A pressa de Azeredo é para evitar a análise das consequências do seu projeto. Sem dúvida, os artigos 285-A, 285-B e 22 atendem aos ineteresses da MPAA, da RIAA e das companhias de TV fechada. Atacam milhões de internautas e querem barrar as práticas de compartilhamento de arquivos, principalmente pelas redes P2P.

Senator Azeredo’s rushing is in order to avoid analysis of the consequences of his bill. Certainly, articles 285-A, 285-B and 22 meet the interests of MPAA, the RIAA and TV coorporations. They are an attack on millions of Internet users and are meant to bar the practice of file sharing, mainly through P2P networks.

Some bloggers became more optimistic after the bill was amended. Têmis, from Doutora Responde [pt], a blog that intends to answer reader’s questions about law in a simple way, tries to demystify the 13 new cyber crimes. She concludes that after the amendments, the bill is passable, unless the House of Representatives decides not to approve the changes proposed:

O usuário da internet que não rouba senhas, que não invade redes, que não quebra redes para acessar conteúdo protegido e fazer cópias não autorizadas, que não acessa e divulga conteúdo de pedofilia, enfim, a grande maioria, pode ficar tranquila quanto a aprovação do projeto de lei DE CONFORMIDADE COM O ATUAL SUBSTITUTIVO.

The Internet user who doesn’t steal passwords, doesn’t break into networks, doesn’t destroy networks to access protected content and doesn’t make unauthorized copies, those who don’t access and disclose paedophile content, finally, the vast majority, can keep calm with regards to the approval of the bill conforming to its latest, substitute version.

However, according to others, the situation deserves, indeed, much concern. Alexandre Oliva, Board member of the Free Software Foundation Latin America, claims we are dealing with a “horrible authoriterrorism and on-line surveillance bill” approved by the Senate under the pretense of fighting pedophilia. In an announcement called Authoriterrorism and surveillance, the Brazilian way, the foundation further explains its views:

It further establishes jail time for such broad activities as unauthorized access to computer systems, networks, and data stored in them. In spite of being justified and promoted by banks on the grounds of stopping criminals from obtaining, selling or destroying information through fraud or exploitation of vulnerabilities, it is worded so ambiguously that it can be easily abused by suppliers of electronic equipment (computers such as servers, desktops, laptops, video games, cell phones, digital cameras, media players and recorders, etc) and of digitally-encoded information (text, audio, video, software, etc). Abuses may range from legal threats to actual jail time for people who unlock video games or cell phones to install software not approved by the supplier; who work around deliberate defects in media players or recorders to gain access to their own songs or movies stored in them; who use copyrighted works in ways that do not infringe on copyrights, but that authoriterrorists would like to outlaw.

André Lemos [pt], Federal University of Bahia’s Cyberculture Center Coordinator and visiting Professor at Canadian University of Alberta and McGill University, adds that the bill changes very little for criminals, but a lot for regular Internet users, who will not know if what they are doing is legal or not and will feel as if under 24/7 surveillance:

Por exemplo, se eu disseminar um vírus sem saber, poderei ser preso? posso trocar arquivos entre meus pares mesmo em redes P2P (minhas fotos, minhas músicas, meus arquivos de textos) sem pedir autorização prévia? Como os provedores vão interpretar essas trocas? Posso copiar uma parte do texto de um blog e colar no meu? Ou seja, ela cria um sentimento de insegurança e de medo generalizado. Isso bloqueia a imaginação e a criatividade.

For example, if I disseminate a virus without my knowledge, would I be arrested? Can I exchange my files with my mates in P2P networks (my pictures, music, files) without asking for prior permission? How will the ISP providers understand these exchanges? Can I copy an excerpt of a text from a blog and paste it into mine? In other words, it [the bill] creates a feeling of insecurity and general fear. It blocks imagination and creativity.

Lawyer and Sociologist Ariel Foina [pt], who specializes in Criminal Electronic Law and is a researcher on Internet social phenomena and Cyberspace Sociology, has analyzed every point of the bill in a comprehensive post, and comments on the clumsily-worded articles and how they can be dangerously misinterpreted:

na verdade os relatores do PL no Senado afirmam que a idéia aqui não era criminalizar a transmissão de Mp3 ou outros arquivos protegidos por direitos autorais por meio da Internet sem a devida autorização… sinceramente, só me lembro dos marcianos em Marte Ataca dizendo “Nos viemos em paz!” com a rizadinha característica no fundo. [...] Além do mais, o texto do artigo é excessivamente genérico o que é “dado”, meu endereço de e-mail é um dado? meu número de cpf seria um dado? um trecho de uma reportagem não deixa de ser um dado… um resultado de uma pesquisa, um percentual de um infográfico qualquer é um dado… divulgar isso, “transferindo-o” seria crime! Um eventual estado autoritário (não que o nosso seja) poderia usar isso como forma de perseguir jornalistas que conseguissem informações não públicas e as publicassem… pessoalmente acho o conceito de “dado” algo abstrato de mais para estar escrito numa Lei… Leis são feitas para serem interpretadas, para dar “segurança jurídica” à toda a sociedade… que segurança se tem quando a letra da lei permite leituras amplamente distintas?

in fact the Bill’s authors at Senate say that the idea here was not to criminalize the transmission of MP3 files or other copyright protected files through the Internet without proper authorization … honestly, it only reminds me of the Martians in Mars Attacks saying “We come in peace!” with a little a smirk in the background. [...] Moreover, the wording of the article is too generic, what is “data”, is my e-mail address data? would my individual identification number number be one? an excerpt of a news story is still a piece of data … a piece of any info-graphic is data … to disclose it, by “transferring it”, would be a crime! Any authoritarian state (hopefully not ours) could use it as a way to prosecute journalists who obtained non-public information and published it… Personally, I think the concept of “data” is something too abstract to be written in a law .. Laws are made to be interpreted, to give “legal certainty” to the whole society … what security is there when the wording of the law allows widely distinct interpretations?

