As NSA is preparing to end bulk collection of phone calls data in the US, on the other side of the Atlantic, UK is preparing to introduce new regulation regarding investigatory powers of British law enforcement. Presented yesterday, by Home Secretary Theresa May, Investigatory Powers Bill (already known as “snoopers’ charter”) will significantly overhaul currently existing provisions regulating targeted interception, remote search, acquisition of bulk personal datasets and retention of internet connection records by CSPs (Communication Services Providers) as well as oversight and authorisation matters. The fact that data retention is once again introduced in the UK, as it is third time British government is trying to push it through, is especially daunting. Previous attempts were neutralised by judgement of CJEU that declared Data Retention Directive illegal and by decision of the UK High Court, which ordered two sections of the Data Retention and Regulation of Investigatory Powers – apparently British government refuses to be bound by judiciary.
Tym razem post w trochę innym tonie – artykuł mojego autorstwa został opublikowany w wydaniu specjalnym European Review of Organised Crime poświęconym w całości zjawisku cyberprzestępczości. Do lektury zarówno mojego artykułu (zatytułowanego Dealer, Hacker, Lawyer, Spy. Modern Techniques and Legal Boundaries of Counter-cybercrime Operations) jak i pozostałych prac serdecznie zapraszam.
Wydawnictwo dostępne jest pod adresem http://sgocnet.org/site/the-review-eroc/
This time something a bit different – I had a pleasure of contributing an article to the special issue of European Review of Organised Crime dedicated entirely to the phenomenon of cybercrime. Therefore I invite everyone to to read my article (titled Dealer, Hacker, Lawyer, Spy. Modern Techniques and Legal Boundaries of Counter-cybercrime Operations) as well as other contribution included in this issue.
European Review of Organised Crime is available at http://sgocnet.org/site/the-review-eroc/.
Recent report by Washington Post brings two equally strong feelings – one – kind of outrage diluted by number of earlier revelations about the scope of NSA surveillance program and – two – marvel that it is actually possible to store every phone call in the country (not metadata) and have the ability to rewind them whole month back and have effective search engine in place. Of course last part is somehow made up, one have to assume that there is actually some kind tool to browse such, for lack of better word, gianormous amount of data in order to bring any effectiveness to such infrastructure. However looking closer at the information, things get less sensationalistic, first of all which country are we talking about? The article lacks this crucial aspect – important to note – it is not US. It is needless to say that storing calls from Monaco, or Afghanistan (which might quite likely be the target) is much different that storing calls from France or Russia. Second while the premise looks impressive at first glance, the closer we look the things get more complex.
On June the 6th, 2013 Washington Post and The Guardian simultaneously released informations about US surveillance program broader in its scope that anything seen before. Furthermore PRISM as it is called targeted most sensitive data – collecting informations from providers of services that we use so often and for private communication. It is hard to name type of data that was not captured by government. Emails, videos, photos, VoIP and user activity among many more is captured straight from the servers of biggest vendors on the market – Microsoft, Apple and Google to name most significant. Affair become even more movie-like with reveal of man behind the leak. A lone whistleblower who left his family, six figures and comfortable life to reveal abuse of power and had to escape to Hong Kong to conclude in an interview ‘I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things’
The only reaction that could result from such a revelation was massive and universal outrage expressed on nomen omen, the internet. First responders were naturally tech savvy users from around the world, at least those whose response wasn’t ‘I told you so.’ But coming back to former group it’s really hard to blame them for their reaction. Is it possible not to feel sick while looking at documents saying that basically any of your emails can be accessed without any oversight?