10 tactics for turning information into action is a documentary film, about rights advocacy, with a distinctive hands-on approach. The film features interviews with 25 rights advocates in 24 countries who have successfully used digital technologies to initiate positive change.

It includes the story of Noha Atef whose blog, TortureinEgypt.net, has led to the release of illegally detained prisoners in Egypt. Sami Ben Gharbia, from Global Voices, explains how activists upset the government in Tunisia when they used Google Earth and Google Maps to highlight stories of rights abuses. Dina Mehta, from India, explains what it was like to be part of an online group that worked via Twitter to get blood donors and other essential support to hospitals during the Mumbai Terror attacks.

The film is divided into ten chapters and each one explores a different info-activism tactic such as, how to: mobilise people, present complex data, amplify personal stories, visualise a message, and use humour to communicate a message. Every chapter of the film is complemented by a fold-out card which gives a comprehensive view of the particular tactic. The cards feature short examples from the film, detailed case studies, as well as tools and tips from people who have used these tactics in different contexts.

Tanya Notley, who managed the project, says “The video and cards provide the sort of in-depth background information you usually don't have access to. People have told us how much their info-activism action cost, what tools they used, what skills they needed, what the local context was and they have revealed exactly what happened. All of this information can be used by other people to develop their own ideas and actions.”

This project emerged from Tactical Tech's info-activism camp in India earlier this year. More than 100 rights advocates, technologists and designers from around the world, all with stories to tell, gathered at this event. Stephanie Hankey, co-founder of Tactical Tech, says that they knew these individuals' experiences of info-activism had potential to inspire and educate others. She says, “We decided to document and explore people's stories throughout the camp. When we had finished we knew that what we had collected was pretty remarkable. Many of the stories highlighted ground-breaking use of the internet and digital technologies. They show what is possible for rights advocates to achieve now even with very few resources.”

10 tactics for turning information into action will be launched around the world in December. Screenings will take place throughout the month in 30 different cities. Global Voices will be screening 10 tactics on December 12th, 2009, during the Arab Bloggers meeting in Beirut and guests will be given a free copy of the 10 tactics package including the DVD and the cards.

For more information about this project, visit the 10 tactics website.

Reporters Without Borders, an international organization advocating press freedom, defending journalists imprisoned or persecuted for doing their job and exposing the mistreatment and torture of them in many countries, is launching a national campaign, entitled: “Press Freedom is the Price for Democracy.”

According to the organization, it is meant to inform the American public about the injustices committed against the press. The goal is to show every time a member of the press is killed or censored, citizens are deprived of important information. At least, in the last fifteen years, getting the news has cost the lives of 850 reporters.

As part of the campaign, Reporters Without Borders posted a YouTube video, “Shot for News?!” featuring a young woman in the streets of New York, seconds later a man standing by a newspaper stand is shot multiple times. The message goes like this: Unlike many other countries, getting the news here will never cost a life. RWB recently released its annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index, which measures the degree of freedom journalists have in 175 countries. Currently, more than 200 reporters and media assistants are jailed worldwide. 91 cyberdissidents are behind bars because of their online work. To see how your country ranks on press freedom:
http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html

Newspapers across the country have also been asked to donate free space for print or online advertisements to publicize the message to the greater public.

The four other winners were Goods for Good, iSurvive, Wokai, Yoga Bear.

In case you don't know, Global Voices Advocacy is a project of Global Voices to build a global anti-censorship network of bloggers and online activists. Its director is Sami ben Gharbia, a Tunisian free speech advocate and blogger.

Zemanta is a cool new blogging and social media application you can download as a Firefox extension. It works in Gmail too!

Among some of the lovely things people said in their endorsements of Global Voices Advocacy were…

On Sacred Beginnings a blogger with the pen name Moonstar Silverwolf writes:

I fully support what they do and hope they continue to have success in bringing to light how much censorship is out there and how badly it can get really quick. I also support their resources on how to guides and assistance for anonymous blogging so that freedom of speech is not suppressed in the online world like it might be in the real world. There are many countries and groups that will squash freedom of speech whenever they can, it is our job to help those who need to speak out and provide them the opportunity to do so without fear.

