24 Jan 2014 | Digital Freedom, News and features, Religion and Culture, United Kingdom
Illustration: Shutterstock
I had arranged to meet ‘Emma’ in a cafe, at the behest of a mutual friend. As a student of forensic computing informatics, I was asked to help educate Emma about online privacy, a particular passion of mine.
Emma is an unassuming 24-year-old. Nothing about her physical appearance or mannerisms would divulge anything of the abuse she was subjected to at the hands of a former boyfriend.
She explained that she had experienced on-going violence while in a three-year relationship. Her partner had physically, verbally and emotionally abused her. In addition, her former boyfriend monitored and restricted her access to the Internet.
“I didn’t have anything private. I couldn’t do anything without him asking something about my behaviour, or my intentions, or whatever else I was doing. It was physical and psychological entrapment at its worst.” she said.
For Emma, our meeting was about learning to use tools to take control of her privacy in an age of mass monitoring. She was taking back the capabilities that were torn from her by her abusive boyfriend, by becoming empowered to protect herself in the on-line sphere.
During our conversation, I shared various techniques and tools she could use to browse sites anonymously, and I explained the concepts and principles of privacy-enhancing technologies – software including Tor and I2P (Invisible Internet Project), which would enable her to protect her identity.
Unsurprisingly, Emma has become extremely protective of her access to the Internet; a residual scar of the control she found herself being subjected to.
I was mindful also that it was the first opportunity I’d had which humanised a subject I’m deeply passionate about – often ascribed crypto-anarchism – to effect meaningful, beneficial change to someone else’s life. It also acted as a sobering realisation of the technological capabilities and opportunities available to ordinary citizens to thwart mass surveillance perpetrated by the National Security Agency, GCHQ and their ilk.
Technology has shifted traditional notions of personal privacy in unforeseen ways. We’ve entered a new world order, in which tools of oppression and exploitation are often pointed inward by a state acting as the abusive partner.
I couldn’t help but be reminded of Duncan Campbell’s Secret Society episode We’re All Data New: Secret Data Banks, broadcast 26 years ago. It detailed swathes of information being held on the entire populace of Britain in private sector databases; specifically I recalled the horror on the faces of unwitting participants, as Campbell accessed sensitive personal information from a computer terminal with minimal effort.
Councils sell copies of that data for a pittance nowadays; it’s the electoral register. In comparison to today’s data brokers, behemoth custodians of in-depth data held about each and every one of us, the private databases of yesteryear seem almost quaint. Surveillance is as ubiquitous as ever, and so pervasive that it is has merged into an almost indecipherable cacophony from data-mining business models to gluttonous mass surveillance by the government and its agents. Each has a thread in common, a fundamental component.
You.
Or, of most concern to me during our meeting, Emma.
Often the stakes and associated risk of using modern technologies are magnified considerably for those suffering from physical harm, psychological abuse or harassment. This is especially true in those fearful of seeking information or resources in genuine confidence – a capability cherished by those in such strained circumstances. As I listened to her experiences, I grasped from Emma’s tone she was afraid of exposing herself to potential further abuse.
“In some countries,” I told her, “I’d be considered dangerous. The skills I’m teaching you wouldn’t be tolerated, much less encouraged.”
In the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s disclosures, spearheaded by Glen Greenwald, Laura Poitras and The Guardian, of the activities of the United States’ NSA and United Kingdom’s GCHQ, it has become imperative that the sociological impacts of surveillance be recognised and addressed directly, if societies are to protect each and every one of its participants from such endemic spying.
But, too often, the insipid encroachment is interpreted solely as a technological problem, by which it is assumed surveillance must be countered wholly by the same. While technology is a component of a solution, it cannot derail the potential for abuse on its own.
Ultimately, the answer to surveillance on a personal or societal level demands a radical overhaul of attitudes and perceptions. People must share information, techniques and tools to help one-another protect their civil liberties. People must encourage each other to cherish their online and offline privacy. Technological mutual solidarity if you will. Ecosystems and privacy-enhancing technologies such as Tor and I2P, amongst a plethora of others, cater for this exact idealism; privacy by design, rather than by public policy.
Because it isn’t just about personal privacy anymore; nor was it, in fact, ever. It too is about dignity, morality and using technology as a vehicle to emancipate, to facilitate, and to embellish an underlying respect for individuals as citizens, and – especially in Emma’s circumstance – their sanctity as human beings.
