Tag: mass surveillance

European Commission Revives Push for Encryption Backdoors in ProtectEU Strategy, Framing Mass Surveillance as “Lawful Access”

The EU is once again looking for a way to undermine end-to-end encryption in the name of strengthening law enforcement capabilities, this time via a new strategy, ProtectEU.

The internal security strategy, announced this week by the EU Commission, is presented as a “vision and workplan” that will span a number of years but stops short of making concrete policy proposals.

A press release asserts that the current geopolitical environment is one of “growing” threats from hostile states, and mentions powerful criminal groups and terrorists who are “operating increasingly online” – as well as “surging cybercrime and attacks against our critical infrastructure.”

With the threat elements defined in this way, the EU’s new strategy focuses on six areas, one of them being “more effective tools for law enforcement” – which is where online encryption comes under attack.

When it describes how the groundwork might be laid for mandating encryption backdoors, the EU chooses to use euphemisms such as creating roadmaps for “lawful and effective access to data for law enforcement” and seeking “technological solutions for accessing encrypted data.”

A technology roadmap on encryption would allow for these “solutions” to be found. The EU is not alone in searching for mechanisms to, eventually, legislate against encryption, but these initiatives are invariably met with warnings from both tech companies and civil rights and privacy advocates.

The key issue is that encryption provides both for private communications (which is what law enforcement wants access to) and also the technical security of those communications, financial transactions, etc.

The new EU strategy promises that cybersecurity and fundamental rights will be protected as a future encryption backdoor is implemented.

Keep reading

Congressional Hearing Reveals Stablecoins And CBDCs Share The Same Financial Control Risks

A congressional hearing on digital currencies rarely makes headlines. Yet, this week’s debate over stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) revealed more than technical disagreements; it exposed deeper anxiety about financial power, privacy, and control in an increasingly digital world.

The conversation unfolded along predictable lines. Those skeptical of CBDCs warned of creeping surveillance and government overreach. Advocates, meanwhile, framed it as a necessity, a matter of American competitiveness in a world where China and Europe are already moving ahead. Yet what emerged, almost inadvertently, was a realization that the supposedly safer alternative, privately issued stablecoins, carries many of the same risks.

While CBDC opponents championed stablecoins as the free-market alternative, testimony from industry leaders revealed that stablecoins — despite their branding as decentralized, private-sector solutions — already carry many of the same risks. The ability to freeze assets, enforce government mandates, and track transactions is a present reality, especially when combined with Know Your Customer (KYC) laws which eradicate privacy.

The core argument against CBDCs is simple: they give the federal government unprecedented control over personal finances. Randall Guynn, Chairman of the Financial Institutions Group at Davis Polk & Wardwell, issued a stark warning.

“A CBDC would give the Federal Reserve staff a direct window into virtually every transaction every person in America makes,” he said. “And at least one of them won’t be able to resist the temptation to use that information to promote what they consider to be worthy political goals.”

His comments echoed a broader concern: a US CBDC could function as a financial surveillance tool, much like China’s digital yuan. In China, authorities can track purchases in real-time and even restrict how certain funds are spent. Many fear the US government could use a CBDC to implement similar controls — whether to enforce political objectives, regulate behavior, or even deplatform individuals from the financial system.

Keep reading

Finland’s Big Bet on Biometrics: Crime-Fighting Tool or Privacy Nightmare?

Finland has come out with a plan to expand the use of biometric data, with a new a new proposal from the country’s Interior Ministry.

Even as the push to introduce various forms of advanced biometric surveillance, including that incorporating facial recognition, is gaining momentum in countries around the world – so is the pushback from civil rights and privacy campaigners, which ensures that such initiatives these days rarely fly under the radar.

Finland’s Interior Ministry announced on its website that the proposal aims to amend existing rules on biometric data stored by the police and the immigration service – stored, that is, in Finnish citizens’ ID cards, and registers containing biometric data of foreigners.

The government says the intent is not only to strengthen crime prevention – but also to “improve the conditions for using biometrics in law enforcement.”

In addition to the collection of data captured by facial recognition devices, the proposal includes DNA samples and fingerprints taken from suspects. The process is then to attempt to match this biometric data with other types already contained in the law enforcement’s databases – for “crime prevention and investigative purposes.”

The groups keeping a close eye on this development are warning about some of the issues that crop up time and again around similar legislative efforts: the wording that allows for future “mission creep”- as well as unsatisfactory level of provisions that would guarantee against any abuse of such highly sensitive personal information.

Currently, the Finish proposal is yet to be presented to the lawmakers – the Interior Ministry is seeking comments before this can happen. And while the announcement of the proposal goes into the intent driving it, it is short on detail regarding the elephant in the room – privacy safeguards.

Keep reading

Medical Surveillance Part 2: Tracking the Unvaccinated

Part 1 of “Medical Surveillance” revealed how contact tracing evolved into databases called real-time AI ecosystems. The data stored in these ecosystems ranges from medical records to genomic sequences that were largely collected using Covid-19 PCR tests. Health privacy laws were revised to enable an alarming amount of data sharing with public and private intelligence agencies for military operations. Using the Covid-19 scamdemic as a front, the military worked with so-called health authorities to weaponize Covid-19 statistics to target non-compliant or undesirable groups with mRNA vaccines, ventilators, and Remdesivir. In other words, it was a military operation that utilized covertly collected private medical and genetic data to deploy bioweapons. Targets were acquired using AI generated predictive behavior models provided by government intelligence agencies like Palantir. If that sounds disturbing to you, keep reading because that was just a warm-up.

The DELAYED REACTION THAT ENABLED THE ILLUSION OF THE PANDEMIC OF THE UNVACCINATED

As contact tracing phased into the background and the genome-collection method known as PCR testing was normalized, one more important piece of data needed to be collected: vaccination status.

The mockingbird media foreshadowed that vaccination status must be made public information because during a public health emergency everyone has a right to know their risk. Soon everyone would need to have a Covid-19 shot to travel, work, go to school, and participate in society. All this would inevitably lead to a vaccine passport. Yet there was no official way to track who was vaccinated in the healthcare industry.

The CDC and Medicare (CMS) announced new codes for tracking vaccination status that would go live on April 1st 2022. The update occurred exactly two years after the Covid-19 diagnosis code went live — on April fools’ Day. This time the emergency update was for the purposes of tracking vaccination status. It just wasn’t an emergency during the most aggressive portion of the vaccine campaign; the part where everyone had to get the shot in order for society to come out of lockdown and “go back to normal”. At any point during 2021, the CDC, CMS, or the AMA could have stopped the presses to do another emergency update to introduce a new code for vaccination status (or for adverse events, for that matter). They did not.

Keep reading

Spies, Secrets, and iCloud: Apple’s Legal Showdown in London

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in London is the one that will consider Apple’s appeal against the UK’s Home Office secret order to include an encryption backdoor in the giant’s iCloud service.

As things stand now, pending the outcome of the legal – and political – wrangling, iCloud users no longer enjoy the security and privacy benefits of the Advanced Data Protection (ADP).

This affects iCloud Backup in the following categories: iCloud Drive, Photos, Notes, Reminders, Safari Bookmarks, Siri Shortcuts, Voice Memos, Wallet Passes, and Freeform.

Meanwhile, the tribunal itself is “secret,” and the date it will consider Apple’s attempt to avoid the permanent breaking of encryption, and of the trust of its users worldwide, has been set for Friday, March 14.

But privacy activists like Privacy International (PI) want these hearings to be public, since the outcome of the UK’s anti-encryption push potentially affects millions, possibly billions of people around the world.

Secret as it may be, the IPT – which is believed to normally deal with national security issues – announced Friday’s closed-door meeting, a move that is described as “unusual.”

Unusual perhaps, but not illogical – Apple’s appeal against the original secret order was also apparently meant to be secret but has in the meantime been “leaked” to the public.

The original order came from Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who targeted the US company with a “technical compatibility notice.” The end result of compliance was giving UK’s spies and law enforcement access to data, by compromising iCloud encryption.

Keep reading

Ontario school children face compelled medical surveillance or suspension

Ontario school children are currently caught in the middle of an ongoing issue regarding student rights, medical privacy, and the power of public health authorities. Under the Immunization of School Pupils Act (ISPA), students attending Ontario schools are required to be vaccinated against certain diseases unless exempt for medical, religious, or philosophical reasons.

However, the recent push by public health officials to have students disclose their vaccination status and face suspension for non-compliance is raising serious privacy concerns.

The problem lies in the ambiguity between ISPA and the Education Act. ISPA stipulates vaccine requirements, but suspension orders are the responsibility of school principals under the Education Act, not public health authorities. This confusion is leading to violations of students’ fundamental right to a free public education, with some students at risk of being unlawfully suspended for failing to disclose their vaccination status.

The pressure to disclose private medical information is causing significant distress among parents and children alike. There are increasing concerns about the safety of centralized digital health databases, which have been vulnerable to data breaches and unauthorized access. With healthcare data a prime target for cyberattacks, parents are understandably worried about the security of their children’s sensitive medical records—which is big business for hackers.

Parents are resisting this growing pressure, with some viewing the disclosure demands as a violation of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA). PHIPA requires informed consent before the collection of medical information and protects against coercion. However, the current approach by threatening suspension or else puts this principle into question.

The Ministry of Education was contacted for clarification, but media representatives Ingrid Anderson and Brook Campbell failed to respond days later. The inquiry focused on the confusion between ISPA and the Education Act, and how these conflicting laws are affecting students’ right to education. Additionally, clarification was sought on how medical privacy is being protected for parents wishing to uphold PHIPA.

Keep reading

Larry Ellison Pushes for AI-Powered National Data Centralization and Mass Surveillance

Oracle co-founder and the company’s executive chairman and chief technology officer Larry Ellison is trying to persuade governments to descend deep into AI-powered surveillance dystopia by centralizing the entirety of their national data in a single place.

And when he says everything should go into this “unified” database, Ellison means everything. That includes health-related data, such as diagnostic and genomic information, electronic health records, DNA, data on agriculture, climate, utility infrastructure…

Once in there, it would be used to train AI models, such as those developed by Oracle – Ellison shared with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair during a panel at the World Governments Summit in Dubai.

As for why any government would do such a thing – his “sell” is that it would allow AI to be used to provide better services. But this time, he left out how this centralization would also represent an exceptional opportunity to “turbocharge” mass government surveillance, even though there is little doubt that many governments are hearing him loud and clear on that point as well.

Keep reading

The Secret History of American Surveillance

From cellphone spying to facial scanning technology to massive data farms, it’s no secret that the U.S. government is gathering loads of personal information on its citizens.

But few remember the origins of our modern surveillance state. Some argue that it was forged over 115 years ago, half a world away in the Philippine Islands.

The story begins in the mid-1870s, when a technological renaissance catapulted America into its first information revolution. Thomas Edison’s quadruplex telegraph and Philo Remington’s typewriter allowed data to be recorded accurately and transmitted quickly. Inventions such as the electrical tabulating machine and the Dewey Decimal System could count, catalog and retrieve huge amounts of information efficiently. Photography was becoming widely accessible, thanks to George Eastman’s roll film, and biometric criminal identification systems such as fingerprinting were adopted from Europe. Our ability to manage, store and transmit data grew by leaps and bounds.

Keep reading

A New Administration, Same Old Support for FISA

American politicians love to tell the citizenry exactly what they are going to do for them. They claim they will install programs for the poor, increase domestic security, strengthen our international image, and fight tirelessly for their constituencies’ rights. But are these even things people want from their elected leaders?

Democrats and Republicans are typically somewhat on the fence about this question in that they like government intervention and force so long as they are used to further their partisan political ambitions. When it comes to libertarian voters, on the other hand, the answer is likely no. Rather, what most libertarians want is the one thing that a politician will never promise: that they will do absolutely nothing and leave everyone alone!

Even if libertarians are technically in the statistical minority, they have noticed a worrying trend and are using the amplifying power of social media to make it a national debate. More specifically, the internet has now made it almost impossible for the enemies of liberty to hide, and this has led to a growing Massie/Paul-led public referendum against our politicians’ unsavory relationship with warrantless spying. Ideally, this referendum will transcend libertarian circles and will grow so large that it infiltrates the ranks of the Democrats and, more importantly, the Republicans.

To give some context, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which is generally associated with the global War on Terror, was actually around decades before 9/11, even though very few people knew about it. This ambiguity existed, in part, because communications technology before the internet was not nearly as sophisticated or intrusive as it is now. However, after this act became supercharged with the adoption of the Patriot Act in 2001 and then the addition of Section 702 in 2008, its days in the dark were over, and unfortunately, so were our days of assumed privacy.

Even though the internet is waking up to the heinous unconstitutionality of these pieces of legislation, the politicians, on the other hand, don’t seem to be listening, a problem that, ironically, is more prevalent among the self-proclaimed “freedom-loving” MAGA Republicans than it is among the “uni party deep-state” Democrats.

Keep reading

UK Government Secretly Orders Apple to Build Global iCloud Backdoor, Threatening Digital Privacy Worldwide

Imagine waking up one morning to find out your government has demanded the master key to every digital iPhone lock on Earth — without telling anyone. That’s exactly what British security officials have tried to pull off, secretly ordering Apple to build a backdoor into iCloud that would allow them to decrypt any user’s data, anywhere in the world. Yes, not just suspected criminals, not just UK citizens — everyone. And they don’t even want Apple to talk about it.

This breathtakingly authoritarian stunt, first reported by The Washington Post, is one of the most aggressive attempts to dismantle digital privacy ever attempted by a so-called Western democracy. It’s the kind of thing you’d expect from regimes that plaster their leader’s face on every street corner, not from a country that still pretends to believe in civil liberties.

This isn’t about catching a single terrorist or cracking a single case. No, this order — issued in secret last month by Keir Starmer’s Labour government — demands universal decryption capabilities, effectively turning Apple into a surveillance arm of the UK government. Forget warrants, forget oversight, forget even the pretense of targeted investigations. If this order were obeyed, British authorities would have the power to rifle through anyone’s iCloud account at will, no justification required.

The officials pushing for this monstrosity are hiding behind the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act of 2016, a law so Orwellian it’s lovingly referred to as the “Snoopers’ Charter.” This piece of legislative overreach forces tech companies to comply with government spying requests while making it illegal to even disclose that such demands have been made. It’s the surveillance state’s dream—limitless power, zero accountability.

Keep reading