internet freedom Archives - Page 20 of 22

Foreign Secretary responds to open letter on freedom of expression

In response to an open letter from Index and a number of media freedom groups, Foreign Secretary William Hague outlines the Coalition Government’s policy on freedom of expression and the internet.

Thank you for your letter of 1 November about the Coalition Government’s policy on freedom of expression.

This Government rejects censorship and surveillance that undermines people’s rights to express themselves, organise or communicate freely. We are proud to stand up for freedom of expression and privacy. Britain will always be on the side of those aspiring to greater political and economic freedom anywhere in the world, whether this is on or off the internet.

In the UK, we are striving for a model for internet governance where governments, industry and users of the Internet work together. Our obligations under the Human Rights Act, underpinned by our international treaty obligations, are central. As you know, these protect freedom of expression, association and assembly from undue interference from the government or other public bodies. International human rights conventions rightly set very high thresholds for any action by the state to suppress or control the free flow of information. Any action we take will be in accordance with these obligations.

I would like to address some specific issues you raise.

We believe that parents should be provided with wide tools to enable them to voluntarily block harmful and inappropriate content. Active choice is the preferred approach, with parents given a choice as to whether or not to activate parental controls when switching on a new internet enabled device or connecting to a new internet connection for the first time. It is important to distinguish between government encouraging people to make more use of existing protections as a matter of choice, and the government deciding what people can and cannot do online. Our plans do not prevent access to legal material, but seek to make it much clearer that protections exist, and to encourage their use. The position of Claire Perry regarding the default filtering of adult content is not the position of this government.

You referred to the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament earlier this year in the wake of recent disturbances in the UK. Let me be clear. The Prime Minister did not suggest that social networks should be closed down. The government has not and is not seeking any new powers in this area. We recognise the enormous benefits that social networking brings, not least in the valuable part it played in helping citizens avoid trouble spots and in galvanizing community clean up efforts. Social networking itself was not the root cause of the disturbances, but, as our courts have recognised, did offer an enhanced means of communication to some individuals’ intent on inciting or facilitating widespread criminal behaviour. In light of this our law enforcement agencies, the network providers and social media organisations are looking at ways they can enhance co-operation to prevent the networks being used for criminal behaviour, in accordance with, and in order to uphold UK law.

Finally you raised concerns about powers of surveillance and access to personal information online. It is of course the responsibility of government to maintain capabilities to investigate crimes and to protect individuals where they are threatened by criminals, terrorism or foreign powers. The use of covert surveillance by the authorised government agencies, for example the acquisition of communications data and the interception of communications, is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). RIPA’s strict safeguards, including independent oversight, ensure that such surveillance is, and will continue to be, fully consistent with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

As I outlined at the London Conference on Cyberspace (LCC), the UK’s approach to the future of cyberspace has at its heart a simple proposition: behaviour that is unacceptable in the offline world is also unacceptable online. This emphatically includes the curtailing of human rights. Human rights are universal, and apply with equal force online as they do offline. The UK will continue to take a lead role in ensuing these principles are upheld.

Film bosses consider changes to SOPA piracy laws

The Motion Picture Association announced this week that it would consider changes to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) to address concerns raised by tech companies such as Google and Yahoo. In a phone briefing this week, Michael O’Leary, senior executive vice president for global policy and external affairs of the Motion Picture Association of America, anticipated that opponents of SOPA and PIPA would remain unhappy with the bill, but that the ultimate goal was to have it passed in some form. He declined to give details of specific changes.

Proponents of the bill are trying to push it through the House of Representatives by 15 December, but are facing strong opposition. Critics of the bills are likely to see any effort at revision or toning down of language as grossly inadequate. If the bill fails to pass during this session, it is likely that next year’s election will make passing legislation even more difficult. Opponents have also gained Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) endorsement against SOPA. She has now publicly said in a statement:

I am fully supportive of the need to pass legislation in this Congress to combat intellectual piracy, specifically dealing with rogue digital theft sites. It is incumbent on the parties that are concerned by the current proposal to offer changes that would effectively deal with piracy. We must work together for an effective solution.

Cynthia Wong of the Center for Democracy and Technology recently expressed concerns that SOPA and PIPA could harm freedom of expression, privacy, and innovation online.

Another problem not addressed in O’Leary’s interview is the issue of DNS filtering, which has been deemed ineffective and technically problematic by experts. Researchers at the Department of Energy’s Sandia National Labs recently wrote a letter to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California), stating that they believe DNS filtering would be ineffective, would negatively impact U.S. cybersecurity efforts and internet use, and would hinder security improvements to DNS. At one point the letter states that “one staff member characterised the proposed DNS filtering mandate as a ‘whack-a-mole’ approach that would only encourage users and offending websites to resort to low cost work-arounds.”

There are also signs of a potential bipartisan alternative to SOPA, proposed by Senators Wyden (D-OR), Cantwell (D-WA), Moran (R-KS), and Warner (D-VA); Reps Chaffetz (R-UT), Campbell (R-CA), Doggett (D-TX), Eshoo (D-CA), Issa (R-CA), and Lofgren (D-CA). The new plan is rumored to take responsibility in this area away from the Attorney General, and place it with the Internet Trade Commission (ITC). Happily, it is rumored that the proposed alternative would not include website blocking by ISPs and DNS providers, nor would search engines or others be required to remove links to such content.

France: Court orders French “cop watching” site to be blocked

A court in France has ruled that internet service providers must block access to a “cop watching” web site. The website, Copwatch Nord Paris I-D-F, shows pictures and videos of police officers arresting suspects, taunting protesters and allegedly committing acts of violence against members of ethnic minorities, was deemed to incite violence against the police. Free speech advocates have said that the ruling restricted internet freedoms. The first complaint against the site was filed by a Paris police officer who received a bullet in his mailbox after his picture had appeared on the site.