These questions provide the general framework for discussion in Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle For Internet Freedom, a new book by Rebecca McKinnon, co-founder of Global Voices (and co-author of the twice-monthly Netizen Report on GV Advocacy).

A comprehensive and timely effort, it is a call to action for every blogger or user of Twitter or Facebook, and particularly for cyber-activists at large, to collectively address the urgent issue of how technology should be governed to support the rights and liberties of citizens around the world. With a rigorous analysis and a positive tone, the final message is to get involved in a struggle that all of us have the power and ability to influence (even in small ways), if we only try to understand the complex forces at work, and how we might help shape them.

Divided in five major sections (Disruptions; Control 2.0; Democracy’s challenges; Sovereigns of cyberspace; What is to be done?), the book covers a variety of events over the past decade and is quite up to date, with parts devoted to the Arab Spring and the Egyptian government’s surveillance capabilities, privacy and control in Western democracies, and the rise of “Facebookistan and Googledom”. The book's companion website offers fresh updates and more resources.

The Global Voices network is mentioned here and there, with direct quotes and references. For instance, the book preface speaks briefly about the community's inception, growth, and crucial role in recent events:

As protests erupted in Tunisia in late 2010 and demonstrations spread around the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011, Global Voices contributors worked around the clock to spread information about what was happening in multiple languages, on our own site as well as Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms.

The first part of the book focuses on interconnections in technology, society and business that fueled the Internet's development so far, giving rise to a “digital commons” that includes innovative practices, digital activism, and people's empowerment. This is an exciting environment that nonetheless faces opposition, defined as “Control 2.0”: “…how opaque, unaccountable relationships with Internet and telecommunications companies enables authoritarian governments to control and manipulate citizens.”

China is a primary case study here, with a detailed description of its refined censorship system and recent developments to maintain authoritarian control, while at the same time enabling, “…high levels of lively and even contentious online debate and deliberation, within certain limits.”

After describing similar (or worse) situations in countries such as Iran, Pakistan and Syria, the focus shifts to Western democracies — who unfortunately appear inclined to emulate authoritarian regimes, even if in subtle and insidious ways. That is, technology companies are establishing equally opaque and unaccountable relationships with government agencies, and fail to, “…take responsibility for their power over citizens’ political lives, and their lack of accountability in the exercise of that power.”

Image © Shutterstock.com

The various examples discussed here include WikiLeaks, privacy complaints on Facebook, ‘Big Brother' Apple, and Net Neutrality. Along with the on-going battle about intellectual property vs. free speech and sharing (see the global initiative against SOPA-PIPA, and the recent ‘selective censorship‘ announced by Twitter). Also addressed are lesser-known issues, such as a 2011 proposal to create a “single European cyberspace” that would block “illicit content” at Europe’s borders.

Finally, the last section of the book attempts to answer the question of “What is to be done?”, proposing the development of a Netizen-centric Internet. This part explores efforts by some governments, a few companies, and a growing number of concerned citizens to address the threats to freedom in cyberspace through new initiatives and movements. Some suggestions include: boosting corporate transparency; building processes for corporate engagement with users, customers, and other stakeholders; and building a more citizen-driven information environment.

At the end of the day, this Struggle For Internet Freedom is taking place here and now — in Arab countries, in East Asia and even in Western nations. It is a common struggle, and it is up to each and all of us, as netizens and citizens of the world, to monitor the state of affairs and make sure the Internet remains a force for freedom of expression and political liberation — rather than a tool for alienation, censorship and repression.

Written by Bernardo Parrella · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Book cover. Design by Patricia Fiuza.

Drawing on current debates in five of the region’s strongest economies—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico—all of which boast high Internet penetration rates for Latin America, contributors provide a sketch of legislation, judicial decisions, and policies that affect free expression and privacy online. Book editor and CELE Executive Director Eduardo Bertoni writes:

El debate global sobre la regulación en Internet ha evolucionado desde aquella pregunta inicial acerca de si es necesaria y deseable alguna regulación en la red. […] Los artículos de esta publicación abordan [estos temas] no con la idea de arribar a soluciones últimas, sino con la intención de plantear algunas de las cuestiones legales involucradas en estos temas y pensar el efecto que pueden tener estas políticas sobre la libertad de expresión.

The book’s authors urge policymakers to rely on international and regional human rights instruments—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights—as crucial sources of guiding principles in making policy for the digital age.

