Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @03:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the preach-to-the-choir dept.

United Nations Special Rapporteur David Kaye has written that encryption is necessary for freedom of expression and privacy:

No restrictions may be imposed on the right to hold opinions without interference; [...] opinions, however held online, result in surveillance or harassment, encryption and anonymity may provide necessary privacy. Restrictions on such security tools may interfere with the ability of individuals to hold opinions.

Interference may also include such efforts as targeted surveillance, distributed denial of service attacks, and online and offline intimidation, criminalization and harassment. Targeted digital interference harasses individuals and civil society organizations for the opinions they hold in many formats. Encryption and anonymity enable individuals to avoid or mitigate such harassment.

Efforts to restrict encryption and anonymity also tend to be quick reactions to terrorism, even when the attackers themselves are not alleged to have used encryption or anonymity to plan or carry out an attack. Moreover, even where the restriction is arguably in pursuit of a legitimate interest, many laws and policies regularly do not meet the standards of necessity and proportionality and have broad, deleterious effects on the ability of all individuals to exercise freely their rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression. [...] Outright prohibitions on the individual use of encryption technology disproportionately restrict the freedom of expression, because they deprive all online users in a particular jurisdiction of the right to carve out private space for opinion and expression, without any particular claim of the use of encryption for unlawful ends.

States should promote strong encryption and anonymity. National laws should recognize that individuals are free to protect the privacy of their digital communications by using encryption technology and tools that allow anonymity online. [...] States should not restrict encryption and anonymity, which facilitate and often enable the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Blanket prohibitions fail to be necessary and proportionate. States should avoid all measures that weaken the security that individuals may enjoy online, such as backdoors, weak encryption standards and key escrows.

The report hits on many digital liberty topics, shaming Russia, China, and South Africa for online "real-name" policies, calling compulsory SIM card registration "well beyond any legitimate government interest," calling for access to Tor, proxies, and VPNs to be "protected and promoted," and asserting that data retention "of all users has inevitably resulted in the State having everyone's digital footprint."

By contrast, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has become the latest Obama administration official to express "concerns" over encryption hampering anti-terrorism and law enforcement efforts.


[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Tramii on Friday May 29 2015, @08:54PM

    by Tramii (920) on Friday May 29 2015, @08:54PM (#189838)

    I'm feigning anything. Was that post in English? It makes no sense.

    First he quotes a tiny part of what David Kaye wrote with no context:

    "encryption and anonymity may provide necessary privacy."

    Then he says:

    With many on this list wanting every one to be "members".

    With many on WHAT LIST?
    Wanting "one"? What is "one" referring to?
    "Members?" Huh?
    How does this have anything to do with the quote from before?

    AC get it right!

    And how am I supposed to read this? As in "The anonymous coward (referring to himself) got it right?" or perhaps it's saying "Hey AC, you are wrong and should should get it right!" Neither one makes sense to me either.

    The post was literally incoherent and I was simply pointing that out. But I guess I should have just marked it as 'Spam' or 'Troll' and moved on.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @08:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @08:58PM (#189839)

    The list is SN, every one = everyone, "AC get it right!" is the most confusing part.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Tramii on Friday May 29 2015, @09:25PM

      by Tramii (920) on Friday May 29 2015, @09:25PM (#189851)

      The list is SN, every one = everyone

      Well that makes some sense. How is Soylent News a "list"? Is that some new lingo I'm unfamiliar with?

      Anyways, I still don't understand the statement.

      1) Having the option to be anonymous is necessary.
      2) Some (not most) Soylent News posters wish that all regular posters would sign up for an account and use it to post.

      There is *no* conflict between statement #1 and statement #2. I haven't seen anyone suggest we disable anonymous posts, and even if someone had, they are in the far, far minority. Signing up for an account doesn't really even violate posting anonymously. You can use a throw away email address and sign up under any crazy name you want. You could sign up for 100 accounts and randomly bounce between them all. If SN wanted to track you, they could did it even without needing you to sign up for an account.