13 Feb 13 | Uncategorized
YouTube filed lawsuit against the Russian government on 11 February, to contest its latest cybercrime law to censor websites deemed harmful to children. The case was filed after Russian regulators decided to block a joke YouTube video entitled “Video lesson on how to cut your veins =D,” which showed viewers how to fake slitting their wrists. Rospotrebnadzor, the federal service for consumer rights, said the video glorified suicide and was therefore illegal under the law enacted in November, which has been criticised for being vague and overtly broad. YouTube owners Google proceeded to restrict access to the video in Russia before the lawsuit was filed. In the first legal challenge made against the law, YouTube objected to the ruling in a statement released on 12 February, saying that the law should not extend to limiting access on videos uploaded for entertainment purposes.
An Indian soldier stands alert in Srinagar, Kashmir during a curfew to curb protest over the hanging of Afzal Guru
A politician in Azerbaijan has offered a cash reward to any person who finds and cuts of the ear of an author who wrote a book about the conciliation of Azeris and Armenians, it was reported on 12 February. Akram Aylisli’s book Stone Dreams has stirred up controversy for referencing Azerbaijan’s violence against Armenians during riots preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The party of Hafiz Haciyev, the head of a pro-government political group in Azerbaijan have offered 10,000 manat (£8,000) for the ear of the writer, as part of a sustained hate campaign against Haciyev. He has been expelled from the Union of Writers, had his presidential pension revoked and his wife and son have lost their jobs. Protestors around the country have burned books and effigies of Haciyev. As Azerbaijan’s President, Ilham Aliyev approaches re-election later this year, the sustained negativity projected onto Haciyev is said to be a facade to hide the government’s internal issues amidst growing unrest.
Following protests in Kashmir over the execution of a man convicted of terrorism on 9 February, Kashmir’s internet and news outlets have been suppressed, and the entire Kashmir valley subjected to a strict curfew. Television channels and mobile internet were suspended immediately after Afzal Guru was hanged on 9 February. Local newspapers were forced to cease reporting the following day without warning — and have yet to be published since. Only the government, using state run service provider Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, has access to the internet. Some residential districts of Srinagar reported to receive some TV news channels on 10 February, but privately-owned channels had to suspend news services at the request of the government. Afzal Guru’s execution in a New Delhi prison on 9 February prompted protests in three areas of India administered Kashmir, surrounding claims the men accused were given an unfair trial. Guru was sentenced to death for helping to plot a 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that left 14 people dead.
In Somalia, a journalist has been detained without charge for defending press freedom, after a woman who claimed she was raped and the journalist who interviewed her were imprisoned. Daud Abdi Daud remains in custody since 5 February, after he spoke out in a Mogadishu court against the one year jail sentence given to Abdiaziz Abdinuur and the alleged rape victim on 5 February. Daud Abdi said journalists should be able to interview who they wish, saying he would make attempts to interview the president’s wife, causing the police to arrest him. Daud Abdi was later transferred from police custody into Mogadishu Central Prison. On 6 February, the attorney general ordered his continued detention at the Police’s Central Investigation Department.
Carmarthenshire County Council’s decision to pursue a libel case using public funding has been criticised. The council’s chief executive Mark James appeared in London’s Royal Courts of Justice today (13 February) where he and blogger Jacqui Thompson are suing each other for defamation following a series of comments posted online. James’s costs were indemnified by the council after a controversial decision in 2008, allowing public money to be used to fund libel lawsuits. Carmarthenshire County Council is believed to be the only authority to allow this in the UK, and the Welsh Assembly has questioned its legality, after an order they made in 2006 forbade local authorities from offering indemnities in libel cases. Carmarthenshire County Council said they had relied upon section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, rather than the 2006 law. The case likely to cost a six or seven figure sum, according to reports.
11 Feb 13 | Egypt
Over the weekend, an Egyptian court approved a month-long ban on YouTube, for refusal to remove controversial anti-Islam film the Innocence of Muslims. In addition to a ban on YouTube, the same court ordered a ban on any other website hosting the film.
It’s unclear when the ban is meant to go into effect — and a Google (the owner of YouTube) spokesperson on Saturday said that they have not “received nothing from the judge or government related to this matter.”
The film’s trailer sparked angry protests and calls for its removal in September last year, for its crude depiction of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Cairo was one of the sites of violent protests outside of its American Embassy. Shortly after the start of 11 September protests against the film, Pakistan reportedly blocked YouTube for refusing to remove the video, with Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf declaring that “blasphemous content will not be accepted at any cost.” In addition to Pakistan, Egypt would be joining Bangladesh, Sudan, and Afghanistan in blocking YouTube for hosting clips from the film.
However, Egyptian human rights activist and technology expert Ramy Raoof dismissed the ban as “impractical”, and explained to Egypt Independent yesterday that it would be very difficult — and expensive — for the Egyptian government to actually implement it. Another anonymous expert told the newspaper that even if the ban is implemented, it would be a “very weak solution” as Egyptians “will still find a way around it”.
Egypt’s Ministry of Communications and Information Technology has yet to respond to the rulings, but activists have pointed out that the government body has shown reluctance to enforce such bans in the past. In 2009 Egypt made a decision to ban pornography that went unenforced. Egyptian prosecutor Abdel Maguid Mahmoud ordered the ban to be enforced in early November last year — but Telecommunications Minister Hany Mahmoud said that it would be “technically difficult” to actually block the sites.
Still, even with doubt cast over the feasibility of its implementation, human rights groups have slammed the ruling as a step backwards for internet freedom after the fall of Mubarak two years ago. Bahey Al Din Hassan, the head of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights told the Wall Street Journal that the ruling reflects the ever-increasing influence of Egypt’s religious conservatives — as well as a sign of even more restrictions on freedom of expression in the country.
Sara Yasin is an editorial assistant at Index. She tweets from @missyasin.
21 Dec 12 | Digital Freedom, Uncategorized
UPDATE: An appeals court in Milan acquitted today three Google executives of violating the privacy of an Italian boy with autism, in the so-called “Vividown” case. “We’re very happy that the verdict has been reversed and our colleagues’ names have been cleared. Of course, while we are delighted with the appeal, our thoughts continue to be with the family who have been through the ordeal,” said Giorgia Abeltino, Google Italy Policy Manager, in an statement.
The European Union Directive on electronic commerce is not the most inspirationally named document. The title would barely fit on a placard, and scans awkwardly for sloganeering (“What do we want?” “Implementation of the Electronic Commerce Directive!” “When do we want it?” “Within an agreed scheduled framework period, subject to negotiation between neighbour states and key stakeholders!”)
But the eCommerce Directive, as it is known by, er, some people, states a principle that is absolutely crucial to how the web works.
Article 12 of the directive, adopted in 2000, establishes the principle of the “mere conduit”. That is the idea that an Internet Service provider is not liable for content hosted on its platform, provided it “(a) does not initiate the transmission; (b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and (c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.”
This idea means that, at least in theory, Facebook, YouTube etc. can allow users to post anything on their platforms without worrying about having to account for it legally.
I say “in theory”. Today (21 December), an appeal will take place in an Italian court over a ruling which severely tested the concept of “mere conduit”.
In September 2006, Italian secondary school students posted a video of a boy with Down’s Syndrome being taunted and beaten by other teenagers. The video remained online until November that year, when it was removed by YouTube following a request by Italian police.
In 2010, three Google executives were found guilty of breach of privacy by an Italian court in a case brought by Down’s Syndrome charity Viva Down. The appeal comes to court on Friday.
Google protests that it acted as soon as it was notified by the authorities that the video may be illegal. Prosecutors claim that YouTube should have responded to private complaints sooner.
Videos of bullying are unpleasant to say the least, but the people responsible for the harassment of the boy, and the uploading of the video, have been convicted.
The 2010 conviction of Google employeees seriously breaches the idea of ISP as “mere conduit”, and with that, the way the web works. If social platforms are to be held responsible for all content, the consequences could be catastrophic for the way we operate on the web. Even the Chinese Internet police cannot pre-moderate every single piece of content uploaded, which is what ISPs may feel obliged to do should they be held responsible for content. The alternative might be an automated “banned words” list, perhaps. Either way, we would see an enormous escalation of censorship. What’s more, we would be establishing, even more than already exists, a system of privatised censorship. By handing over responsibility for what we say online from individuals to ISPs, we would be allowing private companies even more power than the state has to govern our speech.
Already this week there has been uproar over Instagram’s (attempted, then hastily withdrawn) grab for users’ content, itself perhaps a breach of mere conduit status.
And if this ruling is upheld in Italy, we’ll be facing another blow to individuals’ free use of the web. Already, a huge deal of our communication happens across private networks. If they are legally responsible for every word, picture and video, they will be inclined to caution, and our space to speak ever more narrowed.
Padraig Reidy is news editor at Index on Censorship
03 Dec 12 | Digital Freedom, Volume 41.04 Winter 2012
An anti-Muslim video demonstrated how politics of fear dominate the online environment. It’s time we took action, argue Rebecca MacKinnon and Ethan Zuckerman (more…)
