CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘blocking and filtering’ Category

Bianet: Internet Censorship: Turkey “Under Surveillance” of RSF

Reporters Without Borders added Turkey and Russia to the organization’s ‘under surveillance’ list published in the latest report on 12 March. ‘Taboo topics’ for Turkey are quoted as mainly related to Atatürk, the army, minorities and the dignity of the nation.

Erol ÖNDEROĞLU – hukuk@bianet.org
Paris – BİA News Center
15 March 2010, Monday

The international organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has recently added Turkey and Russia to their ‘under surveillance’ list regarding internet censorship. This was announced in a joint press release of RSF Secretary General Jean-François Julliard and Lucie Morillon, head of the New Media Desk.

‘In Turkey, taboo topics mainly deal with Ataturk, the army, issues concerning minorities (notably Kurds and Armenians) and the dignity of the Nation’, RSF indicates.
Ban of YouTube and probable judicial reprisals

The organization warns other countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, Belarus and Thailand, ‘which are also maintaining their ‘under surveillance’ status, but will need to make more progress to avoid getting transferred into the next ‘Enemies of the Internet’ list’.

RSF emphasized that ‘the fight for free access to information is being played out to an ever greater extent on the Internet. In Turkey, several thousand sites have been blocked, thereby triggering a great deal of protest. Bloggers and netizens who express themselves freely on such topics may well face judicial reprisals’.

Enemies of the Internet

RSF describes the internet in Russia as the ‘freest space for sharing information’, ‘aside from the control exercised by the Kremlin on most of its media outlets’. However, RSF draws attention to existing constraints: ‘Yet its independence is being jeopardized by blogger arrests and prosecutions, as well as by blockings of so-called ‘extremist’ websites. The regime’s propaganda is increasingly omnipresent on the Web. There is a real risk that the Internet will be transformed into a tool for political control’.

The following countries are listed as ‘Enemies of the Internet’: Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, North Korea, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Uzbekistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.

Assessment of Turkey

According to the European Security and Cooperation Organization (OSCE), Turkey banned access to about 3,700 internet sites mostly for ‘arbitrary and political reasons’. The majority of these sites are of foreign origin, deal with the Kurdish question or aim at homosexual communities.

There is no doubt that the most well known incident in the media is the global video sharing site YouTube. The site has been banned since May 2008 because of videos that allegedly affronted the remembrance of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the modern Turkish nation, and clips that were supposed to constitute an attack of the Turkish nation.

Between March 2007 and June 2008, different courts took a total of 47 decisions related to the access ban of YouTube. The Internet Technology Association (İNETD) applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the grounds of violating the right to freedom of expression. MySpace.com was blocked for the duration of one month in September 2009 by reason of ‘violating copyrights’.

The report furthermore mentions the access bans imposed on Günlük newspaper and istanbul.indymedia.org, trials against Barış Yarkadaş from Gerçek Gündem and Ali Barış Kurt and Mehmet Kökçüoğlu from the Güneşin Çocukları (‘Children of the sun’) website and the punishments handed down to Hacı Boğatekin from gerger.fırat.net and Cumali Badur from Gergerim.com.

Additionally, the report addresses the issue of gazetevatan.com website publishing director Ayiln Duruoğlu and Devrimci Hareket magazine employee Mehmet Yeşiltepe, who were detained for ten months and touches on the hacking of the website of Armenian Agos newspaper by a self-declared admirer of the murderer of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. (EÖ/VK)

Net filters to hit social networks

March 1, 2010

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he would consider introducing an internet ombudsman after Facebook tributes to two dead children were defaced with pornography.

Rudd said he would look into an idea put forward by Independent Senator Nick Xenophon to appoint an official who would be responsible for taking complaints and action against such material.

‘We actually need to do everything we can to combat cyber crime,’ Rudd said.

‘The role of cyber crime and internet bullying on children is, frankly, frightening and we need to be deploying all practical measures.’

Memorial pages on the social networking site for eight-year-old Trinity Bates and Elliott Fletcher, 12, who were allegedly murdered in separate incidents this month, have been vandalised with offensive material.

Rudd said responsible governments were obliged to act to protect children.

‘And this is where we get into this really stupid debate with what I’d describe as extreme civil libertarianism, which says any such move in that direction means the imposition of Soviet Communism a la 1980,’ Rudd said.

‘Look, it’s not like that. It’s not perfect, but we need to reduce the problem.’

Rudd also defended the government’s proposed internet filter, which is designed to block child pornography, terrorist material and other extreme and offensive information, saying it was in line with how movies and videos were censored.

He said the filtering, which will be carried out by Internet service providers, slowed the speed of web-surfing but only to ‘the equivalent to 1/70th of the blink of an eye.’

‘It’s not perfect, but let me tell you I will not stand idly by and allow this sort of muck to be put online without making an effort to reduce it, given the enormous impact it has on the safety of children,’ Rudd said.

The move has proved controversial among internet user groups as well as web giants Google and Yahoo!, and prompted activists to launch an attack shutting down government sites earlier this month.

Stephen Conroy’s Internet Filter Opposed by MPs

Opposition grows to internet filter
ARI SHARP COMMUNICATIONS CORRESPONDENT
February 25, 2010

Senator Conroy has won the backing of cabinet and is awaiting debate about the internet filtering plan in the party room next month. Photo: Andrew Meares

BACKBENCH MPs on both sides of politics opposed to the government’s internet filtering proposal are vigorously lobbying their colleagues, creating a potential roadblock to the plan backed by the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy.

A group of four young Liberal MPs – Simon Birmingham, Alex Hawke, Michael Johnson and Jamie Briggs – are leading the charge against the filter within the Coalition, while the Labor senator Kate Lundy is putting a case to her colleagues in favour of an optional filter.

Senator Conroy has won the backing of cabinet and is awaiting debate in the party room next month, while the Coalition is waiting for more detail. With the Greens indicating their opposition, the Coalition’s position is likely to decide the filter’s fate.

The government’s proposal involves internet service providers blocking access to websites that appear on a blacklist because of content that falls foul of Australia’s classification guidelines, including portrayals of sexual violence and instructions on committing crime.

Mr Hawke said his biggest objection was that the mandatory nature of the filter took control out of the hands of individuals, while he also had doubts about filtering’s effectiveness.

”The government’s stated aim of filtering child pornography is not something that many people could disagree with, but the point is it won’t achieve that end,” he told the Herald. ”People will still be able to access that illegal content … and it will do all sorts of other things such as slow down the internet, plus potentially there will be lists of things censored that we don’t really want censored.”

One Liberal MP said older members of the party room were more sympathetic to the government position, while another claimed the issue was resonating with the electorate.

Despite the vocal opposition, McNair Ingenuity research released a fortnight ago found support for the filter running at 80 per cent.

On the Labor side, Senator Lundy has put forward an alternative ”optional filtering” proposal, by which households will be able to indicate to their internet service provider whether they want a filter rather than having one automatically put in place.

Senator Conroy remains resolute in his support for the filter, and through a spokeswoman noted the legislation was scheduled during the autumn session of Parliament, which runs until next month.

”The government believes this content has no place in a civilised society,” the spokeswoman said, noting the filter would bring overseas hosted internet material in line with Australian internet content and offline material such as DVDs and magazines.

The shadow communications spokesman, Tony Smith, said the Coalition supported measures to protect children from inappropriate online content.

(Entry by Dr. Yaman Akdeniz)

Good news and bad news at the same time. Glad the Lords thought the government’s plan was no good but at the same time they offered “court ordered blocking powers” as an alternative measure. Website blocking is a crude measure and it is not even half a preventative measure. It does not address the “problem” and by blocking access to websites the alleged infringements d o not disappear. What happens is that users are punished rather than the offenders who uploaded the allegedly infringing materials in the first place.

I have recently addressed the problems associated with regards to blocking access to websites within the Turkish context and my analysis can be found in an OSCE report: Akdeniz, Y., Report of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on Turkey and Internet Censorship, January 2010, at <http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2010/01/42294_en.pdf>.

BBC News – Lords force rethink of government’s online piracy plans

04 March, 2010

The government has been defeated in the House of Lords over measures to tackle online piracy after opponents said the plans could hamper digital innovation.

Ministers want the power to change laws on online copyright in future without the need for further legislation. The Lords said the ‘blanket nature’ of the clause was ‘objectionable’.
But their chosen replacement – giving courts the right to block internet sites which are infringing copyright – has also prompted criticism.

The government argued that the new Digital Economy Bill should include the power to amend copyright law to ensure legislation could cope with more technically advanced forms of piracy in the future.

But Google and Facebook were among the firms to express ‘grave concerns’ about the provision, saying it could allow ministers to ‘increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place’.

‘Swift recourse’

And on Wednesday, Lords voted to support a Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment to the bill which paves the way for the clause to be scrapped. Lib Dem spokesman Lord Clement-Jones said it would be replaced with a measure allowing courts to use injunctions to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites. He said the ‘more proportionate, specific and appropriate’ measure, approved by 165 votes to 140, would tackle websites offering films or music illegally.

‘There are several sites out there on the web, many of which are based outside the UK, which refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content – indeed whose business plan depends on supplying illegal content,’ Lord Clement-Jones said.

“We cannot rely on the front bench of any major party to respect or understand the internet and modern technology” Pirate Party UK

‘At the moment it is not explicit what could be done about such sites.

‘This site-blocking remedy would give rights holders an explicit, swift recourse to courts to block access to those sites.’

He added: ‘I believe this is going to send a powerful message… that we do not believe in censoring the internet, but we are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally.’

But the amendment has caused just as much concern in some quarters.

Search engines

The Internet Services Providers’ Association said it would lead to ‘blocking based on accusation rather than a court injunction’.

“I don’t think it would be sensible or appropriate to adopt this approach” – Lord Young of Norwood Green, junior innovation minister, on site-blocking

The Open Rights Group said the industry was ‘faced with an appalling sight’ – a choice between the government’s flawed stance, and that of the Lib Dems and Tories, who are ‘pushing an approach likely to produce straightforward threats, bans and withdrawals of sites with user generated content’.

Pirate Party UK, which campaigns on the issue, said the new measure does not require offending websites to be hosting the infringing material, only that such material is ‘accessible at or via’ the location.

Therefore, it said it could affect search engines like Google and sites like YouTube, adding: ‘Today’s events clearly demonstrate that we cannot rely on the front bench of any major party to respect or understand the internet and modern technology.’

Junior innovation minister Lord Young of Norwood Green said blocking websites was an ‘enormous step’.

He said it would be hard to block sites offering illegal content without also blocking legitimate material, and agreed that sites linking to other sites – such as search engines – could be adversely affected.

‘I don’t think it would be sensible or appropriate to adopt this approach,’ he warned during the debate on the bill.

Curiouser and curiouser: Aussie gov censors the censorship news: “

Now we’re not allowed to know who is responsible

Debate over internet filtering in Australia is rapidly descending from high comedy into total farce, as Communications Minister Stephen Conroy ploughs on with his interesting approach of never committing just one gaffe – when he can so easily commit two.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

LibDems back copyright takedowns: “

Last minute amendment spooks ISPs

Mandybill The LibDems shadow culture minister in the Lords has tabled an amendment allowing the Courts to grant injunctions against ISPs – blocking off sections of the internet found to host infringing material. It’s similar to the DMCA-style proposal punted by the BPI in the new year, which we exclusively revealed.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

YouTube's new tool for kid-safe viewing: (Net Family News)
More than 33 billion online videos were watched during December and about a third of the them were on YouTube, according to comScore’s latest figures. A 2008 study by Nielsen found that YouTube was 2-to-11-year-olds’ No. 1 video viewing site (see this). So parents will probably be happy to know that YouTube now has its own filter for sexually explicit or violent content. ‘While no filter is 100% perfect, Safety Mode is another step in our ongoing desire to give you greater control over the content you see on the site,’ says the YouTube blog.

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

DE – New Internet Legislation Embarrasses German Government: “(Der Spiegel)
A new bill to fight child pornography has been signed into law by Germany’s president. There’s only one problem: The government has decided it no longer wants it. They are now in the awkward position of relying on opposition help to repeal the legislation. It was supposed to be an initiative to stop child pornography on the Internet. But now the German government finds itself in a uniquely awkward situation after a bill which it no longer wanted was signed into law by the country’s president. German President Horst Köhler signed the law after deciding that there were ‘no significant concerns’ regarding the law’s compatibility with the German constitution. The Access Impediment Law, as it is known, is aimed at combating child pornography and allows access to offensive Web sites to be blocked.
However the German coalition government, which pairs Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives with the business-friendly Free Democratic Party, has decided it no longer wants the law, which was massively opposed by Internet users. Instead of blocking access to Web sites, it now wants to delete offensive Internet content instead.

“

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

Worth reading this one….

Terrorism Act 2006 section 3 Internet Censorship powers have *never* been invoked: “

Back in October 2005 this Spy Blog article Terrorism Bill 2005 – part 2 of our comments asked:

Why is there any need for regulation in this area at all ? The existing Acceptable Use Policies of all UK website operators, for example, already means that there are no public ‘terrorist websites’ operating from servers within the United Kingdom.

If the intention is to somehow stop impressionable people from falling into the clutches of terrorist recruiters, then this is already as effective as it will ever be.

If people are already moving within extremist circles, then private websites, especially those hosted abroad, are beyond the competence and legal jurisdiction of the Home Office or the UK Police.

Any attempts to ‘disrupt’ these systems, such as those hosted in, say China, could easily be interpreted as ‘cyber war’, which would damage the UK economy far more than the slight, temporary effect that ‘disruption’ of such sites would have on the terrorists. It would also remove the opportunity for covert surveillance of such ‘honeypots’ for intelligence gathering purposes.

It now turns out that this inept Labour Government’s scaremongering and controversial Terrorism Act 2006 section 3 Application of ss. 1 and 2 to internet activity etc.. which relates to section 1 ‘Encouragement of terrorism’ and / or section 2. ‘Dissemination of terrorist publications’, have never actually been invoked.

HL Deb, 10 February 2010, c168W

Terrorism: Internet
House of Lords
Written answers and statements, 10 February 2010

Baroness Warsi (Shadow Minister (Community Cohesion and Social Action), Communities and Local Government; Conservative)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many times the police have used powers under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to seek the removal or modification of unlawful terrorist-related material from the internet in each of the last six months.

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office; Labour)

The Home Office and ACPO (TAM) have set up a new unit, the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU), which was launched in a pilot capacity on 1 February 2010. The CTIRU is responsible for the co-ordination and execution of voluntary and Section 3 take-down notices. Further details on the CTIRU, including statistics regarding take-downs, will be available in due course.

To date, the preferred route for removing potentially unlawful terrorist content is through informal contact between the police and the internet service provider. This approach has proved effective. As a result, it has not been necessary to use the formal powers given under the Terrorism Act 2006 to seek the removal or modification of unlawful terrorist-related material from the internet.

Note the creation of Yet Another Unaccountable Bureaucratic Quango, the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU)

The legal powers under the Terrorism Act 2006, were, typically, and totally unnecessarily, made available to any Police Constable, no matter how ill trained, or ignorant of the internet or of free speech or religious freedom issues.

Why did the original legislation not restrict these legal power only to members of a properly trained unit, dedicated full time to the task, as, hopefully the CTIRU now is ?

Before the Terrorism Act 2006, UK based internet and telecommunications companies always cooperated voluntarily with the Police, and they appear to have done so since.

Before the Terrorism Act 2006, foreign based internet companies had no obligation to cooperate and neither do they now.

What was the point of it all ?

Why not simply repeal this Act, with no loss in effectiveness whatsoever against real terrorists, and thereby nullifying somewhat, the propaganda victory which these repressive powers handed to the terrorists ?

“

(Via Spy Blog – SpyBlog.org.uk.)

Aid Urged for Groups Fighting Internet Censors: “Five United States senators want the government to move ahead with plans to provide $45 million to help people in other countries evade Web restrictions.”

(Via NYT > Freedom of Speech and Expression.)