Browsing the archives for the politics tag

Postcards

Feb 1, 2009
Johan Svensson

Ingvar Åkesson, chief spymaster of FRA, was on SR (Sweden’s Radio) openly declaring that citizens should consider all email sent on the internet to be “postcards,” thus making it perfectly okay for anyone who handles the postcard to read its contents.

My first question here is what he thinks of people using a new technology called “envelopes,” in the shape of asymmetrical public-key encryption. That has to be okay as well, right? (Here’s my public key.)

Sadly, Swedish politicians have already stated that anonymity and encryption are “problems” on the internet. I wonder how long until it’s illegal to use envelopes for your mail, since it prevents military intelligence agencies from spying on their citizens?

Apart from that Åkesson constructed the usual straw men about how they’re not at all going to store all email sent. Nearly everyone already knows that they won’t do this. Our problem with the military surveillance of civilian traffic is that we feel infringed the second our email gets scanned by FRA, whether they store it or not; whether it’s done manually or with automated algorithms.

No Comments
Tagged , , , , , ,

They’re Taking My Freedoms Away, Haha

Jan 4, 2009
Johan Svensson

What in the name of sanity is going on with politicians lately?

First we had the Swedish FRA law mandating that all internet traffic that passes national borders (in effect nearly all traffic) shall be routed through FRA for surveillance for “threats to the nation.” Citing a poignant part from the Wikipedia article:

According to the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment’s Director-General, Ingvar Åkesson, they destroy the data collected after eighteen months, but they confirm that they have, in fact, been collecting information not just on foreigners but also on Swedes as the presence of Swedish search terms used on the data would indicate.

So for a decade they have conducted illegal surveillance on Swedish citizens. No politicians ever talk about holding them responsible for their crimes. The general opinion seems to be “but the FRA law makes it legal, so then we can turn a blind eye to the decade of criminal activity.”

The FRA law went in effect on January 1, 2009. I assume that everything I write on this blog passes through FRA, including my password for the admin interface. Anyone that uses Hotmail or Gmail have their passwords intercepted, as well as all the emails they read.

Now we have the next outrage around the corner: the telecommunications data retention act.

This act requires ISPs to store metadata — each and every IP address you communicate with and when, how long the communication lasted. If it is a cell phone call, the cell phone carrier will record who you called, how long the call lasted, and where you were when making the call, turning your cell phone into a government tracking device.

This isn’t paranoid rambling; this is openly written in the act.

In the UK the police may be able to hack into computers without a warrant and access the contents of your computer. Other countries can ask British police for access to any results of the intrusion.

Here in Sweden there’s a similar inquest that’s already written. The government is debating the proposition for the law, and the Social Democrats in the opposition are positive to this.

In the same inquest it is openly written that passwords, cryptographic keys and anonymizing proxy services are seen as a problem that needs to be solved.

In the UK it is already a criminal offence punishable by prison time to not surrender the keys to encrypted files. I expect that to be law here within five years if this keeps up.

This is all done in the name of “fighting terrorism.”

Terrorism can threaten freedom and democracy. But only politicians can destroy it. And they are dismantling our freedom piece by piece.

I am a member of the Swedish Pirate Party. It is the only party opposed to the FRA law and other freedom-crushing laws. You should join too.

No Comments
Tagged , , ,

A Culture of Compromises

Jun 26, 2008
Johan Svensson

If there’s one thing that gets on my nerves when politicians start yapping, it’s the culture of compromising.

There’s a saying along the lines of “a good compromise is when both parties leave without satisfaction.” The problem with that is that you can just over-exaggerate your suggestion and then negotiate a compromise that is what you actually wanted, making you seem like you threw some bones to the party you’re compromising with. Politicians are oh so good at doing this.

Take the recent political brawl about the FRA law. Proponents want it to pass. Opponents want to reject it completely (though mostly to change a few details and vote it through when they’re in power themselves). Proponents call names and say the opponents are bad at politics since they can’t come up with a compromise.

Some things are so stupid and dangerous that you should never compromise with them — that just make them slightly less stupid and dangerous. It’s the equivalent of suggesting “give me all your money” and then calling names when you don’t want to compromise and only hand over half of your money.

Today there was an article by Carl B. Hamilton (in Swedish), frowning upon us little people for “not understanding” why the FRA law is good for us.

This is the same deal the Moderates used when they got trounced in the 2002 election — “We must have failed to reach people with our information.” That they in fact did reach people, and people didn’t like what they saw, is of course a possibility that’s impossible to accept if you’re a politician. No, clearly the people misunderstood or never received the information.

The problem with Hamilton’s article is that it doesn’t make a case at all. All he says is that “there are reasons” for the FRA law, yet never stating them. If they’re secret, just say so. Don’t assume we’re too dumb to understand them.

Might it have something to do with the fact that then-minister of defense Mikael Odenberg on the 13th of April 2007 signed an agreement with USA to exchange information for “terrorism research”? And that a large part of Russia’s internet traffic is routed through Sweden, making it a handy place for some wiretapping?

The disconnect between career politicians and normal people just keeps growing.

There’s a long rant about the FRA law coming up later.

1 Comment
Tagged , , , ,

Argument

May 22, 2008
Johan Svensson

Churchill once wrote: “If your argument is weak, shout. ” Remember that when you watch the politicians & the preachers on tv. Just sayin’. Ben Templesmith

No Comments
Tagged ,

God’s Grand Canyon

Jan 2, 2007
Johan Svensson

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). PEER

Oh god FSM, the humanity.

No Comments
Tagged , ,

Position

Apr 26, 2005
Johan Svensson

“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

2 Comments
Tagged , , ,

S/N ratio

Mar 15, 2003
Johan Svensson

Every now and then you actually stumble upon something well-written on Slashdot, though it is a rare event indeed. The comment in its entirety, since I thought it was so well-written.

Unfortunately, sir, the Bush regime does not recognize the proper definition of the term terrorist. If you will examine the list of known “terrorist” organizations they released, you will see quite a few political groups that have never been involved in acts of terror, nor advocated them.

Furthermore, your suggestion that America is right to attack Iraq is ludicrous. There are only two types of people dying in Iraq: children who die because we have imposed harsh restrictions on the nation of Iraq, and criminals who die for violating the laws of Iraq. How is this any different from America? Where, in the month of March, nearly 300 men have been put to death in Texas alone. The primary difference, you might say, is that some of those criminals in Iraq are merely political dissidents who oppose the Iraqi regime.

This thinking is flawed in two regards. First, America itself has begun to jail political dissidents as part of their war on terrorism. I can think of no better example than of the three men who were arrested for donating money to help Iraqi citizens. Members of our government have repeatedly claimed that financial contributions are protected as political speech, and yet the same rights have been denied to critics of our government. We jail dissidents while Iraq kills them. Obviously, we are morally superior to Iraq, no? Obviously he’s a horrible despot who slaughters his citizens by the hundreds. Yet, from the perspective of nations like France or Britain, we are the morally depraved for we kill our common criminals. By the hundreds, we kill them. Should we expect the British or French to wage war against America to stop us from immorally killing our own citizens?

Of course, you may counter by reminding us of the Kurds, whom Saddam willfully exterminated. However, America has comitted a similar atrocity against its own people. You may suggest that that was long ago, and that it no longer matters; that we no longer butcher our citizens. This is true, but only because we instead murder the citizens of other nations. How can we claim, then, to be any better?

Despite your concerns about the loss of our civil liberties, you nonetheless advocate war with Iraq. I promise you that, once Iraq has been bombed and Saddam killed/deposed, that the loss of our liberties will continue, but at an increased rate, for the invasion of Iraq would further strengthen the resolve of the many anti-American rebels who remain in this world.

Another interesting thought: what would Uncle Sam say if Saddam is defenestrated and a democratically elected Iraqui government starts a nuclear program?

No Comments
Tagged , , ,