10 Dec 2024 | News and features, Statements, United Kingdom
- Leading human rights KC, Phillippa Kaufmann, urges Ofcom to review landmark European Court of Human Rights judgment which established that a “statutory requirement to decrypt communications” was not lawful
- Opinion warns that service providers can not be compelled to breach UK GDPR and compromise users’ cybersecurity
- Index on Censorship criticises Ofcom’s inadequate ‘passing references’ to users’ privacy rights and warns of legal battles if draft guidance on encryption is not updated
Index on Censorship has published a legal opinion from Phillippa Kaufmann KC and Aidan Wills (both of Matrix Chambers) in response to Ofcom’s characterisation of End-to-End Encryption (‘E2EE’) as a risk factor in their Draft Guidance on online harms.
Ofcom has been tasked with implementing the Online Safety Act since 2023 and to explain how technology companies must fulfil their duty of care to users of their online services. The regulations Ofcom has drafted will go before Parliament early next year and require a careful balance between keeping people safe online while respecting individual privacy.
Index on Censorship, as well as a host of civil society organisations who submitted consultation responses on the regulations, have highlighted the regulator’s failure to recognise the benefits of using encrypted communication technologies to users’ privacy and security online.
Ofcom has implied that service providers should weaken encryption on their messaging services to mitigate risks of illegal harms. This is despite the fact that encryption of personal data is a measure that may be taken to comply with the human rights and cybersecurity requirements outlined in the legal opinion. Ofcom should outline the benefits of encryption expressly and clearly in their guidance.
CEO of Index on Censorship, Jemimah Steinfeld said:
“Index has published censored writers across the globe since 1972. Today, we’re using encrypted messaging apps to keep in touch with our network of correspondents around the world, from Iran, to Afghanistan, to Hong Kong.
We are disappointed that Ofcom has failed to properly consider human rights and practical implications in its approach to encryption. This legal opinion confirms there is inadequate consideration of how their draft guidance could undermine the security protections that millions of people rely on every day. Ofcom should revise its guidance before it’s too late, or face a wave of costly and time-consuming legal challenges in the years ahead.
We are calling on Ofcom (and if necessary, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle) to:
- update guidance to reflect the Podchasov v Russia (Feb 2024) ruling – specifically that requiring encryption to be weakened for all users violates Article 8 rights;
- expand guidance beyond just “passing references” to provide “more detailed consideration of the human rights implications of service providers taking any measures which may weaken encryption.””
The legal opinion (which can be consulted below) was sought from expert human rights and technology barristers as Index on Censorship feared there is insufficient weight given to privacy and data protection laws in Ofcom’s draft guidance. Without encrypted communication services, journalists, their sources, and political dissidents across the world, for whom security is essential, will be negatively impacted.
Phillippa Kaufmann KC and Aidan Wills have explained the legal railguards of how content moderation regulation can operate next year when the OSA comes into force. Service providers in the scope of regulation are advised:
- When mitigating risks, they must (as per s 22 of the OSA), have particular regard to service users’ rights to freedom of expression and privacy (including data rights); and can only implement measures if they are “proportionate” (as set out in Podchasov v Russia)
- They must comply with UK GDPR which can include processing personal data “in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data”, and to “implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk”.
6 Dec 2024 | Georgia, Iran, News and features, Newsletters, South Korea, United Kingdom
Protests have the power to rally people, express objection to political decisions, and in the most successful cases, elicit change. They are a fundamental form of self expression, and a crucial mechanism of any democracy. This week, we saw South Koreans take to the streets to protest President Yoon Suk Yeol’s shock move to impose martial law, which temporarily placed the military in charge and suspended many civilian rights, including the right to protest.
The move was immediately declared illegal and unconstitutional. The leader of the country’s largest opposition party was able to rally MPs to vote down the declaration in parliament, and ordinary citizens to protest against it, despite the ruling that they couldn’t. Within 24 hours, Yeol’s attempt was toppled and he now faces impeachment charges.
South Korea’s bizarre turn of events shows the potential effectiveness of collective action against authoritarianism. The power of persistent campaigning was also brought to light in Iran this week, when the jailed rapper and activist Toomaj Salehi (a former winner in the arts category of Index’s Freedom of Expression Awards) was released from prison. He had previously been sentenced to death (later overturned) for voicing support for anti-government protests, including the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in 2022. Tireless international protest from campaign groups – jointly led by Index, the Human Rights Foundation and Doughty Street Chambers – undoubtedly put pressure on Iranian authorities to permit his release.
