HAX

Category: Freedom of Speech

  • EDRi: Three steps to end freedom of expression

    It is quite clear that removal of material online is a restriction on fundamental rights. It is quite clear that the safeguards in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU are being willfully ignored:

    EU Charter: Article 52.1:

    Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

    EDRi: Three steps to end freedom of expression »

  • Government using private sector censorship for political objectives

    Censorship is censorship. If you block someone from speaking freely or delete people’s content from the Internet you do censor them.

    But there are different sorts of censorship.

    One is when the government silences opposition, controversial voices or whatever. That is, in general terms, a violation of freedom of speech and our civil rights. That should not be accepted in a democratic society.

    Another form of censorship is when Twitter censors Milo Yiannopolous, when Google censor artist Dennis Cooper or when Facebook is accused of downgrading news depending on political affiliations.

    These are private companies and they choose to whom they want to provide their services. This is clearly stated in these companies voluminous terms and conditions.

    So, OK – social media giants can censor people (and ideas). But should they?

    The fact that Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter can censor people in a legally »correct« way in no way should protect them from being criticized for doing so.

    And they should be criticized! Especially as their dominance on the social media scene is almost total. Their actions have political consequences. And they might very well have a political agenda.

    (As a libertarian I run into this issue a lot. Just because I dislike something, I do not have the desire or right to outlaw it. But still, as a consumer, user or concerned citizen I am free to criticize e.g. censorship – and to loudly point out its risks and problems.)

    But recently the lines are getting blurred. As I have pointed out in previous blog posts, governments (most recently the EU) are teaming up with major social media players to use the latter’s legal framework to silence voices that politicians dislike. Thus circumventing the legal system and the rule of law – and moving government censorship out of democratic control.

    This is a serious, mounting problem.

    / HAX

  • Will the banning of @nero mark the »Peak Twitter« moment?

    Twitter banning Milo Yiannopolous is a story with interesting dimensions.

    Yiannopolous is very entertaining. He’s got some points. And he often provokes some interesting reactions.

    Yiannopolous also is a loudmouth and a troll. He doesn’t really give a shit. And sometimes his opinions are rather disturbing.

    The banning might very well have marked a »Peak Twitter« moment.

    The party is over. I think this might cause immense damage to Twitters image and trademark. Twitter just isn’t as exciting anymore.

    One interesting point of view is that this is not about free speech. Twitter is a private company. We have all agreed to their terms & conditions. Twitter can do whatever they want.

    But this can, and should not shield Twitter from criticism. As a Twitter user, I am very disgruntled over the banning of @nero.

    And this might actually be about free speech after all. Didn’t the EU just agree with Facebook, Twitter and Youtube to remove »radicalising« and »hateful« content? And isn’t that just a way to circumvent the rule of law when it comes to freedom of speech?

    It’s just like when US authorities couldn’t find any legal ways to stop Wikileaks. So they got Paypal, Master Card, and the banks to cut off the funding. Extrajudicial proceedings, indeed.

    Then, again, this affair might stimulate and accelerate the development of new social media platforms that are distributed, decentralised and impossible to censor.

    Or the opposite – people moving to closed forums for the like-minded.

    But Twitter as a »safe space«? That sounds boring.

    / HAX

    • Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous »
    • I’m With The Banned »

  • Twitter censoring Milo Yiannopolous

    The decision to unperson Yiannopoulos was done in secret in some hidden Twitter office, no doubt one with cheerful Twitter blue birds on every wall. His “suspension” was retroactive: His past posts—virtually all of which were once regarded as acceptable—have been vanished just as much as any problematic ones.

    It is unclear which was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Nor is it clear which were the past straws. Twitter’s only statement regarding Yiannopolous’s ban was a reiteration of its terms of service, which is akin to reading the criminal code aloud when someone is accused of a crime. There is, however, a very profound difference here. Twitter does not have a Soviet monopoly on the media. It is still largely open to criticism, both on the platform itself and in other venues. This is not a First Amendment issue. But it still remains, quite obviously, an issue.

    Observer.com: Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous »

  • And now… automated web censorship

    Automated systems to identify child abuse material (and flag it for removal) on the Internet is now going to be used to combat “extremist” and “hateful” content on social media.

    “However, the definition of “extremist content” is everything but clear; CEP’s algorithm does not (and logically cannot) contain this definition either. Even if it were to use a database of previously identified material, that still would create problems for legitimate quotation, research and illustration purposes, as well as problems regarding varying laws from one jurisdiction to another.”

    “The Joint Referral Platform has the potential to automate Europol’s not-formal-censorship activities by an automatic detection of re-upload. However, it remains unclear whether any investigative measures will be taken apart from the referral – particularly as Europol’s activities, bizarrely, do not deal with illegal material. There is obviously no redress available for incorrectly identified and deleted content, as it is not the law but broad and unpredictable terms of service that are being used.”

    What could possibly go wrong..?

    EDRi: Algorithms – censorship à la carte? »

  • Next up: EU e-Privacy Directive

    The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Directive for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEDP) have now been approved — after being watered down as the result of an unprecedented lobbying campaign.

    Next up is the EU e-Privacy Directive. EDRi explains…

    The e-Privacy Directive contains specific rules on data protection in the area of telecommunication in public electronic networks. It is hugely important, as it is the only EU legislation that regulates confidentiality of communications. (…)

    Specifically, the ePrivacy Directive regulates aspects related to the right to confidentiality of communications and the right to freedom of expression.

    Once again, we can expect a massive lobby campaign to weaken citizens rights.

    To get up to date with what is at stake, read this blog post from EDRi:

    • e-Privacy Directive revision: An analysis from the civil society »

    / HAX

  • Europols web censorship under fire

    Europol’s Internet Referral Unit (IRU) celebrated its first birthday at the weekend, but civil liberties organisations are worried that it goes too far in its efforts to keep the Web free from extremist propaganda. (…)

    However AccessNow a global digital rights organisation said Europe’s approach to dealing with online extremism is “haphazard, alarming, tone-deaf, and entirely counter-productive.”

    According to AccessNow, “the IRU is outside the rule of law on several grounds. First, illegal content is just that—illegal. If law enforcement encounters illegal activity, be it online or off, it is expected to proceed in dealing with that in a legal, rights-respecting manner.”

    Ars Technica: Europol’s online censorship unit is haphazard and unaccountable says NGO »

  • Make UN member states stand by their word on the Internet and privacy

    “1. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;”

    These are words from the United Nations Human Rights Council, in a declaration of the 27:th of June. (PDF») It continues…

    “8. Calls upon all States to address security concerns on the Internet in accordance with their international human rights obligations to ensure protection of freedom of expression, freedom of association, privacy and other human rights online, including through national democratic, transparent institutions, based on the rule of law, in a way that ensures freedom and security on the Internet so that it can continue to be a vibrant force that generates economic, social and cultural development;”

    “9. Condemns unequivocally all human rights violations and abuses, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention, expulsion, intimidation and harassment, as well as gender based violence, committed against persons for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms on the Internet, and calls on all States to ensure accountability in this regard;”

    “10. Condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and calls on all States to refrain from and cease such measures;”

    Great! Or… what?

    I cannot help noticing that Turkey is one of the signing countries… And Poland, despite the country’s ever more dubious approach to free speech.

    The United Kingdom (with the GCHQ) and the United States (home of the NSA) have signed the declaration. And countries like Sweden (FRA), Germany (BND) – who are part of the global surveillance network.

    Do they really mean what they say? Probably not.

    This is a great UN declaration. But the fight for a free and open internet, free speech, privacy and civil rights still needs to be fought by an army of activists. You simply cannot trust governments with this, just because they say so.

    It’s like 5 July 2012. The day that gave the 5 July-foundation (who, among other things is running this blog) its name. (Read more») This was the date for an ambitious UN resolution “on the Promotion, Protection, and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet”.

    Then, like now, we believe that words are not enough and that the Internet community must engage in the battle to defend the values stated in the resolution.

    Today the 5 July-foundation runs several projects for security, privacy and liberty. (Read more»)

    Actually, today is also the second anniversary of this blog – trying to identify threats to digital liberty. I hope you enjoy it.

    And let’s use this UN resolution as valuable support when our governments go back to Big Brother Business as usual. We have their words on paper. And we demand that they stand by them!

    / HAX

    • The Declaration (PDF) »
    • UN rights council condemns internet blocking »
    • UN rights council condemns the disruption of internet access »
    • UN Human Rights Body Condemns Nations Blocking Internet Access »
    • UN Human Rights Council Passes Resolution ‘Unequivocally’ Condemning Internet Shutdowns »
    • Disrupting Internet Access Is A Human Rights Violation, UN Says »

  • Corporatism vs. free speech

    Politics should stick to lawmaking. Companies should stick to making business.

    When the two mix, the result is usually damaging. Politicians lose their focus on principles, their mandate from the voters and the public good. Companies who lobby for subsidies and (often competition reducing) special laws will find themselves worse of in the long run, as they detach from the realities of the market.

    Nevertheless, politicians and businessmen are often involved in mutual back-scratching.

    Lately, the political EU-apparatus and big data companies have ganged up to curb free speech. The EU, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft have decided on a mutual approach to keep back hate speech and religious radicalisation on the net.

    In other words, the EU encourages private companies to censor statements on the Internet that the politicians do not approve of.

    If you are to limit free speech at all — the rules must be clearly set out in law. If there should be any censorship at all — it must be decided in a court of law, in accordance with the laws. And if anyone is being censored — there must be a possibility to appeal the decision.

    All these three principles are being thrown out in the EU-Big Data agreement.

    And there is nothing you can do about it. Having signed e.g. various social networks terms and conditions, you have essentially given up your rights.

    From a political point of view, the EU is acting in a deceptive way. When there are no legal means to censor voices they would like to silence – they turn to private companies to do what they themselves cannot accomplish. (It’s just like when US authorities had PayPal, credit card companies, and the banks to throttle the stream of donations to Wikileaks.)

    The EU is short-circuiting the rule of law and democracy itself – in order to curb the people’s civil rights.

    This is totally unacceptable.

    / HAX

  • CoE on blocking of Internet content and rule of law

    EDRi reports…

    Several European countries lack clear legal provisions and transparent procedures when it comes to blocking and removal of online content. A comparative study published by the Council of Europe stresses that any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be provided for by law, be proportionate and follow legitimate objectives. Blocking should only be a measure of last resort and applied with great caution. Furthermore, if a state endorses voluntary blocking measures by private companies, the authors of the study ascribe full responsibility to the state for not placing such a system on a legislative basis, accepting insufficient judicial review and the possibility of overblocking.

    EDRi: CoE study: Blocking content has to respect fundamental rights »

    Council of Europe: Filtering, blocking and take-down of illegal content on the Internet »