Global Voices Advocacy » Global

International Privacy Day: Fighting Data Retention Mandates Around the World

Katitza Rodriguez — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:47:49 +0000

This January 28 marks International Privacy Day. Different countries around the world are celebrating this day with their own events. In EFF, we are calling on governments to repeal mandatory data retention schemes. Mandatory data retention harms individuals' anonymity, which is crucial for whistle-blowers, investigators, journalists, and for political speech. It creates huge potential for abuse and should be rejected as a serious infringement on the rights and freedoms of all individuals.

—

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

Facebook: Interested in Palestine? Not anymore.

Jillian York — Fri, 07 May 2010 16:06:58 +0000

When Facebook rolled out its latest feature, “Connections,” in April 2010, many users were confused by the changes. The opt-in feature, intended to create a broader sense of community around user interests, converts a user's listed interests, books, movies, and network into “likes,” linking the user to the community page for each topic.

In some cases, users have noted that their interests have gotten lost in translation on their way to becoming Connections. When Palestinian Facebook user Diana Buttu was presented with the opt-in screen for Connections, she was shocked. Prior to the rollout of the new feature, her “info” page looked like this:

Diana Buttu's Facebook interests

The opt-in page Buttu was presented with for Connections, however, looked like this:

Buttu's interests and activities on the Connections opt-in page

A number of Diana's book and movie interests, listed outside of the standard format (e.g., “Anything by Gibran”), simply disappeared, while her “interests” and “activities,” both previously listed as “Palestine,” were changed to “Israel” (the text under the Israeli flags state “Israel - activities” and “Israel - interests”). Users who have added “Palestine” as an interest since the Connections feature was rolled out have been able to do so successfully, however.

With the new Connections feature, users must also link to the community page for their home location, or remove their location altogether. It appears from a search, however, that no community page exists “Jerusalem, Palestine,” meaning that Palestinians living there must either list their city as being in Israel, or remove their location altogether.

Facebook has faced controversy before for listing Golan Heights as being in Israel, barring Syrian users from listing their location as Syria. That decision was eventually overturned, but the Golan Heights community page now uses Wikipedia information, which outlines the dispute over the Israeli-occupied territory.

A quick search for other disputed cities, including Grozny (Chechnya/Russia), Sokhumi (Abkhazia/Georgia) and Laayoune (Western Sahara/Morocco), shows inconsistencies. Grozny is listed twice, as “Grozny - city” (like the Golan Heights page) and “Grozny, Russia”, while Laayoune is listed only as Western Sahara (Morocco claims sovereignty over the Western Sahara).

While there are numerous reasons to be concerned over Facebook's new feature, the site's foray into geopolitics is alarming for many users, particularly those who live in disputed areas. Whereas before, and on most sites, users are able to input their location as plain text (and thus are able to list it as anything they like, real or otherwise), Facebook's continued insistence on controlling user content–from their “real name” policy to these latest changes–should be cause for alarm.

Chronology of Major events surrounding censorship, hacking, DDOS and online Free Speech

Sami Ben Gharbia — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:49:56 +0000

Given the increasing importance of events surrounding Internet repression, especially after the Iran protest and the Google Vs China debacle, I was trying to collect this data over a period of time then display it on a timeline with useful links and videos (where available).

Like the Threatened Voices Timeline and Map, the purpose of this small project is obviously to identify trends in digital repression over time and highlight other issues often overlooked by mainstream media.

The collected data used in this Dipity timeline is based on this Google Spreadsheet which I made available for any use desired.
Anyone can view and edit it without signing in. This information can be exported as an .xls file or other file types, and can be used to create timeline, maps and any other kind of data visualization. It also serves as a collaborative tool for tracking these kind of major events.

So please, help us collect this important information and keep this timeline updated. Just go to this Google Spreadsheet and add the missing events.

Chronology of Major events surrounding censorship, hacking, DDOS and online Free Speech on Dipity.

One Post Against Cyber-Censorship

Ramy Raoof — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:44:58 +0000

Do you believe in Freedom of Speech?

Do you think its normal to be profiled or tracked while being online?!

Do you think it’s your right to enjoy uncensored Internet search & blogging?

Do you believe in Freedom of Information? Right to Access Information?

Do you want to defend an Internet without restrictions and accessible to everyone at anytime and anywhere?

