Yesterday, open source advocate and software engineer Bassel Khartabil spent his 32nd birthday in prison. He was arrested by Syrian security forces on 15 March last year, and he has been in jail ever since. Khartabil was awarded an Index on Censorship Digital Freedom Award, sponsored by Google for his important work earlier this year. The Free Bassel campaign has started an initiative to shed light on Bassel’s situation called Free Bassel Sunlight, where they have called on supporters to advocate for Bassel’s release through using their resources to unearth more details about his situation.
We shared some birthday wishes to Bassel yesterday, but many more wishes were posted online yesterday —- here are just some of the heartfelt messages sent to him:
Does surveillance and monitoring chill free expression? Is population-wide mass surveillance always a bad idea? Amongst many questions and debates at today’s Stockholm Internet Forum, the answers to these two questions are surely obvious – yes to both, writes Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes from Sweden.
But not for Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister, who made it clear at the conference that he thinks while surveillance invades privacy and needs proper judicial control, it is not a free speech issue.
And European Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom couldn’t quite bring herself to agree that monitoring an entire population is always wrong, suggesting if it were ever necessary then it, too, would need appropriate judicial permission and control.
We have to hope most European politicians have a stronger understanding of human rights online. Certainly, in lively debates at plenary sessions and on the conference twitter feed (#sif13), it was clear their views had little support with intense exchanges over how to protect free speech and other rights online.
Bildt’s view that democratic governments can be trusted with surveillance and censorship online was challenged by many attendees. The idea that the world can be divided into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ countries was a recurring issue with perhaps the predominant view being that neither governments (democratic or not) nor companies should be trusted with our digital freedom but should be challenged, monitored and held to account for the myriad of ways they control the internet space.
Index on Censorship Events Caught in the web: how free are we online? June 10, 2013
The internet: free open space, wild wild west, or totalitarian state? However you view the web, in today’s world it is bringing both opportunities and threats for free expression. More >>>
Big web companies were also challenged in Stockholm. The BBC’s Stephen Sackur asked Google’s head of free expression Ross Lajeunesse if he thought all Google users knew that US laws applied to the search engine even when it operates outside the States (along with local laws). When Lajeunesse said he wasn’t sure, Sackur suggested Google make this clear on its home page. We will see if this happens since Lajeunesse made no commitment. A civil society activist asked from the floor how he could discuss with and lobby Google in the way that in open societies we can lobby governments. Lajeunesse said Google values dialogue. But the question of how we hold companies with large and increasing control of the net to account is a big one. There are no clear answers.
Facebook was challenged on this, too. Asked why the social media giant doesn’t produce a transparency report as Google and Twitter now do, no satisfactory answer was forthcoming. Facebook did announce it is joining the Global Network Initiative which brings web companies and human rights groups together. Index on Censorship is a member of the GNI.
University of Toronto Professor Ron Deibert argued persuasively that cybersecurity will remain dominated by defence, military and foreign affairs departments — with freedom rolled back — unless civil society engages more with security issues. Others disputed this suggesting many government security measures and arguments actually create insecurity. Deibert insisted though that basic democratic checks and balances are being eroded in the name of cybersecurity and civil society must ensure rights online.
Along with the calls to hold governments and companies more strongly to account, there were heated discussions of how to stop the wide misuse and export of surveillance technology, challenges to telecom companies to start to take their human rights responsibilities seriously, calls for more transparency on how takedown decisions are made and a host of other debates. This year’s net forum so far is an equal mixture of disturbing and inspiring – disturbing in the extent and range of threats to digital freedom, inspiring in the energy and ideas of so many of the participants committed to standing up to those threats.
The Indian government has been implementing a system to track and access calls, texts, and online activities. Mahima Kaul reports from Delhi that the Central Monitoring System (CMS) will be used by tax authorities and India’s National Investigation Authority to fight terror-related crimes.
Opposition to the surveillance system have now launched an online petition against it. Opponents say that while the system can be used to halt terror attacks and other violence, the government will primarily use it to police hate speech and criticism of authorities. They point to the government’s track record of arresting its online critics under Section 66A of the IT Act.
As with any conversation on state policing, cyber terrorism and warfare, there is extreme nervousness about institutional frameworks, as they should be built for protection of civil liberties as much as for national security. India’s CMS was established in the aftermath of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and according to information released at the time its purpose was to provide “central and regional databases to help central and state-level enforcement agencies intercept and monitor communications” as well as “direct electronic provisioning of target numbers by government agencies without any intervention from telecom service providers.” The government is spending about $75 million to build the system. The minister for information and technology, Milind Deora, reassured the parliament that the system would “lawfully intercept Internet and phone services.”
This claim needs to be further examined. In India, phone tapping laws come under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It was amended in 2007 after a high profile court case giving only the Union and State Home Secretaries the power to order interception of any messages. However, given that communication has increasingly shifted online — including phone calls made via Skype and other VoIP mediums — this communication now comes under Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
Commentators have pointed out that the broad powers included in the act — any government official or policeman can listen to phone calls, emails, SMSs without a warrant — are in clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This means that the government has the power to easily violate a citizen’s guaranteed right to privacy — in the name of security.
There’s also another pressing question to consider when examining the CMS: who will oversee the body to ensure that there are checks and balances? Intelligence agencies don’t come under parliamentary oversight as of yet in India. A bill entitled Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, introduced in parliament in 2011 has been shelved by the Prime Minister, with the promise that a law would be formulated soon.
What seems to be a plausible way forward, given that India is building online surveillance mechanisms, is a valid legal framework for bodies like the CMS. The challenge is to ensure the citizen’s right to privacy as enshrined by the constitution is not trampled upon, and that accountability is built into these systems from the start.
In the last week, Bahrain’s treatment of its citizens and their right to free expression has been repeatedly in the news. Sara Yasin reports on a spate of developments that raise questions about the Bahraini government’s commitment to free speech.
Blogger and activist Ali Abdulemam has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. Abdulemam’s two years in hiding began shortly after the start of Bahrain’s political unrest in February 2011. He was sentenced in absentia to fifteen years in prison on charges of attempting to overthrow the monarchy.
Abdulemam is the prominent founder of Bahrain Online, a site that created an online space to criticise and discuss the country’s regime in 1998. Initially, he wrote anonymously, but he began to write in his own name in 2001. Public dissent in Bahrain comes at a price: the blogger was first arrested in 2005 and then once more in 2010.
News of Abdulemam’s heroic escape did not amuse Bahrain’s government:
Ali Abdulemam was not tried in court for exercising his right to express his opinions. Rather, he was tried for inciting and encouraging continuous violent attacks against police officers. Abdulemam is the founder of Bahrain Online, a website that has repeatedly been used to incite hatred, including through the spreading of false and inflammatory rumors.
The statement goes on to say that the country “respects the right of its citizens to express their opinion”, but makes a distinction between expressing an opinion and “engaging in and encouraging violence.”
Back in 2010, Abdulemam was jailed, tortured, and accused of being a part of a “terrorist network.” The real threat he posed to the state, as fellow activist Ala’a Shehabi put it last year, was that “his forum offered dissidents a voice.”
So what does “incitement” look like in Bahrain? For documenting a protest on Twitter last December, Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) member Said Yousif, was jailed and charged with “spreading false news.” According to the country’s laws, “the dissemination of the false news must amount to incitement to violence.” As Human Rights Watch’s Middle East director, Sarah Lea Witson put it:
If Bahraini officials believe that an activist is inciting violence by tweeting a picture of an injured demonstrator, then it’s clear that all the human rights sessions they’ve attended have been wasted.
The jailed head of the organisation, Nabeel Rajab, is currently serving a two year sentence for organising “illegal protests.” BCHR released a statement today expressing concerns that Rajab has been transferred to solitary confinement. He has been unreachable since relaying to his wife an account of young political prisoners being tortured earlier this week. Rajab was requesting a visit from the International Committee of the Red Cross, to document the case.
Still, Bahrain insists that freedom of expression is something that it upholds — in fact, it has gone so far as prosecuting individuals for supposedly abusing it. Just yesterday, year-long sentences were handed to six Twitter users for making posts insulting Bahrain’s King Hamad. For hanging a Bahraini flag from his truck during protests in 2011, a man was handed a three-month jail sentence today.
Looks like it might be time for Bahrain to reevaluate how it understands freedom of expression.
