Global Voices Advocacy » law

South Korea: National Security Law Muted North Korea Related Discussions

Oiwan Lam — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:59:33 +0000

A South Korean Twitter user, Park Jeong-Geun has been arrested since January 11, 2012 for re-tweeting messages such as “Long Live General Kim Jong-Il” in Twitter. Under the curry National Security Law (NSL), Park would face up to seven years imprisonment.

Park's profile picture in Twitter.

Amnesty International called for Park's release yesterday, February 2, 2012. “This is not a national security case, it's a sad case of the South Korean authorities' complete failure to understand sarcasm,” Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific director said in its statement.

Park's arrest is very controversial as he and his political party (Socialist Party) has been very critical of North Korea. But such ludicrous charge is not an isolated case. Two months ago in December 2011, another netizen, Kim Seung-kyu was prosecuted for reposting articles, songs and other available information about North Korea on his blog and calling the NSL a government attempt to suffocate the people. The materials that he posted are widely accessible in western media.

The South Korea NSL was passed 60-years ago in 1948 to protect the country from its wartime enemy, North Korea. It prosecutes those who “praise, disseminate or cooperate with anti-state groups” if such acts endanger democracy and national security.

In the past, the NSL has been used to investigate left-wing activists. Between 2005-2009, there were an average of 58 cases a year. However, “since Lee Myung-bak came to power in 2008, the Korean government re-activated the law to investigate not just left-wing activists but also ordinary people who are talking about North Korea online”, said Yoon Ji-Hye, the Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements to NPR in December 2011. Investigation has surged to 91 in 2010 and by 2011 August, there were already 150 cases.

Deletion of webpages has been increased from an annual figure of 1,500 in 2008 to 14,430 in 2009 and 80,449 in 2010. (The graph below is from North Korea Tech)

New Book on Global Struggle for Internet Freedom

Bernardo Parrella — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:26:18 +0000

How do we ensure that the Internet develops in a way that is compatible with democracy? Given the strong push provided by social media to the recent uprisings in the Middle East region and elsewhere, how can people ensure that the same tools are not being used for government censorship and surveillance (often with more than a little help from Western technology companies)? And ultimately, how can we stop thinking of ourselves as passive “users” of technology but rather as “netizens” who take ownership and responsibility for our digital future?

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.

New Book Proposes Open Internet Policies for Latin America

Ellery Biddle — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:43:14 +0000

Last week, the Center for the Study of Free Expression (CELE) at Argentina’s University of Palermo released Towards an Internet free of Censorship: Proposals for Latin America [Hacía una Internet libre de censura: Propuestas para América Latina] [es]. With contributions by leading policy experts from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S., the book addresses some of the most pressing challenges facing Latin American digital rights advocates today.

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 global debate about regulation on the Internet has evolved out of the initial question of whether it is necessary or desirable to regulate the web. […] The articles in this book broach [this issue] not with the goal of finding ultimate solutions, but rather with the intention of posing certain relevant legal questions and contemplating the effect that [regulatory] policies can have on free expression.

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.

…filtering techniques are not precise…it is nearly impossible to block only one type of content without affecting others. Furthermore, many of the mechanisms used to regulate and censor information are becoming more sophisticated every day, employing technical control methods that are generally hidden from the common user, who probably doesn’t even realize that the information she accesses has passed through a filter.

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.

Poland: Netizens Protest Government's Plan To Sign ACTA Next Week

Katarzyna Odrozek — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:45:44 +0000

With the world still talking about the aftermath of the SOPA/PIPA Blackout Day, Polish netizens are confronted with another backstabbing development in the fight for free Internet.

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.

Internet Blackout Day Fires Up Digital Rights Activism Around the World

Katitza Rodriguez — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:31:34 +0000

This article has been co-authored by Maira Sutton (@mairasutton) and Katitza Rodriguez (@txitua) from EFF

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)

U.S. Bills Could Threaten the Global Internet

Ivan Sigal — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:33:27 +0000

At Global Voices, we understand that we, collectively, are the Internet. Our individual participation is what makes the Internet a global conversation of startling depth and variety, but this is possible only because of its open technical and legal structure. Unfortunately, there are powerful corporate and government forces who would prefer to see the openness and accessibility of the web restricted. They seek to deploy censorship and surveillance in the name of enforcing copyright, employing the very tools used to censor the Internet in authoritarian countries, such as China, Iran, and Syria.

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.

