4 Mar 2022 | Opinion, Russia, Ruth's blog, Ukraine
Today marks nine days since Putin unilaterally declared war on Ukraine, invading a sovereign state and attempting to redraw the world order as we know it. Thanks to our independent and free media we have all witnessed the coordinated Russian military attacks from land, sea and air against an innocent population who sought nothing more than to be free. Every one of us is now a witness, for better or worse, to the heart-breaking events happening in mainland Europe. There can be no excuses of ignorance, no turning the other way and no pretence that this isn’t happening on our watch.
An aerial view of the TV tower and Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial in Kyiv. Photo: Google
On Tuesday Putin’s forces committed what can only be considered a war crime in Kyiv – where they targeted the main TV tower and also hit the Babyn Yar Holocaust memorial, the site of the largest mass grave in Europe. Five civilians were burned alive, in a European capital, in the twenty-first century. This is only one of the devastating atrocities we have seen reported in the last week – the International Criminal Court has already determined that there is enough evidence to launch a probe into war crimes perpetuated by Russian forces and 38 world leaders have made the largest ever referral to ICC with evidence of potential war crimes perpetuated by Putin’s forces.
On Wednesday Ukrainian Emergency Services announced that over 2,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russian actions since the invasion began.
Overnight, for the first time in world history, Russian troops targeted a nuclear power facility in Zaporizhzhia, something which could have had terrible consequences for us all.
And this morning the Russian government blocked access to the BBC Russian service website after the Russian language website’s audience had grown from 3.1 million people to 10.7 million since the invasion.
The news is bleak; every day there is more despair, more death and more destruction. Every conversation I have had over the last week has not just touched on events in Ukraine but returned to them again and again. Tears have been shed throughout Europe and impartial and independent media coverage has never been more important.
But even in the midst of war there is hope. Humanity does indeed prevail. Small acts of kindness, of resistance, of rebellion have inspired us all. From the unarmed Ukrainians who refused to let the tanks pass to the exceptional bravery of the journalists who are at the frontline reporting hourly on events, and those in Russia who have been trying to report the facts of the war.
Whilst I could have dedicated this entire blog to the incredibly impressive Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other politicians in Ukraine who are leading from the front, there are others whose bravery I would like to highlight. Every day since the invasion began anti-war protestors have made their voices heard across Russia and Belarus.
Ovd-Info reports that as of this morning 8,163 Russians have been arrested for protesting the war in towns and cities across the country. The Duma has brought in emergency legislation which will now enable jail terms of up to 15 years for spreading ‘fake information’ about the armed forces – this would include saying that the war isn’t going to plan. In response one of the final independent TV stations – Dozhd has closed up shop – their final programme an act of defiance as it showed the staff walking off the set. In Putin’s Russia challenging him or the status quo is a very dangerous thing to do – these people are heroes, using all the tools at their disposal to demonstrate their dissent.
While there are people who are willing to say No, to highlight the impact of an authoritarian regime, to fight for our shared human rights – then there is hope.
Index stands with Ukraine and we stand with the people of Russia who oppose Putin’s aggression.
17 Jan 2022 | Kazakhstan, News, Russia
Life is returning to normal in Almaty, Kazakhstan’s largest city and commercial capital, after the unprecedented violence that followed peaceful protests earlier in January but questions remain over the actions authorities will take about civil society activists and journalists who publicised the protests.
Peaceful protests against rising prices started in the western oil town of Zhanaozen on 2 January and spread nationwide after the government’s refusal to cut the prices of liquefied petroleum gas back to the previous level. Back in December 2011, Zhanaozen had been the scene of violent clashes between striking oil workers and security forces that left at least 16 people dead.
The protesters began putting forward demands that the government should resign when the protests spread to Almaty on the evening of 4 January with protests on the city’s main square.
Access to the independent news site Orda.kz and the KazTAG news agency were almost immediately blocked in a heavy-handed response from Kazakh authorities.
Before they were blocked, Orda.kz and other independent outlets and blogs were the only sources of reliable information during the crisis. Despite the blockage of their website, its editor-in-chief Gulnar Bazhkenova said they had worked hard to keep their Telegram channel running.
“When the internet blackout was imposed, we looked for spots where the internet still worked and we would rush there to post our content wherever possible both on the website and Telegram channel,” she said. “We also shared logins and passwords with our colleagues abroad so they could post material which we passed on to them by all means available.”
Unlike in other towns and cities in Kazakhstan, the security services began to use force and the peaceful protests turned violent. Authorities later dubbed groups who hijacked these protests as “destructive forces” and “terrorists” without showing any evidence and imposed a two-week state of emergency and curfew in the city on 5 January. The same day a total blackout of communications, including the internet, was imposed on the whole country.
On 6 January Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev called on the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organisation to send troops, mostly Russian, to restore order in Almaty.
The following day Tokayev blamed “certain human rights activists”, “free media outlets” and “foreign figures” for the tragic events which sent shockwaves sent through the country’s civil society and media circles.
As the number of those detained started rising throughout the country, exceeding 10,000 as of 13 January, many Almaty-based journalists and activists have become reluctant to share their views publicly on the ongoing events in their city.
However, Index spoke to some who would talk despite the current situation.
Ardak Bukeyeva, an independent journalist from Almaty, says that following the violence on Almaty’s main square her attempts to find out about the casualties at the city’s main morgue, ambulance hospitals and other medical facilities were fruitless because staff refused to provide the information, citing ‘no disclosure’ orders from above.
As communications were cut off, Bukeyeva headed to the city hall in the hope she would find information on missing relatives or victims. As she approached the building she heard shots fired to warn her away.
“Shutting down communications, especially the internet, violated my rights not only to access information as a citizen but also to disseminate it as journalist,” she says.
Bukeyeva hopes the human cost of suppressing genuine public protests about socioeconomic and political issues will lead to meaningful changes in the country. Kazakhstan’s former president, Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev, only relieved the last vestiges of his omnipotent powers after holding a tight grip on them for over 30 years in protests in 2019.
Some of those who went out to Almaty’s city square on the first night of protests when they still were peaceful say that they would not even contemplate a protest in the current atmosphere of uncertainty.
Darkhan Sharipov, an activist from the Oyan, Qazaqstan! (“Wake Up, Kazakhstan!”) civil movement for political reform, was detained on the first night of the protests and kept until 3am when the protests turned violent. The following day, he and his fellow activists went back to the square but saw the violent crowd and decided to leave.
“It was hard to maintain communications because some had internet connections, but others did not,” he said. “After that night of violence we decided not to protest because we are afraid and fear that there might be repercussions.”
Political activist Askhat Belsarimov, who was also detained on the first night of the protests, echoes Sharipov: “We can’t think of protesting at the moment. Maybe, when the foreign troops leave.”
The Collective Security Treaty Organisation troops, which had the mandate of guarding government buildings and strategic facilities, started pulling out of Almaty on 13 January. The pull-out is expected to be completed by 19 January when the state of emergency ends. Should the Russian troops overstay their welcome, it will be a completely uncertain future not only for independent journalists and human rights activists but the whole county.
As for the country’s independent media, that remains to be seen.
While access to KazTAG was unblocked relatively quickly, it took until 13 January for the unblocking of Orda.kz to be announced by pro-government media outlets.
However, Orda’s Gulnar Bazhkenova told Index this was only partially correct.
“I personally could access to our website on my phone but I cannot do it on my computer which means the block hasn’t been lifted fully,” she said. “That’s why I have appealed to President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev requesting him to order the complete lifting of the block on our website.”
Kazakhstan’s activists are still concerned despite the seeming return to normality.
Darkhan says, “[The protests] might have ended for the general public but for civil society [the crackdown] is only starting,” he says. “It’s dangerous now. We all are keeping our heads down and waiting to see what happens.”
4 Jun 2021 | Belarus, China, Hong Kong, News
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
As you scroll through your Telegram feed, one image jumps out.
It shows crowds of young Hong Kongers, all dressed in black, at a protest, holding their smartphones aloft like virtual cigarette lighters from a Telegram channel called HKerschedule.
The image is an invitation for young activists to congregate and march to mark the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre on 4 June. Wearing black has been a form of protest for many years, which has led to suggestions that the authorities may arrest anyone doing so.
Calls to action like this have migrated from fly posters and other highly visible methods of communication online.
Secure messaging has become vital to organising protests against an oppressive state.
Many protest groups have used the encrypted service Telegram to schedule and plan demonstrations and marches. Countries across the world have attempted to ban it, with limited levels of success. Vladimir Putin’s Russia tried and failed, the regimes of China and Iran have come closest to eradicating its influence in their respective states.
Telegram, and other encrypted messaging services, are crucial for those intending to organise protests in countries where there is a severe crackdown on free speech. Myanmar, Belarus and Hong Kong have all seen people relying on the services.
It also means that news sites who have had their websites blocked, such as in the case of news website Tut.by in Belarus, or broadcaster Mizzima in Myanmar, have a safe and secure platform to broadcast from, should they so choose.
