Five Eyes’ access to social media poses a threat to freedom – civil liberties groups

By RNZ

Civil liberties groups believe that privacy, free speech, and trade secrets could be eroded if tech companies hand over their encrypted data to governments.

The New Zealand government and its security partners Five Eyes are asking companies like Facebook to release data when requested, to curb online crime.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said that while encryption plays an important role in protecting personal data, it is also used to hide illicit material such as child pornography or terrorist communication.

Little, who oversees New Zealand spy agencies, said cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation online were growing rapidly.

To stop this, the government wants to cooperate with technology companies.

And that would include justified requests for information.

“The government would demonstrate that there is reasonable cause to suspect that there has been a crime, so control is still left to the owners of the platform, but it gives law enforcement authorities the ability to pursue and investigate some of the more crimes atrocious that we have never seen before. “

But the president of the Civil Liberties Council, Thomas Beagle, considers the government’s request for greater access to be contradictory and dangerous.

“He talks about the value of encryption – secure information, private conversations, doing things free from repressive governments – and then he talks about how they need to stop all of that because they need to access it to stop crime.”

Even if a New Zealand government handled the information with care, that does not mean that other countries will. And if a government has access to this information, other governments will request it as part of their business with another country, Beagle said.

It warns that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and association.

“Our government already has extensive surveillance powers using other means, and I don’t think this is the silver bullet that stops all this crime.”

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said the agencies could be required to release information if there was a legal court order.

“Governments are absolutely right to be concerned about the use of platforms for the exploitation of children, the difficulty is in how that access is provided in a way that does not breach security for legitimate purposes.”

He said requirements for companies to disclose information will apply in all countries, including oppressive ones.

An international set of guidelines could be established to establish how information is collected, he suggested, but added that it would not be strict.

“Even then the technical challenge of allowing access for legitimate purposes while maintaining a secure network is not resolved, and people in the tech industry tell me this is impossible.”

Maori cultural advisor and digital rights advocate Karaitiana Taiuru said eliminating harmful behaviors on platforms such as Facebook could help Maori facing racism, abuse and online scams.

It was often not reported because there were no culturally sensitive systems or agencies equipped to handle complaints, he said.

Taiuru said the additional protection for vulnerable or young Maori was good, but only if Maori voices were at the table helping to set the terms.

“We have several hundred years of mistrust of the government.”

He cited the Tohunga Suppression Act of 1907, the Native Schools Act of 1867, and the Urewera raids as examples of improper surveillance and repression against Maori.

“The main problem with all these important laws that affected the Maori was that there was no consultation with the Maori or with the appropriate people and organizations.”

The most pressing concern for surveillance of Maori is facial recognition technology, Taiuru said.