Navigation

Archive | Freedom of Speech

EU in new attempt to make ISP:s police and censor the Internet

By on November 12, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Copyright, EU, Freedom of Speech, Intellectual Property, Internet, Rule of law

Joe McNamee, EDRi: EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of free speech »

The proposed Directive:
1) requires internet companies to install filtering technology to prevent the upload of content that has been “identified by rightsholders”
2) seeks to make internet providers responsible for their users’ uploads
3) gives internet users no meaningful protection from unfair deletion of their creations

So, ISP:s will have to check on all content uploaded by users – i.e. scrutinize everything that is uploaded to the Internet.

What is to be allowed or censored will not be a matter of rule of law – but falls under company terms and conditions that can state… whatever.

There will be no legal means of redress or appeal.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information will be in the hands of ISP:s who are to be liable for all user uploads. There is good reason to fear that these companies will be overly anxious and cautious – censoring everything with even a remote possibility of being an infringement of copyright.

This is yet another attempt to get around the eCommerce-directives principle of »mere conduit« stating that net operators can not be liable for what users are doing in their cables.

And imagine the burden on the ISP:s, having to police all of the users net activities.

This proposal is an assault on »mere conduit«, free speech, privacy and the rule of law. It must be stopped.

/ HAX

1

EDRi on censorship of free speech in the EU

By on November 12, 2016 in Censorship, EU, Freedom of Speech, Internet, Rule of law, social media

EDRi on the EU agreement with social media to censor e.g. hate speech and radicalization, the »Joint Referral Platform«…

Both incitement to violence and violence itself are utterly unacceptable. However, this abhorrent behaviour must also not result in attacks on core principles of our society. In particular, any restrictions must be proportionate, necessary and genuinely meet their objectives. This means that we need clear laws and clear responsibilities for all parties involved: states, providers and civil society. (…)

The restrictions are not provided for by law ‒ terms of service take precedence. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the German parliamentary question, the proportionality cannot be assessed as the State is not in possession of useful data.

EDRi FAQ: EU Code of Conduct on illegal hate speech »

0

The end of Elites?

By on November 10, 2016 in decentralization, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Internet

The defining characteristics of Elites have traditionally been threefold. The first is their institutionalised access to information. The second, their exercise of influence. Thirdly, they controlled opinion and expertise in the public sphere.

Now, we’re seeing the demise of these three assets – and with them the demise of the establishment. It’s clear that we’re in the middle of a seismic change to the way information, influence and control is spread within society.

Huffington Post: The End Of Elites? How Technology Is Killing The Man »

0

TED will let you speak to the world – anonymously

By on November 3, 2016 in Anonymity, Freedom of Speech

Ideas are powerful things. So powerful, in fact, that regardless of the messenger or medium an idea can stand on its own and change the world. That’s the theory behind a new creative initiative from TED—and its significance can’t be overstated. (…)

TED is teaming with Audible, the podcasts and audiobook company, to produce audio content for TED. The twist: The presenter will be completely anonymous. (…)

As TED President Chris Anderson wrote in his Medium post about this new project, “What matters is only what can be shared: an idea that matters.” Explaining further why some might choose to anonymously share their ideas, he asked: “How many people have an important message but refrain from ‘going public’ out of fear of losing their jobs or hurting loved ones? How many ideas worth spreading remain hidden because some speakers simply can’t publicly be associated with the very thing the world needs to hear?”

Wired: Anonymous Speech Is More Important Than Ever. TED Proves It »

0

Call for Facebook transparency

By on November 1, 2016 in Censorship, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, social media

The letter called on Facebook to make publicly accessible its guidelines for censoring content. Specifically, the groups want Facebook to reveal the technical and policy details about the company’s internal system for handling censorship requests on individual pieces of content from law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and other government entities. It also urged Facebook to create a public appeal platform for users to contest content removals, institute a blanket policy of only turning over user data to governments when required to do so by the force of law, and undergo an external audit of its content- and data-sharing polices.

The Daily Dot: Over 70 activists groups call on Mark Zuckerberg to reveal Facebook’s censorship policies »

0

Merkel to social networks: Hand over the Holy Grail

By on October 27, 2016 in Big Data, Big Government, Censorship, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Internet, social media

In times when most people (at least most young people) use social media as their main source for news, German Chancellor Angela Merkel demands that these platforms should disclose their privately-developed algorithms.

“The algorithms must be made public, so that one can inform oneself as an interested citizen on questions like: what influences my behavior on the internet and that of others?” (…)

“These algorithms, when they are not transparent, can lead to a distortion of our perception, they narrow our breadth of information.”

Of course, that would be very interesting. But, at the same time, demanding that private companies disclose their deepest trade secrets doesn’t seem very reasonable or likely to happen.

Nevertheless, Merkel touches on an important issue, with far-reaching democratic implications. Information is power. And whoever is in control of the flow of information has a huge influence on society and politics. She continued…

“The big internet platforms, via their algorithms, have become an eye of a needle which diverse media must pass through to reach users. This is a development that we need to pay careful attention to.”

On the other hand, what information will show up in your Facebook newsfeed or Google searches is largely decided by who your friends are, what they read, what they share and also by what web pages you yourself use to visit, like and on your own web search history. There is no universal model – rather all newsfeeds and all search results are personal.

And it would be rather strange to have news feeds insisting on trying to have you to read articles that you don’t care about or find interesting. Or search engines coming up with results that are not relevant to you or not in line with your preferences.

Taking the Chancellors remarks to the extreme, it would be quite terrifying if the government were to have influence over your news flow and your search results. It’s foreboding enough that politicians (on both national and EU levels) have had Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to censor posts with certain content.

In my opinion, the only way to tackle this issue is by introducing disruptive competition. And it will happen. Internet platforms rise and fall. We have absolutely no idea what platforms or what technical concepts will be used tomorrow.

The Internet and the World Wide Web is, by design, an unprecedented opportunity for humanity to discover of information and knowledge, distribute content and take part in a free and open debate. I don’t think it would be a good idea for governments to interfere in this free and dynamic evolution.

The focus should be on entrepreneurs, activists, academia and private individuals to develop new and better tools and platforms. In doing so, I’m quite sure that information diversity, as well as privacy, will be competitive advantages.

/ HAX

RT: Merkel says Facebook, Google ‘distort perception,’ demands they ‘reveal algorithms’ »

1

Thoughtless and dangerous EU approach to free speech online

By on September 29, 2016 in Censorship, EU, Freedom of Speech, Internet, Rule of law, social media

There is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to the EU cooperation with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube/Google and Microsoft to censor the Internet – the Joint Referral Platform.

On the one hand, it has been marketed as a tool to stop »radicalization« that could lead young people to religiously motivated violence, e.g. terrorism or joining the Islamic State in the Middle East.

On the other hand, in documents and speeches the EU is totally focused on this project to stem »illegal online hate speech«, e.g. when it comes to racism and Islamophobia.

On that account, what is deemed to be »illegal« adds to the confusion. Incitement to violence is clearly and reasonably within this definition. But when it comes to the broader definition of hate speech, laws vary between EU member states.

Reason Magazine writes…

Recent “hate speech” investigations in European countries have been spawned by homily remarks by a Spanish Cardinal who opposed “radical feminism,” a hyperbolic hashtag tweeted by a U.K. diversity coordinator, a chant for fewer Moroccan immigrants to enter the Netherlands, comments from a reality TV star implying Scottish people have Ebola, a man who put a sign in his home window saying “Islam out of Britian,” French activists calling for boycotts of Israeli products, an anti-Semitic tweet sent to a British politician, a Facebook post referring to refugees to Germany as “scum,” and various other sorts of so-called “verbal radicalism” on social media.

A practical dilemma is that »hate« is something very subjective. Who is to define what is legitimate criticism and what is hate?

For instance, religion often has very real implications on how people are supposed to live their lives, how society should be organised and what kind of laws we should have. Clearly, you should be allowed to debate this freely in the same way that you debate politics. Yet, the tendency is that what is allowed to be said when  it comes to religion is becoming ever more narrow compared to politics.

Then, you have the problem that some laws against hate speech awards some groups of people different sets of rights compared to others.

When something becomes illegal to say about someone, but not someone else – you are treating people in different ways. This is a huge democratic problem and not the way to do things under the rule of law. What this can lead to, we can learn from history.

Finally, there is the general problem that this is all about censorship, about limiting free speech. You either have free speech or you don’t. If you stop people from expressing their opinions, by definition you do not have free speech. It’s as simple as that.

/ HAX

Links:
• Euro Logic: We Must Kill Free Speech to Promote Free Speech »
• United Against Hate Speech on the Web: Where do we stand? – Speech by Commissioner Jourová at Conference with German Justice Minister Maas »
• Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft Agree to Hate-Speech Code of Conduct »
• European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech »
• EU code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (PDF) »

1

Don’t stay silent when the EU take our civil rights away

By on September 23, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, Rule of law, social media

The EU has formed an alliance with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to block Internet content that aims to radicalize people – and hate speech. It is called the Joint Referral Platform.

This is, per definition, about limiting free speech. As such, this taps into democratic core issues.

The plan is to have the social networks and platforms to carry out this censorship, referring to their user terms and conditions – that more or less allows them to censor or ban anyone. They don’t have to explain their actions. There is no possibility to appeal or redress.

Naturally, this is something that civil rights organisations and Internet activists must look into, analyse and keep a close eye on. Here is an apparent possibility for the political system to restrict free speech without getting its own hands dirty, without having to deal with legislation or the judicial system.

But when European Digital Rights, EDRi, asked for information – the European Commission first stalled their request and then refused to share information.

The reason presented by the Commission is notable. It is said that openness could undermine a highly sensitive on-going process. No shit, Sherlock.

The entire point is that this is highly sensitive. It’s about a public-private partnership to limit free speech. That is why transparency is of immense importance.

To make things even worse, the Commission seems to be unwilling to provide information about the legal basis for the Joint Referral Platform.

This is not how to conduct things in a democratic society.

Sadly, this is typical for how the EU apparatus works. Democratic principles and core values are brushed aside. Rule of law is disregarded. Human and civil rights are ignored.

And they usually get away with it.

This time, it’s about free speech online. Regardless of what people think of limiting what can be said on the Internet – everyone ought to agree that limitations of fundamental rights must be handled with extreme care and in an open, democratic process.

We must try to get the European Parliament to look into this. The MEP:s are democratically elected – and are, as such, at least somewhat uncomfortable with ignoring strong and loud public opinion.

This might also be a case for the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights.

You simply cannot stay silent when they take our civil rights away.

/ HAX

EDRi: Joint Referral Platform: no proof of diligent approach to terrorism »

1