Bridging the tech, legal and journalist divide

#1

Hi All,

I am giving a presentation at the Centre for Research in Intelligence, Surveillance & Privacy in Edinburgh in June. They are interested in a non-academic viewpoint on surveillance issues in the UK and beyond. A theme I aim to explore speaks to the underlying principles of Tinfoil.press, most notably dismantling the silos that limit the ability of tech experts to work with journalists, legal professionals, politicians and campaigners.

My main thrust will be that these people need to work together and communicate in a common language to ensure policies around new tech and surveillance can be analysed (and opposed if necessary) in a manner strengthened by these different, complex, but ultimately complementary view points. The main example will be the Investigatory Powers Bill.

I would be really interested to hear what the opinions are on this topic of everyone here - which I can shamelessly steal to form part of my presentation! If you have any ideas, links or comments on this thesis please let me know - it could really help strengthen my presentation.

Many thanks all

Nik Williams

#2

Regarding the integration of different types of security, you may enjoy:

https://tacticaltech.org/holistic-security
https://source.opennews.org/en-US/learning/security-journalists-part-two-threat-modeling/ <--- see "what can they do to get it" section.

  • Jonathan
#3

I have a counter-counterterrorism lawyer friend who's biggest drum to beat is this: Once counterterrorism measures are taken, in the name of national security, they are nearly impossible to scale back. I'll add more to this theory later when it's not near midnight. Here's a good article she wrote in 2014 on the subject of expanding national security powers.

Another thought, since it's EU jurisdiction, is to consider Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This is a really open-ended kind of law, but what's fundamentally important is that it starts with a universal right to private life. The IP Bill is such a massive intrusion into the dignity of a private life that it may actually serve to reverse the presumption, where citizens would have to prove that their privacy is warranted, rather than the government having to prove its intrusion is necessary, minimally-invasive, not open-ended, etc. It's hard to overstate how problematic this reversal is, at least from a philosophy-of-law critical infrastructure, and for what role the government is expected to play in the daily lives of its citizens.

The Wikipedia article is a great plain-language resource as well.

#4

Hi Nik,

Just a suggestion, off the cuff thinking really-so might be off kilter in terms of your focus. Here goes:

  1. The IPB may be a great topic for that session, given its current flavour here in the UK, one of-a bit confused and convoluted in terms of beneficial impact etc.
  2. The IPB relies heavily on past statute to cross-reference in order to support its stance.
  3. In view of the two points above, is it worth picking it apart-tis online, to support pitching your premise: dismantling the silos that limit the ability of tech experts to work with journalists, legal professions, and so on..

As I say, just some thoughts.

cheers,
Dawn

#5

Sorry-Nik, you are here!!!! UK-lols....I stand by that one point, however-there is a lot of cross ref with past statute, which may be worth unpacking, because it means heightened focus on what is already law (and the ramifications of what is in terms of your premise)-possibly, as well as enhancements and maybe more side wide consequences. I have only skimmed and scanned the entire doc sorry, so bit vague here about depth of content.

hh
Dawn