18 Oct 2012 | Uncategorized
Any extension of state powers of surveillance are — rightly — hotly contested. The current Data Communications Bill is no exception. There are problems with this bill — but maybe not the ones you’ve heard of.
Almost universally, it has been labelled the ‘snoopers charter’ by its opponents, representing an enormous encroachment of state spying into the lives of innocent citizens. Journalists are outbidding each other in their vitriol toward it, usually calling on Orwell. One example from many is Index’s Mike Harris in the Independent: “This proposed scale of state surveillance will add the UK to the ranks of countries such as Kazakhstan, China and Iran.”
This, to me, is misleading. Yes, China, Iran, and Kazakhstan use “Deep Packet Inspection”, which this Bill proposes. But we also bug citizens’ homes — far more intrusive. What matters is the way it is regulated. There is a difference between governments that pass surveillance laws through a vote of elected representatives of those that will be monitored, and governments that do not.
Nor is it about mass surveillance by the state. This Bill is asking/demanding/paying communications companies to collect and retain data on the existence of people’s communications for 12 months, so that in the event that a request is made for that information, it is available.
Crucially, the state only accesses this information when a successful application is made through the existing Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This does not include the content of a communication — which has to go through a more stringent process of access. In that respect, not so much has changed, because this all happens already, it’s just that rather often, the information the police want is not there. (And in case no-one noticed, little brother is already miles ahead of what Big Brother is doing.)
That is not to say that the bill is perfect. Four changes would improve it considerably.
First: clarity. All infringements on our civil liberties need to be based on some kind of public understanding and consent that the measures being taken are proportionate and necessary. But the Bill is vague, the technology complicated, some specifics necessarily secretive. Is should be far more explicit: this would allow for at least an informed debate about whether the measures proposed are necessary and proportionate.
Second, given the value of the Internet to the economy and society (something RIPA is pledged to defend); and the potential misuse of modern technology – including the difficulty of splitting content from communication — only the very strictest system of oversight and redress will do here. More is needed.
Third, the root of RIPA is that the more serious the intrusion, the fewer agencies can do it, and for fewer purposes. RIPA makes a distinction between content and communications data — the latter being considers far less intrusive, and so much easier to obtain. But when RIPA was passed, communications data used to be mainly be about who you phoned and when. Now it means what websites you visit, where you are, and whom you email. Therefore a new category for this ‘use’ data may need to be created. The authorisation for accesses should be higher than the current bill proposes, but lower than the Home Secretary signing if off, as with content intercept, ideally a warrant from an independent magistrate.
The final problem troubles me most. It is now far easier for the state to access personal information that we citizens happily put into the public domain. Twitter can be mined in real time, open source Facebook groups can be monitored, networks and relationships contructed: all outside the RIPA legislation. None of this is mentioned in the new bill — but I think it is this that worries the public and many journalists. As I argued in #intelligence this type of widespread, mass social media monitoring needs to regulated, limited, and put on a legal footing. The bill is a chance to tackle this tricky problem: otherwise it could make the current furore seem like a minor skirmish.
Jamie Bartlett is Head of the violence and extremism programme at the UK think-tank, Demos, and Director of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media. Follow him @JamieBartlett
DEBATE: Index’s Mike Harris on the Comms Data Bill and surveillance
In Britain, the government is proposing legislation (the Communications Data Bill) that will grant the Home Secretary the power to blanket retain data on every citizen for an undefined purpose. It won’t require judicial approval — but potentially every text message, every Facebook message, every phone call, every email from everyone in Britain would be stored on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. If the Bill passes, companies will have to collect data they don’t currently collect and the Home Secretary will be able to ask manufacturers of communications equipment to install hardware such as ‘black boxes’ on their products to make spying easier. This proposed scale of state surveillance will add the UK to the ranks of countries such as Kazakhstan, China and Iran. This total population monitoring would break the fundamental principle that a judge and court order is required before the state invades the privacy of its citizens by holding their personal data.
Read the full article here
15 Oct 2012 | Uncategorized
Cross-posted at Bright Blue
The political hue of a government by no means tells you where it will stand on defending freedom of expression when the chips are down. The signals from Cameron and his team so far are mixed but by the end of 2012, judgements good or bad are likely to start rolling in. A whole mixture of issues, laws, domestic statements and foreign policy stances add up to a picture of whether a government is promoting, defending or limiting freedom of expression – free speech, a free press, freedom to receive and share information online and off. So why is autumn 2012 likely to be so critical in telling us if the government is standing up for one of our most fundamental rights in a democracy?
