Hacktivism 1-2-3: how privacy enhancing technologies change the face of anonymous hacktivism

Hacktivism 1-2-3: how privacy enhancing technologies change the face of anonymous hacktivism external link

Internet Policy Review, vol. 3, num: 4, 2015

Abstract

This short essay explores how the notion of hacktivism changes due to easily accessible, military grade Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs). Privacy Enhancing Technologies, technological tools which provide anonymous communications and protect users from online surveillance enable new forms of online political activism. Through the short summary of the ad-hoc vigilante group Anonymous, this article describes hacktivism 1.0 as electronic civil disobedience conducted by outsiders. Through the analysis of Wikileaks, the anonymous whistleblowing website, it describes how strong PETs enable the development of hacktivism 2.0, where the source of threat is shifted from outsiders to insiders. Insiders have access to documents with which power can be exposed, and who, by using PETs, can anonymously engage in political action. We also describe the emergence of a third generation of hacktivists who use PETs to disengage and create their own autonomous spaces rather than to engage with power through anonymous whistleblowing.

Links

http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/hacktivism-1-2-3-how-privacy-enhancing-technologies-change-face-anonymous

anonymous, Grondrechten, Hacktivism, Privacy, Privacy enhancing technologies, Wikileaks

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bodó, B.
PY  - 0424
DA  - 2015-04-24
T1  - Hacktivism 1-2-3: how privacy enhancing technologies change the face of anonymous hacktivism
JO  - Internet Policy Review
VL  - 3
NV  - 4
UR  - http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/hacktivism-1-2-3-how-privacy-enhancing-technologies-change-face-anonymous
AB  - This short essay explores how the notion of hacktivism changes due to easily accessible, military grade Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs). Privacy Enhancing Technologies, technological tools which provide anonymous communications and protect users from online surveillance enable new forms of online political activism. Through the short summary of the ad-hoc vigilante group Anonymous, this article describes hacktivism 1.0 as electronic civil disobedience conducted by outsiders. Through the analysis of Wikileaks, the anonymous whistleblowing website, it describes how strong PETs enable the development of hacktivism 2.0, where the source of threat is shifted from outsiders to insiders. Insiders have access to documents with which power can be exposed, and who, by using PETs, can anonymously engage in political action. We also describe the emergence of a third generation of hacktivists who use PETs to disengage and create their own autonomous spaces rather than to engage with power through anonymous whistleblowing.
K1  - anonymous
K1  - Grondrechten
K1  - Hacktivism
K1  - Privacy
K1  - Privacy enhancing technologies
K1  - Wikileaks
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Hacktivism 1-2-3: how privacy enhancing technologies change the face of anonymous hacktivism},
	author = {Bodó, B.},
	year = {0424},
	date = {2015-04-24},
	journal = {Internet Policy Review},
	volume = {3},
	number = {4},
	abstract = {This short essay explores how the notion of hacktivism changes due to easily accessible, military grade Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs). Privacy Enhancing Technologies, technological tools which provide anonymous communications and protect users from online surveillance enable new forms of online political activism. Through the short summary of the ad-hoc vigilante group Anonymous, this article describes hacktivism 1.0 as electronic civil disobedience conducted by outsiders. Through the analysis of Wikileaks, the anonymous whistleblowing website, it describes how strong PETs enable the development of hacktivism 2.0, where the source of threat is shifted from outsiders to insiders. Insiders have access to documents with which power can be exposed, and who, by using PETs, can anonymously engage in political action. We also describe the emergence of a third generation of hacktivists who use PETs to disengage and create their own autonomous spaces rather than to engage with power through anonymous whistleblowing.},
	keywords = {anonymous, Grondrechten, Hacktivism, Privacy, Privacy enhancing technologies, Wikileaks},
}

Save .bib

De ongeldigverklaring van de Dataretentierichtlijn: een nieuwe stap in de bescherming van de grondrechten door het Hof van Justitie external link

Hijmans, H.

Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, num: 7, pp: 245-252, 2015

Abstract

Op 8 april 2014 heeft het Hof van Justitie een opmerkelijk arrest gewezen in de gevoegde zaken Digital Rights Ireland en Seitlinger. Het heeft voor het eerst wegens strijd met het EUHandvest voor de grondrechten een richtlijn in zijn geheel vernietigd. Het Hof van Justitie heeft geoordeeld dat de Uniewetgever met de vaststelling van de Dataretentierichtlijn de door het evenredigheidsbeginsel gestelde grenzen heeft overschreden die hij in het licht van de artikelen 7, 8 en 52 lid 1 van het Handvest in acht dient te nemen. Het heeft geen beperking in de tijd aangebracht (het Hof van Justitie wijkt hiermee af van de conclusie van advocaat-generaal Cruz Villalón, overwegingen 154-158).

