08 Aug 17 | Bahrain, Bahrain News, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Bahraini human rights defender Nabeel Rajab (Photo: The Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy)
On 7 August, a Bahraini judge postponed a ruling until 11 September in one of the cases against human rights activist and president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights Nabeel Rajab.
Rajab is facing trial for tweets and retweets about the war in Yemen in 2015, for which he is charged with “disseminating false rumours in time of war” (Article 133 of the Bahraini Criminal Code) and “insulting a neighboring country” (Article 215 of the Bahraini Criminal Code), and for tweeting about torture in Jau prison, which resulted in a charge of “insulting a statutory body” (Article 216 of the Bahraini Criminal Code).
This case, one of four Rajab faces, began in April 2015. The trial has been postponed 14 times since and carries a sentence of up to 15 years. During the trial Rajab’s son, Adam Nabeel Rajab, tweeted that the state lacks evidence against him.
Rajab, who was an Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Advocacy award-winner in 2012, has faced continuous persecution for his activism in Bahrain. He is currently also charged with “spreading false news and statements and malicious rumours that undermine the prestige of Bahrain and the brotherly countries of the GCC, and an attempt to endanger their relations” for a piece published in Le Monde, and “undermining the prestige of the state” for a piece he wrote in The New York Times about his detention. On 10 July, Rajab was sentenced to two years in prison for charges related to 2015 television interviews with Bahraini, Iranian and Lebanese networks which support the Bahraini opposition. Rajab was unable to appear in court due to his poor health last month, and was sentenced in his absence.
Rajab marked one year in detention on 13 June, and for much of this time has been in solitary confinement and unsanitary conditions, which have contributed to his poor health and hospitalisation[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1502191511509-ebf34e9e-b840-8″ taxonomies=”716″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
24 Jul 17 | Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
People gather in support of the Cumhuriyet defendants as the trial got underway.
Executives and columnists of Turkey’s critical Cumhuriyet daily go on trial this week, beginning Monday 24 July. The indictment seeks prison sentences for the defendants varying between 7.5 to 43 years. The charges for those on the board of the Cumhuriyet Foundation, which oversees the newspaper, include “abuse of power in office,” but all are accused of “supporting terrorist organisations” mainly through changes that have occurred in the paper’s editorial policy following the election of a new board to the foundation in 2013.
The prosecution’s claims are supported by views of several media experts — most of whom are former executives or employees terminated from various positions, according to Aydın Engin, a Cumhuriyet columnist who is also a defendant in the case although he was released pending trial due to his advanced age.
As Engin says “Cumhuriyet changed its editorial policy: this is the essence of the indictment.”
Indeed, the 435-page long document laments, page after page, that Cumhuriyet ditched its traditional, Kemalist, unyieldingly secularist and statist editorial policy and became a more open-minded newspaper.
The prosecutor states that by altering its editorial stance, the newspaper became a supporter of the so-called Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (FETÖ/PYD) — the name Turkish authorities give to the Fethullah Gülen network, which they say was behind last year’s coup attempt –, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK/KCK) and the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP-C); three organizations with unrelated if not completely opposing worldviews.
“A newspaper changing its editorial policy cannot possibly be the subject of an indictment,” Engin says.
But did Cumhuriyet really change its editorial policy to legitimise the actions of FETÖ/PDY; PKK/KCK and DHKP/C as the prosecutor claims? “Every newspaper makes editorial policy changes as life unfolds. Cumhuriyet also did this. The paper caught up with the general tendencies in society such as increasing demand for freedoms, human rights and a stronger civil society.”
Engin says many of the witnesses who have testified against the Cumhuriyet journalists have been discredited as media professionals. “When I told the prosecutor that I will not respond to claims by people who have no reputation as journalists, he showed me a post by Professor Halil Berktay, who tweeted that ‘Cumhruiyet has become FETÖ’s media outlet.’ The prosecutor said, ‘This from a professor. Who are you to deny its validity?’
Engin: old and tired
Will any of the Cumhuriyet journalists be released at the end of this week? “I don’t even want to being to make any assumptions. This is not a legal trial; it is entirely political,” Engin replies, adding: “I strongly need them, personally, because I am 76 and tired,” says the energetic-looking journalist, who, as he speaks, is interrupted by someone asking him to sign a financial document. “See, I don’t even know what I just signed, I don’t know anything about these things.”
According to Engin, because those imprisoned are the key people to the newspaper’s operations, Cumhuriyet is now “half-paralyzed.”
