26 Apr 13 | Uncategorized
Governments around the world are ramping up their takedown requests, the latest data from Google’s Transparency Report revealed yesterday. 56 countries issued a record 2,285 requests to remove 24,179 pieces of content from the company’s products and platforms in the second half of 2012. This update comes three months after Google reported record high government requests for user data in the same period.
Brazil topped the list of offenders. The country’s courts and government agencies issued 697 content removal requests, more than double the number issued by the second-placed United States. Half of Brazil’s requests were to remove content that allegedly defamed or offended political candidates. Google removed content in some of these cases but is appealing others on the grounds that Brazil’s constitution protects free speech.
The countries in which courts requested the most individual items be removed were Turkey (8,751 items), the US (3,624) and Brazil (1,654). Requests from Turkey cited content that infringed copyrights or allegedly violated local laws that prohibit criticising the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish state. US requests mainly cited defamation and trademark infringements.
According to Google’s newly compiled data, the most common reasons countries cite for removal requests since 2010 have been privacy and security, defamation, copyright, religious offence, electoral law, government criticism and adult content.
India’s government agencies issued 2,529 non-court takedown requests, far more than any other country. Most of these were issued in line with local laws on public order and ethnic offence amidst political unrest in India’s northeastern states.
Russia issued only six requests for Google to remove content in the first half of 2012. That number jumped to 114 in the second half of the year, 107 of which directly cited Russia’s new internet blacklist law. The law, which went into effect in late October, requires ISPs to block websites that contain “harmful” information including child pornography, “extremist materials” and information on suicide or drug use.
Countries with the worst digital freedom records like China and Iran requested few or no takedowns. Google services are limited or blocked and the internet already heavily restricted in these countries, meaning other measures are often taken to block access to online content.
In a troubling sign of internationally overlapping censorship, 20 countries requested that Google address the “Innocence of Muslims” video on YouTube, which the company owns. Australia, Egypt and the US merely asked Google to review the video’s compliance with its own community guidelines, but the rest requested it be locally blocked. Google complied with eight of these requests in accordance with local laws. It also preemptively blocked access to the video in Libya and Egypt “due to difficult circumstances”.
While government requests for content removal might be on the rise, Google’s compliance with these requests has fallen consistently from 76 percent in 2010 to 45 percent today.
Google’s transparency report has been a useful benchmark for the global state of online free expression since it first launched in 2010. Yesterday’s update comes one month after Microsoft issued its first report of this kind. Dropbox, LinkedIn and Twitter all share similar statistics.
25 Apr 13 | Uncategorized
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg this morning said that the Communications Data Bill — widely known as the “snooper’s charter” was “not going to happen”.
Speaking on his regular “Call Clegg” slot on London’s LBC radio, Clegg told presenter Nick Ferrari that the government would not pass a law allowing authorities to monitor individuals’ web traffic, describing the idea as neither “workable” nor “proportionate”.
(Watch at 19 minutes)
Clegg went on to suggest that a “middle way” could be found, possibly including the assignment of an IP address to each web-enabled device, to allow police to “do their job”.
This would appear to be a victory for the many, including Index on Censorship, who expressed concerns over the sweeping powers proposed in the Communications Data Bill. In an August 2012 policy note, Index said:
Population-wide collection and filtering of communications data is neither necessary nor proportionate. Monitoring and surveillance of this kind impacts directly and in a chilling manner on freedom of expression, inhibiting and restricting individuals in how they receive, share and impart information and encouraging self-censorship.
So we will celebrate the apparent end of the Communications Data Bill in its current form. But it is clear from Clegg’s words, and those of his Conservative coalition partners including Home Secretary Theresa May, that this is not an issue that will be dropped.
New proposals for monitoring and surveillance will no doubt emerge, and will be subject to the same scrutiny and criticism as the previous attempts to establish a Snooper’s Charter.
Padraig Reidy is Senior Writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy
23 Apr 13 | Newswire
Yesterday [22 April], about 900 websites were shut down in protest against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which was passed by the US House of Representatives last week. Hacking group Anonymous called for the “blackout” in order to stop the bill, which the group slammed as an attempt to “control and censor the internet.”
CISPA would allow tech companies and governments to exchange information related to possible cyber attacks — without legal hurdles. The bill’s sponsor, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, dismissed the bill’s critics as “14-year-olds in their basements”, but there are some very valid concerns over CISPA’s potential to threaten digital freedom.
Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Rainey Reitman criticised the ”dangerously vague” bill, which she says allows companies to “spy on the electronic communications of millions of Internet users and pass sensitive information to the government with no form of judicial oversight.”
The bill was passed by a two-thirds majority. An amendment preventing employers from acquiring the passwords to social media accounts of employees was blocked by the House. The US Senate stopped the bill from passing last year, but the House has reintroduced it this year. The White House has also previously threatened to veto the bill.
Despite its failure last year, the bill’s discussion this time around did not focus on the privacy issues pointed out by groups like EFF or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Instead, supporters of CISPA used last week’s Boston marathon bombings to illustrate its necessity. Texas Republican Mike McCaul said that the United States needs to arm itself against “digital bombs.”
So who will benefit from CISPA’s passing? According to TechDirt, the bill will benefit big defence contractors — including Rogers’ wife, defence expert Kristi Rogers, who has been publicly writing about and supporting her husband’s efforts to strengthen cybersecurity. She currently works for lobbying group Manatt, working on “executive-level problem solving in the defence and homeland security sectors”, and previously lead Aegis LLC: a security company that has a $10 billion contract with the US State Department.
CISPA’s opponents have also been drowned by its supporters’ aggressive lobbying. Transparency watchdog Sunlight Foundation has reported that the pro-CISPA lobby has spent a whopping $605 million since 2011 to pass the bill. In fact, companies like AT&T and Verizon have already spent millions on ensuring CISPA’s passing (interestingly, neither of these companies are participating in the Global Network Initiative’s efforts to help telecommunications companies protect freedom of expression and privacy rights).
Even though the bill has now been passed by the House, it has yet to be considered by the Senate. The White House has also warned that the bill would be vetoed as it is, citing concerns over accountability for companies that fail “to safeguard personal information adequately.”
To find out more about the concerns around CISPA, and to voice your concerns, visit the campaign’s site.