Links

http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1544.pdf

Grondrechten

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Hijmans, H.
PY  - 0424
DA  - 2015-04-24
T1  - De ongeldigverklaring van de Dataretentierichtlijn: een nieuwe stap in de bescherming van de grondrechten door het Hof van Justitie
JO  - Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht
NV  - 7
SP  - 245-252
UR  - http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1544.pdf
AB  - Op 8 april 2014 heeft het Hof van Justitie een opmerkelijk arrest gewezen in de gevoegde zaken Digital Rights Ireland en Seitlinger. Het heeft voor het eerst wegens strijd met het EUHandvest voor de grondrechten een richtlijn in zijn geheel vernietigd. Het Hof van Justitie heeft geoordeeld dat de Uniewetgever met de vaststelling van de Dataretentierichtlijn de door het evenredigheidsbeginsel gestelde grenzen heeft overschreden die hij in het licht van de artikelen 7, 8 en 52 lid 1 van het Handvest in acht dient te nemen. Het heeft geen beperking in de tijd aangebracht (het Hof van Justitie wijkt hiermee af van de conclusie van advocaat-generaal Cruz Villalón, overwegingen 154-158).
K1  - Grondrechten
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {De ongeldigverklaring van de Dataretentierichtlijn: een nieuwe stap in de bescherming van de grondrechten door het Hof van Justitie},
	author = {Hijmans, H.},
	year = {0424},
	date = {2015-04-24},
	journal = {Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht},
	number = {7},
	pages = {245-252},
	abstract = {Op 8 april 2014 heeft het Hof van Justitie een opmerkelijk arrest gewezen in de gevoegde zaken Digital Rights Ireland en Seitlinger. Het heeft voor het eerst wegens strijd met het EUHandvest voor de grondrechten een richtlijn in zijn geheel vernietigd. Het Hof van Justitie heeft geoordeeld dat de Uniewetgever met de vaststelling van de Dataretentierichtlijn de door het evenredigheidsbeginsel gestelde grenzen heeft overschreden die hij in het licht van de artikelen 7, 8 en 52 lid 1 van het Handvest in acht dient te nemen. Het heeft geen beperking in de tijd aangebracht (het Hof van Justitie wijkt hiermee af van de conclusie van advocaat-generaal Cruz Villalón, overwegingen 154-158).},
	keywords = {Grondrechten},
}

Save .bib

How to assess privacy violations in the age of Big Data? Analysing the three different tests developed by the ECtHR and adding for a fourth one external link

van der Sloot, B.

Information & Communication Technology Law, vol. 24, num: 1, pp: 74-103., 2015

Abstract

It is commonly believed that privacy cases are resolved by balancing the private interest (e.g. personal autonomy) and the common interest (e.g. national security) involved with a particular privacy violation. Clearly, this approach no longer holds in the age of Big Data, in which massive amounts of personal data are gathered without a pre-established goal. Not only is the balancing test inapplicable because it is often unclear how certain data gathering and processing initiatives improve the societal interest, but it is also hard to demonstrate whether and if so how an individual has suffered from such massive data processing systems. Besides the balancing test, however, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) applies two other tests when dealing with privacy issues. Both have an added value when applied to privacy violations following from Big Data processes. Still, if Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is to retain its significance in the new technological environment, it might be necessary to develop a new test, the rudiments of which might already be found in the Court's case law.

Links

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600834.2015.1009714#

botsing fundamentele rechten, Grondrechten, Privacy, Recht op gegevensbescherming, recht op privacy, verwerking persoonsgegevens voor persoonlijke doeleinden