But really, who are those in prison?
“Our brightest colleagues are in the can. Akın Atalay, is our CEO and I am a first-hand witness of how he has managed to keep the newspaper on its feet. Murat Sabuncu, he is perhaps one of the two or three finest journalists I know who can smell the news. He is publicly unheard of but Önder Çelik: he has been with Cumhuriyet for 35 years, he is the finest expert at things such as analyzing circulation reports, maintaining relations with printing houses; following paper prices..”
“I really need them to get out, but I don’t want to be dreaming.”[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_custom_heading text=”Turkey” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:30|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fmappingmediafreedom.org%2F|||”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship monitors press freedom in Turkey and 41 other European area nations.
As of 24/07/2017, there were 496 verified reports of media freedom violations associated with Turkey in the Mapping Media Freedom database.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”94623″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://mappingmediafreedom.org/#/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]The journalists on trial for the first time on 24 – 28 July:
Akın Atalay (Cumhuriyet Foundation Executive President; imprisoned since Nov. 12, 2016): Facing 11 to 43 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member” and “abusing trust”
Atalay graduated from İstanbul University Law School in 1985. He has acted as the founding member of a number of civil society organisations and his academic studies on press freedom and the law have appeared in a large number of academic journals and newspapers. Since 1993, he has represented Cumhuriyet columnists and reporters as legal counsel. Currently, he is the newspaper’s executive president.
Bülent Utku (Cumhuriyet Foundation Board Member, attorney representing Cumhuriyet; imprisoned since Nov. 5, 2016). Facing 9.5 to 29 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member” and “abusing trust”
Utku has worked as an attorney for 33 years. Since 1993, he has worked as a lawyer for Cumhuriyet columnists and journalists. He is also a member of the Cumhuriyet Foundation’s Board of Directors.
Murat Sabuncu (editor-in-chief, imprisoned since Nov. 5). Facing 7.5 to 15 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member” [Turkish Penal Code (TCK) Article 314/2]
Sabuncu has been a journalist for 20 years. He started working at Cumhuriyet in 2014 as the newsroom coordinator. In July 2016, he took the helm as editor-in-chief.
Kadri Gürsel (publications advisor, columnist, imprisoned since Nov. 5, 2015). Facing 7.5 to 15 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member”
A journalist of 28 years, Gürsel started writing columns in Cumhuriyet in May 2016. He assumed the position of publications advisor for the newspaper in September 2016.
Güray Öz (board member, news ombudsman, columnist, imprisoned since Nov. 5, 2015). Facing 8.5 to 22 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member” and a single count of “abuse of power in office”
Öz has been a journalist for 21 years. He has worked at Cumhuriyet since 2006. He is a columnist for the newspaper and has been its ombudsman since 2013. Öz is also on the board of directors of the Cumhuriyet Foundation.
Önder Çelik (board member, imprisoned since Nov. 5, 2016). Facing 11.5 to 43 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member” and four counts of “abuse of power in office”
Önder Çelik has been a newspaper administrator for 35 years. He has worked as the print coordinator for the newspaper between 1981 – 1998. He returned to the same position in 2002 after a hiatus. He has been an executive board member since 2014 as well as a board member of the foundation.
Turhan Günay (editor-in-chief of Cumhuriyet’s book supplement, imprisoned since Nov. 5, 2016). Facing 8.5 to 22 years for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member” and a single count of “abuse of power in office”
A journalist for 48 years, Günay has been with Cumhuriyet since 1987. For the past 25 years, he has worked as the chief editor for Cumhuriyet’s literary supplement, the country’s longest running weekly publication on books. The indictment insists he is a board member of the foundation; although he isn’t; a fact he reiterated in his testimony to the prosecutor.
Musa Kart
Musa Kart (Cartoonist, board member, imprisoned since Nov. 5, 2016) Facing 9.5 to 29 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member” and “abusing trust”
Musa Kart, one of Turkey’s most renowned cartoonists, has been drawing political cartoons for 33 years. He has been a Cumhuriyet journalist since 1985. For the past six years, Kart has drawn the front-page cartoons for Cumhuriyet.
Hakan Karasinir (board member, imprisoned since Nov. 5). Facing 9.5 to 29 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member” and two counts of “abuse of power in office”
Hakan Karasinir has been a journalist for 34 years. He has been with Cumhuriyet for 34 years. In the past he has held various editorial positions, including serving as the newspaper’s managing editor between 1994 and 2014. Since 2014, he has also written columns in the newspaper.
