19 Feb 2014 | Asia and Pacific, Australia, Digital Freedom, News and features
(Image: Shutterstock)
When will Australian governments leave the internet alone? Successive governments have shown an inability to allow Australians to go about the business of using the web and browsing at will. Under previous Labor governments, an obsession grew about the need for a mandatory internet filter system. The system would have screened out sites falling into the “Refused Classification” category. Internet activists and the political opposition guffawed at the suggestion. It was deemed excessive and unworkable.
Australia’s new attorney-general, the prickly George Brandis, claims to be interested in freedoms. He certainly spends time talking about it, having established the new office of “Freedom Commissioner” and claiming that the political left has lost sight of traditional civil rights in favour of select, marginal entitlements. His appointee to the position, Tim Wilson of the libertarian Institute of Public Affairs, is meant to signal a policy shift.
Such a move does little to suggest how actual “freedoms” are going to be protected, let alone promoted. Australia’s legislative regime on rights, in the absence of a constitutionally protected bill of rights, is a quilt work of regulations. These are, as ever, the subject of parliamentary change.
When it comes to internet freedoms, Brandis shows a slightly different suspicion of its workings than his predecessors. But in targeting a form of behaviour he cannot accept, he proves to be on familiar ground. The focus here is not morally righteous in the manner of the pornography filterers, but it is righteous in the sense of protecting financial and economic rights. “The illegal downloading of Australian films online is a form of theft.” Both views share a common strand: a desire to circumscribe the way the net, and information, is used.
Before an audience at the Australian Digital Alliance copyright forum last week, Brandis made mention of how he might go about this. The government will consider various legal means to provide a “legal incentive” for ISPs to collaborate with copyright owners to combat infringements. “This may include looking carefully at the merits of a scheme whereby ISPs are required to issue graduated warnings to consumers who are using websites to facilitate piracy.”
A three-strikes system is being pushed, part of a global drive by developed countries to exert greater control over internet content. France, New Zealand, the United States and Britain are all in the stages of implementing such a program. Users of Australia’s broadband system who allegedly download pirated content will be warned before authorities intervene. This can involve threats of discontinuation from the use of the internet after three warnings. So far, owners of content in Australia have been pressing the government to use a warning system short of disconnection.
The effects of this have already been outlined in some detail. Internet service providers such as iiNet and Optus claim that such a policy move will shift the onus on them to police content. That is Brandis’ suggestion: to convert ISPs into cyber policing outfits that will remove websites hosting “illegitimate” material, thereby restraining downloads by customers.
A few points are worth mentioning. The first is how accountability for infringements can be attributed to an ISP. A ruling by the Australian High Court on the liability of an ISP for allowing the downloading of infringing content is instructive. In 2012, the court unanimously found in a case mounted by 34 studios and television companies against iiNet that the ISP was not liable for authorising copyright infringement.
Roadshow Films v iiNet proved to be a global test case on illegal downloads. It found that iiNet did not have direct power to prevent infringements given its lack of control over the BitTorrent protocol. The only way to prevent violations would have been excessive: eliminating a customer’s Internet access altogether, which would also prevent legitimate uses of it. Indifference to cases of infringement was not the same as authorisation of it. And expecting iiNet to do what the plaintiffs wanted would have resulted in heavy expense, inconvenience and liability for terminating customer accounts.
The other point to make is that such graduated systems are set to fail even as they unduly burden the industry. The experiences in France, New Zealand and the UK have shown them to be counterproductive. Steve Dalby, chief regulatory officer of iiNet, forcefully argues that content should be made available via a system of timely release using such streaming services as Netflix and Hulu. “It can’t be a coincidence that graduated response doesn’t work anywhere else in the world, and making content available in a timely fashion in the US market does work.”
Such suggestions by Brandis cast light on preliminary moves on the part of Australia to import American models of intellectual property law into the domestic system. Australia has been the least disagreeable of the countries involved in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement with the United States, which contains a substantive chapter on intellectual property.
The intellectual property chapter of the secretly negotiated agreement, obtained by WikiLeaks, suggests the extent the TPP will control the way “protected” content, be it technology, medicine and publishing, will be controlled. Mandatory removals and targeting copyright infringements are fundamental to the changes. The main investors in such an arrangement are US companies who will seek, through the legal regulations in other countries, to control the release of protected material. Aspects of the contentious Digital Millennium Copyright Act have found their way into the agreement.
While the interests of copyright are important to consider, the tendency to control the global Internet via an internationalised copyright regime that coopts ISPs into the role of monitors serves no useful role in preventing infringements. This has the effect of turning a provider of such services into a security service for corporate rights. But it is a trend proving irresistible to all governments, especially those in industrial countries.
This article was posted on February 19, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
18 Feb 2014 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Russia
Homosexuality and LGBT rights have made headlines across the globe during the Sochi Winter Olympics, following Russia’s introduction this summer of laws banning “gay propaganda”.
Index invited Brian Pellot, Director of Global Strategy and Religious Freedom Editor at Religion News Service, and Joel Bedos, International Coordinator for International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO), to join us for our first ever Drawing the Line Google Hangout, to debate young people’s views on same-sex relationships.
Watch the discussion below and have your say in the comments, or get in touch on Twitter @IndexCensorship using the hashtag #LoveandFEX
This article was published on 18 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
17 Feb 2014 | Digital Freedom, India, News and features
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal called off the 30-hour protest (Dharna) outside Rail Bhavan on January 21, 2014 after few of his demands were considered.
Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi’s erstwhile chief minister, gained popularity among the ‘aam aadmi’ – ordinary citizens – because of his tough anti-corruption stand. Many saw his newly formed party, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as a breath of fresh air. His antics and strategies to grab media attention didn’t disappoint either.
During his campaign for Delhi’s highest seat, he cut off electricity wires outside peoples homes to mark his defiance of what he said are corrupt electricity meters that overcharge people. Once in office, he sat in protest against Delhi’s own police force, demanding that the Central Government that controls the Police in Delhi, the country’s capital, immediately transfer its control to his government. Kejriwal has become an urban icon. Always wrapped in his trademark muffler, with a seemingly constant cough, his image is being parodied intensely on the internet. He insisted on being sworn in as Chief Minister of Delhi, in an open –to-all public function at one of Delhi’s biggest grounds instead of at the office of the Lt. Governor of Delhi, as is practice. For a while, he was adamant about holding a special session of the Delhi Assembly, called for legislating the Jan Lokpal Bill seeking to establish an anti-corruption ombudsman, in one of the capital’s largest stadium instead of inside the Assembly itself. On 14th February, after unsuccessfully trying to introduce the Jan Lokpal Bill on the first day of Delhi’s State Assembly, he held a press conference in the pouring rain to announce that he was resigning over this issue. This capped his 49 day tenure, and just before ending his press conference, he declared that che is ready to “sacrifice his life for the country” in his fight against corruption.
In terms of theatrics that inescapably accompanies his politics, Kejriwal is caught the imagination of India’s common man. He is always on television. That any politician willingly resigned as chief minister will not be lost on Indians, used to seeing politicians hang onto power with dear life. Many are looking to Kejriwal to make a sizable dent in the national elections, projected to be held in April 2014.
While campaigning and during this term in office, Kejriwal unveiled an arsenal of ideas to battle status quo – and take on people in authority head on – including his idea of asking the common man to use the mobile phone as a “weapon” to secretly film government and police officials demanding bribes. This proof then could be turned over to his government, which had set up an exclusive hotline to deal with corruption charges. Don’t get mad, get even – seems to be his motto as he urged residents of Delhi, “setting kar lo” – or fix them.
Media reports confirm that as a result of “open season on sting operations” the sale of spycams have increased in Delhi, with some shopkeepers estimating that the sale of these hidden cameras have shot up almost 90%. Spy cameras are available in the form of pens, keyrings, buttons, watches, pen-drives and eyeglasses, and on a more expensive scale, in jewellery and other bespoke items.
This isn’t the first time AAP has recommended the use of spycameras. Days before the New Delhi vote, the media reported that AAP were fitting slums with spycams to ensure that candidates of other parties did not go there to try and buy votes – and if they did – they would be caught. Over 2,000 spycams were reportedly used for this operation.
The AAP party is not the first — and certainly won’t be the last — in suggesting the use of cameras, especially through mobile phones, for citizen empowerment. In fact, when Delhi’s traffic police first launched a page on Facebook, citizens began posting pictures of cops breaking traffic laws in hopes that they be reprimanded. Similarly when the Municipal Corporation of Delhi started its Facebook page, people took advantage of the platform to post pictures of shoddy or incomplete works in their neighbourhoods.
Community video project, India Unheard, has armed citizen journalists from small towns and villages with cameras, and they report on development and other issues, and publish these videos on the internet. In many areas, due to the spotlight on them, government officials have responded to these negative reports and taken action. The parent outfit, Video Volunteers, even ran a campaign to check the “real” progress of India’s Right to Education Act, by bringing out over 100 videos that document the real implementation of this act on the ground.
The use of technology “from below” to hold those in power accountable is also known as sousveillance, a word that comes the French word “sous” (from below) with the word “viller” coined in 1998 by Professor Steve Mann of the University of Toronto. In the West, sousveillance is being looked at by some as an foil to mass surveillance; a manner in which citizens can watch those watching them. Others, however, express some doubts at a society where citizens are pointing cameras at a state that is watching them, and perhaps ultimately leading to a situation where everyone is watching each other. Surveillance is normalized because it is so institutionalized.
However, sousveillance is not necessarily targeted towards government and law enforcement officials alone. In New York, a project called Hollaback asks women to take pictures of their harassers and upload it to their site. The movement has expanded and extends to Indian cities as well. And gadgets like Google Glass will make humans capable of recording their perspectives on a 24/7 basis, amassing huge data.
So it appears that at a time when civil society is up in arms against big brother surveillance schemes run by the government because of their privacy breaches, we are simultaneously doing the same to ourselves, with what some call little brother surveillance.
Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst at ACLU writes, “Under the old expectation, the default expectation was that any given event would not be photographed… That is rapidly being replaced by a new mindset in which the default expectation is that something taking place in public will be recorded. Thus you often hear expressions of disappointment when a disputed or dramatic public event is NOT caught on video.” He also raises the point that citizen video footage might give the state a reason to scale down their mass surveillance activities, because video evidence can simply be collected from private photos and videos. However, it seems unlikely, given what we know about governments world wide, that most countries will be ready to give up their schemes to the off-chance that somebody-recorded-it.
Of course, one can argue there is a subtle difference between CCTV cameras that clearly announce their existence, people pointing mobile phones at each other on the street, and the proliferation of spycams to “fix” people. There is also legitimacy attached to this process when the chief minister of a state asks its citizens to collect proof of wrongdoing as the basis of taking action, as has been done in New Delhi. In fact, in a speech made just about three weeks after he took office, Kejriwal announced that he is quite sure that corruption must have come down at least 20-30% in Delhi, to thunderous applause. A helpline the new government has set up even offers to tutor citizens in how to conduct sting operations against corrupt officials. In an editorial by the Indian Express, the paper advises that, “Sting operations are an ethical minefield. They are based on lies and entrapment, even if in the service of a larger cause. They are easy to manipulate at several levels, including editing to convey the desired impression of a meeting. This unease about the subterfuge and distortion of using undercover cameras is the reason stings are not admissible as legal evidence. How can they be the basis of prompt government action, then?”
The truth is that India has a problem of entrenched corruption, and the AAP’s ride and subsequent anti-graft ideas address these concerns head on. Previously India’s Central Vigilance Commission in 2010, had encouraged people to conduct stings on government officials, even as a draft privacy law, yet to be passed by the Indian parliament, said such operations could violate individual privacy. Others worry that programs like these need protections such as a Whistleblowers Act and provisions to protect anonymity. However, the concept of sting operations, made popular by a vigilante media has become so popular that there is now an Indian website that collates India sting operations for anyone to see.
The government of India’s capital is installing more and more CCTVs for safety reasons, the Central Monitoring System is being deployed to track citizens online behavior, and now the Delhi government is glorifying sting operations through radio ads and billboards. Ultimately, the AAP, consciously or unconsciously, has given its vote to a society based on sousveillance.