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - van der Sloot, B.
PY  - 0424
DA  - 2015-04-24
T1  - How to assess privacy violations in the age of Big Data? Analysing the three different tests developed by the ECtHR and adding for a fourth one
JO  - Information &amp; Communication Technology Law
VL  - 24
NV  - 1
SP  - 74-103.
UR  - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600834.2015.1009714#
AB  - It is commonly believed that privacy cases are resolved by balancing the private interest (e.g. personal autonomy) and the common interest (e.g. national security) involved with a particular privacy violation. Clearly, this approach no longer holds in the age of Big Data, in which massive amounts of personal data are gathered without a pre-established goal. Not only is the balancing test inapplicable because it is often unclear how certain data gathering and processing initiatives improve the societal interest, but it is also hard to demonstrate whether and if so how an individual has suffered from such massive data processing systems. Besides the balancing test, however, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) applies two other tests when dealing with privacy issues. Both have an added value when applied to privacy violations following from Big Data processes. Still, if Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is to retain its significance in the new technological environment, it might be necessary to develop a new test, the rudiments of which might already be found in the Court\'s case law.
K1  - botsing fundamentele rechten
K1  - Grondrechten
K1  - Privacy
K1  - Recht op gegevensbescherming
K1  - recht op privacy
K1  - verwerking persoonsgegevens voor persoonlijke doeleinden
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {How to assess privacy violations in the age of Big Data? Analysing the three different tests developed by the ECtHR and adding for a fourth one},
	author = {van der Sloot, B.},
	year = {0424},
	date = {2015-04-24},
	journal = {Information &amp; Communication Technology Law},
	volume = {24},
	number = {1},
	pages = {74-103.},
	abstract = {It is commonly believed that privacy cases are resolved by balancing the private interest (e.g. personal autonomy) and the common interest (e.g. national security) involved with a particular privacy violation. Clearly, this approach no longer holds in the age of Big Data, in which massive amounts of personal data are gathered without a pre-established goal. Not only is the balancing test inapplicable because it is often unclear how certain data gathering and processing initiatives improve the societal interest, but it is also hard to demonstrate whether and if so how an individual has suffered from such massive data processing systems. Besides the balancing test, however, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) applies two other tests when dealing with privacy issues. Both have an added value when applied to privacy violations following from Big Data processes. Still, if Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is to retain its significance in the new technological environment, it might be necessary to develop a new test, the rudiments of which might already be found in the Court\'s case law.},
	keywords = {botsing fundamentele rechten, Grondrechten, Privacy, Recht op gegevensbescherming, recht op privacy, verwerking persoonsgegevens voor persoonlijke doeleinden},
}

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 11 december 2014 (Ryneš / Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů) external link

van der Sloot, B.

European Human Rights Cases, num: 3, 2015

Links

http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1542.pdf

botsing fundamentele rechten, Grondrechten, Privacy, Recht op gegevensbescherming, recht op privacy, verwerking persoonsgegevens voor persoonlijke doeleinden

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Transparency and the Collective Management Organisations external link

Schroff, S.

2014

Abstract

Dr Simone Schroff, CREATe/University of East Anglia explores how Collective Management Organisations are responding to pressures to offer more clarity about how they operate.

Links

http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2014/10/01/transparency-and-the-collective-management-organisations/

Auteursrecht, collective management, Intellectuele eigendom, Transparency

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The (Non) Convergence of Copyright Policies – A Quantitative Approach to Convergence in Copyright external link

Schroff, S.

Script-ed, vol. 4, pp: 411-434., 2013

Abstract

In the literature on copyright evolution, it has been argued that some degree of convergence has occurred over time. This means that the respective policies of different jurisdictions have become increasingly similar, not only in the substantive provisions themselves (the scope of protection) but also in how copyright is perceived (the copyright culture). Copyright culture in particular refers to the well-established, idealised models of author rights generally associated with civil law systems and common law copyright. Nonetheless, recent technological challenges have highlighted the significant differences that remain in how copyright responds to new challenges. This article examines the convergence of copyright policies in the US, UK, Germany and international level between 1880 and 2010. Rather than relying on a qualitative analysis, a quantitative approach is used to examine the evidence for convergence. It compares the laws as they are in force for each of the jurisdictions examined, to the two ideal types relied upon by the legal literature: author rights systems and common law copyright systems. Ideal types reflect the epitomised description of what an author rights and a common law system are, irrespective of whether these exist or have existed in such a form in the real world. These two polar opposites are used as external benchmarks against which the copyright policies are compared and the position of these policies on a spectrum which has author rights at one end and common law copyright at the other, is determined. By placing the case studies on a spectrum, their evolution relative to each other is clear and the existence of convergence and its extent can be analysed. The article concludes by clarifying the extent of convergence. The degree of convergence has been limited between the US, UK and international level, while Germany’s policies actually moved away from them. In addition, the commonly identified causal factors, such as technology and international agreements, only developed a limited impact in practice, explaining why the empirical evidence has failed to show the expected convergence.

Links

http://script-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/schroff.pdf

Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Schroff, S.
PY  - 1217
DA  - 2013-12-17
T1  - The (Non) Convergence of Copyright Policies – A Quantitative Approach to Convergence in Copyright
JO  - Script-ed
VL  - 4
SP  - 411-434.
UR  - http://script-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/schroff.pdf
AB  - In the literature on copyright evolution, it has been argued that some degree of convergence has occurred over time. This means that the respective policies of different jurisdictions have become increasingly similar, not only in the substantive provisions themselves (the scope of protection) but also in how copyright is perceived (the copyright culture). Copyright culture in particular refers to the well-established, idealised models of author rights generally associated with civil law systems and common law copyright. Nonetheless, recent technological challenges have highlighted the significant differences that remain in how copyright responds to new challenges. This article examines the convergence of copyright policies in the US, UK, Germany and international level between 1880 and 2010. Rather than relying on a qualitative analysis, a quantitative approach is used to examine the evidence for convergence. It compares the laws as they are in force for each of the jurisdictions examined, to the two ideal types relied upon by the legal literature: author rights systems and common law copyright systems. Ideal types reflect the epitomised description of what an author rights and a common law system are, irrespective of whether these exist or have existed in such a form in the real world. These two polar opposites are used as external benchmarks against which the copyright policies are compared and the position of these policies on a spectrum which has author rights at one end and common law copyright at the other, is determined. By placing the case studies on a spectrum, their evolution relative to each other is clear and the existence of convergence and its extent can be analysed. The article concludes by clarifying the extent of convergence. The degree of convergence has been limited between the US, UK and international level, while Germany’s policies actually moved away from them. In addition, the commonly identified causal factors, such as technology and international agreements, only developed a limited impact in practice, explaining why the empirical evidence has failed to show the expected convergence.
K1  - Auteursrecht
K1  - Intellectuele eigendom
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {The (Non) Convergence of Copyright Policies – A Quantitative Approach to Convergence in Copyright},
	author = {Schroff, S.},
	year = {1217},
	date = {2013-12-17},
	journal = {Script-ed},
	volume = {4},
	pages = {411-434.},
	abstract = {In the literature on copyright evolution, it has been argued that some degree of convergence has occurred over time. This means that the respective policies of different jurisdictions have become increasingly similar, not only in the substantive provisions themselves (the scope of protection) but also in how copyright is perceived (the copyright culture). Copyright culture in particular refers to the well-established, idealised models of author rights generally associated with civil law systems and common law copyright. Nonetheless, recent technological challenges have highlighted the significant differences that remain in how copyright responds to new challenges. This article examines the convergence of copyright policies in the US, UK, Germany and international level between 1880 and 2010. Rather than relying on a qualitative analysis, a quantitative approach is used to examine the evidence for convergence. It compares the laws as they are in force for each of the jurisdictions examined, to the two ideal types relied upon by the legal literature: author rights systems and common law copyright systems. Ideal types reflect the epitomised description of what an author rights and a common law system are, irrespective of whether these exist or have existed in such a form in the real world. These two polar opposites are used as external benchmarks against which the copyright policies are compared and the position of these policies on a spectrum which has author rights at one end and common law copyright at the other, is determined. By placing the case studies on a spectrum, their evolution relative to each other is clear and the existence of convergence and its extent can be analysed. The article concludes by clarifying the extent of convergence. The degree of convergence has been limited between the US, UK and international level, while Germany’s policies actually moved away from them. In addition, the commonly identified causal factors, such as technology and international agreements, only developed a limited impact in practice, explaining why the empirical evidence has failed to show the expected convergence.},
	keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom},
}

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 8 april 2014 (Digital Rights Ireland / Ierse Ministers en Attorney General) external link

Irion, K., Granger, M.-P. & Eskens, S.

Mediaforum, vol. 27, num: 3, pp: 112-118, 2015

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Mediaforum_2015_3.pdf

Grondrechten

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Dataretentie: Beter ten halve gekeerd dan ten hele gedwaald external link

van Eijk, N.

Mediaforum, num: 3, pp: 93., 2015

Links

http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1538.pdf

Telecommunicatierecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Auteurscontractenrecht: Paasei of lege dop? external link

Poort, J.

2015

Links

http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1537.pdf

Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Privacybescherming online kan beter: De mythe van geïnformeerde toestemming external link

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Nederlands Juristenblad, num: 14, pp: 878-883., 2015

Abstract

De huidige privacyregels leggen veel nadruk op de geïnformeerde toestemming van internetgebruikers. Met zulke toestemmingsregels probeert de wet mensen in staat te stellen om keuzes te maken in hun eigen belang. Maar inzichten uit gedragsstudies trekken de effectiviteit van deze wetgevingstactiek in twijfel. Zo klikken internetgebruikers in de praktijk 'OK' op vrijwel elk toestemmingsverzoek dat op hun scherm verschijnt. De wet zou meer aandacht moeten geven aan de daadwerkelijke bescherming van de privacy van mensen die het internet opgaan.

Links

http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1536.pdf

Grondrechten, Privacy

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex