CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

PRESS RELEASE CONCERNING TWITTER DETENTIONS

LONDON, UK: 05 June 2013

Yaman Akdeniz & Kerem Altıparmak

On 04 June and 05 June 2013, it has been reported that at least 24 people have been taken into custody in İzmir due to the tweets they sent. At this time, it is impossible to learn the details given the secrecy of the investigation. At the same time, it is necessary to issue this statement given the fact that many people have been subject to the same accusation.

1. The investigation seems to have been launched by virtue of articles 214 and 217 of the Turkish Penal Code that concern incitement to commit a crime and disobey the law.

Article 214, incitement to commit a crime states: (1) The person who openly incites the committing of a crime shall be punished from six months to five years. (2) The person who arms one part of the nation against the other and incites their murder shall be punished from fifteen to twenty four years of imprisonment. (3) If the act is committed, the inciter shall be punished as the instigator.

Article 217, incitement to disobey the law states: (1) The person openly inciting the people to disobey the law, shall be punished from six months to two years if the incitement amounts to disturb the public peace.

While these articles have not been much used against freedom of speech so far, the principles that apply to other articles concerning freedom of speech in the Penal Code shall also be applicable here.

2. Therefore, the international human rights standards as set out in the European Convention on Human rights shall be taken into consideration when applying articles 214 and 217. According to the European Court of Human Rights, in order to limit an expression it either has to contain hate speech or has to directly cause violence. An invitation in the social media and in particular in Twitter to a demonstration and parade, giving a political message, sharing a self-recorded or media accessible expression, video and photo may not be limited unless it openly amounts to “incitement to violence”.

3. Under human rights law, public authorities have to prove a very high standard for something to constitute incitement to violence. This must take into consideration by whom the expression was made, to whom and in what type of atmosphere it was addressed by what means and the tone of what is being said. In an atmosphere where hundred thousands of people have been demonstrating for days, the interpretation of sharing messages in social media and in Twitter as amounting to something they would not do is distortion of reality if not bad faith.

4. Further, when freedom of expression is to be limited, it is not enough to take into consideration only the freedom of those subject to investigation. The limitation of one person’s freedom of speech may effect tens of thousands of people who want to express the same opinion. It is easy to observe that especially when it comes to social media and Twitter this effect is much deeper. In the freedom of speech theory, this is known as the “chilling effect”. In many decisions of the European Court of Human Rights it has been underlined that this effect is seen as something that violates freedom of speech. While only 24 people have been taken into custody, its effect is not limited to these 24 people, but reach ten thousands of social media users who has been worried by the investigation. This is unacceptable in a democratic regime which requires the protection of freedom of speech.

5. The public authorities that constitute the three branches should never forget that freedom of speech constitutes the core principle of a democracy and their main duty is to guarantee this freedom. Unfortunately, in every political problem it runs into, Turkey adopts new penal laws or practices that limit freedom of speech. In an environment where just a month ago, freedom of expression has been expanded with the fourth judicial amendment round, articles 214 and 217 that have not been subject to the package are being used as pretexts for limiting freedom of speech. The only way to overcome this wrong approach commonly employed is to interpret all laws in accordance with international human rights standards.

6. For the reasons expressed above, the investigation of expression used in the social media that do not have any causal link to violence shall be stopped immediately. Accessing those messages is a violation of the right to privacy and subjecting them to investigation should be legally sanctioned without delay.

7. Contrary to the statement of the prime minister, social media is not a menace but a sine qua non of democracy. In this new world if there is no social media or Twitter there shall be no democracy.

PRESS RELEASE CONCERNING TWITTER DETENTIONS

LONDON, UK: 05 June 2013

Yaman Akdeniz & Kerem Altıparmak

On 04 June and 05 June 2013, it has been reported that at least 24 people have been taken into custody in İzmir due to the tweets they sent. At this time, it is impossible to learn the details given the secrecy of the investigation. At the same time, it is necessary to issue this statement given the fact that many people have been subject to the same accusation.

1. The investigation seems to have been launched by virtue of articles 214 and 217 of the Turkish Penal Code that concern incitement to commit a crime and disobey the law.

Article 214, incitement to commit a crime states: (1) The person who openly incites the committing of a crime shall be punished from six months to five years. (2) The person who arms one part of the nation against the other and incites their murder shall be punished from fifteen to twenty four years of imprisonment. (3) If the act is committed, the inciter shall be punished as the instigator.

