Global Voices Advocacy » Renata Avila

#FreeRod: Preliminary Victory in Chilean Twitter Parody Case

Renata Avila — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:48:32 +0000

In March, Global Voices Advocacy reported on Chilean Twitter user Rodrigo Ferrari, who was facing prosecution for operating a Twitter account that parodied millionaire Andrónico Luksic. We have good news about the case: the claim was dismissed by a court in Santiago, the nation's capital. However, the decision is not final and may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.

Photo by Rhinman. (CC By 2.0)

In this small victory for online freedom of expression in Chile, where presidential elections will soon take place, the court established that the facts presented showed no evidence of “usurpation of identity,” as Luksic had claimed.

Chilean NGO Derechos Digitales [Digital Rights] is advising the defense. Derechos Digitales’ Director Claudio Ruiz declared:

“Esta acusación claramente constituía una amenaza grave a la libre expresión en Chile y dejaba de manifiesto el especial y particular celo con que ha actuado el Ministerio Público cuando se ha visto afectados los intereses de ciudadanos poderosos. Una verdadera democracia es aquella que protege los derechos y garantías del ciudadano común precisamente frente a casos como estos y, en ese sentido, estamos muy conformes con el dictamen del juzgado”.

The accusation was a direct threat to freedom of expression in Chile, revealing the special bias of the Office of the Prosecutor when the affected interests are those of powerful citizens. A real democracy is one that protects the rights and safeguards of the common citizen, particularly in cases like this one. In that sense, we welcome the ruling of the court.

The resolution of the Court is a good sign, particularly given upcoming presidential elections, a time when citizens of Chile must be free to express their opinions and disagreements on social networks.

#FreeRod: Chilean Twitter User Faces Trial for Parody

Renata Avila — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:56:33 +0000

Chile’s freedom of expression record may be deteriorating. In 2012, after police and government authorities actively repressed media coverage of demonstrations by university students and Mapuche indigenous groups, Chile dropped 47 positions in Reporters Without Borders’ global freedom of expression ranking. This is troubling, particularly given Chile's strong policies on Internet rights — Chile became the first country to legislate Internet neutrality in 2010.

Andronico Luksic Craig. Image by Canal 13, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Retouched by Warko. Licensed for reuse by Wikimedia Commons.

The Luksic Case

A recent case involving billionaire Andrónico Luksic, who has accused a Twitter user of “usurpation of identity” for running an account that mocked Luksic, also presents a threat to free expression. But it is different from the cases above. Here, it appears that the judiciary and powerful business interests in Chile might have cooperated with one another to suppress freedom of expression online.

In 2011, Chilean lawyer Rodrigo Ferrari noticed that a parody Twitter account (@losluksic) he had created, where he mocked the very rich and powerful family, had been deactivated. Ferrari chose not to appeal the case to Twitter. What he did not know was that the account was closed due to a two-year investigation involving Mr. Luksic, Chilean government authorities, the US government, and Twitter.

Despite the clearly parodic nature of tweets sent from the account, Ferrari will soon be tried for usurpation of identity (related to but different from identity theft), a crime that can carry a penalty of 61 to 541 days in prison under Chilean law. If Ferrari is found guilty, the case could set a disturbing precedent for both free expression and privacy in Chile.

This is not the first time Mr. Luksic (listed on the Forbes 500) has sought to make expressive content unavailable to the public. Luksic has worked to stop the circulation of books via court injunctions and has requested take-downs of videos from YouTube.

Breach of Due Process?

The right to freedom of expression, enshrined by Chile’s constitution, should clearly protect Ferrari, who was merely exercising this right by commenting on a public figure. Chile's constitution [es] and Law on the Protection of Private Life also protect individual privacy, and Chilean law requires prosecutors to obtain a court order when seeking a user's identity information. Yet it appears that authorities circumvented this requirement in Ferrari's case. Chilean authorities requested assistance from the US Department of State, which in turn worked with the US Department of Justice to produce a court order requesting relevant identity records from Twitter.

Because Twitter's policy is to comply with all requests made by court orders issued in the US, Twitter cooperated and provided the necessary data to identify Rodrigo Ferrari. With this information Mr. Luksic and his attorneys were able to pursue their case. It is unclear whether Twitter ever notified Mr. Ferrari of the investigation of his account.

