Sunday, July 12, 2009

Is data burglary in the public interest?

"Any hacker knowing the right passwords could get access to personal computer information — often at call centres. The private detective just needed to pose as, say, a health worker to check details. Once one newspaper started hiring these gumshoes, rivals were obliged to follow. It became standard practice to ring an investigator and request all manner of information to avoid being beaten to the story." —Dominic Kennedy, Sunday Times Investigations Editor

Saturday, July 11, 2009

When the spotlight is the story

"The press cannot expect to be immune from a widespread and growing public concern about access to databases and personal information, whether it be CCTV, medical records, ID cards, emails or mobile phones. In a world in which editors plead total ignorance of industrial-scale data-burglary under their noses it can hardly be surprising that wider questions are being asked about accountability and regulation." —The Guardian

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Snooping biters can be bit


"Some MPs may bridle at the extent of public surveillance, but parliament has shown not the slightest desire to defend personal freedom from state surveillance. The bland claim is made by home secretaries that intrusion is required for 'national security', the excuse for absolute power down the ages. Nor is data remotely safe in state hands. When the government tells us its national identity register is wholly secure, it is lying: witness the high-security laptops and CDs discarded by the week. There is no such thing as secure electronics.

"Technology gives to those in power, whether in government or the media, immense scope for intrusion. The snooper will always be one step ahead of the defenders of personal freedom. In the case of the government, ministers might at least learn from the Telegraph and News of the World that biters can be bit. If they find ways of gathering absurd amounts of information about private citizens, citizens will gather absurd amounts of information about them." —Simon Jenkins

Thousands have voicemail and data hacked

Today's Guardian leads with the news that Rupert Murdoch's UK newspaper group has paid out over £1m in an attempt to cover-up a crime wave by its journalists:
The payments secured secrecy over out-of-court settlements in three cases that threatened to expose evidence of Murdoch journalists using private investigators who illegally hacked into the mobile phone messages of numerous public figures to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data, including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators… officers found evidence of News Group staff using private investigators who hacked into "thousands" of mobile phones.

There are two particularly troubling aspects to this story. The Metropolitan Police, Crown Prosecution Service and Information Commissioner's Office all had prima facie evidence of these crimes, but have declined to take action against News Group. And, mobile phone companies continue to allow access to messages using voicemail PINs set to defaults that are apparently known throughout the media.

Perhaps in future:
  1. Law enforcement agencies will take action against those discovered to be breaking the law, whether or not they work for powerful newspaper groups?
  2. Mobile phone companies will not leave their customers' communications wide open to abuse?
  3. Government agencies and companies will think a little more carefully before building up large collections of sensitive personal data that will inevitably be sold to the highest bidder?

Sunday, July 05, 2009

MI6 stung by Facebook privacy settings


Even the new MI6 chief's wife can't cope with Facebook's privacy settings. Those geographical networks claim another victim… Clearly our book chapter should be required reading for new intelligence officers and their families.

Friday, July 03, 2009

‘디지털 시대, 표현의 자유’ 컨퍼런스 개최

What did I say!

두 번째 세션은 “인터넷상 이용자 및 타인의 권리보호”라는 주제로 논의된다. ‘인터넷상의 명예훼손 및 모욕’, ‘인터넷과 익명성 권리’, ‘인터넷상에서의 청소년 보호’에 대해 이언 브라운(Ian Brown) 옥스퍼드 대학교 교수와 황철증 방송통신위원회 네트워크정책국장이 주제 발표하고, 윤영철 연세대학교 언론홍보대학원장과 한상기 KAIST 문화기술대학원 교수, 한종호 네이버 정책담당이사가 토론자로 참석한다.

Human rights and Internet regulation

I'm in Seoul this week for a conference organised by the Foreign Office and the Korean government on freedom of expression in the digital age. Here is my presentation on the protection of online speech:

Yesterday the British Embassy kindly organised a visit to the DMZ (demilitarised zone) and the North Korean border. Sadly there was no Dear Leader to be seen, but I will post some photos shortly — it was a remarkable experience.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Tories plan radical action on privacy

Most gratifying to see the Conservative shadow minister for security, Baroness Neville-Jones, announce plans on data protection clearly based around our Database State report (via Ideal Government):

The individual is the rightful owner of personal information and the state is merely possessor and should behave as a responsible custodian. We need to roll back the advance of Big Brother and restore this fundamental right of our citizens. Restoring privacy today must mean a clear statement on the part of those who have custody of personal information of their purpose in retaining it and of their commitment to its proper management. This will necessarily involve a review of most of the government's centralised databases, their use and access to them regulated. It leads to the unavoidable conclusion that that the Information Commissioner should emerge as one of the important offices of state in the twenty first century.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Iranian repression aided by Nokia/Siemens

Quelle surprise: Iran has been using communications monitoring equipment developed by Nokia and Siemens for lawful intercept US/EU purposes to try and crush the ongoing Twitter revolution.



"Enfin, et c'est le point le plus polémique, la liste noire confidentielle gérée par cinq personnes de la BKA et supervisée par un délégué national à la protection des données privées ne sera contrôlée par personne d'autre. Dès lors — et c'est devenu la coutume à propos de ce genre de lois — se pose toujours la même question : qui surveillera les surveillants ?" —Olivier Dumons (merci a Michael!)