Aparna Ray delivers her vote as a Newsmerick:

Today, I would just like to pause
And blog for my favorite cause
The project “Advox”
Is brilliant, it rocks!
It's work deserves heartfelt applause!

On the Media Re:Public blog, Persephone Miel writes:

Full disclosure: I’m friends with many of the people who make Global Voices what it is and I’m writing this today in response to an interesting challenge that could help bring some more money to Global Voices. But I’m not doing it to help my friends, I’m doing it because I know how hard they work, how many amazing new projects they’d like to do and how important they are to the project of bulding the cross-border connections that we all need to become global citizens.

Again, heartfelt thanks to everyone for the warm endorsements. If anyone should feel moved to make a donation, we'll gladly accept. But your friendship is the currency we really thrive on. Yeah!

“I vote for Global Voices Advocacy, because… (put your own words here).

And… very importantly, you must also copy and paste this text into your post.

This blog post is part of Zemanta's “Blogging For a Cause” (http://www.zemanta.com/bloggingforacause/) campaign to raise awareness and funds for worthy causes that bloggers care about.

Zemanta is a cool new add-on blogging tool. They have issued this competition in order to encourage blogging for charitable causes. The five blogs to get the most votes will each win a prize of $3000.

The deadline is JUNE 6, 2009.

There are so many blogs and causes online, but at Global Voices we feel it's important for bloggers to stick together and support each other when bloggers in many countries still risk harassment, prison or even torture for the work they do - not to mention having their blogs filtered or censored by authorities who object to their opinions.

Freedom of speech on the web affects everyone, not just bloggers. It is a human right to both say and read what we wish. Global Voices Advocacy keeps track of online censorship worldwide in daily posts, and maintains a map of web 2.0 censorship. There are also guides like Anoymous Blogging with Wordpress & Tor or Blogging for a Cause that many bloggers appreciate.

And finally…

….if Global Voices Advocacy is to have any chance of winning, we need your help asking others to help support freedom of expression. It would be great if you could treat this as a meme and pass it on/appoint 3-5 of your fellow bloggers to join.

AnasOnline blog reports (Arabic link) that Linkedin (AC Group here) completely blocked all Syrian users. According to the blog post:

3 weeks ago when Linkedin blocked all Syrian IPs users, but they were able to access the site by using IP changing programs (such as Tor), but in the last days, Linkedin blocked all Syrian users even if they changed their IPs,  and when the users try to access the website this message appears to them:

Access to this account has been suspended. Please contact Customer Service to resolve this problem

He also said that once you email Linkedin customer service, they will tell you, your account was blocked because you are Syrian.

For those who do not know Linkedin: it is a professional social networking, like facebook but for the business users.

A source in Syria confirmed to ArabCrunch that linkedin is behind the block, the source back this because according to them, when trying to access linkedin.com the source got” TCP error” with this message:

A communication error occurred: “”

The Web Server may be down, too busy, or experiencing other problems preventing it from responding to requests. You may wish to try again at a later time.

For assistance, contact your network support team.

The source noted that when trying to access the websites that are blocked by Syrian government like facebook, the source only gets a blank page.

The source accessed the website via a proxy program and it worked but could not go any farther.

According to sources in Syria, many US companies blocks their websites to Syrian users, Like Google and Sun Microsystems, who both blocks all types of download from their websites, also Google blocks code.google.com a setback for Syrian developers.

“The Syrian user fears the day when he cannot access Gmail or Google search engine.”  Anas said in the post, and I also fear this because I love Gmail so much.

Anas also offer all these blocked programs for free to download at this link (Arabic).

Syrian government on the other hand bans some websites such as youtube and Skype. Also some other Arab countries and ISPs block certain websites, like UAE’s Itisalat blocked few websites and then unblocked them.

It is worth mentioning that there is a US law that forbids US companies from doing certain types of business with Syria, for Example Microsoft maybe not allowed  sell Windows in Syria.

I am not a Legal expert but the law does not say anything about US websites, or if US websites must ban  Syrian Internet users!?

I think that Syrian Internet users are human beings and should be treated equally online,  like any other people in the world. The  Internet is about openness not closing things down. The Internet provided for the 1st time in the history of mankind free flow of information, allowing users to exchange info and to get to know each other, opening borders and bringing cultures together. I am emailing linkedin and Google for more clarifications and waiting for Sun’s answer.

ArabCrunch does not get into politics, but it’s worth mentioning some background about the US Syrian Relationship:

US, Syrian relations has been up and down during Bush administration, it has been reported however that Syrian intelligence coordinates with the CIA specially against Alqaeda (WorldTribune and Time ) but things turned severe last year when US forces launched a rare attack last year on the village in Syria ( Aljazeera English report, HuffingtonPost report.) But since Obama took the office, things has eased as many official US envoys have visited Syria and with nice words being exchanged between both parties. Also a  recent news report mentions that Washington has agreed to allow plane manufacturer Boeing to export spare parts to Damascus.

In any case, I call on Linkedin, Google and Sun Microsystems to keep the Internet away from politics and make it freely open, let’s put politics away from the Internet.

Update : LinkedIn repsonded to Anas email:
“Response (LinkedIn - Kelly) 04/17/2009 11:03 AM
Dear Anas,
Per the terms of our User Agreement, use of LinkedIn services, including our software, is subject to export and re-export control laws and regulations. This includes the Export Administration Regulations maintained by the United States Department of Commerce and sanctions programs maintained by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Under the User Agreement, LinkedIn Users warrant that they are not prohibited from receiving U.S. origin products, including services or software. As such, and as a matter of corporate policy, we do not allow member accounts or access to our site from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.
Regards,
Kelly
LinkedIn Customer Support

Customer (Anas Maarawi) 04/17/2009 04:46 AM
Hello,
When I try to sign in to my account I get a message that says that my account is suspended. Can I know why my account is suspended.”

Cross-posted at ArabCrunch

The “Freedom on the Net” study surveyed 15 countries on the basis of two key components: access to Web and mobile technology and the free flow of information through it. The report covered events that took place in the years 2007 and 2008, identifying new emerging threats to Internet freedom.

The report also states that there is more Internet freedom than Press freedom, and that activists are becoming more creative in resisting governmentally imposed restrictions on the Internet.

In his video interview with Global Voices Advocacy, Robert Guerra, Project Director for Freedom House's Global Internet Freedom Program, talks about this new initiative and shares some of his thoughts about threats to freedom of online expression.

Washington – April 1, 2009 – A new study from Freedom House warns that the rights of internet and mobile phone users are increasingly at risk as governments, both repressive and democratic, expand their ability to monitor and control online activity.
Freedom on the Net identifies wide disparities in internet freedom among the 15 countries studied and raises concern over trends such as the “outsourcing of censorship” to private companies and authoritarian governments' use of undercover agents to manipulate online conversations. The report cites both repressive and democratic governments for internet surveillance and for failing to adequately inform users about censorship standards
“More than a billion people look to the internet and mobile phones to provide a new freedom frontier, where they can exercise their right to freedom of expression without repercussion,” said Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House executive director. “But as access grows, more governments are employing diverse and sophisticated methods to monitor, censor and punish internet users.”

Freedom House developed the pilot study to better understand emerging threats to internet freedom. Freedom on the Net evaluates each country based on barriers to access, limitations on content and violations of users' rights. It captures not only government actions, but also indicates that citizens are resisting government attempts to restrict their online activity.