The definition of “identity theft” is different in Chile than in the US — under Chilean law, a claimant does not need to prove that the defendant gained any economic benefit from the crime in order for the defendant to be found guilty. This distinction may call into question the decision of US government agencies to comply with the request from Chilean authorities.

If the information that advocates have gathered proves true, the case will embody an alarming breach of due process and rights to privacy and free expression.

Advocates Respond

Chilean NGO Derechos Digitales [es] [Digital Rights] and Derechos Digitales’ director Claudio Ruiz are defending Ferrari in court. Ruiz expressed his concerns about this case in an open letter [es]:

El caso de Andrónico Luksic muestra gráficamente estas fisuras de la libertad de expresión. Muestra, además, el excesivo celo con que el Ministerio Público ha actuado persiguiendo un delito de bagatela, utilizando recursos fiscales por más de dos años sin haber mostrado, incluso al momento de la formalización, siquiera indicios de la configuración de un ilícito penal respecto de Rodrigo Ferrari. La prepotencia que ha mostrado el sistema judicial tiene un efecto perverso, incluso en caso de ser demostrada la inocencia de Ferrari: ¿Estaríamos dispuestos a criticar en público si sabemos que podemos ser expuestos a persecución criminal?

The case of Andronico Luksic graphically illustrates fissures in freedom of expression. Moreover, it shows the disproportionate zeal with which the office of the public prosecutor in Chile has sought to prosecute a crime of minor importance, using public funds for up to two years, without proving, even in the moment when the charges were formalized, any traces of evidence that a crime was committed by Mr. Rodrigo Ferrari. The arrogance shown by the judicial system has a perverse effect, even if Ferrari’s innocence is proven. Will we continue criticizing [public figures] if we know we could be criminally prosecuted?

In a brief interview with La Tercera Newspaper [es], Luksic responded to criticism saying that he sees no parody in the account and that freedom of expression must be exercised under a person’s own name. The interview did not address whether the account actually caused Luksic any damage. Luksic refused to respond when asked whether he would pursue legal actions against other accounts using the “Luksic” name – several have been created since the case became public.

After confirming the involvement of US authorities in the case, US-based advocacy groups have begun to speak out on the issue. Campaign organization Access filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to “ask which governments are requesting user information through mutual legal assistance treaties.”

PEN America wrote a letter to US authorities demanding an explanation of the situation:

In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Attorney General Eric Holder, PEN expressed concern about the disclosure of user information, which reportedly occurred without a formal subpoena from the court hearing the case, and pointed out that Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties allow countries to refuse to such requests in cases where the prosecutions are meant to suppress freedom of expression. Noting that promoting Internet freedom has been a top policy priority of the Obama Administration, PEN warns that “complying with the request for user information that led to the identification and prosecution of Mr. Ferrari undermines the principles that the State Department has worked in so many ways to advance.

PEN’s letter requests information clarifying the involvement of the Departments of State and Justice in the disclosure of Mr. Ferrari’s identity, as well as “information on how such requests are evaluated to ensure that information concerning digital media users is not divulged in cases with free expression implications.”

Global Voices Advocacy requested information on the case from Twitter. Attorneys at Twitter responded but could offer no comment on Ferrari's case.

Support the #FreeRod Campaign

Derechos Digitales is leading a campaign [es] asking for all charges against Ferrari to be dropped. The campaign and its supporters are communicating and promoting their cause using hashtag #FreeRod. In solidarity with this effort, many users have created accounts incorporating the Luksic name.

Image by Super45 (CC-BY-NC)

If Mr. Ferrari is found guilty due to evidence obtained using methods that disregard due process of law, and if the judge does not acknowledge that parody is a protected form of expression, there may be a harmful chilling effect on anonymity, privacy and freedom of expression in Chile. The case could hinder the efforts of citizens to respect and fully exercise their fundamental freedoms, online and off. It is troubling that the case has been aided not only by the circumvention of due process by Chilean authorities, but also with the collaboration of the US government, a vociferous promoter of online rights throughout the world.

Staff at Derechos Digitales, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Twitter provided background information for this post.

