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

—

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

Yesterday was a defining moment for the global Internet community. The effects of the massive online blackout in protest of U.S. Internet blacklist legislation, SOPA and PIPA (H.R. 3261 and S. 968), were felt around the world as countless numbers of websites, including Google, Wikipedia, Mozilla, Reddit, BoingBoing, Flickr, Wired, and many others joined in the global action against over-broad and poorly drafted copyright laws that would break the fundamental architecture of the Internet. To quote [pdf] last year’s landmark Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion: “…Censorship measures should never be delegated to a private entity, and [..] no one should be held liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author…” The massive opposition from both companies and individuals around the world demonstrates how much these and similar laws would hurt business and innovation, and most importantly, restrict online free expression.

But SOPA and PIPA are really only the tip of the iceberg. The same forces behind these domestic U.S. laws have continued to both push for other states to pass similar domestic laws, as well as to secretly negotiate international trade agreements that would force signatory nations to conform to the same legal standards. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Ley Doring (Mexico), Ley Sinde (Spain), Ley Hadopi (France) are only a few examples. Members of the copyright industry lobby such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI) are funneling huge amounts of resources into getting states to pass inherently flawed copyright enforcement laws. What results are laws that encroach on national sovereignty, overstep traditional principles of jurisdiction, harm innovation, and ultimately violate users’ rights.

Digital civil liberties activists and organizations internationally found the day of online action to be a golden opportunity to educate their constituents on the effects such laws would have on websites in their countries and the future of the free and open Internet. Recognizing the common thread of overbroad enforcement and technical defects that runs through these bills, the following organizations have taken a stance against the efforts of special interests to censor citizens and kill innovation in the name of preserving the entertainment industry’s business model.

U.S. spreads overbroad IP enforcement measures through secretive international agreements and threats towards trade sanctions

In recent years major copyright industry lobbyists have sought stronger power to enforce their copyrights across the world to preserve their business models. These efforts have been underway in a number of international fora including the G8 summit, transnational trade agreements such as ACTA and TPP, and the Annual Special 301 Process–a report with tiered “watch lists” of countries with supposedly deficient intellectual property laws and enforcement policies. As U.S. Public Interest Groups and EU Scholars have noted, SOPA includes a provision designed to further entrench U.S. IP rightsholders’ influence on other countries’ laws and policies. While the passage of SOPA and PIPA could certainly have longstanding consequences for societies and economies around the world, we hope the enormous attention shed on these two Internet blacklist bills raises international awareness of the impact of these copyright enforcement proposals sought by U.S. IP rightsholders worldwide.

La Quadrature Du Net, a French-based advocacy organization, stated:

This site has gone dark today in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT-IP Act (PIPA) discussed in the US Congress, as well as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), currently debated in the European Parliament. These initiatives amount to a global attempt to censor the Internet in the name of copyright.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), a Canadian-based advocacy group stated:

[SOPA and PIPA] is yet one more example of the harms that can result for an overly aggressive, no holds barred, U.S.-driven IP agenda. It imposes more restrictive standards on foreign intermediaries than the U.S. requires of its own Internet companies through its DMCA notice-takedown regime.

The Chilean digital rights advocacy group, Derechos Digitales, also framed their position against SOPA in light of the overreaching international copyright enforcement regimes:

So while many of us speak out against the U.S. bill, the governments of Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia and the United States are moving quickly on a new international agreement that reproduces one of the greatest threats of SOPA: censorship of Internet sites for possible infringements of copyright, giving police powers to Internet service providers. (Read here and here in Spanish)

Markus Beckedahl, Chairman of Digitale Gesellschaft, a German User Rights Group, explained to the German public:

If only half of the proposed legislation comes into force, this is going to have a huge negative impact on the internet. ACTA, PIPA and SOPA are of similar kind: Music and film industries try to destroy the net slice for slice – the so called salami tactics.

Read more here, here, here, and here (in German)

SOPA and PIPA would disrupt national sovereignty and harm local economies

In countries where policymakers are currently debating the need for website blocking proposals, the adoption of SOPA or PIPA will create pressure to mirror U.S. law regardless of any empirical evidence of its effectiveness or appropriateness. What is most disconcerting for individuals and enterprises outside the U.S. is the way in which SOPA and PIPA could effectively override their countries' national laws and impose more restrictive standards on foreign Internet intermediaries than it does on U.S. Internet companies.

