26 Apr 12 | Uncategorized
In a speech at Washington DC’s Holocaust Memorial Museum this week, Barack Obama this week announced US measures against technology companies aiding the Syrian and Iranian regimes in tracking and monitoring of members of the opposition. Here’s the introduction from the Executive Order signed this week, worth quoting at length:
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, hereby determine that the commission of serious human rights abuses against the people of Iran and Syria by their governments, facilitated by computer and network disruption, monitoring, and tracking by those governments, and abetted by entities in Iran and Syria that are complicit in their governments’ malign use of technology for those purposes, threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The Governments of Iran and Syria are endeavoring to rapidly upgrade their technological ability to conduct such activities. Cognizant of the vital importance of providing technology that enables the Iranian and Syrian people to freely communicate with each other and the outside world, as well as the preservation, to the extent possible, of global telecommunications supply chains for essential products and services to enable the free flow of information, the measures in this order are designed primarily to address the need to prevent entities located in whole or in part in Iran and Syria from facilitating or committing serious human rights abuses.
It’s another indicator of the fact that the online element is now an essential part of any conflict. Since Hillary Clinton’s speech on the web in January 2010, the US has positioned itself as the defender of the free internet against the censorious, snooping impulses of Iran, China et al.
Our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the United States have welcomed the White House move as ultimately “a good thing”, though with caveats. EFF say:
First, here’s what the order does accomplish:
It sanctions individuals and entities in Iran and Syria that are “complicit in their government’s malign use of technology” for the purposes of network disruption, monitoring, or tracking of individuals.
It aims to prevent entities (including companies) from facilitating or committing serious human rights abuses in Syria.
It bars the contribution or receipt of funds to any individual or entity named on the list contained within the order.
Notably, the order makes mention of companies that have “sold, leased or otherwise provided, directly or indirectly, goods, services or technology to Iran or Syria likely to be used to facilitate computer or network disruption, monitoring, or tracking that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of [the two countries’ governments]” (emphasis ours). This is notable because, when it was discovered that their products had made it to Syria and were being used by the regime to monitor network communications, executives of U.S. company BlueCoat denied knowledge of their products being in Syria.
Now, for what the order does not accomplish:
The order is solely focused on Syria and Iran, leaving out—most notably—Bahrain, where a protester was killed this weekend by police forces as well as, of course, other countries that engage in technology-related human rights violations. Bahraini human rights groups have documented the use of Trovicor technologies in surveillance there, leading to—in some cases—torture.
The order does not loosen existing restrictions by the Department of Commerce, whichbar the export of “good” technologies—including web hosting, Google Earth, and Java—to Syrians. At the Stockholm Internet Forum for Global Development last week, Syrian activist Mohammad Al Abdallah raised the Commerce restrictions as a consistent frustration amongst Syrian activists on the ground. While Treasury restrictions on Iran have been revised time and again, Commerce restrictions go unchanged.
Read the rest of Jillian C. York’s analysis here. Index very much supports EFF’s point on the lack of attention given to Bahrain.
03 Apr 12 | Uncategorized
The internet can be a scary place. In my early days of using the web, I passed my angry pubescent days innocently trolling chat rooms powered by America Online, mostly to harass fans of shopping mall punk Avril Lavigne.
I spent my free time accosting what I assumed were fellow misguided teenagers, even though my own music library was filled with the questionable sounds of Linkin Park, Kittie, and Papa Roach. Whilst undoubtedly irritating, my joy in prank calling restaurants and angering people online was mostly a benign past time. Had I been a teenager in Arizona today, my antics could have landed me with a criminal record before I even reached high school. Arizona recently passed H.B 2549 countering cyber-bullying and stalking, which would make trolling a misdemeanour in the state. According to the bill:
“It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.”
Well there go my teenage years, Arizona. The broad language used in the legislation has raised a few eyebrows, particularly because offensive behaviour is not limited to one-on-one conversations, but also “irritating” communications via public forums, including “websites, blogs, listserves, and other internet communications”. The new legislation, which now must be signed by Governor Janice K Brewer before officially going into effect, leaves the regulation of what can be considered to be irritating or offensive in the hands of the state.
Trolling can take many different forms, and it becomes difficult to determine when irritating behaviour should merely be ignored, or if it poses a threat in real life. The 2010 suicide of Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi after his roommate secretly filmed him and tweeted about his sexuality, sparked a heated debate about cyber bullying, and whether or not his roommate’s behaviour led to Clementi’s suicide. Elsewhere in the world, trolling is used as a way to harass activists and silence them. Other trolls hide behind the internet and create forums calling for the killing of public figures, and in some instances, internet harassment has been been linked to teen suicides. However, there is a pretty big divide between the kind of bullying that leads to someone’s death, and the irritating antics of a teenager in a chat room. As it is, Arizona’s new law does not really draw the line between the two.
Sara Yasin is an editorial assistant at Index
10 Feb 12 | News and features, Uncategorized
Despite changes in political power and public trust in government and a technological revolution that in many ways changed how people expect to get information, the basic framework of the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has withstood the test of time. The hallmarks of the US FOIA are a presumption of the public’s right to records of government and the ability of requesters to challenge the government’s decision to withhold information. Because the law is based on the premise that people have a right to information about what the government is doing and why, an agency must rely on one of the law’s nine exemptions in order to withhold requested information from the public. The US FOIA’s 9 Exemptions permitting or requiring non-disclosure of records cover:
1) properly classified information; 2) agency management records; 3) information barred from disclosure by another law; 4) trade secrets or other confidential business information; 5) inter- and intra- agency information protected by legal privileges; 6) information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s privacy; 7) information compiled for law enforcement; 8) federal government records of banks and other regulated financial institutions; and 9) information about the location of oil and gas wells of private companies.
A requester who believes that an agency has inappropriately used exemptions to withhold information has a statutory right to file an administrative appeal to the agency. If a requester is unsatisfied after the appeals process, or if the government does not meets its statutory obligation to respond to a request in a timely matter, the requester can take the government to court, where the burden is on the government to come forward and justify the withholding of the information.
The law’s structure does suffer some weaknesses. First, while it gives requesters opportunities to question the government’s decision to withhold information, the burden for filing an appeal or a lawsuit falls on the requester. Another problem is that the law’s Exemption 3 allows Congress, by putting language in other statutes, to grant an agency authority to withhold new categories of information without ever actually amending FOIA. The US Congress can, and often does, this by tucking such provisions into large bills. Because the provision does not statutorily amend FOIA, Congressional Committees with jurisdiction over the Act and with expertise in the public’s right to know often do not review the legislation before it is voted on, and sometimes these new authorities are signed into law before anyone even knows they exist. Although there is no perfect count of how many of “other laws” allow the government to withhold information, a report in March 2011 by the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a coalition of media groups, shows the extent of the problem: according to data the group compiled, agencies cited provisions in more than 240 other laws to withhold information over the last decade.
The execution of the US law is another issue confronting requesters. Long delays in response and a lack of transparency about what the government is doing with a request once it is submitted lead to a system that doesn’t work for a lot of people — certainly not journalists and academics who are on deadline and not for people who in the age of Google expect immediate access to information. Although agency backlogs have been reduced in recent years, most people will have to wait for some period of time before an agency even begins processing their requests. Once a FOIA request is in the system, there is no way currently a person can tell how long it may be before he or she gets a response – let alone records.
One reason the US’s FOIA processing system fails to keep up with demand is the lack of continuous effective oversight. The Office of Information Policy (OIP) at the Department of Justice monitors agency compliance with the FOIA, but uses the compliance information it collects to provide agencies with guidance on how to improve its practices, not demand an agency make any changes. In Congress, FOIA competes for attention with a vast number of issues. The Congressional Committees responsible for FOIA oversight also are responsible for other a number of substantive issue areas.
To counter growing backlogs and continued frustration with the FOIA system, Congress proposed the OPEN Government Act of 2007 to make FOIA processes more efficient. The act was championed by members of both parties and was passed by both chambers with wide-spread support, despite a lack of support for the law from the Bush Administration.
Among other changes, the OPEN Government Act borrowed an innovation from several US states and foreign systems: a mediator to handle disputes between requesters and the government. The US version of the mediator, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), is charged with helping solve disputes and with suggesting improvements to FOIA. OGIS could reduce costs by, among other things, keeping cases out of the court system and helping make sure Congress and the Administration are more aware of what problems in the FOIA system need immediate attention.
In order to be successful, however, OGIS needs additional authority. Currently OGIS must rely on the goodwill of an agency to enter into mediation and has no power to make an agency turn over records. OGIS also needs better support from the Administration. OGIS’ first round of recommendations have been pending review by the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for over a year. The Administration needs to move forward to review OGIS’ recommendations, so they can be sent forward to Congress. Each branch then needs to act on the recommendations to improve.
Amy Bennett is the Assistant Director of OpenTheGovernment.org, where she works extensively on the organisation’s coalition partner outreach and on policy issues, including improving public access to government information and increasing openness and accountability of the federal government. Prior to joining the coalition, she earned a Master in Public Policy from the Georgetown Public Policy Institute (GPPI). Amy has previous experience working for a small start-up non-profit, as a lobbyist for government relations firms, and as an aide for Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).