Bloggers and Internet users demand at very least a long overdue debate, if not the scrapping of the bill all together. The online petition [pt] in defense of freedom and progress of knowledge on the Brazilian Internet has been signed by over 70,500 people - an extra 20,500 signatures since our last report three days ago. The hope is that at least 100,000 will be enough to sensitize the House of Representatives to the need of treading carefully. However, a lot more can be done on an individual basis, as suggests Lucia Freitas [pt]:

Se você é preguiçoso, acha que não vai fazer a diferença, te conto: faz. Que tal a gente conseguir mais de 100 mil assinaturas na petição? Que tal a gente se comunicar com cada um dos deputados de nosso Estado e deixar clara a nossa posição? Que tal a gente propor a discussão de um código que permita prender ladrões (virtuais e reais), pedófilos e outros vermes e ainda por cima continuarmos em rede, sem drama?

If you are lazy, thinking that it will not make a difference, I tell you: it does. Why don’t we get more than 100 thousand signatures to the petition? Why don’t we talk to each of the council members of our states and make our position clear? Why don’t we propose the discussion of a code that allows thieves (virtual and real), paedophiles and other vermin to be arrested and still continue online, without drama?

If approved in the House of Representatives, the final decision is in the hands of the Brazilian president, who could still veto the bill.

Resources in English

The Portuguese text of the proposal is available here, and an English translation by Pablo Lorenzoni reviewed by Alexandre Oliva, member of the Free Software Foundation Latin America, is now also available. See also previous Global Voices Coverage on the issue in May 2007 and November 2007).

Volunteers at his well-known website 64Tianwang.com (English) have been actively posting all news coverage and details surrounding Huang’s case, but the campaign to have his charges dropped gained a lot more momentum when, following his formal arrest on Friday afternoon, three of China’s better-known social issue bloggers, all from Sichuan, Wang Yi, Ran Yunfei and Linghu Buchong*, joined up with two other intellectual-writers, Liao Yiwu and Li Yadong, to take the brave step of issuing a letter of protest. The letter has been posted not just on their own blogs, but also on the more mainstream My1510, IndyMediaCN, among many others.

A translation of the letter, the original of which has since been read and spread widely online, can be seen below. Of particular note, however, is the online support yet another highly-read blogger, Mo Zhixu, has been providing on his own and in his own way, centered around his blog at independent portal Bullog.cn.

In early June, he posted the content of Huang’s Chinese Wikipedia entry, which at the time had far more information than its English counterpart, in a post at Bullog which although has since been deleted, can still be found elsewhere.

In a June 15 post titled simply, ‘One less person on MSN’, Mo reposts a Chinese-language RFA news report with the details of Huang’s arrest and earthquake relief/writing activities in the few days prior. On June 17 he posted a picture of the official document first used to detain Huang nearly a week earlier on June 11, along with the legal definition of what constitutes “possession of a state secret” in China:

Then on Saturday, July 19, Mo returned to Huang’s case with a picture and transcription of the official notice of Huang’s formal arrest, addressed to Huang’s mother, a post which in just a few hours had received over 11,000 hits and many supportive and outraged comments:

Below is the text of Wang, Ran, Linghu, Liao and Li’s statement on Huang’s arrest:

To Chengdu City Police, government, NPC representatives and the general public

On July 19, 2008 while at a friend’s party, we learned that Mr. Huang Qi, who since June 10 has been criminally detained by Chengdu Police, as of this afternoon, was formally arrested for the crime of “illegal possession of state secrets”.

While we have never been acquainted with Huang Qi, we respect the “Tianwang” which he founded to devote himself to upholding the rights of citizens. We know that he has served jail time, that he was mistreated while in prison, and that he came out with pains in his chest and other lingering conditions. Out of respect for him, we maintain our firm support for his civil rights-upholding activities through “Tianwang”, particularly his efforts in helping Mother Tang, relative of a June 4 victim, fight for compensation from the government.
As several Sichuanese intellectuals who experienced the earthquake, we especially respect Mr. Huang Qi for his participation in the civil society relief effort work following the earthquake. We know that he did everything in his power to provide supplies and aid to the earthquake victims in the disaster area, and was in contact with the parents of children who perished in the earthquake.

But what we really don’t understand is what a common citizen’s participation in disaster relief and understanding of the true situation in the disaster zone have to do with “state secrets”. We have also, as common citizens, taken part in some of the disaster zone relief work. We’re no different from Mr. Huang Qi, or any of the thousands of civil volunteers who went to the disaster zone, and in being there came to learn some unofficial information, or news which differed from what was reported in the media. So is any information that a citizen receives via means other than the media then supposed to be a “national secret”? Or does the state now naturally have ownership over all societal information? So is any citizen fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to see or hear any information inconsistent with government talking points then in “illegal possession of state secrets”?