50 human rights organizations from around the world signed a letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in opposition to PIPA, highlighting its serious jurisdictional and freedom of expression concerns:

…Creating a mechanism that requires a representative of a website to make a court appearance in the U.S. in order to defend themselves against an allegation of infringement would disproportionately impact smaller online communities and start-ups based abroad that do not have the capacity to address concerns in the United States.

Open Rights Group based in the United Kingdom also emphasized the due process implications of these overbroad U.S. Internet blacklist bills:

There are two reasons that Open Rights Group are supporting a protest aimed at US laws. First, the overly broad definitions and wording of the bills put any websites at risk of action from US authorities. Second, we face many of the issues with these copyright-related bills here in the UK: inappropriate enforcement measures, in particular website blocking; overly-broad or vague definitions and wording; and weaknesses in due process and redress.

Michael Geist, a leading Canadian legal scholar on digital civil liberties and copyright, drew attention to the impact SOPA would have in Canada and its parallels with ACTA and TPP:

While SOPA is proposed U.S. legislation, it has implications for all Canadians, including provisions that treat all Canadian IP addresses as if they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Moreover, Canada faces the same relentless copyright lobbying campaign. From the much-criticized digital lock rules found in Bill C-11 to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to the proposal to extend the term of copyright protection in the Trans Pacific Partnership, Canadian copyright policy is increasingly shaped by the same groups promoting SOPA.

Global Voices Online, an international community of bloggers around the world, told their readers:

[PIPA/SOPA] would raise the cost of participation on [social media and other user generated sites] for all users worldwide, and could force many social media projects to shut down, especially smaller websites and businesses.

OpenMedia.ca, a Canadian-based advocacy group, warned:

As Canadian Internet users and online innovators, we have a lot to lose if SOPA is passed. SOPA could fundamentally reshape the Internet in the U.S., Canada, and the rest of the world. … Tell Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gary Doer (Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S.) that Canadians are against SOPA.

Threatens human rights and access to information worldwide

Most of the criticism regarding SOPA and PIPA has focused on the way the bills would institute massive online censorship and fundamentally break the Internet in the name of intellectual property enforcement. These bills would encompass any foreign site accessible from the U.S. and give corporations and other private parties new powers to censor websites from around the world with court orders that would cut off domain names, payment processors, and advertisers.

Internet Governance Caucus, an international coalition of civil society organizations and individuals around the world participating at the UN Internet Governance Forum reaffirmed the free speech implications of Internet blacklist legislation:

We have made a decision to join the black out in protest of the arbitrary censorship of the Internet which violates people’s rights to responsibly use the Internet. We note with increasing concern the the various censorship mechanisms around the world including but not limited to India’s Intermediary Guideline Rules (IGR) nor the United States of America’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)and Protect IP Act (PIPA). Any country’s censorship mechanisms affect ordinary Internet users all over the world.

Amnesty International, a globally recognized organization fighting injustice and promoting human rights, noted that “[PIPA and SOPA] would create a powerful and unprecedented market incentive to censor user generated content. And their passage would signal very clearly to countries around the world that it is OK to sacrifice some rights in the name of some other good.”

Greenpeace, a global environmental organization sharply denounced the laws:

If SOPA/PIPA become law, sites like Greenpeace.org could go dark simply because one of our corporate targets files a claim that its intellectual property rights have been violated. No proof required, no court hearing.

Article 19, an international freedom of expression organization, stated:

[PIPA/SOPA] will stifle free speech, innovation and undermine Internet security, all for the sake of Hollywood studios.

Wednesday’s blackout day signifies a new era for the global digital civil liberties movement. Through blogs, tweets, and posts, thousands of organizations, activists, and individuals truly made it the success that it was. This has only been a sample of the great advocacy work that took place yesterday. Here are some other organizations, groups, activists and even political parties who participated on this very important day for the future of the Internet:

• Association for Progressive Communications (International)
• Asociacion de Internautas (Spain) reported that over a hundred Spanish pages–including their own–went dark in solidarity with their American counterparts.
• BytesforAll (Pakistan)
• Center for Technology and Society, Fundacao Getulio Vargas (Brazil) here, here and here.
• European Digital Rights (28 privacy and civil rights organizations members based in Europe)
• Fundacion Via Libre (Argentina)
• Global Voices Advocacy (International)
• GreenPeace (Chile)
• GreenLeft (Netherlands) - green political party
• Green Party (Germany) - green political party
• Internet Society India Chennai
• Nupef (Brazil)
• Pirate Parties of UK, Spain, Argentina, Sweden, Canada, and more
• Revista do Terceiro Setor (RETS), Brazil
• Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Written by Katitza Rodriguez · comments (9)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

'Child's Play' shared by John Flanagan on Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house, hackers looked at each other and said : “w00t! Only two days to go until 28c3″.