Costa Rica: President Signs Internet Freedom Declaration

Renata Avila — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:02:32 +0000

Laura Chinchilla, the Constitutional President of Costa Rica has signed the Declaration of Internet Freedom.

When signing the declaration, she stated:

The Internet has brought a new level of productivity fueled by innovation and creativity. I believe this has been possible due to the open and free nature of the Internet to date. [...]

Although digital divides still exist around the world, we must implement policies to close these gaps, which can only happen in an environment of openness and freedom.

I am, therefore, happy to add my signature to the Declaration of Internet Freedom, and hope the leaders of the world will join us in preserving and nurturing this openness and freedom upon which a bright future can be built.

President Laura Chinchilla. Picture by Presidencia de Costa Rica under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike license.

Internet Access is considered a Human Right in Costa Rica. However the Congress recently passed a set of laws restricting Internet Freedoms. Let´s hope that the President will honor her word and will, from now on, be active in her campaign for Internet Freedom, working on all fora and networks she can influence.

Open letter to Marissa Mayer: HTTPS for all Yahoo! communications services now!

Renata Avila — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:23:48 +0000

After the celebrated appointment of Marisa Mayer as CEO of Yahoo!, the new leadership has the opportunity to fix an urgent matter: Yahoo! Mail is the only major web-based e-mail service that continues to rely on insecure connections. Google enabled default Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS), a widely used communications protocol that allows secure communication over a computer network, on its GMail service in early 2010, and Microsoft followed suit for its Hotmail service in July 2011.

Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer. Photo by SDK under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike License.

To accelerate the process, on November 13, 2012, an open letter from 26 security experts, advocates and human rights activists was sent to Mayer, urging her to act as quickly as possible to secure user trust and safety by taking the “long overdue step” of deploying HTTPS encryption for all Yahoo! communications services. “Over the last several years,” the letter said, “Yahoo! has repeatedly been urged by security experts to adopt HTTPS, but has taken no visible steps to do so”:

Unfortunately, this delay puts your users at risk, which is particularly disturbing since Yahoo! Mail is widely used in many of the world's most politically repressive states.

There have been frequent reports of political activists and government critics being shown copies of their email messages as evidence during interrogation sessions, underscoring the importance of providing basic measures to protect the privacy of e-mail.

Where online communications platforms are essential channels for the the free flow of information and outlets for expression, offering HTTPS by default is a critical step that Yahoo! must take to blunt some of the effects of mass surveillance and censorship.

A 2009 open letter to Google signed by 37 prominent computer security and privacy experts, urging the use of HTTPS security on services that process personal information, emphasized that HTTPS is “industry standard” security for protecting personal information on web services; these experts added that research shows “most users have no idea of the data interception risks that they face when using public wireless networks [...] few users notice the presence or absence of HTTPS encryption and [users] fail to take appropriate precautions when HTTPS is not used.”

All the e-mail and social network providers criticized in this letter have since made HTTPS available or mandatory on their sites—except Yahoo!.

CyberArabs posted a translation of the letter in Arabic, Free Press unlimited did the same in Dutch, and Ana published it in German.

Several security experts and human rights organizations are recommending that users avoid Yahoo! Mail “because of its continued lack of essential security protections.” This advice in fact applies to any e-mail service that cannot be accessed via HTTPS, as the Tactical Technology Collective notes in this video.

Unless Yahoo! Mail fixes this serious deficiency, their users’ data will travel via HTTP, an insecure channel that is highly susceptible to man-in-the-middle and eavesdropping attacks. As mentioned above, other major providers of online services have implemented HTTPS encryption as a standard, including Facebook, which started rolling out always-on HTTPS in November 2012. Let's hope that this chorus of global voices encourages Yahoo! to fix the problem soon. We are counting the days.

The Public Voice: Privacy Rights are a Global Challenge

Renata Avila — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:03:34 +0000

October 22, 2012 is an important day for global civil society defending privacy and free speech. The Public Voice coalition will be hosting a global conference in Punta del Este, Uruguay, and you are invited to take part in the conversation and interact with the panelists.

