Upload
kirsten-fiedler
View
394
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...Anti-terrorism measures
Censoring the web, making us less secure
@kirst3nf
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...
PopulismOpportunismIdeology
What now?
Populismthe driver since 9/11
I. Measures since 9/11 Year EU anti-terrorism measures
2001 EU terrorist “blacklists”
2001 Common Position on combating terrorism
2002 Council Framework Decision on Terrorism
2003 Regulation on the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security
2004 EU Council declaration on combatting terrorism containing 57 specific measures, among them:
2004 Directive on the obligation of carrier to communicate passenger data [API Directive]
2004 Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States
2005 Prüm Convention (MS exchange data on DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration of concerned persons and to cooperate against terrorism)
2005 Third anti-money laundering Directive
2006 Regulation on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)
2006 Data Retention Directive [repealed]
2010 EU/USA Agreement: processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data [SWIFT] for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program [TFTP]
2012 EU/USA Agreement: use and transfer of passenger name records (PNR) to the United States DHS
2012 EU/Australia Agreement: processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data
Opportunism 2015/2016 attacks
“Never waste a good crisis!”
- Jan Jambon, Belgian Interior Minister quoting Winston Churchill, 28 September 2016
EU
2015 - 2016 EU Internet Forum
2016 Directive on the use of Passenger Name Records (EU PNR)
2016 Europol Regulation
2016 Launch of European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC)
2016 Creation of a new portfolio on security: Commissioner Sir Julian King
201? Anti-Terrorism Directive
Ideologythe Anti-Terrorism Directive
Publicdebate/event
Policy Timeline
Politicaldebates
Policy options
Publicdebate/event
Policy Timeline
CommissionPolitical debates
Policy options
Publicdebate/event
Policy Timeline
CommissionPoliticaldebates
Policyoptions
Publicdebate/event
Proposaland
impact ass.
Policy Timeline
Policyoptions
Proposaland
Impact Ass.
Policy Timeline
Council Parliament CommissionPolitical
debatesPublic
debate/event
Policyoptions
Proposaland
Impact Ass.
Policy Timeline
MemberStates
Council Parliament Commission
Decision
Politicaldebates
Publicdebate/event
CommissionPolitical debates
Public debate/event
Advocacy
Proposaland
Impact Ass.
Policyoptions
13/11/15 2/12/15
Anti-Terrorism Directive
11/3/16
12/7/16
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...Ideology: no evidence needed
Member States
Council Parliament CommissionPolitical
debatesPublic
debate/event
Advocacy
Proposaland
Impact Ass.Decision
Policyoptions
13/11/15 2/12/15
Anti-Terrorism Directive
11/3/16
12/7/16
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...Ideology: no political debate needed
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...Ideology: no nuanced
approach needed
Anti-Terrorism Directive
Financing, travel, radicalisation and cybercyber
Anti-Terrorism Directive
1. Vague definitions2. Blocking & censorship3. Weakening of encryption,
interception4. Attacks on information systems
1. Vague definitions
“increasing misuse of the internet for terrorist purposes”
“indirect provocation”
“radicalisation of citizens”
“glorification and justification of terrorism”
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...Ideology:
definitions not needed
Recital (7b) An effective means of combatting terrorism on the internet is to remove illegal terrorist content at source. In that context, this Directive is without prejudice to voluntary action taken by the internet industry to prevent the misuse of its services or to any support for such action by Member States, such as detecting and flagging illegal content. Member States should take all necessary measures to remove or to block access to web pages publicly inciting others to commit terrorist offences. Where such measures are taken, they should be in line with transparent procedures and subject to adequate safeguards under the control of independent authorities. Member States should use their best endeavours to cooperate with third countries in seeking to secure the removal of such content from servers within their territory. However, when removal of illegal content at its source is not possible, Member States should be able to put in place measures to block access from Union territory to web pages identified as containing or disseminating terrorist content. Member States should consider legal action against internet and social media companies and service providers which deliberately refuse to comply with a legal order to delete illegal content extolling terrorism from their internet platforms after being duly notified about such content. Any refusal should be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. The right to judicial review should be guaranteed to the internet and social media companies and service providers.
In that context, this Directive is without prejudice to voluntary action taken by the internet industry to prevent the misuse of its services or to any support for such action by Member States, such as detecting and flagging illegal content.
2. Blocking and censorship
Recital (7b) An effective means of combatting terrorism on the internet is to remove illegal terrorist content at source. In that context, this Directive is without prejudice to voluntary action taken by the internet industry to prevent the misuse of its services or to any support for such action by Member States, such as detecting and flagging illegal content. Member States should take all necessary measures to remove or to block access to web pages publicly inciting others to commit terrorist offences. Where such measures are taken, they should be in line with transparent procedures and subject to adequate safeguards under the control of independent authorities. Member States should use their best endeavours to cooperate with third countries in seeking to secure the removal of such content from servers within their territory. However, when removal of illegal content at its source is not possible, Member States should be able to put in place measures to block access from Union territory to web pages identified as containing or disseminating terrorist content. Member States should consider legal action against internet and social media companies and service providers which deliberately refuse to comply with a legal order to delete illegal content extolling terrorism from their internet platforms after being duly notified about such content. Any refusal should be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. The right to judicial review should be guaranteed to the internet and social media companies and service providers.
Member States should take all necessary measures to remove or to block access to web pages publicly inciting others to commit terrorist offences.
2. Blocking and censorship
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...
Ideology: no need for measuresthat actually work
Recital (15d) The fact that terrorist organisations rely heavily upon various electronic tools, the internet and social media to communicate, promote, and incite terrorist acts, to recruit potential fighters, to collect funds, or to arrange for other support for their activities, creates challenges in investigations and prosecutions of terrorist offences. Member States should therefore cooperate with each other notably through Eurojust and Europol and with the Commission to ensure a coordinated approach in dealing with the gathering, sharing, and admissibility of electronic evidence.
3. Encryption & interception
Recital (15d) The fact that terrorist organisations rely heavily upon various electronic tools, the internet and social media to communicate, promote, and incite terrorist acts, to recruit potential fighters, to collect funds, or to arrange for other support for their activities, creates challenges in investigations and prosecutions of terrorist offences. Member States should therefore cooperate with each other notably through Eurojust and Europol and with the Commission to ensure a coordinated approach in dealing with the gathering, sharing, and admissibility of electronic evidence.
3. Encryption & interception
ensure a coordinated approach in dealing with the gathering, sharing, and admissibility of electronic evidence.
Recital (15f) A Eurojust report of November 2014 notes that the growing sophistication and wider use of anonymisers, proxy servers, the Tor network, satellite links and foreign 3G networks create additional challenges to the gathering and analysis of electronic evidence, which are rendered even greater by the storage of data in the cloud. [not adopted]
3. Encryption & interception
IV. What can I do?
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...
Ideology: real security not needed
3. Encryption & interception
Recital (15a) To ensure the success of investigations [...], those responsible for investigating and prosecuting such offences should have the possibility to make use of effective investigative tools such as those which are used in combating organised crime or other serious crimes.
Such tools should [...] include, for example, the search of any personal property, the interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, the taking and the fixing of audio recordings in private or public vehicles and places, and of visual images of persons in public vehicles and places, (…) and financial investigations(…).
Recital (15a) To ensure the success of investigations and the prosecution of terrorist offences, offences related to a terrorist group or offences related to terrorist activities, those responsible for investigating and prosecuting such offences should have the possibility to make use of effective investigative tools such as those which are used in combating organised crime or other serious crimes. Such tools should, where appropriate, while taking into account the principle of proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation in accordance with national law, include, for example, the search of any personal property, the interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, the taking and the fixing of audio recordings in private or public vehicles and places, and of visual images of persons in public vehicles and places, (…) and financial investigations(…).
3. Encryption & interception
include, for example, the search of any personal property, the interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, the taking and the fixing of audio recordings in private or public vehicles and places, and of visual images of persons in public vehicles and places,
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...
Ideology: privacy not needed
4. Attacks on information systems
Article 3 - Terrorist offences
ha) attacks against information systems as defined in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council;
(i)seriously threatening to commit any of the acts listed in points (a) to (h)
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...
Ideology: real security not needed
EU Council:
+ surveillance+ interception
EU Parliament:
+ web blocking+ attacks against computer systems
CONCLUSION
Member States
Council Parliament CommissionPolitical
debatesPublic
debate/event
Advocacy
Policyoptions
13/11/15 2/12/15
II. Anti-Terrorism Directive
11/3/16
12/7/16
Proposaland
Impact Ass.Decision
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...What now?
What now?
1. Blog, tweet etc.
2. Contact MEP Hohlmeier
3. Contact S&D (especially Germans)
4. Contact your permanent representation / Ministry
We draw avery important conclusion here with a merely dark image behind it, so the text is white...
Thanks!
@[email protected] @edrihttps://edri.org