Can the encouragement of spycams and secret mobile tapings end up in people spying on neighbours, and perhaps even blackmail them? Could Delhi’s public spaces shrink because of the “spycam moral police”? Are adequate privacy frameworks in place?
The AAP needs to think about these questions, especially if it plans to field these ideas during the national election campaign trail.
Point and shoot are never orders to be given lightly.
This article was published on 17 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
17 Feb 2014 | Americas, Brazil, News and features
Protests against increase in public transportation costs in Rio de Janeiro on 13 February (Image: Mauricio Fidalgo/Demotix)
On Friday 14 February, Brazil’s Minister of Justice, José Eduardo Cardozo, announced a bill to regulate safety measures during protests. The bill allows for use of force by the military police and punishment for violent actions during demonstrations, and will be sent to congress for consideration in the coming days. The move comes after the death of Bandeirantes Network cameraman Santiago Andrade on 10 February, from injuries sustained covering a protest. This is the latest move by Brazil’s government to control popular discontent ahead of this summer’s FIFA World Cup.
The government is rushing vaguely worded, extraordinary bills defining “terrorism” to the floor of congress. Currently, there are no specific laws for the crime of terrorism in Brazilian legislation. Crimes are classified in the National Security Act, created during the military dictatorship. A number of bills tackling this issue, which could potentially penalise protest actions, are now being debated in congress, without input from the population.
A street protest against rising bus fares in Rio de Janeiro on 6 February erupted in violence, when gas bombs and fireworks thrown by some demonstrators injured seven people, including Santiago Andrade. The cameraman was hit by a rocket firework launched by two protesters, which burst over his head. He later died from the injuries, and the two protesters were arrested in controversial circumstances.
The incident generated national uproar. Congressmen called the protest an act of terrorism and promised action. A number of figures within the Brazilian government, including President Dilma Rousseff, condemned the “escalating violence in protests”. Citing public security, congress moved quickly to table bills aimed at defining actions in public places — both violent and non-violent — as terrorism. Bill 499/2013, which has been fast tracked for consideration, defines terrorism as “causing terror or widespread panic” and threatens penalties of up to 30 years. The bill further stipulates that acts of terror committed with explosives increases the penalty by one third. It also criminalises “Black Bloc” protest groups, and wearing masks. Legal experts have criticised the bill for its vague language which leaves room for wide interpretations. Further, critics contend that it shows the government’s intent to use the bill as a tool to suppress popular protests during the World Cup.
The controversial Bill 728/2011 was created to punish “infractions” committed during the World Cup. In its text, acts of terrorism are associated with religious or ideological positions, and it also limits Brazilians’ ability to strike. The bill was nicknamed the AI-5 Cup, after the 1968 AI-5 act, which in gave extraordinary powers to the then-president and suspended key civil and constitutional guarantees for over 20 years. Under pressure from Brazil’s civil society, 728 was shelved.
Still under consideration in congress, however, is Bill 236/2012 — an anti-terror project that promises to modernise Brazil’s penal code, which dates from 1940. While it categorises terrorism, 236 does not define it. Among its most dangerous threats to freedom of expression is the criminalisation of disturbing the peace, and damage to public property by “vandals” and “vagrants”. The bill does not further define or clarify these terms.
Former justice minister Miguel Reale Jr, a renowned jurist and professor of law at the University of Sao Paulo, criticised the law’s “legal nonsense” and labelled it a setback for journalism. The bill would criminalise defamation and impose four year sentences without adequately defining this offence. He has launched a campaign against it, which has gained support from the legal community.
Bill 236 also contains “crimes against sporting and cultural events”. Any person who promotes “tumult” within 5 km of a sporting event would be imprisoned for up to two years, and the bill would also block protest access to the sport or cultural venue for up to three years. If applied, any popular protest on game days could be banned.
But whether or not some or all of the bills are passed, President Rousseff looks set to be able to curtail protests. On 20 December, a manual on the enforcement of law and public order, put together by the Ministry of Defence, entered into force. The manual defines “opponent forces” as persons, groups or organisations that provoke radical and violent actions, and cites the blocking of public streets as a major threat. Under certain conditions, the manual allows the president to give police powers to the armed forces.
Brazilians who wish to take to the streets, could have an interesting spring.
This article was posted on February 17, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
