Xnet installs a Whistleblowing Platform against corruption for the City Hall of Barcelona – powered by GlobaLeaks and Tor friendly, January 19, 2017. Screenshot.

Xnet, an activist project
which has been working on and for networked democracy and digital rights since
2008, launches in the Barcelona City Hall the first public Anti-Corruption
Complaint Box using anonymity protection technology like TOR and GlobaLeaks (known
as “Bústia Ètica” in Catalan).

With this pioneering
project, the Barcelona City Hall is the first municipal government to invite
citizens to use tools which enable them to send information in a way that is
secure, that guarantees privacy and gives citizens the option to be totally
anonymous.

Xnet, as part of the
Citizens’ Advisory Council of the Barcelona City Office for Transparency and
Best Practices, launched this Anti-Corruption Complaint Box by highlighting the
following:

The new digital device managed by the
Barcelona City Hall, is inspired by similar mechanisms already operating in
civil society (for example, the XnetLeaks mailbox), and implemented
with advice from members of Xnet who have also set up a working relationship
with the GlobaLeaks platform.

 

The debate on what anonymity entails is
one of the most up-to-date and relevant themes of the digital age, especially
in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations. Accordingly, we want to explain why
Xnet has insisted on the need to guarantee true anonymity in a project like the
Barcelona City Anti-Corruption Complaint Box which combats corruption and other
damaging practices that threaten good governance in the city of Barcelona.

 

Xnet has provided for journalists and
citizens a FAQ service [See a taster below] explaining how the Box works,
describing the tools (for example TOR) which guarantee anonymity, and all the
details relative to the first project of this type whose use is recommended by
public institutions.

Xnet has always espoused
the idea that democracy can only exist if institutions work together in equal
conditions with aware, well-organised citizens. The Box aims to provide a way
to make this kind of teamwork possible. Corruption can’t be eliminated by
institutions scrutinising themselves. Civil society must play a central,
continuous role.

FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS

What is
the Barcelona City Anti-Corruption Complaint Box?

The Anti-Corruption
Complaint Box is a means by which citizens can denounce corruption and other
practices that are damaging for good governance in the city of Barcelona. This
is a digital device managed by the Barcelona City Hall, inspired by similar
civil society mechanisms (like the XnetLeaks mailbox) and put into effect with
advice from members of Xnet working from the Citizens’ Advisory Council of the
Barcelona City Hall Office for Transparency and Best Practice.

By means of the Box,
citizens can send – in a way that is secure and permits total anonymity – complaints,
suspicions and evidence of cases which they believe the City Hall should
investigate.

Once the complaints have
been received, City Hall must respond to every single one and inquire into
those that are deemed plausible, or send them on to the appropriate
institution. The person submitting the complaint reserves the right whether or
not to reveal his or her identity, and will receive evidence of the follow-up
carried out in response to the complaint, which means that he or she can monitor
the process.

What are the reasons for
the anonymity option?

Xnet, whose members are
the initiators and advisors in launching this project, has insisted on the need
for citizens who make a complaint to have the option of doing so anonymously.
This is why:

1.  First of all, we should
be clear that the anonymity of sources in an investigation is nothing new.

Evidently, if the information sent by a citizen ends up in a lawsuit, then it
can no longer be anonymous. The public administration
will then make the official complaint and anonymous communications will have
served simply to discover proof which would never have been found without this
mechanism.

This is no different from
the way in which the press has always worked: information comes from sources
that remain anonymous because they are vulnerable.

It is the responsibility
of the person who receives the information, the person who has the relevant
means – the journalist or, in this case, the administration – to carry out
the investigation in order to construct a solid case or discard the
information.

This structure enables us
to correct one of today’s greatest inequalities: the standing of the citizen
before the administration and big companies. Administrations and corporations
have the power to monitor and pursue us, while we, the ordinary citizens,
cannot do the same. This creates the asymmetry which is the source of all
abuses.

Only by providing 100%
protection for the privacy of ordinary people will we be able to defend
ourselves and protect the commons from powerful organisations that can hide from
us information that concerns us, and also take retaliatory measures.

But let’s be clear about
this. In no way are we proposing that the institutions should foster anonymous
complaints or denunciations among equal ordinary citizens since this destroys
solidarity and encourages people to inform against each other in the service of
institutional power, thus worsening the asymmetry. We believe that there is no
such thing as a nanny state but only a civil society which has its own channels
for becoming mature. 

2. Corruption and bad
governance can only be remedied by means of scrutiny of citizens and never only
“from within”.

Moreover, this is
definitely not a time when the institutions can engage in “consciousness
raising” or teach civil society anything about the struggle against corruption.
On the contrary, it is civil society which is now helping to get the
institutions back on the right track.

This is yet another reason
why the Box should permit anonymous communications. Although we have also
activated self-control mechanisms for the Box (where access to information is
managed by more than one specialist employee so that the controller is also
controlled) proper use of the Box depends on users also having control over
what they have sent, and the use made of this information, without any danger
of being coerced.

Hence, users that remain
anonymous, will have at their disposal a code by means of which they can, if
they wish, demonstrate that they have made the complaint.

3. On no account do we
recommend that institutions should replace the civil society channels by which
citizens can make their complaints, for example the XnetLeaks mailbox.


We are therefore
withdrawing from the Citizens’ Advisory Council of the Barcelona City Hall
Office for Transparency and Best Practice after having contributed our
knowledge in order to create the Box. The exchange of knowledge has been
extremely fruitful and is a good example of what we believe collaboration
between institutions and civil society should be: a process of learning
together.

But the time has now come
for us to go back to being external elements so that we can do our job as
watchdogs.

It is important that most
of the work should be done from the institutions because this is where the
resources are. Citizen mechanisms should only supplant institutions when the
latter fail to do their job.

Therefore, the recommended
methodology advises the whistleblower on how to send the information to the
Barcelona City Anti-Corruption Complaint Box, the branch of the administration
that has the means to take action. However, once the time indicated by the
administration for doing so has elapsed, the citizen who considers that the
action taken has not been effective can make a complaint in this respect by
means of citizen self-organisation mechanisms such as the XnetLeaks mailbox.

If the information ends up
revealing a case of corruption, then the administration’s management of the
matter will be exposed in the process. 

4. As we have noted, the
difference between anonymity and confidentiality is that anonymity allows the
source to control the use that is made of its identity and information.

Trusting in
confidentiality “guaranteed” by the institutions – simply taking them at their
word – amounts to no more than an act of faith.

Experiences of
anti-corruption whistleblowing around the world in recent years clearly show
that the “guaranteed” confidentiality offered by the institutions is a
non-starter when compared with the anonymity offered by instruments like TOR,
which offer greater control to the person who decides to expose a wrongdoing.

The mechanisms that we
propose and use with the anonymous boxes for leaked information allow a source
to become visible, independently of the institutions, should the information be
used to the detriment of this person or society. This is a way of preventing
the concentration of all the power (information) in the hands of a few people –
bosses, administrative officers – who can become all-powerful and a threat to
everyone.

5. Some sceptics say that
there is a risk that people will start making complaints without due thought.

The fact of remaining anonymous would seem to give users more freedom to say
things without proof that they are true, or with malign intentions.

There is indeed a danger
that improper use will be made of the Box, for example for reasons of personal
revenge, and there is always the possibility that an avalanche of information
will overload and collapse the Box, which is precisely the form of retaliation that
the right-wing party, Partido Popular (PP), and others who oppose its creation
have been considering.

On the basis of our own
experience we should say that it is true that some people tend to use this
mechanism to settle personal accounts, or so that other people can sort out
their legal problems, which may be legitimate, but these are strictly private
matters and pursued for personal benefit.

There is no question that
the risk exists (and we, with XnetLeaks, and journalists see it day after day),
yet we believe that it is a risk worth running since the upside is that use of
the Box manages to break the chain of fear and omertà, the code of silence
favouring the formation of networks which misappropriate resources, or make it
impossible for everyone to prosper in the same conditions and without
favouritism.

For all these reasons, and
the need to be rigorous about protecting sources, we have also created
stringent mechanisms to ensure that people who use the Box frivolously or with
illegitimate or harmful intentions will be swiftly prevented from causing
further damage.

Similarly, and in contrast
with what is presently occurring, emphasis is given to the possibility of a
defence on the part of those people mentioned in complaints so that they may refute
slander, defamation and actions aimed at obstructing their work. This is currently
not the case.

Recently exposed bad
practices from those previously responsible at the Catalan Anti-Fraud Office,
who frequently used complaints in order to attack political opponents, rivals
or personal enemies – thereby, thwarting any chances of finding legal solutions
to problems – has taught us that such practices should be denounced from the
moment they first appear.

Any use of the Box for
media purposes will be denounced and terminated.

How does the Box work?

The Box works by means of
the GlobaLeaks platform which allows the user to accede to it through the Tor
network, a system that anonymises communications so effectively that not even
the City Hall itself can learn the identity of the person sending information.

What is Tor?

The Tor network is a tool
that improves privacy and security for Internet users. Browsing with Tor, users make a
connection through a series of virtual tunnels instead of making a direct
connection, which makes it difficult to trace the source of information and
therefore protects the identity of the person sending it.

The email interface used
is GlobaLeaks,
a free software project produced by the Hermes Center for Transparency and
Digital Human Rights. Besides being used in Spain for citizen initiatives like
the Xnet Box, it has become a valuable resource all around the world for dozens
of activist and institutional initiatives.

GlobaLeaks has worked
directly in the installation of the Box making a very valuable contribution and
helping the Municipal Institute for Technology (IMI) team in the transition to
new paradigms.

Who uses Tor? (1)

The propaganda of an
obsolete regime spreads the idea that Tor is a “hotbed for criminals”. This is a
typical attempt to criminalise the “Internet” whenever the chance arises.
According to this propaganda, anything new is bad because it endangers the
status quo. The reality is that these innovations offer more justice and more
democracy.

Users should be aware, for
example, that sending an unencrypted email is like sending a postcard without
putting it in an envelope. Anyone along the way between sender and destination
can read it. In a few years from now, encryption will be as normal as sealing
envelopes and not leaving them open because the regime says so.

Below, links to some
texts by specialists or relevant institutions such as the United Nations or the
European Parliament which endorse our position:

–         The UN declares that data
encoding is a human right: “… encryption and anonymity provide individuals and
groups with a zone of privacy online to hold opinions and exercise freedom of
expression without arbitrary and unlawful interference or attacks”

–         European Parliament Science and Technology Options
Assessment (STOA) on Mass Surveillance says
that strong crypto systems are one of the few things that the public can rely
on as a defence against mass surveillance.                           

–         Decalogue for
the Protection of Whistleblowers 

–         Activists from all over the world join the global campaign for
encryption. 

–         Transparency
and privacy. 

–         “Whistleblowing is not just leaking – it’s an act of
political resistance”. (Snowden)

–         The anonymous
fallacy, or why it is not valid to say, “I won’t accept your argument
because you don’t use your real name”

–         A message from George Orwell about the
Internet today

–         Anonymity as
a political value.

Who uses Tor? (2)

Source: https://www.torproject.org/

People who use Tor do so
in order to defend their privacy, and to protect their personal data and
communications.

It is especially in those
parts of the world where the Internet is widely controlled, censored and
monitored that journalists and citizens use Tor in order to investigate state
propaganda or to express opinions opposing it.

In any part of the world,
whistle-blowers who work for government transparency and accountability of
multinationals can use Tor to denounce misdeeds without fear of reprisal or
persecution.

Tor’s aim is to provide
protection for ordinary people.

At present,
ill-intentioned criminals who know how to enter other people’s computers are
the only ones who enjoy protection.

These criminals have good
reason to learn how to achieve a high level of anonymity and many are able to
pay well in order to achieve this. Being able to steal and reuse the identities
of innocent victims (identity theft) makes it even easier for them. Ordinary
people, however, have neither time nor money to find a way of achieving online
privacy. Tor seeks to be the solution to this problem.

[Remember: Tor is a tool.
Keeping your anonymity safe and making good use of the tool which keeps you out
of danger depends only on you. Tor can’t check to ensure that you don’t make
errors. So be careful.]

Support
GlobaLeaks
♥ / Support the TOR project ♥