You are here
Two minute reads
Early on Wednesday morning the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill was approved by Pakistan’s National Assembly.
Macedonia's capital Skopje is bracing itself for another night of protests and clashes after the interim President announced on Tuesday that there will be an amnesty for everyone under investigation in a formal probe into illegal wiretapping.
This is Privacy International’s initial reaction to Mossack Fonseca’s claim that discussion of the information contained in the Panama Papers is a “campaign against privacy”.
We do agree with Ramon Fonseca about one thing: that “Each person has a right to privacy, whether they are a king or a beggar.”
But that’s where our commonality with co-founder of disgraced Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca ends.
This article originally appeared in Indepedent Voices here.
Since the horrific Brussels and Istanbul attacks we've all looked at our daily lives and saw vulnerability and risk. Where else could terrorists attack?
The recent back and forth between Apple and the FBI over security measures in place to prevent unauthorised access to data has highlighted the gulf in understanding of security between technologists and law enforcement. Modern debates around security do not just involve the state and the individual, the private sector plays a very real role too. There are worrying implications for the safety and security of our devices.
If you were to buy ‘Anna Karenina’ online, you would be told that people who bought Tolstoy’s classic also bought Dostoevsky’s ‘Crime and Punishment’. But if you've just read an 848 page epic Russian novel, do you really want your follow up to be a 1,008 page epic Russian novel? Maybe you want to read something very different next, maybe some contemporary American short stories, such as ’No one belongs here more than you’ by Miranda July? But you know, I don't think the classic-Russian-literature-reader ‘stereotype’ should concern us.
We are on the verge of a revolution in government surveillance powers.
Previously it was simple. Governments demanded access to our homes. Then our communications. Then they demanded access to whatever companies held on us. Then they complained that technology was making this harder, and demanded that technology be designed for them. With every step, safeguards were reduced.
Next governments will demand that companies betray their users and use our technologies to compromise us.
The following was written by Mike Rispoli, Communications Manager at Privacy International, and appeared in the 'Journalism in Europe' discussion series, hosted by Central European University:
"The response by world leaders to the horrific terrorist attacks in France earlier this month has been all too familiar. As officials rallied for freedom of expression, they called for increased vigilance against extremists by expanding government surveillance powers.