Internet Censorship

[1871]

Internet Censorship; Countries deeply divided on internet laws during UN talks



10 Dec 2012 17:45 - Sapa-AP



Talks over possible new UN regulations for the internet have been deeply divided.

The talks, which took place on Monday in Dubai, saw Russia and others advocating for more government sway while a US-led bloc warned against rules that could restrict freedoms in cyberspace.

The Dubai conference, which wraps up later this week, is not empowered to bring about any immediate changes on how the internet operates.

The US and its backers, however, argue that sanctioning greater government roles in internet oversight could allow governments that already heavily censor web traffic, such as China or Iran, to justify more restrictions and monitoring.

A high-powered US delegation – including representatives from tech giants such as Google and Microsoft – has tried to block all discussions of possible internet regulations.

The effort, however, has met strong headwinds from countries such as Russia that want a greater control over net commerce and security.

Resistance against censorship

So far, the closed-door talks have failed to find much common ground at the 193-nation UN International Telecommunications Union, which last updated its rules in 1988 before the internet became a global force.

"What's happened in the conference is a variety of proposals have come in from other nations that get into the internet, that look at internet governance," said the head of the 123-member US delegation, ambassador Terry Kramer, in a video uploaded by organisers late Sunday.

"It creates an open door for review of content and potential censorship there. It will create a chilling environment for the internet."

For several days, US-led envoys fought against a proposal submitted by the host United Arab Emirates, which last month passed sweeping new internet laws outlawing social media posts that insult rulers or call for protests.

The proposal – backed by countries such Russia, China and other Arab states – was removed from discussion Monday, conference organisers said, after an uproar from web activists supporting the American position.

Among its provisions was a call for governments to have "equal rights to manage the internet," including its technical workings, according to a text leaked by a website, wcitleaks.org.

Divides

The site claimed to have access to meeting documents not yet made public. It is unclear, however, whether the American views have gained the upper hand as the talks move into their final days.

US officials say other proposals that support a greater government voice in internet affairs are still active.

Many experts on internet technology believe the proposals could further squeeze the net in countries where it is closely regulated, even though it won't fundamentally alter cyberspace in places with traditions of openness.

"These proposals would break what's working – freedom of information and freedom of access," tech analyst Elise Ackerman wrote in a column for Forbes.

"And they wouldn't help fix the parts of the internet that need reinforcing, namely security and privacy."

She noted, however, the conference reflects a general push for more "international policymaking" as the US dominance of the internet weakens.

Content providers

On Monday, the head of the UN telecoms agency, Hamadoun Toure, was scheduled to meet with civil society groups who have complained of being excluded from the talks.

Other issues at the conference also remain unresolved, including a European-led proposal to charge content providers for access to cross-border markets.

The idea is strongly opposed by US companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and others.

Supporters say the so-called "toll" could be used by developing countries to fund expansion of internet services. – Sapa-AP



SOURCES

Cerf and Berners Lee Criticize ITU Conference (IT Pro Portal):
http://www.itproportal.com/2012/12/05/si...z2EDlH06f5

ITU and Google face off at Dubai conference over future of the internet (Guardian):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...tednations

Keep the Internet Open (New York Times):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinio...html?_r=1&

Proposal for global regulation of web (Financial Times):
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1b114d8c-...z2EdnmBAXI

Who controls the Internet? (Guardian):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...s-internet


Update: 12 December 2012

The pressure is working -- the dangerous proposal from Russia and others to empower individual states to censor and filter the Internet has been defeated. While negotiations are moving in the right direction, the threat remains that this conference could seek to assert greater government regulation over the Internet and endanger our privacy and freedom of expression online -- let's keep growing our call, while we are delivering our voices today in Dubai!

sign the petition;

http://www.avaaz.org/en/hands_off_our_internet_i/

[1871]

2013-03-08 | Vietnam Committee on Human Rights

Restrictive legislation, internment of cyberdissidents in psychiatric hospitals and repression of freedom of expression in Vietnam exposed at the UN Human Rights Council

2013-03-06 | IBIB



Buddhist leader Thich Quang Do issues a Declaration on Pluralism and Democracy in Vietnam

2013-02-13 |

Vietnam Committee on Human Rights & FIDH

Bloggers and Netizens Behind Bars: Restrictions on Internet Freedom in Vietnam

2013-02-04 | Vietnam Committee on Human Rights

22 Members of a nonviolent group condemned to harsh prison terms for “subversion” in Vietnam

2013-02-01

| Vietnam Committee on Human Rights
Buddhist dissident Thich Quang Do is nominated for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize and receives diplomatic visits from Germany and France


XXII session of the UN Human Rights Council:
Restrictive legislation, internment of cyberdissidents in psychiatric hospitals and repression of freedom of expression in Vietnam exposed at the UN Human Rights Council



2013-03-08 | | Vietnam Committee on Human Rights


GENEVA, 8 March 2013 (VIETNAM COMMITTEE) - Speaking at the 22nd session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva jointly with the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), Mr. Vo Van Ai, President of the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) denounced systematic and organized violations of Internet freedom in Vietnam.

Citing the findings of the recent FIDH and VCHR report “Bloggers and Netizens behind bars in Vietnam”, Mr. Ai declared that the ongoing repression, supported by widespread Police violence and vaguely-worded, restrictive legislation, was grossly inconsistent with the provisions of Article 19 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Vietnam acceded in 1982.

Vo Van Ai expressed particular concern about the increasing use of internment in psychiatric institutions under Ordinance 44 to stifle cyber-dissidents. He also denounced a Draft Internet Decree currently under preparation which would increase state censorship and oblige Internet companies, including foreign firms, to collaborate with the government in “tracking down government critics” (see full text of the statement below).

Ms Penelope Faulkner, speaking on behalf of Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme also expressed concern about the government’s assault on freedom of expression in Vietnam and the arbitrary detention and harrasment of bloggers, citing the cases of bloggers Dieu Cay, Ms . Nguyen Hoang Vi and Buddhist monk Thich Quang Do. She said the release of bloggers and repealing of restrictive legiclation was “indispensable in the light of Vietnam’s bid for membership of the UN Human Rights Council in 2014” (see extracts from speech below).



Vo Van Ai speaking at the UN Human Rights Council, 8 March 2013 - Photo QUE ME


Full text of the statement by Vo Van Ai:

“The FIDH and its affiliate organization, the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights, wish to draw the Council’s attention to the brutal campaign of repression on freedom of expression in Vietnam, in violation of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This campaign is totally inconsistent with the Council’s 2012 Resolution (HRC/20/L.13) on “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet” and the recommendations accepted by Vietnam at its Universal Periodic Review in 2009.

“As revealed in our recent report, “Bloggers and Netizens Behind bars: Restrictions on Internet Freedom in Vietnam”, which we hold at the Council’s disposal, Internet users are harassed, intimidated, molested and imprisoned. There are currently 32 bloggers and netizens in prison in Vietnam, either sentenced or awaiting trial, with prison terms of up to 16 years.

“Such repression does not serve to protect “national security” as the Vietnamese authorities claim, but to stifle the voices of an emerging civil society speaking out on corruption, power abuse, the plight of dispossessed peasants and farmers, human rights and democratic reforms.

“Cynically, the authorities are also repressing those who contributed to a recent public consultation on reforming the Constitution. Last week, journalist Nguyen Dac Kien was fired from the newspaper Gia ?ình & Xã h?i (Family and Society) less than 24 hours after posting a criticism of the Communist Party and its Secretary-general on his blog.

“Vietnam does not only use violence and Police coercion, but also invokes a host of vague and broadly-interpreted laws to suppress freedom of expression, in flagrant violation of Article 19 of the ICCPR. Article 88 on “anti-Socialist propaganda” or Article 258 on “abusing democratic freedoms to encroach on the interests of the state” are routinely used to detain cyber-dissidents.

“Ordinance 44 (2002), which authorizes the detention of suspected “national security” offenders without any due process of law, is increasingly used to detain bloggers, especially its provisions authorizing the internment of citizens in psychiatric hospitals, as was recently the case of bloggers Nguyen Trung Linh and Le Anh Hung.

“In the framework of legal reforms financed by the international community, this arsenal of restrictive legislation continues to grow. A new draft Internet Decree is under consideration which raises serious concerns. If adopted as such, it would legalize a whole system of content-filtering, censorship and sanctions against vaguely-defined “prohibited acts”. It would also oblige Internet companies and providers, including foreign companies, to cooperate with the government in the surveillance and tracking of cyber-dissidents.

“Such repression is inconsistent with Vietnam’s international obligations as a state party to the ICCPR and the recommendations made by 13 states at its UPR to guarantee freedom of expression.

“We call upon the Council to press Vietnam to put an end to this repression; to abrogate Ordinance 44 and all other legislation incompatible with international human rights law, and review the draft Internet decree in order to ensure that it guarantees freedom of expression. Vietnam should also invite the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression to visit Vietnam at the earliest opportunity.”


Penelope Faulkner speaking at the UN Human Rights Council, 8 March 2013 – Photo QUE ME


Statement by Penelope Faulkner (extracts)

“Over the past year alone, scores of bloggers, online journalists and human rights defenders in Vietnam have been harassed, intimidated, subjected to Police abuse, or condemned to extremely harsh prison sentences simply for expressing their peaceful views on the Internet.

“The situation of blogger Nguyen Van Hai (Dieu Cay) is particularly alarming. Charged with “circulating anti-socialist propaganda” (Article 88 of the Criminal Code), he was sentenced to 12 years in prison and five years house arrest at a trial in September 2012 which violated all international standards. The trial was closed to the public, and the Court cut off the microphone when Dieu Cay spoke to defend himself. Today, his safety and security is in danger. Senior Police official Lt.-Colonel Hoang Van Dung told Dieu Cay he would destroy his health and make sure that he died in prison.

“Netizens routinely suffer beatings, abuse and even sexual assaults by Police. On 28 December Miss Nguyen Hoang Vi, a 25-year-old blogger, was beaten savagely by Police, stripped naked and subjected to a humiliating body search which was videotaped by male Police officers. Police had arrested her on the pretext of an “identity check” as she stood outside the Court during Dieu Cay’s appeal trial.

“Many Internet users are detained under house arrest without any due process of law. Buddhist monk and prominent dissident Thich Quang Do has been under house arrest at the Thanh Minh Zen Monastery since 2003 because of his online appeals for democracy and human rights (1).

“Vietnam claims that it arrests government critics because they have violated Vietnamese law. However, in Opinion 27/2012 on Vietnam, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stressed that even if the detention is in conformity with national legislation, it must also be consistent with international law. The “Working Group also emphasized that “the holding and expressing of opinions, including those which are not in line with official Government policy, are protected under Article 19 of the ICCPR”.

“We therefore call upon Vietnam to repeal all domestic laws inconsistent with Article 19, to release all persons detained for their peaceful exercise of freedom of expression, both online and offline, and to invite the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and on Human Rights Defenders to visit Vietnam. This is indispensable in the light of Vietnam’s bid for membership of the UN Human Rights Council in 2014.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Despite his detention under house arrest at the Thanh Minh Zen Monastery in Ho Chi Minh City, Thich Quand Do has recently launched via the Internet a declaration on pluralism and democracy in Vietnam, as a contribution to the current debate on reforming the Constitution (see Buddhist leader Thich Quang Do issues a Declaration on Pluralism and Democracy in Vietnam, IBIB, 6 March 2013)

http://www.queme.net/eng/news_detail.php?numb=2018






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quê Mẹ • B.P. 60063 • 94472 Boissy Saint Léger cedex • France • E-mail : queme.democracy@gmail.com

[1871]

EFF Reaffirms Why CISPA Is So Bad

Letters discuss privacy and accountability concerns

By Zach Walton · April 18, 2012 ·



I think we can all agree that CISPA is pretty rotten. It’s just another attempt at ramming Internet regulation ala SOPA through the gates to give a limited few an advantage while the online civil liberties of everybody else suffers. While I don’t need to tell you why it’s so bad, the people in Congress need to know.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently attached their names to two coalition letters that explain in great detail why CISPA is just so bad. The two letters address two different parts of the proposed legislation that are both equally miserable.

The first letter details the privacy concerns that many people have in regards to CISPA. I don’t think you need to be reminded, but it bears repeating why CISPA is such an affront to our privacy online. The letter reads:




CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity. Although a carefully-crafted information sharing program that strictly limits the information to be shared and includes robust privacy safeguards could be an effective approach to cybersecurity, CISPA lacks such protections for individual rights. CISPA’s ‘information sharing’ regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet use history or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for any nonregulatory purpose so long as one significant purpose is for cybersecurity or to protect national security. These are not meaningful use restrictions: “national security” use is one of the problems, and the White House recognized this immense problem by precluding such use in its own cybersecurity proposal. While the bill requires the Director of National Intelligence Inspector General to issue annual reports on the government’s use of information shared with it under the bill, such reports would only be provided to congressional intelligence committees, and IG reports are no substitute for meaningful use restrictions and they will do nothing to dissuade companies from misusing personal information shared under this broad new program.

The letter is signed by the usual suspects fighting for online freedoms including the American Library Association, Consumer Watchdog and the National Whistleblower Center among others.

The other letter covers the less talked about portion of the bill. The fact that CISPA reduces government and corporate accountability by allowing both groups to share private information without alerting citizens that it’s being shared. The letter reads:


In the interest of encouraging private companies to share cybersecurity threat information, the bill unwisely and unnecessarily cuts off all public access to cyber threat information before the public and Congress have the chance to understand the types of information that are withheld under the bill. Much of the sensitive information private companies are likely to share with the government is already protected from disclosure under the FOIA. Other information that may be shared could be critical for the public to ensure its safety. The public needs access to some information to be able to assess whether the government is adequately combating cybersecurity threats and, when necessary, hold officials accountable.

Any effort to expand of the authority of the federal government to withhold information from the public should begin with careful consideration, including public hearings, by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over FOIA. That Committee has the expertise needed to ensure that FOIA-related provisions promote transparency and public accountability while allowing the government to withhold only that information which truly requires protection.


There is a lot of overlap between these two letters as many of the same organizations joined the undersigned. Some of the new ones though include the American Society of News Editors, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Entertainment Consumers Association.

While a lot of this is old news by now to the Internet minded folks among us, it hasn’t gotten as much coverage as SOPA and PIPA. I almost fear that unless another blackout happens that people just aren’t going to care. That’s why letters like this are so important. They may be addressed to representatives, but they should be read by all so they can make an informed decision.

If these letters have awoken the Internet crusader inside of you, check out the EFF’s #CongressTMI hashtag campaign. It’s a fun way to express your concerns to your representatives with a bit of humor and satire.

http://www.webpronews.com/eff-reaffirms-...ad-2012-04