16 Feb 2011 | Uncategorized
It seems to me that Clinton’s speech had a number of aims:
1. Re-iterate the State Department’s commitment to the free and open Internet as a core component of US foreign policy.
2. Against the backdrop of the recent dramatic events in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere, this was an opportunity to respond to critics (unnamed in the speech) who have questioned whether the Internet is necessarily a force for good and who have criticised the US government’s support for internet freedom as naive or even counterproductive.
3. To assert that the US State Department remains a legitimate advocate of internet freedom despite its experience with and reaction to Wikileaks.
4. To clarify that by championing “internet freedom” last year she never intended to advocate a free-for-all or lack of rules; and thereby to emphasise that along with freedom comes responsibility – not only the responsibility of governments to uphold rights, but the responsibility of companies to act in the public interest and the responsibility of citizens not to abuse freedoms in ways that do harm to others.
5. To defend the State Department’s Internet freedom funding strategy, which includes a broad spectrum of projects aiming to assist people around the world who face barriers to online free expression, and to address criticism by some in Washington who believe the State Department should focus its funding exclusively on “circumvention tools” which help Internet users access blocked websites.
I applaud the secretary’s strong commitment to the idea that internet and telecommunications companies must be uphold core and universal rights of free expression and privacy. It was also very important that Clinton reiterated US support for multi-stakeholder internet governance.
I also agree that “there is no silver bullet” or “app” for internet freedom. There is no one set of tools that will magically and easily free people living in authoritarian societies from oppression. She was right to emphasise that people cause revolutions, not technology – though smart use of technology certainly helps.
It is indeed a good thing that the US State Department continues to champion the free and open, globally interconnected Internet as a core component of US foreign policy. I am also not surprised, however, that US government’s global internet freedom policy is dogged and weakened by the same types of contradictions that have dogged and weakened US credibility on human rights and democracy promotion for the past half-century.
While the State Department advocates internet freedom other parts of the US government are pursuing aims that run directly counter to the idea of a free and open Internet where dissent and unpopular speech can be protected.
I found the section of her speech dedicated to Wikileaks to be weak and logically inconsistent. She conflated the actions of the alleged leaker who stole classified documents (Bradley Manning) with the actions of the publisher (Wikileaks the organisation). In an ideal world I wish that the US Secretary of State would declare to the world that while she and her colleagues believe that Wikileaks was irresponsible, the United States has a First Amendment protecting free speech.
It is a country based on rule of law and due process which must be respected without fail in order for our democracy to remain strong. I wish that she could have stated that even the most difficult and troubling cases must be handled with full respect for the fundamental principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Unfortunately, the statement she did make will give comfort to governments everywhere that want to treat whistleblowers, and organisations that publish information obtained from whistleblowers, as criminals from the get-go before a case is even made or a judgment is delivered.
Rebecca MacKinnon is co-founder Global Voices Online and Bernard Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation
15 Feb 2011 | Digital Freedom, Uncategorized
With a crushing majority of 40 in favour, 0 against and 5 abstentions, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament has voted against a European Commission proposal to introduce mandatory EU-wide web blocking. This comes as a result of a campaign by European Digital Rights, supported by organisations such as the German Association of Child Abuse Victims against Web Blocking and the European ISP Association.
In the year since the original proposal was launched, parliamentarians have grown increasingly concerned by the lack of vision of the European Commission regarding the proposal’s aims. At meeting after meeting, commission representatives and the commissioner herself were unable to provide any evidence that blocking would serve a purpose, they were not even able to be clear on what blocking was meant to achieve.
They started by saying that blocking would “disrupt” commercial child-porn networks, until their own research showed that this is a small and diminishing problem. Then they said it was to stop accidental access, until they were unable to show this was an actual problem or that blocking would help. Finally, they said that it would help victims psychologically — although any policy which leaves abuse images on the internet is hardly likely to do this. The permanent retreat into ever-more facile arguments eventually started grating on parliamentarians who, like the citizens they represent, deserve better. A restriction on the right to communication cannot be based on soundbites and gut reactions.
At the same time, parliamentarians became increasingly aware of the damage that existing blocking systems are doing to both child protection and fundamental rights in those countries where it is already imposed. They saw how countries like Denmark and Sweden create blocking lists outside the rule of law, sometimes leaving whole websites abroad blocked but with no way of even knowing — the accusatory and defamatory blocking page being shown only to people in the countries doing the blocking.
The blocking approach in Denmark, Sweden and the UK breaks every element of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is neither “necessary” nor is it “prescribed by law” in those countries. How can child abuse material have such a low priority that its regulation is the only crime which does not require countermeasures to be laid down in law? Worse still, once the blocking veil is cast thoughtlessly and lawlessly over the allegedly illegal sites abroad and over government inaction to have the websites removed, countries promptly lose the will to take even minimal measures to address the crime. A Danish police official, for example, said in a speech to the German Federal Parliament that they don’t see any need to send reports of these serious crimes to the United States or Russia. Which other serious crime would be treated in this way? Why does blocking destroy the will of governments to treat online child abuse with the seriousness it deserves? Why would child protection organisations ever dream of supporting such a counterproductive measure?
This is the essence of the text agreed by the European Parliament’s Committee on the evening of 14 February. The text demands effective action against the crimes — it demands supervision of the member states’ efforts through a yearly report on their activities. It removes the obligation on member states to introduce blocking and places new measures on member states that insist on blocking in order to at least move in the direction of respect for basic fundamental rights. It chooses concrete child protection measures over symbols, excuses and failure. 14 February… a day to start loving the European Parliament.
Read the European Digital Rights report on web blocking here
Joe McNamee works as Advocacy Coordinatory for European Digital Rights in Brussels (EDRi). He works on issues related to privacy, cybercrime, intellectual property, freedom of information/communication and related topics.
10 Feb 2011 | News and features
Amidst the hype over “Twitter revolutions”, have we forgotten the crucial role played by small media? To examine these crucial organising tools, the Small Media Initiative is partnering with Index on Censorship to create the Small Media Symposium 2011. Klara Chlupata reports
A quick glance at the news seems to suggest that we are living in the digital age of Twitter revolutions. In August 2010, Wired published an article entitled From Samizdat to Twitter: How Technology is Making Censorship Irrelevant. But is it?
The role played by social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube in political protests and “revolutions” continues to be passionately debated by academics, activists, politicians and pundits. While there are plenty of examples of creative new politics, recent protests in Burma, China, Iran and Egypt remind us that governments can simply shut communication down. The question then becomes: where do we go after moving from samizdat to Twitter? What alternative channels and technologies of communication can facilitate the flow of information when authoritarian regimes flick the kill switch? What alternative political practices can we invent to circumscribe state repression?
Recent events in Egypt suggest that alternatives can be as low-tech as paper leaflets with practical and tactical advice or as high-tech as the speak-to-tweet application that lets individuals dial a phone number and leave (or listen to) a message translated to text on a Twitter page.
When authoritarian regimes can easily disrupt communication channels to restrict the free flow of information and to control the narrative, small media can be useful in providing alternative means of mass communication. These tools are given many titles: small media, alternative media, participatory media and social movement media. This will be the focus of the Small Media Symposium, which will take place in London on 8-9 April 2011. The symposium will gather together academics, activists and media developers to discuss small media theory, practice and innovation.
The event will be held at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London and will be open to the public on 8 April. On 9 April, there will be a series of closed-door workshops.
Contributors are invited to submit their proposals on a wide range of topics and approaches related to small media. Research, practical experience, insights, product demonstrations, case studies, work-in-progress, posters, conceptual papers and proposals for workshop themes are all welcome. The deadline for submission of an abstract (400 – 600 words) is 10 March 2011. Abstracts can be submitted to contact[at]smallmediainitiative.com.
Klara Chlupata is curator at Index on Censorship and the primary organiser of the Small Media Symposium 2011
1 Feb 2011 | Egypt, Middle East and North Africa
Last night at around 11pm local time Egypt’s last remaining ISP was taken offline. There are also unconfirmed rumours that mobile network services are to be cut today. The Noor Group ISP served the Egyptian stock exchange and a number of hotels serving an international clientele.
As soon as I have a way to circumvent the system, I’ll be back with an update.
