[Excerpts from the latest newsletter put out by the Global Internet Liberty Campaign at gilc.org. --Declan]
=============================================== [1] Vietnam arrests 3 over web articles =============================================== The Vietnamese government recently has detained three people for their online activities. Son Hong Pham allegedly wrote and translated various pro-democracy papers that were then posted on the Information Superhighway. Vietnamese authorities had initially questioned him on this subject and confiscated various personal items, including computer equipment and numerous documents. When the government denied his requests to reclaim his belongings, he posted an open letter on the Internet to protest their decision. Subsequently, Vietnamese officials threw him in prison; no trial date has been announced yet. Meanwhile, the government is keeping at least two other online dissidents behind bars. Tran Khue, a scholar and anti-corruption activist, had posted a letter on the Internet that called on Chinese leader Jiang Zemin to reassess portions of various Chinese-Vietnamese treaties. He was later placed under house arrest by Vietnamese authorities, and local police seized a number of his possessions, including his computer, cell phones and several papers. Meanwhile, Le Chi Quang, a computer instructor, was accused of passing along "dangerous information" across borders, and has been sent to a detention camp in northern Vietnam. This came not long after the online appearance of "Beware of the Northern Empire"-an essay he wrote that described the political environment in which the aforementioned treaties were signed. The arrests have drawn strong protests from free speech advocates. Robert Menard, the general secretary of Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), said that the arrest of Son Hong Pham, "the third in just over a month, is a callous confirmation of the Vietnamese authorities' intention to censure freedom of expression on the Internet." Similar concerns have been expressed by other groups, including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ-a GILC member), which has issued a letter condemning the Vietnamese government for its "efforts to silence individuals who criticize official policies." An RSF statement regarding the three arrested dissidents is available at http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=1288 The CPJ letter is posted at http://iso.hrichina.org:8151/iso/news_item.adp?news_id=713 ============================================ [4] Cuba reportedly bans computer sales ============================================ For years, Cuba has limited the ability of its citizens to express themselves online. Now Cuban authorities have apparently gone a step further by barring nearly all sales of computers. While details are still somewhat sketchy, several sources have indicated that the Cuban government has issued a new directive making it illegal to sell "computers, offset printer equipment, mimeographs, photocopiers, and any other mass printing medium, as well as their parts, pieces and accessories." The ban apparently covers sales to "natural born citizens" as well as "associations, foundations, civic and nonprofit societies." The directive reportedly goes on to mention that the Ministry of Internal Commerce may make exceptions in cases "where the acquisition of this equipment or parts, pieces and accessories is indispensable." Cuban government spokespeople have given few straight answers when asked about the new rule. For example, after a reporter queried whether computer sales to the public were banned in Cuba, one official responded: "If we didn't have an embargo, there could be computers for everybody." However, several observers have suggested that the measure is designed to silence criticism of Cuba's leaders, especially through the Internet. Marta Roque from the Cuban Institute of Independent Economists, explained out that the government "knew that dissidents were buying computers and constructing Web sites." Even before the ban, individuals in Cuba who wished to speak freely online had faced numerous obstacles, including access restrictions, blocking of anti-government websites, surveillance and possible jail sentences. For further information, visit the Digital Freedom Network (DFN-a GILC member) website under http://dfn.org/news/cuba/sales-banned.htm See Thembi Mutch, "Cuba's PC dilemma," BBC News Online, April 6, 2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1910000/1910465.stm Read Julia Scheeres, "Cuba Bans PC Sales to Public," Wired News, March 25, 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,51270,00.html ============================================================ [5] Spanish LSSI bill provokes Net speech worries ============================================================ Many politicians and cyberlibertarians have denounced a Spanish proposal that they say will seriously erode human rights on the Internet. The LSSI bill (short for La Ley de Servicios de la Sociedad de la Informacion y de Comercio electronico) would essentially allow a "competent administrative authority" within the government to shut down websites unilaterally--a power that until now required court approval. The proposal's vague definitions would allow the Spanish officials to close sites for a wide variety of reasons, including economic factors (i.e. the site's owner uses the web for profit but don't pay any taxes) and public security reasons. Spanish government officials already have signaled that they plan to use these broad powers to control content along the Information Superhighway. The bill has drawn heavy fire from opponents based on its potentially damaging impact on civil liberties (particularly freedom of speech). These critics have pointed out that although the LSSI proposal includes language stating that the act will not be used against Constitutionally protected civil rights, it does not require any specific measures be taken to prevent possible abuse. The text of the LSSI bill (in PDF format) is available under http://www.mcyt.es/asp/becas_y_ayudas/pdf/anteproyecto_Issice.pdf See "La oposicion denuncia que la Ley de Internet es inconstitucional e intervencionista," El Pais, April 11, 2002 at http://www.elpais.es/articulo.html?d_date=20020411&xref=20020411elpepunet_1&; type=Tes&anchor=elpepupor ============================================================= [6] New report warns against Australian Net censor proposal ============================================================= A new comparative law study has raised public concern over an Australian state proposal to restrict Internet content. The project, which was performed by Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA-a GILC member), compared a Net censor bill currently being considered by the government of New South Wales (NSW) with Internet speech laws in other countries. The bill would make it a crime to provide online information deemed unsuitable for children, even if the information was only made available to adults. The legislation also contained procedural rules (including a shift in the burden of proof to defendants in Internet cases) that might lead to harsher treatment of online artists than their offline counterparts. After extensive research, EFA was "unable to find any indication that any country broadly comparable to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has, or intends to introduce, Internet censorship laws as restrictive as the provisions of the NSW Bill, nor as restrictive as existing Commonwealth legislation. While numerous countries have laws of general application applicable to Internet content such as child pornography or incitement to racial hatred, they do not prohibit or otherwise restrict provision of 'matter unsuitable for minors' on the Internet." Moreover, the report found a great deal of evidence that demonstrated "the ineffectiveness of national censorship laws to protect children (or adults) on the Internet." EFA had initiated the study in response to a request from NSW parliamentary leaders. According to EFA Executive Director Irene Graham, it is now likely that the proposal's language will be changed: "We're hoping they decide to just disappear this bill into the wide blue yonder... but I'd be very surprised if they don't at least recommend amendments to it." The EFA report is posted under http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html See Kate Mackenzie, "Censor laws 'in their own world'," Australian IT, April 3, 2002 at http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,4063481^15306^^nbv^,00.html ==================================================== [7] Controversial crippleware bill finally unveiled ==================================================== After months of speculation, a United States politician has introduced a bill that critics say will jeopardize free speech online. The proposal, submitted by U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings, would force the installation of copy protection routines within new consumer electronic products. Under this scheme, within a year of the bill's passage, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission would start a process to require the implementation of anti-copying "security system standards." According to various legal experts, the bill's broad definition of "digital media devices" could cover a wide variety of hardware items (from high definition television sets to cellular phones) as well as software. The proposal would also force interactive computer services to implement such security standards for any copyright material stored or transmitted through their networks and ban the sale or trafficking of "nonconforming digital media devices." Moreover, the bill would essentially make it a crime to "knowingly remove or alter any standard security technology" or to "knowingly ... make available to the public any copyrighted material where the security measure associated with a standard security technology has been removed or altered, without the authority of the copyright owner." Violators could face jail time and heavy fines. The so-called "crippleware" bill (officially titled The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act) is already receiving a hostile reception from a variety of groups, ranging from electronics makers to cyberliberties organizations. One concern is that proposal will not provide sufficient protection for the ability of individuals to make legitimate use of copyrighted works; Joe Kraus of DigitalConsumer.org warned that the proposal "allows Hollywood to pursue a policy of taking away consumers' fair use rights." In addition, Robin Gross from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member) argued that the bill "would basically give Hollywood veto power over the design of new technologies." Several industry trade groups have also come out against the proposal, including the Information Technology Association of America and the Business Software Alliance. These concerns have led at least one politician, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, to express his opposition to the measure. Meanwhile, a nearly identical bill may soon be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The text of the Hollings bill is available under http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html Read "Net users out to sink anti-piracy bill," Reuters, April 10, 2002 at http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1106-879629.html See Brad King, "Slagging Over Sagging CD Sales," Wired News, April 17, 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,51880,00.html Read Mike Musgrove, "Hollings Proposes Copyright Defense," Washington Post, March 22, 2002, page E3 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A92-2002Mar21.html See also Declan McCullagh, "Anti-Copy Bill Slams Coders," Wired News, March 22, 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,51274,00.html For coverage in German (Deutsch), read Florian Rotzer, "Kopierschutztechnik in alle digitalen Gerate," Heise Telepolis, March 22, 2002 at http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/copy/12147/1.html ============================================== [8] Bahrain gov't censors opposition webpages ============================================== Bahrain officials have barred access to a number of websites in advance of local and national elections. Reports indicate that the list of targeted groups includes several organizations, such as the British-based Bahrain Freedom Movement, that are opposed to the current government regime. Bahrain's Information Minister, Nabeel Yacoub al-Hamer, stated that while he and fellow government officials "welcome and are open for criticism, ... we don't accept offences or inciting sectarian strife." The Ministers' statement was an apparent reference to the fact that Bahrain's ruling family and the majority of the kingdom's population come from different religious sects. The move came as the country prepares for elections within the next few months. One opposition spokesperson charged that this act of censorship "stains the good image of Bahrain," and demanded that the ban be lifted. However, Yacoub al-Hamer has said that the restrictions will stay in place, at least until the contents of the sites in question are altered. See "Bahrain blocks opposition websites," BBC News Online, March 26, 2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1895000/1895005.st m The Bahrain Freedom Movement homepage is located at http://www.vob.org/ ========================================================== [9] New Chinese rules against "sensational" Net reporting ========================================================== Authorities in mainland China have issued a new set of legal directives that may further chill free speech online. The Chinese government has issued new guidelines that, among other things, bar press coverage of several issues. Chinese officials discouraged reporting on such subjects as Taiwan, AIDS outbreaks and racial tensions. Beijing also warned journalists not to propagate Western perspectives and values, disclose internal government information, encourage people to sue ruling party leaders or write sensational articles. The rules were contained in a report that specifically criticized members of the press for posting news items on the Information Superhighway. The commandments represent just the latest in a series of moves by mainland Chinese authorities to stifle dissent over the Internet. Indeed, the new regime reiterates some of the points made by past Chinese speech restrictions. For example, private websites cannot publish "news" about high-ranking Chinese officials or their families without prior approval from the government. In addition, all reports on important official policies are required to use standardized language provided by the state Xinhua news agency. Read "Beijing reins in media with new rules," Straits Times, February 25, 2002 at http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/Weekly2002/02.26.2002/China.htm ========================================= [10] ICANN faces more criticism, lawsuit ========================================= The organization tasked with running the Internet domain name system is facing added criticism and even a lawsuit over its inner workings. Many observers have savaged a decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) not to hold public elections. The decision was made at a March 2002 meeting in Ghana, where ICANN's Board of Directors passed a resolution that failed to set a date for a new electoral cycle. The measure simply suggested that Internet users should self-organize, without explicitly providing for direct participation in ICANN decision-making through voting. Moreover, the resolution suggested that ICANN should be reorganized along the lines of proposals such as the one espoused by the organization's President, M. Stuart Lynn. Lynn has pushed a scheme that would, among other things, permanently eliminate ICANN At-Large public elections. Rob Courtney from the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT-a GILC member) said his group "was disappointed and genuinely disheartened by the board's continued failure to commit itself to public representation," adding that ICANN had refused "to take what we thought were relatively reasonable steps to ensure public participation on the board." The Lynn proposal, which had been publicly released in late February 2002, has received particularly strong condemnation from around the world. A coalition of Japanese non-profit organizations, labor unionists, academics and reporters issued a joint statement arguing that the scheme "wipes out all the efforts made over the last couple of years to realize a global democracy on ICANN issues." European domain name registrars have also expressed their vehement disapproval of the plan. In addition, several ranking United States Congressmen issued a letter charging that proposals such as the Lynn plan "will make ICANN even less democratic, open, and accountable than it is today," and that ICANN management should not be allowed "to retreat on any future prospects for open, democratic, private sector-led management of certain limited technical Internet functions." The U.S. Congress now plans to hold oversight hearings on this subject. Meanwhile, ICANN is being sued by one of its own publicly elected Board members. Karl Auerbach, who is being represented in this action by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member), alleges that the domain management body has violated California laws, as well as its own rules, by restricting his access to ICANN corporate records. An EFF press release on the Auerbach lawsuit is available under http://www.eff.org/Infra/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/Auerbach_v_ICANN/200203 18_eff_icann_pr.html See "Net body sued by own official," BBC News Online, March 20, 2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1880000/1880813.stm The text of the aforementioned ICANN resolution is posted at http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#ALSCReportandAtLarge Read David McGuire, "Lawmakers Criticize Net Governance Restructuring Plan," Newsbytes, March 14, 2002 at http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175224.html See also Declan McCullagh, "Congress to Enter ICANN Fray," Wired News, March 14, 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,51041,00.html The Japanese statement opposing the Lynn proposal is available under http://www.jca.apc.org/jca-net/board/docs/icann/2002-03/index-j.html For German (Deutsch) coverage of protests from European domain registries against the Lynn proposal, see "RIPE an ICANN: Selbstverwaltung ist machbar," Heise Online, March 4, 2002 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-04.03.02-005/ ======================================================== [13] Swedish newspaper site fined for chatboard comments ======================================================== A court ruling against Sweden's largest newspaper may have serious implications on Internet free speech. AftonBladet republishes many articles from its print edition on its website. The site includes a chatboard feature allowing readers to post their own comments online. In October 2000, four user comments were posted to an AftonBladet chat area on the Middle East that allegedly contained neo-Nazi sentiments. Although the comments were quickly removed, a Swedish court nevertheless held the newspaper liable for violating national laws against hate speech, and fined the site's editor, Kalle Jungkvist. A number of experts are worried that the verdict may have a detrimental impact on freedom of expression through the Information Superhighway. Specifically, the ruling sets a precedent allowing website operators to be punished for speech activities over which they have little or no control. Indeed, some observers believe that the decision will force unmoderated online chat areas, at least in Sweden, to shutdown for fear of liability. Read Drew Cullen, "It's bloody hard to run a forum," The Register (UK), March 8, 2002 at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24352.html ======================================================== [14] Indian gov't plans ID-based web restrictions ======================================================== Want to surf the web? Please show us your ID card first. That's apparently the approach being suggested by a committee in India. The panel, which was created by the Mumbai High Court, has recommended a series of measures to prevent the viewing of controversial content. These measures include forcing cybercafe customers to show photo identification cards and retaining personal information about them. The committee also is urging such establishments to track their users' online activities, so that law enforcement agents can hunt them down. These recommendations could be adopted by the High Court within a month or so. Opponents of the proposal fear that ordinary Internet users will be intimidated from participating in online discussions. One cybercafe owner complained that, should the panel's recommendations be implemented, "[e]ven those who want to just check their mails will think twice before entering my cafe. Nobody wants to share his personal details or telephone numbers with some stranger in a cafe." See Manu Joseph, "Café Owners or Porn Police," Wired News, February 25, 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,50615,00.html =========================================================== [17] New Japanese Net tapping case renews privacy fears =========================================================== A new case has heightened public doubts over a relatively new Japanese wiretapping law. Enacted in August 2000, the statute allowed Japanese law enforcement officials to intercept various forms of communication, including private email messages. The law was highly controversial due to its apparently detrimental impact on individual privacy as well as its lack of procedural safeguards against abuse. Indeed, privacy advocates noted that the measure contained no restrictions on the use of these records for database purposes and no real restriction on the types of devices can be used for wiretapping (which some experts say will allow the unchecked use of unnecessarily intrusive surveillance tools). Recently, the Japanese Metropolitan Police Department brought a case that highlighted the government's first use of the powers granted to it under the Wiretapping law. Japanese authorities intercepted mobile phone conversations and gained access to messages stored on a particular website as part of a criminal drug investigation. However, Japanese privacy groups have criticized this move for a variety of reasons, including the fact that wiretapping was not actually necessary in this particular instance. Moreover, these organizations have expressed disapproval over the government's use of surveillance for comparatively minor offenses, rather than exercising greater discretion and reserving such invasive powers for more serious crimes. Read "Controversial wiretapping law nets first victims," Mainichi Shimbun, March 30, 2002 at http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200203/30/index.html See "Wiretaps lead to first arrests," Asahi Shimbun, April 1, 2002 at http://www.asahi.com/english/national/K2002040100234.html For further information on Japanese government Internet spying devices, click http://www.jca.apc.org/privacy/wiretap-mbox/ ============================================================ [19] New Zealand plan would mandate spyware installations ============================================================ The government of New Zealand is drafting a proposal to force the installation of surveillance devices into computer networks. The exact language of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill has yet to be revealed. However, it will apparently force Internet service providers and other telecom companies to make their systems "interception-capable." The scheme would make it easier for government agents (such as the police, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau) to capture private emails and voice messages. Assuming the bill is approved, these standards would have to be implemented within a time window of 18 months to 5 years. New Zealand Associate Minister of Justice Paul Swain claimed that the new legislation would bring his country "into line with legal requirements already in place in a number of different countries including the United States." Indeed, the general outlines of the bill bear a certain resemblance to the controversial U.S. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which has been savaged by many privacy advocates. Read Adam Creed, "New Zealand 'Interception' Laws To Cover ISPs," Newsbytes, March 21, 2002 at http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175371.html See Kate Mackenzie, "ISPs forced to spy on email," Australian IT, March 22, 2002 at http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,3999829%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E, 00.html For further background on CALEA, visit the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC-a GILC member) website under http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------