Findings from the study, which covers events from 2007 to 2008, will be formally released Wednesday to a conference of more than a thousand bloggers in Berlin, Germany. Freedom House hopes to expand the study to examine internet freedom in all countries of the world.
Cuba received the lowest score in the study because of the Castro regime's near total control over internet access. Three other countries received a ranking of Not Free: China, Iran and Tunisia. The vast majority of the countries studied received a Partly Free ranking: Egypt, Georgia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Russia and Turkey. Estonia tops the study as the country with the most internet freedom. Other countries ranked Free are: Brazil, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

The study's China report shows a particular paradox: a country with an estimated 300 million online users that also has the world’s most highly-developed censorship apparatus. China ties with Cuba for the country with the most curbs on users' rights, including prosecutions for online activities, surveillance and extra-legal harassment of bloggers.

“Freedom House is heartened by the fact that citizens, even in highly-repressive countries like China, Cuba and Iran, are pushing back with creativity and courage against these growing government controls over the internet,” said Windsor. “Democratic countries should not only support such voices, but also set an example of best practice with their own digital media policies.”

General Trends

Growing Access, Threats: In six (40 percent) of the countries examined, internet use doubled between 2006 and 2008. Mobile phone penetration doubled in three (20 percent) of the countries. At the same time, six countries (40 percent) sentenced a blogger to prison and a third of the countries introduced new internet-restricting legislation. Methods to control and censor traditional media are seeping into the new media environment, but are not as common yet. In addition to imprisonment, torture, and intimidation of internet activists, governments also engage in online harassment by hacking or using technical means to shut down websites.

Censorship Proliferates: Eleven countries (73 percent) targeted political content in at least one instance, and general censorship and control was present in every country studied. Censorship techniques included technical filtering, manual content removal because of government directives, intimidation, judicial decisions and sophisticated manipulation of online conversations by undercover agents.

Outsourcing Censorship: More governments are requiring private actors such as internet service providers, blog hosting companies, cybercafé employees and mobile phone operators to censor and monitor users. This outsourcing affects both local and multinational companies.

More Internet Freedom than Press Freedom: For every country in the study—with the exception of the United Kingdom—their internet freedom score outperformed their score in Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press study, which principally examines broadcast and print media. These differences were most pronounced in the Partly Free countries such as Kenya, Russia and Malaysia.

Civic Activism Increases: Citizens are resisting government control by blogging, using code for sensitive keywords and organizing protests and advocacy groups through social networks like Facebook.

Key Country Findings

• Cuba is one of the world's most repressive environments for internet freedom, despite a slight relaxation of restrictions on computer and mobile phone sales in 2008. There is almost no access to internet applications other than e-mail and surveillance is extensive. Cuba is one of the few countries with laws and regulations explicitly restricting and outlawing certain online activities.
• China is home to the largest population of users, but its rulers employ the world's most sophisticated, multi-layered, and wide-ranging apparatus for repressing internet freedom. It has the most cyber dissidents behind bars, at least 49 as of mid-2008. In addition, cyber dissidents are sentenced to longer prison terms than elsewhere, and extra-legal forms of harassment and violence are on the rise. Authorities and private providers employ hundreds of thousands to monitor, censor, and manipulate online content.
• Iran uses a complex system of nationwide content filtering, intimidation, detention and torture of bloggers, and restriction of broadband access to subvert freedom of expression online. Authorities detained and questioned more than a dozen bloggers in 2008 and a bill enabling the death penalty for online activities passed its first reading in parliament.
• Russia does not engage in significant technical blocking or filtering, but authorities are increasingly removing content through behind-the-scenes pressure. Internet freedom is threatened by a rise in attacks and criminal cases targeting bloggers, while the government manipulates online discussion by funding its own propaganda websites.
• Egypt does not engage in widespread censorship of the internet and the government has actively encouraged access to technology. But security services and their allies are known to monitor users and use low-tech methods of control such as intimidation, detention, imprisonment, and torture to silence online activists.
• South Africa has a high level of digital media freedom, but a majority of citizens are unable to access the internet because of high costs and language barriers. Political content is not censored and bloggers are not prosecuted for online activities. Unlike other countries in the study, South Africa has more people accessing the internet on their mobile phones than from computers.
• The United Kingdom has one of the world's freest environments. But there are growing concerns about the widespread retention of user data by service providers and the permissive environment for “libel tourism” (in which the UK allows individuals, often from authoritarian countries, to sue authors whose work is available in the UK, including online versions). The procedures used by the private Internet Watch Foundation to remove harmful internet content lack transparency and the appeals process could be improved.

Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has been monitoring political rights and civil liberties worldwide since 1972.

Freedom matters.
Freedom House makes a difference.
www.freedomhouse.org

The report pointed out that there are two major kind of filters in Hong Kong, one is based on keyword filtering, another one is based on black list. The former will censor away academic and useful information on sex education and health care while the latter will be affected by majority's bias, especially towards sexual minority. A major lesbian forum, blur-f.com, was forced to close down by local ISP even though there isn't even a single nude photos on the websites.

Leslovestudy urges the government not to implement mandatory filtering service at the ISP level and should not subsidy private sector for developing and marketing client-end filters as there isn't any mechanism for monitoring abusive filters provided by private companies.

Leslovestudy chose a number of local and overseas LGBT community websites, as well as academic websites on LGBT and sexuality issues to test the filters. Below is the outcome:

This is a video of a talk given by Mariam Memarsadeghi about the Internet and the Struggle for Voice in Repressive Regime Contexts. Miriam is a consultant to human rights and democracy organizations internationally and an outspoken advocate for women’s rights and civil liberties in Islamic contexts.

In February 2007, the European Parliament has passed a proposal (571 in favor, 38 against) submitted by MEP, to treat Internet censorship by national governments as a trade barrier.

Brussels, 25 November 2008

MEPs urge Internet and telecommunication companies to sign Human Rights code

Dutch MEP Jules Maaten: “Privacy protection in authoritarian states is a matter of life or death”

This morning the Dutch Liberal MEP Jules Maaten has together with seven of his colleagues from all the main political parties sent letters to the main European internet and telecommunication companies to call on them to sign a voluntary human rights code which was recently developed and signed by the American Internet companies Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft.

Jules Maaten (Netherlands, VVD): “European business must not fall behind in the protection of human rights. They are confronted with the same ethical questions as their American rivals when operating in authoritarian states such as China, Cuba and Tunisia. Innocent European software can be used by authoritarian regimes for oppression and prosecution.”

The letters, of which you find a copy [below], have been sent to the CEOs of France Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, BT, KPN, Skype, Nokia, Erikson, Eutelsat, Vodafone etc. The letter is signed by Jules Maaten (ALDE), Chistofer Fjellner (EPP), Edward McMillan-Scott (EPP), Paulo Casaca (PSE), Karin Riis Jorgensen (ALDE), Henrik Lax (ALDE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts) and Frithjof Schmidt (Verts).

The Human Rights code, the Global Network Initiative, was developed in cooperation with human rights organisations and universities agreeing to a set of principles governing how they do business in countries that restrict free speech and privacy rights. In addition to limiting the personal data they share with governments, the companies agreed to assess the human rights climate in a country before they conclude new business deals. They also pledged to respect and protect freedom of expression.

Maaten considers the self regulation of the European internet and telecommunications industry as a welcome first step, but nonetheless would like to see binding legislation adopted. On the 17th of July Jules Maaten proposed together with seven other MEPs the European ‘Global Online Freedom Act', legislation which protects the Global freedom on the Internet.