How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation

Trevor Timm — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:21:04 +0000

Over the weekend, the Obama administration issued a potentially game-changing statement on the blacklist bills, saying it would oppose PIPA and SOPA as written, and drew an important line in the sand by emphasizing that it “will not support” any bill “that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

Yet, the fight is still far from over. Even though the New York Times reported that the White House statement “all but kill[s] current versions of the legislation,” the Senate is still poised to bring PIPA to the floor next week, and we can expect SOPA proponents in the House to try to revive the legislation—unless they get the message that these initiatives must stop, now. So let’s take a look at the dangerous provisions in the blacklist bills that would violate the White House’s own principles by damaging free speech, Internet security, and online innovation:

The Anti-Circumvention Provision

In addition to going after websites allegedly directly involved in copyright infringement, a proposal in SOPA will allow the government to target sites that simply provide information that could help users get around the bills’ censorship mechanisms. Such a provision would not only amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint against protected speech, but would severely damage online innovation. And contrary to claims by SOPA’s supporters, this provision—at least what’s been proposed so far—applies to all websites, even those in the U.S.

As First Amendment expert Marvin Ammori points out, “The language is pretty vague, but it appears all these companies must monitor their sites for anti-circumvention so they are not subject to court actions ‘enjoining’ them from continuing to provide ‘such product or service.’” That means social media sites like Facebook or YouTube—basically any site with user generated content—would have to police their own sites, forcing huge liability costs onto countless Internet companies. This is exactly why venture capitalists have said en masse they won’t invest in online startups if PIPA and SOPA pass. Websites would be forced to block anything from a user post about browser add-ons like DeSopa, to a simple list of IP addresses of already-blocked sites.

Perhaps worse, EFF has detailed how this provision would also decimate the open source software community. Anyone who writes or distributes Virtual Private Network, proxy, privacy or anonymization software would be negatively affected. This includes organizations that are funded by the State Department to create circumvention software to help democratic activists get around authoritarian regimes’ online censorship mechanisms. Ironically, SOPA would not only institute the same practices as these regimes, but would essentially outlaw the tools used by activists to circumvent censorship in countries like Iran and China as well.

The “Vigilante” Provision

Another dangerous provision in PIPA and SOPA that hasn’t received a lot of attention is the “vigilante” provision, which would grant broad immunity to all service providers if they overblock innocent users or block sites voluntarily with no judicial oversight at all. The standard for immunity is incredibly low and the potential for abuse is off the charts. Intermediaries only need to act “in good faith” and base their decision “on credible evidence” to receive immunity.

As we noted months ago, this provision would allow the MPAA and RIAA to create literal blacklists of sites they want censored. Intermediaries will find themselves under pressure to act to avoid court orders, creating a vehicle for corporations to censor sites—even those in the U.S.—without any legal oversight. And as Public Knowledge has pointed out, not only can this provision be used for bogus copyright claims that are protected by fair use, but large corporations can take advantage of it to stamp out emerging competitors and skirt anti-trust laws:

For instance, an Internet service provider could block DNS requests for a website offering online video that competed with its cable television offerings, based upon “credible evidence” that the site was, in its own estimation, promoting its use for infringement….While the amendment requires that the action be taken in good faith, the blocked site now bears the burden of proving either its innocence or the bad faith of its accuser in order to be unblocked.

Corporate Right of Action

PIPA and SOPA also still allow copyright holders to get an unopposed court order to cut off foreign websites from payment processors and advertisers. As we have continually highlighted, copyright holders already can remove infringing material from the web under the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedure. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that power abused time and again. Yet the proponents of PIPA and SOPA want to give rightsholders even more power, allowing them to essentially shut down full sites instead of removing the specific infringing content.

While this provision only affects foreign sites, it still affects Americans' free speech rights. As Marvin Ammori explained, “The seminal case of Lamont v. Postmaster makes it clear that Americans have the First Amendment right to read and listen to foreign speech, even if the foreigners lack a First Amendment speech right.” If history is any guide—and we’re afraid it is—we will see specious claims to wholesale take downs of legitimate and protected speech.

Expanded Attorney General Powers

PIPA and SOPA would also give the Attorney General new authority to block domain name services, a provision that has been universally criticized by both Internet security experts and First Amendment scholars. Even the blacklist bills’ authors are now publicly second-guessing that scary provision. But even without it, this section would still force many intermediaries to become the Internet police by putting the responsibility of censorship enforcement on those intermediaries, who are usually innocent third parties.

The Attorney General would also be empowered to de-list websites from search engines, which, as Google Chairman Eric Schmidt noted, would still “criminalize linking and the fundamental structure of the Internet itself.” The same applies to payment processors and advertisers.

These are just some of the egregious provisions in PIPA and SOPA that would drastically change the way we use the Internet (for the worse), and punish millions of innocent users who have never even thought about copyright infringement. As Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian explained, PIPA and SOPA are “the equivalent of being angry and trying to take action against Ford just because a Mustang was used in a bank robbery.” These bills must be stopped if we want to protect free speech and innovation on the web.

Please take action now and tell your Congressional representatives you oppose the blacklist bills.

Cross-posted at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Biometrics in Argentina: Mass Surveillance as a State Policy

Katitza Rodriguez — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:52:42 +0000

Two years ago, the UK dismantled their national ID scheme and shredded their National Identity Registry in response to great public outcry over the privacy-invasive program. Unfortunately privacy protections have been less rosy elsewhere. In Argentina, the national ID fight was lost some time ago. A law enacted during the military dictatorship forced all individuals to obtain a government-mandated ID. Now, they are in the process of enhancing its mandatory National Registry of Persons (RENAPER) with biometric data such as fingerprints and digitized faces. The government plans to repurpose this database in order to facilitate “easy access” to law enforcement by merging this data into a new, security-focused integrated system. This raises the specter of mass surveillance, as Argentinean law enforcement will have access to mass repositories of citizen information and be able to leverage existing facial recognition and fingerprint matching technologies in order to identify any citizen anywhere.

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.

Will Iran Soon Have Its Own “Clean Internet”?

Fred Petrossian — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:36:53 +0000

The Iranian regime may be losing its battle to filter content on the internet, but meanwhile it is trying news things - from slowing down internet speeds, to developing a so-called “national internet” or “clean internet”. (read Intranet). Iranian members of parliament have also discussed a proposal to place blogs, comments and SMS mobile messages under the same government regulation as the mainstream media.

Creative alternatives to filtering?

Iranian authorities see the internet as a real battleground and consider citizen media and social networking as tools of “soft war”. Over several years they claim to have blocked and filtered millions of websites and blogs. Now several bloggers have reported [fa] that Iran's Corporate Computer Systems [fa] say the goal is for Iran to be entirely cut off from the World Wide Web once the country launches its own national internet network.

Mehdi Jafari via The Green Voice of Freedom

In October, many bloggers were happy to quote a remark by a top official who said, “Filtering is useless.” Mehdi Jafari, described as the technology director for the Student Basij Organization (youth paramilitaries supporting the Islamic regime), claimed that 17 million Iranians are on Facebook even though the site has been filtered in Iran… and that “300,000 Persian language websites are fighting against our religious and national beliefs.”

Jafari did not mention a source for these statistics.

Iranian blogger Ghalbir quoted the Basij leader and says it proves that filtering is a joke.

At the end of October the semi-official news agency, Mehr, reported on interruptions and extreme slowness of internet around the country. Several bloggers, including Azari quoted from a story that said the majority of Iran's 36.5 million internet users rely on dial-up internet to be connected with 56k speeds… but that it had become even slower or inaccessible with no explanation from the authorities.

Reza Taghipour, the Minister of Information and Communication Technology eventually offered a response, saying the internet slowdown was due to infrastructure changes necessary for developing a “clean internet” [another name for the planned “national internet”].

Introducing the “Clean Internet”

A clean internet for Iran? Image with '102 broom' by Nesster on Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

In the past months, Iranian bloggers have reacted to several media reports of plans for the “clean internet” or “national internet”. Blogger Uniirani says [fa] The Islamic Republic’s decision is a big leap towards transforming into North Korea. Another blogger, Visionthetruth, said [fa] that after the internet is nationalised, it will be the turn of satellites.

For all the years that a national internet project has been discussed, Iranian media agreed on at least one thing: there is a cloud of ambiguity over project.

Donayeh Eghtesad, an Iran-based newspaper, wrote [fa] in 2010:

The project was an initiative of Ahmadinejad’s government five years ago and it has still four years to go before it becomes operational… there is a curtain of ambiguity on this project. It is not clear what, where, how and who is going to use the national internet… The Minister of Communication and Technology, Reza Taghipour, says the national internet will be a broadband, fast network inside the country to answer the government’s electronic needs… at present, the internet for households is provided by private companies, but the Ministry of Communication is researching the possibility of doing it by itself.

Two years earlier, Hamshari, an Iran-based news website, wrote that a “national internet” is an ambiguous term. They quote a media expert who says that if this project aims for 100 per cent filtering and casting away of the international internet, it is neither useful nor operational.

So whose darling is the national internet? Ahmadinejad’s government, without a doubt. According to Hamshari, the Iranian parliament refused [fa] to give an initial $10 million in funds five years ago, forcing the government to seek other financing.

As if the idea of a “National internet” was not ambiguous enough, the Iranian Minister of Communication, Reza Taghipour, launched another term: “Clean internet”. Taghipour used [fa] used the term as early as December 2010. He said they wished to shield the internet from dirty actions and protect human beings. He said that at first, the internet was created for peaceful purposes, but now there are black spots in it. The Ministry of Communication say [fa] the clean internet won’t contain any immoral content or content encouraging atheism, divisive controversies, nor hopelessness.

Alireza Shirazi, the founder of a leading blogging software provider, says it is not clear what a clean internet is, but that if the idea bears fruit, there will most likely be no Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Myspace… or any of the currently filtered sites on it. He explains the difference between a filtering system and this clean internet idea. For the former, there is a blacklist (filtered sites), but for latter there will be only a white list (limiting the internet to permitted sites).

Now with talk of a clean internet or even a Halal internet, we could also just call it a virtual Frankenstein. Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that as the regime swings its clenched fist over the Iranian internet, sometimes it hits its targets and other times it misses.

SOPA undermines the U.S. in its negotiations for a free, open Internet

Katitza Rodriguez — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:07:28 +0000

Yesterday, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) approved a Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making [pdf]. It contains a set of 14 principles intended as a blueprint guiding Internet policy development for its 34 member states. Many of these principles uphold core values we have long championed: fostering an open Internet, evidence-based policy-making, multi-stakeholder policy development, decentralized online decision-making, effective global privacy protections, and limiting Internet intermediary liability.

But all is not well on the Internet. In spite of this OECD policy framework, efforts at online censorship and spying abound. Members of the U.S. government itself are attempting to push through legislation measures that would subvert many of the core principles found in this document. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) enable online censorship on a massive scale and threaten to break the Internet, all in the name of intellectual property enforcement. These bills could encompass any foreign site accessible from the U.S. They give the U.S. government and individuals the ability to leverage Internet intermediaries to ‘blacklist’ sites accused of copyright infringement. Such actions are inconsistent with OECD principles aimed at ‘limiting intermediary liability’. Finally, the DNS blocking contemplated by these bills would undermine the usability of the DNSSEC security measures that are meant to authenticate domains and deter tampering with the DNS system. The reliability and integrity of the DNS is an important part of OECD's aim of promoting Internet security, to which the United States is supposed to be committed.

Another OECD Principle aimed at promoting an open, decentralized and interconnected network is similarly undermined. Karen Kornbluh, U.S. Ambassador to the OECD, just remarked on the importance of decentralization a couple of months ago during a conference organized at the French Senate:

The Internet is so powerful in part because no centralized authority governs it and no nation owns it … Instead, a decentralized system of public and private actors collaborates to ensure its function and expansion. What this means is that nations that choose to take a heavy-handed approach to regulating the Internet can reduce its value for every other nation and user.

SOPA and its counterpart in the Senate, PROTECT IP, would deliver that reduction in value. And the DNS-blocking those bills require would reduce that value not only by undermining critical infrastructure security efforts, but also by contributing to a globally fractured Internet.

Aside from directly undermining the ‘free and open Internet’ that the OECD Principles attempt to protect, U.S. measures to censor the Internet in the name of intellectual property rights are having a more insidious secondary effect. Countries such as China, with its well-known record of censoring Internet speech, have taken note and point to such double standards as vindication of their own censorship activities. The U.S. is quick to espouse the virtues of protecting Internet freedom in countries such as Iran and Russia, while ignoring the manner in which its own intellectual property agenda leads to similar results. Last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted in a letter, that “The State Department is strongly committed to advancing both Internet freedom and the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights on the Internet. Indeed the two priorities are consistent.” In this way, balanced intellectual property rights can be consistent with free expression. However, the U.S. overbroad enforcement agenda is far from balanced and will encourage censorship and surveillance. Moreover, intellectual property rights holders are now pointing to China as a model example of effective intermediary censorship—one the U.S. should emulate.

This U.S. agenda to defend ‘copyright at all costs’ threatens to undermine the Internet Principles adopted by the OECD yesterday. Last summer, U.S. initiated discussions resulted in a ‘Communiqué’–the precursor to this current set of principles–which EFF, and CSISAC, the voice of civil society at the OECD, opposed for privileging intellectual property rights over fundamental rights. While yesterday’s Recommendations included the Communiqué as an appendix “for informational purposes”, the OECD should be praised for ultimately excluding the troublesome elements of the Communiqué from the final legal Recommendation. The version adopted includes 14 high level Principles, but omits the more problematic text from the Communique which purported to interpret some of those principles.

OECD principles, such as the OECD Seoul Declaration and the Guidelines on Transborder Data Flows, will have legal influence on the ultimate interpretation of these new Internet Principles. EFF will continue to battle SOPA, PIPA, and other draconian domestic measures, and together with EDRI, CIPPIC and civil society groups across the world we will keep fighting against international measures censoring Internet content. This includes our sustained pressure on the U.S. government to stop laundering policies in international venues, and to instead adopt truly pragmatic policies for a free and open Internet. In this way, EFF is committed to continue engaging in the OECD policy development process.

This article has been published originally on EFF