Support the World Day against Cyber-Censorship, 12 March…

Spread the Word!

Amnesty International & Reporters Without Borders sent an open letter to Yahoo, Google & Microsoft for one day of uncensored Internet search and blogging on March 2009.

And this year, Reporters Without Borders will award the first “Netizen Prize,” with support from Google, on 11 March 2010, on the eve of World Day Against Cyber Censorship. The prize will be given to an Internet user, blogger or cyber-dissident who has made a notable contribution to the defense of online freedom of expression.

Italy Convicts Three Google Executives for Privacy Violations

Bernardo Parrella — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:15:40 +0000

Last week, an Italian magistrate convicted three Google executives for violating Italian privacy laws for a video uploaded in late 2006 to Google Video, which showed a disabled child being bullied by other schoolchildren in Turin. Each got suspended sentences of six months in jail. This is the first case worldwide to hold the company's executives criminally responsible for the content posted on its system. Vivi Down, an Italian group representing people with Down syndrome, and the boy's father in Milan pushed for a criminal prosecution against four individual Google employees (one of them was charged only with the dismissed defamation charges).

The court dismissed the allegation of criminal defamation but upheld a charge of illegally handling personal data, deciding that under EU stringent data protection law, replicated in the Italian legislation, Google needed prior authority before distributing that personal data. In other words, any ISP or Net intermediary working within Italy is now co-responsible for the legality of content containing “personal data” (video, text, audio or other data) before anyone has complained about the content. Google has been considered a media company (that is, a content provider, a publisher), and therefore responsible for any content it publishes. Rather, the common opinion and practice on the Internet (as pointed out also by Google itself) is that Google is simply a form of Internet service provider, and as such not directly responsible for material it hosts — a distinction crucial to the Italian decision. Also, the ruling seems to contradict a same EU directive on electronic commerce that gives service providers safe harbor from liability for the content they host.

Prosecutors said Google waited to remove the video until after complaints to the police by Vivi Down, whose name was mentioned by the boys in the video. The video was recorded in May 2006 and uploaded on September 8 by the same students involved, since then identified thanks to that video and sentenced in December 2007 to 10 months of community work and probation. The video remained online for about two months, when — as shown by actual email-records (in Italian) — at 5:20 pm on November 6, 2006, an Italian user alerted for the first time the Google staff about that questionable material. The video was ultimately removed about 24 hours later, after a quick e-mail consultation with the company headquarters in Mountain View, California, and two hours after they received a formal complaint from the Italian police, also alerted by the Vivi Down association.

The vast majority of Italian online sources and bloggers were furious, talking about a «heavy attack against Net freedom and ISP neutrality», while most media commentators openly supported the Google position that this sentence is imposing a “preventive censorship role” to Internet providers. Marco Pancini, Google Italia Policy Counsel, said: «We are deeply disturbed by such decision. Our executives had nothing to do with that video. And the judges are questioning the same basic principles upon which the Internet was built.» Others pointed out that now Italy is closer to the Chinese stump on freedom of expression.

The court has 90 days to make public the sentence motivations and an appeal has already been announced by Google lawyers: many legal experts believe that the sentence will eventually be reversed or overturned.

Global Voices and Google announce freedom of expression award jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSF 2009 Review: More than 100 bloggers and cyber-dissidents imprisoned

Oiwan Lam — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:51:27 +0000

Reporters Without Borders released its 2009 year-end round-up on on December 30, 2009. There are 151 bloggers and cyber-dissidents arrested, 61 physically assaulted and one died in prison in 2009. When compared with 2008, the number of bloggers arrested increased 155%. The report pointed out that China continued to be the leading internet censor in 2009 and RSF will launch a new campaign against the enemy of the Internet in coming March. Below is the summary on blogger and cyber dissidents section:

For the first time since the Internet’s emergence, Reporters Without Borders is aware of more than 100 bloggers and cyber-dissidents being imprisoned worldwide for posting their opinions online. This figure is indicative above all of the scale of the crackdown being carried out in around ten countries. Several countries have turned online expression into a criminal offence, dashing hopes of a censorship-free Internet.

The Internet has been the driving force for pro-democracy campaigns in Iran, China and elsewhere. It is above all for this reason that authoritarian governments have shown themselves so determined to severely punish Internet users. This is the case with two Azerbaijani bloggers, who were sentenced to two years in prison for making a film mocking the political elite.

Although China continued to be the leading Internet censor in 2009, Iran, Tunisia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan have also resorted to frequent blocking of websites and blogs and surveillance of online expression. The Turkmen Internet remains under total state control. This year, bloggers and ordinary citizens expressing themselves online have been assaulted, threatened or arrested as the popularity of social-networking and interactive websites has soared. Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer is still in jail, while the famous Burmese comedian Zarganar still has 34 years of his prison sentence to serve. The approximately 120 victims of Internet policing also include such leading figures in the defence of online free expression as China’s Hu Jia and Liu Xiaobo and Vietnam’s Nguyen Trung and Dieu Cay. The financial crisis has joined the list of subjects likely to provoke censorship, particularly online. In South Korea, a blogger was wrongfully detained for commenting on the country’s disastrous economic situation. Around six netizens in Thailand were arrested or harassed just for making a connection between the king’s health and a fall in the Bangkok stock exchange. Censorship was slapped on the media in Dubai when it came for them to report on the country’s debt repayment problems.

Democratic countries have not lagged far behind. Several European countries are working on new steps to control the Internet in the name of the battle against child porn and illegal downloads. Australia has said it will set up a compulsory filtering system that poses a threat to freedom of expression. Turkey’s courts have increased the number of websites, including YouTube, that are blocked for criticising the republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. “The number of countries affected by online censorship has doubled from one year to the next – a disturbing tendency that shows an increase in control over new media as millions of netizens get active online,” said Lucie Morillon, head of the Internet and Freedoms Desk. “That is why Reporters Without Borders will launch a new campaign against the Enemies of the Internet on 12 March.”

Global Voices partners with Google on freedom of expression award

Georgia Popplewell — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:24:25 +0000

Nominations open today (December 29, 2009) for the Breaking Borders Award, a new prize created by Google and Global Voices to honor outstanding web projects initiated by individuals or groups that demonstrate courage, energy and resourcefulness in using the Internet to promote freedom of expression. The award is also supported by Thomson Reuters.

The Breaking Borders Award builds upon the values expressed in the Global Voices Manifesto, the document co-written on a wiki in 2004 to articulate the guiding principles of the organization and community that would come to be known as Global Voices. The Manifesto opens with the words:

“We believe in free speech: in protecting the right to speak — and the right to listen. We believe in universal access to the tools of speech.

To that end, we seek to enable everyone who wants to speak to have the means to speak — and everyone who wants to hear that speech, the means to listen to it.”

The Breaking Borders Award also complements the work of Global Voices Advocacy, which was formed in February 2007 to bring focus to the organization's freedom of expression-related activities.

1. Advocacy, given to an activist or group that has used online tools to promote free expression or encourage political change

2. Technology, given to an individual or group that has created an important tool that enables free expression and expands access to information

3. Policy, given to a policy maker, government official or NGO leader who has made a notable contribution in the field

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

2nd Arab Bloggers Meeting

Sami Ben Gharbia — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:05:29 +0000

The Heinrich Boell Foundation and Global Voices are organizing the Second Arab Bloggers Meeting in Beirut from the 8th till the 12th of December 2009. This meeting is a follow-up to the First Arab Bloggers Meeting which took place in August last year in Beirut and was the first gathering of its kind, bringing together Arab bloggers to exchange experiences. This time bloggers from 18 Arab countries have been invited to attend the intensive training and networking meeting of young online activists.

Recently, Blogs are catalysts for political mobilization and activism in the Arab world. They constitute public forums that help citizens practice and bolster their right to freedom of expression and enhance their argumentative and analytical skills. Blogs provided a stage for more diversity, greater acceptance of plurality, accountability and transparency. For young people in particular, blogs represent an outlet for their thoughts and emotions, as well as being a sphere in which they can freely navigate.

It is therefore paramount to keep supporting this essential tool of expression and activism in the region and to assist bloggers in raising their voice.

In the 5-days closed meeting Arab and International bloggers will join forces to improve their standing in the international blogging sphere, make their voices heard, and organize online and offline campaigns to work against censorship and to call for freedom of expression. Moreover, the aim of the conference is to give the Arab bloggers a chance to form solidarity networks.

The 2nd Arab Bloggers Meeting's blog.

Global Voices to screen 10 tactics for turning information into action in Beirut

Faith Bosworth — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:53:23 +0000

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.