Underlying much of the analysis and discussion in the text are three fundamental questions:

• When Internet users post content, store personal data, and search for information on the web, what are their rights and responsibilities?
• How can governments protect citizens’ rights to privacy and free expression while still upholding defamation and copyright law and ensuring that law enforcement officials can carry out legitimate criminal investigations online?
• What role do Internet intermediaries—ISPs, search engines, or platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube or WordPress—have in implementing government policy?

Numerous debates surrounding Internet regulation in Latin America focus on copyright violations and threats to honor or reputation (also known as defamation). Many courts in the region take these infractions seriously (both on and offline), and some legislators argue that they justify implementing tighter regulations on Internet activity.

In Colombia, the proposed (though currently shelved) Lleras Law would allow copyright holders to demand that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) remove infringing content from the web, a process known as “notice-and-takedown.” Under current Colombian law, ISPs can only be required to remove content if they receive an order from a judge. But Ley Lleras would eliminate this requirement, leaving ISPs with the burden of determining whether or not takedown requests were valid.

Art by Tomaz Garzia. CC BY-NC 2.5

Internet search engines also have been held liable for providing access to defamatory content. In Argentina, singer Virginia da Cunha filed a defamation suit against both Google and Yahoo! Argentina, after the companies had denied da Cunha’s request that they filter (remove) search results for her name that led to sexually explicit content. A judge initially ruled in the singer’s favor, but an appellate court later overturned the decision.

Contributing authors Claudio Ruiz [es] and Juan Carlos Lara, of the Chilean NGO Derechos Digitales, warn that under the Lleras Law, ISPs likely would comply with most takedown requests before fully considering their validity, as the alternative could leave them vulnerable to prosecution. The da Cunha case could have led to a similar result, where search engines would agree to filter results upon request, so as not to risk punishment. These examples illustrate the need to protect intermediaries from liability for content created by their users.

Brazilian legal scholar Joana Varon and her co-authors, all researchers at the Centro do Tecnologia e Sociedade, discuss these issues in a chapter on content filtering. Although there is little evidence that Latin American governments (with the exceptions of Cuba and Venezuela) engage in widespread filtering, legislators have considered various filtering mandates that would combat copyright violations and defamation online. But the authors note that there is a problem with this approach:

…técnicas de filtrado no son precisas…es casi imposible bloquear solo un determinado contenido sin afectar otros…[A]demás, muchos de esos mecanismos utilizados para regular y censurar información son cada vez más sofisticados, utilizando…muchas camadas de control que generalmente están escondidas del usuario común, quien probablemente ni se dará cuenta de que la información a la que accede ha sido objeto de filtrado.

Other contributors include Universidad de los Andes scholar Lorenzo Villegas, who describes the challenges of protecting personal data in the digital age, and Eduardo Bertoni, who discusses the issue of jurisdiction in defamation cases where the poster of the defamatory content is located in one jurisdiction and the offended party is in another. Towards an Internet free of censorship also features articles by George Washington University Professor of Law Dawn Nunziato, Derechos Digitales' Alberto Cerda, and University of Puerto Rico legal scholar Hiram Meléndez Juarbe.

The Center for Democracy & Technology's Cynthia M. Wong, James X. Dempsey, and Ellery Roberts Biddle co-authored the final chapter of the book, which places current policymaking debates in Latin America into broader international context. They note that the issues being debated in Latin America are very similar to those raised elsewhere in the world, a convergence that is not surprising given the global nature of the medium.

However, while policymakers around the world are confronting the issues of free expression, privacy, copyright protection, defamation, and government power, approaches vary substantially from region to region, and country to country. Some have turned towards repression, jeopardizing not only human rights but also economic innovation and human development. As the book shows, Latin American policymakers have looked to both Europe and the U.S. when debating these issues. But they also have the unique advantage of working in a region where country-to-country relations are generally friendly, and legislators often are able to “borrow” policy solutions from one country and apply them in another.

Towards an Internet free of censorship aims to take advantage of this cooperative dynamic by initiating new conversations, collaborations, and policy initiatives that will help to protect and strengthen online free expression, freedom of information, and privacy throughout Latin America.

Written by Ellery Biddle · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

—

It has been six years since the highly controversial Data Retention Directive (DRD) was adopted in the European Union. Conceived in the EU and steamrolled by powerful U.S. and U.K. government lobbies, this mass-surveillance law compels EU-based Internet service providers to collect and retain traffic data revealing who communicates with whom by email, phone, and SMS, including the duration of the communication and the locations of the users. This data is often made available to law enforcement. Europeans have widely criticized the DRD, and year after year, it has inspired some of the largest-ever street protests against excessive surveillance.

The European Commission has begun mounting a defense for this highly controversial mass-surveillance scheme, though they have thus far been unable to show that the DRD is necessary or proportionate. For the DRD to be legal in the EU, any limitation to the right to privacy must be “necessary” to achieve an objective of general interest and “proportionate” to the desired aim. This requirement is important to ensure that the government does not adopt severe measures to address a problem that could be otherwise solved in a way that is less harmful to civil liberties.  But the Commission has been arguing that all uses of retained data illustrate that the Directive is “valuable.” This doesn’t meet the legal standard. Instead, the Commission should provide evidence that in the absence of a mandatory data retention law, traffic data crucial to the investigation of “serious crime” would not have been available to law enforcement.

Despite the European Commission’s efforts to preserve the Directive as-is, a leaked letter confirms that the Commission has been scrambling to conjure evidence for the “need” of a DRD scheme in the European Union. It also underscores the fact that there is no system of oversight that would allow citizens to monitor the impact of the proposed program on their privacy rights. Perhaps the most disquieting detail that has been confirmed by the letter is that service providers have already been storing instant messages, chats, uploads, and downloads. This type of data collection falls outside the scope of the DRD. Moreover, the letter indicates that “unnamed” players seek to broaden the uses of the DRD to include prosecution of copyright infringement including “illegally downloading.” Since this is not a serious crime, this legally falls outside the scope of the DRD.

In response to this leak, EDRI stated, “The leaked document however shows that the Commission can neither prove necessity nor proportionality of the Data Retention Directive - but still wants to keep the Directive.” The leaked letter also disclosed that the EU Commission is evaluating the possibility of amending the Directive. The Commission has commissioned a study into data preservation in the EU and around the world. According to the letter, this exercise is to be completed by May 2012.

Ending Data Retention: Constitutional Challenges

Constitutional courts have begun weighing in on the legality of this mass-surveillance scheme. In a decision celebrated by privacy advocates, the Czech Constitutional Court declared in March 2011 that the Czech data retention law was unconstitutional. Earlier this month, the same Court dealt another blow to data retention by annulling part of the Criminal Procedure Code, which would have enabled law enforcement access to data stored voluntarily by operators. Most importantly, the Czech Court used compelling language in articulating the importance of the protection of traffic data. The Court stated that the collection of traffic data and communication data warranted identical legal safeguards since both have the same “intensity of interference”.

We couldn't agree more. Sensitive data of this nature demands stronger protection, not an all-access pass. Individuals should not have to worry whether one sort of private information has less protection than another.

Jan Vobořil of Iuridicum Remedium, which led the legal complaint against the Czech data retention law, told EFF:

I believe that both decisions will help ensure that new legislation enforces the same restrictions as exist for use of wiretap. These include strong privacy safeguards for government access to citizen's data, the obligation to inform individuals about the use of their data, and so on.

Several other courts in EU member states have also ruled on the illegality of data retention laws. Earlier in 2009, the Romanian constitutional Court rejected the imposition of an ongoing, sweeping traffic data retention program. The Court rightly emphasized that mandatory data retention overturns the presumption of innocence in a way that treats all Romanians like potential suspects. Despite this court decision, a new draft data retention bill was introduced in the Parliament, but the Senate finally rejected it at the end of 2011.

In March 2010, the German Court declared unconstitutional the German mandatory data retention law. The Court ordered the deletion of the collected data and affirmed that data retention could “cause a diffusely threatening feeling of being under observation that can diminish an unprejudiced perception of one's basic rights in many areas.” The lawsuit was brought on by 34,000 citizens through the initiative of AK Vorrat, the German working group against data retention.

Over in Ireland, the Court is referring to the European Court of Justice the case challenging the legality of the DRD, thanks to the complaint brought by Digital Rights Ireland. The Irish Court acknowledged the importance of defining “the legitimate legal limits of surveillance techniques used by governments”, and rightly emphasized that “without sufficient legal safeguards the potential for abuse and unwarranted invasion of privacy is obvious”. The Courts in Cyprus and Bulgaria have also declared their mandatory data retention laws unconstitutional.

The DRD compels EU member countries to implement the Directive into national law. Fortunately, many member states have not yet done so. The Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Romania, and Sweden have not adopted this piece of legislation, despite pressure from the European Commission to do so. In Austria, the data protection law will take effect in April 2012.  AK Vorrat Austria plans to use all legal means to challenge the legality of the DRD. They have also handed over a petition to the Austrian Parliament asking the government to fight against the DRD at the EU level and to review all existing anti-terror legislation. (If you are Austrian, sign the petition today at zeichnemit.at.) In Slovakia, the NGO European Information Society Institute is opposing the Slovakian data retention implementation law.

Meanwhile, civil society groups are resisting and campaigning against this oppressive data retention law. EDRI, along with EFF and AK Vorrat, has fought to repeal the DRD in favor of targeted collection of traffic data. EDRI has previously reported that Deutsche Telekom, a German telco, illegally used telecommunications traffic and location data to spy on roughly 60 individuals including journalists, managers, and union leaders. They also reported that two major intelligence agencies in Poland used retained traffic and subscriber data to illegally disclose journalistic sources without any judicial oversight. These are only a few examples in which data retention policies have directly threatened individuals’ expression and privacy rights.

The DRD is a threat to Internet privacy and anonymity, and has been proven to violate the privacy rights of 500 million Europeans. EFF, together with EDRI, will keep fighting to repeal the DRD in favor of targeted collection of traffic data.

Mandatory Data Retention in the United States

Two bills introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2009 would have required all Internet providers and operators of WiFi access points to keep records on Internet users for at least two years to assist police investigations. Neither bill became law. Some legislators and law enforcement officials continue to argue, however, that mandatory data retention is necessary to investigate online child pornography and other Internet crimes. In January 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing that discussed whether Congress should pass legislation that would force ISPs and telecom providers to log Internet user traffic data. In May 2011, H.R. 1981, which would require retention of such traffic data, was introduced in the House of Representatives. This bill is still alive and continues to be a threat to the privacy and anonymity of all Americans. EFF has joined civil liberties and consumer organizations in publicly opposing H.R. 1981. Please join EFF, and help us defeat this bill before it is made law. Contact your Representative now.

Katitza Rodriguez is International Rights Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. @txitua

Written by Katitza Rodriguez · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

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.

Written by Ivan Sigal · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Most Chinese-language blogs and microblog messages emphasize  the disastrous outcomes that the bill could bring. What people worry about most are bill's endorsement of surveillance by web services and Internet companies to prevent “infringing” content, and the implications for individual privacy. A post written by blogger Richard (pseudonym) on the Taiwan-based website inside.com.tw introduces key concepts of SOPA and asks readers to imagine what it will be like to live under the bill. This post has been widely circulated around websites  Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China:

“試想著有一天你在台灣，過著像這樣的生活：各網站必須被迫和政府合作接受審查，你平日每天要上的網站隨時可能會被封鎖，你寄出的每封信也都會受到審查，再也沒有私人隱私。大陸的狀況？唉，一聲長嘆啊！”

“Try to imagine that, one day, you’re in Taiwan and live a life like this: every website is forced to cooperate with the government and subject to be censored. The websites that you visit everyday can be blocked anytime. Every mail you send will also be censored. There is no more privacy. As for what will happen in China [under the same scenario]? Sigh…a long long sigh…”

The Taiwanese media company Next media Animation has even made an animated clip about SOPA, in which black-suited Hollywood businessman battle Internet company guys who are backed up by net users. SOPA is personified with cops using pepper spray against people who might use pirated works.

The comments from China weibo users are even more bitter, and scorning –both at the United States and Chinese government.

“s7evenz:看來咱們終於可以向老美輸出技術和價值觀了，咱們是強大的，先進的，無比正確的！”

“s7evenz: It looks like that we can finally export our technology and value to the Americans. We’re strong, advanced, and absolutely right!”

“SemKem:期待美國佬享受與天朝子民同等待遇”

“SemKem: I expect to see that the Americans enjoy the same treatment as what the subjects of the Holy Empire have.” [”Holy Empire” is a sarcastic term used by Chinese netizens for the Chinese government.]

Aside from those sarcastic comments, Chinese blogger Michael Anti sees the introduction of SOPA into legislation as a conflict between opposing interests among rival groups.

“簡單地說，SOPA是傳統媒體和消費品行業延長黃金歲月的保護傘，卻是互聯網行業和用戶權利的扼殺者，前者只是懷念舊時光，而後者卻要誓死消滅這個法案，因此反對者必然會全力廝殺到最後。隨著今後法案在眾院委員會的審查，對它的阻擊還會越來越強烈。”

“To put it simply, traditional media and consumer products companies use SOPA as a shield to prolong their golden days. However, the same bill will kill Internet industry and users. The former is only being nostalgic, but the latter has sworn to kill the bill. Therefore, the groups who oppose the bill will definitely fight to the last minute. The blow on the bill will be getting fiercer as it is scrutinized in the House committee.”

Anti also predicts that there is slim possibility for the bill to become law. However, “the introduction of the bill does also stage a grand legislation war,” Anti concludes.

Written by Weiping Li · comments (17)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Under the proposed law, PL 84/99, sponsored by Representative Eduardo Azeredo, courts could apply criminal penalties to activities like file sharing, peer-to-peer communications, and the fair use of copyrighted works. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and sites like YouTube and Flickr could become liable for unlawful content posted by their users. And ISPs, email service providers, and other Internet intermediaries would be obligated to collect and retain users’ personal data for extended periods of time. Scholars, civil society leaders, and advocates for digital rights have spoken out against the bill, arguing that the law would interfere with citizens’ rights to free expression and privacy and restrict the openness of the Brazilian Internet.

International Free Software Forum 2011, Porto Alegre. By Anon DePlume. CC BY-SA.

Researchers at the Centro do Tecnología e Sociedade [pt] (Center for Technology and Society) of the Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil’s premier social science research institution, have circulated ample analysis calling attention to problems in the bill. Mega Não [pt], a collective of digital rights activists and scholars who advocate for Internet openness and strong online privacy laws, worked with stakeholders to compose a 2008 petition [pt] illustrating the bill’s problems and urging legislators to vote against it. The petition emphasized the importance of balancing the nation’s security interests with fundamental rights and the broader trajectory of Brazil’s information society:

Não defendemos o plágio, a cópia indevida ou o roubo de obras. Defendemos…liberdade de troca, o crescimento da criatividade e a expansão do conhecimento no Brasil. […] [Esse projeto] Projetos como esses…colocam o país definitivamente para debaixo do tapete da história da sociedade da informação no século XXI.

The petition received over 160,000 signatures and prompted legislators to hold a series of public hearings on the bill before allowing it to move forward in the legislative process. Speaking at the International Free Software Forum conference in Porto Alegre in 2009, former President Lula Ignacio da Silva said of the bill [pt],

Essa lei não visa corrigir abusos na internet. Ela quer é fazer censura. Precisamos é de um código civil para determinar as responsabilidades na internet, mas não proibir.

US-based advocates for Internet openness and privacy including the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have also raised concerns about the bill.

The proposed law would undercut many of the positive developments in Brazilian Internet policy that have taken place in recent years. Under Lula, Minister of Culture and singer-songwriter Gilberto Gil worked to increase Internet access and supported expansion of digitally-based educational and cultural programs for Brazilians. The International Free Software Forum, Creative Commons, the Peer-to-Peer Foundation, and other leading innovators partnered with the Ministry of Culture and held events in Brazil, making the country a global hub for Internet openness.

In tandem with these developments, lawmakers drafted a digital “bill of rights” or civil regulatory framework, known as the Marco Civil da Internet. The full text of the bill of law is available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Developed through numerous consultations (both online and offline) between lawmakers, scholars, and digital rights advocates, the Marco Civil da Internet represents a balance of the right to freedom of expression with the interests of privacy and security. The bill establishes a clear set of rights and responsibilities for users, sets strong net neutrality principles, and shields intermediaries from criminal liability for user-generated content. Congress has yet to vote on the legislation; the Azeredo Law currently sits higher on the Congressional agenda than the Marco Civil, but should members of Congress call for further deliberation concerning the PL 84/99, this could change.

Under the new administration of President Dilma Rouseff, who took office in January of 2011, Minister of Culture Ana de Hollanda has signaled that she will likely diverge from Gil’s policy agenda. She startled the digital rights community by removing the Creative Commons license from the Ministry’s website during her first days in office.

As part of its partnership with the Centro da Tecnologia y Sociedade (CTS), CDT has issued comments on PL 84/99, analyzing its provisions under international and regional human rights law and comparing PL 84/99 with the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, which Representative Azeredo has referred to as the “inspiration” for the bill. The key points of the CDT memorandum are as follows:

• PL 84/99 would criminalize the violation of an “express access restriction” to a computer, network, or online service. The language used in the bill is so broad that it could criminalize violations of the “terms of service” of websites or other online services.

• PL 84/99 would criminalize obtaining or transferring data from a system or network protected by an “express access restriction.” This could criminalize activities such as file sharing and transferring data from one device or system to another.

• PL 84/99 could generate legal consequences for intermediaries—ISPs, hosts, or platforms for user-generated content—that facilitate, unknowingly and unintentionally, the “unauthorized” transfer of data or the dissemination of malicious code.

• PL 84/99 would obligate intermediaries to retain user data for law enforcement purposes, a measure that would also interfere with the citizen’s right to privacy.

Over the past decade, Brazil has pioneered a digital policymaking approach that countries all over the world have looked to as a model for promoting innovation and openness online. CTS and CDT urge digital rights advocates in Brazil and throughout the Americas to oppose PL 84/99, and to support the efforts of Brazilian legislators and civil society leaders working to maintain Brazil’s vibrant information society.

Written by Ellery Biddle · comments (6)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The US Department of Justice is so determined to prosecute WikiLeaks and its leading supporters.

“After exerting pressure on Paypal, Visa, MasterCard and Amazon, the US government is now stepping up its harassment of WikiLeaks and its supporters,” Reporters Without Borders said.

“The federal government is trying at all costs to pursue a criminal investigation. This constitutes a serious breach of personal data protection by the Obama administration, which has repeatedly proclaimed its support for online free expression.”

A district court in Alexandria, Virginia, sent Twitter a subpoena signed by federal magistrate Theresa Buchanan on December 14^th asking for “relevant” information about users suspected of links with WikiLeaks for an “ongoing criminal investigation.”

The subpoena requests information dating back to November 2009 about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, (the US army private who is being held on suspicion of leaking the US diplomatic cables to Assange); Rop Gonggrijp, (a Dutch citizen who used to work with WikiLeaks); Jacob Appelbaum, (a US computer programmer); and Birgitta Jonsdottir, (a member of the Icelandic parliament and former WikiLeaks volunteer).

Reporters Without Borders, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union are calling now on the US government to abandon its attempt to obtain this personal data and to close this investigation for the sake of fundamental constitutional principles.

Mark Stephens, one of Assange’s lawyers, said the subpoena shows how desperate US officials are to pin a crime on Assange.

The range of information requested in the subpoena from Twitter by the Department of Justice is extraordinary! It includes all the records of Tweets and conversations between users, IP addresses, email addresses and postal addresses, and all “means and source of payment” including bank account and credit card details. Access to exchanges between users and the possibility of accounts being jointly managed mean investigators will have the chance to identify new “suspects.”

Judge Theresa Buchanan declared that the ruling did not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. “The Twitter Order does not seek to control or direct the content of petitioners’ speech or association,” she said.

However, Reporters Without Borders hails Twitter’s decision to notify the users who are the target of the investigation.

The authorities initially ordered Twitter to say nothing about the court order but after what appears to have been a legal battle, the microblogging service obtained the court’s permission on 5 January to notify the targeted users.

In an email to the users who are being investigated, Twitter said it would have to surrender the requested records within 10 days unless it received notice that a legal motion had been filed to block the court order.

WikiLeaks thinks similar subpoenas may have been sent to Facebook and Google, which have not yet issued any statement.

We need to note in this context that at the time of writing this post the WikiLeaks Facebook page has more than 1.7 million “fans” while its Twitter account has more than 868,206 followers and growing. 

Written by Kacem Jlidi · comments (9)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

In this case, Global Voices Executive Director Ivan Sigal wrote to the NSF to ask about the block.  This was the response he received:

The URL was submitted to the Blue Coat Review Commission for recategorization to remove the “Proxy Avoidance” category which is blocked and leave the “Political/Activist” category only which is currently not blocked. However, the Commission has denied the request indicating that the website has verbiage indicating how to avoid proxy filtering, which clearly violates our security policy and therefore will remain blocked.

Finally, due to security concerns, NSF does not release any information regarding its infrastructure, appliances, systems, or policies or those of other Federal Government agencies to external sources unless specifically mandated by the Office of Inspector General and/or the Chief Information Officer or their authorized representatives.

In other words, the NSF uses Blue Coat, commercial filtering software, to block proxies and circumvention tools, as well as sites which refer or link to proxy or circumvention tools (which this site does).

As Global Voices co-founder Ethan Zuckerman points out in a blog post, this is rather ironic, given that the United States government (in particular, the Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor) directly funds circumvention technology.  Zuckerman adds:

I’m pretty surprised to learn that the scientists at NSF are working in a filtered internet environment, and that the filtering is so aggressive that discussion of internet filtering and circumvention can’t be discussed. One wonders whether the State Department might consider offering some trainings for the National Science Foundation so that employees there can learn side by side with Chinese dissidents how to overcome filtering and learn about State Department sponsored research on internet filtering. Maybe we can sneak into the building with Tor on USB keys and clandestinely smuggle them to oppressed US scientists.

We at Global Voices would like to learn what other US government offices have implemented pervasive filtering, and what software is being used.  We know that the offices of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty use Websense to block websites, but what else can you tell us?  Please leave a comment, and if you have a screenshot, send us a link to it.

Written by Jillian York · comments (12)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Blogger Richard Silverstein. Image via HuffingtonPost

“I am reluctantly forced to revisit the statements your client, Richard Silverstein, has made about me on his blog. When he first attacked me personally and stated that I was a fascist, racist, and Kahanist, I ignored them, even as others of his ilk provided these baseless statements “legs” allowing countless more “eyes” the opportunity to read what your client understood and represented to be carefully calculated factual statements about me.  These statements are demonstrably false and your client made them knowing they were false or acting recklessly in this regard.  This recklessness I believe was established in his deposition testimony in the Neuwirth case.”

Yerushalmi is a Washington DC based lawyer. In 2010, ThinkProgress reported on his questionable views on Islam and Islamic law. Yerushalmi claimed in an article for American Thinker that,

“Islam was born in violence; it will die that way. Any wish to the contrary is sheer Pollyannaism. The same way the post World War II German youth were taught by their German teachers and political leaders to despise the fascism of their fathers, with strict laws extant still today restricting even speech that casts doubt on the Holocaust, so too must the Muslim youth be taught from the cradle to reject the religion of their forebears.

Richard Silverstein, a moderate voice on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is target of strong criticism from many in the blogosphere. Jewlicious accuses him of

“..veritable personification of moral decrepitude?”

Israellycool went a step ahead and called him a pro-terror, anti-Israel blogger.

Committee to Protect Bloggers has a detailed post on legal troubles pushed on Silverstein's way and has also urged people to support Silverstein's work and his right to express his views.

Written by Bhumika Ghimire · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

“The complaint against the company comes from a well-known Chinese commentator - Michael Anti - who has accused it of insulting him by closing his account. He hasn't been reported for bullying or similar, it's because he uses a pseudonym for a page he hosts.

The reason Facebook chose to close his account - it requires people to use their real names.

Born Zhao Jing, Anti has used the latter for over ten years and it's not uncommon for Chinese people to use English alternatives. Chinese people often pick English names and use them for communicating with foreigners.”

Michael Anti. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

It is interesting to note here that recently Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's dog got a page at the popular social networking site for himself. Raises obvious question, a dissidents work which  heavily depends on networking an exchanging information through Facebook is less important that celebrating a dog?

True, the dog has a page and nor a profile so the real name rules don't apply, but still it shows Facebook's value system. Michael Anti did not come up with that name yesterday to hide from the Chinese authorities or that he is abusing his new name to impersonate someone. He has been using that name for over a decade now and even has a Harvard certificate to prove, where he completed fellowship. It is also important to note that he set up his profile in 2007. So for four years, Facebook was fine with the name Michael Anti, and now all of a sudden they find it unacceptable?

At Twitter, the reaction was swift and mostly against the Facebook policy. Rebecca MacKinnon, noted free speech advocate and one of the founders of Global Voices Online  commented,

“Zuckerberg's dog is on Facebook but for Chinese blogger Michael Anti it's not so easy.”

Facebook has survived many scandals but this one is particularly concerning given the fact that now many activists and groups are using the site to organize and coordinate. Will there be mass exodus of activists from Facebook?

Written by Bhumika Ghimire · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper