Re: Data retention in Europe

[Izzy <atorima@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 "Terrorism, Piracy, 'Kiddie pRon,  etc. are of course, just an excuse
or, justifications for massive "data retention" laws, the "Patriot Act",
etc.

The real motive is the establishment of the "Global Panopticon" and it's
acceptance by the masses it will control. "It's for your own good" , To
protect you from the evil 'Terrorists', "Goldstein", or "To make your
consumer experience better", etc.

The possible uses of such information are almost limitless.

Marketing information based on your..google searchs..consumer
habits..the people you know and the social class you belong to..etc.


Thinking about this- I was promoted to re-visit MIT's Media Lab project-

-Reality Mining-

"Machine Perception and Learning of Complex Social Systems"

http://reality.media.mit.edu/

"Reality Mining defines the collection of machine-sensed environmental
data pertaining to human social behavior. This new paradigm of data
mining makes possible the modeling of conversation context, proximity
sensing, and temporospatial location throughout large communities of
individuals. Mobile phones (and similarly innocuous devices) are used
for data collection, opening social network analysis to new methods of
empirical stochastic modeling."

"Such rich data on complex social systems have implications for a
variety of fields. The research questions we are addressing include:

    * How do social networks evolve over time?
    * How entropic (predictable) are most people's lives?
    * How does information flow?
    * Can the topology of a social network be inferred from only
proximity data?
    * How can we change a group's interactions to promote better
functioning?"


The separation between 'Industry, Academia, and the Global Security
State is well, pretty much, none-existent.

Consider- the MIT 'Media Lab' is headed by  Nicholas Negroponte whose
brother is John Negroponte..The U.S. Director of National Intelligence.

"The Brothers Negroponte" Sounds like a novel, I read, once!

Makes you wonder about those $100 hand-cranked laptops Nicholas N. has
been pushing for the kids of 'poor' countrys - who can't even service
the interest on their debt- but, I digress..

>>>what Tor is for - defeating _traffic_ analysis.

Yes, but...The use of Tor, or something along the lines- could simply be
outlawed- making it a crime to use, or a 'national security letter', or
similar 'instrument' could be used to implement a 'back door' or, the
possibility exists -considering the origins of 'Onion' routing- that we
are all just "Media Lab Rats" being observed by the "Global Adversary"
to better develop 'predictive behavior modeling', or something.

 On the other hand -it may have occurred to the 'Ruling Elite' and their
servants - that they themselves would, or could be caught in a trap of
their own making and therefore a mechanism that would allow a certain
amount of "unobserved", or "unregulated" traffic flow was necessary.
Otherwise, an individual or group, with insider accesss to the system
could, "Well and Truly, Fuck Them" Which is a pleasant thought! and I'll
leave it there for now.

Have a Nice Day! ;)

-Izzy





Matej Kovacic wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>or phone numbers. > it's interesting to note that that's exactly
>>>what Tor is for - defeating _traffic_ analysis.

> 
> 
> Since I live in Europe, just a short explanation of this.
> 
> Yes, it is about traffic data and not content. So Tor is a good solution
> to this.
> 
> But there are some other problems as well.
> 
> In US there was a case Smith v. Maryland (Smith v. Maryland, 242 U.S.
> 735 (1979).), which diferentiates between content of communication and
> traffic data. However, there is State v. Hunt decision (State v. Hunt,
> 91 N.J. 338, 450 A.2d 952 (1982).), which says individual can expect
> privacy in traffic data also.
> 
> But European Court of Human Rights in 1984 (interesting date :-D) in
> their Malone v. Great Britain decision clearly stated that traffic data
> are integral part of communication.
> 
> There are some legal opinions that data retention won't go through so
> called triple principle test. This test requires that regulation must be
> a) legal (prescribed by law, law must be accesible to the public) b)
> necessary in democratic society for the pursuit of a legitimate aim and
> c) proportionate to the aim pursued.
> 
> It is also important to know, that European Court of Human Rights
> critisized so called blanket measures in other decisions as well. So -
> if there is no suspicion, individual should not be put under
> surveillance. But data retention is that - surveillance and secret
> tracking without prior suspicion.
> 
> 
> The other interesting thing is that this directive was prepared and
> adopted in very short time. How that?
> It is likely that some strong lobby was behind direkctive. However, this
> idea of extended surveilalnce is not new and is NOT the consequence of
> antiterrorism measures. There are some documents from 1993 which show
> that extension of surveillance and harmonisation of this area is not new
> in Europe (see Interception of communications, report to COREPER,
> ENFOPOL 40, 10090/93, Confidential, Brussels, 16.11.93, published on
> Statewatch website in 1997). Terrorism is not the reason for this.
> 
> BTW: one of the latest proposals (I thik this version was also adopted)
> said retention of data applies to ISP's only. No cybercaffes and public
> places included.
> The question is what are you doing in cybercaffe and wha in your home.
> In cybercaffe you are surfing, posting on forums and checking your mail.
> But you are not using P2P applications. P2P applications you are using
> at your home.
> 
> So which lobby is behind directive?
> Actually, there is only one lobby strong enough. This is the lobby of
> anti-piracy groups and industry.
> 
> It is important to know, that first directive proposals stated that
> retention is necessariy for fight against terrorism. But then they
> started to talk about "serious criminal offences". What are they?
> They are offences, which fall under European arrest warant. The warrant
> applies in the following cases: a) where a final sentence of
> imprisonment or a detention order has been imposed for a period of at
> least four months or b) for offences punishable by imprisonment or a
> detention order for a maximum period of at least one year.
> 
> Piracy and filesharing fall under European arrest warrant in some
> european legislations. OK, it is true, that European arrest warrant is
> in "crisis" since German constitutional court rejected it, but note
> this: "no limitation to certain types of crimes for which access is
> allowed".
> 
> Slovenian Ministry of justice (I live in Slovenia) declared they support
> data retention for all crimes which should be prosecuted officially.
> 
> So next step will be fighting this directive in constitutional courts
> and finally on the ECHR.
> 
> Meantime we should propagate using Tor.
> 
> 
> bye, Matej