24 Jan 2013 | Uncategorized
Governments and courts in 31 countries requested data from 33,634 Google users or accounts in the second half of 2012 according to the company’s latest Transparency Report.
While the number of data requests rose by two per cent — from 20,938 to 21,389 — the proportion of requests Google fully or partially complied with dropped by one point — to 66 per cent.
The US led the pack in number of requests, accounts specified and percentage honoured. American law enforcement agencies issued 8,438 requests for data from 14,791 accounts, 88 per cent of which Google fully or partially complied with. Other countries issuing more than 1,000 requests in late 2012 were India, France, Germany, the UK and Brazil.
The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) compels Google to comply with government requests. This was the company’s first Transparency Report to breakdown the proportion of requests by legal process used.
68 per cent of requests came via subpoenas — without a warrant — under the ECPA. Warrants are not required for access to data more than 180 days old. 22 per cent of requests came with a warrant, and the remaining 10 per cent were uncategorised.
“We believe the US laws should be updated,” William Echikson, Head of Free Expression Policy and PR for EMEA at Google, told Index. “Our users deserve to have their online correspondence and documents afforded the same legal protections from government access as they get for their physical documents.”
According to the report, Google reviews each request to ensure its compliance with “both the spirit and the letter of the law” and sometimes tries to narrow the data requested.
“Debates about government surveillance should start with data,” Echikson added. “Our disclosures are only a tiny sliver of what’s happening on the Internet at large.”
Echikson said he hopes more companies and governments will join Google to increase transparency and keep citizens informed by releasing similar data. Competitors and collaborators alike are doing just that, but to varying degrees and with varying success.
In 2012, Dropbox, LinkedIn and Twitter shared similar statistics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) 2012 report “Who Has Your Back” rates 18 companies on transparency regarding government requests for user data. These ratings take into account whether companies tell their users about government data demands and whether they fight for user privacy in courts and congress. Only Sonic.net, an ISP based in California, earned full stars in each category of EFF’s privacy and transparency report.
Google’s latest Transparency Report does not include content removal requests. Company officials said those numbers will be released separately in several months time.
Brian Pellot is the digital policy adviser at Index.
22 Jan 2013 | Digital Freedom, India
In the aftermath of an Index on Censorship debate in New Delhi, Kirsty Hughes says India’s web users are standing at a crossroads
(more…)
18 Jan 2013 | Asia and Pacific, Opinion, Uncategorized
Kazakh prosecutors last month achieved international notoriety, as they sought to close eight newspapers and 23 web sites, and sued Google, Facebook, Twitter, and LiveJournal.
Journalists in the country fear that this latest crackdown will destroy the limited amount of pluralism that still exists there.
On 4 December, a Kazakh court banned the online news channel Stan, accusing it of violating country’s laws on extremism and national security. Only a week earlier, on 27 November, the court ordered the suspension of publication and distribution of opposition newspaper Vzglyad. Two other papers, Respublika and its affiliated weekly, Golos Respubliki, have also been suspended pending verdicts in their cases.
They are all accused of spreading extremist views and inciting civil strife through their coverage of December 2011 violence in Zhanaozen. Months of protests by striking oil workers in this western town ended with police gunning down unarmed civilians, leaving 16 dead.
In another case, the court ordered publication of the independent news website Guljan to be suspended and the access to it blocked.
Extremism charges levelled against media outlets are worrying. The ruling could have dangerous implications for their staff — if authprites decide to move against individuals — as this is a serious crime that can lead to substantial penalties. Previously, the authorities’ traditional method of muzzling media was dragging them into libel cases.
The latest move against more than 30 media outlets will effectively put an end to independent reporting from inside the country. Kazakhstan is beginning to look more and more like neighbouring Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
Independent media is non-existent in all three countries, which were listed amongst the bottom nine performers for political rights and civil liberties in 2012 report by the US-based rights watchdog Freedom House.
In the first nine months of last year, the only data available so far, there were 16 criminal prosecutions under criminal law including ten libel cases, according to monitoring by Kazakh media advocacy group Adil Soz. There were also 15 attacks on reporters; 34 cases when journalists were prevented from doing their job and access to more than 100 websites was either temporarily restricted or blocked.
Over the last three years authorities have toughened legislation regulating various parts of media. Last year, the broadcast law was adopted resulting in TV and radio being completely monopolised by the state. In 2009, Kazakhstan’s media law was changed to make internet content subject to the same controls that apply to conventional print and broadcast media. In addition, despite a decade long lobbying by media activists defamation still exists as a criminal offence.
Kazakhstan’s poor rights record was reflected in 2012 Press Freedom Index by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders where the country ranked at 154th place out of 179.
In the face of multiple challenges — including failure to stabilise the economy, a rise in protests linked to industrial disputes, and power struggles within the Kazakh elite — the country’s leadership is in a vulnerable place, and this is likely to contribute to a downward spiral in media freedom, as the country is now focused on survival, rather than keeping up the appearance of a commitment to democracy.
18 Jan 2013 | Digital Freedom
This week Index held a high level panel debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports
(more…)