Article 217, incitement to disobey the law states: (1) The person openly inciting the people to disobey the law, shall be punished from six months to two years if the incitement amounts to disturb the public peace.

While these articles have not been much used against freedom of speech so far, the principles that apply to other articles concerning freedom of speech in the Penal Code shall also be applicable here.

2. Therefore, the international human rights standards as set out in the European Convention on Human rights shall be taken into consideration when applying articles 214 and 217. According to the European Court of Human Rights, in order to limit an expression it either has to contain hate speech or has to directly cause violence. An invitation in the social media and in particular in Twitter to a demonstration and parade, giving a political message, sharing a self-recorded or media accessible expression, video and photo may not be limited unless it openly amounts to “incitement to violence”.

3. Under human rights law, public authorities have to prove a very high standard for something to constitute incitement to violence. This must take into consideration by whom the expression was made, to whom and in what type of atmosphere it was addressed by what means and the tone of what is being said. In an atmosphere where hundred thousands of people have been demonstrating for days, the interpretation of sharing messages in social media and in Twitter as amounting to something they would not do is distortion of reality if not bad faith.

4. Further, when freedom of expression is to be limited, it is not enough to take into consideration only the freedom of those subject to investigation. The limitation of one person’s freedom of speech may effect tens of thousands of people who want to express the same opinion. It is easy to observe that especially when it comes to social media and Twitter this effect is much deeper. In the freedom of speech theory, this is known as the “chilling effect”. In many decisions of the European Court of Human Rights it has been underlined that this effect is seen as something that violates freedom of speech. While only 24 people have been taken into custody, its effect is not limited to these 24 people, but reach ten thousands of social media users who has been worried by the investigation. This is unacceptable in a democratic regime which requires the protection of freedom of speech.

5. The public authorities that constitute the three branches should never forget that freedom of speech constitutes the core principle of a democracy and their main duty is to guarantee this freedom. Unfortunately, in every political problem it runs into, Turkey adopts new penal laws or practices that limit freedom of speech. In an environment where just a month ago, freedom of expression has been expanded with the fourth judicial amendment round, articles 214 and 217 that have not been subject to the package are being used as pretexts for limiting freedom of speech. The only way to overcome this wrong approach commonly employed is to interpret all laws in accordance with international human rights standards.

6. For the reasons eluded above, the investigation of expression used in the social media that do not have any causal link to violence shall be stopped immediately. Accessing those messages is a violation of the right to privacy and subjecting them to investigation should be legally sanctioned without delay.

7. Contrary to the statement of the prime minister, social media is not a menace but a sine qua non of democracy. In this new world if there is no social media or Twitter there shall be no democracy.

PRESS RELEASE CONCERNING TWITTER DETENTIONS

LONDON, UK: 05 June 2013

Yaman Akdeniz & Kerem Altıparmak

On 04 June and 05 June 2013, it has been reported that at least 24 people have been taken into custody in İzmir due to the tweets they sent. At this time, it is impossible to learn the details given the secrecy of the investigation. At the same time, it is necessary to issue this statement given the fact that many people have been subject to the same accusation.

1. The investigation seems to have been launched by virtue of articles 214 and 217 of the Turkish Penal Code that concern incitement to commit a crime and disobey the law.

Article 214, incitement to commit a crime states: (1) The person who openly incites the committing of a crime shall be punished from six months to five years. (2) The person who arms one part of the nation against the other and incites their murder shall be punished from fifteen to twenty four years of imprisonment. (3) If the act is committed, the inciter shall be punished as the instigator.

Article 217, incitement to disobey the law states: (1) The person openly inciting the people to disobey the law, shall be punished from six months to two years if the incitement amounts to disturb the public peace.

While these articles have not been much used against freedom of speech so far, the principles that apply to other articles concerning freedom of speech in the Penal Code shall also be applicable here.

2. Therefore, the international human rights standards as set out in the European Convention on Human rights shall be taken into consideration when applying articles 214 and 217. According to the European Court of Human Rights, in order to limit an expression it either has to contain hate speech or has to directly cause violence. An invitation in the social media and in particular in Twitter to a demonstration and parade, giving a political message, sharing a self-recorded or media accessible expression, video and photo may not be limited unless it openly amounts to “incitement to violence”.

3. Under human rights law, public authorities have to prove a very high standard for something to constitute incitement to violence. This must take into consideration by whom the expression was made, to whom and in what type of atmosphere it was addressed by what means and the tone of what is being said. In an atmosphere where hundred thousands of people have been demonstrating for days, the interpretation of sharing messages in social media and in Twitter as amounting to something they would not do is distortion of reality if not bad faith.

4. Further, when freedom of expression is to be limited, it is not enough to take into consideration only the freedom of those subject to investigation. The limitation of one person’s freedom of speech may effect tens of thousands of people who want to express the same opinion. It is easy to observe that especially when it comes to social media and Twitter this effect is much deeper. In the freedom of speech theory, this is known as the “chilling effect”. In many decisions of the European Court of Human Rights it has been underlined that this effect is seen as something that violates freedom of speech. While only 24 people have been taken into custody, its effect is not limited to these 24 people, but reach ten thousands of social media users who has been worried by the investigation. This is unacceptable in a democratic regime which requires the protection of freedom of speech.

5. The public authorities that constitute the three branches should never forget that freedom of speech constitutes the core principle of a democracy and their main duty is to guarantee this freedom. Unfortunately, in every political problem it runs into, Turkey adopts new penal laws or practices that limit freedom of speech. In an environment where just a month ago, freedom of expression has been expanded with the fourth judicial amendment round, articles 214 and 217 that have not been subject to the package are being used as pretexts for limiting freedom of speech. The only way to overcome this wrong approach commonly employed is to interpret all laws in accordance with international human rights standards.

6. For the reasons eluded above, the investigation of expression used in the social media that do not have any causal link to violence shall be stopped immediately. Accessing those messages is a violation of the right to privacy and subjecting them to investigation should be legally sanctioned without delay.

7. Contrary to the statement of the prime minister, social media is not a menace but a sine qua non of democracy. In this new world if there is no social media or Twitter there shall be no democracy.

AU – Google and Yahoo raise doubts over planned net filters: “(BBC)
Google and Yahoo have joined two Australian organisations calling for a ‘rethink’ of the country’s controversial internet filter plans. The Australian government has announced proposals to introduce a mandatory filter which would block all RC (Refused Classification) content. The groups argue that the subjects covered by RC material are too wide-ranging for a blanket ban. They also warn that the filter will not ‘effectively protect children’.

“

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

EU – The Impact of Social Computing on the EU Information Society and Economy: “(IPTS)
This report by the The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies provides a systematic empirical assessment of the creation, use and adoption of specific social computing applications and its impact on industry, personal identity, learning, social inclusion, healthcare and public health, and government services and public governance.

“

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

Wikileaks publishes BNP ‘member list’ (again): “

Haters’ data

Updated The BNP’s ‘membership list’ has been leaked for the second time in a year, it’s claimed today.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Increase in comms snooping? You ain’t seen nothing yet

Busybody bureaucrats are a sideshow

Analysis Figures from the annual report of Gordon Brown’s communications surveillance scrutineer are all over the news today, several weeks after they were released.…

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

CN – China bans online games which glamorize gangs: “(Reuters)
China has banned websites featuring or publicizing online games which glamorize mafia gangs, saying violators will be ’severely punished’. The Culture Ministry said such games ‘advocate obscenity, gambling, or violence,’ and ‘undermine morality and Chinese traditional culture,’ the official Xinhua news agency said. ‘These games encourage people to deceive, loot and kill, and glorify gangsters’ lives. It has a bad influence on youngsters,’ the report said, citing a ministry circular.

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

Spotify will put us music critics out of a jobBeyond the national sport of bellowing about who has or hasn’t made the Mercury Prize shortlist, this is the most significant year for the award since it started in 1992. It is the first year that the 12 nominated albums, the judges and the judging process are all placed by the public under the microscope of Spotify, the music downloader.

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

Major German online companies agree to block child porn websites | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 17.04.2009

German internet providers have grudgingly agreed to block websites containing child pornography. Critics say their deal with the government won’t make much of a difference.

Five of Germany’s eight major internet service providers – Deutsche Telekom’s T-Online, Vodafone’s Arcor, Kabel Deutschland, Telefonica’s O2 and Alice’s Hansenet – signed the legally binding agreement with the government and the Federal Crime Office on Friday, agreeing to install software to block consumer access to child pornography sites. The five companies together cover around 75 percent of the German market.

In future, due to the software blocks installed by the internet service providers, consumers attempting to click on blacklisted websites are to be automatically redirected to a red stop sign. The Federal Crime Office has compiled the blacklist of 1,000 sites, which it updates daily.

The online companies have six months to reprogram thousands of servers and install the page blockers. The government expects that, once these are in place, up to 450,000 attempts to access child pornography sites will be blocked daily.

German Family Minister Ursula von der Leyen proposed the law obliging ISPs to block child porn sites. It is modeled on similar action taken years ago in Scandinavia, Britain and Italy.

‘If these countries can overcome any legal and technical issues and successfully fight child porn online, we can do the same in Germany,’ von der Leyen said when she first presented the new measures. ‘We don’t want to tolerate the rape of children, even babies, being widely available in Germany,’ she added.

The law is also intended to make it harder for criminals to profit from distributing banned pedophile material.

Red sign with Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: This is what child porn surfers will soon see pop up on their computer screen

Not all on board, yet

Notably absent in the agreement are 1&1, Freenet and other internet providers who service the remaining 25 percent of the German market. They say they do not want to take the risk of breaching the telecommunications secrecy law by blocking child pornography sites. They also argue that they only provide the technical capacity to distribute information and are not responsible for content that flows through their networks.

Limiting access to information is a sensitive subject in Germany because of its Nazi past and East German Communist rule, but von der Leyen said protecting children was the priority.

‘The vulnerability and dignity of children is more important than mass communication,’ the family minister said.

The German cabinet is expected to announce changes to the telecommunications law by summer that would force the remaining internet providers to block child porn sites.

No reason to believe child porn consumption is going down

The notion that pedophiles are shadowy figures who consume child pornography at midnight is long since defunct. In an embarrassing admission a few weeks, a Social Democrat lawmaker, Joerg Tauss, admitted that he possessed child porn. He denied that he was a pedophile or doing anything wrong, saying he had collected the material for research. As a lawmaker, he ought to know that laws also govern the ‘research’ of child pornography websites.

There’s no reliable information on the extent of child pornography, but the German government says access to video and other images of child pornography on the internet more than doubled from 2006 to 2007. There has also been an increase in the amount of violence against small children they show.

The size of those child porn rings that are exposed is, however, some indication of the scope of the problem. On Thursday, German police announced they had smashed a global ring of around 9,000 suspected pedophiles in 92 countries. Pornographic images of children were transmitted from more than 1,000 connections in Germany to 8,000 IP addresses in countries including the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Austria and Switzerland. The footage included ‘images of the most serious sexual abuse, even of toddlers,’ police said in a statement.

Child porn users bypass ‘obvious’ areas

DVDE disc with the German word for child pornography handwritten on itBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Child pornography is often distributed via DVDs not the internet

Critics say the new law is practically useless, because companies abroad can easily bypass the software block. According to German computer magazine CT, a 27-second online video is already circulating showing how the block can be circumvented. Only the ‘naive internet user’ might possibly be stopped from accessing prohibited material, the magazine wrote.

‘Most child pornography material is available through private forums, like exchange sites, newsgroups, chat rooms, free areas of Usenet and e-mail distribution lists,’ says Udo Vetter, a lawyer who often represents people charged with possession of child pornography.

In an interview with CT, Vetter said ‘many simply receive the videos on DVD via the mail,’ adding that he doubted a major child pornography industry even exists. Vetter estimated that 98 percent of such images have been around for years and that the quality of most new material that surfaces seems to have been made by private individuals in a domestic setting.

Others criticize the government deal with the ISPs as being too short-sighted.

‘Blocking internet pages containing child pornography is only one step towards preventing the abuse of children and only reaches ‘the lower echelons’ of pedophiles, says legal expert Axel Stahl, head of the association of federal judges and prosecutors in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Stahl warned against excessively high expectations, saying that foreign companies that produce child pornography will surely find ways to bypass the new technical limitations.

Scarcity can actually increase demand

‘The new rules mean gaining access to child pornography will become more difficult, but it won’t stop material from being published,’ says Otto Vollmers, who represents FSM, a German industry organization that advocates voluntary self-control of the internet. ‘Making access technically more difficult can actually arouse greater interest.’

However, similar measures in other countries suggest that blocks so work.

‘Between 15,000 and 50,000 access attempts are blocked in Norway and Sweden every day,’ said Friedemann Schindler of the German youth protection initiative jugendschutz.de. ‘This is undermining demand and is breaking the commercial cycle.’

lyf/ncy, Reuters/AFP/epd