Privacy Category Archives
чтоб государь присягал каким-то скотам?
31 October 2014 | Internet, Jurisprudence, Politics, Privacy | 1 Comment
следом за одним королевством, мониторить любые движения своих подданных решили и в другом:
The Swedish Telecoms Regulator PTS has threatened Kista-based ISP Bahnhof to continue storing records of its customer communications, even though the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled the 2006 Data Retention Directive invalid [PDF] in April of this year.
есть здесь какая-то удивительная монархическая ирония, да?
It took Sweden six years to begin compliance with the Brussels-issued Data Retention Directive, so it is not entirely clear why the country is matched only by the UK in its determination to keep storing local customer information.
что ж, псомотрим:
The company’s CEO Jon Karlung spoke of a ‘Plan B’ that could avoid Bahnhof surrendering customer data, but gave no details, and said that the company would fight the issue in court.
противостояние
27 October 2014 | Apple, Politics, Privacy, Security | No Comments
очень хорошее и столь же информативное эссе Брюса Шнайера о личной безопастности, о нас и них:
They tried and failed to ban strong encryption and mandate back doors for their use. The FBI tried and failed again to ban strong encryption in 2010. Now, in the post-Snowden era, they’re about to try again.
We need to fight this.
в праве на частную жизнь отказать
9 September 2014 | Copyright, Internet, Privacy | 1 Comment
а и в самом деле, просто расстрелять каждого случайного:
In a submission to the Australian Government on the issue of online piracy, the BBC Worldwide indicates that ISPs should be obliged to monitor their customers’ activities. Service providers should become suspicious that customers could be pirating if they use VPN-style services and consume a lot of bandwidth, the BBC says.
как говорится, ты виноват уж тем, что хочется мне кушать. а VPN там, или нет — c’mon, все это лишь детали, сегодня одни, завтра другие.
they’re going to hack us
16 August 2014 | Internet, Privacy, Security | No Comments
и — заодно — вот цитата из другой програмной статьи:
If your algorithm doesn’t allow a pedophile to irreversibly scramble his drive and avoid prosecution, it can’t be used by freethinkers under ideological oppression to hide state-banned books. If your messaging app won’t let someone safely plan bombing the Super Bowl, it can’t be used by an activist to reveal human rights abuses. If your map doesn’t let poachers stalk rhinos without alerting rangers, it can’t be used by ethnic minorities to escape purges. The strength of the tool enables all of these things, and it is an old, old test we have taken many times before to see which we use it for. The answer, as always, will be “both.”
не устану вспоминать Генри Менкена:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
that simple.
рукопись, найденная в ванне
15 August 2014 | Internet, Politics, Privacy, Security | 2 Comments
в Wired, тем временем, опубликовали исключительной тщательности рассказ и интервью Эдварда Сноудена, что в сегодняшнем мире стоит прочитать, безусловно, всем. цитировать статью кусками достаточно бессмысленно, это тот самый шпионский роман, что стал в один день релаьностью — и вы увидели на страницах [дела] свою фамилию.
and you’re going to slip up and they’re going to hack you.
all clear
14 August 2014 | Internet, Privacy, Security | 2 Comments
замечательная мысль, кстати:
SpiderOak, the privacy-focused, Snowden-approved Dropbox rival, is set to announce that it will join the growing ranks of companies who’ve implemented a “warrant canary”.
The idea behind a warrant canary: if the government comes to a company with legal demands and a gag order in tow, that company can’t say anything to its users about it. They can, however, suddenly stop saying everything is okay.
надеюсь, будут не первыми и не последними: в том открытом мире, о котором любой мечтает, подобные маркеры жизненно необходимы.
весь мир на ладони
12 August 2014 | Politics, Privacy, Security | No Comments
еще немного правды:
The National Security Agency has routinely intercepted networking equipment that’s built in the United States, added backdoor access capabilities, then shipped the devices to their intended recipients abroad.
причем, сперва на каждом углу нам говорили о том, что нельзя доверять китайским роутерам и прочему сетевому оборудованию как раз в следствии таких вот запланированных дыр. а потом оказалось, что это просто борьба конкурентов за то, кому из них достануться ваши биты.
под родительским присмотром
6 August 2014 | Google, Privacy | No Comments
или вот такое показательное событие:
A cyber-tip generated by Google and sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children led to the arrest of a 41-year-old Houston man who is charged with possessing child pornography.
Police say Google detected explicit images of a young girl in an email that John Henry Skillern was sending to a friend, the company then alerted authorities.
думаете, Google уважает тайну вашей переписки? false. думаете, что можно спрятать лист в лесу? false. думаете, что им нужен, по-крайней мере, ордер? false, они сами выступят в роли дружинников.
Emma Carr, the acting director of privacy lobby group Big Brother Watch, told the BBC: “Gmail users will certainly be interested to know what action Google proactively takes to monitor and analyse Gmail messages for illegal content, including details of what sorts of illegal activity may be targeted. Google must also make themselves very clear about what procedures and safeguards are in place to ensure that people are not wrongly criminalised.”
эти события в кристально чистом виде показывают: Google знает о нас все. не только продают нас рекламодателям, но в самом деле, буквально, способны прочесть любое письмо, буде о том сообщат какие-нибудь триггеры, или виной тому будет обычное желание[1].
еще пользуетесь их продуктами? ждите.
Штази, до свиданья
30 July 2014 | Cryptography, Privacy, Security, Software | 1 Comment
немного восторга:
Rejoice, O lovers of privacy! For Open WhisperSystems has released Signal for iPhone (open-sourced, licensed under the GPLv3), which gives any and every iPhone wielder the power to fully encrypt their calls against prying ears — and is completely compatible with OWS’s time-tested and well-liked RedPhone for Android.
уже скачали?
механизмы защиты
21 July 2014 | Jurisprudence, Politics, Privacy | 2 Comments
как и следовало ожидать, увидимся в суде:
The courts will have the final say on whether DRIP breaches human rights. And no matter what David Cameron believes, the UK has international obligations. The European Convention on Human Rights, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and our own Human Rights Act – all exist to defend our rights and are where we will be able to challenge DRIP.
это, в общем, и есть те самые little differences, что так упоительно не видят приверженцы обратного карго-культа.
с другой стороны, with a tin foil hat on, давайте задумаемся еще вот о чем: суверинетет Парламента — это основополагающий принцип некодифицированной Конституции Великобритании. однако, подписав акт 1972 года о вступлении в Европейский союз, Парламент Великобритании тем самым добровольно[1] ограничил собственные полномочия и обозначил господство права Еврпоейского Союза.
иными словами, поскольку существует ненулевая вероятность, что этот процесс Велибритания проиграет — или любой аналогичный в будущем — то не с этим ли связана очередная волна настроений и размышлений о возможном выходе Великобритании из ЕС? ингсоц-то, очевидно, куда проще строить на пару с NSA — а не с ECJ.
- Lord Bridge of Harwich in R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport:
Some public comments on the decision of the Court of Justice, affirming the jurisdic‚tion of the courts of member states to override national legislation if necessary to enable interim relief to be granted in protection of rights under Community law, have suggested that this was a novel and dangerous invasion by a Community institution of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. But such comments are based upon a misconception. If the supremacy within the European Community of Community law over the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus, whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary.
Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law. Similarly, when decisions of the Court of Justice have exposed areas of United Kingdom statute law which failed to implement Council directives, Parliament has always loyally accepted the obligation to make appropriate and prompt amendments. Thus there is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in those areas to which they apply and to insist that, in the protection of rights under Community law, national courts must not be inhibited by rules of national law from granting interim relief in appropriate cases is no more than a logical recognition of that supremacy.