The Chaos Communications Congress is the annual meetup of Germany's Chaos Computer Club, one of the oldest hacker collectives in the world. It takes place in Berlin every year at the height of the holiday season between Christmas and New Year's Eve, a time when only the dedicated European computer obsessive would leave their family and friends to spend four days in a conference centre with like-minded hackers and geeks.

The programme mixes technical talks from the security and free software worlds with talks about online rights and hacktivism, and is well known for breaking new issues that go on to be important in the wider world. Alongside the talks are space for Europe's computer clubs and hackspaces to demonstrate their current projects, as well as break out spaces for workshopping new tools and projects, and labs offering introductions to things like Arduino-based electronics, 3D printing and even lock-picking.

This year was the 28th Chaos Communications Congress (28c3 for short) and my third time going. Here are my highlights.

Roger Dingledine and Jacob Applebaum on TOR

For me, this talk illustrates the central role the hacker community is now playing in world events. The conference opened with a set piece from Evgeny Morozov on the perils of networked, digital surveillance, but it was this talk on Day 2 about the experiences of the TOR community with national network control infrastructures that felt like it united people at 28c3 against surveillance as a concept and a technology, in free societies as well as oppressed ones. The tub-thumping and the casual allusions to the technical vulnerabilities of state censorship technologies were tempered by the pair's obvious expertise and considered ethical attitude. Gold.

Defending mobile phones

Two years ago, at 26c3, Karsten Nohl announced that the GSM encryption protocol had been cracked. This year, he detailed how network operators should be securing their networks while they upgrade the encryption, and asked the community to help him keep track of how the operators perform. He also previewed a new project, CatcherCatcher, which will track the activity of IMSI catchers on behalf of phone users. IMSI catchers are thought to be increasingly used by law enforcement agencies to track people via their mobile phones.

The coming war on general computation

An expertly delivered talk in which Cory Doctorow reminded congress that “information appliances” (like iPads, Kindles and all the rest) are simply fully functional computers with spyware in them out-of-the-box: “All attempts at controlling PCs converge on rootkits and all attempts at controlling the network converge on surveillance”.

Sovereign keys

The EFF's Peter Eckersley proposes a way to fix the broken Certificate Authority system.

Towards a Single Secure European Cyberspace?

A beautifully constructed lecture by Suso Baleato cross-referencing the rhetoric used by European legislators to erode internet freedoms with the character of the new, networked activism which I ruin at the end by asking a stupid question no-one understands.

The hallway track

Random cool stuff I found out about from talking to people in and around the conference: the Open Source Next Generation Multicopter; the Hackerbus and Code Hero.

Written by Becky Hogge · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Spanish Minister of Culture Ángeles González Sinde

Many of the challenges and threats that Egyptians, Tunisians or Libyans are facing are global and affect civil societies as a whole. Among these is the threat against the Internet as we know it and which is often taken for granted in Western countries like the US, France or Spain. The law known as the “Sinde Law” (Sinde is the Spanish Minister of Culture´s last name), which would allow for the blocking of websites and which has just been approved by the Spanish Senate is an example of a tendency to control the Internet that leaves citizens defenseless in front of states and big companies interests.

The passing of the 2009 Sustainable Economy Bill, which will most likely become effective by the summer, is a big blow against net neutrality. The newly-created Spanish Intellectual Property Commission, which depends on the Ministry of Culture, will be in charge of deciding which sites should be blocked or have their contents removed after receiving complaints on the basis of public order, national defense, protection of minors and “safeguarding IP rights”. It would also require ISPs to identify and disclose persons responsible for IP infringements.

Reducing “online piracy” is the main goal of the Commission, which will be in charge of deciding what content is considered infringing and ask the person responsible for the site to remove them, after getting authorization from a judge. This last part was included in the law after huge controversy about the initial draft, which did not even mention the need for judges´ authorization. Among the law´s targets are sites like the very popular Seriesyonkis, which link to third-party sites hosting videos, something that has in several occasions been declared legal by the judges. Taken to the extreme, this logic could lead to the absurd scenario of Google being banned, as the world´s largest link provider.

According to renowned lawyer Javier de la Cueva, this goes far beyond users not being able to download or watch their favorite shows online for free:

It threatens our basic right to free expression. The Internet has allowed citizens to create their own spaces and communicate in a more decentralized way that is more difficult for governments to control than traditional communication channels. Under the justification that intellectual property needs to be defended, they defend the industry, and by putting the industry above the right of users to communicate through services of different kinds, the “Sinde law” provides governments with another way to control and censor communication.

Since the judges have already decided that linking to third sites hosting videos is not illegal, what is the point in getting authorization from the judges to punish users? Why this insistence on punishing Internet users, defying judicial power?

Pressure from the US is apparently one of the reasons for enacting such regulations. Last December Wikileaks cables revealed how the US Government was trying to impose on Spain new measures “to fight piracy” in the line of French Hadopi law. Measures such as these had not even been considered within the US. According to 2008 cables:

We propose to tell the new government that Spain will appear on the Watch List if it does not do three things by October 2008. First, issue a [Government of Spain] announcement stating that internet piracy is illegal, and that the copyright levy system does not compensate creators for copyrighted material acquired through peer-to-peer file sharing. Second, amend the 2006 “circular” that is widely interpreted in Spain as saying that peer-to-peer file sharing is legal. Third, announce that the GoS will adopt measures along the lines of the French and/or UK proposals aimed at curbing Internet piracy by the summer of 2009. (US embassy in Madrid)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation refers to “US Bullying Spain into Proposed Website Blocking Law”, but while US attempts to get their allies to mirror their policies are undeniable, Spain´s lack of resistance to this pressure speaks poorly of our political representatives. With or without pressure, there is little questioning of their interest in protecting Spanish record and movie industries, which face a crisis after years of dependence on State subsidies and traditional models where intermediaries get most of the benefit from consumers´ pockets. While Spanish political representatives talk about the need to protect artists and culture, what most Internet users perceive is the reluctance to let go of an industry, of a business model that does not reflect the way culture is shared and consumed in the 21st century.

It is not the first time Spain follows US instructions, defying its own judicial system. It has also tried to stop judges from investigating the death of José Couso, the cameraman killed by US soldiers in Iraq; the same Iraq war that the now ruling party, PSOE, fiercely opposed while they were in the opposition. But pacifist discourse when trying to win an election faces realpolitik alliances and interests when in power. Wikileaks has also revealed the unbridgeable gap between governments and civil societies, between official discourse and real practices and alliances, something that the uprisings in the MENA region have helped make visible: A global phenomenon that is far from excluding Western societies.

Spanish Internet users have fiercely opposed “Sinde Law”, but are we fully aware of what is at stake? In a scenario where state police will be imposed on Spanish citizens online, what is at stake is users’ privacy, freedom of expression, and the division between executive and judicial powers that constitutes one of the foundations of democracies. An online campaign called “No les votes” (don´t vote for them) tries to mobilize citizens against all political parties that have supported the law, which include PSOE, PP and CIU (Catalan nationalist party).

Will “Sinde Law” manage what other threats have not? If it becomes the catalyst in Spain of a much needed questioning of a system that threatens our basic freedoms, it will be worth it.

Written by Leila Nachawati · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

“Effective data protection is vital for our democracies and underpins other fundamental rights and freedoms.” - Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship.

Last Friday, privacy advocates and government officials in countries across the world celebrated the 5th annual International Privacy Day — even as individual privacy is threatened by surveillance proposals and security breaches worldwide. This day commemorates the first legally binding international agreement on data protection – the Council of Europe’s Convention 108- which was opened for signature on January 28th, 1981. Last week’s celebration marked the 30th anniversary of Convention 108, which has served as a foundation for many countries’ national data protection laws. It is an opportunity to raise public awareness about privacy threats and to urge governments to protect citizen's privacy rights.

In Europe, the celebration highlighted citizens' rights with respect to collection and processing of their personal data. Several events organized by governmental and privacy advocates drew attention to the value of privacy in our societies. The European Court of Human Rights joined the celebration by compiling some of its key judgments protecting citizens’ privacy rights. The European Data Protection Supervisor, an independent authority tasked with ensuring that EU authorities and bodies comply with EU rules on data protection and privacy, celebrated the occasion by calling attention to the need for governments to set the right balance between security and the protection of fundamental rights. It emphasized that “authorities should only collect information for specific purposes,” and criticized attempts to create enormous databases of personal information “just in case” of a crime, promoting instead the concept of targeted data collection. This comes even as the European Commission is revising their Mandatory Data Retention Directive, a framework that allows blanket surveillance of traffic data on private citizens’ online activities.

In the U.S., the Senate expressed support for the designation of January 28, 2011 as U.S. National Data Privacy Day for the third year in a row. It is a welcome gesture, if no somewhat ironic, given that the U.S. Congress is discussing legislation that undercuts the fundamental principles of individual privacy they purport to celebrate. (If you need a refresher, see CALEA II, USA PATRIOT Act renewal, data retention mandates and the much-discussed cybersecurity bill).

Celebrations were also held in Canada, Mexico, UK, Nepal, among others. In Nepal, Privacy Nepal urged the Nepalese government to pass the Data Protection Act to safeguard the privacy of Nepalese citizens. They further raised their concerns about the national ID card, and the dangers posed to citizens’ privacy rights.

Much of International Privacy Day rightly focuses on the advances established by critical moments in history, but it is clear that all governments around the world must move quickly and more aggressively to truly improve privacy as we move into the future. Despite the high degree of theoretical protection for privacy and private communications in international law and national Constitutions, in recent times we have seen an increase of legal exceptions, lack of enforcement of privacy laws while the threats to citizens’ privacy multiply.

For example, increasingly ubiquitous online surveillance technologies undermine the legal protections for privacy. While there has been a significant expansion in the volume of personal data that is being collected and stored by third party providers, mechanisms to ensure that law enforcement agencies are only granted access to that data in appropriate circumstances have not kept pace. Mandatory data retention regimes to force ISPs and telecom providers to log information about users’ online activities and communications are an overwhelmingly invasive and costly mandate with serious privacy and free expression implications. And hard lessons about the cost of the failure to protect privacy are already being learned, as we've seen in Iran and Tunisia. Political activists in authoritarian regimes have used social networking tools to rejuvenate and empower democratic participation, collaboration, and freedom of expression, but those same tools also give authoritarian governments new ways to identify and track political activists that they wish to silence.

For these reasons, we believe that governments around the world need to take urgent action to give real meaning to the right to privacy and to protect citizens’ personal data from these new threats.

EFF calls upon governments worldwide to:

Repeal the EU Data Retention Directive, and any mandatory data retention regime that requires ISP to preemptively record traffic data about the online activities of millions of citizens who haven't committed any crime.

Provide strong safeguards against government intrusion of individuals' information stored in third party providers, especially cloud service providers.

Provide strong safeguards against government intrusion of individuals' transactional data such as the location of your cell phone, click stream data revealing the web sites you visit, and search logs indicating what you searched when using search engines. Monitoring of this information is just as invasive as reading your email or listening to your phone calls.

These long-overdue reforms would be a first attempt to bring privacy protection back in line with the strong policies and traditions first established by International Human Rights Law. We look forward to continuing our work with privacy advocates on these issues, and hope to see governments and industries live up to the promise of better privacy and greater freedom.

Written by Katitza Rodriguez · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

According to The Raw Story,

“Hungary's recently elected right-wing government has introduced a law demanding — under threat of fines and even shut-down — that news sources be “fair and balanced,” to borrow a phrase from a US news network. The move has critics fearing that it could lead to a silencing of critical media outlets.

Under the new Law on Media and the Freedom of Press, national TV channels whose news coverage is found to be “unbalanced or offensive to human dignity or common morals” could be fined the equivalent of almost $1 million,…”

Hungary's move towards a more “fair and balanced” media comes at a time when it is getting ready to assume the European Union's rotating Presidency. It will be interesting to see how the country will balance its new press policies with that of the European Union-which requires member nations to honor press freedom.

Written by Bhumika Ghimire · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Ultimately, replace the current open internet by a network of public access and other payment networks: digital platform access and premium content. A divided and more expensive internet. That's the objective of the telecommunications operators in order to enter more cash from the users and get their share of the business of online content and internet services, especially television and video downloads (P2P or direct) and internet telephony (VoIP), but also new offers from geolocation, augmented reality, telemedicine, etc.

He further states that “the prices and contracts are divided on the quality of contracted access and consumption taking place, when so far one only pays for the access technology and speed.” In particular the new classification of services would be like this:

• The quality of real time (RT), the most expensive and the one that would ensure advanced services and high bandwidth consumption, is aimed at real-time multimedia applications.
• Gold quality would be designed for enterprise environments without delay or data loss. In case of network congestion this data will take precedence over data from residential users.
• Best Effort quality is mainly for private access to the Internet. Its only requirement would be delivery without error, but it does not guarantee optimal service quality for services of high consumption.

The media have also echoed this, informing in a tone that seems to show that they do not agree. For example Publico.es says: First step towards ending flat rate internet [sp], and Información.es titled their piece: Telefonica does not want to sell more ADSL flat rate to other operators [sp]. For its part, the daily El Pais refers to [sp] “the British subsidiary of Telefonica, has decided to put restrictions on all flat rate broadband plans for homes” in the UK.

But it is in blogs and citizen journalism sites where it is being written about the most. For example, Pau Llop of Bottup.com published an article titled Neutrality on the Internet: Will we let them take it away? [sp] where he says:

The debate, reinvigorated by Telefónica again, now focuses on rates: “who consumes more will pay more.” They propose to end with the flat rate with the absurd excuse that there are people who “uses the web a lot more” and others “who only look at their e-mail.” It is the first step. If we accept that thinking “who cares? I don't download movies”, the web will no longer be neutral in its first degree and soon will come the control of the web itself in the interests of business operators and their shareholders.

And then he proposes several actions we can take to raise awareness about this topic:

• If you have a blog or other publication space, learn and write about the importance of Net neutrality.
• If you use Facebook, Tuenti, Twitter, etc.., Write messages in favor of Net neutrality and pass links to documents, videos or news explaining the importance of their defense. If you receive such messages, share them with your friends on these networks.
• When you hear on the news or on the radio something about it, discuss it with your companions and explain what net neutrality is and why it is so important. Do it in any conversation that you think fits the theme, do not limit yourself to the digital world.

The official agency response on the proposal made by Telefonica is still pending, but most bloggers think that if there is no awareness at all levels on what net neutrality really means it will be very easy for this proposal to end up being approved.

Other posts on this topic (in spanish):

De todo un poco: Idea contra la ruptura de la neutralidad de la red: nacionalización de la red de cobre
Error500: ¿Quién controlará el marketplace de los servicios premium en internet?
Nación Red: El debate sobre el final de la tarifa plana inflama la red y llega a los editoriales de la prensa más tradicional
Planeta Media: El Futuro de los Servicios Premium
Consultoría Artesana en Red: Internet, más que nunca antes, un derecho
Enrique Dans: Telecomunicaciones y futuro
Libertad Digital: Los límites a la tarifa plana
BandaAncha.eu

Written by Juan Arellano · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

But some of you may not fully understand what Net Neutrality is all about, so we suggest that you take a look at this short video “that explains why discrimination on the Internet is a problem and will continue to be as long as net neutrality rules are not enforced“:

Rosa Jiménez Cano, a Spanish  journalist and blogger wrote for the newspaper El País in an article called ¿Quién quiere acabar con la neutralidad en la Red? (Who wants to end net neutrality?):

What would you think if, when you open the faucet, the water reached your neighbor before you? And if paying an extra fee would allow somebody to see the goals of a match before anyone else? Or better yet, what if the electricity network gave preference to some appliances over others, so it could decide that the toaster has priority over a hairdryer or microwave? It sounds illogical, but it could be possible in the web.

It is true that a person can hire a different service of 3 megabytes or 10, for example. But that's not a competitive advantage. Following the faucet analogy, he would have pipes with more water flow, but water wouldn’t reach somebody before the rest. Or at least should not be given priority in the content queue. Simply, they will load faster because you have more bandwidth.

Last week, The New York Times leaked a meeting between Verizon (mobile operator) and Google in which they considered the possibility of an agreement between the two companies for priority access to certain content and services from Google. It would be logical, as YouTube (owned by Google) manages large amounts of data. Both companies were quick to deny it.

Another journalist, Juan Varela, is following the development of the issue in his blog Periodistas 21 with a post called Neutralidad de la red, no en las plataformas (Net neutrality, not the platforms):

Google and Verizon have finally submitted its proposal on net neutrality. The big search site and the telecommunications operator defend an open and public Internet, but exclude mobile networks of the principle of neutrality, as well as new digital platforms for advanced or premium service.

