CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘Glorification’ Category

No violation of Article 10 with regards to a cartoon which was published on 13 September, 2001. The European Court of Human Rights held that the publication of a drawing (cartoon) representing the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, with a caption which parodied the advertising slogan of a famous brand: “We have all dreamt of it… Hamas did it” provoked a certain public reaction, capable of stirring up violence and demonstrating a plausible impact on public order in a politically sensitive region, namely the Basque Country. The drawing was published in the Basque weekly newspaper Ekaitza on 13 September, 2001, two days after the attacks of September 11.

The European Court of Human Rights on 02.10.2008 notified in writing its Chamber judgment in the case of Leroy v. France (application no. 36109/03).

The Court held unanimously that there had been

· no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the applicant’s conviction for complicity in condoning terrorism;

· a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention on account of the failure to communicate to the applicant the reporting judge’s report to the Court of Cassation.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court concluded unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Leroy and awarded him 1,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
(more…)

Interesting development, I noticed this on Melonfarmers.co.uk but I am not sure what the Home Office means by “state of the art filtering technology” Does such a thing exist yet? Well, I have not seen specialized software which filter out “terrorism related content” yet and I wonder what is included within that categorization. However, the categorization is bound to be broad as the Home Office press release refers to “websites that may encourage the endorsement or participation in acts of terrorism”. No one seems to know how to obtain the “supposedly free to download” state of the art software. Please do let me know if you find it so that I can do some tests and see what they really are trying to protect us from! [Yaman Akdeniz]

Home Office: Industry and government work together to tackle internet terror

18 November 2008

State-of-the art filtering technology will allow parents, schools, businesses and web users to further restrict access to websites advocating or promoting terrorism.

Following joint work between the internet industry and government, web users now have the opportunity to download software allowing them to restrict access to websites that may encourage the endorsement or participation in acts of terrorism.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced the initiative so parents and guardians of vulnerable young people can further enhance internet safety for their home computers.

The software can be downloaded voluntarily and is available to parents, schools, colleges and businesses.

The Home Secretary’s statement
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said, ‘Stopping people becoming or supporting terrorists is the major long-term challenge we face. I want to give parents and guardians the power to decide what content is downloaded on their computers at home, which is why we have worked hard to develop these tools with various software companies.

‘Building on the work we have done around child protection on the Internet, this software is a significant step in making the Internet a safer place for vulnerable people and these tools will also offer our schools, colleges and businesses further safety nets.

‘It is reassuring that filtering software companies are taking the threat of on-line terrorism seriously and have developed the appropriate tools for all internet users. I would like to thank them for their hard work’

Notes to editors
* This software launch follows a speech the Home Secretary made on the 17 January 2008 where she outlined government engagement with the Internet industry around radicalisation and violent extremism on the net. The government has since been working with various companies that provide filtering and parental control software to ensure that their products provide a high level of protection against material that promotes or encourages terrorism.
* Many internet service providers (ISPs)offer filtering products as part of their internet access package, and broadband subscriptions in the UK usually come with free filtering options.
* In order to download the software, check whether a free filtering product is available through your broadband package or from your ISP.”

Plug Pulled on Hamas’ YouTube Ripoff | Danger Room from Wired.com

By Noah Shachtman EmailOctober 15, 2008 | 4:44:00 PMCategories: Info War, T is for Terror

Aqsatube_grab1 A few weeks ago, Western intelligence officials discovered that the Palestinian jihadist group Hamas had set up a video-sharing site — to spread propaganda and to train would-be terrorists. Now, that radical Islamic answer to YouTube is offline. And jihadists are blaming the FBI for the takedown.

AqsaTube mimicked the mainstream video site in almost every way. Users could watch clips, and upload their own. Even the two logos were basically the same. ‘The Hamas site, however, is devoted entirely to propaganda and incitement,’ explained Israel’s Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center, or ITIC. Material included demonstrations of how to detonate explosives and fire weapons, speeches from Hamas and al-Qaeda leaderships, episodes from a popular Syrian TV drama and clips of kids in military uniforms — while a musician sings, ‘death is fame and victory.’

As we’ve noted before, today’s jihadists don’t just use the internet occasionally. ‘They don’t exist without the web,’ says Naval Postgraduate School professor John Arquilla. Everything from recruiting to training to propaganda is handled online.

AqsaTube also included Google ads, and links to al-Aqsa TV, Hamas’ television channel. However, Samir Abu Mahsen, head of production of al-Aqsa TV, tells the BBC that the video site ‘does not belong to al-Aqsa TV.’

This is the second time in a little more than a month that an extremist video distribution network has been taken offline. The al-Ekhlaas network of sites had long been a primary distributor of videos from al-Sahab, al-Qaida’s propaganda arm. Then, on Sept. 11, al-Ekhlaas.net was suddenly re-registered. All of its content vanished.

As in the case of the al-Ekhlaas takedown, militant forums blamed Western intelligence agencies for the unplugging of AqsaTube. But it appears a little sunlight may have done the trick, instead.

AqsaTube’s internet service provider was the French firm OVH. The company ‘initially denied hosting AqsaTube, according to the BBC, ‘but later confirmed that the website had been hosted by them and had now been taken offline.’

Flaws in YouTube gangster video vetting exposed – Times Online

From The Times, September 18, 2008: Flaws in YouTube gangster video vetting exposed

A Times investigation has exposed failures in the video-sharing website’s monitoring system and prompted action to tighten security

Marcus Leroux, Kaya Burgess and Fran Yeoman

YouTube, the world’s largest video-sharing website, this week removed over two dozen videos glorifying gangs and gang violence which had been on its website in some cases for over 18 months.

Following a Times investigation into harmful and inappropriate material on Youtube, the website took down 30 film clips, most shot in grainy video showing hooded youths brandishing illegal weapons such as machetes, hand guns and even sub-machine guns. Google admitted they were clearly in breach of its own user guidelines which had recently been revised to deal with gang videos.

Google’s Head of Communications in Britain, former Newsnight editor Peter Barron, said that as a result of concern about the use of the website by gangs, it had now introduced new guidelines prohibiting users from showing weapons in their videos in order to intimidate people, but that these had only “gone live” on Friday.

He blamed “teething problems” with the new policy for the fact that its own monitors had failed to removed the material after a Times reporter posing as an ordinary user had flagged them up as inappropriate three days after the new policy had been introduced.
(more…)

YouTube is introducing UK specific rules, and the Turkish media is furious that YouTube is not sensitive to Turkey’s sensitivities and concerns with regards to certain types of content available through YouTube. Other countries and governments will also start complaining following this new announcement. It is not easy to get the balance right with regards to what should be permissible or not but YouTube will be pressured to have more of these “customized community guidelines” for accessing its content.

[Note also The Guardian, YouTube bans violent videos, 12.09.2008]

YouTube bans videos which glamorise guns and knives | Technology | The Guardian

· UK-specific rules follow glorification claims
· Website refuses to change way content is checked

Owen Gibson, media correspondent, The Guardian, Thursday September 18 2008

The Google-owned video sharing website YouTube has moved to counter criticism that it helps fuel gang violence by introducing new rules to ban submissions that glamorise guns and knives.

The UK-specific rule will ban videos ’showing weapons with the aim of intimidation’ after criticism that fierce battles were being fuelled by rival members posting videos.

Last summer the Guardian revealed how videos on YouTube displayed the ‘barely concealed culture of violent gangs glorying in crime’ in the area of Liverpool where 11-year-old Rhys Jones was shot dead.

In July the culture, media and sport select committee criticised the website, on to which 10 hours of video are uploaded every minute, for not protecting users enough from the ‘dark side’ of internet content.

A Google spokesman said: ‘There has been particular concern over videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of the areas we are addressing.’

The move comes days after YouTube also introduced new global guidelines to outlaw content that ‘directly incites violence’. In a blog post to users late last week it said: ‘We realise it’s not always obvious where we draw the line on content that’s acceptable to upload. We’ve updated the community guidelines … included in the update are a few new things to steer clear of, like not directly inciting violence.’

Other existing rules relate to the posting of videos that show violence and include ‘hate speech’. But the new rules will not change the internet giant’s stance on the way content is regulated.

It is committed to a policy of user-moderation, arguing it is impractical for it to vet every video before it is posted. Once a video is flagged up as potentially inappropriate YouTube’s staff examine it and remove it if it breaks the guidelines.

The media select committee, chaired by John Whittingdale, the Tory MP for Maldon and East Chelmsford, had called on video sharing sites to undertake a ‘proactive review of content’ to ‘quarantine’ material until it was deemed suitable to be posted.

But Google said such an approach was impractical. ‘YouTube is a community site used by millions of people in very positive ways. Sadly, as with any form of communication, a tiny minority of people will try to break the rules,’ said a spokesman.

‘When users see content they think is inappropriate they can flag it. If the content breaks our terms we aim to remove it quickly and if a user repeatedly breaks the rules we will disable their account.’

The site, bought by Google for $1.65bn (£92m) in 2006 just 18 months after it launched, has faced consistent criticism on both sides of the Atlantic over some of the videos posted by its huge user base.

As well as unsuitable or offensive videos, copyright holders have complained that their material is being posted without their permission. The media giant Viacom and the English Premier League are among those who have launched legal action against what they see as copyright infringement on a grand scale.

Here too, YouTube argues that it takes videos down as soon as they are flagged up by copyright holders.

David Edgar: This muddled terror law limits free speech and wrecks innocent lives: Comment is free, The Guardian: The glorification clause of the Terrorism Act has created a climate where artists and academics must watch their words.

Written by David Edgar, The Guardian, Tuesday July 22 2008″

A student downloads an al-Qaida document from a US government website and is held in custody for six days. A shop assistant writes poems about cutting people’s heads off and is tried for being a terrorist. An opera composer is accused of promoting terrorism, objects, and is bankrupted by a national newspaper.

What do these cases have in common? First, none of these people was successfully convicted of any crime. Second, none of them faced charges under the glorification clause of the Terrorism Act 2006. Third, they would not have been arrested and/or tried and/or bankrupted had it not been a climate of opinion created by that clause.