Navigation

Archive | Censorship

EDRi: Next year, you’ll complain about the Terrorism Directive

By on May 26, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Human rights, War on Terror

Next year, when your Member State starts blocking websites, without quite knowing why, when it starts imposing restrictions on Tor and proxy servers, without quite knowing why, when unaccountable, unclear legislation leads to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and your government says that it is “EU law that it is obliged to implement” and you wonder why the press never reported on it, when you search in vain for who is accountable for a weak and dangerous text, come back and read this again.

EDRi: Next year, you’ll complain about the Terrorism Directive »

0

EU:s EPP group calls for Internet censorship

By on May 24, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, War on Terror

The centre-right group in the European Parliament, EPP, just released an article on its’ website: The Fight Against Online Radicalisation »

Let me copy paste a few passages…

This would mean limiting the internet reach that ISIS and other extremist groups have on our social media networks. To ban them completely would be impossible as it is difficult enough to figure out who is an extremist recruiter and who isn’t on Facebook and Twitter, but we can certainly limit and delete their Facebook pages and bar their accounts. (…)

It has been agreed that Europol is to obtain greater powers to deal with the tackling of the terrorist threat online. New specialist units, monitored by an European Data Protection Supervisor and a Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group, will be set up that will be able to contact social network providers (Facebook, Twitter etc.) directly to ask that pages and accounts run by ISIS are shut down as fast as possible.

Obviously, we need to make a stand against radical Islamism and others who advocate violence and who do not respect human rights and civil liberties. But is censorship really the right way to do it?

Either you have freedom of speech or you don’t. If you restrict free speech, e.g. by censoring Internet content, per definition you have lost it.

The only acceptable exception would be clearly expressed, substantial threats directed against other people’s life, security or property.

It is true that radical Islamism is a murderous ideology. But so is Communism and Fascism. Banning all bad and dangerous doctrines would have far-reaching implications. And who is to decide what to censor?

If we introduce far-reaching online censorship you can be absolutely sure that it will be extended beyond its’ original purpose.

Actually, we are already there. In many countries, xenophobic and anti-immigration Internet activities are prohibited, censored and can lead to prosecution. What is considered to be acceptable opinions or banned hate speech is a matter of definition. And once again, who is to decide?

The irony of it all is that the same set of rules are used to silence radical Islamism as anti-Muslim, anti-immigration rants.

Radical Islamism aiming at limiting other people’s freedom, human rights and/or civil rights must be opposed. Strongly. But it must be done in a frank debate and by good examples.

You simply cannot defend a free and open society by limiting people’s human and civil rights (such as freedom of speech).

/ HAX

1

German court censors Böhmermanns Erdogan poem

By on May 17, 2016 in affairs, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Germany

A German court, Landgericht Hamburg, has decided that tv presenter Jan Böhmermann can not repeat parts of his infamous poem about Turkish President Erdogan.

The court finds passages in the text abusive and defamatory. Frankfurter Allgemeine reports that refusal to follow this ruling can lead to an administrative fine of up to 250,000 euros or administrative detention of up to six months.

Böhmermann now has the possibility to appeal against the verdict.

However, this is not the main trial. The Section 103 case will be tried by the Mainz Criminal Court at a later point.

Turkish President Erdogan has also applied for an injunction against Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner. This following Springers support for Böhmermann. The injunction is to be tried by the Cologne Landgericht. But this court has already indicated that it will not recognize the case. This can, in turn, be appealed against by Erdogan’s lawyers.

This is a can of worms.

The entire case is troublesome from a freedom of speech perspective. Especially as it also concerns freedom of the press and artistic expressions. And it gets outright awkward and absurd when German courts are deconstructing Böhmermann’s poem to decide what parts should be considered as acceptable humor and what parts should not.

There were, at one point, hopes that the German legal system would simply throw out President Erdogan’s complaints and make a firm stand for free speech. But now it seems as if the case will take a different turn.

What makes the case even worse is the fact that the German government allowed President Erdogan’s complaints on political grounds. Germany simply needs Turkey to stem the flow of refugees from Syria (and other countries). So much so that the government is prepared to put free speech on the line.

This will be a defining moment for German democracy.

/ HAX

• Gericht verbietet Teile von Böhmermanns „Schmähgedicht“ »
• Erdogan geht auch gegen Springer-Chef Döpfner vor »

Update:
• BBC: German court rules against comic Boehmermann over Erdogan poem »

1

EU: Privatised censorship and surveillance

By on May 4, 2016 in Big Entertainment, Censorship, Copyright, EU, Intellectual Property, Internet

In relation to the real motivation behind the privatised censorship proposals (copyright), the draft talks about platforms “which make available copyright-protected content uploaded by end-users”. The wording is very deliberate. While the E-Commerce Directive gives liability protection to hosting companies that passively host content on behalf of their users, “making available” is an active use of content for which the rightsowner has a “exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public”. As a result, any “making available” by online platforms without prior consent of the rightsholder would be a breach of copyright, for which the platform would be liable. The only option for being liable for a “making available” by your customers is to subject any uploads to prior checking, filtering and/or takedown in cases of doubt. Online platforms already delete vast amounts of perfectly legal content uploaded by users, so this new incentive would make the situation even worse.

EDRi: Leaked EU Communication – Part 1: Privatised censorship and surveillance »

0

Germany: Politician arrested for reciting anti-Erdogan poem at rally

By on April 23, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Germany, Human rights

“During a rally supporting comedian Jan Boehmermann, Bruno Kramm, the head of the Berlin branch of Germany’s Pirate Party, was arrested for “insulting a representative of a foreign state” by quoting a line from the comic’s satirical poem slamming Erdogan.

German police arrested Kramm while he was conducting a “literary analysis” of the German comedian’s satirical poem in front of the Turkish embassy in Berlin during a protest held under the slogan “No Power for Erdowahn, Freedom Instead of Erdogan” [Keine Macht dem Erdowahn, Freiheit statt Erdogan], the Morgenpost newspaper reported.”

• Pirate Party’s leader detained in Germany for citing poem about Erdogan »

• Berliner Piraten-Chef bei Erdogan-Demo festgenommen »

0

UK one step closer to ban anonymous porn surfing

By on February 16, 2016 in Censorship, Data Protection, Internet, Porn, Privacy, UK

With a public consultation, the British government now is one step closer to demanding age verification at internet porn sites.

This is a bad idea in itself. But what makes it even worse is that it will make anonymous porn surfing impossible (at least for the not so tech-enlightened).

BBC: Government launches porn site age checks consultation »

Daily Mail: Porn sites will have to make users prove they’re over 18: New laws will make them use age verification software or face up to £250,000 fines »

First of all, is it at all wise to ban people under the age of 18 from watching porn online? After all, they are allowed to enjoy sexual activities from the age of 16. But they shouldn’t be allowed to see depictions of other people fucking? Really?

Second, there is a strong case for anonymous porn surfing: Many people might want to explore alternatives to heterosexual missionary position sex. But they might not want the government, the ISP:s, the credit card companies or the site owners to know about it. And rightly so. People have a right to sexual privacy.

My third objection is about security. One of the options in the consultation is that people should have to check in to porn sites (even free porn sites) by using their credit card. Thus exposing themselves to obvious risks. This way porn sites (real ones, that can be hacked and fake ones, set up for skimming) will become a very popular tool for credit card fraud.

The whole project will become a morass of unintended and unwanted consequences.

/ HAX

1

Sweden to censor the Internet?

By on January 23, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Internet, Sweden, Uncategorized

Is Sweden to join the likes of Turkey, China and Cuba?

It turns out that the Swedish government is looking into the possibility to censor non-licensed online gambling sites.

The pretext is the health and safety of the Swedish people. But the real reason is rather glaring: Money.

The state-owned national gambling company, Svenska Spel, sends a lot of money to the treasure. But that’s just the beginning. Let’s follow the money.

The Social Democrats, who are in government at present, are also the owners of one of the few licensed Swedish gambling companies, A-lotterierna. From this, the party pockets some five million euros a year.

Furthermore, the Swedish foreign minister — Margot Wallström — was recruited from a senior policy position at another licensed gambling company, Postkodlotteriet. This company has been sending millions of euros to the Clinton Foundation. Just between friends.

So, of course, the Swedish government doesn’t want the Swedish people to go to other, foreign gambling sites. The money should stay in the country, preferably in Party hands.

This is preposterous.

So the idea, now being aired, is to block access to all non-licensed gambling sites. (And there are quite a few in the world.)

Opening the doors for Internet censorship — what could possibly go wrong?

I can imagine the ruling political class could fancy blocking quite a few sites that annoys it, if that option becomes available.

Swedish Internet censorship is still under consideration. Now, the civil rights movement will have to sound the alarm and try to stop the idea before it reaches Parliament.

The Swedish government also has a plan B: To block payments to non-licensed gambling companies.

That also is a terrible idea, but in a different way.

/ HAX

2

EU pairing up with US online companies to censor the Internet

By on October 26, 2015 in Big Brother, Big Business, Censorship, EU, Facebook, Google, Internet

Then we have this one…

“In August 2015, the European Commission confirmed to EDRi that it’s preparing to partner with US online companies to set up an ‘EU Internet Forum’ which apparently includes discussing the monitoring and censorship of communications in Europe. Participants of this Forum include Facebook, Google/YouTube, Ask.fm, Microsoft and Twitter. The first meeting was held on 24 July 2015 and focused on ‘reducing accessibility to terrorist content’.”

Read more at EDRi: EU Commission: IT companies to fix “terrorist use of the Internet” »

0

Anonymous declares war on the Thai junta

By on October 23, 2015 in Anonymous, Big Brother, Censorship, Democracy, Global Politics, Human rights, Internet, Police state, surveillance

This is interesting. In strong language, Anonymous Asia declares war against the military Thai government. Carefully avoiding to mention the Royals.

So what brings Anonymous back to life?

Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, it has come to our attention that you have decided to disregard your citizens, the people of this country, and have persisted to project an unique Gateway to the Internet, in running a system which only benefits yourselves and the giant corporate bodies operating.

Internet mass surveillance, in other words. Leading to…

The latest project of the Thai military government is to deploy a single gateway in order to control, intercept and arrest any persons not willing to follow the Junta orders and your so called moral.

And it gets personal…

We will not only fight against the single gateway project but will expose your incompetence to the world, where depravity and personal interests prevail.

Copy to kill for.

So what is all this? Let’s pick an online article, of many: Big Brother is watching Thailand »

Apparently it is not just about censorship any longer, but total mass surveillance. Including HTTPS.

The words ending the Anonymous Asia message are strong and brave, for addressing a military junta…

Together we stand against the injustice of your Government, tomorrow you will pay the price of your oppression against your own people.
You can arrest us, but you can’t arrest an idea.

Thailand is now on our radar.

Anonymous Asias proclamation, as published on Pastebin »

/ HAX

0

UN proposes web policing and licensing for social networks

By on September 26, 2015 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Global Politics, Human rights, Internet, surveillance, UN

The United Nations Broadband Commission for Digital Development just made some controversial and disputable recommendations. They want social networks and platforms to police the Internet and to be “proactive” against harassment and violence against women and girls. Only web platforms doing so should be licensed.

Washington Post reports…

“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads, not only for those “producing and providing the content,” but also everyone with any role in shaping the “technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society.”

How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively.

At one point toward the end of the paper, the U.N. panel concludes that “political and governmental bodies need to use their licensing prerogative” to better protect human and women’s rights, only granting licenses to “those Telecoms and search engines” that “supervise content and its dissemination.”

This is bad, in so many ways.

It is a well-established principle that internet service providers and social networks are not responsible for what their users do. (Mere conduit.) Now, the UN Broadband Commission wants to throw that principle out the window. Meaning that concerned parties will have to monitor everything every user do — to be able to police the net in line with the commissions recommendations.

Then there is the idea of licensing social networks. This is a terrible idea, unacceptable in a democratic society. Period.

And knowing the modus operandi of the UN — you cannot rule out that this report is being encouraged by UN member states with a general interest in limiting a free and open internet.

One might also question the principle that “the respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center”. First of all, everyone deserves respect and security. Second, it is very dangerous to give different groups different rights, advantages or treatment. Everyone should have the same rights and be treated the same way by government.

A final reason to keep this door closed is that “respect” and “harassment” are relative terms. This is often in the eye of the beholder. There is a tendency in some circles to label all dissent as harassment. And then we have the “trigger warning” discussion, with countless examples of claims of annoyance and inconvenience used to limit freedom of speech.

Regardless of whether you think those are worthwhile ends, the implications are huge: It’s an attempt to transform the Web from a libertarian free-for-all to some kind of enforced social commons.

This UN report is ill thought out and dangerous for democracy.

/ HAX

Washington Post: The United Nations has a radical, dangerous vision for the future of the Web »

1