The report said, after the Lunar Chinese New Year, the CCP propaganda department issued a notice to major Weibo portals including Sina, Tencents, NetEase, Sohu and etc. that soon after the real name registration implemented, the CCP would set up a division within these portals to oversee the content management. The party division will make sure orders from the propaganda department and state information office be effectively implemented. A special budget would be allocated for the control over micro-blogging platform.

A source told the United Daily News that the Weibo mobilization on train accident in Wenzhou, the anti PX chemical factory protest in Dalian and Wukan uprising has alerted the CCP. The CCP division in Weibo portal is to make instant decision on content filtering. With the implementation of real name registration, the police division will track information source and take crackdown action. In case of emergency, the CCP division will force the platforms to go offline, the report said.

Written by Oiwan Lam · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

FBI's leaked flyer. Source: Public Intelligence

As you can see it, any use of “anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address” is considered as a suspicious activity such as terrorism. Additionally, if you use encryption or are somehow “overly concerned about privacy” or attempting to “shield the screen from view of others”, you are suspicious of being potentially engaged or supporting terrorists.

This means that using a proxy or the Tor network makes you automatically suspicious. This puts you in the same basket as a woman wanting to remove her nail polisher who buys some acetone or the cute granny from the house around the corner buying fertilizers for her lovely petunia.

But the delirious indications of potential terrorists are not the only concern in this flyer. I am also disturbed by the “Be Part of The Solution” invitation. Actually this transforms a citizen into a walking surveillance device. Either you report what is defined as suspicious and you can help prevent some (un)likely terrorists to commit their rogue acts, or you don't and you are actually in the bad situation of likely supporting these activities… More clearly, if someone uses HTTPS next to you in the library, you should open your eyes and double-check what the person spends his/her spare time on. We missed you, McCarthy…

This flyer is one more amongst the already rich collection of 25 such documents the FBI has produced and gathered under the name “Communities Against Terrorism”. They are aimed at being widely distributed and provide some basic tools for ordinary people to report “suspicious activity”. The latter can be encountered in quite a few threat areas such as airport service providers, hobby shops or tattoo shops… You might also remember the case of the Casio F-91W digital watch that was claimed to be used in terrorism. More notably, as The Guardian was telling it, this watch was “the sign of al-Qaida” and the mere fact of possessing it was considered as a contributing factor to continued detention at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This would sound funny if it was not tragic: a whole list of detainees exists…

Who is next? The EFF for promoting HTTPS Everywhere, the guys from the Tor project for providing a tool to protect your online privacy or myself as any security-conscious employee for using a VPN to connect from home to my computer at work in the week-end?

Written by Malicia Rogue · comments (2)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image © Shutterstock.com

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

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

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

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

Book cover. Design by Patricia Fiuza.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art by Tomaz Garzia. CC BY-NC 2.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

Ending Data Retention: Constitutional Challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mandatory Data Retention in the United States

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

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

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

In an interview with a radio station, Boni said [pl] that it was impossible not to sign the agreement, because it was too late: Poland joined the negotiation process in 2008 and all the other European countries have already signed it. He added that Poland “should attach a clause to the treaty that would show how we interpret these articles”. Boni promised [pl] broad public consultations during the European ratification process. Several Polish NGOs expressed [pl] their disappointment with the government's stance on ACTA and appealed to change the decision.

Since January 21, online hackers calling themselves Anonymous have been attacking and shuting down government websites almost constantly, in a chaotic protest against the plans to sign the international treaty on Thursday.

TANGO DOWN: User @Anonymouswiki owns up to the web attacks on the websites of the prime minister, the parliament and other government entities. Screenshot: Twitter @Anonymouswiki

Although the hackers still enjoy a strong support among netizens, and the attacks were one of the reasons the mainstream media picked up the topic of ACTA, the group also faces criticism from the major Polish tech-bloggers. Maciej Gajewski from Spidersweb calls them [pl] “crying kids worried for their mp3″ and regrets that they became the face of the protest giving the government officials an argument against the movement:

Critics, mistrust and suspicion is one thing, but panic, mumbling and spreading disinformation is another thing. Looking at some finds on the biggest Polish social news platforms, looking at the comments of some readers, I get the impression that the lion's share of the protesters have no idea what ACTA is about. They've made up fantastic stories and are passing them on. The mass is getting crazy “Impale PM”, “Let's burn the Minister on the stake!”, “They will all lock us down in prisons!”. And then also Anonymous, who just make the whole protest look ridiculous in the eyes of mature older voters.

