31 Jan 2014 | Digital Freedom, News and features, United Nations
(Image: Pseudopixels/Shutterstock)
If you live in Cuba, Iran or Sudan, and are using the increasingly popular online education tool Coursera, you are likely encounter some access difficulties from this week onwards. Coursera has been included in the US export sanctions regime.
The changes have only come about now, as Coursera believed they and other MOOCs — Massive Open Online Courses — didn’t fall under American export bans to the countries. However, as the company explained in a statement on their official blog: “We recently received information that has led to the understanding that the services offered on Coursera are not in compliance with the law as it stands.”
Coursera, in partnership with over 100 universities and organisations, from Yale to the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology to the Word Bank, offers online courses in everything from Economics and Finance to Music, Film and Audio — free of charge. Over four million students across the world are currently enrolled.
“We envision a future where everyone has access to a world-class education that has so far been available to a select few. We aim to empower people with education that will improve their lives, the lives of their families, and the communities they live in,” they say.
But this noble aim is now being derailed by US economic sanctions policy. People in Cuba, Iran and Sudan will be able to browse the website, but existing students won’t be able to log onto their course pages, and new students won’t be allowed to sign up. Syria was initially included on the list, but was later removed under an exception allowing services that support NGO efforts.
Amid clear-cut cases of censorship, peaceful protesters being attacked and journalists thrown in jail, it is easy forget that access — or rather lack of it — also constitutes a threat to freedom of expression. Lack of access to freedom of expression leads to people being denied an equal voice, influence and active and meaningful participation in political processes and their wider society.
In these connected times, it can be a simple as being denied reliable internet access. Coursera is trying to tackle this problem. They “started building up a mobile-devices team so that students in emerging markets — who may not have round-the-clock access to computers with internet connectivity — can still get some of their coursework done via smartphones or tablets,” reported Forbes.
But this won’t be of much help to students affected by the sanctions, as their access is being restricted not by technological shortcomings, but by misguided policy. Education plays a vital part in helping provide people with the tools to speak out, play an active part in their society and challenge the powers that be. Taking an education opportunity away from people in Cuba, Iran and Sudan is another blow to freedom of expression in countries with already poor records in this particular field.
Furthermore, these sanctions are in part enforced in a bid to stand up for human rights. This loses some of its power, when the people on the ground in the sanctioned countries are being denied a chance to further educate themselves, gaining knowledge that could help them be their own agents of change and stand up for their own rights.
Ironically, this counterproductive move comes not long after a Sudanese civil society group called for a change to US technology sanction.
“We want to be clear that this is not an appeal to lift all sanctions from the Sudanese regime that continues to commit human rights atrocities. This is an appeal to empower Sudanese citizens through improved access to ICTs so that they can be more proactive on issues linked to democratic transformation, humanitarian assistance and technology education — an appeal to make the sanctions smarter,” said campaign coordinator Mohammed Hashim Kambal.
Digital freedom campaigners from around the world have also spoken against the US position
Coursera says they are working to “reinstate site access” to the users affects, adding that: “The Department of State and Coursera are aligned in our goals and we are working tirelessly to ensure that blockage is not permanent.”
For now, students in Iran, Cuba and Sudan could access Coursera through a VPN network.
Hopefully this barrier to freedom of expression in countries where it is sorely needed, will soon be reversed.
This article was posted on 31 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
31 Jan 2014 | Egypt, News and features
In November 2013, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ UK and Ireland), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the Aljazeera Media Network organised a show of solidarity for the journalists who have been detained, injured or killed in Egypt. (Photo: Lee Thomas / Demotix)
Statement: Egyptian authorities must stop their attacks on media freedom from Article 19, the Committee to Project Journalists, Index on Censorship and Reporters Without Borders
Twenty journalists working for the Al Jazeera TV network will stand trial in Egypt on charges of spreading false news that harms national security and assisting or joining a terrorist cell.
Sixteen of the defendants are Egyptian nationals while four are foreigners: a Dutch national, two Britons and Australian Peter Greste, a former BBC Correspondent. The chief prosecutor’s office released a statement on Wednesday saying that several of the defendants were already in custody; the rest will be tried in absentia.The names of the defendants, however, were not revealed. The case marks the first time journalists in Egypt have faced trial on terrorism-related charges, drawing condemnation from rights groups and fueling fears of a worsening crackdown on press freedom in Egypt .
“This is an insult to the law,” said Gamal Eid, a rights lawyer and head of the Arab Network for Human Rights Information. “If there is justice in Egypt , courts would not be used to settle political scores”, he added.
In December, the government designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. It has since widened its heavy-handed crackdown on Brotherhood supporters, targeting pro-democracy activists, journalists and anyone considered remotely sympathetic to the outlawed Islamist group.
In a move seen by rights advocates as a blow to freedom of expression, most Islamist channels were shut down by the Egyptian authorities almost immediately after Islamist President Mohamed Morsi was toppled in July. The Qatar-based Al-Jazeera is one of the few remaining networks perceived by the authorities as sympathetic to Morsi and the Brotherhood.
Once praised by Egyptians as the “voice of the people” for its coverage before and during the 2011 mass protests that led to the removal of autocrat Hosni Mubarak from power, Al Jazeera has since seen its popularity dwindle in Egypt. Since Morsi’s ouster by military-backed protests in July, Qatar has been the target of media and popular wrath because of its backing for the Brotherhood. Allegations by the state controlled and private pro-government media that Qatar was”plotting to undermine Egypt’s stability” has inflamed public anger against the Qatar-funded network, prompting physical and verbal attacks by Egyptians on the streets on journalists suspected of working for Al Jazeera.
The Al Jazeera Arabic service and its Egyptian affiliate Mubasher Misr were the initial targets of a government crackdown on the network and have had their offices ransacked by security forces a number of times. In recent months however, the crackdown on the network has escalated, targeting journalists working for the Al Jazeera English service as well despite a general perception among Egyptians that the latter is “more balanced and fair” in its coverage of the political crisis in Egypt.
The Al Jazeera network has denied any biases on its part and has repeatedly called on Egypt to release its detained staff. According to a statement released by Al Jazeera on Wednesday, the allegations made by Egypt’s chief prosecutor against its journalists are “absurd, baseless and false.”
“This is a challenge to free speech, to the right of journalists to report on all aspects of events, and to the right of people to know what is going on.” the statement said.
Three members of an Al Jazeera English (AJE) TV crew were arrested in a December police raid on their makeshift studio in a Cairo luxury hotel and have remained in custody for a month without charge. Both Canadian-Egyptian journalist Mohamed Fahmy — the channel’s bureau chief –and producer Baher Mohamed have been kept in solitary confinement in the Scorpion high security prison reserved for suspected terrorists and dangerous criminals. An investigator in the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press said Fahmy was an alleged member of a terror group and had been fabricating news to tarnish Egypt’s image abroad.
Earlier this week, Fahmy’s brother, Sherif, complained that treatment of his brother had taken a turn for the worse and that prison guards had taken away his watch, blanket and writing materials.
Peter Greste, the only non-Egyptian member of the AJE team has meanwhile, been held at Torah Prison in slightly better conditions. In a letter smuggled out of his prison cell earlier this month, Greste recounted the ordeal of his Egyptian detained colleagues, saying “Fahmy has been denied the hospital treatment he badly needs for a shoulder injury he sustained shortly before our arrest. Both men spend 24 hours a day in their mosquito-infested cells, sleeping on the floor with no books or writing materials to break the soul-destroying tedium.”
Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent Abdullah El Shamy, another defendant in the case, has meanwhile been in jail for 22 weeks. He was arrested on August 14 while covering the forced dispersal by security forces of a pro-Morsi sit-in and has been charged with inciting violence, assaulting police officers and disturbing public order. El Shamy began a hunger strike ten days ago to protest his continued detention. In a letter leaked from his cell at Torah Prison and posted on Facebook by his brother, El Shamy insisted he was innocent of all charges. He remains defiant however, saying that “nothing will break my will or dignity.” On Thursday, his detention was extended for 45 days pending further investigations . His brother Mohamed El Shamy, a photojournalist, was arrested in Cairo on Tuesday while taking photos at a pro-Muslim Brotherhood protest. He was released a few hours later.
Al Jazeera Mubashir cameraman Mohamed Badr is also behind bars. He was arrested while covering clashes between Muslim Brotherhood supporters and security forces in July and has remained in custody since.
The case of the Al Jazeera journalists sends a chilling message to journalists that there is a high price to pay for giving the Muslim Brotherhood a voice. A journalist working for a private pro-government Arabic daily sarcastly told Index that there is only one side to the story in Egypt: the government line. Mosa’ab El Shamy, a photojournalist whose brother is one of the defendants in the Al Jazeera case posted an article this week on the website Buzzfeed, humorously titled: If you want to get arrested in Egypt, work as a journalist.
In truth though, the case is no laughing matter. National Public Radio’s Cairo Correspondent Leila Fadel said it shows just how far Egypt has backslid on the goals of the January 2011 uprising when pro-democracy protesters had demanded greater freedom of expression. Today, violations against press freedoms in Egypt are the worst in decades, according to the New York-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists. Sadly, it does not look like the situation for journalists in Egypt will improve anytime soon.
In the meantime the fate of the Al Jazeera journalists hangs in the balance.
This article was posted on 31 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
31 Jan 2014 | About Index, Campaigns, Egypt, Statements
PDF: Arabic Version
Leading international media freedom and human rights organisations call on the EU and US to demand Egypt’s authorities drop charges against Al-Jazeera journalists and release those under arrest
Article 19, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Index on Censorship and Reporters Without Borders today said the Egyptian authorities must stop their attacks on media freedom and freedom of expression. The deteriorating environment for journalists to operate safely and report freely is of grave concern. The deliberate chilling of media freedom and free speech through arrests and criminalisation of legitimate journalism has all the hallmarks of the authoritarian Egypt of the Mubarak era.
The organisations call on the leaders of the European Union and the US to demand that Egypt’s authorities immediately release the Al-Jazeera journalists and end their clamp-down on media freedom, free speech and freedom of assembly without delay. The EU and US must support all those standing up for democracy, human rights and media freedom in Egypt.
Egyptian prosecutors have said that 20 journalists face charges though only 8 are currently under arrest. Four of these are believed to be foreigners and the other 12 said to be Egyptians.
Thomas Hughes, Executive Director, Article 19
Joel Simon, Executive Director, Committee to Protect Journalists
Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship
Christophe Deloire, Secretaire Général, Reporters Without Borders
Press Contacts
Article 19: Ayden Peach, 07973911993
Committee to Protect Journalists: Samantha Libby, [email protected] / +1 212 300 9032 ext 124
Index on Censorship: Padraig Reidy, [email protected] / 0207 260 2660
Reporters Without Borders: Isabelle Gourmelon, [email protected] / +33 01 44 83 84 56
31 Jan 2014 | Digital Freedom, India, News and features, Politics and Society
(Image: Sergey Nivens/Shutterstock)
In 2009 India announced its grand universal biometric scheme “Aadhaar”. The scheme, managed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), collects the fingerprints, iris scans and facial images of applicants in exchange for a national identification number. First handed out in 2010 the numbers, randomised 12-digit codes, function as “internal passports” which can be used as proof of identity to access state services.
November 2013 marked 500 million enrolments to the scheme, making Aadhaar the largest biometric programme in the world. This year the scheme is set to be linked to major development reforms, and the collection of data, stored in a centrally controlled database, aims to improve transparency, reduce corruption and ensure access to the country’s myriad of welfare benefits.
India’s welfare state is characterised by “leakage”: by corrupt middlemen syphoning off benefits and claimants taking more than their share. The biometric scheme plays an important role in making sure that those who are entitled state aid receive it. But despite this developmental progress India lacks comprehensive protections for biometric data, raising serious concerns about individual privacy.
A report by Oxford Pro Bono Publico, a research centre affiliated to the University of Oxford, found India’s controls over the collection, storage and use of biometric data, compared to other jurisdictions, hugely deficient.
The sheer scale of the project compounds concerns, with UIDAI aiming to enrol every one of India’s 1.2 billion people. The scheme was first introduced as voluntary, but as more and more development schemes are administered through it, welfare recipients seeking state aid have little choice but to hand over their data.
Justice Puttaswamy, a retired High Court judge, has led the charge in challenging the scheme on privacy grounds. As he argued in his petition to the Indian Supreme Court, “there are no safeguards or penalties and no legislative backing for obtaining personal information”. His complaint culminated in a Supreme Court interim order, which insisted that the scheme must remain voluntary and that those entitled to receive welfare should do so regardless of their Aadhaar status.
Attempts to circumvent the Aadhaar programme to deliver benefits, however, have become increasingly difficult. Last year, despite the Supreme Court order, reports emerged from Delhi that food-subsidy ration cards were only being handed out to those with national identification numbers. A recent announcement by the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, that consumers without Aadhaar cards would continue to receive discounted cooking gas, provoked oil companies and the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to return to the Supreme Court to file an appeal.
Aadhaar was introduced via an executive order, a lack of statutory backing that critics argue makes the scheme unconstitutional. As Shyam Divan, a practising lawyer and petitioner in a case against the UIDAI, explains, there is no legislative oversight of the collection, storage and use of biometric data. Controls on access are similarly scant. There are no provisions that address who can access the data, when and why. At the field level, agents enrolling applicants to the scheme are employed privately and work without government supervision. Once collected, the data passes through private hands before being transferred to the UIDAI’s central repository. Corporations (including the consulting firm Accenture, tech-solutions firm Morpho and American defence contractor L-1 Identity) are involved at every stage of the operation, a sprawling collection and transmission network that campaigners fear maximises the opportunity for abuse.
The case against the scheme on constitutional grounds is equally robust. Every time a person uses their unique Aadhaar number, a real-time confirmation is sent between the access point and central database, a process that activists complain amounts to covert surveillance. Critics argue that this tracking violates the right to privacy enshrined in Article 21 of Indian Constitution. According to campaigners insufficient information on the data-collection process also amounts to a lack of informed consent, a further rights violation.
Through public interest litigation various groups have taken the UIDAI to court over the lack of statutory backing and inadequate data protection, suits that the state has dismissed as “frivolous, misleading and legally incorrect” attempts at derailing a “project that aims to promote inclusion and benefit marginalized sections of society”.
The size and inefficiency of India’s welfare state imposes enormous pressures on officials to improve service delivery. The scheme’s defenders invoke a democratic justification, arguing the government has a responsibility to ensure that welfare spending reaches those that are most in need.
Nandan Nilekani, chairperson of the UIDAI, has admitted that he may not have done enough to persuade people of the benefits of the scheme. But as Justice Puttaswamy insists “the way the government has gone about implementing this project is odd and illegal,” and questions about privacy still loom large.
This article was posted on 31 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
