20 Aug 13 | Digital Freedom, Index Reports, News and features, Politics and Society, Religion and Culture, Russia
(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)
The situation for freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association in Russia has deteriorated since the re-election of Vladimir Putin in March 2012. The main issues of concern are repression against Russian NGOs, strict anti-blasphemy laws, increasing limits on digital freedom, the banning of “homosexual propaganda” and the re-criminalisation of libel.
Amendments to the law on Non-Governmental Organisations, adopted in July 2012, forced all NGOs that receive funds from abroad to register as “foreign agents” (a highly charged phrase, synonymous with “spy”) if they are involved in “political activities”, the latter term being very broadly defined. During March 2013, dozens of NGOs in Russia were inspected to determine whether their activities comply with current legislation. This potentially endangers the activities of NGOs in Russia including those working on freedom of expression and human rights groups.
Freedom of religious expression has been compromised through anti-extremism legislation that allows selective implementation of its ambiguous definitions. An anti-blasphemy law that provides for prison terms or fines for offending religious feeling was passed by Russia’s parliament in April 2013.
The attitude of the authorities to whistle-blowers has been highlighted through the authorities’ posthumously trial of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky investigated cases of corruption among high-ranking Russian officials; he died in prison in 2009 in pre-trial detention and no one has ever been charged with his death.
Freedom of expression in the LGBT community has been restricted after the State Duma adopted a law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality. Similar laws were previously introduced at the regional level in 11 administrative entities of the Russian Federation, including the second largest city St. Petersburg.
Media Freedom
Russia continues to be one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 54 reporters have been killed in Russia since 1992, with 16 cases still unsolved. Impunity remains a significant problem for journalists: on-going threats of violence are rarely investigated properly by the authorities. The killers of Natalia Estemirova, Abdulmalik Akhmedilov, Khadzhimurad Kamalov and other prominent investigative reporters have never been prosecuted; nor have the organisers of Anna Politkovskaya’s murder.
In July 2012, criminal libel was reintroduced by the State Duma into the criminal code after being decriminalized in November 2011. Defamation laws are used to silence the press. Dmitry Muratov, the editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, says courts are used as a censorship instrument in Russia. His newspaper lost three libel appeals in just one week in November 2011, all issued by the Department of Presidential Affairs after they published investigative journalism into federal budget spending.
Other legislative challenges to media freedom in Russia include a law on high treason that endangers Russian journalists who work for the international media, as it prohibits providing information to foreign countries, and a law that forbids the media from using obscene words. Another draft law will classify media outlets that receive more than 50 per cent of their revenues from abroad as “foreign agents”.
The genuine diversity of media ownership in Russia is questionable. Opinion polls by the Levada Centre show that 69 per cent of Russian citizens consider the three state-owned TV channels to be the primary source of their information. Most of the other national media outlets are either co-owned by the state, or belong to oligarchs who have relationships with the Kremlin. Several top managers and editors recently were fired or resigned from their positions in Kommersant and Gazeta.ru in protest against their owners’ intrusion into editorial policies. Several independent online publications critical of the authorities were closed down by their owners.
The lack of independent political and investigative reporting is not likely to be rectified by the launch of a new channel “Public Television of Russia”, scheduled for May 2013. While the new channel has been described as a public service broadcaster “equally independent from the state and advertising”, it will in fact rely on government funding. Furthermore, its CEO is appointed directly by the President of Russia, casting further doubts over its editorial independence.
Digital Freedom
As internet use grows in Russia, the authorities have introduced new restrictive laws that challenge free expression online and allow filtering and blocking of content. Federal Law No. 139-FZ, adopted in July 2012 created a blacklist of sites with “harmful” information under a pretext of child protection. The law suggested broad and ambiguous definitions that allow extrajudicial censorship of online content. Roskomnadzor, a dedicated state agency, compiles a black list of web-pages that contain child pornography, “extremist materials” and information on suicide or drug use. ISPs are obliged by the law to block all the blacklisted web-pages.
Extensive online censorship is accompanied by surveillance of Russians’ online activities. SORM, a nation-wide surveillance system, operated with Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology, allows the state security force not only to control, but even to intrude into the internet traffic of any internet user in Russia without any special permit or court decision.
There was a series of cyber-attacks on the websites of independent Russian media outlets, such as Kommersant, Ekho Moskvy, Bolshoi Gorod, Dozhd’ TV and Slon.ru, during the street protests in May 2012. No one has been prosecuted for these attacks.
Artistic Freedom
As the authorities of the country try to increase its electoral support among more conservative layers of society, they rely more on support of the Russian Orthodox Church. Increasingly close political relationships between the state and the church account for much of the persecution of artists and censorship of arts on grounds of “protecting of traditional values”. One of the recent draft laws, adopted by the parliament in the first reading, provides for five years in prison for “insulting believers’ feelings”. Reports talk about increasing self-censorship among artists; several cases of prosecution were noted as well.
In August 2012 Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina, and Ekaterina Samutsevich, members of punk group Pussy Riot, were each sentenced to two years imprisonment for organising a “punk prayer” in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. Despite the group claiming their performance was an artistic act of political protest against President Putin’s regime, they were found guilty of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.” In October 2012, Samutsevich was released on probation, but sentences against the other two members of the band were upheld.
Anti-extremist laws and articles of the Criminal Code relating to incitement to religious hatred have long been used for censorship of art in Russia. In July 2010 art curators Andrei Erofeev and Yuri Samodurov were fined for organising the Forbidden Art 2006 exhibition in Moscow, after several of the works were claimed by prosecutors to “incite hatred” and “denigrate human dignity.” In December 2012, prosecutors in St Petersburg launched an investigation into an exhibition by British artists Jake and Dinos Chapman after visitors complained it was “blasphemous” and “extremist” for featuring images of a crucified Ronald McDonald and Nazi symbolism.
This article was originally published on 20 Aug, 2013 at indexoncensorship.org. Index on Censorship: The voice of free expression
06 Aug 13 | Digital Freedom, France, Germany, Guest Post, News and features, Politics and Society, Russia, United Kingdom, United States
(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)
Around the world, there is confusion and alarm over the impact of the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance program on human rights. In the U.S., the debate is focusing on the gross violations of privacy rights of Americans. Barely a word is being spoken about the human rights of people outside the country whose personal communications are being targeted, and whose communications content is collected, stored, analyzed and used with little legal protection.
A growing group of international civil society groups and individuals wants that to change and is coming together to present the newly empowered U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Board (PCLOB) with a joint letter, asking the Board to make “recommendations and findings designed to protect the human rights not only of U.S. persons, but also of non-U.S. persons.” Before PCLOB’s mid-September deadline for public comments, I encourage global civil society to add their name to this powerful statement.
As the letter makes clear, there is great concern from the global community that the recently revealed surveillance program conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) poses a severe threat to human rights. It rightly notes that the surveillance “ strikes at the heart of global digital communications and severely threatens human rights in the digital age.” “The use of unnecessary, disproportionate, and unaccountable extra-territorial surveillance not only violates rights to privacy and human dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center of any democratic practice. Such surveillance must be scrutinized through ample, deep, and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable.”
Why then is all the attention in the U.S. focused on just the rights of Americans? The U.S. draws its obligations to protect rights in conducting surveillance from the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, which protects “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The “people” generally means all people located within the United States regardless of citizenship, and then only when they have a “ reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, and for U.S. citizens and lawful residents when they are travelling abroad, people outside the U.S. have no privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. This is a feature in the U.S. Constitution and it animates every part of U.S. surveillance law and practice. That is why Section 702 of FISA requires targeting and minimization guidelines that are aimed (albeit inadequately) at ensuring that the communications being targeted are those of people reasonably believed to be outside the U.S. It’s also why they provide some level of protection for ordinary Americans whose communications are ensnared in foreign intelligence activities and take no notice of the rights of ordinary people all over the world whose personal communications now reside in NSA databases.
It may be hard to fathom now, but Congress created the FISA Court to rein in surveillance after revelations about illegal political spying on Americans surfaced in the 1970’s. The Court had a narrow charge: to ensure that electronic surveillance conducted in the United States for intelligence purposes is conducted pursuant to a warrant. The warrant protection did not apply to surveillance conducted outside the U.S., so it did not protect the rights of foreigners outside the U.S. However, in those days, communications surveillance within the U.S. was a limited and highly targeted activity aimed at hostile foreign powers and their agents. The phone conversations of ordinary people were of no interest. International phone calls between a person in the U.S. and person abroad were quite expensive and relatively rare.