But of course, attempts to congregate against injustice are not always successful, or accepted. In Georgia this week, where we have seen a degradation of democracy under the Georgian Dream party, there was a horrendous crackdown on peaceful protesters.
Since the country’s contested election in October, where the party secured a fourth term, citizens have come out in droves and have been met with state violence, including being physically assaulted, and attacked with water cannon and tear gas. You can read more about the steady decline towards autocracy in Georgia in this piece by Index CEO Jemimah Steinfeld, who visited Tbilisi in October.
This response is just one example of how peaceful protest is being eroded, despite it being protected as a human right under international law. We’re seeing examples of this all over the world. Last month, Clemence Manyukwe reported for Index on how anti-government protesters in Mozambique were injured and even killed following the country’s disputed presidential election.
And even when violence isn’t used, legal mechanisms can be utilised to undermine people’s right to show dissent. On our own shores, the previous government introduced the Public Order Act, which has substantially restricted people’s ability to protest freely, and has made it easier to criminalise protesters by lowering the threshold at which police can arrest them. The result has been hundreds of activists being arrested and prosecuted, including the climate activist Greta Thunberg.
Earlier this year, the High Court found that the former home secretary Suella Braverman had acted unlawfully in introducing this legislation, but the Home Office appealed the ruling. The new Labour government has continued the appeal, which has spurred criticism from human rights organisations. Katy Watts, lawyer at Liberty, said: “For the countless people currently in the over-stretched criminal justice system because of these unlawful regulations, we must see the law quashed and the government respecting our fundamental right to protest.”
Protest movements are not always against governments. Also in the UK this week, we saw a large media workers’ strike from staff at The Guardian and The Observer over the sale of the The Observer to Tortoise Media, an acquisition which has proved controversial.
Whilst the sale of a business does not, on its own, represent a risk to free expression, concerns have been raised over whether there are safeguards in place to protect the newspaper’s editorial independence, as one of the few remaining liberal news outlets in the UK. There have also been concerns over the ability of company staff to speak out publicly against the deal without fear of punishment or recrimination, with some employees reporting being warned against voicing their opinions freely.
Index was one of many signatories of a letter addressed to The Scott Trust – which owns the Guardian Media Group – and Tortoise raising concerns about the risks to free expression from the mechanisms of the sale. Despite the 48-hour strike, the sale went ahead this morning, indicating that protest is not always an effective mechanism for change.
But whilst it may not always result in the desired outcome, it sends a message – whether to governments or private businesses – about individuals’ rights to express their disapproval or outrage. The ability to do so without fear of criminal reprisal or violence is a fundamental right and must be protected at all costs.
29 Nov 2024 | Belarus, News and features, Russia, Ukraine, Volume 53.03 Autumn 2024
Mikhail Viktorovich Feigelman started working at the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics in Moscow in 1980. Eleven years later, when the Soviet Union collapsed, funding and decent modern equipment were rare for Russian scientists but there was suddenly intellectual freedom.
“This is why I stayed in Russia at this time, despite the hardships,” the 70-year-old physicist told Index. “This freedom during the 1990s was very important, but it didn’t last long.”
In May 2022, just months after Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Feigelman fled to western Europe.
“I left exclusively because of the war,” he said. “I could no longer live in Russia anymore, where I see many parallels with Nazi Germany. I will not return home until the death of Putin.”
Initially, Feigelman took up a position at a research laboratory in Grenoble, France, where he stayed for a year and a half. Today, he is employed as a researcher at Nanocenter in Ljubljana, Slovenia.
“I have not experienced any prejudice or discrimination in either France or Slovenia,” he said.
“But in Germany – at least in some institutions – there is a [ban] on Russian scientists, and it is forbidden to invite them for official scientific visits.”
These measures stem from a decision taken by the European Commission in April 2022 to suspend all co-operation with Russian entities in research, science and innovation.
That included the cutting of all funding that was previously supplied to Russian science organisations under the EU’s €95.5 billon research and innovation funding programme, Horizon Europe.
The boycotting had already begun elsewhere. In late February 2022, the Journal of Molecular Structure, a Netherlands-based peer-reviewed journal that specialises in chemistry, decided not to consider any manuscripts authored by scientists working at Russian Federation institutions.
One former employee at the journal, who wished to remain anonymous, said Russian scientists were always welcomed to publish in the journal. “A decision had been taken, for humanitarian reasons, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not to accept any submission authored by scientists (whatever their nationality) working for Russian institutions,” they said.