Over 900 Polish websites went dark on January 24

As opposed to the web attacks on government websites, Antyweb called [pl] on his blog on January 23 for a protest “in a cultured way, namely, a blackout” and provided a script and an instruction on how to do it. In response, more than 900 websites decided to “go dark” and display an anti-ACTA message. Allegro, the Polish equivalent of Ebay, placed an “anti-ACTA” banner next to the company's logo. The list of the websites taking part in the protest is available here.

"This is what the Internet might look like very soon. NO to ACTA" - over 900 Polish websites decided to go dark on January 24 in protest against the treaty. Screenshot: http://spiderweb.pl

The opposition party, the Democratic Left Alliance, also said the government should not sign the agreement and blackouted its website [pl] in solidarity.

While the global media, with a few exceptions, keep silent about the Polish protest, national information services race to publish dozens of opinions, analyses and the latest reports on the ACTA case. In the meantime, the protest movement seems to be getting bigger and bigger: the anti-ACTA protest event on Facebook Nie dla ACTA has reached over 400,000 fans. A real-life protest in Warsaw gathered [pl] over 1,000 people on Tuesday, and another one is being planned for Wednesday, January 25.

"Screw corporations, long live the people": many Polish protesters went on the streets on January 24. Photo by Alexey Sidorenko, used with permission.

Vagla, a popular Polish digital rights blogger, shared this hope [pl] on Twitter on January 24:

I guess that slowly people start to understand that this is not a discussion about “piracy” and “thieves” but about the direction in which our civilisation is heading.

***

Update:

Later on January 24, PM Tusk confirmed officially [pl] at a press conference that Poland will sign ACTA on January 26. At the same time, he stressed that the government will not give in to blackmail, meaning the earlier web attacks. Poland strives for internet freedom, said Tusk.

Written by Katarzyna Odrozek · comments (12)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

On January 19, during a meeting with NGOs and business representatives, the Polish government announced [pl] that it would sign the controversial anti-piracy agreement ACTA on January 26. While the governement calls it a success [pl] of the Polish EU Presidency, netizens are outraged with the arbitrary decision and are calling to take action against the proposal.

Image by flickr user PateandoPiedrasweb under the CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence.

ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. According to La Quadrature du Net and other globally active digital rights organisations, such as Electronic Frontier Foundation or European Digital Rights, ACTA would impose new criminal sanctions forcing Internet actors to monitor and censor online communications. Creating legal uncertainty for Internet companies, ACTA would become a major threat to freedom of expression online and another assault against the culture of sharing on the Internet.

The decision of the Polish government [pdf, pl] to sign the “European SOPA” worries [pl] blogger Maciej Gajewski from the tech website Spiderweb.pl:

Lately, one talks a lot about SOPA and PIPA bills and this is very good: in my opinion, these are the reprehensible bills and I think that the goal should never justify the means. For the Polish netizens the consequences of these two bills are negligible. If they were adopted, they would concern us only regarding the possibility to block our website for people in the USA. And that's actually it. But meanwhile, just in one week, our country, as a country subordinated to the European Union, will join the ACTA agreement. And this can hurt us. Very much.

An agreement negotiated behind the people's backs

But it's not only the content of the agreement proposal that upsets the netizens. The very secret character of the international ACTA negotiations and a stunning lack of public consultations and transparency in the negotiating process are clearly pointing to a democracy failure, according to [pl] Antyweb, a popular Polish tech-blogger:

They promised debates - nothing. They promised openness - nothing. Democracy is being destroyed, the deputies don't know what they are signing, and all this will lead to a situation when bloggers, scientists and entrepreneurs will be qualified as criminals. And if not, they will anyway walk on thin ice, paying attention not to step on a patent spot with an additinal R letter in a circle on the right side.

The digital rights blog Prawo.vagla.pl criticises [pl] the scandalous ignorance of the Polish government:

We found out that, of course, it's no longer possible to withdraw the decision about the signature of a Polish representative on the ACTA document, that this signature will be put and it will open the way to the ratification procedure. I asked the representatives of these ministries if they had any plan in case the European or the Polish Parliament would not not agree to the ratification. I heard that “it would put us to shame.” I wonder what is a bigger shame, and if it's not maybe the way of working on this kind of an international agreement where the public opinion couldn't get the public information it deserves.