CC BY The Public Voice

You can follow the live conversation here, and join the conversation by using #tpv12 hashtag, ask questions, participate in polls and interact with those covering the event in several languages. The conference aims to assess cultures and privacy perspectives from around the World, and members of civil society wil discuss the spread of Surveillance Technologies and its implications in societies, experts will explore Latin American policy, law, and technology perspectives on privacy governance and suggest to governments and private sector to safeguard citizens privacy.

The Public Voice: Privacy Rights are a Global Challenge

You can read the program and follow the live Webcast in English and Spanish.

During the day the panelists will assess cultures and privacy perspectives from around the world. They will raise public awareness of surveillance technology and its consequences to consumers, for freedom of expression and human rights, and they will explore Latin American policy, law, and technology perspectives. It is the small window civil society has before the 34th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners comprising all the governmental agencies all over the World, webcast available here. It certainly can bring the relevant topics for citizens to the discussion table. I hope you join us.

Paraguay: ISPs Block News Website Without Warrant

Renata Avila — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:26:13 +0000

Netizens in Paraguay. Picture By Librebus Cono Sur under a CC BY SA license.

An alarming act of censorship by private companies took place on September 26, 2012 in Paraguay. Two Internet Service Providers (ISPs) blocked the AbcColor.me website without a judicial warrant.

Disclaimer from AbcColor.me

The controversial website is a platform for user generated content which resembles a local newspaper, ABC Color. Any user can upload news (false news and satire are welcome) as well as pictures related to the news. Once the content is uploaded, the appearance of the article looks like the ABC Color newspaper but has a disclaimer in the footer stating that the site contains user generated content and false news.

TEDIC reported the situation and criticized the ISPs’ move as a violation of consumer rights and an act against net neutrality principles and consumer rights.

When users tried to access the site from the Tigo ISP they received a warning, informing them they were being redirected as the company classified the site as containing malicious software and furthermore simply denied access. It was also blocked from mobile phones.

After netizens became outraged and upset about this clear act of censorship by a private company, as they increased pressure on Twitter and even the Pirate Party in Argentina expressed its concerns, the ISPs unblocked the website.

The Personal ISP apologized, saying that they blocked the website ¨due to an error in their processes¨. Tigo Paraguay did not apologize or explained users, they simply unblocked the site.

With presidential elections approaching next April 2013, after former President Lugo's impeachment, online freedom of expression is a sensitive and vulnerable issue in a highly divided country where polical unrest concerns many. Now Paraguayan citizens know that their ISPs own the technology to censor sites quickly and are willing to do so. As consumers and citizens, that should raise all sorts of concerns.

Special thanks to @marsebu for her collaboration with this article.

Assange Asylum Granted After Threats from UK Authorities

Renata Avila — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:04:32 +0000

This morning, Thursday 16 August, 2012, in a press conference streamed from the website of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Minister Ricardo Patiño (@RicardoPatinoEC) declared that the country would grant asylum to the Founder and Editor of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.

Picture by Sommerset Bean used with permission.

Patiño said that Assange's fears of being persecuted in the United States were justified, therefore he satisfied all legal requirements for political asylum under international human rights and humanitarian law. Still, there is no guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to the United States after a long consultation process. Patiño explained the legal reasons in detail in a number of points.

Assange was facing imminent extradition to Sweden for interrogation about sexual allegations he has not been charged for, where he would have been detained upon arrival in solitary with no right to bail, according to Fair Trials International. At the last minute he decided to exercise his right of seeking asylum. He walked into the Embassy of Ecuador and has stayed under diplomatic protection while the country's President Rafael Correa reviewed his case.

The Ecuadorean government based its decision on past and current attacks on WikiLeaks, its founder and even volunteers, which have been unprecedented both in scale and severity. At least seven civilians are being investigated by the FBI, in a Secret Grand Jury that might or might not be taking place in Virginia, US, as it is secret and no official can talk about it.

Indeed, WikiLeaks and individuals who have worked with the project have faced various threats and challenges from both private and public entities. US government officials issued a subpoena to Twittter, requesting that the company disclose personal information and past twwets of activists and computer experts such as Jacob Appelbaum (@ioerror) from Tor Project, who once collaborated with Wikileaks. There have been institutional prohibitions on viewing WikiLeaks documents in public libraries, such as the Library of US Congress, and calls for execution and espionage trial from public officers. Another pressure point on Assange and Wikileaks is the extrajudicial banking blockade.

US army officer Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the classified materials to WikiLeaks, has been arrested and placed in solitary confinement, an extreme measure that even UN Special Rapporteur Juan Mendez called torture. Over 200 law professors have signed a letter denounced Manning's treatment.

Placards and posters attached to crowd barriers outside the Ecuadorian embassy voicing support for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Image by Pete Riches, copyright Demotix (16/08/12).

The Embassy controversy

After rumors that asylum had been granted began circulating and President Correa announced that he would study the case on Wednesday 15 August with experts, United Kingdom authorities responded saying that they would respect the Swedish extradition order and send the police to arrest Assange, even if he was protected by Correa's decision.

Officials said they could claim the authority to walk onto Embassy premises, news that sparked anger from many arguing that it would violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations.

Following these threats, Ecuadorean authorities called for a press conference and denounced the hostile attitude of the British. After that, police presence outside the Embassy increased.

Citizen reporters gathered outside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London and reported on the situation, tweeting and livestreaming video and commentary from the location. @alburyj - a user of Bambuser - reported from the site for several hours. Supporters displayed hand-made posters demanding respect for the Vienna Convention. On Twitter, #OpProtectAssange was launched.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, based in the US, said via Twitter account @theCCR:

#UN GA unanimously declared granting asylum cant be regarded as an unfriendly act by other countries. UK gov threat re #Assange is shameful

A UK Barrister and expert explained how the British threats and action might be illegal.

Twitter user @ProgGraham wondered what would happen if it was the Government of Ecuador were the one in the UK's position:

If #Ecuador threatened to storm the #UK embassy, they would be called dictators and oppressors, would they not? #Assange

There were reports of supporters being arrested by the Metropolitan police on the scene. Taxis called to the Embassy by activists to drive Assange to Heathrow Airport featured stickers in support of Assange, as supporters awaited and celebrated the decision, though Assange ultimately was unable to exit the Embassy.

Assange will likely remain at the Embassy, where he reportedly sleeps on an air mattress on an office floor, until UK and Ecuadorean officials can resolve the conflict over what status he will have while in transit within Britain and while traveling to Ecuador.

Unanswered questions

Many unanswered questions remain following the announcement: whether the UK will send police to the Embassy, bringing a possible end of diplomatic relations between the two countries; the reactions of the Organization of American States and the Union of South American States, after they meet to discuss the threats against a member State (Ecuador); the position of the US – a country which recognizes and grants asylum to journalists and whistleblowers in similar circumstances; and the reactions of Sweden – a country that is often a hub for those who seek refuge in other territories.

For more information, Humunculus Flannel is live tweeting on this issue.

Costa Rica: Cybercrime Law Threatens Internet Freedom

Renata Avila — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:38:48 +0000

Costa Rica, a country whose Constitutional Court declared access to the Internet a fundamental right, recently approved a series of reforms to the Criminal Code, creating new criminal offenses—Law 9048—severely restricting internet freedom and causing alarm among netizens and journalists. The law was signed by President Laura Chinchilla on July 10, 2012.

Andres Guadamuz (@tecnnollama), a well-known Internet scholar and Creative Commons Project Lead in Costa Rica, analyzes the law in his article “Is this the first anti-Wikileaks law?” and describes the changes it introduces:

The most controversial part of the law is that it modifies the existing type of espionage to include a digital element.

The old Criminal Code defined Espionage in Art. 288 as follows:

“Espionage. [A person] Shall be punished with imprisonment of one to six years, if they improperly procure or obtain secret political information, or security policies concerning the means of defense or foreign relations of the State.”

The new law has modified the article to read:

“Espionage. [A person] Shall be punished with imprisonment of one to six years, if they improperly procure or obtain secret political information, security policies concerning the means of defense or foreign relations of the State, or affects the fight against drug trafficking or organized crime.
The sentence is five to ten years’ imprisonment where the conduct takes place through computer manipulation, malicious software or use of information and communication technology.”

This has rightly created a bit of a stink with the local press and blogosphere, as they see it as a possible affront to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. However, I think that journalists miss the real point behind the law, this is evidently an attempt to criminalise leaking information to whistle-blowing sites like Wikileaks. The law in its present form was discussed and approved in a legislative commission in 2010, at the time that Wikileaks was front page news across the world. The inclusion of this reform makes no other sense whatsoever, as it enhances existing penalties for espionage just by adding the digital element. There is no other justification that I can think of to make incarceration for leaking political information through electronic means almost twice as harsh as “analogue” leaking.

Laura Chinchilla Miranda, President of the Republic of Costa Rica. UN Photo by Jean-Marc Ferr under a Creative Commons License.

The outrage and strong opinions against the law have come from different sectors of Costan Rica society, demanding a dialogue involving different sectors and the amendment of the restrictive provisions. The Knight Center for Journalism in The Americas also expressed their concerns over the law for criminalizing the revelation of political secrets. Different media sectors are now engaged in a dialogue with the government to try to eliminate any threat to the right of freedom of expression and opinion in the digital environment.

The Costa Rican blogosphere is discussing in an open forum [es] whether the revelation of secrets should be criminalized and whether the approved provisions are a new gag law [es] harming freedom of expression in the country.

Activist Carolina Flores in the post “Cybercrime Law: More Questions than answers” [es] also expressed different concerns and pointed out a relevant aspect contained in the law regarding electronic impersonation:

Art. 230 reads:

“Impersonation. [A person] Shall be punished with imprisonment of three to six years if they impersonate a person in any social network, website, electronic or information technology medium. The same penalty shall be imposed upon persons who, using a false or nonexistent identity, cause damages to a third party.”

This provision will eliminate the possibility of using any form of impersonation online, such as avatars, pseudonyms and even pictures.

Another provision troubling activist is the criminalization of “spreading false news”, a provision which resembles legislation in Guatemala which justified the incarceration of a Twitter user for spreading rumors about a bank.

Groups of journalists and experts are trying to engage in a dialogue with the authorities to modify the already approved legislation, which entry into force depends on its publication in the National Gazette. If the law is published as it is now written, any newspaper or journalist publishing classified information (as Costa Rican newspaper La Nacion did with WikiLeaks) will be prosecuted and normal online activities such as the use of nicknames will be forbidden.

Netherlands: First country in Europe with net neutrality

Renata Avila — Tue, 08 May 2012 23:36:25 +0000

May 8th, 2012 is a day to celebrate in The Netherlands as it becomes the first country in Europe to protect its citizens by enshrining net neutrality into law.

The Netherlands is also implementing privacy protections for users against wiretapping and disconnection by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which will no longer be able to interrupt traffic of users unless it is proven to be in the public interest.

The legislation is a landmark and an example for other countries in Europe and around the world. According to Bits of Freedom, the activist group who advocated for the law's passage, the new provisions are especially important for the privacy of netizens:

In addition, the law includes an anti-wiretapping provision, restricting internet providers from using invasive wiretapping technologies, such as deep packet inspection (DPI). They may only do so under limited circumstances, or with explicit consent of the user, which the user may withdraw at any time. The use of DPI gained much attention when KPN admitted that it analysed the traffic of its users to gather information on the use of certain apps. The law allows for wiretapping with a warrant.

Moreover, the law includes a provision ensuring that internet providers can only disconnect their users in a very limited set of circumstances. Internet access is very important for functioning in an information society, and providers currently could on the basis of their terms and conditions disconnect their users for numerous reasons. The provision allows for the disconnection in the case of fraud or when a user doesn’t pay his bills.

Applause for The Netherlands!

Under an Attribution Creative Commons License 3.0 by erikwestrum

* While it is still a work in process, a general translation of the new law has been published by the active NGO Bits of Freedom.

Mexico Hosts Global Conference on Privacy and Free Speech

Renata Avila — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:17:53 +0000

October 31, 2011 is an important day for global civil society defending privacy and free speech. The Public Voice coalition will be hosting a global conference in Mexico City, and you are invited to take part in the conversation and interact with the panelists.

You can follow the live conversation here, and join the conversation by using #tpv11 hashtag.

The Public Voice PRIVACY IS FREEDOM

Watch the Webcast in English and Spanish.

We will be posting an article soon sharing the most important discussions and conclusions from the meeting.