If that is the case, then that would suggest that every single earthquake victim who spoke with Huang Qi is also in illegal possession of state secrets. Put another way, at the same time they became earthquake victims, they also became “state secrets”, or began carrying some sort of state secret virus. The Chengdu and Sichuan police should go arrest every single earthquake victim who came in contact with Huang Qi, and not only just Huang Qi himself. Or at least, all earthquake victims should be put in isolation, to keep any of us from speaking to them, and coming across any state secrets.

Given the common sense of rule of law, we know that all so-called state secrets, first off, are not known to average citizens. Second, the state takes measures to keep them confidential. In other words, anything that can be seen on the street, is not a secret. If nudity were to be seen on the street, the problem would certainly not be the people who saw it, but the person who was seen. Which is to say, any common citizen not part of any state organ, unless he were to use illegal means to pry into or steal information given prior protection by any state organ, any information of which he is aware, could not possibly touch up on the crime of “illegal possession of state secrets”.

As such, we have no choice but to express our strong suspicion, opposition and protest to Chengu police’s arrest of Huang Qi under the false pretense of his participation in post-earthquake disaster relief. Although we have seen that the local government was not happy to see volunteer-based civil society relief rescue efforts, the Chengdu police’s arrest of Huang Qi is all the more shocking. We can only understand this as a sort of negation of municipal society, a cruel and arrogant provocation aimed at civil society, as well as a humiliation to this province which only just suffered an earthquake.

Based on experience and conscience, we do not believe this to be a just arrest. We do hope that Chengdu police will be able to respect the rule of law and respect civic rights, at the same time, respecting their own methods used in handling a case. We advocate for and support the media, internet and civil society to be able to freely report and comment upon this case. Even more, we encourage intellectuals, urban residents and media in Chengdu and elsewhere to stand up and question and criticize the Chengdu police for this, using the legitimate means of a citizen to help the government in respecting the laws it itself established.

We call upon the Chengdu police that they not use any torture tactics to extort a confession or any other such barbaric means which violate the rule of law. We call upon the Chengdu police to allow Mr. Huang Qi to meet with his attorney. We call upon the Chengdu police to refrain from using illegal methods to continue to harass and threaten Huang Qi’s volunteers at Tianwang.

We would hate to see this case become yet another dismal human rights record raising international attention in the midst of this Olympic year. We regret to suspect, however, that the Chengdu police are at present committed to doing as much. As intellectuals of China, we also hate to see China’s human rights situation always being criticized by people from other countries, which is why we can only be hard-headed about this, and begin first and foremost by criticizing our own government.

We hope the Chengdu police and Chengdu judicial departments take the initiative in their response to this case. May our criticism, protest and response to the government prove to be a blessing for Chengdu, and for China.

2008-7-19
July 19, 2008

Just a brief description of Huang’s website Tianwang: put online in 1998 as a platform for reuniting families with missing persons, a year later it had expanded its focus to larger social issues, exposing several corruption cases and one major medical scandal, during which time Huang Qi was beaten while his website garnered heavy praise in commercial and official Chinese (as well as foreign) media. Less than two years later, the website was shut down. Two weeks after that, Huang Qi had it up and running again, this time hosted overseas, only then to be blocked within China as it remains today. That same summer, Huang Qi was sentenced to five years in prison for subversion of state power. All this and more can be read on Tianwang here.

*Linghu Buchong has informed GVA that while he in fact did not sign his name to the letter, he was the first person to have posted it to Bullog.

Thanks to the pressure from many fronts, the initial draft proposed by Senator Eduardo Azeredo, which gathered unanimous rejection by the blogosphere, has been re-written for the better. The demand for user identification before they can take any action on the Internet, such as blogging, e-mailing or chatting, has been dropped, and some advances have even been made with the inclusion of an article to criminalize online racism.

On the other hand, many acts that would be considered trivial conduct when surfing the Internet are still typified as a crime, as explains blogger and lawyer Lu Monte [pt], while the online pedophilia issue, which was supposed to be the main motivation behind the new law, has been touched only superficially in just one of the proposed articles.

The Senate Press Relations Office issued a press-release [pt] to clarify some of the points and some blogs published a shorter version sent by e-mail to journalists:

“São 13 os novos crimes tipificados pela proposta: 1) acesso não autorizado a dispositivo de informação ou sistema informatizado; 2) obtenção, transferência ou fornecimento não-autorizado de dado ou informação; 3) divulgação ou utilização indevida de informações e dados pessoais; 4) destruir, inutilizar ou deteriorar coisa alheia ou dado eletrônico alheiro; 5) inserção ou difusão de vírus; 6) agravamento de pena para inserção ou difusão de vírus seguido de dano; 7) estelionato eletrônico (fishing); 8) atentado contra segurança de serviço ou utilidade pública; 9) interrupção ou perturbação de serviço telegráfico, telefônico, informático, telemático, dispositivo de comunicação, rede de computadores ou sistema informatizado; 10) falsificação de dados eletrônicos públicos e 11) falsificação de dados eletrônicos particulares (clonagem de cartões e celulares, por exemplo); 12) discriminação de raça ou de cor disseminada por meio de rede de computadores (alteração na Lei Afonso Arinos); 13) receptar ou armazenar imagens com conteúdo pedófilo (alteração no Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente).”

“A lei não se aplica a quem, por lazer ou trabalho, usa corretamente o computador, seja desenhando, seja baixando músicas, seja batendo-papo, seja dando opiniões em blogs, fazendo pesquisas ou quaisquer atividades semelhantes. O BOM USUÁRIO DEVE FICAR TRANQUILO, POIS NADA ACONTECERÁ A ELE, A NÃO SER O AUMENTO DE SUA SEGURANÇA, PELALEI, NO USO DAS TECNOLOGIAS.”

