12.np: anti-terrorism measures - censoring the web, making us less secure

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2006 Data Retention Directive [repealed]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!

@kirst3nfkirsten.fiedler@edri.org @edrihttps://edri.org