Global Voices Advocacy » Ivan Sigal

U.S. Bills Could Threaten the Global Internet

Ivan Sigal — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:33:27 +0000

At Global Voices, we understand that we, collectively, are the Internet. Our individual participation is what makes the Internet a global conversation of startling depth and variety, but this is possible only because of its open technical and legal structure. Unfortunately, there are powerful corporate and government forces who would prefer to see the openness and accessibility of the web restricted. They seek to deploy censorship and surveillance in the name of enforcing copyright, employing the very tools used to censor the Internet in authoritarian countries, such as China, Iran, and Syria.

Ignoring the warnings of citizens and technologists, United States lawmakers are considering two bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), that are a real and dangerous threat to the openness of the web everywhere in the world. In response, the Global Voices community has decided to join websites such as Wikipedia, Reddit and BoingBoing in “going dark” and will black out the Global Voices Advocacy site for 12 hours on January 18, and display a banner on other Global Voices sites that provides more information about the proposed bills.

We are an international volunteer community dedicated to amplifying citizen media from around the world. In the last six years, we’ve produced more than 75,000 posts that link to blogs and other citizen content for readers in over 20 languages. Our content is free to use, and free to share. We rely on the open Internet to carry out our mission, and on social media and citizen media websites that allow for simple publication and sharing of content. Platforms like WordPress, Wikipedia, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Reddit, Tumblr, and many other online media production communities host content on which we base much of our work.

The passage of SOPA and PIPA by the United States Congress and Senate would force social media platforms and other web sites that host user-generated content to pro-actively monitor and censor users to prevent them from posting words or images that may violate copyrights. It would raise the cost of participation on these sites for all users worldwide, and could force many social media projects to shut down, especially smaller websites and businesses.

We are concerned this law would will inflict broad damage on the work of digital activists living under repressive regimes, as well as restrict basic speech freedoms around the world. Current copyright laws are occasionally misused in the U.S, and can result in de facto speech restrictions. In countries with less independent judicial systems, abuse of copyright law to repress activism is both simple and frequent.

Global Voices contributors in many countries face increasingly aggressive surveillance and censorship. Several are in prison or exile because of their online activities. Passage of these bills will send a clear message that the US government believes it is acceptable to monitor and censor citizens to identify “infringing activity” which too often is equated with political and religious dissent. Passage of SOPA and PIPA would also give the United States government a disproportionate amount of power to determine the course of the Internet. The result will be a more dangerous world for bloggers and activists, and less free speech for all.

Even though the current version of SOPA was put indefinitely on hold this week, PIPA, the Senate version of the bill, is still alive. And the issues and forces that are driving the passage of a law remain. For this reason, Global Voices is joining the Internet blackout on January 18, 2012.

Recent Global Voices Advocacy posts on SOPA/PIPA:

Trevor Tim, ”How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation”
Katitza Rodriguez, “SOPA undermines the U.S. in its negotiations for a free, open Internet”
Weiping Li, “For Chinese Netizens, SOPA is Another Great Firewall”
Yoo Eun Lee, “Stop Online Piracy Act: The Fight Continues”

Other resources for understanding the effects of SOPA/PIPA:

Joi Ito and Ethan Zuckerman, “Why we need to stop SOPA and PIPA”
“Internet Blacklist Legislation“, Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF's email campaign against the legislation and EFF guide to meeting with your representatives. EFF also explains how SOPA/PIPA will hurt open source software creation.
Dan Rowinsky, “What You Need to Know about SOPA in 2012“, ReadWriteWeb
Wikipedia, “Stop Online Piracy Act”
Rebecca MacKinnon and Ivan Sigal, “Online piracy laws must preserve Web freedom, CNN.”

What you can do:

If you are an American citizen, Americancensorship.org can help you to quickly communicate with your elected representatives, or help you to join the strike. Learn more about the strike at www.sopastrike.com.

Libya: Foreign Hackers and Surveillance

Ivan Sigal — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:33:00 +0000

Since the fall of Tripoli, reporters, researchers, and former employees of the Libyan Telecom and Technology company have been uncovering and sharing details about how the Libyan government surveilled and monitored internet and phone networks.

These reports demonstrate the depth of the relationship between foreign information technology companies and the Gaddafi regime, mirroring similar relationships with the repressive regimes of Tunsia, Egypt, Syria, and others in the Middle East.

In the case of Libya, it is now clear that prior to the rebellion, the regime emphasized surveillance and data gathering over filtering. With the onset of conflict, the Gaddafi regime scrambled to put in place filtering and blocking technologies, and employed outsiders to attack opposition sites and communications.

Former and current LTT staff speaks

Libya was collecting massive quantities of data on both phone networks and internet usage. In August, The Wall Street Journal described seeing surveillance equipment manufactured by Narus, a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing, Inc., and Amesys, part of French company Bull S.A., in an abandoned security unit.

In recent conversations in Tripoli, sources who are current and former employees of Libya Telecom and Technology (LTT) have described the efforts of the Gaddafi regime to ramp up surveillance in the weeks after the rebellion. The efforts were led out of an Internet monitoring center run by the Interior Ministry in Tripoli, a center connected to Libyan security agencies. They describe recruitment of hackers from China and Eastern Europe to block key opposition sites and social media such as Facebook and YouTube, run phishing campaigns to steal Facebook passwords, and generate viruses to infect user computers and compromise data security. They also describe extensive efforts to eavesdrop on Skype, phone networks, and internet running through VSAT connections. This confirms earlier Global Voices reporting that describes “cyber attacks on [Libyan] opposition websites coming from Serbia.”

A backdoor to Thuraya satellite phones?

In addition, the same individuals assert that the Libyan government was able to gain backdoor access to voice and data on Thuraya satellite phones sold in Tripoli through official providers. Thuraya, who are based in the United Arab Emirates, deny they granted the Libyan government a backdoor.

Libya’s General Post and Telecommunications Corporation is a shareholder in Thuraya, but the relationship between the company and the Gaddafi regime has not always been smooth. In 2006, Libya was accused by Thuraya of jamming its mobile satellite communications. The jamming occurred over six months, and disrupted service in Libya and surrounding regions. In February 2011, Thuraya once again said that they had “conclusive evidence” that Libya was jamming signals on its Thuraya-2 satellite network.

Ebrahim E. Ebrahim, Thuraya’s Vice-President for Corporate & Marketing Communications, referred to the February incident in an email interview and says, Thuraya’s network “was subjected to harmful and unlawful interference in Libya, which we have evidence to suggest was intentional,” but that the “alleged backdoor never existed, which is why our network was subjected to the intentional jamming.”

Thuraya and other satellite phones have been used by media and NGOs during protests in authoritarian countries with the hope of data security – an assumption that may be misplaced, given the sophisticated technology available to monitor telecommunications networks. Thuraya says there are around 3000 subscribers to its service in Libya – with a focus on rural access where cell networks do not reach.

In the weeks before the rebel attack on Tripoli, Gaddafi threatened death to anyone using Thuraya phones not registered in Libya. This may suggest that unregistered Thuraya phones were perceived as a threat by the government.

Is the Libyan internet safe now?

Libya has been able to legally purchase internet technology since the end of international trade sanctions in 2003 and 2004, following Gaddafi's disavowal of a weapons of mass destruction program and reparations payments for the Lockerbie airplane bombing. By several accounts Libya invested in technology manufactured in North America, Europe, and China, used to monitor and capture data on both internet and telephone networks.

In interviews, current and former employees of Libya Telecom and Technology assert that the Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE provided Libya with software for content filtering and blocking. The core Libyan internet has been built using technology from global providers, such as Cisco, Nera Networks, Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens Ericcson, and Huawei and ZTE.

Surveillance of these networks accompanied by occasional filtering and blocking by the Gaddafi regime has been public knowledge for several years. The Open Network Initiative's study from August 2009 asserts that Libya practiced selective filtering, but significant surveillance at both the personal level in internet cafes and other public access points.

Libyans under Gaddafi were very wary about both personal and electronic surveillance. Many bloggers stayed far away from politically sensitive material, or published their work pseudonymously or anonymously. Citizen media remained dispersed, with active bloggers meeting rarely and never in large groups. This practice, it seems, was wise. The return of internet to Libya after the fall of Tripoli has meant the end of censorship and surveillance, at least in its earlier form. However, many bloggers and activists using social media remain cautious about revealing their identity, what they write, and where they are.

Given Libya’s uncertain political future, personal and data security will likely remain a key concern for Libyan citizens for some time.

Global Voices and Google announce freedom of expression award jury

Ivan Sigal — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:23:12 +0000

The Breaking Borders Award is a new prize created by Google and Global Voices and supported by Thomson Reuters to honor outstanding web projects initiated by individuals or groups that demonstrate courage, energy and resourcefulness in using the Internet to promote freedom of expression.

We are proud to announce our jury members for the award. The jury is drawn from experts and leaders in the freedom of expression, journalism, digital activism, and technology sectors, and includes representatives from around the world. Members of the jury are:

Sheila Coronel, Director, Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism, Professor of Professional Practice, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Jose Roberto de Toledo, Projects and Training Coordinator, Brazilian Association for Investigative Journalism (ABRAJI); Director, PrimaPagina
Edetaen Ojo, Convenor, International Freedom of Expression Exchange, Executive Director, Media Rights Agenda
Dean Wright, Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards, Reuters
Rebecca MacKinnon, Co-Founder, Global Voices; Visiting Fellow, Princeton University Center for Information Technology
Robert Boorstin, Director, Public Policy, Google

The Breaking Borders Award is open to people of all nationalities. Winners will be selected by a panel of experts in the field of freedom of expression. A cash prize of $10,000 will be awarded in each of three areas:

1. Advocacy, given to an activist or group that has used online tools to promote free expression or encourage political change
2. Technology, given to an individual or group that has created an important tool that enables free expression and expands access to information
3. Policy, given to a policy maker, government official or NGO leader who has made a notable contribution in the field

Nominations for and additional information about the Breaking Borders Award can be submitted at http://breakingborders.net and close on February 15, 2010.

Global voices is very excited to be associated with this event. Contact us at nomination@breakingborders.net with any questions.

Corporations Agree to Standards for Internet Freedom

Ivan Sigal — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:12:28 +0000

The Global Network Initiative has been launched. The Initiative is a code of conduct for corporations on privacy and free speech created by a coalition of human rights, media development and research organizations, and Internet and communications companies such as Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft. Its goal: to ensure that ICT companies acknowledge their “responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users.”

The Initiative was launched as a response to corporate participation in online censorship, especially in China. It took more than two years to craft, and much of that time was spent articulating a set of principles and devising mechanisms to encourage compliance acceptable both to human rights groups and to businesses.

Rebecca MacKinnon, one of Global Voices’ founders, participated in the working group, and writes in RConversation:

A few people have called me asking “does this thing have any teeth” or “is this thing more than just a figleaf for companies to get congress off their backs?

Organizations like Human Rights Watch, Human Rights in China, Human Rights First, and the Committee to Protect Journalists would not be putting their reputations behind this thing if they didn't think it was meaningful.

That said, the initiative must prove its value in the next couple of years by implementing a meaningful and sufficiently tough process by which companies' adherence to the principles will be evaluated and benchmarked.

Leslie Harris of the Center for Democracy and Technology, one of the initiative’s conveners, writes on her blog PolicyBeta:

Not merely aspirational, the Initiative requires concrete commitments from participating companies to engage in a high level of corporate due diligence and risk management with respect to the demands they receive from government, and greater user transparency about the impact of those demands on freedom of expression and privacy, in all markets where they operate. Company fulfillment of these commitments will be evaluated through an independent and credible process for accountability.

The Chinese/English anti-censorship blog, GFW Blog provides a succinct summary, a list of quotes and from participants, and their contact information.

Not every organization involved ultimately signed on to the principles. Amnesty International and Reporters sans frontieres both stepped away from the process. RSF believes that the Initiative is a “step in the right direction” but lacks enforcement capacity, and lists their main concerns here. Amnesty UK's Internet repression page doesn't discuss their position, but it does have a video of Global Voices co-founder Ethan Zuckerman explaining online censorship.

Fundamentally, it seems that some organizations feel they can be better advocates if they don’t have to compromise on principles, while others believe that engagement and the creation of a process for dialogue leading to incremental change is more important.