Mustafa Kemal Güngör (attorney, board member, imprisoned since Nov. 5, 2016). Facing 9.5 to 29 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member”; two counts of “abuse of power in office”
Mustafa Kemal Güngör has been a lawyer for 31 years. He has defended Cumhuriyet journalists and columnists in court since 2013.
Can Dundar
Can Dündar (former editor-in-chief of Cumhuriyet, currently resides abroad). Facing 7.5 to 15 years for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member”
Perhaps the most internationally famous of all Cumhuriyet defendants, Can Dündar was the editor-in-chief of Cumhuriyet until August 2016. He was arrested in November 2015 after Cumhuriyet published footage suggesting that the Turkish government sent weapons to armed jihadi groups in Syria. He was released in February 2016, a few months after which he moved to Germany where he currently resides.
Orhan Erinç (Cumhuriyet Foundation Board President, columnist). Facing 11.5 to 43 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organization while not being a member” ; four counts of “abuse of power in office”
Veteran journalist Orhan Erinç, who worked for Cumhuriyet as a young reporter, returned to the newspaper in 1993 as its publications advisor. For nearly half a decade, Erinç also held the position of vice president at Turkish Journalists’ Association. He is also a columnist for Cumhuriyet.
Aydın Engin (columnist, released under judicial control measures). Facing 7.5 to 15 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organization while not being a member”
Cumhuriyet columnist Aydın Engin has been a journalist since 1969. He has participated in the founding process for many news outlets, including Turkey’s Birgün daily. He worked as a columnist and reporter for Cumhuriyet between 1992 and 2002. He returned to the newspaper in 2015.
Hikmet Çetinkaya (columnist, board member, released under judicial control). Facing 9.5 to 29 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member”; two counts of “abuse of power in office”
Çetinkaya has been with Cumhuriyet for three decades. In the past, the columnist worked as the İzmir Bureau Chief of the newspaper. He was also tried in 2015 along with Cumhuriyet columnist Ceyda Karan for reprinting the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in his column.
Ahmet Şık (Correspondent, imprisoned since Dec. 30, 2016). Facing 7.5 to 15 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member”
No stranger to Turkish prisons, Ahmet Şık worked as a reporter for Cumhuriyret, Evrensel, Yeni Yüzyıl, Nokta and Reuters between 1991 and 2007. He remained in prison for a year in 2011 in an investigation about a shady gang called Ergenekon, believed to be nested within Turkey’s state hierarchy. He is known as one of the most vocal critics of the Fethullah Gülen network.
İlhan Tanır (former Washington correspondent, resides abroad). Facing 7.5 to 15 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organisation while not being a member”
İlhan Tanır previously reported from Washington for Cumhuriyet. His reports and analyses have appeared in many national and international publications. He currently resides in the United States.
Bülent Yener (Finance Manager). Facing 7.5 to 15 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organization while not being a member”
A former financial affairs manager with Cumhuriyet, Bülent Yener was released after one day in custody.
Günseli Özaltay (Accounting Manager). Facing 7.5 to 15 years in prison for “helping a terrorist organization while not being a member”
Günseli Özaltay, the newspaper’s accounting manager, was released after one day in custody.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1500894514864-6349d62e-4ed7-3″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Jul 17 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Statements, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
President of France, Mr. Emmanuel Macron
L’Élysée
55 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré
75008 Paris, France
Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs of France
37, Quai d’Orsay
75351 Paris, France
Embassy of France to Azerbaijan
9, rue Rassoul Rza
AZ 1000, Baku, Azerbaijan
Subject: Support for political prisoners in Azerbaijan
11 July 2017
Dear President Macron,
We are writing to you on behalf of the undersigned organisations to draw your attention to the repressive free speech situation in Azerbaijan and to request your support to ensure the release of those imprisoned on politically motivated grounds in this country. In particular, we urge you to use your administration’s influence and leverage to help ensure the implementation of the ruling issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the case of political opposition activist Ilgar Mammadov. He remains in prison, although the Court concluded that he was detained in retaliation for his criticism of the government. The persistent non-execution of the ruling in his case by the Azerbaijani authorities is undermining the credibility of the human rights protection regime established by the Council of Europe and sets a dangerous precedent for all those wrongfully prosecuted in Azerbaijan who turn to the Court in search of justice.