Actively manage YOUR online privacy
Tor Project
Privacy-enhancing technology ecosystem, which enables users to communicate and browse anonymously, and circumvent internet censorship by routing traffic via intermediate nodes before transmitted to the intended site; prevents third parties from discovering a user’s location or their browsing habits.
I2P
Software that has similar capabilities to Tor in permitting anonymous or pseudonymous browsing. Can be used as standalone or in conjunction with other pieces of software to enhance a user’s ability to ensure communications remain as confidential as possible. Also contains web-based email among other features within its operating environment, which is accessible only via I2P itself.
TAILS
A Live CD-based operating system, comprising of an entire operating environment, and contains both the aforementioned tools and additional software without disclosing evidence of its use, as it is self-contained on a DVD-R and operates in RAM, erasing evidence of its presence once a machine is switched off.
Off-the-Record Messaging
An instant messenger plug-in, and cryptographic protocol which is used to create secure instant messaging sessions between users in such a manner that conversations are plausibly deniable and affords for confidential, private communication between participants.
This article was published on 24 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
22 Jan 2014 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Sudan
The campaign video features stories from Sudanese citizens negatively affected by the US sanctions
A group of Sudanese independent civil society members this week launched a campaign under the banner “The Sudanese Initiative to Lift US Technology Sanctions from Sudan”.
The campaign aims to educate the Sudanese public and American policy-makers about the negative impact of US sanctions on the free access to information communication technologies (ICTs) and the internet in Sudan. The launch marks a year-long advocacy effort that has included talks with US-based civil society groups and the US State Department.
The demands of the campaign is that the US government revisits its sanctions regime on Sudan, on the grounds that current sanctions negatively impact Sudanese citizens’ access to ICTs in a number of sectors, including educational institutions, pro-democracy civil society and humanitarian efforts that utilise geographic information system (GIS) technology.
Although the US announced a partial lifting of sanctions relating to educational exchange in early 2013, this targets research and the free flow of information, not personal use of communication technologies.
The objective of the campaign is to give a voice to, and learn from, the stories of a range of Sudanese citizens negatively affected by these US sanctions. In the campaign video, educators, students, crisis mappers, civil society members and technology professionals recount how US sanctions are limiting their free access to knowledge and information online.
Mohammed Hashim Kambal, the campaign’s coordinator, says: “Through talking to Sudanese citizens belonging to a wide variety of sectors it is clear that US sanctions not only hampers access to independent information but also access to knowledge and to aspects of the internet related to crowdsourcing and crisis mapping.”
He stresses, however: “ 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”.
For example, the Sudanese pro-democracy civil society is facing great limitations from the government and the Humanitarian Aid Commission (that oversees the work of NGOs), linked to accepting foreign funding. It is impossible to directly crowdfund from Sudanese diaspora groups because of US sanctions that don’t permit the transfer of funds to or from Sudan. They therefore have to organise crowdfunding in cooperation with active members the diaspora, who in turn collect funds and send them by hand to Sudan — a process that takes time and effort.
Additionally, crisis mapping, which was very useful during the last floods in August 2013, is limited in Sudan. Crisis mappers are not able to access or purchase tools and/or applications made by American companies, such as Google (including People Finder and Google Crisis Map) or products by Esri, an American company that specialises in GIS technology.
No Sudanese inside the country can purchase original software online. Regular citizens, as well as universities, rely heavily on pirated software that cannot be updated online automatically and is often ridden with malware.
Computer science students have reported that they are unable to obtain their certificates after taking and passing online courses affiliated with US institutions such, MITx. The reason given is that certificates are not issued for countries under comprehensive US sanctions, such as Sudan, Iran, Syria, and Cuba. Additionally, online educational websites, such as Khan Academy, Google Scholar and Audacity remain blocked to users in Sudan.
Conversations with American civil society working on net freedom, about the impact of the US sanctions has yielded positive reactions but no changes in US policy yet. In early December 2013 The New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute issued a research paper on the topic, and recommended that the US “updates” its sanctions policy to, ”reflect the need for access to personal communications technology”.