In short, they respect and adhere to the six principles of net neutrality by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but exclude mobile broadband and new digital platforms, which they have called Additional Online Services.

Everything indicates that the completely open Internet, with it’s Information is free mantra is ending. The new Internet will be more akin to paid TV. A plotted Internet with its plentiful market trimmed … The key will be to set the minimum and open Internet service. A universal civil right for everybody -innovators, entrepreneurs, companies, groups, associations, etc.-, without discrimination, to avoid ending its ability to socialize, to communicate, [share] ideas, politics, business and information that it has had so far.

But also there are some bloggers that do like the agreement. Daniel Rodríguez Herrera, writing for Libertad Digital finds it surprising that activists are talking about “an Internet for rich people and another one for poor people“. He also says:

On one hand, it keeps any type of traffic on the Internet from being blocked, or prioritized or anything like that. In other words, it eliminates that apocalyptic scenario, that bogeyman that scared neutrality activists. But on the other hand it allows companies to use their networks to offer other services different and separated from the Internet, both paid and unpaid; in other words, it lets them innovate to lead a return on their investments by taking these networks to our home. Also, it recognizes that on mobile networks things are fairly new and it proposes to leave them as they are, for now.

My main criticism of this agreement is that it is a proposal for the state to regulate the Internet.Governments should keep their dirty hands off the web, always and at all times, and leave it open as it has been so far.

Now, the activist's reaction is what has been really appealing. This agreement should represent their wet dream: one of the main companies commits to Internet still functioning like it has today, without blocking or paying priorities …. Since I don't think that the majority of neutrality activists are dumb, the only conclusion that I'm capable of reaching is that they have never attempted to avoid a [type] of traffic from being prioritized over another or anything similar to that. What they want is to be able to decide for themselves, through the Government, like networks that are the private property of a company should be managed.

Finally, there are positions like the one sustained by the blogger from error500, Antonio Ortíz, who with the name of his post: Google a la neutralidad de la red: “Quedamos como amigos” (Google toward net neturality: “Let's be friends”) gives us an idea of what he's going to say:

Finally, we should already be able to answer the question, does Google remain “one of us”? Have they betrayed the principles that underpinned its own development or have they sold out themselves to telecoms and Alierta doctrine? As some say with some relationships, “it's complicated.”

It is complicated because Google has maturity problems. It still loves the story of its teenage years, everything from “do not be evil”, “we love being open”, “life is not going to change us, we are not like others”. But it also begins to accept some adjustments to its principles with the reality of the markets. Its proposal reflects this dual soul of internet giant on net neutrality: they swear that they do not accept traffic discrimination by the companies in favor of who pays more, they believe in an “open internet”, they will never pay Verizon or any other provider for priority of its services over any other small startup. But of course there are exceptions to understand this so much openness and neutrality.

It is a way to break up as any other. “It's not you, it's me”, “I need some time”… at Google they have chosen a kind of “we’re still friends.” Those who expected a complete betrayal will feel somewhat disappointed, those who thought about a frontal or Byzantine resistance to telecommunications and some governments, even more. It will be the penance Google will have to pay: its previous traveling companions will identify it as a traitor in spite of its many good NGO children's rhetoric, its new allies will not hide the satisfaction to certify that, over time, Google and they are able to speak the same language

As an old song used to say… “only time will tell”.

Written by Juan Arellano · comments (5)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Friends and acquaintances of the detainees, as well as members of local youth movements have extensively used new media tools, such as Facebook and weblogs to spread the news and gather supporters in front of the court.

For instance, Mamedovali [RU] wrote in two languages - Azeri and Russian:

Завтра в 14:00 Аппеляционный Суд Будет рассматривать Дело Аднана Гаджизаде и Эмина Милли(Абдуллаева).
Приглашаю всех в знак поддержки прийти в 14:00 к Апелляционному суду.

Sabah saat 14:00-da Azərbaycan Apelliasiya Məhkəməsi Adnan Hajizadə və Emin Millinin(Abdullayev) işinə baxacaq. Hamini Dəstək olmaq üçün Apelliasiya Məhkəməsinin qarşisina gəlməyə təklif edirəm.

Tomorrow, at 14:00 the Court of Appeals will consider the case of Adnan Hajizada and Emin Milli (Abdullayev). I invite all to come to the Court of Appels to show their support.

Matthew Collin from Al-Jazeera, who also blogs for UK-based Frontline Club and has a personal blog titled This is Tbilisi Calling, has arrived in Baku to cover the case of detained bloggers just in time for the appeal hearing:

I'm in Baku to cover the case for Al Jazeera, and people working in what remains of the independent media here in Azerbaijan have been telling me they are increasingly nervous about who the authorities might target next. This is a country where critical journalists have often been jailed, assaulted and even killed, where international broadcasters have been forced off the airwaves, and where television is relentlessly pro-government. Now anti-government bloggers have received what some of them perceive to be a warning not to step out of line too often.

Just hours before the court appeal, two alleged ‘victims' of Emin and Adnan's hooliganism unexpectedly appeared in public. In their appeal, as reproduced by Journaleast [AZ], they plead the Azeri media “not to let them be victims of false accusations” and “to write the truth and assist in emergence of the truth.“

Thoughts on the Road was somehow furious about their appeal:

[…] Amazing. In this account, Emin and Adnan are depicted as ruffians, drinking and swearing in a restaurant. Babek Huseynov and his associates were just some peaceful guys who wanted some peace and quiet, so they approached Emin and Adnan, asking the guys to quiet down. You can read the rest of it in the article. The fact that Emin and Adnan were pro-democracy activists is not mentioned in the [appeal]. Of course.

Now, I have never met Emin or Adnan personally and I was not in that Lebanese restaurant that night. I have, however, eaten in that very restaurant. It was noisy when I ate there. I find it incredible that Emin and Adnan were being that much noisier than anyone else. So much noisier that these fellows came over to ask them to quiet down. Why did these fellows have to take matters into their own hands? If Adnan and Emin were so out of hand, would the management allow them to be so disruptive? Perhaps if Emin and Adnan had been well-connected government officials, this might be possible. But they are not and the scenario described here is completely implausible.

No, the story published here doesn't smell right at all. It isn't even logical. But logic has never been an essential ingredient for government propaganda.

I was livetweeting outside the court sending regular updates to my followers. Here is a selection from my tweets:

After three hours of waiting, the lawyers of Emin and Adnan came out of the court with a new that their appeals and all objections refected:

Learning the news from Twitter, Thoughts on the Road came up with a bitter post:

The news via Twitter is that the appeal of Emin Milli & Adnan Hajizade has been rejected. Not many more details available at this point. On the Facebook pages this morning - expressions of disgust & frustration. The natural regret for hoping against hope that an undemocratic government would respect human rights. But the face of the Azerbaijani government is unmistakable. It is not democratic. It is not concerned with human rights. It is not concerned with fairness or justice.

However, Media Helping Media wrote a bit cold-blooded:

Tweets from supporters of the two Azerbaijani bloggers arrested and detained on 8 July say their appeals at separate hearings have been rejected.

The two men, Adnan Hajizada and Emin Abdullayev (Milli), now face two months detention before their trial on hooliganism charges will take place.

Al-Jazeera's Matthew Collin summed up the events of all these days in a short paragraph as below:

Friends of two detained internet activists in Azerbaijan sang and wept in the street outside court yesterday after their appeal for release was dismissed. Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli were arrested for ‘hooliganism’ after allegedly being involved in a fight in a restaurant in the capital, Baku, but their friends believe they were targeted for their use of online media like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to build support for pro-democracy youth groups in this oil-rich but politically intolerant country. This satirical video, featuring a talking donkey, is the most celebrated example. There’s more on their activities in the OL! Movement blog, while their case has become an international issue partly due to their own networking skills and the mainstream media's post-Iran obsession with online culture, but also thanks to the tireless work of other bloggers, like the team at Global Voices Online.

Matthew Collin also prepared a video report for Al-Jazeera on detained Azeri bloggers which was also posted on Youtube:

After hearing the news, Flying Carpets and Broken Pipelines wrote a long post about her frustration which ended with an pessimistic note:

There are messages circling on Facebook saying to stay strong and be united. I couldn't agree more!

Incidentally, tomorrow 22 July is the National Media Day in Azerbaijan. On this day, in 1875, an Azeri intellectual Hasan bey Zardabi published what is now considered the first Azeri newspaper Akinchi (The Cultivator).

Written by Ali S. Novruzov · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper