The Index Award-winning Azerbaijani journalist Idrak Abbasov says he had been threatened by the family of a man who was arrested after an online posting, according to Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS).
“I interviewed Lankaran resident Shahin Agayev, whose daughter was beaten at school, on 14 January and posted it on the internet,” Abbasov told the IRFS.
Agayev was arrested on drug charges on 6 February and a verdict is expected to be announced soon. Abbasov says the charges are clearly false as Agayev “is really poor, he lives literally in a hut.”
Abbasov said that the man’s family blamed him for the arrest via a phone call on 13 May. The family representative told Abbasov that they had “an agreement with the police” that Agayev would be released if he stopped covering the story.
Subsequently, Abbasov reported to Index on Censorship that a man identifying himself as Agayev’s brother-in-law called and told him the police had demanded the original video, above, be deleted, despite widespread sharing.
Two days later, the man called Abbasov again — this time to arrange a meeting about a potential story.
“I have worked in Azerbaijan for long enough to understand it is a trap,” Abbasov said. Sources confirmed his suspicions. The plan had been to attack him during the meeting, potentially wounding or leaving him for dead.
“To protect myself I had to publicize the plan, and so far it has been quiet,” said Abbasov, who has been violently attacked for his work as an independent journalist.
Tunisian activist Amina Tyler was arrested on Sunday (19 May), after allegedly attempting to stage a topless protest in the central Tunisian city of Kairouan.
Tyler, who heads Tunisia’s branch of feminist movement FEMEN, first faced controversy in March, after posting topless photographs online. Ukranian feminist group FEMEN is notorious for its brand of bare-chested protest.
Hardline Salafi group Ansar al-Sharia was set to hold their annual congress in Kairouan on Sunday, but authorities banned the gathering. Tyler passed through the heavily guarded checkpoints around the city, set up to enforce the ban on the Salafi gathering. Salafis in the city clashed with security forces shortly before Tyler’s arrest.
The activist reportedly painted the word “FEMEN” as well as anti-salafist slogans on a cemetery wall near al-Okba mosque, one of Tunisia’s most important and historic religious sites. Collective blog Nawaat released a video of Tyler’s arrest — which occurred shortly after she was surrounded by local residents yelling for her to leave. Local police said that residents became enraged once Tyler attempted to take off her clothes.
A spokesman for Tunisia’s Ministry of Interior on Monday called Tyler’s protest “an act of provocation”, and “against the morals and traditions of Tunisian society, which is a Muslim society.” Tyler has not yet been charged, but she will appear in court today. Public indecency is punishable under Tunisian law, and if charged Tyler could face up to six months in jail.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index. She tweets from @missyasin
The Indian government has been implementing a system to track and access calls, texts, and online activities. Mahima Kaul reports from Delhi that the Central Monitoring System (CMS) will be used by tax authorities and India’s National Investigation Authority to fight terror-related crimes.
Opposition to the surveillance system have now launched an online petition against it. Opponents say that while the system can be used to halt terror attacks and other violence, the government will primarily use it to police hate speech and criticism of authorities. They point to the government’s track record of arresting its online critics under Section 66A of the IT Act.
As with any conversation on state policing, cyber terrorism and warfare, there is extreme nervousness about institutional frameworks, as they should be built for protection of civil liberties as much as for national security. India’s CMS was established in the aftermath of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and according to information released at the time its purpose was to provide “central and regional databases to help central and state-level enforcement agencies intercept and monitor communications” as well as “direct electronic provisioning of target numbers by government agencies without any intervention from telecom service providers.” The government is spending about $75 million to build the system. The minister for information and technology, Milind Deora, reassured the parliament that the system would “lawfully intercept Internet and phone services.”
This claim needs to be further examined. In India, phone tapping laws come under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It was amended in 2007 after a high profile court case giving only the Union and State Home Secretaries the power to order interception of any messages. However, given that communication has increasingly shifted online — including phone calls made via Skype and other VoIP mediums — this communication now comes under Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
Commentators have pointed out that the broad powers included in the act — any government official or policeman can listen to phone calls, emails, SMSs without a warrant — are in clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This means that the government has the power to easily violate a citizen’s guaranteed right to privacy — in the name of security.
There’s also another pressing question to consider when examining the CMS: who will oversee the body to ensure that there are checks and balances? Intelligence agencies don’t come under parliamentary oversight as of yet in India. A bill entitled Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, introduced in parliament in 2011 has been shelved by the Prime Minister, with the promise that a law would be formulated soon.
What seems to be a plausible way forward, given that India is building online surveillance mechanisms, is a valid legal framework for bodies like the CMS. The challenge is to ensure the citizen’s right to privacy as enshrined by the constitution is not trampled upon, and that accountability is built into these systems from the start.
