SHARE
COPY LINK

PRIVACY

‘EU Big Brother planning to watch you more closely’

The European Union's wide-ranging Stockholm Programme risks further damaging citizens' hard earned privacy rights, argues Pirate Party member and long-time libertarian blogger Henrik Alexandersson.

'EU Big Brother planning to watch you more closely'

EU ministers are gathering in Stockholm this week to advance their work on the Stockholm Programme, a five-year plan they claim is designed to make it easier to catch criminals and keep Europe’s citizens safe.

But despite soothing words from politicians about the programme’s virtues, it’s critical for EU citizens to stand up now and protest against the threat it presents to privacy and individual rights.

On the surface, the Stockholm Programme’s professed set of goals may appear somewhat benign – perhaps even sensible –with its calls for increased cooperation to fight terrorism and organized cross-border crime.

But we’ve already got a pretty good idea that the kinds of measures under consideration for meeting the Stockholm Programme’s goals are anything but benign.

In short, we’re talking about increased surveillance which tramples on the privacy rights of individuals and about higher walls being constructed around Europe’s borders.

Last summer, a number of details about the concrete steps associated with the Stockholm Programme were leaked from the EU’s so-called Future Group in connection with a meeting of EU justice ministers in Nice.

While the drafters of the Stockholm Programme profess it is a tool that will aid the “free movement of people” within the EU, there is very little about one’s movements that will remain “free” if EU ‘securocrats’ are allowed to implement the sorts of measures hinted at in the Future Group document.

Among other things, the leaked Future Group document envisages “new and more flexible expulsion and surveillance measures” which would make it easier for states across Europe to gather increasingly detailed information about citizens and their movements, as well as block the entry of others.

Moreover, the authors also discuss the need for “increased synergies between police and security intelligence services” across Europe, meaning that information gathered by local law enforcement in Piteå could eventually end up in the hands of counter-terrorism agents in Palermo.

Are we really “free” if our movements are tracked by the state and that information can end up being read by any intelligence or law enforcement agency in Europe?

Will we be “free” if the state has access to information about our banking habits, internet use, and can pinpoint our location using mobile phone data?

Whatever happened to the notion that the citizens of Europe could go about their business without having Big Brother continually tapping them on the shoulder and watching them with a suspicious eye?

While the indications we’ve seen so far about the plans for fulfilling the Stockholm Programme are frightening, it’s still early enough in the process for the citizens of Europe to make their voices heard.

While demonstrators plan on taking to the streets in Stockholm, we here at the European Parliament in Brussels are getting ready to fight the next round from within the system.

It’s going to be a long, difficult autumn for us privacy advocates and bloggers as we do battle to make sure some of the more intrusive proposals don’t end up making it into the final document, which is expected to be presented for signature in December by heads of state and government EU Summit in Stockholm.

And even in the years after the programme is adopted, those of us who support privacy rights will have to be vigilant regarding additional measures which will likely be debated in reference to the Stockholm Programme.

But what’s important now is that we, at an early stage, show how we feel and are clear about what concerns us.

If the politicians don’t meet with some resistance, they’ll never put the brakes on the Stockholm Programme before it ends up in a train wreck of invasive measures which all but wipe out any notion of personal privacy and integrity among the citizens of Europe.

It’s exciting to see how many activists have been mobilized so far by these important issues of privacy and individual rights. And it’s important to protest. If we don’t, politicians won’t realize that they’ve stepped over the line.

So get out and demonstrate! Blog, write, and shout to show everyone in the capitals of Europe as well as the European capital that privacy is an important right for every individual in the 27 member states of the European Union,

If we don’t speak loudly now, we may find our views barely able to utter a whisper without the Big Brother of Europe holding his hand across our mouths.

Henrik Alexandersson is one of Sweden’s best known political bloggers. He was recently recruited by the Swedish Pirate Party to work an advisor in Brussels to newly elected MEP Christian Engström.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

PRIVACY

How Austrian privacy activists are taking on tech giant Google

Austrian online privacy activist Max Schrems has taken on a new battle: taking Google to task for the "illegal" tracking code on its Android mobile phones.

How Austrian privacy activists are taking on tech giant Google
Google headquarters in the rain. Photo: TOLGA AKMEN / AFP

The action against Google is the latest in what Schrems, 33, describes as “David versus Goliath” struggles against the internet’s giants.

Leading a team of seasoned lawyers at his privacy campaign group NOYB (None Of Your Business), the relaxed and affable Schrems tells AFP he is motivated simply by the fact that companies that dominate the internet “make profits from violating the laws”.

READ MORE: Eight weird and wonderful Austrian place names

NOYB was set up in 2018, at the same time as the European Union implemented its landmark General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), legislation aimed at making it simpler for people to control how companies use their personal information.

The handful of employees at NOYB are currently pursuing no fewer than 150 complaints in various jurisdictions.

“Ideally we should not exist,” says Schrems, pointing to publicly funded watchdogs that ought to be keeping companies in line.

“The problem is that in many member states that is not properly done,” he adds. He cites the example of Ireland, where numerous multinationals have their European headquarters.

That means around 4,000 complaints are filed with the Irish authorities every year but according to Schrems “this year they plan to have six to seven decisions.”

That means that “99.9 percent of the cases… are simply taken and thrown in the trash can”.

“That is a fundamental problem we have in Europe, we are very good at passing laws and praising ourselves about… how great we are at human rights, but we are actually not very good at enforcing it,” he says.

‘Wilful’ rule-breaking 

The latest complaint against Google has been filed with the CNIL, France’s data protection authority.

At the same time, NOYB has an active complaint against Apple over a similar tracking code issue, despite Apple’s stated intention to update its operating system later this year to force app developers to ask users’ permission before tracking their activities across other companies’ apps and websites.

A decade after Schrems tackled his first cases, his outrage at the opaque workings of internet giants has not dimmed, in particular at what he terms “wilful” rule-breaking.

“If no one follows the rule and gets away with it, then why even bother having a democratic process in the first place?” he asks.

He laments the tendency for groups such as the internet’s “Big Four” — Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple — to engage in “responsibility shifting” to users by introducing new and often bewildering layers of privacy settings.

For example, “Facebook regularly puts out a hundred more buttons with options and then they present it as more privacy for the user, whereas in reality no one in the world is going to click on these buttons,” he says. 

‘Anti-Zuckerberg’? 

In the context of a debate that has sprung up in relation to coronavirus contact tracing apps, Schrems said he was surprised at the widespread concern over the apps’ privacy implications — despite many of them being well designed in this respect.

“It is a bit strange to think that people trust Google with all their data, but they wouldn’t trust their health ministry,” he says.

Alongside his current legal battles, Schrems is also keeping an eye on talks between the EU and the United States on the thorny matter of data transfers.

He has won two of his most famous legal victories in relation to that issue: in 2020 one of his complaints led the EU’s top court to strike down an online data arrangement known as “Privacy Shield” between Europe and the US.

In 2015, another case brought by Schrems scuppered a previous EU-US deal on which tech giants depended to do business.

What are the chances of a replacement deal that won’t meet a similar fate?

Schrems expects “a half-half solution” that will lead to “Schrems 3,4,5” being thrashed out in the courts, adding: “It’s kind of weird to have your name on a case.”

He strikes a modest tone when reflecting on the way he has become something of a poster boy for online privacy, the “anti-Zuckerberg”.

“You need a David versus Goliath and so on, so I accepted to be that David for the sake of having stories on it,” he says.

In the same way that “you need a Greta Thunberg to have a face on climate change because it’s a very abstract debate… I may sometimes be the face of that privacy debate,” he says.

SHOW COMMENTS