In view of France’s role as a leading European state and host country for the ECtHR and other Council of Europe bodies, as well as its well-developed cooperation with Azerbaijan in trade and other areas, your engagement on this issue would be particularly important. We welcome the moral, value-based and human rights oriented leadership that you have embraced for your presidency and are confident that you will vigorously pursue human rights in relations with Azerbaijan’s government on the basis of the common standards set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the last few years, Azerbaijan’s government has carried out a relentless crackdown on alternative voices in the country. Legislation seriously restricting the operation of NGOs has been enforced, independent media subjected to pressure, the political opposition has been marginalised and human rights defenders, journalists and political opposition activists have been arrested, convicted and imprisoned on politically motivated charges.
While some of those imprisoned on such grounds have been released as a result of international pressure, new arrests continue to take place. For example, well-known blogger Mehman Huseynov was arrested and sentenced to two years in prison on defamation charges in March this year after speaking out about police ill-treatment. Journalist Aziz Orujov and opposition member Gozel Bayramli were arrested on other spurious charges in May, while in the same month journalist Afgan Mukhtarli was abducted in Georgia only to resurface in Azerbaijani custody. Many government critics imprisoned in previous years also remain behind bars, including Ilgar Mammadov.
Ilgar Mammadov, who chaired the political opposition REAL party and served as director of the Council of Europe School of Political Studies in Azerbaijan, was detained in February 2013 after monitoring and reporting on street protests in the town of Ismayilli, which resulted in clashes with the police. He was groundlessly accused of instigating these clashes and sentenced to seven years in prison on trumped-up charges of organising mass riots and using violence against police. In a judgment issued in May 2014, the ECtHR found that Ilgar Mammadov’s arrest and detention violated his rights to liberty and security, judicial review of his detention and to be presumed innocent under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court also found that Azerbaijan’s government had imposed restrictions on his rights for purposes other than those permitted, in violation of its obligations under the Convention. The court concluded that Mammadov was detained on political rather than legal grounds for the purpose of punishing and silencing him for his criticism of the government.
It has now been more than three years since the ECtHR adopted its judgement in this case, but the Azerbaijani authorities have consistently failed to implement it, although Azerbaijan is legally bound to comply with ECtHR rulings as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Azerbaijani authorities have ignored repeated calls by other Council of Europe bodies, including its Committee of Ministers – which supervises the implementation of court rulings, its Secretary General and its Human Rights Commissioner to execute the judgment on Mammadov’s case. In November 2016, Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court rejected an appeal submitted by Mammadov on the basis of the ECtHR ruling and upheld his seven- year prison sentence. As a result, he continues to be unlawfully imprisoned.
To date the case of Ilgar Mammadov is the only one where the relevant authorities have failed to implement an ECtHR ruling that has found that the detention of an individual violates the right to liberty and security under the European Convention on Human Rights. As emphasized in a joint statement issued by 44 members of the Civic Solidarity Platform and the Sport for Rights Coalition in May 2017, the non-implementation of the ECtHR’s judgment on this case has developed into a test of the legitimacy of the Council of Europe as the guardian of human rights and the rule of law in the region. Thus, this case is no longer only about the unlawful deprivation of liberty of Ilgar Mammadov. On the contrary, it has become a case that risks weakening the effectiveness of the entire human rights protection regime established by the Council of Europe, as well as eroding confidence in this regime among people in Azerbaijan and other member states who turn to the ECtHR when their rights are being trampled upon by their governments.
We urge you to do all in your power to help prevent this dangerous outcome and to ensure the implementation of the ECtHR judgment in the case of Ilgar Mammadov, as well as the release of him and others arbitrarily detained on politically motivated grounds in Azerbaijan. To this end, we urge you in particular to:
- Support the civil society appeal to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to refer the case of Ilgar Mammadov back to the ECtHR on the grounds of non-execution of the judgment under article 46.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which sets out a mechanism in cases where parties to the convention refuse to abide by a final
- Issue a public statement on the importance of the execution of ECtHR judgments in view of the integrity and credibility of the human rights protection regime established by the Council of Europe, giving particular attention to the failure by the Azerbaijani authorities to date to implement the ruling on the case of Ilgar Mammadov and the wider implications of
- Prominently raise the case of Ilgar Mammadov and others who have been deprived of their liberty in retaliation for their exercise of fundamental freedoms in Azerbaijan, including Mehman Huseynov, Aziz Orujov, Gozel Bayramli and Afgan Mukhtarli in relations with the Azerbaijani authorities and use all available means of leverage to press for their
- Invite representatives of Azerbaijani civil society to a meeting to demonstrate support with them and to discuss the challenges they face and ways in which your administration can help address these challenges and promote improved respect for the standards protecting fundamental freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human
We thank you for your consideration of the issues raised in this letter and would be happy to provide additional information should you so request.
Sincerely,
- Association UMDPL (Ukraine)
- Bir Duino (Kyrgyzstan)
- Canadian Journalist for Free Expression (Canada)
- Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
- Center for Participation and Development (Georgia)
- Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
- Crude Accountability (USA)
- Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum
- Fair Trails (UK)
- Freedom Files (Poland/Russia)
- Freedom Now (USA)
- German-Russian Exchange (DRA – Germany)
- Helsinki Committee for Human Rights (Serbia)
- Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
- Human Rights Matter (Germany)
- Human Rights Watch (USA)
- Index on Censorship (UK)
- International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium)
- Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule (Kazakhstan)
- Legal Policy Research Center (Kazakhstan)
- Legal Transformation Center (Belarus)
- Libereco – Partnership for Human Rights (Germany/Switzerland)
- Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia)
- Norwegian Helsinki Committee (Norway)
- PEN America (USA)
- People in Need (Czech Republic)
- Public Association “Dignity” (Kazakhstan)
- Public Verdict Foundation (Russia)
- Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Azerbaijan)
- The Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (Belarus)
- The Kosova Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims (Kosovo)
- Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
- World Organisation against Torture (OMCT)
Human rights defenders from Azerbaijan who have signed the letter:
- Akif Gurbanov, Institute for Democratic Initiatives
- Alasgar Mammadli, lawyer
- Anar Mammadli, Election Monitoring and Democracy Training Center
- Annagi Hajibayli, Azerbaijan Lawyers Association
- Asabali Mustafayev, lawyer
- Bashir Suleymanli, Civil Rights Institute
- Intiqam Aliyev, Legal Education Society
- Khadija Ismayilova, human rights defender, investigative journalist
- Latafat Malikova, Regional Human Rights and Education Public Union
- Rasul Jafarov, Human Rights Club
- Samir Kazimli, human rights defender
- Xalid Bagirov, human rights defender, lawyer
- Zohrab Ismayıl, Public Association for Assistance to Free Economy
30 Jun 17 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements
Today, 84 organisations and individuals from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA sent letters to their respective governments insisting that government officials defend strong encryption. The letter comes on the heels of a meeting of the “Five Eyes” ministerial meeting in Ottawa, Canada earlier this week.
The “Five Eyes” is a surveillance partnership of intelligence agencies consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. According to a joint communique issued after the meeting encryption and access to data was discussed. The communique stated that “encryption can severely undermine public safety efforts by impeding lawful access to the content of communications during investigations into serious crimes, including terrorism.”
In the letter organised by Access Now, CIPPIC, and researchers from Citizen Lab, 83 groups and individuals from the so-called “Five Eyes” countries wrote “we call on you to respect the right to use and develop strong encryption.” Signatories also urged the members of the ministerial meeting to commit to allowing public participating in any future discussions.
Read the letter in full:
Senator the Hon. George Brandis
Attorney General of Australia
Hon. Christopher Finlayson
Attorney General of New Zealand
Hon. Ralph Goodale
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada
Hon. John Kelly
United States Secretary of Homeland Security
Rt. Hon. Amber Rudd,
Secretary of State for the Home Department, United Kingdom
CC: Hon. Peter Dutton, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Australia;
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, Canada;
Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General for the United States;
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Canada;
Hon. Michael Woodhouse, Minister of Immigration, New Zealand
To Ministers Responsible for the Five Eyes Security Community,
In light of public reports about this week’s meeting between officials from your agencies, the undersigned individuals and organisations write to emphasise the importance of national policies that encourage and facilitate the development and use of strong encryption. We call on you to respect the right to use and develop strong encryption and commit to pursuing any additional dialogue in a transparent forum with meaningful public participation.
This week’s Five Eyes meeting (comprised of Ministers from the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia) discussed “plans to press technology firms to share encrypted data with security agencies” and hopes to achieve “a common position on the extent of … legally imposed obligations on … device-makers and social media companies to co-operate.” In a Joint Communiqué following the meeting, participants committed to exploring shared solutions to the perceived impediment posed by encryption to investigative objectives.
While the challenges of modern day security are real, such proposals threaten the integrity and security of general purpose communications tools relied upon by international commerce, the free press, governments, human rights advocates, and individuals around the world.