In reaction to the netizens' protest, the Polish Minister of Administration and Digitalisation, Michal Boni [pl], asked [pl] the PM Donald Tusk to re-discuss the agreement before signing it. The meeting [pl] will take place on January 24.

ACTA has to be stopped

In the meantime the Polish Internet is fuming with anger. Facebook pages, such as Poland against ACTA & SOPA and NIE dla ACTA w Polsce, spring up like mushrooms and gather hundreds of thousands of netizens around the protest. On the wall of the Facebook event Nie dla ACTA, Rafal Mirski writes [pl]:

I am in favor of intellectual property protection but not with these methods! This is throwing the baby out with the bath water. You can't allow to subordinate the whole Internet to any group of interest. ACTA is forcing Internet providers to censorship! And it is in fact puzzling how fast, without any public debate, one tries to dictate some solutions. We definitely have to stop it!

Maciej Gajewski from Spiderweb doesn't like [pl] the perspective of being monitored all the time:

First of all: although I don't share anything illegal on the net, I don't feel comfortable knowing that somebody is registering my every step on the Internet. Even if it's an automatic machine. Secondly, these will cause huge costs for the providers. Our activity has to be monitored and archived. Let's prepare for a big raise of Internet prices.

Polish digital rights organisations sent an appeal [pdf, pl] to the PM, drawing his attention to the risks of ACTA. On Wykop, a Polish version of Digg, user katius posted a protest letter [pl] to the Members of the Parliament, encouraging other users to address their representatives with the issue. A series of live protest events [pl] in the biggest Polish cities are planned to take place.

A Polish Blackout?

Encouraged by the SOPA/PIPA protest success in the United States, blogger Antyweb calls on his blog [pl] for a Polish blackout:

We have to arrange a specific date (pretty fast) and switch off in the Polish web whatever we can while displaying information about ACTA and about damaging democracy. We need to draw peoples' attention to the fact that this is not the way to take decisions in a modern democratic state. Americans could make it, Poles can do it as well - especially the “internet”-ones. What about Monday, [January 23]? But which of the Polish websites will give up money in the name of defending democracy and free Internet?

Also, the Polish Wikipedia community is considering a blackout [pl] and is in the process of editing an anti-ACTA manifest [pl].

Last hope: European Parliament's veto right

The whole situation looks a bit less dramatic once we consider that the Polish signature alone doesn't change anything yet. The agreement needs to be ratified by the European Parliament. Antyweb writes [pl]:

If we want to fight ACTA, then we need to do it on the European Parliament level - it is there where ACTA will have its “to be or not to be.” The EP can dismiss ACTA completely and then the bill lands in trash. Amen. But it doesn't change the fact that it is worthy to take action on January 26.

As promising as it sounds, isn't it quite dissapointing that instead of counting on one's own government to protect civil and digital rights of its citizens, one has to rely on the reason of EU politicians? Twitter user @PrzemoBrozek sums it up [pl]:

On January 26 Poland will sign ACTA. According to the agreement, Internet providers will have to monitor all users' activities. 1984 MODE ON.

***

Update:

On January 21, around 7 PM, Anonymous hackers have blocked access to the websites of the Sejm, the lower Chamber of the Polish Parliament, the Chancellery of the PM, the President, and the Ministry of Culture. At the time of writing this article, the websites are still offline.

Written by Katarzyna Odrozek · comments (3)
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

Ignoring the warnings of citizens and technologists, United States lawmakers are considering two bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), that are a real and dangerous threat to the openness of the web everywhere in the world. In response, the Global Voices community has decided to join websites such as Wikipedia, Reddit and BoingBoing in “going dark” and will black out the Global Voices Advocacy site for 12 hours on January 18, and display a banner on other Global Voices sites that provides more information about the proposed bills.

We are an international volunteer community dedicated to amplifying citizen media from around the world. In the last six years, we’ve produced more than 75,000 posts that link to blogs and other citizen content for readers in over 20 languages. Our content is free to use, and free to share. We rely on the open Internet to carry out our mission, and on social media and citizen media websites that allow for simple publication and sharing of content. Platforms like WordPress, Wikipedia, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Reddit, Tumblr, and many other online media production communities host content on which we base much of our work.