The paper concluded that, “U.S. sanctions remain outdated” in acknowledging the role of ICTs in “enabling access to information, free expression, and political dialogue”. They also added the such sanctions “in some cases effectively aid repressive regimes that seek to control access to information within their borders with negative consequences on the civilian population.”
The Open Technology Institute’s research described the sanctions on Sudan to be “the least mature” as compared to other countries, especially Iran, which bares a lot of resemblance to Sudan in terms of political context. After Iran’s “ Green Revolution” in 2009, the US government revised its sanctions on Iran twice, once in 2010 and again in 2013, dropping restrictions on ICTs and issuing detailed instructions to US technology companies clarifying what is permitted for export to Iran and what isn’t.
There’s no reason why Sudan’s technology sanctions should be lagging behind countries like Iran and Syria. It’s time the US revisits its sanctions regime on Sudan, and shows more consideration for the importance of free access to ICTs, information and knowledge on the internet.
This article was posted on 22 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
21 Jan 2014 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features
A pro-democracy protest in Bahrain, where activists have been jailed for inciting protests through their online activities (Photo: Moh’d Saeed / Demotix)
One hundred and forty characters are all it takes.
Twitter users from Marrakech to Manama know—call for political reforms, joke about a sensitive topic, or expose government abuse and you could end up in jail. Following the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, authorities in Libya and Tunisia unblocked hundreds of websites and dismantled the state surveillance apparatus. But overall, internet freedom in the region has only declined in the three years since the Arab Spring as authoritarian leaders continue to crack down on any and all threats to their ever-tenuous legitimacy.
As the online world has become a fundamental part of Arab and Iranian societies, leaders are waking up to the “dangers” of social media and placing new restrictions on what can be read or posted online. This shift has been most marked in Bahrain, one of the most digitally-connected countries in the world. After a grassroots opposition group took to the streets to demand democratic reforms, authorities detained dozens of users for Twitter and Facebook posts deemed sympathetic to the cause. Similarly, several prominent activists were jailed on charges of inciting protests, belonging to a terrorist organization, or plotting to overthrow the government through their online activities.
Conditions in Egypt—where social media played a fundamental role in mobilising protesters and documenting police brutality—continued to decline over the past year. In only the first six months of Mohammad Morsi’s term, more citizens were prosecuted for “insulting the office of the president” than under Hosni Mubarak’s entire 30-year reign. Cases have now been brought against the same bloggers and activists that were instrumental in rallying the masses to protest against Mubarak (and later Morsi) in Tahrir Square, while countless others were tortured by Muslim Brotherhood thugs or state security forces.
Even in the moderate kingdoms of Morocco and Jordan, state officials are looking to extend their existing controls over newspapers and TV channels to the sphere of online media. Ali Anouzla, a website editor in Morocco, faces terrorism charges in the latest attempt by the state to silence him and his popular online newspaper, Lakome. Access to independent journalism is even worse in Jordan, where over 200 news sites have been blocked for failing to obtain a press license. The government instituted burdensome requirements in a bid to deter any views that counter the state-sponsored narrative.
If governments are beginning to pay attention, it is because online tools for social mobilisation and individual expression are having a profound impact. Social media accounts were set up for every candidate in Iran’s 2013 presidential elections, despite the fact that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are all blocked within the country. In Saudi Arabia – which now boasts the highest Twitter and YouTube usage per capita of any country in the world – social media has been used to promote campaigns for women’s right to drive, to highlight the mistreatment of migrant workers, and to debate sensitive subjects such as child molestation. Citizen journalism was vital in documenting chemical weapons use in Syria, and a new online platform alerts local residents of incoming scud missiles. Nonetheless, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria rank as some of the least free countries in the world in terms of internet freedom according to Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net study.
Remarkably, the country that has made the most positive strides over the past three years, was once among the most repressive online environments in the region – Tunisia. Protest videos from the town of Sidi Bouzid led to an intense crackdown on online dissidents by the Ben Ali regime. Digital activists even enlisted the help of Anonymous, the hacktivist group, to rally international media attention, provide digital security tools, and bring down government websites. Since then, Tunisian authorities have ceased internet censorship, reformed the regulatory environment, and ceded control of the state-owned internet backbone. Tunisia is now the only country in the region to have joined intergovernmental group the Freedom Online Coalition.
