten Kriminalität durch einen Staatstrojaner überwacht werden, sondern praktisch die gesamte Onlinekommunikation aller Bürger. Ein Staatstrojaner wird dazu heimlich auf das Smartphone, Tablet, Notebook oder PC installiert und kann dann die gesamte Kommunikation auslesen, speichern und das gesamte berufliche und private Leben ausspähen. Bemerken tun wir das nicht. Wenn wir auf unserem Computer unsere Gedanken schriftlich niederlegen, dann können also auch unsere Gedanken künftig ausgelesen werden.

Das Gesetz ist verfassungswidrig und noch dazu ohne jede öffentliche Debatte unter Vortäuschen falscher Tatsachen im Bundestag verabschiedet worden. Kommen Sie Ihrer Pflicht als Hüter des Grundgesetzes und der Demokratie nach und leiten Sie eine verfassungsrechtliche Prüfung ein.

HINTERGRUND

SO FUNKTIONIERT DER STAATSTROJANER

Bei einer Online-Durchsuchung dringt der Staat mittels einer Schad-Software, einem sogenannten Trojaner, unbemerkt in Smartphones oder Computer ein, um die Daten auszuspähen. Die Nachrichten etwa aus Messenger-Diensten wie WhatsApp werden dann direkt vor der Verschlüsselung an die Behörden übermittelt. Damit kann auch die gesamte vergangene Kommunikation ausgelesen werden. Bei dem Grad der Vernetzung durch soziale Netzwerke und Messenger-Dienste kommt dieses Vorgehen einer Totalüberwachung gleich.

DURCH TROJANER KÖNNEN AUCH FALSCHE BEWEISE UNTERGESCHOBEN WERDEN

Der Chaos-Computer-Club hat belegt, dass es durch den Einsatz von Staatstrojanern technisch möglich ist, auch Bilder und anderes kompromittierendes Material hochzuladen. Dadurch könnten etwa auch Beweise untergeschoben werden.


JEDER BÜRGER KANN IN DEN FOKUS DER TOTALÜBERWACHUNG GERATEN

Der Staatstrojaner soll nicht nur gegen Terrorverdächtige oder die organisierte Kriminalität eingesetzt werden, sondern bei einer ganzen Reihe von Delikten, einschließlich Steuerdelikten. Und betroffen sind von den Maßnahmen nicht nur die Verdächtigen, gegen die ermittelt wird, sondern auch alle, die mit ihnen in Verbindung stehen. Könnte es sein, dass ihr Nachbar Steuern hinterzieht? Dann müssen Sie damit rechnen, dass künftig Kamera und Mikrofon Ihres Handys auf dem Nachttisch aus der Ferne eingeschaltet werden und Bilder und Geräusche aus ihrem Schlafzimmer in irgendein Behördenzimmer funken. Jeden kann das treffen. Die Überwachung ist totaler, als säße der Beamte auf Ihrer Bettkante: denn dann wüssten Sie wenigstens, dass er da ist.

DAS GESETZ WURDE UNTER UMGEHUNG ALLER KONTROLLINSTANZEN VERABSCHIEDET

Der Bundestag hat das Gesetz ohne eine öffentliche Debatte oder auch nur eine Aussprache im Bundestage faktisch heimlich verabschiedet. Die Bundesregierung versteckte die Totalüberwachung in einem Änderungsantrag zu einem Gesetzentwurf über Fahrverbote. Damit vermied die Koalition bewusst eine Beteiligung des Bundesrates und umging den Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragten und die üblichen parlamentarischen Hürden.

Ulrich Schellenberg, der Präsident des Deutschen Anwaltsvereins kommentierte das Vorgehen wie folgt: „Praktisch ohne öffentliche Debatte wird versucht, mit Rechtsgrundlagen für Online-Durchsuchung und Quellen-Telekommunikationsüberwachung schwerste Grundrechtseingriffe in die Strafprozessordnung einzuführen“.


Copyright Update #1: Debatte um Upload-Filter im EU-Urheberrecht spitzt sich zu

Leonhard Dobusch, netzpolitik.org, 01.02.2018 


Mit dem Wechsel der EU-Ratspräsidentschaft hat die Diskussion über eine Reform des EU-Urheberrechts neue Fahrt aufgenommen. Im Zentrum der Debatte stehen die Vorschläge der Kommission zur Einführung von Upload-Filtern und eines EU-Leistungsschutzrechtes. Sie bedrohen die digitale Meinungs- und Kunstfreiheit.


meine Email an deutsche MEPs vom 7.5.2018


EU-Parlament stimmt für die “Zensur-Maschine” und ignoriert Eure Bedenken, aber wir bleiben dran!

Save The Internet, 13. Sept. 2018


... heute stimmte die Mehrheit der Abgeordneten des EU-Parlaments für die geplante Urheberrechtsreform und wir sind maßlos enttäuscht. Die Abgeordneten des EU-Parlaments haben heute 995.000 Bedenken - EURE Bedenken - ignoriert.


Die heutige Abstimmung ist ein Armutszeugnis für die europäische Demokratie und die Meinungsfreiheit im Netz. Die deutschen Abgeordneten von CDU/CSU und SPD, welche mit ‘JA’ stimmten, stimmten heute damit auch gegen den Koalitionsvertrag ihrer Parteien in Berlin.

Das Leistungsschutzrecht wurde verschlimmert. Es wurde gut versteckt eine Lizenzpflicht für Links durch die Hintertür eingeschmuggelt. Das Leistungsschutzrecht ist realitätsfern und gefährlich. Es bedroht Informationsanbieter wie Blogger, Nachrichten- oder Wissensportale in ihrer Existenz.

Die Umsetzung des 13. Artikels der Richtlinie sieht eine eine Echtzeit-Filterung der Inhalte, die künftig im Netz hochgeladen werden, vor. Letztlich bedeute das: Jeder Upload wird in Zukunft von einem potentiell fehleranfälligen Algorithmus automatisiert geprüft, gegebenenfalls falsch eingestuft und sodann gelöscht. Dadurch wird die freie Meinungsäußerung übermäßig eingeschränkt, bevor überhaupt von ihr Gebrauch gemacht werden kann. Der Upload-Filter gleicht einer Zensur-Maschine, respektive ist mit kleinen Änderungen auch dazu geeignet unliebsame Meinungen zu unterdrücken.

Aber wir haben auch etwas bewirkt. Unser Einsatz im Juni und Juli, der zur Verschiebung der Abstimmung führte, brachte auch Verbesserungen. So wurden nun beispielsweise Start-ups mit einem Umsatz unter 3 Millionen Euro, von Uploadfiltern ausgenommen. Dank euch! 


++ Hier seht Ihr unseren Video-Kommentar aus dem Europäischen Parlament auf Twitter ++ 


Schaake disappointed in copyright reform vote

by Marietje Schaake, 12 September 2018

The Parliament squandered the opportunity to get the copyright reform on the right track. This is a disastrous result for the protection of our fundamental rights, ordinary internet users and Europeęs future in the field of artificial intelligence. We have set a step backwards instead of creating a true copyright reform that is fit for the 21st century."

Earlier Schaake proposed compromise amendments on 5 key issues: 

  1. a limited Article 13 without upload filters, 
  2. a beefed up presumption right for press publishers, 
  3. a broad exception for text and data mining, 
  4. a new broad exception to enable freedom of panorama, 
  5. a new broad exception for user generated content in order to protect the meme.


New opportunity to get the EU’s copyright directive on the right track

Marietje Schaake, 6 September 2018

Throughout the summer a coalition of  MEPs from ALDE, S&D, EPP and ECR have exchanged ideas on finding a compromise for which we work to reach a majority vote in the Parliament. The amendments we tabled focus on five priority areas: 


1.Addressing the rights of creators without installing upload filters

in case there is no majority for it, we propose the following proportionate solution, which would  limit the scope of the proposal to active platforms which give access to audio-visual content only. This option gives rightsholders strong claims to platforms such as YouTube, without endorsing a filtering mandate. Those platforms would be obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders.


2. A beefed up presumption right for press publishers

a presumption to allow the publisher to be regarded as the person entitled to conclude licences on and enforce the rights of reproduction and making available to the public concerning the digital use of the publication.


3. A broad exception for text and data mining

Europe can only develop a successful Artificial Intelligence strategy if a wide variety of organisations, including start-ups and SME’s, are able to carry out text and data mining to content to which they obtained lawful access. The right to read is the right to mine. The JURI proposal would limit this possibility only to a narrow category of organisations.  


4. A new broad exception for  freedom of panorama

Freedom of panorama  gives people the right to take photos of landmarks (for instance the Eiffel Tower) and post them online. In countries where that freedom does not exist, photographers must first get permission from the copyright holder or risk being fined.


5. A new broad exception for user generated content.

This amendment  will better protect the creation and use of memes, gifs or other types of remixes.  Digital use of protected content would be possible for the purposes of pastiche, parody, criticism, or entertainment. It requires that content be legally available, and that the user provide an indication of the source.





William Binney, Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis and Reporting Group, NSA (with some 6000 analysts and reporters



Mindblowing Corruption at FBI - NSA Whistleblower Reveals

William Binney at the Jimmy Dore Show, March 2018 (USB-sticks: INTENSO#9/Binney/Mindblowing Corruption At FBI - NSA Whistleblower Reveals.mp4 (The Jimmy Dore Show) - full transcript


time 2:22 

Jimmy Dore: "Nobody talks about that we have a secret court. Does that bother you?"


William Binney: "That court should be disbanded in my view. It doesn't belong to the Article III Courts. The differencxe between an Article III court and this court is: 


That means that they are totlally trusting the government that lies to them and anybody else. That's part of the felonies that are going on here, and have been going on since September 11, 2001."


time 4:07 

JD: It turns out the FBI has even admitted a bunch of times like back in 2002, correct me if I'm wrong, that they actually did provide false information to the FISA court all the time [WB: "that's right."]. Can you tell me about that?"