“There are 13 new crimes epitomized in the proposal: 1) non-authorized access to an information device or automated system, 2) obtaining, transferring or providing of non-authorized data or information, 3) disclosure or misuse of personal information and data; 4) destroying, making unusable or degrading other people’s objects or electronic data, 5) introducing and distributing viruses, 6) severer sentencing for introducing or distributing of viruses followed by damage; 7) electronic deception (phishing), 8) attack on security service or public utility; 9) interruption or disruption of telephone, telegraph computer, or electronic services, communication device, computer networks or computer system, 10) falsification of electronic public data and 11) falsification of private electronic data (credit card and mobile phone cloning, for example), 12) discriminating against people regarding race or color disseminated through computer networks (amendment to the Afonso Arinos Law), 13) receiving or storing pictures with pedophile content (amendment to the Child and Adolescent Statute).”
“The law does not apply to those who, for leisure or work, use the computer in a correct manner, whether drawing, downloading music, chatting online, writing opinions on blogs, searching content or any similar activities. The good user can rest in peace because nothing will happen to them, apart from the increase in security, according to the law, when it comes to technology usage.

The text may have been amended but new questions keep pouring in. Sérgio Amadeu [pt] is looking forward to clarifications of the above points:

1) quem define o que é o “uso correto do computador”? O Senador Azeredo?
2) o que é exatamente “um acesso não autorizado a dispositivo de informação (faltou ele incluir comunicação) ou sistema informatizado”?
3) O que é infomação? Bom, um site possui informações, um game, um CD, um DVD também. Se um jovem pegar um vídeo no youtube ou em um DVD ele estará ou não violando um dispositivo de informação?
4) Se eu destruir o DRM de um aparelho qualquer para copiar uma imagem ou uma cena de vídeo estarei comentendo um crime perante a lei do Azeredo? Se burlar um DRM de um dispositivo de música para copiar a música em outro aparelho serei um criminoso? Se eu rippar um CD e passar as músicas para o meu computador estarei violando a Lei do Azeredo?
5) Quando acesso uma rede de TV a cabo e pego um personagem de um filme ou de uma série da TV para usar no meu blog ou para recriar uma nova história estarei “obtendo um acesso não-autorizado de dado ou informação”?
6) Quando distribuir numa rede P2P ou apenas publicar no meu blog um vídeo que baixei do youtube, uma música que remixei, uma ficção que reescrevi com os personagens do filme “Guerra nas Estrelas”, ESTAREI comentendo um CRIME de “obtenção, transferência ou fornecimento não-autorizado de dado ou informação”?
7) Se o Senador diz que a Lei dele não tem nada a ver com a ampliação exagerada do copyright, então prá que necessitamos dos dois primeiros tipos criminais que a assessoria do Senador destacou entre os 13 novos crimes criados?
8) Se é para evitar “roubo ou furto” de dados e senhas JÁ não seria suficiente o tipo criminal “3 divulgação ou utilização indevida de informações e dados pessoais”?

1) Who defines what “correct use of the computer” is? Senator Azeredo?
2) What exactly is “non-authorized access to an information (communication should be included here) device or automated system”?
3) What is information? Well, a website contains information, a game, a CD, a DVD too. If a youngster gets a video on youtube or on a DVD, will they be violating the information device or not?
4) If I destroy any apparatus’ DRM to copy a picture or a video will I be committing a crime before the Azeredo Law? If I circumvent a music device’s DRM, to copy the music to another device will I be a criminal? If I rip a CD and transfer the music to my computer, will I violate the Azeredo Law?
5) When I access a cable TV channel and pick up a character from a movie or a TV series to use it on my blog or to recreate a new story will I be “obtaining non-authorized data or information”?
6) When I distribute a video that I downloaded from youtube, a song that I remixed, a piece of fiction that I re-wrote with the characters from “Star Wars” to a P2P network or just post it on my blog WILL I be committing a CRIME of “obtaining, transferring or provision of non-authorized data or information”?
7) If the Senator says that the law has nothing to do with the excessive extension of copyright, then why do we need the first two types of criminal offenses that the Senator’s PR team highlighted among the 13 new crimes created?
8) If it is to prevent “theft or stealing” of data and passwords would number “3) disclosure or misuse of personal information and data” not ALREADY be enough?

Ronaldo Lemos [pt], director of the Center for Technology & Society (CTS) at the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School and Project Lead for the Creative Commons in Brazil, provides his conclusions and some advice:

Em síntese, a imprecisão do texto e suas conseqüências imprevisíveis (algumas das quais listadas acima) demandam que sejam vetados no mínimo os artigos 285-A, 285-B, 163-A, parágrafo primeiro, Art. 6º, inciso VII, Artigo 22, III. Caso os artigos persistam, condutas triviais na rede serão passíveis de punição com penas de até 4 anos de reclusão.

In summary, the text’s vagueness and its unpredictable consequences (some of which are listed above [on the post]) require that at least Articles 285-A, 285-B, 163-A, first paragraph, Art 6, item VII, Article 22, item III be vetoed. If these articles persist, [users] shall be liable for trivial conduct on the network and punished with sentences of up to 4 years’ imprisonment.

(Say no to the Senador Azeredo project, iconography by Nick Ellis)

Bloggers and Internet users in general demand more transparency and are mobilizing to fight for it. However, there is still a lot of confusion around the issues and many people are still referring to the earlier pre-amendment text to question the law. This doesn’t come as a surprise considering that the public has not been invited into the debate and that only agreeable people were allowed to attend the open sessions discussing the law at the Senate.

It is a general consensus that the matter was not debated enough, and to help with it a blog carnival against censorship [pt] has been called for next Saturday, July 19. The original text of the proposal, available here [pt], is being translated into English by a group of volunteers, in order to raise international awareness. Meanwhile, an online petition [pt] in defense of freedom and progress of knowledge on the Brazilian Internet created by some very respected Brazilian cyberculture academics and ativists [pt] has been signed by over 58,000 citizens in just one week.

At the end of our first day of open work, GV founder Rebecca MacKinnon put an important idea on the table: censorship is not only a political or technological problem; it is also a social problem. Thus, it is important to encourage bloggers to resist; to keep blogging. In this last task, the NGOs are one of the most valuable resources for bloggers who need help to keep blogging actively for their causes. The main question for the session was how NGOs can help more effectively.

Elijah Zarwan, from Human Rights Watch pointed out some of the tasks an NGO must follow in order to efficiently help people in need. Taking his experience in Egypt as a start, and quoting certain Egyptian bloggers, he made clear that an NGO must inform people about their rights and train them to communicate, encourage local support, and connect with people around the world. These bloggers also underlined the importance of spreading the word about the abuses taking place in Egypt.

Thus, as an NGO, to help repressed activists is a matter of commitment. NGOs and activists should work together instead of working for each other. They need to listen carefully, and listen to the right people: there should also be contact with people that don’t speak English and who live outside the big cities. NGOs should also support activists, work on prevention, try to find allies inside the government and respond as quickly as possible.

Internet has changed a lot the problems surrounding freedom of expression in many ways. As more people become authors, activists, and information sources; there are more voices to be heard and to be protected. According to Clothilde Le Coz, from Reporters Without Borders, a new space for advocacy for journalists has opened with Internet activism. This NGO specializes in putting pressure on governments in order to make sure they comply with the commitments taken. For them, blogger participation is the main source of information. Without them, their work would become fiercely difficult. They strongly advise bloggers to work on prevention and not wait until censorship affects them directly to fight against.

Nasser Weddady gave interesting examples of how bloggers and NGOs have worked together in order to make people aware of censorship situations happening in countries apparently far away. He illustrated with the example of Jane Novak, who carried important work as an activist against the Yemeni government from her home. The main question for this activist defender was “why should we care?” and underlined, apart from the need of defending Human Rights in any country of the world, the importance of connections among governments and how putting pressure on the authorities of the West can be helpful for activists in the East.

The NGO Tactical Tech, represented by Stephanie Hankey presented the tools they use to help activists through technology in order to remain anonymous. Also, they work with marginalized communities in order to make them aware of their rights and to communicate safely. So far, they have trained 1500 advocates and independent journalists. One of the most important tasks is based on information, especially in what it comes to the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of activist, in order to help people to take their own decisions. They put the light on the hidden challenge of blogging anonymously.

Finally, Antony Loewenstein made an interesting summary on censorship in countries such as his native Australia, a place in which censorship takes another shape. Who are the ones to decide what is convenient or not in the Web? This points out the problems that are merging when society and Internet users decide to censor the content on the Internet. He focused on the current Australian situation and in the Asia Pacific region and how NGOs can efficiently protect online activists and analyzed the prejudices and preconceptions in the West around repressive goverments. “I’ve long believed that activism must be mainstreamed to be truly effective, rather than just the concern of a minority. Our job as journalists, activists, NGOs, bloggers or concerned citizens is to bring the stories of the world to a media that welcomes localism and shuns complexity. These rules of the game are ripe for change.” At the end, it was clear that one of the main goals for the future of blogger activism will be to find a way to work together and eliminate the dichotomy that separates us, in an absurd way, as Easterners or Westerners.

Here is a rough translation of the comment:

I hate cops [menty], [swear word omitted]

I don’t agree with the thesis that “policemen still have the mentality of a repressive stick in the hands of the powers that be.” First, they are cops [menty, not militsionery, a less respectful way to refer to police]. Second, their mentality isn’t still here. It’s simply ineradicable. Once a musor [a synonym for ment; non-slang meaning of the word is "trash"], always a musor, even in Africa. Those who become cops [menty] - rednecks and thugs - are the dumbest and least educated representatives of the live/animal world. Would be great if there was an oven, similar to those in Auschwitz, in the center of every Russian city, at the main square (in Syktyvkar, right in the center of Stefanovskaya, where the New Year’s tree stands, so that everyone could see), and there’d be a daily ceremony - or, even better, twice a day (at noon and midnight, for example) - of burning a dishonest cop [ment] there. The people would be doing the burning. This would be the first step towards cleansing the society of the dirt that the thuggish cops are.

The court found Terentyev guilty of inciting enmity and publicly humiliating representatives of a social group (Article 282, part 1 of the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code).

Here is a rough translation of a tiny part of the 12-page “guilty” verdict (RUS), posted by one of the defense witnesses, LJ user mezak, on his blog (the original of the passage below is on p. 11; the post also has photos of Terentyev, his defense team, and the judge reading the verdict; there are 376 comments to the post so far):

[...] Defendant Terentyev S.S. [Savva Sergeyevich], by means of the language, by having a negative impact on the public opinion and mood, and by aiming to incite social enmity and hatred, to escalate social conflict, to sharpen social contradictions, to awaken base instincts in people, contrasted the people and police officers, calling to [their] physical annihilation by the people. The text does not allow for ambiguous understanding and interpretation of [its] content and meaning, because it should be understandable to any average native speaker of Russian who has basic oral and written language skills. [...]

LJ user sholademi re-posted the verdict on his blog and added this note (RUS) at the end of his entry:

Hmm, it has to be noted that the court’s verdict contains many orthographic mistakes. This, in addition to the legal side of the case (namely, the questionable linguistic analysis). In short, it’s getting crazier and crazier.

In another post, LJ user sholademi posted a 5-question survey (RUS), explaining that Terentyev’s defense team was planning to appeal the blogger’s sentence and, among other things, would like to “find out how Savva Terentyev’s case is going to affect the discussion environment in the Russian blogosphere.” Below are the survey’s results so far:

1. Before Savva Terentyev’s case, were there many LJ bloggers who allowed themselves to speak harshly of law enforcement and other state institutions and officials?

a. Many bloggers made such statements - 842 (75.4%)

b. Only some bloggers made such statements - 233 (20.9%)

c. I’ve never encountered such statements on blogs - 41 (3.7%)

2. Before the verdict on Savva Terentyev’s case, how often did you encounter harsh statements about law enforcement and other state institutions and officials on your friends feed?

а. Such statements were pretty frequent on my friends feed - 664 (59.7%)

b. Such statements were pretty rare on my friends feed - 347 (31.2%)

c. Such statements were never present on my friends feed - 102 (9.2%)

3. If the verdict on Savva Terentyev’s case comes into force, how will it affect the number of bloggers who would allow themselves to make harsh statements about law enforcement and other state institutions and officials in open posts and comments?

a. Their numbers will grow significantly - 193 (17.4%)

b. Their numbers will grow, but not significantly - 239 (21.6%)

c. Their numbers will decrease, but not significantly - 550 (49.6%)

d. Their numbers will decrease significantly - 126 (11.4%)

4. If the verdict on Savva Terentyev’s case comes into force, how will it affect the number of bloggers who would allow themselves to make harsh statements about law enforcement and other state institutions and officials in locked (friends-only) posts?

a. Their numbers will grow significantly - 386 (34.9%)

b. Their numbers will grow, but not significantly - 470 (42.5%)

c. Their numbers will decrease, but not significantly - 219 (19.8%)

d. Their numbers will decrease significantly - 31 (2.8%)

5. Do you consider Savva Terentyev’s sentence fair?

a. I consider it fair - 73 (6.5%)

b. I consider it unfair, as it is too soft - 12 (1.1%)

c. I consider it unfair, as it is too harsh - 71 (6.3%)

d. I consider it unfair in principle, because, in my opinion, Savva did not commit a crime - 963 (86.1%)

On July 14, Savva Terentyev and his lawyer held a press conference in Moscow (see photo of Terentyev at LJ user mezak’s blog). LJ user dolboeb - Anton Nossik, the self-described “Social Media Evangelist at SUP,” the online media company that owns LiveJournal.com - announced the event on his blog and added this note (RUS) at the end of his post:

[...] Each month, 10-12 million comments appear in the Cyrillic LJ (10.5 million in June, 130.5 million in the past 12 months). On the average, every post gets 3.7 comments. [The police unit that initiated Savva Terentyev's case] has plenty of work ahead (unless, of course, they’ve got nothing else to busy themselves with).

At the press conference, LJ user dolboeb reiterated his point (RUS, link to an article in Novaya Gazeta, the newspaper for which Anna Politkovskaya used to write):

[...] Of course, spending 15 minutes on the web and finding a criminal is a lot more convenient than running around the dark, narrow streets with a gun. As a taxpayer, I’m not satisfied with this situation. [...]

Following the bombing, police interrogated a number of Belarusian opposition members and human rights activists and searched their homes and offices. On July 9, four people were detained: Sergei Chislov, Igor Korsak, Viktor Leshchinsky and Miroslav Lozovsky, all members of the White Legion, the youth wing of the Belarusian Union of Military Personnel, banned in 1996.

Andrei Khrapavitsky of the recently re-launched Belarusan American Blog has written (ENG) about the blast and the subsequent arrests - as well as about the Belarusian bloggers’ response:

[...] I guess there’s hardly a blogger in Belarus who hasn’t commented on the bomb blast. People are guessing what happened and what consequences it would have. There are lots of different versions, but I doubt there is much sense to recapitulate them here. One is for sure. This is the first major terror act in Belarus. Even if the regime itself is not involved (and most probably, it isn’t as many prominent analysts, like Silitski and Feduta, think), there’s a damn good pretense to use this bomb blast for intimidation of the opposition. The blast is especially handy for this matter, as it happened a few days after the parliamentary race had officially started in Belarus.

LJ user kabierac posted Martin Niemöller’s poem “First they came…” on his blog and called Belarusian fellow-bloggers to use the emblem of the White Legion as their userpic image, to express solidarity with the four individuals detained in connection with July 4 blast. His post (BEL, RUS) has made it into the Top 30 of the Yandex Blogs portal.

Many Belarusian bloggers have supported the initiative. LJ user coipish is one of them; according to some reports (BEL), he has also been detained by the police. He wrote this (BEL, RUS):

What you see on my userpic now is the emblem of what used to be the White Legion, whose former members are now being blamed for the recent blast. I join the initiative to support them by at least changing my userpic. I really sympathize with all the victims of the terrorist act, but, unfortunately, the real perpetrators are not likely to be ever held responsible for it :((

LJ user z_hunter chose to use an alternative userpic image - with the same symbol but a different color scheme:

Here is why (a discussion in the comments section on LJ user coipish’s post):

z_hunter:

A good emblem, but the colors are bad. Not our colors - black and red. I like the white-red-white variation better.

kostas14:

Traditional for the Belarusian culture and art. [...]

z_hunter:

That’s right. But red flag is also associated with some not very good periods in the history of the USSR and Germany. And all this had a very destructive and sad effect on our Belarus.

As for the reactions of the relatively apolitical Minsk residents, Kartina Mira (”Picture of the World”) blog, run by a Belarus-based Russian citizen, has this sketch (RUS), featuring a conversation overheard at one of the city’s hairdressing salons:

[...]

- Oh, have you heard about the blast? A real terrorist act…
- Yes. Chechnya is way over there, and we are here. They are totally getting out of control.

That is, these events are so unnatural for Belarus that ordinary people come up with only one direct association for the blast: “terrorist act - Chechnya.”

The realities of the country I live in. Quiet, peaceful, nice, stable. Sometimes even boring. But it’s so much better than what the neighbors have.

DigiActive is very proud to announce its first guide: A DigiActive Introduction to Facebook Activism. The guide is meant for activists who are interested in bringing digital technology to help develop excitement for a budding (or mature) movement.

The guide provides an overview some best practices with Facebook activism along with information about what and what not to expect. The end of the piece provides a closer look into three successful Facebook-driven campaigns from Egypt, Burma, and Morocco.

A DigiActive Introduction to Facebook Activism is available for Download here.

Content is split into four sections:

• Pros & Cons of Facebook Activism
• Steps to Organizing an Activism Campaign on Facebook
• Advice for Your Facebook Campaign
• Great Facebook Campaigns from Around the World

DigiActive is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to helping grassroots activists around the world use the Internet and mobile phones to increase their impact. Its goal is a world of activists made more powerful and more effective through the use of digital technology. DigiActive pursues this goal in several spheres of action, including a blog of digital activism best practices around the world, an interactive map which serves as a visual database of digital activism, a research program, and Open Trainings, a new open source repository of digital activism training modules. Learn more and get involved at www.DigiActive.org.

For further information please contact the author, Dan Schultz, at dschultz [ at ] Andrew [dot] cmu [ dot ] edu

Nart Villeneuve, an internationally recognised expert on internet access issues argued that during the so-called net 2.0 generation, the fight for internet access and anonymity has become global where even in so-called liberal democracies, activists critical of local governments have become victims of censorship. Yet, the fight for internet privacy affects all computer users. Villeneuve struck a common theme throughout the hour-long discussion: Civil libertarians have more to worry from corporations than repressive governments. That’s because some authoritarian governments may harass bloggers, block certain news and social media sites and attack activists and cyber dissidents, but these crimes may not be carried out thoroughly. On the other hand, corporations systematically track net users’ movements on the web and indefinitely store this information.

What becomes of this intelligence is unknown. Civil libertarians worry that companies could be bullied by governments to provide the information. Or worse: Companies, looking for a better economic foothold in larger markets like China and India, could willingly restrict certain features (like chat) or hand over user data on specific bloggers. Users should be aware that when following commercial firms’ weak civil liberties track record, one should not be taken by surprise, argues Danny O’Brien from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “All these companies will make these compromises” to stay in business, he says.

Making things better for users around the world, O’Brien argues, is that internet communication is moving away from centralised platforms like Google’s Blogger and MSN chat toward more decentralised social sites like Facebook, Live Journal and Skype, which provides encrypted chatting.

Another result, Villeneuve says, has been the creation of a number of programs to assist those seeking to access blocked sites or remain anonymous from traffic analysis. Problems remain that users have a variety of security choices, no single tool offers complete anonymity. More importantly, users need to understand the threats against them before choosing such a tool.

One of the internet’s best opportunity for users to remain anonymous is Tor, codeveloped by Roger Dingle. The product was not envisioned to be an anticensorship tool. Rather, Dingle’s group was originally funded by the U.S. Dept. of Defense and designed to allow users to travel the internet anonymously. It became popular with law enforcement officers setting up sting operations and corporate interests wishing to check out the competition without leaving tracks. However, a handful of news gathering organisations like Voice of America and Internews have also provided funding so that people to view their content from countries where it has been blocked

According to the Tor site, the product works like this: Instead of providing a single, straight path to a desired web page (or computer), Tor uses a series of constantly changing encrypted links through several servers, making it nearly impossible for a single observer to track a user.

“They don’t know where you are going or where you have been.” Dingle says. “It lets people do for themselves what they need to do.”

Isaac Mao, one of China’s first bloggers, has experienced his share of internet censorship. When a government like China moves to limit access to certain sites, Mao says, it acts as a form of self censorship to all Chinese citizens, no matter where they reside. “When I am out of the country, I still don’t dare to access some blogs, even though I can,” he said. “… I can’t break my mindset.”

Mao and others have began a system where people can create their individual domain names, which will be hosted on different servers around the world to keep users’ content secure and constantly online. This will protect blogs from getting hacked. Or, if your blog is restricted in some countries, to keep it online by changing addresses very quickly. Mao calls his group’s “collaborative model” — which means not having a permanent office — allows the service team to keep servers up without worrying about authorities.

While bloggers in various countries worry about obtaining access to the internet, groups and organisations providing relief and human rights work must understand that the most basic security threats now belong to e-mail programs, which has become a fundamental form of communication.

Because issues vary by geography, there is no single solution for keeping the lines of communication open for these groups. What organisations need to do, argues Robert Guerra, is begin sharing best practices and developers of security tools must better localise software and training manuals.

“Regimes are becoming more sophisticated [with their xxx] that e-mail is not being received or being disappeared,” said Guerra, a internet privacy expert based in Canada. “Skype and chat are also being blocked.” He said that cell phones — which he called “the portable spy you carry in your pocket” — are also being targeted.

O’Brien from the Electronic Fronteir Foundation argues that users would be better finding internet access and ID protection through open source software, which has a very decentralised business model. Users should be looking from the companies or organisations that create this software is an amount of trust, continuity, or proof they have been around for a long time, an amount of good publicity about the product and a funding stream so they will be around in the future.

Originally posted on GlobalVoices Summit 08

At his most recent appeals hearing, according to Jean MacKenzie at IWPR, Kambakhsh was berated by his own judge:

Presiding judge Abdul Salam Qazizada has weathered several Afghan administrations. He is a holdover from the Taleban regime, and his antagonism to the defendant was visible…

During the session, Qazizada appeared to take on the role of prosecutor rather than impartial judge, engaging in a legal duel with defence attorney Mohammad Afzal Nooristani. Lacking a gavel, he repeatedly banged his pen against his microphone in an effort to halt Nooristani’s defence of his client.

Time and again the judge attacked Kambakhsh, who sat pale but composed in the defendant’s chair.

“Just tell me why you did these things,” insisted Qazizada. “What were your motives?”

“I cannot give you reasons, since I did not do anything,” responded Kambakhsh.

Kambakhsh is alleged to have been beaten since his initial imprisonment last December, however given the length of time it took for an examination to be scheduled, most of the physical markings have healed over. Though he plead guilty, he claims to have done so under duress.

Kambakhsh also stands accused of moral character flaws such as asking too many questions in class, seeking attention and popularity, being impolite, and swapping dirty jokes over his cellphone.

Kambakhsh faces many obstacles: his defense lawyers hadn’t examined his case file even a week before his first appeals hearing, and the Upper House of Parliament has voiced its support for his execution, along with conservative clerics and some tribal elders.

In 2006, Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity. His life was spared when, under intense international pressure, he was declared legally insane and deported to Italy. Similar international pressure is not as readily apparent in Kambakhsh’s case: a story on his case in the international media has not appeared for months, despite worrying indications this is a revenge case for his brother’s work with IWPR.

See heartbreaking images of Afghan policemen escorting Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh after a court hearing in Kabul on May 18, 2008 at the dailylife website.

Tongue in cheek Póvoa Online, which had been available since 2005, was very popular among locals because of its sharp sense of humour and funny caricatures of local politicians, some of which illustrate this piece. Last week, the administrators received the following message from Google explaining the reasons for the closure of the blog hosted with Blogspot:

“Hello,

We’d like to inform you that we’ve received a court order regarding your blog http://povoaonline.blogspot.com. In accordance with the terms of the court order, we’ve been forced to remove your blog. A copy of the court order we received is attached. Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,The Blogger Team

No sooner was Povoa Online deleted than a new blog was created by the same group of irreverent bloggers who sign under the pseudonym Tony Vieira. Povoa Offline made its first appearance publishing the full court decision and amassing nearly 150 comments so far. However, they are still not sure why, as citizens, they were forbidden from expressing themselves in a blog, as Tony explains [pt]: “To my knowledge, nobody has been able so far to explain the legal aspects of the court decision to thousands of “bloggers” who are out there in Portugal, only to mention the Portuguese Lusosphere.”

Ludwig Krippahl [pt] believes that the Portuguese judges don’t understand the basic principle that blogs, as opposed to the established media and journalists, are open spaces that represent people’s opinions and this should be therefore defended under the right of expression. He also points out that since 2000 the Portuguese courts have been given five convictions by the European Court of Human Rights for violations of this fundamental right:

Este caso caricato mostra que os autarcas não percebem bem como estas coisas funcionam. Além de chamar mais atenção para estas alegações, agora qualquer um pode ler na notificação do tribunal precisamente aquilo que eles queriam retirar do acesso público. Além disso, apesar de não se saber se as alegações são verdadeiras, a decisão do tribunal só mencione o ataque à reputação, honra e bom nome dos queixosos e não a sua inocência.

Blogger JMSP [pt] has decided to resort to auto-censorship, and thought it was better not to comment further about the reasons behind the decision:

Nem queria acreditar: o blogue mais lido da Póvoa e um dos mais lidos em Portugal, o povoaonline foi eliminado! Resta a cache, aqui e aqui e suas sequelas que perdurarão no etérea www. Nem me atrevo a pronunciar-me sobre o caso, não me bloqueiem também a mim ou, pior, não me mandem para o Tarrafal. Mas, obviamente, disponibilizo-me para testemunha abonatória do velho Tony.

[*Translation note: Tarrafal, also known as "Camp of the Slow Death", was a concentration camp in the former Portuguese colony, Cape Verde]

JCD [pt] says that the blogger could not really be considered a loose cannon, but agrees that it is only fair that the courts deal with the type of accusations they used to make in cases where people felt victims of libelous accusations. However something does not feel quite right:

Mas… não é incomodativo este tipo de actuação judicial, semelhante à queima dos livros, esta opção pelo apagar da história das ofensas passadas? “Crime”, disse o juiz. “Que as palavras heréticas jamais sejam lidas…”