Following is a copy of the letter:

Brussels, 25 November 2008

Dear Mr. Lombard,

Recently the US based Internet companies Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft together with human rights groups and investment companies agreed upon a set of principles governing how they do business in countries that restrict free speech and privacy rights. This self regulatory code is called the Global Network Initiative (GNI).
We are counting on you to ensure that the European Internet and Telecommunication Industry also takes part in this dialogue on human rights enable to ensure a free and open Internet. We therefore urge your company to sign up to the GNI agreement. Although we would like to see further binding measures to be taken as for example the adoption of the European Global Online Freedom Act, we consider the GNI code as a welcome first step in ensuring that human rights will also be respected Online.

Yours sincerely,

Jules Maaten (ALDE)

Chistofer Fjellner (EPP)

Edward McMillan-Scott (EPP)

Karin Riis Jørgensen (ALDE)

Henrik Lax (ALDE)

Paulo Casaca (PSE)

Eva Lichtenberger (Verts)

Frithjof Schmidt (Verts)

Why should we care about it?

Surveillance and data retention is a problem that deserves Global attention, even for developing countries. In developing countries protests for such causes are sometimes not among the list of priorities, such as poverty, hunger and violence, which are the major concerns. Not quite. In Peru, breaking news points to surveillance coming from the government, and recently in Guatemala, the President himself was under heavy surveillance.

Mass surveillance is threatening the fabric of a democratic and open society and a healthy Internet. Mass surveillance is also endangering the work and commitment of civil society organizations - on and offline. That is why many conscious people got together last Saturday to commemorate Freedom not Fear Day, with a variety of peaceful protests:

In Berlin the greatest protest march against surveillance in Germany's history took place: Participants in the 2 km long, peaceful protest march carried signs reading “You are Germany, you are a suspect”, “No Stasi 2.0 - Constitution applicable here”, “Fear of Freedom?” and “Glass citizens, brittle democracy”. Apart from related music tracks, loud chants of “Belittle it today, be under surveillance tomorrow” or “We are here and we are loud because they are stealing our data” could be heard. During the protests, which were supported by more than 100 civil liberties groups, professional associations, unions, political parties and other organisations, artists played parodies on surveillance society.

It all started with the opposition to a Data Retention directive in EU. Now it has evolved and become global, as expressed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):

Freedom Not Fear has evolved into a more general warning: showing how fundamental freedoms like privacy, freedom of expression, and democratic participation lose when reactionary surveillance systems penetrate our open networks, justified by a hyperbolic rhetoric of fear.

Saturday was a day to express why freedom, democracy, free speech, the right to private spaces and the right to private communication are important for any open society, and why mass-surveillance, mass data storage, mass data retention and video-surveillance by governments and private corporations are undermining such important liberties. The Internet is not immune for such invasion, actually, it has become a “tool” enabling many governments to control. The main argument has been Security concerns, but as explained by expert Bruce Schneir on his blog:

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as “security versus privacy.” The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

Events took place in more than a dozen countries around the World, and hopefully in the years to come more voices will join to act against such abuses from Governments and companies.

From a big picture (above) unveiled by Open Rights Group in London, to a meeting of up to 100,000 people in Berlin, activities in Argentina, articles in Chile, an informative talk in Guatemala, and a rally followed by a Statement for October 11, 2008 in U.S., many people joined efforts to express their opposition to the increasing surveillance and controls by governments and also against data retention.

The most important messages were to affirm international human rights, including freedom of expression and privacy protection, repeal legal authorities that permit warrantless surveillance, unconstitutional monitoring and tracking of individuals, and a call to end the culture of secrecy that allows government officials to hide mismanagement, fraud, and incompetence behind the veil of “homeland security”, i.e. a call to transparency.

As GNS Blog said:

Computer technology, with its ability to store masses of data and then mine it for patterns of behaviour, or reproduce it to the unauthorised, or just monitor people's everyday activity, has a huge potential for ill in the hands of repressive or technologically illiterate governments. Equally it has huge potential for empowerment, the enablement of free speech and social networking

Here you can watch this illustrative video on Youtube: