UN General Assembly Adopts Controversial Cybercrime Treaty Amid Criticism Over Censorship and Surveillance Risks

As we expected, even though opponents have been warning that the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime needed to have a narrower scope, strong human rights safeguard and be more clearly defined in order to avoid abuse – the UN General Assembly has just adopted the documents, after five years of wrangling between various stakeholders.

It is now up to UN-member states to first sign, and then ratify the treaty that will come into force three months after the 40th country does that.

The UN bureaucracy is pleased with the development, hailing the convention as a “landmark” and “historic” global treaty that will improve cross-border cooperation against cybercrime and digital threats.

But critics have been saying that speech and human rights might fall victim to the treaty since various UN members treat human rights and privacy in vastly different ways – while the treaty now in a way “standardizes” law enforcement agencies’ investigative powers across borders.

Considerable emphasis has been put by some on how “authoritarian” countries might abuse this new tool meant to tackle online crime – but in reality, this concern applies to any country that ends up ratifying the treaty.

Keep reading

Team presents first demonstration of quantum teleportation over busy internet cables

Northwestern University engineers are the first to successfully demonstrate quantum teleportation over a fiberoptic cable already carrying internet traffic.

The discovery introduces the new possibility of combining quantum communication with existing internet cables—greatly simplifying the infrastructure required for distributed quantum sensing or computing applications.

The study is published on the arXiv preprint server and is due to appear in the journal Optica.

“This is incredibly exciting because nobody thought it was possible,” said Northwestern’s Prem Kumar, who led the study. “Our work shows a path towards next-generation quantum and classical networks sharing a unified fiberoptic infrastructure. Basically, it opens the door to pushing quantum communications to the next level.”

An expert in quantum communication, Kumar is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering, where he directs the Center for Photonic Communication and Computing.

Only limited by the speed of light, quantum teleportation could make communications nearly instantaneous. The process works by harnessing quantum entanglement, a technique in which two particles are linked, regardless of the distance between them. Instead of particles physically traveling to deliver information, entangled particles exchange information over great distances—without physically carrying it.

“In optical communications, all signals are converted to light,” Kumar explained. “While conventional signals for classical communications typically comprise millions of particles of light, quantum information uses single photons.”

Before Kumar’s new study, conventional wisdom suggested that individual photons would drown in cables filled with the millions of light particles carrying classical communications. It would be like a flimsy bicycle trying to navigate through a crowded tunnel of speeding heavy-duty trucks.

Kumar and his team, however, found a way to help the delicate photons steer clear of the busy traffic. After conducting in-depth studies of how light scatters within fiberoptic cables, the researchers found a less crowded wavelength of light to place their photons. Then, they added special filters to reduce noise from regular internet traffic.

“We carefully studied how light is scattered and placed our photons at a judicial point where that scattering mechanism is minimized,” Kumar said. “We found we could perform quantum communication without interference from the classical channels that are simultaneously present.”

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s AfD Endorsement Triggers EU Push for Stricter Censorship Under Digital Services Act

Elon Musk’s endorsement of Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has sparked significant controversy, particularly among European political figures concerned about the potential for what they call “foreign interference” in Germany’s upcoming elections.

Musk, the CEO of X, voiced his support for some of AfD’s policies following a deadly terror attack in Germany. His comments have raised alarm among EU officials, prompting calls for increased scrutiny of the X app and its compliance with the EU’s stringent censorship laws.

Thierry Breton, the European Union’s former Commissioner, took to X to express his outrage over Musk’s support for AfD. In a tweet posted on December 21, Breton accused Musk of being involved in “foreign interference” in Germany’s electoral process, especially given the timing of his comments around the tragic attack in Magdeburg.

Breton, who has been an advocate for strict censorship of social media platforms, and even threatened Elon Musk for over his interview with President Donald Trump, also called for the immediate application of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) to combat what he described as “double standards” when it comes to regulating speech online.

Keep reading

Mitt Romney’s AI Bill Seeks to Ban Anonymous Cloud Access, Raising Privacy Concerns

A new Senate bill, the Preserving American Dominance in AI Act of 2024 (S.5616), has reignited debate over its provisions, particularly its push to impose “know-your-customer” (KYC) rules on cloud service providers and data centers. Critics warn that these measures could lead to sweeping surveillance practices and unprecedented invasions of privacy under the guise of regulating artificial intelligence.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

KYC regulations require businesses to verify the identities of their users, and when applied to digital platforms, they could significantly impact privacy by linking individuals’ online activities to their real-world identities, effectively eliminating anonymity and enabling intrusive surveillance.

Keep reading

Privacy in Pieces: States Scramble to Protect Data as Congress Dithers

As Congress struggles to catch up to the European Union’s comprehensive data privacy regulations, some US states have begun to forge their own robust legislation to increase user protection. But this system only protects the data of some Americans, leaving more than half the country without guaranteed data protection or privacy rights.

And it may take years before a national solution is created, if at all.

The EU took its first step towards providing sweeping privacy protection years ago, with the creation of the region’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The GDPR, which took effect in 2018 and gives individuals ownership over their personal information and the right to control who can use it, is often marked as the first major, multinational step towards comprehensive data protection and privacy.

Traditionally, the EU’s approach to data privacy stems from a human rights standpoint and has its roots in World War II, when the Nazi party collected personal data to commit numerous atrocities and, later, when the East German secret police, the Stasi, carried out invasive state surveillance.

After the war ended, the right to privacy was enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and later in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, becoming the ideological foundation on which data privacy laws have been built in the EU today.

Across the Atlantic, the US Constitution does not explicitly provide a right to privacy.

Rather than enacting a comprehensive federal law, the US federal government has taken a reactive approach, passing legislation only after issues arise in a few specific business sectors, which has resulted in a series of data protection laws addressing specific types of data. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) have protected medical and financial data respectively since the 1990s.

“The US is very much an innovation, capital-first society,” said Jodi Daniels, founder and CEO of privacy consultancy firm Red Clover Advisors. “And they do want to protect the people, but it has to all get balanced.”

But in recent years, some lawmakers have begun to push back against this system by introducing comprehensive data privacy bills, like the bipartisan American Privacy Rights Act (APRA).

Introduced in April by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), APRA is like GDPR in that it is not limited to specific business sectors and aims to minimize the amount and types of data companies can collect, give consumers control over their information, and allow them to opt out of targeted advertising.

While the legislation didn’t get very far, stalling in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, it’s the furthest any comprehensive privacy bill has gone in Congress yet. To become law, however, it would have to be reintroduced next year when Republicans control both chambers. 

Some lawmakers, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), contend that APRA is more concerned with “controlling the internet” than creating a balance between innovation and privacy protection, and argue that the current right to private action present in the act, which allows individuals to pursue legal action if their privacy is violated, will give overwhelming power to trial lawyers.

Keep reading

UN General Assembly to Adopt Controversial Cybercrime Treaty, Ignoring Privacy and Free Speech Concerns

The United Nations General Assembly will this week adopt the UN Cybercrime Treaty, with the US expected to be among the countries that support the controversial document.

Opponents will then have to hope that various UN member-states would eventually opt not to sign and ratify the treaty, which has variously been described as “flawed” and all the way to being “a threat to free speech and privacy” and a tool for “transnational oppression.”

Among those opponents are human rights and media organizations, as well as tech companies, while doubts have been expressed even by the UN High Commissioner for human rights, among others.

Yet governments and law enforcement agencies are among the Cybercrime Treaty’s supporters since it opens up the possibility of more effective cross-border cooperation and evidence (including personal data) gathering and sharing.

But, the final text that is about to be adopted, in many parts falls short of what are considered international human rights standards, allowing UN members who sign the document to then choose whether to build a number of these standards into their own implementation.

Keep reading

Ghosted by ChatGPT: How I was First Defamed and then Deleted by AI

It is not every day that you achieve the status of “he-who-must-not-be-named.” But that curious distinction has been bestowed upon me by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the New York TimesWall Street Journal, and other publications.

For more than a year, people who tried to research my name online using ChatGPT were met with an immediate error warning.

It turns out that I am among a small group of individuals who have been effectively disappeared by the AI system. How we came to this Voldemortian status is a chilling tale about not just the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence, but the power of companies like OpenAI.

Joining me in this dubious distinction are Harvard Professor Jonathan Zittrain, CNBC anchor David Faber, Australian mayor Brian Hood, English professor David Mayer, and a few others.

The common thread appears to be the false stories generated about us all by ChatGPT in the past. The company appears to have corrected the problem not by erasing the error but erasing the individuals in question.

Thus far, the ghosting is limited to ChatGPT sites, but the controversy highlights a novel political and legal question in the brave new world of AI.

My path toward cyber-erasure began with a bizarre and entirely fabricated account by ChatGPT. As I wrote at the time, ChatGPT falsely reported that there had been a claim of sexual harassment against me (which there never was) based on something that supposedly happened on a 2018 trip with law students to Alaska (which never occurred), while I was on the faculty of Georgetown Law (where I have never taught).

In support of its false and defamatory claim, ChatGPT cited a Washington Post article that had never been written and quoted from a statement that had never been issued by the newspaper. The Washington Post investigated the false story and discovered that another AI program, “Microsoft’s Bing, which is powered by GPT-4, repeated the false claim about Turley.”

Although some of those defamed in this manner chose to sue these companies for defamatory AI reports, I did not. I assumed that the company, which has never reached out to me, would correct the problem.

And it did, in a manner of speaking — apparently by digitally erasing me, at least to some extent. In some algorithmic universe, the logic is simple: there is no false story if there is no discussion of the individual.

As with Voldemort, even death is no guarantee of closure. Professor Mayer was a respected Emeritus Professor of Drama and Honorary Research Professor at the University of Manchester, who passed away last year. And ChatGPT reportedly will still not utter his name.

Before his death, his name was used by a Chechen rebel on a terror watch list. The result was a snowballing association of the professor, who found himself facing travel and communication restrictions.

Hood, the Australian mayor, was so frustrated with a false AI-generated narrative that he had been arrested for bribery that he took legal action against OpenAI. That may have contributed to his own erasure.

Keep reading

Five Eyes Urges Broader Censorship Under “Protect the Children” Campaign

A network facilitating spy agencies’ intelligence-sharing between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, known as Five Eyes, has its sights set on encryption, and proceeding from that, also online anonymity.

Even more online censorship would also not be a bad idea – these are some of the highlights from the first public-facing paper the organizations behind this group have published.

We obtained a copy of the paper for you here.

And Five Eyes is not above promoting its ultimate and much more far-reaching goals by using the good old “think of the children” – the paper’s title is, Young People and Violent Extremism: A Call for Collective Action.

Both it and an accompanying press release choose to consider online encryption as merely a tool used by criminals. At the same time, the paper is ignoring the fact that the entire internet ecosystem, from communications to banking and everything in between, requires strong encryption both for privacy, and security.

But, Five Eyes focuses only on communications, which they vaguely refer to as online environments, and ones that can allow sex offenders access to children, they also mention extremists, and equally vaguely, “other” malign actors.

Keep reading

X’s Linda Yaccarino Backs Kids’ “Safety” Bill as Digital ID Privacy Fears Grow

As the legislative session nears its conclusion, X CEO Linda Yaccarino has announced her role in revising the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a move seemingly intended to sway hesitant Republican leaders in the House. But skeptics warn that the bill’s approach to protecting children online—through measures likely to lead to age verification—could come at the cost of privacy and online anonymity, leading to the broader adoption of digital ID systems.

Under KOSA, tech platforms would face a “duty of care” to prevent harm to minors, targeting features like infinite scroll and photo filters. While Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) lauded the updates for “safeguarding free speech online and ensuring it is not used to stifle expression,” privacy advocates argue the bill’s underlying mechanisms remain problematic. They warn that fulfilling KOSA’s requirements could necessitate platforms to verify users’ ages, potentially by tying online activity to government-issued IDs—a move that threatens to erode online anonymity and jeopardize free expression.

While the bill itself does not mandate age verification, it requires a “duty of care” towards content shown to minors that could cause platforms to introduce age verification to avoid liability. Despite the updated text of the bill, it still contains a controversial provision that will likely ultimately pave the way for online age verification (by requiring the Secretary of Commerce, FTC, and FCC to study “options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level”).

X owner Elon Musk has recently criticized Australia for trying to implement a similar bill so it’s unclear why Musk and Yaccarino aren’t aligned on the issue.

Keep reading

World Leaders Sign New Censorship Declaration at UN Event While Secretary-General António Guterres Pushed for Increased Online Censorship

A new UN-driven censorship declaration has been signed by a number of world leaders during an event in Portugal – the Cascais Declaration at the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) Global Forum.

We obtained a copy of the final declaration for you here.

The gathering was addressed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who once again reiterated his commitment to censoring online speech, bringing up the usual set of “arguments” in favor of moving in this direction.

During the address, Guterres spoke about “unchecked digital platforms and AI” and accused them of allowing “hate speech to proliferate like never before” – and did not miss the opportunity to mention “misinformation and deepfakes” in the same context.

Guterres wants Big Tech, advertisers, and media – that is, along with some governments and organizations like the UN, among the most egregious offenders when it comes to online censorship – to double down.

“Taking responsibility for their role” in spreading hate speech, deepfakes, etc., was how he phrased it.

Guterres also again pushed a UN initiative that critics say introduces algorithmic censorship and demonetization under the stated “anti-misinformation and hate speech” scope – the UN’s Global Principles for Information Integrity.

According to Guterres, these recommendations allow for “a more humane information ecosystem.”

Keep reading