WB: "That came out in August, I think, of 2002, when they were talking about that FISA court. It came out that they had basically misrepresented evidence in the court at least 75 times that the court found out. That was at that time. Now since then they've gone through about 30 some thousand requests, and they refused some 5 or 10, that's about it. 

... 

time 4:30

There is another program going on here that's not even adressed by the FISA court, and it's done in secret. Also, in the Article III courts, the regular courts, what they've been doing - this is a program that's called "parallel construction". That is they will use the NSA data for common crimes committed inside this country. With all the data on everybody they can do this. They can find drug dealers, everything."


time 5:20

JD: "That's against the Constitution, You can't do that."


WB: "They are doing it in secret, and they never tell you. That's why they know it's a crime, and that's why they are keeping it secret from us. That's the whole point of it. They doing it regularly. The FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], including the IRS. They are all looking at this NSA data to find common crime."


JD: "Are you kidding me: That's blatantly unconstitutional, illegal. My hair should be on fire about this, right? That's sounds crazy to me that they're allowed to do that."


WB: "It even gets worse now: Once they find common crime in the NSA data, they tip off local and state police to go arrest these people. They don't give them the evidence. They say: 'Go arrest them, go here when they come up in the truck or something, parking it. Go arrest them, bring in the drug dogs and find the drugs'. Then, in order to justify the arrest, what they do is what is called the "parallel construction". And this is policy run by the Department of Justice of the United States. 


What it is, is: They say 'OK, we know these guys were criminals. We have it in the NSA data. But you can't use that data in a court of law, because it wasn't acquired with a warrant. So, it's not admissible. So we have to go find the same similar kind of data, since we know where it is, this makes it easier, and we seek the police out to do our own little investigation, assemble that evidence, and say 'now we're going substitute this evidence with the NSA data in a court of law when we try them. When we do that we can't put any of this statements of where the original source was from NSA, we can't give the court, the lawyers or anybody in the criminal process the understanding that that was the original basis. 


time 7:08

So, that's perjury, every time they did it. And according to Senator Feinstein -she stumbled and bubbled and gave this away- she said "Well, this program's been so valuable we put hundreds of people in jail every year with it. Well, that's thousands of people in jail based on perjury by the Department of Justice of the United States. 


And that's been going on since 9/11. They have been using that domestic spying program, the Stellarwind program, in NSA to do it."


JD: "They are supposed to be using this NSA spying, in theory, to catch terrorists. Isn't that what it is ...  and why we are willing to give up this certain amount of rights, it's because they are supposed to be spying to get terrorists. But you are saying is that they are using the surveillance state for regular crimes [WB nods] and then they are telling the cops, tipping off the cops, the local cops, about the crime, and then telling them ... do they tell them to scrub where you got this originally from and then construct your own parallel investigation ... or just go ahead and here is the information you have, now go find some of your own evidence. That's what they are doing?"


time 8:16

WB: "They do that for them. They create the parallel construction. They don't give them the raw data from NSA. All they do is tell them what to do, because they know what's goint to happen from the NSA data. "


JD: So, they say "Hey, there's going to be a drug dealer", and when they show up, ..."


WB: "When Reuters reported this -they interviewed one of the federal agents involved in the program- he said "This is such a great program, I just hope we can continue in secret". This is destroying our judicial system."


time 9:05

WB: "They are talking about doing something now because it seems to be used against the politicians in Washington. It's the only reason why they talk about it. On the common people ... we don't matter. We're dealing with the Department of Justice here, and we're not included in that."

...

JD: "Why isn't there more people screaming about [it]. You would think there would be people on the Left and Right who would be upset about the government intrusion in privacy like this. Because here is the problem, so, why this matters: If people go 'I don't care if the government reads my emails, if they catch a criminal. I'm not a criminal, who cares!' Well, let's say you caught the government committing a crime and they knew it, and now they know that you know it, because they're spying on you [WB nodds]. And then they can now smear you or arrest you or charge you with something before you get to give them ... Is that's what you are saying? That's one possibility, right?"


WB: "That's what they did to us, Jimmy. They made up information. The only difference is, I caught them at it. So I threatened them with malicious prosecution. If I didn't have that evidence against them -and I gave them the evidence so they knew I had a good one on them- so they backed off. It's the only reason they did that. And somebody at the Department of Jusitce felt so bad about what they were doing to us, they sent us a copy of their draft endictment on us. And so they didn't give us even more evidence of their lying and perjury and affidavit going to the court. That's a felony."   


time 10:34

JD: "It seems like no-one gets in trouble any more for committing fe..., , you know people like Clapper. Clapper famously lied to Congres on TV and nothing happened. People see what they do, when Petraeus, when he gives up classified information, he gets a job teaching at NYU [New York University], and when someone else does it, like they take a selfie on a nuclear sub, they get thrown in the cling. So we see these two tiers of justice. And now you're saying that secret process and this parallel construction and the secret FISA court is now coming back to bite politicians in the ass. That's what you're saying. So now, you're saying, people actually talking about it. What are they saying. Who's talking about this and what are they recommending?"


time 11:24

WB: "The Nunes memo shows the connection with Christopher Steele, his connections with the DNC [Democratic National Committe] and the FBI and the Department of Justice and the collusion between them. They fabricated evidence to present to the FISA court. That's another fabrication going forward to the FISA court, to get a warrant to go and spy on just a person in the Trump campaign. 


Let me tell you what that does. The intelligence community was allowed to spy on somebody like that: They can go 2 hubs from that person: every friend of that person and every friend of that friend, but it goes even beyond that. Because I opposed originally the 2 hub principle back in January 2014 when President Obama was trying to do something to limit the scope of the spying, and limited it to 2 hubs. But it didn't include the little restriction on that, that I was trying to get to him to say. The restriction is for the 2nd hub: you can't use commercial business or a department of government to go through for that 2nd hub. Because, for example, if in the 1st hub they consider going to Google, for example, then the 2nd hub from Google out is to 1.5 billion people per day. Which means, in a very few days you have everybody on the planet. That means that from that 2 hub principle without excluding businesses or government agencies you can go to basically everybody on the planet. That opens it up to everybody."


time 12:59

JD: "So let me clarify. If they get a warrant to spy on 1 person, that includes or implied in that warrant is that they can also spy on people 2 separations away from them?"


WB: "Yes. Like I call you, that's the 1st hub. You call somebody else, that's the 2nd hub."


JD: "So they get to listen in on all those conversations?"


WB: "That's correct."


JD: "What! I didn't know that. So they get a warrant on 1 person in the Trump administration, that's as good as getting a warrant on everybody in the world."


WB: "That's right." 


JD: "And so, when Trump said that the Obama administration had bugged the Trump Tower - was he wrong or was he kind of right or ..."


WB: "He is absolutely right. I wouldn't use the word "bugged" because they're doing it through the switch network. So it means that all they do is remotely from NSA. The can tie into everything from there remotely by attaching to the switches. So, all they do is say 'Give me everything out of this building, Give me everything on all the Trump people (and they know all those and all the phone numbers). Just give me all of it." 


time 14:12

JD: "And so, the Nunes memo about this process of getting this warrant which gave the government, the FBI and everybody ...  the ability to spy on the Trump campaign and administration. And the Democrats didn't like them to release it because -they said- it would jeopardize the national security. They released it and it didn't jeopardize any national security. So now ...


WB: "That's right." 


JD: "... so now their credibility is impugned over this memo, as far as I'm concerned. Right?"


WB: "Yes."


JD: "They lied about it. So now it comes out. And what that memo reveals is what you're saying that the FBI didn't give the judge all the information it was supposed to, and that's a felony."


WB: "That's a felony to misrepresent evidence in a court of law."


JD: "You're going even one step further and say that the FBI actually misrepresented the evidence to the FISA judge to get this warrant."


WB: "Yes, just like all the other parallel constructions since 2001 that they've been running, the FBI  and the DEA. That's been felonies all along. That's perjury in a court of law, perjuring and presenting false evidence. Because it denies the defendant the right to discover and challenge any of the evidence used against him. Because it's false evidence, not the evidence that was really the basis for the arrest. It was the NSA data - that was the basis. But they can't introduce it because it's not admissible. So they have to do this parallel construction, and it ends up making them perjure themselves in a court of law. " 


JD: "... Just lay out very briefly how does this Nunes memo reveal treason?"


WB: "It's the fact



...


time 22:28

WB: "And, I would point out, one of my friends in the VIPS [Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity], Ray McGovern, was listening to a talk given by Mueller about a year or two ago. He went up to him after the talk, asked him a question. "Director Mueller, do you have any problems with parallel construction?" and Mueller said "no, not at all". Mueller even admitted to his using the domestic spying program in an interview with Bart Gellman in 2011 in Time Magazine [Barton Gellman, "Cover Story: Is the FBI Up to the Job 10 Years After 9/11?", Thursday, May. 12, 2011, in cache]. It was written up there where he said, he and his FBI have been using Stellarwind since 2001. Well, that tells you that for 10 years he was approving this use of illegally collected domestic content and metadata on US citizens for prosecuting crime, common crime, any crime in the United States. 


This is this pure guy Mueller, ok, that everybody is hollering about. Comey was also a part of that. He and Mueller were together at the hospital visit in 2004 when they were talking about this Stellarwind program. That was what is was all about. They all went on and proceeded with this parallel construction, this concept of using the Stellarwind data for common crime as well as anything else. [see also paragraph "The Comey/Mueller Myth" in Russia-gate's Mythical 'Heroes' by Coleen Rowley, June 6, 2017] And they used it [in] the IRS sought against the Tea Party, they used it against the Occupy group, they used it against Eliot Spitzer, against the news people Jim Risen, Jim Rosen, the Associated Press. Giving this kind of power to people, eventually they do use it, and this is the kind of things that they use it against. When they said nobody is being hurt, a hell of a lot of people are being hurt." 


time 24:30

"I can also go to Joe Nachio, the former CEO of Quest Communications. In a court of law it was testified he was approached in Febuary of 2001, before 9/11, by NSA and they were asking him to turn over all data on his customers at that time. Well, that's even before 9/11. So, they had a plan on spying on the US citizens even before 9/11. "


"So what happened to Joe Nachio [when he didn't comply]? He told me this - I talked to him: They fabricated evidence about him and put him in jail for 5 years. They did that to us but we caught them at that. So in that case he went to jail for 5 years. Now what did that do? That told every other CEO of every communications company 'if you don't cooperate with us, this is the kind of things that happens to you. So, shape up and participate or else ...'

...

WB: "Actually, a lot of them feel there's nothing they can do."


JD: "That's how I feel right now. "


time 28:56

WB: "Well, I think there's room. People don't realize the power they have. All they have to do is ... you lnow a squeaky wheel needs oil? You have to act like a squeeky wheel. And confront these people in town meetings or wherever you can in public. Make it public so that you can expose them and put them on the spot. And say, "If you guys don't start changing this stuff, we're going to fire you, get somebody else and come after you." That's the way I do it. I'm already involved in 3 separate law suits against the US government for constitutional violations of everybody's privacy, the Fourth Amendment. First, Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Yes. I've sworn affidavids for that, too. "


JD: "What's the progress on these law suits?" . 


WB: "Government is still dragging them out. That's the whole point. They think they've got more money and more time, so they keep dragging it out. Because, the point is, if the case gets into the Supreme Court, one case did already, I'll talk about it in a minute. If the case does get in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, everything they've done falls. All that retroactive immunity, that falls. Everything falls, is no longer valid. You can't pass a law that violates the Constitution, and that would be a violation of the Constitution right there. 


If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, all retroactive immunity falls. All those laws will fall and all those telecoms, everybody would be liable for their actions abd criminal acts against the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country."


time 30:21

JD: "So tell me about the case that did get to the Supreme Court."


WB: "That was the AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL VS. CLAPPER. Chris Hedges was a member, a plaintiff in that law suit. What happened in that law suit was this issue of parallel construction came up. The fact that the NSA data was used against people in a court of law, in criminal cases, when that came up, the Solicitor General of the United States lied to the Supreme Court to get it thrown out. He said, anybody in a criminal case where NSA data was used, they will be told that NSA data was used against them, so that they can challenge the discovery of that data in a court of law. In fact, no-one was told. If I was on the Supreme Court I would say "I'm reinstating this case with prejudice against the United States and hold the United States government in contempt of the Supreme Court." I would have done that."


JD: "Are you telling me that John Roberts is aware that that guy lied?"


WB: "Now, he's aware of it. He went along with it."


JD: "And so they just go along? "


WB: "They go along to get along. I assume that NSA has something against him."


JD: "It's like we're living in a land of J. Edgar Hoover, but it's on steroids, to the tenth power of that thing."


WB: "It's on supersteroids."

...

 

Whistleblowers: Congress Has Entrenched the Surveillance State

Thomas Drake and Coleen Rowley at The Real News Network, January 18, 2018

...

THOMAS DRAKE: I mean, it’s facile in terms of manufacturing different definitions of words in order to fit what they want to fall under the blanket of something they claim is legal. This is ultimately a general warrant. It’s not permitted by the Constitution, but as I was told a long time ago, “Hey, why let the Constitution stand in the way when National Security takes primacy?” I mean, to me, it’s just a huge Kabuki dance here, Aaron. It really is.

AARON MATÉ: We have to wrap, but Coleen Rowley, final thoughts?

COLEEN ROWLEY: Well, I think I’ll go out on a limb and worry that we are going to return to the 1960 era that lead to the Church Committee. Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day and we forget that he was himself a huge target of the FBI and other intelligence agencies merely for his dissent on issues. I think with the McCarthyism going on, that we are unfortunately going to be returning to that dark era unless people really wise up quickly because this is very dangerous.

VIPS Plead for Humanitarian Asylum for Julian Assange

August 6, 2018 (in cache)

Memorandum for: The US Embassies of Ecuador and the United Kingdom, and the U.S. State Department

... Recently obtained emails show that Sweden would have dropped the case years earlier but for pressure from UK authorities.[Bowcott & MacAskill.“Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013, CPS emails show.” The Guardian, 11 Feb 2018, CPS = Crown Prosecution Service]. In summary, Assange has been confined for six years over allegations that never resulted in charges, much less a criminal conviction. 


On July 12, 2018, the Organization of American States’ (OAS) Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) sent out a ruling11 that was virtually unnoticed by US news media. The IACHR found “it is the duty of nations to allow for the passage of successful asylum seekers from embassies to the mainland territory of the state that has granted an individual asylum.”


For Julian Assange, this would mean that, according to the Court’s decision, Britain has a legal obligation to allow Julian Assange to exit the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in peace and allow for his safe transit to an airport from which he would be able to fly to Ecuador, the country that has granted Assange asylum and where he now also holds formal citizenship12


“[I]t is imperative,” the ruling states, “that Assange is allowed to make the safe passage to Ecuador demanded by the Court as his physical and mental health conditions have been described as deteriorating rapidly. If, nevertheless, UK authorities insist on arresting Assange, “the British government will have wantonly failed to uphold Assange’s rights as a legitimate receiver of asylum by Ecuador.”13


The IACHR ruling suggests further that outright abuses occurred when Ecuador removed security assigned for Assange;14 when the UK rejected Ecuador’s request for safe passage of Assange to Ecuador15; and when the US obstructed efforts to end Assange’s virtual imprisonment.16 ...


Collectively, the governments of Sweden, the UK, the US, Ecuador (recently) and, through its silence, Assange’s home country of Australia have imposed six years of suffering on Assange and possibly life-long damage to his health. With their proxies, they pound Assange with threats, ad hominem attacks and misleading statements. He cannot defend himself because the government of Ecuador terminated his access to communications systems. This may have a temporary effect of confusing the public; but as more legal experts and human rights authorities hazard coming to his defense, the public may recognize these assaults as the desperate flailings of governments that lack credible defenses for their actions.


Public dissatisfaction with governments worldwide is currently high, as evidenced by numerous massive street protests, passages of referendums against centralized power, and wide-spread elections of anti-establishment candidates. Any additional erosion of public support risks a tipping point with unforeseeable consequences. Brutality against Julian Assange, particularly as his health declines, can only increase 


The involved governments have arrived at a fork in the road. They can continue the persecution of Assange, risking catastrophe for diminishing returns. Or, they can let Assange proceed to Ecuador, or home to Australia if it provides suitable guarantees,24 and boost their public standing as self-described supporters of human rights, the rule of law, and a free press.


We the undersigned members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity urge all governments to honor the OHCHR and IACHR directives with respect to Julian Assange and other asylum seekers.


For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)

Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) and Division Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research

Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer.

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret); Wing Commander, RAAF (ret); Intelligence Officer and Master SERE Instructor

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003?

Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.) Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA

analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA

Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)

Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS) Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)


Cryptocurrency will survive as US dollar and euro collapse – BitCoin Cash ‘CEO’

Published time: 10 Aug, 2018 06:00 (in cache)

Sophie Shevardnadse interviews Rick Falkvinge, CEO of BitCoin Cash and founder of the Swedish Pirate Party


... When I’m buying a bottle of water with a credit card someone in the background there’s a bank giving me permission to buy a bottle of water with a credit card. And that is a horrifying thought. Because that means that the bank can also deny me permission to buy a bottle of water. Nobody thinks of this, but it’s there. With Bitcoin this is not true. There is nobody needing to give permission in the background. There’s nobody who gets to say no to a transaction. No money can be forced. No money can be seized. And here’s a big problem for governments in the future. Taxes can no longer be forced....


VIPS Asks Twitter to Restore Van Buren’s Account

Consortiumnews, August 7, 2018 • 98 Comments (in cache)

 

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity in a memo to the Twitter board of directors questions its decision to suspend the account of one of its members without due process.


"Censorship Does NOT Work!" Tucker Goes Off on the Alex Jones Ban

August 17, 2018 

(INTENSO#9/docus/Censorship Does NOT Work!- Tucker Goes Off on the Alex Jones Ban.mp4)


Censorship Is What Happens When Powerful People Get Scared

Michael Krieger | Posted Monday Aug 13, 2018 at 2:06 pm (in cache)


“Only the weak hit the fly with a hammer.”


Linke Sammlungsbewegung, wohin?

Mohssen Massarat, nachdenkseiten, 28. August 2018 (im Cache)


#Aufstehen als Anreiz, selbst zur Feder zu greifen, sich über die Inhalte einer solchen Bewegung Gedanken zu machen und dadurch einen Unterbau für #Aufstehen zu schaffen.


Viertens stellt das durch die Verfassung garantierte Recht auf Arbeit das Pendant zur ebenso radikal wie einleuchtenden ökologischen Forderung der Grünen dar, den Klimaschutz im Grundgesetz zu verankern. 

Dadurch entstünde ein inhaltlich fundiertes Bündnis mit den Grünen für eine Verfassungsdebatte, um für einen längst fälligen Strukturwandel die erforderliche Rechtsgrundlage zu schaffen. Die Kombination beider radikaler Forderungen hätte auf jeden Fall den Charme, die Grünen mit den linken Reformern in der SPD und der Linkspartei als Ganzes inhaltlich zusammenzuführen und die Protagonisten beider Lager vom gemeinsamen Eintreten für beide Projekte zu überzeugen.


... So wäre die Aussicht realistisch, die Märkte endlich den Bedürfnissen der Gesellschaft unterzuordnen und den politischen Debattenraum für zukunftsfähige Veränderungen und die Weiterentwicklung der Demokratie signifikant zu erweitern. ...


... Auch die Tatsache, dass die Grünen den Klimaschutz in das Grundgesetz festschreiben wollen, zeigt, dass auch sie hinsichtlich der Wirkungskraft von Marktinstrumenten desillusioniert sind. Offensichtlich versprechen sie sich von diesem Vorstoß ein deutlich stärkeres politisches Handeln in Sachen Klimaschutz. Dieses kann aber eine zielgerichtete Regulierung des Energieangebots sein, in dem der sofortige Ausstieg aus der Kohle der erste Schritt sein müsste. 


... Der Inhalt der Regulierung [des Energiemarkts] wäre dann logischerweise die schrittweise Reduktion des Angebots von allen Formen fossiler Energieträger, so dass die naturwissenschaftlich festgelegten Klimaschutzziele auch zielgenau erreicht werden. Bei einer solchen Regulierungskonzeption, so sie politisch definiert und gesetzlich festgelegt ist, bleibt für fossile Energiekonsumenten kein Entrinnen mehr, weder für die großen und reichen noch für die einkommensschwachen Konsumenten. 


Erst auf der Basis eines solchen aus den Klimaschutzerfordernissen abgeleiteten Regulierungskonzepts beginnen die Märkte richtig zu funktionieren. Erst dann steigen die Preise der fossilen Energieträger auf jenes Niveau an, das hoch genug sein wird und für die Konsumenten den erforderlichen Anreiz liefert, um auf den alternativen Pfad der regenerativen Energietechnologien umzusteigen. 

Wie man sich leicht vorstellen kann, bleibt die Regulierung auf die Angebotsreduktion beschränkt. Alle anderen Bereiche, vor allem die Technologiemärkte, bleiben unreguliert und müssen auch unreguliert bleiben, damit sich die besten Technologieoptionen zur Energiewende im Wettbewerb durchsetzen können. Ein wirksamer Klimaschutz braucht mit oder ohne dessen Verankerung in der Verfassung auf jeden Fall einen Masterplan zur systematischen Reduktion des fossilen Energieangebots, national und international.


... Die Schaffung neuer Weltwährungen, z. B. durch die Stärkung des Euro und damit die Beseitigung der Monopolmacht des Dollars als gegenwärtig einzige Weltwährung, würde einen wichtigen Hebel zur zwangsweisen Abrüstung der USA darstellen, da diese ihre unvorstellbaren Rüstungsausgaben nicht durch Steuern der US-Bürger, sondern durch die Monopolmacht des Dollars finanzieren. 


... Dadurch sollten Zahlungskanäle entstehen, die von den USA unabhängig sind und damit so auch ein wirkungsvoller Schutz der europäischen Unternehmen vor US-Sanktionen ermöglichen. Vor diesem Hintergrund müsste sich eine linke Sammlungsbewegung auch die gegenwärtig zentrale Forderung der Friedensbewegung Abrüstung statt Aufrüstung zueigen machen und diese noch radikaler vertreten. Denkbar wäre dazu beispielsweise die verfassungsmäßige Fundierung einer jährlichen Senkung der Rüstungsausgaben.


Being Julian Assange

Consortiumnews, September 25, 2018 • 45 Comments (in cache)

As Julian Assange’s fate may soon be resolved, here’s an in-depth look at the history of WikiLeaks, the infiltration of activist communities and the strength & vulnerability of the world-changing publisher whose freedom is at stake, by Suzie Dawson.

Julian Assange - Selected Correspondence

IQ.org, 


Julian Assange's last video before communications cut at Ecuadoriam Embassy

Transcript by Marianne Steenken, 8 October 2018


A small victory

DiEM25

16. Okt. 2018 —  (in cache)

The new “protocol” regulating Julian Assange’s visits, communications and right to medical assistance is a small victory, but remains inhumane. DiEM25 will continue advocating for our founding member‘s freedom until he is released.

Our efforts as a legal team demanding respect for the basic rights of DiEM25 Advisory Panel member Julian Assange have achieved a small victory. Our requests were heard out by both the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Both share the role of ensuring that countries live up to their international legal obligations, without exception. The government of Ecuador, after meeting them, then lifted some of the restrictions he is subjected to, and restored access to his electronic communications (read the official new “protocol” regulating Julian’s visits, communications and medical assistance here & in cache).

While we welcome this development, we want to call your attention to the fact that we have ongoing concerns over and above these restored communications. We refer to the restrictions imposed by Ecuador on Julian’s freedom to speak, his work as a journalist and his private life, including major intrusions on his privacy and on the privacy of his visitors. 

We believe the new “protocol” regulating Julian’s visits, communications and right to medical assistance are insufficient and remain inhumane. In addition, we strongly suspect that such a new “protocol” is not about genuinely restoring Julian’s rights to free speech and improve his living conditions. Instead, this latest development seems to be more of an Ecuadorian Government’s PR operation that aims to: 

1. appease the loud voices denouncing the systematic violation of Julian’s human rights, as well as calling for his immediate release, and 

2.  Set up an arbitrary legal minefield to easily trigger – and justify – Julian’s ejection from the Ecuadorian embassy.

This protracted situation needs urgent action from both the government of Ecuador and the government of the UK, both of whom should take serious steps to end this situation by simply respecting international law. 

The UK continues restricting even the most basic and humane access to sunlight and fresh air. It continues to refuse safe passage. It continues to break international human rights law by blocking Julian from his right to asylum. 

Refugees like Julian Assange have no restrictions on their rights, and the UK should bring this situation to a prompt end by abiding by the UN ruling, which ordered his immediate release more than two years ago, guaranteeing that he won’t be extradited to the US.

As DiEM25, we will continue advocating for our founding member ‘s freedom until he is released.

Text by Renata Ávila - a member of DiEM25’s Coordinating Collective, and Julian Assange’s legal team.


The Constitutional Rubicon of an Assange Prosecution

by Elizabeth Goitein, JustSecurity.org.May 9, 2017


.... FBI Director James Comey’s hearing before the House Intelligence Committee last Wednesday.

... asked ... whether “American journalists [who] court and solicit [classified] information” have violated the law, ... Comey responded that the Department of Justice would not prosecute such activity.


...So why, in Comey’s mind, is it permissible to bring charges against Assange? He explained his reasoning as follows: Publishing classified information “crosses a line when it moves from being about trying to educate a public and instead becomes just about intelligence porn, frankly. Just pushing out information about sources and methods without regard to interest, without regard to the First Amendment values that normally underlie press reporting.” That, to Comey, describes WikiLeaks’ behavior: “[I]n my view, a huge portion of WikiLeak’s activities has nothing to do with legitimate newsgathering, informing the public, commenting on important controversies, but is simply about releasing classified information to damage the United States of America.”


... How will the government decide which outlets have an acceptable motivation? Comey didn’t go into detail, but he pointed to one indicator: “American journalists . . . will almost always call us before they publish classified information and say, is there anything about this that’s going to put lives in danger, that’s going to jeopardize government people, military people or—or innocent civilians anywhere in the world. And then they work with us to try and accomplish their important First Amendment goals while safeguarding those interests.”


This exchange should send chills down the spine of every reporter and media representative. To be clear, I believe anyone who intends to publish classified information—assuming the information is not facially innocuous, as much classified information is—should consult with the executive branch in an effort to minimize harm. He or she should also exercise judgment and not publish potentially harmful information of negligible public interest. That is nothing more than morally responsible journalism. But acknowledging these professional obligations is a far cry from saying that the Department of Justice may prosecute someone who does not adhere to them.

To state the obvious, allowing the government to decide whether the intent behind a media disclosure is to “harm the United States” would throw open the door to viewpoint based discrimination. A reporter may well be opposed to certain U.S. government policies, or even to entire administrations, and have an intent to undermine them through her reporting. Regardless of whether that is model journalism, it is certainly protected under the First Amendment. Yet what a blogger considers to be opposition to a particular administration could easily be considered—or portrayed as—“intent to harm the United States” by an FBI agent.

That is not to say that journalists can print anything they want. The media’s First Amendment rights are no greater than those of any ordinary private citizen. They can be sued for libel, for instance. And if they knowingly print information that presents a “clear and present danger” to public safety—the equivalent of incitement, or of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater—they could presumably be prosecuted (although no such prosecution has ever taken place). But the threshold for prosecution must be much, much higher than a nebulous claim of potential national security harm. Moreover, as Steve Vladeck noted in a previous post, the existence of such a danger would not depend on the motive of the publisher. Someone who hates the United States cannot be prosecuted for releasing documents if the New York Times could release the same documents with impunity.

Officials who leak classified information are in a different position. As a condition of their employment, government employees may be subject to certain restrictions on speech and political activity that would be unconstitutional if applied to private citizens. In general, an employee who signs a non-disclosure agreement in order to gain access to classified government information may be prosecuted for leaking that information. Drawing the line between those who leak classified information and those who publish it thus makes constitutional sense in a way that drawing the line between “good” publishers and “bad” publishers does not.

If anything, a line between leakers and publishers may been drawn too far in the direction of non-disclosure. Not all restrictions on government employees’ speech are constitutionally permissible. For instance, a person cannot be prohibited from criticizing the government as a condition of government employment. Although the Obama administration prosecuted a record number of national security whistleblowers, there is a strong argument to be made that a government employee cannot constitutionally be required to forego disclosure of unlawful government conduct. Certainly, as a policy matter, such disclosures should not be prosecuted—or prosecutable. ...

Judges Hear Warning on Prosecution of WikiLeaks

by MARIA DINZEO, July 24, 2018 (Tuesday)


ANAHEIM, Calif. (CN) – Prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents related to the 2016 presidential election would set a terrible precedent for journalists, the top lawyer for The New York Times said Tuesday.


Addressing a room full of federal and circuit judges at the Ninth Circuit’s annual judicial conference, David McCraw, the deputy general counsel for The New York Times, explained that regardless of how one feels about Assange and traditional news outlets receiving the same kind of deference over publishing leaked materials, his prosecution would be a gut punch to free speech.


“I think the prosecution of him would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers,” McCraw said. “From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.”


McCraw went on to clarify that while Assange employs certain methods that he finds discomfiting and irresponsible, such as dumping unredacted documents revealing the personal information of ordinary people, Assange should be afforded the same protections as a traditional journalist.


“Do I wish journalism was practiced in a certain way, like it is with The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal? Of course. But I also think new ways of publishing have their value. Our colleagues who are not only challenging us financially but journalistically have raised an awareness that there are different ways to report,” McCraw said.


“But if someone is in the business of publishing information, I think that whatever privilege happens to apply – whatever extension of the law that would apply – should be there. Because the question isn’t whether he’s a journalist. It’s in that instance was he committing an act of journalism.”


Assange has long considered himself a journalist operating no differently than other news outlets. This has complicated matters, because if Assange can be prosecuted for publishing leaked information, why not prosecute news organizations like The New York Times? ...


U.K. and Ecuador Conspire to Deliver Julian Assange to U.S. Authorities

by Gareth Porter, Nov 26, 2018 (in cache)


The accidental revelation in mid-November that U.S. federal prosecutors had secretly filed charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange underlines the determination of the Trump administration to end Assange’s asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been staying since 2012.


Behind the revelation of those secret charges for supposedly threatening U.S. national security is a murky story of a political ploy by the Ecuadorian and British governments to create a phony rationale for ousting Assange from the embassy. The two regimes agreed to base their plan on the claim that Assange was conspiring to flee to Russia.

Trump and his aides applauded Assange and WikiLeaks during the 2016 election campaign for spreading embarrassing revelations about Hillary Clinton’s campaign via leaked DNC emails. But all that changed abruptly in March 2017 when WikiLeaks released thousands of pages of CIA documents describing the CIA’s hacking tools and techniques. The batch of documents published by WikiLeaks did not release the actual “armed” malware deployed by the CIA. But the “Vault 7” leak, as WikiLeaks dubbed it, did show how those tools allowed the agency to break into smartphones, computers and internet-connected televisions anywhere in the world—and even to make it look like those hacks were done by another intelligence service.

The CIA and the national security state reacted to the Vault 7 release by targeting Assange for arrest and prosecution. On March 9, 2017, Vice President Mike Pence called the leak tantamount to “trafficking in national security information” and threatened to “use the full force of the law and resources of the United States to hold all of those to account that were involved.” ...


From: Jesselyn Radack <whisper@exposefacts.org>

Subject: They’re supposed to PROTECT, not PROSECUTE whistleblowers

Date: 15. Dezember 2018 16:59:35 MEZ

To: Jochen Gruber <jochen.gruber@acamedia.info>

Reply-To: Jesselyn Radack <whisper@exposefacts.org>


Dear Jochen,

It isn’t something you often hear about in the press, but a big part of our work defending whistleblowers involves the Inspector General offices of government agencies.


The Inspector General (IG) system was created by Congress in 1978 as a way to provide strong independent oversight to investigate waste, fraud, abuse, incompetence, and illegality. It is supposed to be a protected place for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing. But the IG system is badly broken. Too many times, an agency Inspector General has actually investigated the whistleblower instead of the wrongdoing that was alleged. Our clients are often criticized for “not going through internal channels” when they blow the whistle, when in reality, they often did report through these channels, but found them to be a source of danger, not protection.


The most infamous example was the case of our client, Thomas Drake, who attempted to blow the whistle on the glaring waste and unconstitutionality of the mass surveillance of Americans after 9/11. Drake took these concerns to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, but instead of protecting Drake, the IG referred him to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution and then told the Justice Department evidence of his disclosures had been destroyed. The treatment of Thomas Drake was so egregious, that it drove an Assistant Inspector General, John Crane, to become a whistleblower himself.


We are currently representing yet another whistleblower, herself a former employee of an Inspector General, who was investigated by Department of Defense IG after making major disclosures of waste, fraud, and misrepresentations to Congress. We hope to share more about that case soon.


In the meantime, we need your help to be able to provide pro-bono representation to these clients as they are targeted by the very internal channels that are supposed to protect them. We are a small team, so every donation is impactful, and currently we have an opportunity to receive an extra $20,000 challenge grant if we can raise that much from our donors.


Donate Now

Thanks to all of you who have donated so far, we are currently at 20% of our goal already. The legal bills faced by whistleblowers can often be financially ruinous, so I don’t want to leave any funding opportunity on the table.


Thank you for your support,


Jesselyn Radack

Director

Whistleblower & Source Protection Program (WHISPeR)

ExposeFacts


Twitter: @JesselynRadack



Bill Binney on intimidation by government

John Kiriakou, Loud & Clear, 14.12.2018 (in cache)


Now we turn to the CIA and the Vault 7 revelations. 


Joshua Schulte is a former CIA computer engineer who has being held in New York's Metropolitan Detention Center. He was arrested after an FBI raid on his apartment in connection with the "Vault 7" leak of cyberweapons, but the government charged him with possessing child pornography. In a recent letter to US District Court Judge Paul Crotty, Schulte says that he is being tortured in prison, and he's being denied medication, writing materials, and access to his attorneys. Furthermore, the government is demanding that if Schulte were to meet with his attorneys, he would have to be shackled, chained to a bolt in the floor, and denied access to the classified documents necessary to defend himself. Brian and John speak with Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director who became a legendary national security whistleblower.


John Kiriakou: "I'm having trouble understanding this case. Now, first I want to tak about htese child pornography charges, because I think we might be able to dispense with these. I'd noticed a pattern -and I have no inside information here at all, I'm just speculating- but I'd noticed a pattern beginning with Matt Duhart that the government will come out and say, at the time of arrest, that they found child pornography on a target's computer. In the case of Matt DeHart that was a bald face lie. The Judge actually reprimanded the prosecutor, because there was zero evidence of child pornography. 


I don't know if there's child pornography on Josh Schulte's computer. I have no idea whatsoever. But in order to keep him locked up, that's what they charged him with. They didn't charge him with the Vault 7 release. So now we've got a situation where he somehow got a cell phone into his cell, and he was defending himself from prison using this cell phone on social media sites. And so now he's been declared essentially an Enemy of the State. 


So the latest reporting, and it's only on alternative media, we're not seeing any of this in the mainstream media, the alternative media is saying that the FBI and the Justice Department have put these onerous controls on him. So in order to defend himself he's only allowed to see his attournees in a Justice Department conference room, only during normal work hours, which are 9 to 5, only in the presence of an FBI agent who is not allowed to report what he hears to the prosecutors, with CCTV -although the CCTV is supposed not to have sound associated with it. The attournee is going to be searched for recording devices every day going into this conference room, and Josh Schulte is going to be shackled to a bolt in the floor. He's not allowed to touch any documents, he's not allowed to touch a computer, He's not allowed to have private conversations with his attournees, and he's supposed to somehow defend himself in this way.


Now, you and I have gone through this -in different ways. I've never heard of anything like this. Does it make sense to you in order to protect information or is the goverment just going overboard?"


Bill Binney: "well, this is a form of more intimidation. That's what they did to Chelsea Manning. Same thing, same torture. They tortured her. It's just a matter of intimidation. That's what they are doing. I would also add in the case - in other cases, for example, they use anything they can to try to get at people like sexual harrassment, all kinds of things, as they did with Julian [Assange] or what they did with Jacob Appelbaum. The same kinds of things. "


John Kiriakou: "Now, that's a good point I hadn't actually considered. Especially with somebody like Jacob Appelbaum, who was never charged with a crime. And yet the guy had his reputation utterly ruined."


BB: "That's right. And my thought on that was: it was a way that the government, both the British and US government, were breaking up Tor, and taking control of Tor. They had to get rid of the people in it. That meant Jacob and his compatriots. So they had to do something to break it up. That's the kind of thing they are doing."


JK: "I think that's exactly right. And, Bill, can you explain to us what exactly Vault 7 was, and why the government is so apoplectic that the information was released?"


BB: "The whole setup compromises, several hundred million lines of source codeCof different kinds of attacks, breaking through firewalls, implants in servers and switches, and weaknesses in all kinds of operating systems - so it's a host of attacks. One of them, Wannacry, was a derivative of some of that. There's thousands of them. The problem is -like I kept saying over and over, for years I've been saying this: the government let those weaknesses exist so we're all vulnerable, and instead of fixing them and giving us cybersecurity, every time they get an attack they would saying "We need more money for cybersecurity." So, this is another form of a swindle. Then at the same time it lets them look into all kinds of people's communications."


Brian Becker: "It shows, once you create these tools, and the tools aren't controllable and anyone who really wants them can access them ..."


BB: "That's right."


BrB: "So, it's not about defense, it's not about security. I mean, I really wonder, Bill, is it just simply they don't care, or do they have sort of a sense of "We are the CIA, and thus nothing really bad can happen to us, even though bad things keep happening"? In other words: Do they have a recklessness about it, a sort of a sense that all will go well? Because otherwise it would seem to me just on a logical point of view, it's completely predictable that if you create these kind of tools in this era, somebody's going to leak, somebody's going to hack them, somebody's going to be able to use them and leak them, and then all the other parties in the world whom you might characterize as adversaries not only know what you can do, but they have the same toolkit."


BB: "That's right. And by the way, it simply says that they don't care about our privacy or anything else, or any of the laws. For example the idea that you have to have a warrant based on probable cause, they don't do that. And look at Brennan who spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee when they were working on a report on CIA torture. What happened to him? Nothing. What happened to Clapper when he lied, and Alexander and any [of the] others who lied to the Congress about spying on US citizens? What happened to them? Nothing. That's because they're all part of Department of "Just Us". This is the secret shadow government in action."


JK: "Let's talk about that, actually. Because that's an important point. There's an incredible and very clear and public double standard here, where John Brennan can commit very obvious crimes. Says up to the crimes finally, after lying about them for weeks, and then just walk away with impunity. The same with Clapper, who lied directly to the face of Senator Ron Widen of Oregon, lied and said that NSA was not spying on Americans, lied under oath, which is clearly contemps of Congress or perjury, because he was under oath."


BrB: "And the only reason we know he was lying is because of Snowden. Julian Assange, Wikileaks, they are the targets now, Bill Binney. But anybody who is blowing the whistle or revealing government misconduct is the target. It seems to me that it's a critical moment for the United States and for the whole concept of a democratic society."


BB: "All they are trying to do is say 'We, the government, are not accountable to the people of the country. We are a government with a country, we are not a country with a government.' And so what they are doing is simply taking over, they have power over everybody by accumulating all this knowledge, and they can exercise it anytime they want with anybody they want because they can retroactively look at everything you've ever done."


Stoppen wir die geplante zentrale Datei, in der alle Menschen in Deutschland erfasst werden sollen!


Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF Admin), 21.12.2018


Stichtag 13. Januar 2019: Der Bund plant eine zentrale Datei aller Menschen in Deutschland! Helfen Sie uns, eine der größten Datenübermittlungen in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik zu verhindern.


Volkszählungen sind für den Staat meist willkommene Anlässe, in großem Umfang die Daten seiner Bürger*innen zu sammeln und auszuwerten. Nicht umsonst begründete das Bundesverfassungsgericht 1983 in seinem berühmten „Volkszählungsurteil“ das „Datenschutz-Grundrecht“: die informationelle Selbstbestimmung.


Die Grenzen des Datensammelns, die das Bundesverfassungsgericht dem Staat seit 1983 immer wieder deutlich machte, sollen nun in einem sogenannten „Testlauf“ für den für 2021 geplanten Zensus umgangen werden: Der Bund plant eine Zentral-Datei aller Menschen in Deutschland.


Dies möchte die GFF gemeinsam mit dem AK Zensus mit einem Eilantrag zum Bundesverfassungsgericht stoppen! Helfen Sie uns, diesen schweren Verstoß gegen den Datenschutz zu verhindern.


Ein im Schnellverfahren durch den Bundestag geschleustes Änderungsgesetz zum Zensusvorbereitungsgesetz 2021 bestimmt, dass zum Stichtag 13. Januar 2019 alle deutschen Meldeämter umfassende Datensätze zu allen bei ihnen gemeldeten Personen an die statistischen Ämter der Länder übermitteln sollen. Auf diese Daten soll dann das Statistische Bundesamt zentralen Zugriff bekommen. Und diese Daten sind weder anonymisiert noch pseudonymisiert!


Das Beunruhigende daran: Erstmals werden die gesamten Meldedaten dann in einer zentralen Datenbank des Bundes ansteuerbar sein – trotz entgegenstehender Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Hierbei wird jeder gemeldeten Person erstmals eine Kennnummer zugewiesen, sodass die personenbezogenen Daten (hier u.a. Name, Geschlechtsidentität, Familienstand, Scheidungstermine und Religionszugehörigkeit) eindeutig verknüpft werden können. So entsteht im Zuge eines vermeintlichen Testlaufs durch die Hintertür der Wunschtraum eines jeden Überwachungsstaats: der katalogisierte und zentral abrufbare Bürger. Und machen wir uns nichts vor: Beim Zugriff des Statistischen Bundesamts wird es nicht bleiben – viele andere Behörden werden “Bedarf” anmelden.


GFF und AK Zensus wollen die zentrale Erfassung aller Menschen in Deutschland mit einem Eilantrag vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht verhindern. Dafür benötigen wir Ihre Hilfe!


Das Gesetz enthält keine detaillierten Begrenzungen dazu, wie der Bund die Daten in dieser beispiellos umfangreichen Datenbank weiterverarbeiten kann. Die Verknüpfung von Daten durch Kennnummern ist ein großer Schritt dahin, individuelle Persönlichkeitsprofile eines jeden Menschen in Deutschland zu erstellen.


Die GFF findet: Das verletzt das Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung!


How NSA Can Secretly Aid Criminal Cases

By Ray McGovern (Originally published on June 12, 2014), May 18, 2017 • 39 Comments

From the Archive: Official Washington is thrilled by the choice of ex-FBI Director Mueller as Russia-gate special counsel, hailing him as a straight-shooter, but he cut some legal corners in office, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern wrote in 2014.


Rarely do you get a chance to ask a just-retired FBI director whether he had “any legal qualms” about what, in football, is called “Government wordsmiths have given us this pleasant euphemism to describe the use of the National Security Agency’s illegal eavesdropping on Americans as an investigative tool to pass on tips to law enforcement agencies which then hide the source of the original suspicion and “construct” a case using “parallel” evidence to prosecute the likes of you and me.


For those interested in “quaint” things like the protections that used to be afforded us by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, information about this “parallel construction” has been in the public domain, including the “mainstream media,” for at least a year or so.


... Bottom line? Beware, those of you who think you have “nothing to hide” when the NSA scoops up your personal information. You may think that the targets of these searches are just potential “terrorists.” But the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Drug Enforcement Administration and countless other law enforcement bodies are dipping their cursors into the huge pool of mass surveillance.


... And, chances are that if some of your scooped-up data gets shared with law enforcement and the Feds conclude that you’ve violated some law, you’ll never become aware of how they got onto you in the first place. They’ll just find some “parallel” evidence to nail you.


After all, it’s altogether likely for a great majority of us that some dirt can be retrieved with the NSA’s voluminous files an inviting starting point. AT&T, for example, apparently has kept metadata about its customers, as well as all other traffic going through its switches, for the past 27 years.


For those who are Caesar’s-wife pure and whose loved ones also approach perfection, “constructing” a prosecutable case may be more of a challenge. But relax not. If for some reason the government decides to get you if you’ve popped up as somehow an obstacle to “national security” it is not impossible. Even in recent decades, critics of government policies have ended up facing dredged-up, if not trumped-up, criminal charges over some past indiscretion or misdeed.


... 

Separation of Powers?


We cannot escape some pretty dismal conclusions here. Not only have the Executive and Legislative branches been corrupted by establishing, funding, hiding and promoting unconstitutional surveillance programs during the “war on terror,” but the Judicial branch has been corrupted, too.


The discovery process in criminal cases is now stacked in favor of the government through its devious means for hiding unconstitutional surveillance and using it in ways beyond the narrow declared purpose of thwarting terrorism.


Moreover, federal courts at the district, appeals and Supreme Court levels have allowed the government to evade legal accountability by insisting that plaintiffs must be able to prove what often is not provable, that they were surveilled through highly secretive NSA means. And, if the plaintiffs make too much progress, the government can always get a lawsuit thrown out by invoking “state secrets.”


... The Separation of Powers designed by the Constitution’s Framers to prevent excessive accumulation of power by one of the branches has stopped functioning amid the modern concept of “permanent war” and the unwillingness of all but a few hearty souls to challenge the invocation of “national security.” Plus, the corporate-owned U.S. media, with very few exceptions, is fully complicit.


...  Wolfgang Schmidt, a former lieutenant colonel in the Stasi, in Berlin: “It is the height of naivete to think that, once collected, this information won’t be used. This is the nature of secret government organizations. The only way to protect the people’s privacy is not to allow the government to collect their information in the first place.”


The Prisoner Says ‘No’ to Big Brother

By John Pilger, Consortium News, March 4, 2019 • 20 Comments (Video)

John Pilger gave this speech at a rally for Julian Assange organized by the Socialist Equality Party in Sydney on March 3 2019 organized by the Socialist Equality Party


The refusal by Australia’s foreign ministry to honor the UN’s declaration that Julian Assange is the victim of “arbitrary detention” is a shameful breach of the letter and spirit of international law.


... WikiLeaks has also revealed 


That explains why he is being punished.


WikiLeaks has also published more than 800,000 secret files from Russia, including the Kremlin, telling us more about the machinations of power in that country than the specious hysterics of the Russia-gate pantomime in Washington.


... The persecution of Julian Assange is the conquest of us all: of 


Comment by Curious, March 5, 2019

This may be a naive question, but after you spoke of the rulings from the UN I wondered whether it would be possible for the UN to send in its peace keeping force and make their presence known around room #101, and be a force in the face of the Brits. If the International Court of Justice, along with the UN itself has made these rulings, why can they not send in a blue helmet force to get Julian out of the Embassy? I haven’t thought of this before, and the UK/US would be super POd, but so what? Has the UN lost all its authority? They are still in the Golan and this Embassy fiasco is of equal concern for many.

I’m just wondering.


Media Serve the Governors, Not the Governed

Consortium News, March 4, 2019 • 28 Comments

Joe Lauria gave this speech at a rally for Julian Assange organized by the Socialist Equality Party in Sydney on March 3 2019 organized by the Socialist Equality Party (video).


In his 1971 opinion in the Pentagon Papers case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote: “In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.”


(In that Pentagon Papers’ decision, 


That’s what WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have been doing since 2006: censuring governments with governments’ own words pried from secrecy by WikiLeak’s sources—whistleblowers. In other words, WikiLeaks has been doing the job the U.S. constitution intended the press to do.

One can hardly imagine anyone sitting on today’s U.S. Supreme Court writing such an opinion. Even more troubling is the news media having turned its back on its mission. Today they almost always serve the governors—not the governed. 


The question is why.



... The abdication of the mainstream media of their constitutional responsibility to serve the governed and not the governors has left a void filled for more than a decade by WikiLeaks.


... Now the traditional media can be bypassed. WikiLeaks deals in the raw material—that when revealed—governments hang themselves with. That’s why they want Assange’s head. They lust for revenge and to stop further leaks that threaten their grip on power. That the corporate media has turned on Assange and WikiLeaks reveals 


Misguided Spying and the New Zealand Massacre

Suzie Dawson, Special to Consortium News, Friday, March 15, 2019 • 97 Comments


While intelligence agencies were looking in all the wrong places, a conspicuous target slipped through the cracks  


“Questions are being asked of the nation’s security services in the wake of a mass shooting described as ‘one of New Zealand’s darkest days,” Stuff.co.nz reports and quotes a University of Waikato professor of international law, Alexander Gillespie, as saying: ‘If it’s a cell we need to ask why weren’t they detected, because that’s why we have security services and it may be that those services have been looking under the wrong rocks.’ ”


In the NZ Herald, veteran intelligence reporter David Fisher asked many pertinent questions in an opinion piece titled “Christchurch massacre – what did we miss and who missed it?”


