Tag: privacy

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

Mike Lee’s App Store Accountability Act Would Make Google and Apple Check IDs

Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee has introduced a bill to keep porn out of app stores. There might just be one tiny problem here: They already do.

So, what’s the point? Dig a little deeper and you’ll see that this bill is about forcing age verification on app stores and mobile devices, with a side goal of chilling sex-related speech.

Lee is framing his new bill (S. 5364) as a matter of “accountability”—a word found right in the bill’s title—and of preventing “big corporations” from “victimiz[ing] kids” with “sexual and violent content.” We can’t count on tech companies to act “moral” on their own accord, Lee posted to X.

But big corporations like Google and Apple already ban apps featuring sexual content, and these bans extend not just to kids but to everybody.

While apps can be downloaded from a plethora of sources, there are two main centralized app marketplaces: Apple’s App Store, for iPhones, and the Google Play store, for Androids. Play Store guidelines reject all apps “that contain or promote sexual content or profanity, including pornography, or any content or services intended to be sexually gratifying.” The App Store explicitly prohibits apps featuring “overtly sexual or pornographic material,” which it defines broadly to include any “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” Apple also bans “hookup” apps and any other “apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution.”

Lee’s bill can’t be about simply convincing Apple and Google to adopt his version of morality, since they already have.

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

Meet the Spyware Companies Preparing to Unleash Their Tech During Trump’s 2nd Term

In late September, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement signed a $2 million one-year contract with controversial Israeli spyware vendor Paragon Solutions. The contract involved Paragon’s US subsidiary based in Chantilly, Virginia and ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations Division 3.

Paragon claims its tools can help law enforcement and governments remotely crack encrypted messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, and Facebook Messenger.

The agreement calls for Paragon to provide ICE with a “fully configured proprietary solution including license, hardware, warranty, maintenance and training.” The agreement was first reported on by Wired.

Within weeks of the ICE-Paragon contract becoming public Wired reported the contract was under review by the White House to see if it violates a 2023 Executive Order issued by the Biden administration. Executive Order 14093 was signed by President Joe Biden in March 2023 as part of an ongoing US government effort specifically aimed at restricting the use of commercial spyware by U.S. agencies.

The EO says the US government will continue to promote the “responsible use” of spyware that aligns with promoting “democratic values”. Despite the U.S. government efforts to prosecute journalists like Julian Assange, the EO claims the U.S. has an interest in “promoting respect for human rights; and defending activists, dissidents, and journalists against threats to their freedom and dignity.”

The Biden administration has also made efforts to impact the commercial spyware market, including placing spyware vendors like Israeli firm NSO Group and Intellexa on the “Entity List” which prevents any US companies from doing business with them. The Biden White House has also implemented a visa restriction policy for individuals “who have been involved in the development and sale of commercial spyware or who are immediate family members of those involved.”

Keep reading

Push to Pass KOSA Spurs Fears Over Privacy and Free Speech

Attorneys general from 32 jurisdictions — including 31 states and the District of Columbia — have signed an open letter urging Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) before the looming conclusion of the current session early next year. This legislation, although primarily aimed at protecting minors from digital harms, introduces significant implications for online privacy and freedom of speech through proposed mechanisms for age verification and potential censorship.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

KOSA itself doesn’t mandate direct implementation of online age verification but tasks the Secretary of Commerce, along with the FTC and FCC, with exploring “options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.” This move toward digital identification could fundamentally alter the landscape of internet privacy, linking social media accounts and other online activities directly to real-world identities.

Keep reading

Pokémon Go Player Data Being Used to Train AI & Construct ‘Large Geospatial Model’

Millions of users’ location and imaging data is being compiled to construct a global virtual model of the real world, ostensibly to build new augmented reality experiences, the company behind the popular mobile game Pokémon Go has revealed.

In a blog update Tuesday, Niantic explained they’ve been enlisting Pokémon Go players to participate in efforts to construct a Large Geospatial Model (LGM), which the company says “could guide users through the world, answer questions, provide personalized recommendations, help with navigation, and enhance real-world interactions.”

The company says the LGM constructs a comprehensive AI world model by leveraging its Visual Positioning System (VPS), which was “built from user scans, taken from different perspectives and at various times of day, at many times during the years, and with positioning information attached, creating a highly detailed understanding of the world. This data is unique because it is taken from a pedestrian perspective and includes places inaccessible to cars.”

“The LGM will enable computers not only to perceive and understand physical spaces, but also to interact with them in new ways, forming a critical component of AR glasses and fields beyond, including robotics, content creation and autonomous systems,” Niantic said. “As we move from phones to wearable technology linked to the real world, spatial intelligence will become the world’s future operating system.”

“Over the past five years, Niantic has focused on building our Visual Positioning System, which uses a single image from a phone to determine its position and orientation using a 3D map built from people scanning interesting locations in our games and Scaniverse,” the company wrote.

Keep reading

The Biden Regime Has Just Issued a Very Suspicious Directive Permitting Military Intervention in US Domestic Affairs

The Department of Homeland Security has flagged individuals questioning COVID-19 origins, vaccine efficacy, and election integrity as potential domestic terrorism threats.

Is a coup being set in place?

A new Department of Defense directive 5240.01 issued September 27, 2024, just prior to the November presidential election allows the US military to use lethal force against American citizens in assisting police authorities in domestic disturbances.

A report on this development lists these civil liberties concerns:

Right to protest: There are fears that expanded authority could suppress legitimate protests.

Privacy rights: Increased military involvement in domestic intelligence gathering could infringe on privacy.

Due process: The military’s role in law enforcement could bypass standard due process protections.

Freedom of speech: The broad definition of “national security threats” could target individuals for their political beliefs.

Civilian control: The expanded military role could erode civilian oversight of the military.

Here are some Constitutional concerns:

Challenging the Posse Comitatus Act: This Act traditionally limits the powers of the federal government in using military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The new DoD directive, by permitting the use of lethal force through military assistance in civilian law enforcement, may push the boundaries of these limitations.

Potential First Amendment Concerns: Natural health advocates and others exercising their First Amendment rights, such as questioning the government’s response to COVID-19 or the integrity of elections, have been labeled as potential domestic extremists and/or terrorists by some agencies. This directive could expand those classifications into scenarios involving lethal force interventions, potentially chilling free speech under the guise of national security.

Fourth Amendment Considerations: This directive also allows intelligence sharing between military and law enforcement under emergency conditions, raising questions about the right to privacy and the potential for expanded surveillance.

Due Process Implications (Fifth Amendment): The possibility of military use of lethal force in domestic scenarios introduces concerns about how due process protections might be maintained before potentially life-altering decisions are made.

Why these ominous changes one month before the election? Is something in the works? Why is there no reporting and no debate on this change in policy?

Here is the Directive: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/524001p.PDF?ver=UpTwJ66AyyBgvy7wFyTGbA%3d%3d

Here is the report: https://stateofthenation.co/?p=256688

Ever since the CIA used the Washington Post and the media to cover up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the term, “conspiracy theory,” introduced by the CIA, has been used by the presstitutes and government to demonize truth and those who speak truth, and to protect official narratives, such as “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Unless Trump cuts a deal with Democrats not to hold them accountable and also a deal with the Ruling Elite not to interfere with their control, I can see no way that either will permit Trump to be President.

Keep reading

Opt Out: How to Protect Your Baby’s Photos on the Internet + More

The Guardian reported:

You’ve got the cutest baby ever, and you want the world to know it. But you’re also worried about what might happen to your baby’s picture once you release it into the nebulous world of the internet.

Should you post it?

“Everyone has had parents share embarrassing baby photos with friends. It’s a cringe-inducing rite of passage, but it’s different when that cringe is felt around the world and can never be deleted,” said Albert Fox Cahn, director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.

I’ve described my own concerns about my newborn’s privacy in the past. Tech companies are not transparent about what they do with our data and our pictures.

They might use the photos to train their latest AI models. That’s enough for me to try to err on the safe side of the do-I-post-pictures-of-my-child spectrum. I only share pictures of him via text or with his face turned away. Other parents might be more concerned with, for example, online predators.

I reached out to a few experts to help you figure out what the best move might be for you, depending on what you’re most concerned about. They all said that the most powerful protection is, of course, abstinence. Just don’t post or digitally store your kids’ pictures, and you’re golden. Is that realistic on a day-to-day basis?

The experts agreed: no. We all have to reach a happy medium.

Keep reading

The Government Compels Silence Again

When Congress enacted the Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA), it claimed the statute would guarantee the privacy of digital data that service providers were retaining in storage. The act prohibited the providers from sharing the stored data, and it prohibited unauthorized access to the data, commonly called computer hacking – except, of course, if the recipients or the hackers were working for the federal government.

Just as it did with the Patriot Act of 2001 – which permits one federal agent to authorize another to conduct a search of stored data, without a judicially issued search warrant – the SCA permits judges to issue “orders” for searches without meeting the probable cause standard required by the Fourth Amendment.

Just like the Patriot Act – which in its original form prohibited the recipient of agent-issued search warrants, called National Security Letters (NSLs), from telling any persons of their existence – the SCA requires judges who issue orders for a search, upon the request of the government, to bar the custodian of the data who has received the order from informing the person whose data is sought.

What if the person whose data is sought has a claim of privacy on the data? What if the owner and creator of the data relied on the Fourth Amendment to keep the government’s hands off of it? What if that person was the President of the United States at the time he created the data? What if he has a claim of executive privilege on it? What if all persons have a privacy claim on all stored data and have a right to resist the government’s efforts to seek it?

Keep reading

Germany Rushes to Expand Biometric Surveillance

Germany is a leader in privacy and data protection, with many Germans being particularly sensitive to the processing of their personal data – owing to the country’s totalitarian history and the role of surveillance in both Nazi Germany and East Germany.

So, it is disappointing that the German government is trying to push through Parliament, at record speed, a “security package” that would increase biometric surveillance at an unprecedented scale. The proposed measures contravene the government’s own coalition agreement, and undermine European law and the German constitution.

In response to a knife-stabbing in the West-German town of Solingen in late-August, the government has introduced a so-called “security package” consisting of a bouquet of measures to tighten asylum rules and introduce new powers for law enforcement authorities.

Among them, three stand out due to their possibly disastrous effect on fundamental rights online. 

Keep reading