Posts Tagged ‘free speech’

Twitter grapples with censorship issues

January 29th, 2012
Posted by Senior Director, Juliette Terzieff:

Microblogging giant Twitter recently announced plans to begin censoring some content in response to restrictions and/or laws in place within individual countries. The six-year-old Internet company has gained prominence as a tool for change in recent years as users employed tweets to reach a global audience during post-election protests in Iran, in the wake of the Haiti earthquake and throughout the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. Some Twitter users and observers have blasted the censoring plans as social suicide, but the company has chosen to publicly address and engage on an issue that has plagued other Internet content related companies.

In a post on January 26, Twitter stated, “As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.”

In the past, Twitter has deleted content, but was only able to do so on a global scale by deleting the tweet entirely. The company has thus far limited itself to snuffing out content related to things such as child pornography or pro-Nazi sentiment, but it could also include tweets from protesters in specific countries like Egypt, Iran, and Syria if given the right opportunity. With its new technology, the site will be able to determine if a tweet is breaking a law in a specific country and remove the tweet from that region while still leaving it visible for the rest of the world to see. If a tweet is removed, the site “will post a censorship notice” for users in that country, much in the same way Google Inc. practices in countries “where its service operates requires a search result to be removed.” Twitter, like Google, will use Chillingeffects.org to share the removal requests it “receives from governments, companies and individuals.” The site “sees the censorship tool as a way to ensure individual messages, or “tweets,” remain available to as many people as possible while it navigates a gauntlet of different laws around the world.” The company will also have the ability to censor individual accounts as well, given their location within a country where a law has been broken.

Alexander Macgillivray, general counsel to Twitter, helped draw up the censorship policy for the site, just as he did for Google when he worked for them, which explains the similarity Twitter’s new policy has to Google’s. “The critics are jumping to the wrong conclusions,” Mr. Macgillivray said. “This is a good thing for freedom of expression, transparency and accountability. This launch is about us keeping content up whenever we can and to be extremely transparent with the world when we don’t. I would hope people realize our philosophy hasn’t changed.”

But, Twitter may have suffered a backlash as users protested on January 28 in a boycott, organizing the event by using the hashtag #TwitterBlackout. In a similar fashion to the Internet blackout protest two weeks ago, which included websites such as Wikipedia, Google, and Reddit in response to the controversial anti-piracy bills SOPA and PIPA, many Twitter users planned to “turn off the tweets” for a day.

What seems to be forgotten is that Twitter has always had the ability to remove content when necessary, but the company does stand for freedom of speech, as it signed the letter to Congress about SOPA along with several other Internet companies like Google and Facebook.

“One of our core values as a company is to defend and respect each user’s voice,” Thursday’s Twitter post said. “We try to keep content up wherever and whenever we can, and we will be transparent with users when we can’t. The tweets must continue to flow.”

One thing protesters failed to notice was the bypass Twitter makes very easy to find in its Help Center so that content can’t be censored or deleted, and all it requires is changing the country in which one resides. The tweets can’t be censored if they’re being tweeted from a country where the law isn’t being broken.

ICT companies and their stakeholders broadly agree on the transformative power of the Internet and efforts to promote universal access. The reality that companies find themselves operating in environments governed by repressive or restrictive regimes that will attempt to limit access is one that all parties have to recognize and manage—and Twitter has shown it is prepared to do just that.

Permalink

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in Business & Human Rights, Free Expression, Labor & Transparency, Technology | No comments so far »

Battle over censored content heats up

December 27th, 2011
Posted by Senior Director, Juliette Terzieff:

The battle against censored Internet content is heating up heading into 2012 with the U.S. Congress set to vote on a measure opponents worry would adversely affect the climate of innovation and free expression that helps drive the Internet, and related entrepreneurship and development around the world. From Internet users and private sector players protesting the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) to Michael Posner’s speech entreating multinational corporations (MNCs) to stand up and protect free speech and the World Wide Web, stakeholders are lining up to oppose the changes.

In his speech at the Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference on October 25, 2011, Posner—the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor—said, “To advance these fundamental freedoms, we need the help of citizens, corporations and global civil society for what is likely to be a long, tough struggle with regimes that do not share our values or our views on the merits of openness. And I particularly want to call attention to the role of companies, because today corporations have more global influence than ever.”

Several Internet corporations have pulled their support of SOPA after customers have threatened to take business elsewhere. GoDaddy was in full support of SOPA until its customers voiced their opposition and threatened to pull thousands of domain names from the domain name registrar. And companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, eBay, Mozilla, Yahoo, AOL, and LinkedIn wrote a letter, expressing their concern over the “legislative measures that have been introduced in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives.”

While the companies support the goals of SOPA and PIPA—to provide additional tools to combat “rogue” websites that practice copyright infringement or counterfeiting—none of these companies agree with the current drafts of the bills, which “would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites.” The companies have asked the U.S. Congress to look for “more targeted ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites,” while protecting innovation and technology “that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.”

When Internet-related innovations and technology have helped small and medium-sized businesses to increase their productivity by 10 percent, and the U.S. Internet’s contribution to the GDP is larger than energy, agriculture, communication, mining, and utilities combined, the success and substantial benefits of accessing the Internet for hundreds of millions of Americans is a vital asset to U.S. economic growth and job creation.

SOPA has the potential to halt that growth.

Over the next decade, the next 3 billion customers benefitting from that innovation and technology will be residents of developing countries, where companies like Samsung and Microsoft have created jobs and helped drive sustainable development. Samsung Africa, for example, has tapped into innovation to revolutionize education with the launch of the company’s portable, solar-powered classrooms in October 2011. Such advancements provide an opportunity for education to those in rural areas. However, as these technologies advance and are introduced to developing countries, some have used them as tools to silence dissenting voices. China, Vietnam, Egypt and Bahrain are among the countries where authorities routinely seek to censor the Internet and/or prosecute individuals for their online activities.

Though China began censoring its part of cyberspace before the Arab Spring, Posner voiced that the Arab Spring “brought home the power of the Internet to governments far beyond the Middle East, and the result has been more censorship, more surveillance and more restrictions.”

Unfortunately, these repressive governments have the money and the power to block external content and track what their citizens are doing online, Posner noted. “They are exerting overbroad state control over content, over users, and over companies. And they’re trying to change national and international legal standards to legitimize it all.”

There are three major supporters of SOPA—the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In total, SOPA has the support of more than 400 businesses.

The Senate Judiciary committee approved PIPA and the floor vote is scheduled for January 24, but Sen. Ron Wyden has put a hold on it. SOPA supporters lead in the majority on the committee, and when Congress returns in 2012, the bill is expected to be approved, but “Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, has introduced the so-called OPEN Act that would cut off the flow of funds to alleged pirate Web sites without requiring them to be blocked.”

“Silicon Valley has already given birth to game-changing technologies and a profoundly new approach to philanthropy. Many people here have made it their life’s work not only to develop transformative technologies but also to put them in the hands of people in places where digital empowerment is leaps ahead of political or financial or educational empowerment. Never have great ideas gone from dream to global distribution so quickly.

“But with great code comes great responsibility.”

Posner is correct. There is a giant responsibility that comes with the World Wide Web, but if we don’t figure out how to preserve its current nature; if we don’t protect its freedom, “the autocrats will figure it out for us” and that freedom could vanish.

Permalink

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in Business & Human Rights, Free Expression, Technology | No comments so far »

Technology put to tortuous use

August 29th, 2011
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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in Business & Human Rights, Free Expression, Labor & Transparency, Technology | No comments so far »

India Internet law draws fire

August 9th, 2011
Posted by Juliette Terzieff

Indian Internet users have begun to discover the limits imposed by a new law on web content, encountering interruptions in their surfing in the form of screens displaying a message that content has been blocked under instruction from the Ministry of Telecom.

Human rights activists, bloggers and Internet users are lashing out at the new on the grounds that its provisions constitute infringements on the rights to privacy, free speech and expression. Indian authorities have characterized the new law as a balance between individual freedoms and collective security, but critics say the restrictive provisions rival Chinese attempts to censor web access.

The new law prohibits web sites and service providers from disseminating any material that might be harmful, blasphemous or insulting – and requires them to remove any such content within 36 hours of a complaint registration. Internet café will have to increase current security measures – which include installing surveillance cameras and obtaining identification from all customers – to keep a detailed record of each individual’s surfing activities. Owners are required to turn over the records to government authorities at the end of each month.

India has suffered two large-scale terrorist attacks in recent years and is contending with armed conflict in Kashmir. In November 2008 terrorists unleashed a four-day long attack on hospitals, cafes, community centers and educational institutions in Mumbai that left 164 people dead and over 300 injured. Earlier this year 18 people died and 81 were wounded when assailants detonated bombs in three Mumbai neighborhoods. In both cases, investigators have reported traces of Internet activity as central to building their cases.

While rights advocates express sympathy for the government’s efforts to address security concerns associated with the Internet, critics charge the vague wording of the law potentially leaves it open to wide interpretation by authorities.

“With this kind of blanket surveillance regime, we are on a very slippery slope,” Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society told the Washington Post. “The language is so vague that it is open to arbitrary interpretation. . . . In comparison with other democracies in North America and Europe, the Indian rules appear to be on the China end of the spectrum.”

India is home to the world’s third largest number of Internet users behind China and the United States, even though less than 10 percent of the population has regular access. But growth over the last decade has been spectacular – rising from 5 million to 100 million between the year 200 and now.

In many countries the increase of Internet penetration has led to social and political upheaval as dissenters are able to reach a global audience to expose abuses and push for reform. In countries with repressive regimes and state-controlled media, individuals have been able to sidestep official controls to reach like-minded countrymen and help launch protest movements.

It’s a reality that has triggered censorship battles between governments and civil society, the private sector and rights advocates around the world over the last decade. In many countries, such as Egypt and Vietnam, bloggers have been specifically targeted for harassment or arrest for their online activities. In other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and China, authorities have moved to censor Internet access more broadly.

The advance of Internet access around the world has also provided militant groups and terrorist organizations with more advanced tools to both accelerate internal communications and reach a broader audience. As a result of these and other criminal activities, such as pedophilia, governments in even the most democratic and open countries have moved to place some restrictions on the Internet.

“While there are legitimate security concerns to deal with, repressive governments that cite such issues for broad restrictions often have domestic political concerns in mind,” says Islamabad-based defense analyst Mohammad Bokhari. “Ultimately it comes down to those dedicated individuals and groups that are being targeted for dissenting activities being willing to keep taking the risk that are the best hope for pushing change.”

While unrestricted and universal Internet access has the broad support of the United Nations, human rights groups and most Western governments, there is no real mechanism at the international level to compel a government to ease restrictions on the Internet.  With little chance an enforceable mechanism will come into force anytime soon, the combined pressure of stakeholders from across the spectrum to wield the power of the Internet as a building block for the future.

Permalink

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in Free Expression, Labor & Transparency, Technology | No comments so far »

Working Together

December 30th, 2009
From Juliette Terzieff, Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Initiatives:

Welcome to the Future 500 blog.

To start the New Year, we are delighted to launch the official Future 500 blog, where we invite you to join us in ongoing discussions, analysis and observations to advance the practice of stakeholder engagement in progressing systemic solutions to society’s critical sustainability challenges.

In the waning days of 2009 I find myself looking back on a tumultuous year full of critical events that affect all the world’s citizens.

Each of us has a stake in our collective future — a future that in 2009 continued to be endangered by global economic turmoil and international policy failures, increasing frequency of natural disasters, effects of climate change and decreasing availability of finite natural resources – to name just a few of the year’s challenges!

(more…)

Permalink

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in Future 500 News, Misc, Stakeholder Engagement | 2 Comments »