The passage of SOPA and PIPA by the United States Congress and Senate would force social media platforms and other web sites that host user-generated content to pro-actively monitor and censor users to prevent them from posting words or images that may violate copyrights. It would raise the cost of participation on these sites for all users worldwide, and could force many social media projects to shut down, especially smaller websites and businesses.

We are concerned this law would will inflict broad damage on the work of digital activists living under repressive regimes, as well as restrict basic speech freedoms around the world. Current copyright laws are occasionally misused in the U.S, and can result in de facto speech restrictions. In countries with less independent judicial systems, abuse of copyright law to repress activism is both simple and frequent.

Global Voices contributors in many countries face increasingly aggressive surveillance and censorship. Several are in prison or exile because of their online activities. Passage of these bills will send a clear message that the US government believes it is acceptable to monitor and censor citizens to identify “infringing activity” which too often is equated with political and religious dissent. Passage of SOPA and PIPA would also give the United States government a disproportionate amount of power to determine the course of the Internet. The result will be a more dangerous world for bloggers and activists, and less free speech for all.

Even though the current version of SOPA was put indefinitely on hold this week, PIPA, the Senate version of the bill, is still alive. And the issues and forces that are driving the passage of a law remain. For this reason, Global Voices is joining the Internet blackout on January 18, 2012.

Recent Global Voices Advocacy posts on SOPA/PIPA:

• Trevor Tim, ”How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation”
• Katitza Rodriguez, “SOPA undermines the U.S. in its negotiations for a free, open Internet”
• Weiping Li, “For Chinese Netizens, SOPA is Another Great Firewall”
• Yoo Eun Lee, “Stop Online Piracy Act: The Fight Continues”

Other resources for understanding the effects of SOPA/PIPA:

• Joi Ito and Ethan Zuckerman, “Why we need to stop SOPA and PIPA”
• “Internet Blacklist Legislation“, Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF's email campaign against the legislation and EFF guide to meeting with your representatives. EFF also explains how SOPA/PIPA will hurt open source software creation.
• Dan Rowinsky, “What You Need to Know about SOPA in 2012“, ReadWriteWeb
• Wikipedia, “Stop Online Piracy Act”
• Rebecca MacKinnon and Ivan Sigal, “Online piracy laws must preserve Web freedom, CNN.”

What you can do:

• If you are an American citizen, Americancensorship.org can help you to quickly communicate with your elected representatives, or help you to join the strike. Learn more about the strike at www.sopastrike.com.

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

In the waning days of 2011, Argentinean President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner issued an executive decree ordering the creation of the Federal System of Biometric Identification (SIBIOS), a new centralized, nation-wide biometric ID service that will allow law enforcement to “cross-reference” information with biometric and other data initially collected for the purpose of operating a general national ID registry. Historically, police fingerprint databases were limited to those suspected or convicted of criminal offences. Recently, however, the Argentinean Federal Police (Policía Federal Argentina – PFA) was given a large database holding digital fingerprints collected from random Argentineans as part of the national ID and passport application process. Since March 2011, this database has been fed by data collected through the RENAPER national ID application process. The PFA has managed to amass a database of about 8 million fingerprints, yet this process appears to have been too slow for the Argentinean government. Further to the new decree, the SIBIOS initiative will give PFA access to RENAPER’s database (and vice versa), doubling PFA’s reach to approximately 14 million digitized fingerprints. Starting with the first New Year’s baby of 2012, Argentina has even begun registering newborn biometric information with the SIBIOS. Argentina projects that, as national IDs and passports expire and are renewed (and new babies are born), the SIBIOS database will grow to over 40 million within the next two years.

But the SIBIOS initiative will do far more than expand the number of digitized fingerprints the FPA will have ready access to. According to President Fernández de Kirchner, the SIBIOS will be fully “integrated” with existing ID card databases, which, aside from biometric identifiers, include an individuals’ digital image, civil status, blood type, and key background information collected since her birth and across the various life stages. Further, it is not just the FPA that will have access to this new information sharing system. SIBIOS is designated for use by other federal security forces, including the National Directorate of Immigration, the Airport Security Police, and the National Gendarmerie, and is even available to Provincial enforcement entities, upon agreement with the National State. However, there has been no public discussion about the conditions under which public officials will have access to the data. Supporters of the SIBIOS program tout that it would give law enforcement easy, real-time access to individuals’ data, but whether any of the safeguards typically used to put checks on state surveillance will limit access remains an open question.