“We need answers,” says Fisher. “The NZSIS [New Zealand’s equivalent of the FBI] – and its electronic counterpart, the Government Communications Security Bureau – have more funding than ever, and almost double the staff numbers they had six years ago. They also now have the most powerful legislation they have ever had.”


We know thanks to the findings of an inquiry by the State Services Commission last December that as many as a dozen government agencies, including the NZ Police, were too busy squandering their resources spying on NGOs such as Greenpeace NZ; political parties such as the New Zealand Green Party and then-Internet Party aligned Mana Movement, as well as on anti-TPP protesters and activists such as myself.


The government contractor engaged to perform the on-the-ground victimization of targets is the notorious Thompson & Clark Investigations Limited — a company I had been publicly naming since April of 2012 for having targeted my independent media team and me. A company that we now know was illegally granted access to New Zealand police databases on thousands of occasions, and that has been linked to the NZ Security Intelligence Services.


Their nefarious activities are not isolated to the private sector. The NZ Police have also been found to have made thousands of warrantless data requests.


In 2014 acclaimed New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager — himself judged by a court to have been wrongfully targeted by the NZ Police as a result of his reporting — revealed in his seminal book “Dirty Politics” that a political network that went as high as the Office of the prime minister of New Zealand– under ex-Prime Minister John Key, who was then minister in charge of the NZ security services — had targeted dozens of journalists, as well as other political targets and issue-based dissenters. 


What the police and intelligence agencies of New Zealand must recognize is thus: Journalism is not terrorism. Non-violent pro-democratic activism is not terrorism. Dissent is not terrorism.


Arming yourself with weapons and violently attacking innocent people is terrorism.


Holding to Account

Agencies that for too long have been blurring the distinction between what is and isn’t terrorism, must now be held to account.


I was spied on for my independent journalism and my legal, pro-democratic activism despite having no history of violence, no access to weapons, no weapons training and no extremist ideological beliefs.


Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, founder of the Internet Party of New Zealand of which I am party president, was spied on by both the New Zealand and United States governments for as little as a suspected civil violation, alleged copyright infringement.



On Friday, the mania and obsessive hatred of an actual terrorist in Christchurch in possession of automatic weapons, culminated in his posting a racist manifesto online and then live streaming his hate crime in real time. Yet he was never spied on.


Anmerkung J. Gruber:

Geheimdienste sammeln seit 2001 anlasslos und massenhaft Daten. Nach dem Mathematiker und ehemaligen technischen NSA-Direktor William Binney werden ihre Analysten damit bei ihrer Suche nach potentiellen Terroristen zur Unfähigkeit verdammt, weil sie die Datenflut ihres Umfangs wegen nicht analysieren können. Mit dem Programm XKeyscore suchen die Analysten heute aber in diesem Datenwust, in dem wir alle erfasst sind, mit Schlüsselwörtern nach Informationen, mit denen die staatliche Exekutive ihre Bürger, Firmen, fremde Staaten manipulieren oder erpressen können. Die Exekutive kann, wie sie es in unserer Vergangenheit tat, diese Daten beliebig oder sogar bewusst falsch verwenden.


William Binney (Biographie bei Whistleblower.org) bei hat mit seiner Arbeitsgruppe "Signal Intelligence Automation Research Center" (SARC) innerhalb der  NSA schon Ende der 1990er Jahre ein Programm ThinThread fertiggestellt und erfolgreich erprobt, das all das vermeidet. Auch über den Rahmen des SARC hinaus haben Fachleute festgestellt, dass ThinThread die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 hätte verhindern können (s. z.B. den Friedrich-Moser-Film A Good American, auf YouTube). 


Michael Hayden hat sich als damaliger Direktor der NSA nach Diskussionen im Weißen Haus gegen ThinThread entschieden. In Wikipedia (21. März 2019) wird er mit der von William Binney widerlegten Aussage zitiert, dass ThinThread unzureichende Kapazitäten bereitstelle. 


"The project was ended by General Michael Hayden after successful testing, and while the privacy elements were not retained, Hayden admitted that the analysis technology is the underlying basis of current NSA analysis techniques, saying in an interview: "But we judged fundamentally that as good as [ThinThread] was, and believe me, we pulled a whole bunch of elements out of it and used it for our final solution for these problems, as good as it was, it couldn’t scale sufficiently to the volume of modern communications .[16]" 


Nach Binney hat die NSA direkt nach 9/11 in Ermangelung einer Alternative zwar ThinThread im Rahmen von "Stellar Wind" eingesetzt, es dabei aber zum massenhaften und in den USA damals illegalen Sammeln von Daten missbraucht, indem man das gezielte Speichern und den Schutz der Privatsphäre von eindeutig unverdächtigen Bürgern in ThinThread ausgeschaltet hat.


Statt des sofort einsetzbaren ThinThread gab die Leitung der NSA ein Programm Trailblazer in Entwicklung, das um den Faktor 1000 teurer war und letztendlich zu dem totalitären Überwachungssystem geführt hat, das wir heute haben. Terrorismus-Verhinderung wird bewusst ausgeschlossen (über die institutionell verankerte Lähmung der Analysten durch den "Heuhaufen" von nicht gezielt erhobenen Daten): Terroristen müssen erst einen Anschlag machen, bevor die Geheimdienste sie in ihrem Datenheuhaufen finden können. 


Im Detail:


 Mit dem Überwachungsprogramm ThinThread könnten die Geheimdienste


Die Tatsache, dass Neuseelands Geheimdienst den Anschlag von Christchurch nicht verhindert hat, deutet nach meiner Ansicht (in Übereinstimmung mit William Binneys Einschätzung) daraufhin, dass die Five Eyes wie oben beschrieben nicht gezielt suchen können und dies auch nicht ihre Aufgabe ist. 



Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed

7 March 2017 (in cache)


Contents

Press Release

Analysis

Examples

Frequently Asked Questions


Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency. ...


[The first full part of the series,]"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.


... the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one (“Year Zero”) already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.


Analysis

CIA malware targets iPhone, Android, smart TVs

CIA malware and hacking tools are built by EDG (Engineering Development Group), a software development group within CCI (Center for Cyber Intelligence), a department belonging to the CIA's DDI (Directorate for Digital Innovation). The DDI is one of the five major directorates of the CIA (see this organizational chart of the CIA for more details).


The EDG is responsible for the development, testing and operational support of all backdoors, exploits, malicious payloads, trojans, viruses and any other kind of malware used by the CIA in its covert operations world-wide.


The increasing sophistication of surveillance techniques has drawn comparisons with George Orwell's 1984, but "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematic realization.


The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom's MI5/BTSS. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.


As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations.


The CIA's Mobile Devices Branch (MDB) developed numerous attacks to remotely hack and control popular smart phones. Infected phones can be instructed to send the CIA the user's geolocation, audio and text communications as well as covertly activate the phone's camera and microphone.


Despite iPhone's minority share (14.5%) of the global smart phone market in 2016, a specialized unit in the CIA's Mobile Development Branch produces malware to infest, control and exfiltrate data from iPhones and other Apple products running iOS, such as iPads. CIA's arsenal includes numerous local and remote "zero days" developed by CIA or obtained from GCHQ, NSA, FBI or purchased from cyber arms contractors such as Baitshop. The disproportionate focus on iOS may be explained by the popularity of the iPhone among social, political, diplomatic and business elites.


A similar unit targets Google's Android which is used to run the majority of the world's smart phones (~85%) including Samsung, HTC and Sony. 1.15 billion Android powered phones were sold last year. "Year Zero" shows that as of 2016 the CIA had 24 "weaponized" Android "zero days" which it has developed itself and obtained from GCHQ, NSA and cyber arms contractors.


These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.

 

CIA malware targets Windows, OSx, Linux, routers

The CIA also runs a very substantial effort to infect and control Microsoft Windows users with its malware. This includes multiple local and remote weaponized "zero days", air gap jumping viruses such as "Hammer Drill" which infects software distributed on CD/DVDs, infectors for removable media such as USBs, systems to hide data in images or in covert disk areas ( "Brutal Kangaroo") and to keep its malware infestations going.

Many of these infection efforts are pulled together by the CIA's Automated Implant Branch (AIB), which has developed several attack systems for automated infestation and control of CIA malware, such as "Assassin" and "Medusa".

Attacks against Internet infrastructure and webservers are developed by the CIA's Network Devices Branch (NDB).

The CIA has developed automated multi-platform malware attack and control systems covering Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris, Linux and more, such as EDB's "HIVE" and the related "Cutthroat" and "Swindle" tools, which are described in the examples section below.

CIA 'hoarded' vulnerabilities ("zero days")

In the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks about the NSA, the U.S. technology industry secured a commitment from the Obama administration that the executive would disclose on an ongoing basis — rather than hoard — serious vulnerabilities, exploits, bugs or "zero days" to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other US-based manufacturers.

Serious vulnerabilities not disclosed to the manufacturers places huge swathes of the population and critical infrastructure at risk to foreign intelligence or cyber criminals who independently discover or hear rumors of the vulnerability. If the CIA can discover such vulnerabilities so can others.

The U.S. government's commitment to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process came after significant lobbying by US technology companies, who risk losing their share of the global market over real and perceived hidden vulnerabilities. The government stated that it would disclose all pervasive vulnerabilities discovered after 2010 on an ongoing basis.

"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.

As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" is able to penetrate, infest and control both the Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts. The CIA attacks this software by using undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.

The same vulnerabilities exist for the population at large, including the U.S. Cabinet, Congress, top CEOs, system administrators, security officers and engineers. By hiding these security flaws from manufacturers like Apple and Google the CIA ensures that it can hack everyone &mdsh; at the expense of leaving everyone hackable.

