I’ve been using smart phones for a long time, in particular the top range Samsung Galaxy line of phones. As most of you will probably know, these phones are Android based and come pre-loaded with lots of software from Google. You pretty much need a Google account to use them. Google software is generally pretty good and on top of that it’s free to use. I understand the lure of Google like no other. There’s just this nagging feeling that I can’t seem to shake.
I believe that privacy is something that humans need. Being able to do things and to speak about things without being watched or recorded is essential to growth and identity formation. How do you know who you are or what your values are if you are not free to explore those?
Certain factions within the US Congress and the FBI are insisting on the government requiring US technology companies to grant the government special access to devices and cryptographic measures. In essence, they are asking for US technology to be insecure by design.
Adding a backdoor for US government agencies is possible but there are serious implications for the future.
The ITU, the International Telecommunications Union is the UN agency for Information and Communication Technologies. The ITU is “committed to connecting all the world’s people – wherever they live and whatever their means”. Sounds like a very noble commitment, doesn’t it? It’s odd then, that the potentially biggest threat to the free and open Internet as we know it today, comes from this very agency. The ITU will hold a world conference in Dubai this December 3rd and there could be something sneaky going on behind closed doors. Continue reading “How dangerous is the ITU?”
I linked to an article by Bits of Freedom last week, calling for international opposition against the latest plan by minister Ivo Opstelten. The plan can be summed up in brief as “Dutch police should be allowed to hack local and foreign computers and destroy data on them”. A very dangerous proposition with lots legal ramifications. The Electronic Frontier Foundation underwrites the call by Bits of Freedom and condemns the plan proposed by minister Opstelten in an article. The title is a bit sensationalist, but the article is certainly worth a read!
I’ve remarked before on the way the “child porn argument” is being abused to push privacy violating measures through parliaments. In short, it often boils down to this: Police or justice department needs access to “x”. Parliament asks (if we’re lucky): “Doesn’t that violate the privacy of “y”? Response: “Yes, but it will help us stop child porn. Please, won’t somebody think of the children?” Parliament: “Oh, okay then…” End of discussion because everybody is against child porn, right? Yes of course, most people are. No member of parliament wants to be seen as someone who would stop measures that could help the fight against child porn. Which is why this argument is wrong, it’s a discussion stopper. I’ve rarely seen it explained more clearly than here.