Posted by Juliette Terzieff

Torture isn’t normally what you associate with text messaging. But in Bahrain activists detained by security forces are finding their cellular telephone records being used against them by authorities as proof of insurrection.

Events in Bahrain are not the first time – nor are they likely to be the last – that a repressive government uses technology to prosecute or persecute those who seek to take advantage of the freedom of communication enabled by other ICT tools. That authorities are once again using technology purchased from multinationals based in Western countries has brought criticism from human rights and pro-democracy activists.

Across the Middle East and North Africa over the last few years dissidents and pro-reform activists have turned to technology to create and drive mass movements for change. Text messaging capabilities via cellular telephones and Internet-based communications have been used to reach around government-dominated press to gather forces domestically to support movements. Activists have employed YouTube, Facebook and Twitter as means to broadcast their message instantaneously to a global audience, hoping to increase international pressure for change and promote accountability for government abuses.

Activists have had mixed results. The Twitter revolution – a concept that gained currency as Iranians challenged 2009 election results that kept incumbent Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in power – was the first time social media gained widespread recognition as a social and political tool in the international media. Iranian activists and their supporters worldwide strove to sidestep authorities’ efforts to block access to social media outlets with some pretty impressive success – even though Ahmedinejad was ultimately able to withstand the challenge from the streets with help from the country’s well-trained security forces.

Fast forward to 2011… and once again social media usage played a role in driving protests in Egypt, Bahrain and Syria. In all three cases authorities instituted a crackdown against protesters and sought to control the flow of information, either by attempting to throw an Internet kill-switch or by limiting access to certain sites like YouTube.

Egypt’s pro-reform movement was successful in its effort to force longtime incumbent President Hosni Mubarak out of power – though it remains to be seen how much reform to the country’s security forces, judiciary and political system sought by activists will actually materialize overtime.

Syrian authorities have unleashed a violent crackdown against protesters that has included mass detentions, house-to-house searches, and sending tanks into residential areas to quell demonstrations. And while the control measures have helped keep President Bashar Al-Assad in power thus far, activists continue to successfully get video footage and information out of the country preventing a repeat of a 1982 crackdown by Assad’s father, Hafez, when it took weeks for news of a deadly crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood to reach the world.

Assad’s actions have drawn vociferous and sustained condemnation from the international community and rights groups the world round. European Union countries and the U.S. have placed additional sanctions on Syria, while the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has asked the Security Council to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court.

Inspired by explosions of protest across the region and the use of social media Bahraini activists set out to push for political reform in February 2011 – even going so far as to set up an Internet tent to broadcast their efforts in Manama’s Pearl Square. But before analysts could even warn that Bahrain was not Egypt, and Bahraini authorities had experience quelling protests, security forces swept violently into the capital’s streets and overpowered demonstrators.

In every case Western politicians and civil society have expressed support for the “street,” urging the governments in question to institute reforms, or step aside. Western companies that produce the technology repressive governments have used to aid their counter-protest efforts have found themselves also under fire for the use of their products.

Iranian activists and their supporters blasted Nokia Siemens Network after reports surfaced that the company had provided a product called the Monitoring Center to Iranian authorities. The technology gave authorities the ability to monitor calls, voice and text messages, and Internet traffic. Nokia Siemens said the technology is standard infrastructure in most countries’ cellular networks but did acknowledge authorities might abuse such capabilities. Nonetheless, the company believes the risks of doing business in countries like Iran doesn’t eclipse the positives that come from the general expansion of cellular or Internet access.

It is an argument that has been used by other companies, such as Google or Yahoo! Inc., when challenged by human rights groups over doing business in countries with repressive regimes like China. And certainly, most stakeholders from across the spectrum agree that increased access to the Internet and consumer electronics can help address development, poverty and expression challenges.

In Bahrain authorities are using a Monitoring Center sold by Siemens and managed by Nokia Siemens Network’s divested unit Trovicor, according to Bloomberg Markets. While Bahraini authorities have not admitted using the technology as a tool against activists, industry observers say there is no other way authorities could obtain such transcripts of cellular communications. That the monitoring technology can also be used to change messages en route to a recipient or pinpoint an individual’s location makes it a powerful potential weapon for authorities. Egypt, Syria and Yemen also purchased centers from the company.

The European Union and the U.S. thus far have no legislation that restricts the sale of powerful inspection technologies even though some U.S. lawmakers considered casting a legislative eye on the subject in the wake of the Arab Spring. In fact existing U.S. law requires that carrier-grade cellular and Internet equipment carry intercept capabilities, leading manufacturers to build them into production lines.

Significant changes to the market are unlikely any time soon.

There remains broad agreement among stakeholders that ICT tools can be a powerful force for positive change, able to magnify and increase movements for social change. And companies in the ICT sector will continue to face pressure to ensure that people can access and use their products freely.

Permalink