Last year, many of us joined several hundred leading civil society organisations, companies, and prominent individuals calling on world leaders to protect the development of strong cryptography. This protection demands an unequivocal rejection of laws, policies, or other mandates or practices—including secret agreements with companies—that limit access to or undermine encryption and other secure communications tools and technologies.
Today, we reiterate that call with renewed urgency. We ask you to protect the security of your citizens, your economies, and your governments by supporting the development and use of secure communications tools and technologies, by rejecting policies that would prevent or undermine the use of strong encryption, and by urging other world leaders to do the same.
Attempts to engineer “backdoors” or other deliberate weaknesses into commercially available encryption software, to require that companies preserve the ability to decrypt user data or to force service providers to design communications tools in ways that allow government interception are both shortsighted and counterproductive. The reality is that there will always be some data sets that are relatively secure from state access. On the other hand, leaders must not lose sight of the fact that even if measures to restrict access to strong encryption are adopted within Five Eyes countries, criminals, terrorists, and malicious government adversaries will simply switch to tools crafted in foreign jurisdictions or accessed through black markets. Meanwhile, innocent individuals will be exposed to needless risk. Law-abiding companies and government agencies will also suffer serious consequences. Ultimately, while legally discouraging encryption might make some useful data available in some instances, it has by no means been established that such steps are necessary or appropriate to achieve modern intelligence objectives.
Notably, government entities around the world, including Europol and representatives in the U.S. Congress, have started to recognise the benefits of encryption and the futility of mandates that would undermine it.
We urge you, as leaders in the global community, to remember that encryption is a critical tool of general use. It is neither the cause nor the enabler of crime or terrorism. As a technology, encryption does far more good than harm. We, therefore, ask you to prioritise the safety and security of individuals by working to strengthen the integrity of communications and systems. As an initial step, we ask that you continue any engagement on this topic in a multi-stakeholder forum that promotes public participation and affirms the protection of human rights.
We look forward to working together toward a more secure future.
Sincerely,
Access Now
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
American Library Association
Amnesty International
Amnesty UK
Article 19
Australian Privacy Foundation
Big Brother Watch
Blueprint for Free Speech
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA)
Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
Center for Democracy and Techology
Centre for Free Expression, Ryerson University
Chaos Computer Club (CCC)
Constitutional Alliance
Consumer Action
CryptoAustralia
Crypto.Quebec
Defending Rights and Dissent
Demand Progress
Digital Rights Watch
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Frontiers Australia
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Engine
Equalit.ie
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Friends of Privacy USA
Future Wise
Government Accountability Project
Human Rights Watch
i2Coalition
Index on Censorship
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG)
Internet NZ
Liberty
Liberty Coalition
Liberty Victoria
Library Freedom Project
My Private Network
New America’s Open Technology Institute
NZ Council for Civil Liberties
OpenMedia
Open Rights Group (ORG)
NEXTLEAP
Niskanen Center
Patient Privacy Rights
PEN International
Privacy International
Privacy Times
Private Internet Access
Restore the Fourth
Reporters Without Borders
Rights Watch (UK)
Riseup Networks
R Street Institute
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest
Clinic (CIPPIC)
Scottish PEN
Subgraph
Sunlight Foundation
TechFreedom
Tech Liberty
The Tor Project
Voices-Voix
World Privacy Forum
Brian Behlendorf, executive director, Hyperledger, at the Linux Foundation
Dr. Paul Bernal, lecturer in IT, IP and media law, UEA Law School
Owen Blacker, founder and director, Open Rights Group; founder, NO2ID
Thorsten Busch, lecturer and senior research fellow, University of St Gallen
Gabriella Coleman, Wolfe Chair in scientific and technological literacy at McGill University
Sasha Costanza-Chock, associate professor of civic media, MIT
Dave Cox, CEO, Liquid VPN
Ron Deibert, The Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs
Nathan Freitas, Guardian Project
Dan Gillmor, professor of practice, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University
Adam Molnar, lecturer in criminology, Deakin University
Christopher Parsons, The Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs
Jon Penney, research fellow, The Citizen lab, Munk School of Global Affairs
Chip Pitts, professorial lecturer, Oxford University
Ben Robinson, directory, Outside the Box Technology Ltd and Discovery Technology Ltd
Sarah Myers Wes, doctoral candidate at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
J.M. Porup, journalist
Lokman Tsui, assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Faculty Associate, Berkman Klein Center)