Today, the assumptions that informed the enactment of FISA have been worn thin by a radical shift in threats – from states to diffuse non-state actors – and an even more radical shift in technology. The advent of the internet, the data storage revolution and big data analytics, fueled by fears about terrorism, have, in the post-PATRIOT Act world, fueled a growing government appetite for data. Today, the NSA isn’t just trying to listen in on the embassy abroad of a Cold War rival; instead, it doesn’t know whom to listen in on because it does not know who might pose a threat. In the process, individualized targeting based on specific indicia of threat has given way to bulk programmatic targeting of foreign communications without any consideration of human rights of people beyond our borders.
This position is simply untenable in today’s much smaller world, where the Cold War line between “us” and “them” has blurred.
When FISA was enacted, there was no global internet and the cost of international calls was prohibitive. Large parts of the world were unreachable for political or technical reasons. Now, we are a nation of more immigrants, global businesses and frequent travelers. We live online and carry our cell phones everywhere. The cost of an international call has plummeted by more than 90% and the number of U.S. billed international calls and the use of VOIP has skyrocketed. Skype calls worldwide alone grew 44% to 167 billion minutes in 2012.
Everyday, Americans are calling, emailing, texting and “friending” family, friends, colleagues and customers around the world, engaging in so-called “foreign communications.” For those on the other side of our emails and calls, there is no protection for free expression or privacy rights. In fact, their communications may be collected, examined and used by the government for any legal purpose.
The U.S. is certainly not alone in the breadth of its surveillance activities. Britain’s spy agency monitors the cables that carry the world’s phone calls and internet traffic in close cooperation with the NSA. Indeed, according to leaked documents, Britain’s GCHQ collects more metadata than the NSA with fewer limitations. Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the BND, is monitoring communications at a Frankfurt communications hub that handles international traffic to, from and through Germany, and the BND is seeking to significantly extend its capabilities. Le Monde reports that France runs a vast electronic spying operation using NSA-style methods, but with even fewer legal controls. And Russia’s notorious SORM system is reportedly even more advanced than the American system.
The U.S. is also not alone in focusing most of the protections of its surveillance laws internally. Such focus is also a feature of the surveillance laws and practices in democratic countries around the world, most of which take a highly territorial view of their human rights obligations and are unlikely to willingly give them extraterritorial application.
There is an urgent conversation to be had in the U.S and beyond about the implications of cross-border surveillance. Given the globalization of information society services, we now must assume that the data pertaining to the citizens of one country will flow through the infrastructure of another and be subject to collection and use for national security purposes. Surveillance standards must be strengthened everywhere to ensure that robust judicial oversight and that principles of specificity, necessity, proportionality, data minimization, use limitation and redress for misuse are the norm. In a globally networked world, legal standards must also recognize the human rights implications of cross-border surveillance and set out a way forward to protect the rights of people beyond state borders. There is ambiguity about whether our largely territorial human rights paradigm is adequate to meet the challenge.
That is why the call to PCLOB to speak to the rights of non-Americans is so important. PCLOB has a simple mission: to make sure privacy and civil liberties are at the table as new security measures to protect the nation are considered. It has boldly taken on the NSA surveillance program as its first task, but it is too soon to know whether it has the muscle or the will power to push meaningful reforms. It has an opportunity to show global leadership by heeding the call to make concrete recommendations about the rights of non-U.S. persons that can frame the global discussion about surveillance and human rights going forward. Add your name to the letter and tell PCLOB to seize the opportunity.
05 Aug 13 | Digital Freedom, News and features, Russia
(Photo: David von Blohn / Demotix)
Открытое письмо Эдварду Сноудену
Dear Ed,
Yesterday I learned that you have managed to gain temporary asylum in Russia. Congratulations on behalf of progressive people everywhere. At last, you are safe.
Here in Russia no one would dream of harassing you for exposing the security services when they listen to telephone conversations and read others letters without a warrant. Russia, thank God, is a law-abiding State and ever since 2008 our security services have had a quite legal right to listen to whatever people are talking about on the phone and to read their e-mails.
Everyone is aware of this, and there is nothing here in Russia to expose.
While you are only just beginning to get acquainted, however, with the aspects of liberty in our society, let me give you some modest advice. Russia, It goes without saying, has its own way of doing things and it would be better if you knew about this in advance.
One, feel free to take up whatever activity you like.
This is not the USA, Ed, where exposing the activities of the government carries unpleasant consequences. There is nothing of the kind here. On the contrary, people who expose the American government are given all kinds of rewards and can enjoy a fine career, which I wish for you. I would just remind you not to forget which government you are fighting against. For were you, in the heat of the moment, to get confused about this you would have to return to a little room again (and this time, most likely, it would not be at the airport).
Two, it would be best, old chap, if you grasp from the beginning that Russia is a spiritual country.
Perhaps in the USA they taught you that Russia’s wealth lies in its oil and its timber. Well, that has long ceased to be the case. All the oil was stolen back in 2004 by Mikhail Khodorkovsky and all our forest reserves will soon have been stolen by Alexei Navalny. So today our spiritual wealth can best be expressed as “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Populism”. Orthodoxy is a very liberal religion. You may drink alcohol, eat pork, or, like Abbot Timothy, drive your BMW roadster while under the influence – in short, do whatever you like. You mustn’t dance, that’s the main thing. Dancing is a crime. But you’re no dancer, Ed, so it’s not a problem as far as you’re concerned. Autocracy is Russia’s form of democracy. It’s very spiritual and you’ll like it. Every few years we re-elect Vladimir Putin. Putin recently caught the biggest catfish in the world. The very biggest was caught by Lukashenko. That’s all you need to know about politics in the Commonwealth of Independent States – if you don’t want to return, that is, to a little room in a hotel somewhere like Krasnokamsk. Populism: that means the national spirit and you can get acquainted with it by listening to the songs of Stas Mikhailov, though my advice to you would be, Don’t.
Three, please don’t imagine I have any objections, it’s a matter of indifference to me, but it would be better if you’re not gay. If you are, well, don’t leave the hotel. If you’re Jewish then you won’t be able to work as a rural schoolteacher. Does that strike you as silly advice? Ed, I know what I’m talking about. Take my word for it.
I hear that your defence lawyer Kucherena has given you Crime and Punishment. It’s an excellent book. Do read it, and do so BEFORE you encounter a certain middle-aged lady called Yelena Mizulina. Don’t do anything you might come to repent of later! No matter how noble the idea that guided your actions.
Lastly, a couple of practical suggestions.
Do not commit any offences when you’re out driving until you have been elected deputy of one assembly or another. Don’t waste your money buying a flat – all you have to do is become friendly with Ramzan Kadyrov. Learn to play badminton and if someone offers to help you run for Mayor of Moscow, do not agree. It’s a trap! There are three simple rules you must remember: Do not wear white, at least not when you’re near Bolotnaya Square; Don’t walk about in tight-fitting garments anywhere within sight of the State Duma; and Don’t Dance within the vicinity of a church.
Please don’t imagine that I am trying to scare you. On the contrary. You can do everything else that I haven’t mentioned above. If you want to tell lies, go ahead; if you want to steal, be my guest, thirteen years in a row: and no problem. Just remember my advice and, to be safe, don’t leave the hotel. I can’t explain – and anyway, you wouldn’t understand. It’s just better if you stay inside,
Roman Dobrokhotov / @Dobrokhotov
Note
It would take at least as many words as the author uses to decipher the allusions in this short letter. Here it’s worth noting the following.
In 2008 the various Russian security services were allowed by law to use a “technical system to support investigative activities” (its acronym is SORM) which gave them access to communication networks without seeking prior permission. Such access is now a condition of registration for any new website, and providers must foot the bill themselves for installing the necessary equipment and software. For an account of SORM in action see this link.
Why Duma deputy Yelena Mizulina, singer Stanislav Mikhailov, rural schoolteacher Ilya Faber and Abbot (higumenos) Timothy have become famous or notorious can be learned from the Internet.
The author of the letter Roman Dobrokhotov is a Moscow-based blogger, and a journalist with the internet news-site slon.ru.
In 2012 he was described by Al Jazeera in the following terms: “Roman has been arrested 120 times. His actions – part performance art, part comedy and part political statement – are daring and entertaining but his cause is deadly serious.” Dobrokhotov’s targets, according to the TV broadcaster, are “Putin, the Orthodox church and ultra-nationalists”.
— John Crowfoot is a translator and writer
05 Aug 13 | Russia
(Photo: David von Blohn / Demotix)
Дорогой Эд!
Вчера я узнал о том, что тебе удалось все-таки получить в России временное убежище. Поздравляю тебя от лица всей прогрессивной мировой общественности. Теперь ты, наконец, в безопасности. Здесь, в России, никто и не подумает преследовать тебя за какие-то там разоблачения спецслужб, прослушивающих телефоны и читающих чужие письма без решения суда. Ибо у нас, слава богу, правовое государство – российские спецслужбы еще с 2008 года имеют полное законное право прослушивать телефонные разговоры и читать электронную почту, всем это известно и разоблачать нечего. Но пока ты только начинаешь знакомиться со всеми измерениями свободы нашего российского общества, позволь мне дать тебе пару скромных советов – как никак у нас тут в России есть своя специфика и лучше бы тебе знать о ней заранее.
Во-первых, Эд, смело занимайся любимым делом. Это в Америке разоблачать правительство было чревато неприятностями, в нашей же свободной стране ничего такого нет, даже наоборот – люди, разоблачающие американское правительство всячески поощряются и делают прекрасную карьеру. Чего я тебе и желаю. Но только призываю тебя не забывать, с каким именно правительством ты борешься. Ибо если ты в пылу эмоцией тут что-то перепутаешь, тебе придется вернуться в капсульную комнату (причем, скорее всего, даже не в аэропорту).
Во-вторых, старина, сразу бы тебе лучше усвоить, что Россия – это духовная страна. Возможно, в американской школе тебя учили, что российские богатства – это нефть и лес. Так вот это уже давно не так. Всю нефть украл Михаил Ходорковский еще в 2004 году, а намедни и вес лес украл Алексей Навальный, так что главные наши богатства нынче духовные – православие, самодержавие и народность. Православие – это очень либеральная религия, можно пить алкоголь, есть свинину, гонять в подпитии на родстере BMW с дипномерами, как игумен Тимофей – в общем, ни в чем себе не отказывай. Главное – не танцевать. Танцевать нельзя, это уголовка. Но ты же не танцор, что тебе, какая разница. Самодержавие же – это такая традиционная российская форма демократии, очень духовная, тебе понравится. Каждые несколько лет мы выбираем Владимира Путина. Владимир Путин поймал почти самого большого в мире сома. А самого-самого большого поймал Лукашенко. Это все что тебе следует знать о политике в странах СНГ. Если ты не хочешь вернуться в капсульный отель где-нибудь в Краснокаменске. Народность – это национальный дух. Ознакомиться с ним можно посредством песен Стаса Михайлова, но лично мой совет – не знакомься.
В-третьих, ты не подумай ничего такого, мне лично все равно, но все-таки лучше, если ты не гей. А если гей, то из отеля на всякий случай не выходи. А если еврей – то не становись сельским учителем. Дурацкий совет, вроде бы, да? Но я-то знаю, о чем говорю. Просто поверь.
Я слышал, адвокат Кучерена подарил тебе «Преступление и наказание» – это отличная книга, прочти ее пожалуйста ДО того как познакомишься с одной пожилой женщиной по имени Елена Мизулина. Не делай того, за что бы тебе потом пришлось раскаиваться! Какой бы благородной идеей ты ни руководствовался.
И напоследок, пару дельных советов: не нарушай правила дорожного движения пока не станешь депутатом, не трать деньги на покупку квартиры (просто познакомься с Рамзаном Кадыровым), учись играть в бадминтон, а если предложат выдвигаться в мэры Москвы – не соглашайся, это разводка! И запомни три простых правила: белого не надевать (по крайней мере не рядом с Болотной площадью), обтягивающего не носить (во всяком случае, слишком обтягивающего и рядом с Госдумой) и не танцевать (по крайней мере рядом с церквями).
Ты не подумай только, что я тебя пугаю. Наоборот же. В остальном-то у нас все можно. Хочешь ври, хочешь – воруй, хоть 13 лет подряд, никаких проблем. Просто помни мои советы. А лучше, что уж там, не выходи из этого отеля своего. Не могу объяснить. Ты не поймешь все равно. Просто – лучше не выходи.
Roman Dobrokhotov / @Dobrokhotov