Three particular issues are on the agenda this autumn, crucial to whether the UK can stand proud in the world as a democracy where free speech thrives: the defamation reform bill, the communications data bill, and the report from the Leveson Inquiry. The rough state of play on these goes as follows: defamation report bill — very welcome but some critical gaps need plugging at committee stage this month; communications data bill — very unwelcome, risks the UK being the pariah of the democratic world in digital surveillance; government response to the Leveson Inquiry — all to play for. If all of these go in the right direction, there will be reason for celebration and plaudits for Cameron indeed. If the three go in different directions, the government may well end up looking confused on freedom of expression. If they go in the wrong direction, criticism is likely to come in from around the world.
Index has been campaigning for three years (with its partners English Pen and Sense about Science) for a reform of England’s libel laws for the last three years. And it was a huge step forward to have the defamation reform bill in the Queen’s speech this May – the bill is likely to complete its path through parliament by the end of the year. In its current form, there is much that is positive — major steps have been taken to tackle libel tourism, so that nationals of other countries no longer use the English courts on the excuse of a small even negligible extent of publication in the UK, just to benefit from the complainant-bias in the existing law. But some of the most notorious cases of libel in recent years — such as those of Simon Singh or Ben Goldacre, both dragged expensively and at length through the courts (even though ultimately cleared) for debating and challenging scientific and medical practices – could still occur. The defamation bill crucially needs a proper public interest defence to be added at committee stage — so that open, reasonable debate can take place without the chill of possible expensive libel suits. Without it, a major opportunity to bring English libel law firmly into the 21st century will have been missed.
The Comms Data Bill – aptly labelled a ‘snooper’s charter’ by the press – has no saving graces. The Bill would lead to collection and filtering of data across the entire British population – emails, mobile and landline calls, websites visited, the list goes on. Monitoring and surveillance of this kind impacts directly both on the right to privacy and on the right to freedom of expression. No other democracy is proposing such an extensive approach to data collection – and it is the kind of approach that would normally be associated with regimes such as Iran and China, who will certainly be watching whether the Bill goes through with interest. If it does, it will be very difficult for Cameron or Hague to tell Iran, China, Russia and others that they must allow and respect internet freedoms when they will no longer be doing so at home. The report stage of the Bill is expected to conclude in November – the committee has an opportunity then to call for the withdrawal of the Bill, and the government should do so.
Then there is Leveson — expected to report in mid-November. It is too soon to say exactly what Lord Leveson will propose, or how Cameron will respond. But many are speculating that Leveson will recommend introducing a so-called ‘light’ form of statutory regulation of the press — through a statute that would go to parliament determining what an ‘independent’ regulator should look like. If so, this would be the thin end of the wedge — introducing government control over how the press can behave — a development which would risk taking the UK in the direction of Hungary with its increased state intervention in the media. Tougher, more effective independent regulation of the British press is surely the direction of travel. But if Leveson goes down the statutory route, Cameron needs to stand up for the basic principles of press freedom — journalists cannot hold government (and opposition) to account if government in the end determines how the press is controlled.
Three crucial choices face the government in the next two months — by December, we hope Index will be applauding Cameron on all three fronts. If not, it will be a sad moment for freedom of expression in the UK.
Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship
Read more:
Libel reform: why it’s time for politicians to deliver on promises
Join 60,000 others calling for change in England’s libel laws. Sign the petition here
11 Oct 2012 | Egypt
It’s been nearly two years since the mass uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, but Egypt’s film makers are still plagued by censorship they say is stifling their creativity. Religion and sex remain high on the censors’ list of “taboo issues” as a tide of conservatism sweeps the country under Islamist rule. The recent rejection by the censorship committee of film maker Amr Salama’s script for a film on sectarianism recently stirred a new wave of controversy, fuelling fears of further restrictions on free expression under new Islamist President Mohamed Morsi. Seeking to allay the concerns, Egypt’s newly appointed Minister of Culture Saber Arab has given the green light for Salama’s script, affirming that “no changes are needed”.
Egyptian Film maker Amr Salama
Salama’s new film features a Coptic Christian adolescent seeking acceptance from his classmates after being transferred to a public school. Belonging to a different social class, he initially finds it difficult to fit in and decides against revealing his faith for fear of further discrimination. The barriers of class and religion are finally overcome however, as the boy succeeds in winning over his classmates, earning their friendship and respect. It is a story about tolerance and identity, depicting a teenage boy’s struggle to gain approval and overcome social and religious differences.
Arab’s nod of approval for the film came after Salama publicly criticised the restrictions imposed by censors in a televised interview on an independent satellite channel. The Head of the Censorship Committee, Sayed Khattab, meanwhile defended the committee’s decision to ban the film . In a live telephone call to the TV channel, he insisted it was “brutal to show a child being mistreated for his faith”. The committee had earlier cited “incitement to discrimination against Egypt’s minority Christian population” as a reason for the boycott. It had requested that Salama alter the script to focus on class rather than religious differences. The censors also claimed that the script was fiercely critical of Egypt’s educational system, portraying it in bad light. Under Egypt’s censorship laws, film makers are still required to get their screenplay approved before the shooting of the film, which then has to be viewed by censors who decide if it is fit for screening.
In a post on Twitter, Salama stated that he would not make the requested changes but would “keep the original script as is”. In an interview with a local daily, he said his lawyers had advised him against altering the script, saying it was his “legal right to express himself freely”. The real reason for the censors’ rejection of the script, he alleged, was the film’s acknowledgement of discrimination against Copts in Egypt. “The fact is discrimination still exists,” Salama noted. “It is not a figment of my imagination.”
Egypt’s Christians (who make up an estimated 12 to 15 per cent of the population) often complained of discrimination under President Mubarak. They needed a presidential decree to build or repair churches and said they were not appointed to senior positions in state institutions. Their situation, however, has further deteriorated following the rise of Islamists to power. In the transitional post-Mubarak period, churches have been torched by extremists and many Christian families have left the country to settle abroad, fearing their freedom and their lives were at risk.
In his inaugural speech shortly after his appointment, Egypt’s first democratically-elected President, Mohamed Morsi — who hails from the Muslim Brotherhood — had promised to be a leader for all Egyptians. He had also vowed to appoint a Christian Vice President. Bowing under pressure from the ultra-conservative Salafists, he has instead appointed a Christian Presidential aide — a position that some Christians have said is “largely symbolic and designed to fill a quota of Christians on the President’s advisory team.”
Coptic Christian women wait in line to vote in the first presidential election after Mubarak’s fall
The forced evacuation of Copts from their homes in Dahshur, a village on the outskirts of Giza, and more recently from the North Sinai border town of Rafah (after Christians received threats from extremists ) has fuelled Christians’ fears they were being targeted for their faith in the “new” Egypt. More recently, two Coptic children — aged 9 and 10 — in the Southern Egyptian region of Beni Sweif were jailed for blasphemy but were released days later after the charges against them were dropped. Meanwhile, Alber Saber, a Computer Science graduate and a Copt-turned-atheist remains behind bars pending an investigation after being accused of allegedly posting the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” on a Facebook page he administers. His trial for contempt of religion has been postponed to October 17.
Egyptian filmmakers and others working in the film industry are meanwhile becoming increasingly worried that their freedom of expression may be curtailed under Islamist rule. Many are speaking out against censorship. “Egypt’s censorship laws remain unchanged,” lamented cinematographer Kamal Abdel Aziz, who heads the National Cinema Center. “Censors should watch films only to determine whether they fall into an unrestricted age category or a restricted one,” he told Index, adding that he looks forward to the day when all censorship is abolished.
The tight censorship isn’t the only concern. A verbal attack on Egyptian actress Elham Shaheen by an ultra-conservative Salafist Sheikh has fuelled fears that Islamists were using methods of intimidation similar to those used in the nineties to force bellydancers and artistes to quit the profession. The Sheikh criticised Shaheen on his show on the conservative TV channel El Hafez, saying she was “cursed and would never go to Heaven”. The insult triggered an outcry from artists and liberals who, considering an attack on art and culture, expressed solidarity with Shaheen in both the traditional media and on social media networks. Shaheen has filed a lawsuit against the Sheikh.
Salama too is threatening to file a lawsuit if the Minister of Culture rescinds on his promise to lift the ban off his film. He said he was “waiting to see if Islamists really encourage freedom of expression as they claim.”
Journalist Shahira Amin resigned from her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV in February 2011. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.
5 Oct 2012 | News
Syrian writer Razan Zaitouneh won the Anna Politkovskaya Raw in War Award in 2011. She addresses the Russian journalist, who’s assassination remains unsolved, about Marie Colvin, 2012 recipient, who was killed in Syria earlier this year
(more…)
