Navigation

Archive | Censorship

Queens Speech and Big Brother

By on May 27, 2015 in Big Brother, Censorship, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Privacy, surveillance, UK

BBC summons up the Queens Speech from todays opening of the British Parliament. Here is what to expect when it comes to Big Brother-related bills…

Extremism Bill

This includes measures to tackle broadcasting of extremist material. The government wants to strengthen watchdog Ofcom so that it can take action against channels that transmit extremist content. The legislation will also propose the introduction of banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of proscription. A new power to allow police and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism will also feature. And employers will be able to check whether an individual is an extremist and barring them from working with children.

Investigatory Powers Bill

“New legislation will modernise the law on communications data,” the speech said. An Investigatory Powers Bill will revive plans to give intelligence agencies new tools to target communications data – branded a “snooper’s charter” by critics. The government says it will equip the police intelligence agencies with the tools to keep people safe.

…and what is not in the Queen’s Speech?

Although it appears in the Queen’s Speech, there is no legislation, either in full or draft form, on a British Bill of Rights. Instead, ministers will consult on the pros of replacing the Human Rights Act with a new legal framework of rights and responsibilities.

Read more at BBC – Queen’s Speech 2015: Bill-by-bill »

0

The war on truth about… truth

By on March 27, 2015 in Censorship, Data Retention, Democracy, NSA & Snowden, Privacy, surveillance

One common practice when it comes to surveillance is to prohibit ISP:s, telecoms operators and tech companies to disclose that there is or has been any warrants or other demands for information from the authorities. (In the US this is known as national security letters.)

Some companies have worked their way around this by so called warrant canaries. In short this means that they state in e.g. their transparency or annual report that there has been no secret warrants. If they, the next year, leave that information out — they have communicated that there has been one or several secret warrants. But in an indirect, subtle way — without breaching the actual secret warrant in question.

This practice is now going to be illegal in Australia, when it comes to the government spying on journalists. BoingBoing explains…

Section 182A of the new law says that a person commits an offense if he or she discloses or uses information about “the existence or non-existence of such a [journalist information] warrant.” The penalty upon conviction is two years imprisonment.

This making it illegal… to or not to indicate to the public that… you are or are or are not not… telling the truth. Or a lie.

Orwell would have been amazed.

Or, in plain words: The Australian government does not appreciate the truth.

/ HAX

0

Free speech – a matter of terms and conditions?

By on February 25, 2015 in Censorship, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Google

This week we learned that Google is banning sexually explicit content from its blogging platform, Blogger. As a private company Google can have any rules, terms and conditions they want for their services. And they should and must have that right. Even so, this is problematic.

My Swedish blog is on Blogger. And I must ask myself — if Google introduce rules against sex and nudity, what will come next? Will it be OK to criticise or mock religion? Will it be OK to argue for legalisation of certain drugs? Will it be OK to use the blog to make information from “illegal” whistleblowers public?

In Bloggers terms and conditions Google states that you cannot blog on certain topics / in certain ways. Among other things they mention hate speech (a tricky definition, depending on who you ask), crude content (what about proof of war crimes?), copyright infringements (often used to curb inconvenient information) and illegal activities (a tricky one when governments are trying to keep their dirty little secrets under wraps by going after the messenger).

This is not just about Blogger / Google. Similar T&C can be found at most social networks, in agreements with internet service providers and others. This is problematic in several ways…

  • When a platform is dominant (like Google, Facebook and Twitter) their corporate policy against certain content can lead to a de facto censorship –as banned information will have difficulties reaching a wide audience by other channels.
  • It gets really scary when private companies value their relations with the government so high that they are willing to assist in going after people that officials have difficulties in blocking by legal means. (E.g. when Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Bank of America decided to give the US government a hand in cutting the funding to Wikileaks.)
  • As a user, I’m uncomfortable with having moral (and other) standards decided for me by corporate lawyers and board members personal values and hang-ups. This will give rise to self-censorship and it will inhibit creativity. And such standard may often be overly anxious and uptight as the companies tries to please everybody.

But I’m not sure what to do about this. Saying that social net platforms should accept everything that’s legal doesn’t work — as this will vary from country to country and as many jurisdictions have absurd bans on free speech. And as a blogger your purpose often is to dispute what is deemed illegal.

In the words of HL Mencken…

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Another idea might be to start alternatives to Facebook, Google & Co. A huge project, for sure. Without any guarantee for success. I fear most people simply don’t care.

This blog is a privately hosted WordPress blog, which is a solution when it comes to blogging. But the threat against free speech online goes far beyond just blogging.

This is a discussion to be continued.

On a final note: It’s puzzling that Google bans sexually explicit content from Blogger — when a simple Google picture search on such matters will produce the most esoteric results.

/ HAX

Read more: Engadget — Google’s banning sexually explicit content from its blogging platform »

1

ISPs to be dragged into the War on Terror?

By on January 12, 2015 in Censorship, EU, Global Politics, Internet, US, War on Terror

Sunday, interior ministers from EU member states, EU Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs Dimitris Avramopoulos, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., U.S. Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, the minister of Public Safety of Canada Steven Blaney and European Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove all met in Paris.

Their mission was to come up with a response to the Paris terror attacks.

“We reaffirm our unfailing attachment to the freedom of expression, to human rights, to pluralism, to democracy, to tolerance and to the rule of law: They are the foundation of our democracies and are at the heart of the European Union.”

OK. Thanks…

“We are concerned at the increasingly frequent use of the Internet to fuel hatred and violence and signal our determination to ensure that the Internet is not abused to this end, while safeguarding that it remains, in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law. With this in mind, the partnership of the major Internet providers is essential to create the conditions of a swift reporting of material that aims to incite hatred and terror and the condition of its removing, where appropriate/possible.”

Somehow, all the reassurances about fundamental rights–in this context–makes me a bit uneasy. From working in the European Parliament, I have learned that when something is wrapped up in this kind of language you should be on your guard.

What it all boils down to is to involve Internet service providers more in removing jihadist sites. It seems.

It’s unclear in what way this changes anything from today. If a site is illegal, normally it will be removed. Is the idea to cut out the judicial process from the operation? Or what?

Some of the wordings shows similarities to what has been discussed when it comes to copyright infringements. And in that setting, the purpose has been to make ISPs responsible for policing the net.

So, are they trying to make ISPs responsible for tracking down and censoring jihadist sites?

We don’t know. Yet.

The EU officials will continue their talks at the “informal” Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) in Riga on January 29. And it will be on the agenda at the next EU summit. Then, in February all the people from the Paris meeting will come together again, in the U.S..

Be vigilant. Before you know it ISPs might find themselves between a rock and a hard place. In the front line of the War on Terror.

/ HAX

DW: Data sharing, tighter EU outer border, urged at Paris talks »
Joint statement from the Paris meeting (PDF) »

2

A global “right to be forgotten”?

By on November 17, 2014 in Censorship, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Google, Internet

Worrying reports…

“Google has so far been removing links only from its European sites, for example google.fr in France and google.co.uk in the UK. However, a French court has now ruled that Google is required to remove links globally, and that local subsidiaries can be fined if the company fails to do so.”

Read more:
‘Right to be forgotten’ by Google may extend beyond Europe following court ruling »
Google’s French arm faces daily €1,000 fines over links to defamatory article »

0

So, what is Truth?

By on October 22, 2014 in Big Brother, Censorship, Democracy, Internet

UK lawmakers prepare to increase the maximum penalty for “cyber bullying” from six months in prison to two years.

The BBC reports…

Under the act, which does not apply to Scotland, it is an offence to send another person a letter or electronic communication that contains an indecent or grossly offensive message, a threat or information which is false and known or believed by the sender to be false.

If so, shouldn’t we begin with deciding on what it is that can be considered as offensive? Or should we make that up as we go..?

And what is false information? What about satire, travesty and irony? What is true and what is false when it comes to political issues? Are there absolute truth in culture? And who is to decide?

Naturally, the proponents of these rules will point out that it’s just about cyber bullying, threats and harassment. But with the definition above–any government could use this law to curb free speech and to stifle opposition.

Don’t give the ruling political class such tools. Sooner or later they will be misused.

/ HAX

0

The “right to be forgotten” is the lesser problem

By on October 2, 2014 in Censorship, Intellectual Property

Google has received tens of thousands of requests to remove links, after the European Court of Justices ruling on “the right to be forgotten”.

This is rightfully a much debated problem, as it is used to censor information and rewrite history.

But we should remember that Google also has been asked to remove half a billion links due to copyright claims.

This also ought to give rise to public debate–as it is a much more wide-ranging form of censorship. (And in some cases copyright claims are used to suppress free speech in the same way as the right to be forgotten.)

/ HAX

0