'Cyberwar' programs are a serious proliferation risk

Cyber 'weapons' are not possible to keep under effective control.

While nuclear proliferation has been restrained by the enormous costs and visible infrastructure involved in assembling enough fissile material to produce a critical nuclear mass, cyber 'weapons', once developed, are very hard to retain.

Cyber 'weapons' are in fact just computer programs which can be pirated like any other. Since they are entirely comprised of information they can be copied quickly with no marginal cost.

Securing such 'weapons' is particularly difficult since the same people who develop and use them have the skills to exfiltrate copies without leaving traces — sometimes by using the very same 'weapons' against the organizations that contain them. There are substantial price incentives for government hackers and consultants to obtain copies since there is a global "vulnerability market" that will pay hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for copies of such 'weapons'. Similarly, contractors and companies who obtain such 'weapons' sometimes use them for their own purposes, obtaining advantage over their competitors in selling 'hacking' services.

Over the last three years the United States intelligence sector, which consists of government agencies such as the CIA and NSA and their contractors, such as Booz Allan Hamilton, has been subject to unprecedented series of data exfiltrations by its own workers.

A number of intelligence community members not yet publicly named have been arrested or subject to federal criminal investigations in separate incidents.

Most visibly, on February 8, 2017 a U.S. federal grand jury indicted Harold T. Martin III with 20 counts of mishandling classified information. The Department of Justice alleged that it seized some 50,000 gigabytes of information from Harold T. Martin III that he had obtained from classified programs at NSA and CIA, including the source code for numerous hacking tools.

Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by peer states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.

...

Evading forensics and anti-virus

A series of standards lay out CIA malware infestation patterns which are likely to assist forensic crime scene investigators as well as Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, Siemens and anti-virus companies attribute and defend against attacks.

"Tradecraft DO's and DON'Ts" contains CIA rules on how its malware should be written to avoid fingerprints implicating the "CIA, US government, or its witting partner companies" in "forensic review". Similar secret standards cover the use of encryption to hide CIA hacker and malware communication (pdf), describing targets & exfiltrated data (pdf) as well as executing payloads (pdf) and persisting (pdf) in the target's machines over time.


CIA hackers developed successful attacks against most well known anti-virus programs. These are documented in AV defeats, Personal Security Products, Detecting and defeating PSPs and PSP/Debugger/RE Avoidance. For example, Comodo was defeated by CIA malware placing itself in the Window's "Recycle Bin". While Comodo 6.x has a "Gaping Hole of DOOM".

CIA hackers discussed what the NSA's "Equation Group" hackers did wrong and how the CIA's malware makers could avoid similar exposure.

ConsortiumNews on Assange


Commentary, Foreign Policy, Great Britain, Intelligence, International, Legal, The Bush-43 Administration, Trump Administration, U.S., WikiLeaks

Assange’s Judge a Disgrace to the Bench, Former UK Ambassador Says

April 15, 2019 • 14 Comments

Craig Murray asks you to imagine Western media reaction if a Russian opposition politician were dragged out by armed police, and within three hours convicted on a political charge by a patently biased judge.

Australia, Britain, Ecuador, Human Rights, Intelligence, International, Legal, Media, United Nations, WikiLeaks

Julian Assange’s Nightmarish Future

April 15, 2019 • 73 Comments

The WikiLeaks publisher is in a maximum-security prison that has been called the UK’s Guantanamo Bay, Elizabeth Vos reports.

Commentary, Ecuador, Intelligence, International, Trump Administration, U.S., United Kingdon, WikiLeaks

CHRIS HEDGES: The Martyrdom of Julian Assange

April 14, 2019 • 74 Comments

Assange and WikiLeaks allowed us to see the inner workings of empire — the most important role of a press — and for this they became empire’s prey, writes Chris Hedges of Truthdig.

Commentary, Intelligence, Iraq, Legal, Media, WikiLeaks

The Assange Arrest: You Have the Right to Remain Silent

April 13, 2019 • 46 Comments

The arrest of Julian Assange was an act of revenge by the U.S. government that strikes at the heart of journalism, writes Pepe Escobar.

Britain, Campaign 2016, Campaign 2020, Commentary, Ecuador, Media, Trump Administration, WikiLeaks

Assange’s Lynch Mob Commenters in the NYT

April 13, 2019 • 89 Comments

The Gray Lady now seems to be against press freedom, writes James Howard Kunstler.

WikiLeaks

Watch Assange Vigil Day After his Arrest

April 12, 2019 • 10 Comments

Among the guests were Daniel Ellsberg, Daniel McAdams, George Smazuely, Margaret Kimberely, Peter B. Collins and Michel Collon. Hosted by Elizabeth Vos and Joe Lauria.

Australia, Britain, Commentary, Ecuador, Human Rights, Intelligence, International, Legal, WikiLeaks

JOHN PILGER: Assange Arrest a Warning from History

April 12, 2019 • 105 Comments

Real journalism is being criminalized by thugs in plain sight, says John Pilger. Dissent has become an indulgence. And the British elite has abandoned its last imperial myth: that of fairness and justice.

Campaign 2016, Commentary, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, International, International News Analysis, Media, Propaganda, Russiagate, Secrecy, The Bush-43 Administration, Trump Administration, U.S., United Kingdon, United Nations

7 Years of Lies About Assange Won’t Stop Now

April 12, 2019 • 32 Comments

One of the few towering figures of our time was reduced to nothing more than a sex pest and scruffy bail-skipper, writes Jonathan Cook.

Media, WikiLeaks

Emergency Meeting for Assange

April 11, 2019 • 40 Comments

Kim Dotcom led an emergency meeting on the day Julian Assange was arrested.

Media, WikiLeaks

Emergency Meeting for Assange

April 11, 2019 • 40 Comments

Kim Dotcom led an emergency meeting on the day Julian Assange was arrested.

Britain, Ecuador, Human Rights, Intelligence, International, Legal, Media, WikiLeaks

Moreno Withdraws Asylum as Assange is Arrested

April 11, 2019 • 161 Comments

The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested after the Ecuadorian president, Lenin Moreno, withdrew Assange’s asylum, in a move that runs counter to international asylum law.

Britain, Ecuador, Human Rights, Intelligence, Legal, Media, U.S., WikiLeaks

Spanish Police Probe Extortion Scheme Involving Surveillance on Assange

April 10, 2019 • 17 Comments

UPDATED: Suspects are being investigated in Spain for having tried to extort Ř3 million from WikiLeaks in exchange for a huge cache of documents and surveillance videos of Assange inside Ecuador’s London embassy, including with his doctors and lawyers.

RAY McGOVERN: Unaccountable Media Faced with Dilemma in Next Phase of Deep State-gate

April 9, 2019 • 86 Comments



„Trügerische Sicherheit“

Von Gerwald Herter, Deutschlandfunk, 26.2.2018 (im Cache)


Ein ganzes Jahrzehnt lang war Peter Schaar der Datenschutzbeauftragte des Bundes: von 2003 bis 2013. In dieser Zeit beschloss der Bundestag einen Großteil der deutschen Anti-Terrorgesetze. Viele davon hat Schaar immer wieder kritisiert, so auch im aktuellen Buch „Trügerische Sicherheit“.


... Keine Datenstaubsauger in Deutschland also, sondern gezielte Maßnahmen zur Überwachung einzelner. Trojaner, die auf Smartphones eingesetzt, Dialoge über Messenger-Dienste auslesbar machen, würden in dieses Schema passen.



Datenbank für Sicherheitsbehörden

Gefahren von Informationsverbünden

Peter Welchering im Gespräch mit Manfred Kloiber, Deutschlandfunk, Computer und Kommunikation, 27.4.2019

Wichtige Aufgaben wie Terrorabwehr bearbeiten Nachrichtendienste, Polizeibehörden und andere Regierungsstellen gemeinsam. Dabei werden zunehmend Sicherheitsdateien zu Informationsverbünden zusammengelegt. Doch wenn es so läuft wie bisher, könnten sie eine Gefahr für den Rechtsstaat werden.


Die Sicherheitsbehörden wollen weg von den logischen Daten, hin zu Informationsverbünden. Damit steigt der Personalaufwand und die Kontrolldichte. Ulrich Kelber, der Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit, sieht viel Arbeit auf sich und sein Haus zukommen. Die größte Gefahr: Einzelne Behörden arbeiten oft mit fehlerhaften Einträgen, die weitreichende Konsequenzen haben können.

Ein Beispiel dafür ist der Entzug der Akkreditierungen von insgesamt 32 Journalisten auf dem G20-Gipfel 2017 in Hamburg. Kelber sieht hier Handlungsbedarf und möchte zunächst die Erfüllung bestehender Vorgaben voranbringen. Durch Beratung und Kontrolle sollen unsauber geführte Sicherheitsdateien ausgesiebt werden. Zudem fordert der Datenschützer mehr Kompetenz für sich und sein Haus, um Fehler schneller abstellen zu können.

 

Der Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragte, Ulrich Kelber, will unsauber geführte Sicherheitsdateien aussieben (dpa / picture alliance / Monika Skolimowska)


Beratungsresistente Sicherheitsbehörden sollen stärker kontrolliert werden – auch, indem Informanten ermutigt werden sollen, Fehltritte zu melden. Die rechtsstaatlichen Risiken einzudämmen, dürfte jedoch schwierig werden – denn einige Fehleinträge scheinen durchaus politisch gewollt. Doch es gibt auch Grund zur Hoffnung, denn Kelber genießt großes Vertrauen. Zudem gibt es Anzeichen dafür, dass die Zivilgesellschaft sich für die Problematik sensibilisiert hat und Druck ausübt, damit der Gesetzgeber im Sinne des Datenschutzes handelt.


====================================================

Meine Emails


31.5.2017


NetzDG

9.6.2018


EU-Copyright Directive, Artikel 13

22.6.2018


call on UK government to not extradite Julian Assange




=====================

Version: 29 April 2019

Adresse dieser Seite

Home

Joachim Gruber