So while the snowball effect of social media contributed to the overthrow of several despots, many of the region’s internet users conversely find themselves in more restrictive online environments than in January 2011. Authoritarian governments now know exactly what the face of revolution looks like and, over the past three years, have shown their commitment to counter the internet’s potential to empower citizens and mobilise opposition. Users in liberal democracies may joke about the insignificance of “liking” a post on Facebook or uploading a video to YouTube, but in a region where your social media activity can make you an enemy of the state, 140 characters can lead to serious repercussions.
This article was posted on 21 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
17 Jan 2014 | Digital Freedom, News and features, Turkey
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Photo: Philip Janek / Demotix)
Turkish authorities have this week come under severe criticism for their proposed amendments to the country’s internet law, which among other things, would effectively allow the government to block websites.
The changes, tabled by the Family and Social Policy Ministry of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government, “would give the transport and communication minister the power to block websites deemed to infringe privacy, as well as compelling internet service providers to retain information of their customers’ movements on the net,” reports The Financial Times. “The measure, attached to an omnibus bill, increasing its chances of passage, would also require ISPs to restrict access to proxy sites, which can allow users to circumvent censorship,” it added.
DW reports that “the director of Turkey’s internet regulatory agency would be allowed to act immediately and unilaterally “in case of emergency”. After 48 hours, those decisions would theoretically have to be approved by a judge.” It also states that “under the new law, the government would also be allowed to block individual URLs instead of entire websites” — meaning they could technically block individual social media profiles — and that ISPs would be forced “to join a state-controlled association in order to continue doing business”.
The move comes after a high-profile corruption scandal which has implicated parts of the country’s political elite, and as the government is also trying to increase its power over the judicial branch. However, it is also believed to be part of an ongoing crackdown on internet freedom, and connected to the widespread use of social media during the anti-government Gezi Park protests last summer.
“According to Google’s most recent transparency report, the Turkish government requested the removal of 9,610 items from the internet in the first half of 2013, the most in the world and about three times as many as the United States, which had the second-most,” writes Slate. “Google complied with only 13 percent of Turkey’s requests, which included “a court order to remove any search results linking to information about a political official and sex scandal,” “a Google+ profile picture showing a map of Kurdistan,” and “17 YouTube videos and 109 blog posts that contained content critical of Ataturk.” YouTube was blocked entirely over videos deemed insulting to Ataturk in March.”
Only last Friday, video sharing site Vimeo was blocked. “The blocking of Vimeo came after protesters frequently used the website to share videos covering the nation-wide anti-government demonstrations during month-long Gezi protests in last summer,” writes Cihan. “The move is seen by many people as silencing internet tools to prevent dissidents and citizen journalists from sharing video footage regarding any social and political activity,” they add.
The proposal has been met with high-level opposition.
“The law, which results in limiting the individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms, has also been subject to a ‘rights violation’ ruling of the European Court of Human Rights,”the Turkish Industry and Business Association (TÜSİAD) said in a statement, reported by Hurriyet Daily News. “In such a situation, the planned amendments to the law are concerning and will increase censorship on the internet. The draft should be cleared of articles that could harm the fundamental rights and freedoms and the internet economy that is growing every day.”
The head of the Turkish Informatics Foundation (TBV), Faruk Eczacibasi has also spoken out: “We have been saying since 2007, when this law came into force, that it would harm our country’s chances of becoming a society based on knowledge. In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights also ruled that this law violated the freedom of expression as well as other human rights,” reports Al-Monitor, adding that “at a time when we continue to call for these mistakes to be corrected, and for human rights to be respect while monitoring the internet, we regret to see the exact opposite happening”.
However, the government has hit back. “With the new legal arrangement, we intend to protect individual rights. Let’s say one of our citizens has become a victim [of a privacy breach]. He won’t have to wait for an answer from the provider of the content. He can directly apply to the court for it,” said Transport and Communication Minister Lütfi Elvan, reports Turkish Weekly.
“This legal arrangement is by no means a regulation that brings censorship. It is one that helps [Turkey] to reach the standards of developed countries and makes the present law more functional.”
But lawyer Serhat Koç, a spokesperson for the Pirate Party of Turkey told bianet: “If the draft will be implemented, the life will harder for internet users in Turkey. Censors on citizen journalism, scientific research and social media will be a routine.”