Belarusian freelance journalist Yauhen Merkis, who wrote for the most recent edition of the magazine, said such services were vital for both journalists and regular civilians.
“The importance of Telegram has grown in Belarus especially due to the blocking of the main news websites and problems accessing other social media platforms such as VK, OK and Facebook after August 2020,” he said.
“Telegram is easy to use, allows you to read the main news even in times of internet access restrictions, it’s a good platform to quickly share photos and videos and for regular users too: via Telegram-bots you could send a file to the editors of a particular Telegram channel in a second directly from a protest action, for example.”
The appeal, then, revolves around the safety of its usage, as well as access to well-sourced information from journalists.
In 2020, the Mobilise project set out to “analyse the micro-foundations of out-migration and mass protest”. In Belarus, it found that Telegram was the most trusted news source among the protesters taking part in the early stages of the demonstrations in the country that arose in August 2020, when President Alexander Lukashenko won a fifth term in office amidst an election result that was widely disputed.
But there are questions over its safety. Cooper Quintin, senior security researcher of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit that aims to protect privacy online, said Telegram’s encryption “falls short”.
“End-to-end encryption is extremely important for everyone in the world, not just activists and journalists but regular people as well. Unfortunately, Telegram’s end-to-end encryption falls short in a couple of key areas. Firstly, end-to-end encryption isn’t enabled by default meaning that your conversations could be intercepted or recovered by a state-level actor if you don’t enable this, which most users are not aware of. Secondly, group conversations in Telegram are never encrypted [using end-to-end encryption], lacking even the option to do so, unlike other encrypted chat apps such as Signal, Wire, and Keybase.”
A Telegram spokesperson said: “Everything sent over Telegram is encrypted including messages sent in groups and posted to channels.”
This is true; however, messages sent using anything other than Secret Chats use so-called client-server/server-client encryption and are stored encrypted in Telegram’s cloud, allowing access to the messages if you lose your device, for example.
The platform says this means that messages can be securely backed up.
“We opted for a third approach by offering two distinct types of chats. Telegram disables default system backups and provides all users with an integrated security-focused backup solution in the form of Cloud Chats. Meanwhile, the separate entity of Secret Chats gives you full control over the data you do not want to be stored. This allows Telegram to be widely adopted in broad circles, not just by activists and dissidents, so that the simple fact of using Telegram does not mark users as targets for heightened surveillance in certain countries,” the company says in its FAQs.
The spokesperson said, “Telegram’s unique mix of end-to-end encryption and secure client-server encryption allows for the huge groups and channels that have made decentralized protests possible. Telegram’s end-to-end encrypted Secret Chats allow for an extra layer of security for those who are willing to accept the drawbacks of end-to-end encryption.”
If the app’s level of safety is up for debate, its impact and reach is less so.
Authorities are aware of the reach the app has and the level of influence its users can have. Roman Protasevich, the journalist currently detained in his home state after his flight from Greece to Lithuania was forcibly diverted to Minsk after entering Belarusian airspace, was working for Telegram channel Belamova. He previously co-founded and ran the Telegram channel Nexta Live, pictured.
Nexta’s Telegram page
Social media channels other than Telegram are easier to ban; Telegram access does not require a VPN, meaning even if governments choose to shut down internet providers, as the regimes in Myanmar and Belarus have done, access can be granted via mobile data. Mobile data is also targeted, but perhaps a problem easier to get around with alternative SIM cards from neighbouring countries.
People in Myanmar, for instance, have been known to use Thai SIM cards.
The site isn’t without controversy, however. Its very nature means it is a natural home for illicit activity such as revenge porn and use by extremists and terror groups. It is this that governments point to when trying to limit its reach.
China’s National Security Law attempts to censor information on the basis of criminalising any act of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with external forces, the threshold for which is extremely low. It has a particular impact on protesters in Hong Kong. Telegram was therefore an easy target.
In July 2020, Telegram refused to comply with Chinese authorities attempting to gain access to user data. As they told the Hong Kong Free Press at the time: “Telegram does not intend to process any data requests related to its Hong Kong users until an international consensus is reached in relation to the ongoing political changes in the city.”
Telegram continues to resist calls to share information (which other companies have done): it even took the step of removing mobile numbers from its service, for fear of its users being identified.
Anyone who values freedom of expression and the right to protest should resist calls for messaging platforms like Telegram to pull back on encryption or to install back doors for governments. When authoritarian regimes are cracking down on independent media more than ever, platforms like these are often the only way for protests to be heard
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
