von Tilo Jung, 16.7.13
Was hat ein gewisser Edward Snowden da nun eigentlich ans Licht gebracht? Muss ich ihm dankbar sein, dass ich unseren Regierungen nun noch weniger trauen kann? Wie sieht die Architektur hinter “Big Brother” aus? Warum ist es wichtig, so was zu wissen? Wieso vergleichen sehr viele die heutige Zeit mit der Stasi? Und sollten wir unsere Politiker nicht verstehen, wenn sie bei diesen Problemen einfach nix machen können?
Ich habe mich für diese offenen, naiven Fragen mit Jacob Appelbaum erneut eine halbe Stunde hingesetzt. Jacob ist Kryptographie-Experte und hat letztens gerade einen gewissen Edward Snowden interviewt. Er scheint also Ahnung zu haben.
“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court actually redefined the word ‘relevant’, such, that it does not mean anything that is a common understanding of the word relevant.”
“When someone says, ‘it’s not like the Stasi’, but then they basically support drone operations that killed women and children, innocent people, people who don’t even have a trial, who are killed because of a data trail [..] And when they shoot them twice, so-called ‘double-tap’, that’s a war crime. And the surveillance data ties into those actions. There is a direct connection between them, because the surveillance data is used for targeting, and targeting is the first step in identification for murder, which is a war crime in this case, especially with double-tapped drone strikes. It’s especially a war crime when it’s women and children, who are completely innocent in a sovereign nation, being killed by another sovereign nation.”
“The things that we have questions about are not, whether or not it’s happening – that’s undeniable. Now the question is, how is it legal, lawful and proportionate to spy on Germany. Germany is the most spyed-upon nation in Europe.”
“When your [Interior] Minister just was in the U.S., I guess most of the oppositional parties were not very pleased with what he said, which was effectively nothing […] The point is, that if he did say something, it would be relevant, because it is not the German government that decides about the people’s data, it is the American government who decides, because they have the data, and they do whatever they want with it.”
“As a person with last name of Appelbaum, in Germany I’m very sensitive to this notion that I want to choose when someone learns about my background, and about my history. And I am robbed of that choice when these systems record everything about me, all of my associations, and someone else gets to ask the database and not me about my history.”
“There exists a concept that’s called ‘The data doubleganger’, and this is essentially the data shadow you leave behind. And the thing is, at some point it becomes more you than you. Someone looks at you and they say – oh you’re very radical politically. But, you’re not. You just happen to read very broadly across many different spectrums.”
“When it is [done in] secret, then it is not consensual, because we cannot have a democracy without a well-informed people. Therefore it is clear, that when it is secret, it is not as consensual as it would be, would it be done in the open.”
“So, part of what Snowden has revealed to us, is exactly that huge problem that there is a disconnect between what we believe is happening, and what is possible, and what is actually taking place, and why its is taking place, and who is doing it.”
“What Snowden has shown us, Manning has shown us as well. Manning has shown us the data that has been set, while Snowden has shown us the architecture. The result has always been open for us to see, and so, now the important part is that we have the information to change these things.”
“Fundamentally, we can make it so that dragnet surveillance is worthless by using strong cryptography and mathematics. We can change the political ramifications, so that we can say ‘no’ to torture, we can say ‘no’ to targeted assassinations, we can say ‘no’ to drone strikes, we can say ‘no’ to ‘Zersetzung’-like techniques, infiltration, secret police, intelligence agencies that are massively overfunded.”
“Instead of playing the spying game, like everyone seems to be doing, we should actually secure our communications. This is a radical concept.”
“So, when you hear about things like CISPA, SOPA, PIPA and ACTA – what you hear is people trying to expand authoritarian control, where they can watch, where they can monitor, where they can interfere.”
“But if we want to actually secure the internet, we should make it, so that when you make a phone call, no one can monitor it without you detecting it, and when you detect it, you should have a trail that allows you to understand, who has ordered this, where has it occurred, and what the consequences are. This ensures a kind of accountability.”
“It would be preposterous to hear German politicians saying, there is nothing to be done about atomic weapons, or landmines, or cluster bombs. That’s ridiculous. Adults are talking.”
“When politicians say there’s no solution, we have to push back, and say: ‘No, no – let’s actually secure our communications, let’s secure our communications metadata, let’s make sure that if you want to wiretap a terrorist, you use exceptional means through a judicial process. Not, for example, everyone being kept insecure so that anybody can do this.”
“I think Germany should not tolerate, in an election cycle, this kind of dialogue. It’s a preposterous thing to say, there’s nothing to be done. And in fact, Germany knows exactly what is to be done. It’s election time, right? So, when people say, they don’t want to talk about these things, kick them out.”
“And when someone says, ‘it’s not like the Stasi’, but then they basically support drone operations that killed women and children, innocent people, people who don’t even have a trial, who are killed because of a data trail [..] And when they shoot them twice, so-called ‘double-tap’, that’s a war crime. And the surveillance data ties into those actions. There is a direct connection between them, because the surveillance data is used for targeting, and targeting is the first step in identification for murder, which is a war crime in this case, especially with double-tapped drone strikes. It’s especially a war crime when it’s women and children, who are completely innocent in a sovereign nation, being killed by another sovereign nation.”
“The German people have, I think, the opportunity now to ask Merkel and other people reasonable questions, that will show their true character about these topics which range from spying on the German people, and national sovereignty to political assassination and murder. Those are all completely unreasonable things to be engaged in, especially at planetary scale.”
Morgen dann Teil 3 mit Euren Fragen.