Last January, Christian Jelsch became the journal’s editor. “This policy to ban Russian manuscripts was implemented by the previous editor,” he said. “But it was terminated when I started as editor.”
Feigelman believes all steps taken “to prevent institutional co-operation between Europe and Russia are completely correct and necessary.”
But he added: “Contact from European scientists with individual scientists must be continued, as long as those scientists in question are not supporters of Putin.”
Alexandra Borissova Saleh does not share that view.
“Boycotts in science don’t work,” she said. “There is a vast literature out there on this topic.”
She was previously head of communication at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology and head of the science desk at Tass News Agency in Moscow.
Today, Borissova Saleh lives in Italy, where she works as a freelance science journalist and media marketing consultant. She has not returned to Russia since 2019, mainly because of how scientists are now treated there.
“If you are a top researcher in Russia who has presented your work abroad, you could likely face a long-term prison sentence, which ultimately could cost you your life,” she said.
“But the main reason I have not returned to Russia in five years is because of the country’s ‘undesirable organisations’ law.”
First passed in 2015 – and recently updated with even harsher measures – the law states that any organisations in Russia whose activities “pose a threat to the foundations of the constitutional order, defence or security of the state” are liable to be fined or their members can face up to six years in prison. This past July,
The Moscow Times, an independent English-language and Russian-language online newspaper, was declared undesirable by the authorities in Moscow.
“I’m now classed as a criminal because of science articles I published in Russia and in other media outlets,” Borissova Saleh explained.
Shortly after Putin invaded Ukraine, an estimated 7,000 Russian scientists, mathematicians and academics signed an open letter to the Russian president, voicing their public opposition to the war.
According to analysis carried out by the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, since February 2022 at least 2,500 Russian scientists have left and severed ties with Russia.
Lyubov Borusyak, a professor and leading researcher of the Laboratory of Socio-Cultural Educational Practices at Moscow City University, carried out a detailed study of Russian academics included in that mass exodus.
Most people she interviewed worked in liberal arts, humanities and mathematics. A large bulk of them fled to the USA and others took up academic positions in countries including Germany, France, Israel, the Netherlands and Lithuania. A common obstacle many faced was their Russian passport.
It’s a bureaucratic nightmare for receiving a working and living visa, Borusyak explained.
“Most of these Russian exiles abroad have taken up positions in universities that are at a lower level than they would have had in Russia, and quite a few of them have been denied the right to participate in scientific conferences and publish in international scientific journals.”
She said personal safety for academics, especially those with liberal views, is a definite concern in Russia today, where even moderate, reasonable behaviour can be deemed as extremist and a threat to national security.
“I feel anxious,” she said. “There are risks and I’m afraid they are serious.”
Hannes Jung, a retired German physicist believes it’s imperative scientists do not detach themselves from matters of politics, but that scientists should stay neutral when they are doing science.
Jung is a prominent activist and co-ordinator for Science4Peace – a cohort of scientists working in particle physics at institutions across Europe. He said their aim was “to create a forum that promotes scientific collaboration across the world as a driver for peace”.
He helped form Science4Peace shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, as he felt the West’s decision to completely sever ties with Russian scientists was counterproductive and unnecessary.
“At [German science research centre] Desy, where I previously worked, all communication channels were cut, and we were not allowed to send emails from Desy accounts to Russian colleagues,” said Jung. “Common publications and common conferences with Russian scientists were strictly forbidden, too.”
He cited various examples of scientists working together, even when their respective governments had ongoing political tensions, and, in some instances, military conflicts. Among them is the Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (Sesame) in Jordan: an inter-governmental research centre that brings together many countries in the Middle East.
“The Sesame project gets people from Palestine, Israel and Iran working together,” Jung said.
The German physicist learned about the benefits of international co-operation among scientists during the hot years of the Cold War.
In 1983, when still a West German citizen, he started working for Cern, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Based on the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, the inter-governmental organisation, which was founded in 1954, operates the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. At Cern, Jung was introduced to scientists from the German Democratic Republic, Poland and the Soviet Union. “[In] the Soviet Union the method for studying and researching physics was done in a very different way from in the West, so there was much you could learn about by interacting with Soviet scientists,” he said.
In December 2023, the council of Cern, which currently has 22 member states, officially announced that it was ending co-operation with Russia and Belarus as a response to the “continuing illegal military invasion of Ukraine”.
Jung believes Cern’s co-operation with Russian and Belarussian scientists should have continued, saying there was no security risk for Cern members working with scientists from Belarus and Russia.
“There is a very clear statement in Cern’s constitution, explaining how every piece of scientific research carried out at the organisation has no connection for science that can be used for military [purposes],” he said.
In June, the Cern council announced it would, however, keep its ongoing co-operation with the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), located in Dubna, near Moscow.
“I hope Cern will continue to keep these channels open to reduce the risk for nuclear war happening,” said Jung.
Can cultural and academic boycotts work to influence social and political change? Sometimes.
They seemed to play a role, for example, in the breakup of apartheid South Africa (1948 to 1994). This topic was addressed in a paper published in science journal Nature in June 2022, by Michael D Gordin.
The American historian of science argued that for science sanctions to work – or to help produce a change of mindset in the regime – the political leadership of the country being sanctioned has to care about scientists and science. “And Russia does not seem to care,” Gordin wrote.
His article pointed to the limited investments in scientific research in Russia over the past decade; the chasing after status and rankings rather than improving fundamentals; the lacklustre response to Covid-19; and the designation of various scientific collaborations and NGOs as “foreign agents”, which have almost all been kicked off Russian soil.
Indeed, Putin’s contempt and suspicion of international scientific standards fits with his strongman theory of politics. But such nationalist propaganda will ultimately weaken Russia’s position in the ranking of world science.
Borissova Saleh said trying to create science in isolation was next to impossible.
“Science that is not international cannot and will not work. Soviet science was international and Soviet scientists were going to international scientific conferences, even if they were accompanied by the KGB,” she said.
Sanctioning Russian scientists will undoubtedly damage Russian science in the long term, but it’s unlikely to alter Russia’s present political reality.
Authoritarian regimes, after all, care about only their own personal survival.
22 Nov 2024 | Afghanistan, China, Fellowship 2024, Hong Kong, Iran, News and features, Palestine, Russia, Uganda
Index held its annual awards on Wednesday, the biggest night in its organisational calendar. This year another crop of amazing individuals enter the Index fold and we pledge to do as much as possible to help them fight oppression (whilst not forgetting about our previous winners – we will free Toomaj Salehi).
I want the names of the 2024 winners to become household ones, so allow me to repeat them here – Iranian journalist, Nasim Soltanbeygi; Palestinian human rights lawyer, Diala Ayesh; the Ugandan media outlet, Kuchu Times; Russian “artivist”, Aleksandra Skochilenko; and Evgenia Kara-Murza, the wife of former Russian political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was the powerhouse behind his release. Read more about the winners here.
It was a big week for Index. It was also a big week for Hong Kong. On Tuesday 45 of the pro-democracy activists HongKong47, as they’re known, were sentenced to between four and 10 years in prison. The Hong Kong authorities have tried to present this as justice and the usual Chinese Communist Party (CCP) nationalists came out of the shadows to attack people who claimed otherwise.
My response to these online trolls is that these people simply campaigned – legally and peacefully – to maintain some semblance of democracy and due process in a city once regarded as the most free in Asia. Fortunately, jail has not fully crushed their spirits. Joshua Wong playfully yelled from court as he was escorted away shouting “I love Hong Kong, bye bye”, whilst Tiffany Yuen wore a Liverpool FC top (the team’s anthem is You’ll Never Walk Alone).
With barely a day to process this grim news, Hong Kong media mogul and democracy activist Jimmy Lai was then in court to resume his case. I’ve not met Jimmy, but through a combination of meeting his remarkable son Sebastien, publishing his letters from prison and reading a lot about him, I feel as if I know him by this stage. Keir Starmer raised Jimmy’s case with Xi Jinping on Monday and I hope this signals a change in direction from the UK government, who’ve been far too quiet on this until now. It’s a disgrace that Jimmy has already spent so many years in jail.
I want to end with news that I heard via Fawzia Koofi, who was a prominent female MP in Afghanistan before she fled the country. It has not been reported internationally – school girls in certain areas of Afghanistan are failing year six on purpose because they are barred from attending the next school year. Repeating the same grade is the only way to stay in school.
The situation for girls and women in Afghanistan is so extreme and horrible that many people simply try not to think about it. But we can’t do that. At our Wednesday awards, a top UK journalist spoke to me specifically about what we can do to help in the UK. It’s a question the Index team often asks; we’ve done a lot of work in this area, including publishing journalism from and by Afghan women and pressing the UK government on its visa policy for Afghan journalists. But it’s clear that we need to do more.
Afghan women and girls are the most censored people in the world today. So if you’re in Afghanistan, reading this right now, know this – you’re not forgotten. A group of dedicated, engaged and influential people and organisations really care. Together we will try our hardest to help.