Perhaps the most troubling part of this new SIBIOS initiative is the technologies Argentinean law enforcement intends to leverage in order to exploit these databases. The FPA, for example, will be able to use its new facial recognition capacities to search the immense RENAPER digital image repository in order to identify people in photos, and maybe even on surveillance cameras! Argentinean police are also equipping themselves with mobile fingerprinting devices that will allow them to check the fingerprints of any passing Argentinean against the database itself.

The Dangers of Surveillance Society

National IDs and similar methods of data centralization increase state capacity for intrusive surveillance. Coupled with the simultaneous collection of biometric identifiers, such as digitized faces, it creates an additional layer of tracking that is even more pervasive and dangerous. As is the case in Argentina, biometrics are inherently individuating and interfaces easily with database technology, making widespread privacy violations easier and more harmful.

To our alarm, President Fernández de Kirchner has gone so far as to embrace the potential to link unidentified faces obtained through surveillance cameras with identified images through the SIBIOS system. Due to the technology’s relative affordability, street cameras and video-surveillance are now everywhere. Therefore this functionality is especially dangerous with the potential to lead to mass political surveillance. (This visualization shows how there are over 1,000 cameras installed in the Argentinian capital of Buenos Aires alone.)

Given the prevalence of street cameras and how easy it has become to identify one unnamed face amidst thousands, individuals who care about their privacy and anonymity will have a very difficult time protecting their identity from biometrics databases in the imminent future. There are extreme unforeseen risks in a world where an individual’s photo, taken from a street camera or a social network, can be linked to their national ID card. Additionally, matching technologies will only improve with time. (Check here and here to learn more about facial recognition). EFF has long argued that perfect tracking is inimical to a free and democratic society. Citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy and anonymity, particularly with regard to profiling. A combination of government-run biometric ID systems and facial recognition violates core elements of freedom by making it easy to locate and track people, and dangerously centralizing this data makes it ripe for state exploitation.

As Beatriz Busaniche of Fundacion Via Libre notes, this type of mass surveillance can have serious repercussions for those who are willing to voice political dissent:

“In the name of public security, Argentina has pushed for mass surveillance policies, including the heightened monitoring of public spaces. Privacy is particularly crucial for our country since throughout our long history of social and political movements, calls for action have often taken to the streets. It is of higher importance for activists to remain anonymous in their demonstrations, especially when they are at odds with the government itself. In this way, SIBIOS not only challenges their privacy and data protection rights, but also poses serious threats to their civil and political rights.”

Mora Arqueta, Director of RENAPER, noted in an interview that the current purpose of the national ID scheme is to retain the “maximum amount of personal data, and treat the citizen as an individual who interacts with the State in many places.” Her comments admit to a direct perversion of the existing national identification system, from one that has simply assigned an ID number to an individual, to one that outright violates personal data minimization principles through massive and unnecessary collection of sensitive personal information. The problem with allowing the government to retain so much sensitive data is that it gives it too much unchecked concentrated power. One wonders, for example, whether those who enacted the decree considered what would have occurred if Argentina's military dictatorship had access to such an expansive database. The public debate in Argentina should therefore be about power and the possible limits of actors in society to know. A healthy amount of distrust is necessary to sustain an open, democratic society.

Fernández de Kirchner’s arguments that SIBIOS provides “a major qualitative leap in security, in the fight against crime” are troubling and represent a further deviation from the purpose for which the RENAPER databases were first created. This argument is misleading, and fails to analyze SIBIOS’ risks and limitations as well as its impact on civil liberties and data protection. Time and again, we have heard the dubious rhetorical argument that biometrics are needed to fight against crime and increase security. In fact, these massive biometrics databases are a honeypot of sensitive data that remains extremely vulnerable for exploitation by criminals and identity thieves themselves.

The rights to privacy and data protection are enshrined in international law and the Argentinean Constitution. Given the long list of privacy concerns surrounding biometrics, and the plausibility of future security breaches, it is irrationally excessive to collect biometric data in a nation-wide ID scheme. The Argentinean government needs to limit the unnecessary collection, processing, retention, and sharing of this very sensitive data. EFF and Fundacion Via Libre in Argentina will work together to fight against these intrusive measures.

~

The Spanish version of this article has been published by Fundacion Via Libre.

Written by Katitza Rodriguez · comments (8)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper