All Content Related to Legislation

German President Köhler signed Internet filter law

daniel oppermann — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:39:11 -0500

After having refused to pass the Internet filter law for the last eight months, German President Köhler agreed to do so by signing it on 17 February 2010. The law is expected to be officially published in the middle of March 2010.

Köhler's decision caused a difficult situation for the ruling coalition of the conservative CDU and the liberal FDP. Especially the FDP spoke out against the filter law (which was developed under the former government) and thereby forced the CDU to rethink its decision to create block lists for the Internet (so far consisting of child porn content). Now with the law coming into force the ruling coalition is pressed for time to agree on a reformulation of the legal text.

Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (FDP) declared that the new approach of the German government is focused on deleting child porn websites instead of blocking them. She pointed out that a cooperation with the International Association of Internet Hotlines (INHOPE) would be a crucial step to take.

While the government coalition still tries to save the law by rewriting certain passages, opposition parties like the Green Party and The Left demand a complete repeal of the law.

ONI Releases 2009 Year in Review: Filtering, Surveillance, Information Warfare

Jillian C. York — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:28:13 -0500

The OpenNet Initiative is proud to release its 2009 Year in Review, a look into instances of filtering, surveillance, and information warfare around the world in 2009.

The events of 2009 demonstrated a global rise in third-generation Internet controls. Within the first two weeks of January 2009, both Pakistan and Thailand had ordered the filtering of several Web sites, and Germany announced plans to filter certain types of pornography, garnering outrage from free speech activists. By mid-year, the events surrounding the elections in Iran had taken center stage, prompting Iranian authorities to crack down on Internet use and sparking outrage throughout the world, which then rippled through social media.

The OpenNet Initiative estimates that at the end of 2009, 32% of all Internet users were accessing a filtered version of the Internet.

Jordan to Apply Press Law to Digital Content

Jillian C. York — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:57:09 -0500

Jordan has long stood out as a beacon in a region of heavy Internet filtering. Bordered by--among others--Syria and Saudi Arabia, two of the Middle East's worst offenders, Jordan has filtered only one Web site, arabtimes.com, for the past decade.

That is all about to change.

On January 14, popular Jordanian blog ArabCrunch reported that Jordan's high appeal court has decided to extend the reach of the country's print and publications law to any electronic medium (ArabCrunch sourced the information from Arabic-language site Ammon), a decision that could have implications not only for Internet filtering, but also for bloggers and social media users. The press law prevents publication of material that is deemed offensive, or could imply criticism of the government, national unity or the economy.

The New York Times noted:

Critics of the ruling worry that the law will be widely applied to social media, possibly even SMS and to websites that allow reader comments to be posted. Supporters appear to argue that free speech comes with responsibilities along these lines and that the legal framework actually facilitates online communication.

ArabCrunch spoke to Nidal Mansor, the President of the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists who stated that Jordanian journalists could face trial and subsequent imprisonment for violating the press code. It remains to be seen whether ordinary citizens (non-journalists) will be subject to the law for postings made on blogs and social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

For a more detailed explanation of the ruling, see Jordan Times. English/Arabic news and translation site Meedan is continuously translating news from Arabic sources here as well.

Malaysia considers, backs down from national Internet filter

Rebekah Heacock — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:22:01 -0400

Last week Malaysia's Information, Communications and Culture Minister Dr. Rais Yatim announced that the country would consider implementing a nationwide Internet filtering plan similar to China's Green Dam. This week, the Prime Minister pulled an about face, claiming there would be "no change" in the country's Internet policy.

The government, which has been led by the Barisian Nasional coalition for nearly 40 years, seems to be conflicted: just hours before the Prime Minister's announcement, Dr. Rais told AsiaOne that the government still planned to "find any way to ensure we are free from the culture of pornography among children."

Reuters reports that Prime Minister Najib Razak blocked Dr. Rais' initial efforts toward filtering last April, suggesting that Dr. Rais may have been acting without the full support of the government when he directed the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission to issue a tender for an Internet filter.

Further confusing matters, Dr. Rais told Reuters that the tender instructed three government ministries to look into a variety of ways of curbing online crimes, including sedition and child pornography. However, Reuters obtained a copy of the document, which stated that its purpose was to "Evaluate the readiness and feasibility of the implementation of the Internet filter at (the) Internet gateway level."

Opposition politicians and free speech activists have been quick to criticize the entire proposal, noting that it violates a 1996 governmental guarantee that Malaysia will never censor the Internet. The AFP reports:

Malaysia's lively blogosphere has been a thorn in the side of the Barisan Nasional government, which was been in power for more than half a century but was dealt its worst ever results in elections a year ago.

Internet news portals and blogs, which escape tight controls on the mainstream media, were credited as a key element in the swing towards the opposition which has been adept at using new media to communicate its ideas.

While the Prime Minister's announcement has eased some fears, the future of Internet filtering in Malaysia is still unclear.

Australia's Conroy named Internet Villain of the Year

Rebekah Heacock — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:01:19 -0400

Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Stephen Conroy has come under fire from Australian citizens and digital activists around the world for his attempts to increase Internet filtering in Australia.

This week, the UK Internet Service Providers' Association awarded Conroy the dubious honor of being the Internet Villain of the Year for "continuing to promote network-level blocking despite significant national and international opposition."

Since Conroy's December 2007 announcement that the Australian government would begin filtering, Conroy's efforts to censor the Internet have taken multiple forms. His initial plan included a mandatory filter list of as many as 10,000 sites. The blocklist included the expected child pornography, but also "euthanasia sites, abortion sites, regular porn sites, and a site containing harmless Bill Henson photographs," according to a previous ONI report. One conservative political party suggested that content portraying hardcore sex and drug behaviors also be added to the blocklist, even though adults can legally view such content offline.

The proposed filtering was initially designed to operate under a two-tiered system: the first tier included illegal content, which would be mandatorily blocked; customers who wanted access to adult content could "opt out" of the second tier. Critics argued this plan would create a list of Australians who had sought out such content, a list that could potentially be misused by the government. Conroy later backed down, and the current filtering plan will block illegal content, while allowing customers who want to block adult content to opt in to more extensive filtering at the ISP level.

The plan has still drawn ire from Internet users. Writing for the Courier Mail, Paul Syvret notes:

This was sold as an attempt to free Australia from the scourges of child pornography, terrorism and so forth.

The great logical fallacy of that argument is that those who trade in child porn or bombmaking recipes don't do so in the public domain but swap their information on obscure message boards or by way of peer-to-peer file-sharing sites.

Children's rights groups agree, saying blocking child porn will drive it further underground, make offenders harder to catch. Speaking to Australian IT, National Children's & Youth Law Centre director James McDougall said, "The tens of millions of dollars that such a scheme will cost should instead be diverted to appropriate child protection authorities and police to prevent the abuse of children."

Other critics worry about the content of the blocklist, which remains a closely guarded secret. During a speech in March, Conroy attempted to explain the presence of seemingly non-threatening sites, including those of a dog breeder and a dentist, by blaming the Russian mafia.

Despite widespread condemnation of the filtering scheme — including efforts by activist group GetUp, whose supporters raised AUD30,000 (USD23,310) in a single day to fight the plan, Conroy has continued to push for greater censorship.

His latest move, announced in June, is an attempt to extend censorship to the realm of online and downloadable games. Australia currently bans the sale of any games that include "excessive violence or sexual content." The censorship proposal would block access to sites that allow users to download adult games.

Speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald, Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Colin Jacobs said, "Far from being the ultimate weapon against child abuse, [the filtering plan] now will officially censor content deemed too controversial for a 15-year-old. In a free country like ours, do we really need the government to step in and save us from racy web games?"

If Conroy's recent award is any indication, the government's answer is yes. Whether Conroy's plan will succeed amidst local and international uproar, however, remains to be seen.

French Constitutional Court declares "three strikes" law unconstitutional

Rebekah Heacock — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:13:54 -0400

Today the French Constitutional Council declared France's "three strikes" law unconstitutional. The Council ruled that HADOPI, the agency in charge of administering the law, has the authority to warn Internet users who are caught violating the law, but not to punish them.

"This is exactly our position, which is to say that the Internet is a fundamental right," said French MP Patrick Bloche, an opponent of the bill.

Last month, the French Assembly passed the Projet de loi favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur Internet (Bill promoting the dissemination and protection of creation on the Internet), which is intended to deny Internet access to users who repeatedly downloaded copyrighted content without paying.

The proposed law, widely referred to as the "three strikes" law, is backed by President Nicholas Sarkozy and by France’s film and record industries. It will create an agency known as HADOPI (Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet, or High Authority for Copyright Protection and Dissemination of Works on the Internet), which will cut users off from the Internet after three instances of illegal file-sharing.

The European Parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly to amend a recent European telecoms bill to require agencies such as HADOPI to obtain permission from French courts before disconnecting violators. The amendment is currently awaiting endorsement from the Council of Ministers, which will meet on Friday.

Is Internet Use a Superfluous Expense?

firuzeh — Sun, 24 May 2009 12:41:36 -0400

By Renata Ávila and Firuzeh Shokooh Valle

On March 25, 2009 the Government of Venezuela issued a decree (Decree 6649) that implements measures to reduce the superfluous or luxurious expenses of the government. The decree establishes that “superfluous or luxury spending is forbidden in the national public sector”, and states that the following expenses will only be allowed in a “rational manner”: mobile phone services, the use of the Internet, technological equipment, rental of executive vehicles, official missions abroad, protocol social activities, and restoration work of public offices and official residences, among others.

Although the Decree only addresses expenses in the public sector, it immediately ignited concerns among Internet users and defenders. The Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional reports that the University of the Andes created the website Internet Prioritaria (Essential Internet) to raise awareness on the importance of access to the Internet, provoke collective actions (local, regional and international) to pressure the government to revise and amend the articles of Decree 6649 concerning the use of the Internet and technology, to exhort the government to develop technologies associated to Internet use that may help optimize public resources and foster institutional education on the effective application of Internet use, and to restore the validity of Decree 825, issued on May 10, 2000, that declares “the access and use of Internet as a priority for the cultural, economic, social and political development of the Government of Venezuela.” The campaign has been extended to YouTube, Twitter (hashtag #internetlujo) and Facebook. One of the most active campaigners has been the political blogger Iria Puyosa No Suma Cero.

Can they hear me now? (On ICT regulations, governments, and transparency)

Helmi Noman — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:40:55 -0500

On February 11, Vodafone's global head of content standards, Annie Mullins, revealed that Vodafone handed over communications data to the Egyptian authorities in response to government demands. This data may have been used to help identify rioters who were protesting over bread crisis.

Food riots erupted in the Egyptian town Mahalla el-Kubra in April 2008. Some of the protesters tore down a giant poster of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president during the riots and shouted anti-government slogans. During the demonstrations, many protesters carried cell phones, using them to call friends and send text messages. In December, twenty-two people were convicted in connection with the food riots.

It is not particularly surprising either that Egyptian authorities demanded the data or that Vodaphone turned it over. Perhaps of greater note is the fact that Vodaphone representatives have spoken so openly about turning over data in the aftermath of the riots.

This revelation highlights a number of interesting issues:

Cell phones and other digital tools are thought by many to be ‘liberation technologies’ when used to organize protests and support opposition movements. While they have been effective in this role, they also provide a digital record for governments to explore. A prime example is the supposed use of Flickr photos by Burmese government to identify anti-government protesters there.

Government surveillance, for good or for bad, generally consists of authorities requesting data from private companies, the same data that companies retain for commercial reasons.

Vodaphone’s Mullins warned about the danger of technology industry regulation being used by governments for other purposes. "Regulation can be a Trojan horse", she said. The view that regulation designed for one purpose might be repurposed to another less worthy purpose is reasonable, but this seems off target in cases such as these. The basic fact of the matter is that governments around the world will gain access to private data when they suspect wrongdoing – as long as the data is still there.

There are of course great differences across the world in the definition of what constitutes a crime. But where governments draw the line between illegality and permissible actions is a separate issue from the procedures and processes of data acquisition. The differences across the globe in process, such as the rigor of the legal processes that are necessary before gathering data and the level of oversight and transparency, are smaller. The absence of regulation provides no safeguard against inappropriate or excessive data acquisition by governments. Governments that are not tolerant of dissenting views and political opposition or intend on snooping on their citizens are going to have their way with private companies regardless of the regulatory framework. There are few reliable safeguards: private companies can destroy the data (which constitute a company asset), government can require companies to destroy the data (and thereby tying their own hands), or users can encrypt communications (where possible). Yes, excessive regulation could lower the bar on government data requests and require too much data retention. Just this week, US politicians called for a new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.

Regulation could also force companies to destroy data.

While it is not clear whether the data submitted by Vodafone led to arrests of rioters, cell phone and Internet users should be familiar by now with the notion that governments will have access to their data if they are suspected of crimes and in some places of anti-government activities. It is unfortunate that such incidents as this, often decided in the throes of a crisis, define the boundaries of relationships between companies and governments, and hence risks to their customers.

If ICT companies have no option but to give in to government requests for data, even if these requests are of dubious merit, then the least the public might expect is greater accountability and transparency from their service provider. Should we expect companies to give clear and timely information when users’ privacy and freedom of speech have been jeopardized, especially if this is due to government restrictions which may conflict with the internationally recognized human rights of freedom of expression and privacy?

India: Petition to block Google Earth

charles — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:00:01 -0500

According to reports published in The Register and The Times of London, an Indian court has been called to ban Google Earth in response to intelligence indicating that the satellite imaging was used in planning November’s terrorist attack’s in Mumbai.

Legal advocate Amit Karkhanis alleges that the free service “aids terrorists in plotting attacks,” asking in the interim that Google blur images of sensitive areas while the case proceeds in court.

Is there a precedent? Earlier this year, the US Department of Defense banned Google from capturing Streetview images of military bases in Texas. The British military followed suit, forcing Google to remove imagery of bases in Basra, Iraq.

Unlike the American or British cases, the India case calls for an outright ban on Google Earth itself, rather than blurring or restrictions.

Turkey: Blogger.com blocked?

Jillian C. York — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:28:06 -0400

Our friends at Global Voices Advocacy have reported that Blogger.com has been added to the list of sites filtered in Turkey. This latest news of filtering comes on the heels of news that Wordpress.com, Richard Dawkins' web site and Google Groups have all been blocked due to the legal actions of Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar.

Turkish Internet users have been greeted by the following message when trying to access Blogger:

“Access to this website has been suspended in accordance with decision no. 2008/2761 of the TR Diyarbakir First Criminal Court of Peace.”

For more information on filtering in Turkey, check out OpenNet's Turkey page. The OpenNet Initiative's first country profile on Turkey will be published in the coming months.

Image source: Basbasbas.com