Yahoo! Declared Not Liable for Defamation in Argentina

By BHRP

Flickr Creative Commons | Steakpinball

On August 13, 2010, an Argentine Appellate Court overturned a 2008 ruling of a lower court that had found Yahoo! de Argentina SRL and Google Argentina  liable for defamation in the case of an Argentine entertainer, Virginia Da Cunha. Da Cunha is one of several Argentine celebrities who have been seeking money damages in relation to the companies’ alleged failure to block all third-party owned and controlled sexually-oriented Web sites that contain their name or images.

In issuing the 2-1 decision in favor of the companies, the Appellate Court concluded that the companies could be held liable for damages based on a defamation claim only if they were made aware of clearly illegal content and were negligent in removing it. The Appellate Court stated:

 “…this Court finds no liability can be held against Defendants (search engines) for injurious search results that appeared on the Internet before Defendants have received notice requesting the exclusion of said search results. The mere possibility that a (defendant) search engine produces search results from third party sites that yield offensive and scandalous information about an individual, which may cause injury or damage to that person’s image or reputation, does not by itself mean that said individual has a right to seek damages directly against the search engines.”

In response to the ruling, Bill Carvalho, Yahoo’s Regional General Counsel for Americas, issued the following statement:

“Yahoo! is happy with and encouraged by the Da Cunha ruling; we believe this will set precedence for similar pending cases in Argentina. Rulings in these cases and the preliminary orders associated with them seem to reflect the Argentine courts trying to develop their understanding of an issue created by the modern development of search engines. As they come to more fully understand the Internet and the roles of the various parties involved in these cases – from the search engines to the parties actually publishing the content objected to – we are confident that the courts will conclude that we neither control nor manage the content published by third parties and should not be held responsible or liable for their editorial choices on their own websites.

Yahoo! will continue to defend the important principles behind our position and pursuing these matters within the Argentine legal system. We believe a positive outcome for Yahoo! Argentina on the principles we are defending will also benefit Internet users throughout Argentina.

The ruling affected Yahoo!’s search engine in Argentina only and not the U.S. sites. The Argentine Appellate Court alluded to the importance and accessibility of information in a free and democratic society and that the Internet is but one important tool for Argentine society to be informed of different and diverse ideas. The Appellate Court concluded by stating:

 “Argentine Civil Law #26.032/05 has established that the search, receipt and exchange of diverse ideas from an Internet service, falls clearly within the constitutional guaranty of the freedom of expression”.

By Ernesto Luciano |General Counsel |Yahoo! Hispanic Americas

Google and Yahoo Win Appeal in Argentine Case

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | Diegosaurius Rex

By Vinod Sreeharsha | New York Times | August 19, 2010

BUENOS AIRES — In a rare victory for Google and Yahoo Argentina, an appeals court has cleared the companies of defamation for including sex-related Web sites in their search results for an Argentine entertainer.

The appeals court overturned a lower-court ruling that had found the companies liable for defaming the entertainer, Virginia Da Cunha.

The lower-court decision last year had also ordered the companies to pay damages and remove all sites containing sexual, erotic and pornographic content that contained the name or image of Ms. Da Cunha from its results.

The 2-to-1 appeals court ruling, issued last week, said the firms could be held liable for defamation only if they were made aware of clearly illegal content and were negligent in removing it.

The Da Cunha case was the furthest along in the courts of at least 130 similar cases, dating back to 2006. Each one demands content removal. Plaintiffs have included a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, Yesica Toscanini, and the soccer legend Diego Maradona, but are mostly entertainers and models.

Latin America is growing in importance to United States technology companies, particularly those dealing with user-generated content. Despite the victory, Google and Yahoo Argentina’s legal battles are not over. Argentine judges are not required to abide by the latest decision and one of Ms. Da Cunha’s lawyers, Gustavo Tanus, said he intended to appeal to the Argentine Supreme Court.

Most injunctions have been upheld on appeal and take effect until liability is decided. But more than four years later, just two cases have been decided, in what Argentine lawyer Pablo Crescimbeni calls an “abuse of the system.” The Maradona case was reversed.

Google has maintained that it is unable to comply with broad injunctions. Yahoo has taken a different approach, saying the only way to follow the order is to block all sites referencing each plaintiff. So a Yahoo Argentina user searching for Yesica Toscanini gets a nearly blank page citing the judicial order.

The issue of liability over third-party Internet content has long been debated in the United States and Europe. Congress has largely shielded content carriers in the United States over what third-party sites put up. Internet filtering takes place in at least 40 countries, according to the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School.

Yet the Argentine cases are unusual, Internet legal experts say. “This is a unique situation in Argentina. I know of no other examples in which the search of an individual is completely blocked,” said Rob Faris of the center. He said China was the only other country requiring search engines to decide what was acceptable.

Ms. Da Cunha’s lawyers, Martin Leguizamon and Mr. Tanus, contend the two companies, by allowing third-party sex sites to mention their client’s name, are violating her privacy and producing “moral harm,” which they say is prohibited by Argentina’s constitution. They also argue that the search engines are violating the country’s copyright laws by allowing sites to display their client’s images without consent.

In a recent interview, Mr. Tanus said, “We are not these crazy Argentines who are against technology.”

Maria Baudino, Google’s Latin America counsel, said that most of the judicial orders against the company were “overly broad and would censor all content regarding an individual.” She argued that Google was a neutral platform and should not be held responsible for third-party content.

Bill Carvalho, Yahoo’s general counsel for Latin America, said that “it is not illegal in Argentina to have a person’s name next to a sexually related Web site or have any association with the Web site. That would be requiring search engines to decide what is defamatory.”

Two Iranians file lawsuit in US against Nokia Siemens

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | seier+seier

By Cyrus Farivar | Deutsche Welle | August 20, 2010

The joint Finnish-German venture Nokia Siemens said surveillance equipment it sold Iran was legal and dismissed a lawsuit filed against it. The company also questioned the court’s jurisdiction and the suit’s premise.

In a lawsuit filed in an American federal court earlier this week, two Iranians alleged that the sale of Nokia Siemens Networks mobile phone surveillance technology led to the arrest and torture of one of them in Iran over a year ago.

In late June 2009, in an election widely viewed as fraudulent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected as president of Iran. In the election’s aftermath, as protests raged in Iran, the Iranian government cracked down on communications technologies, shutting down mobile phone access and limiting Internet access.

In the weeks that followed, it was revealed that Nokia Siemens Networks had sold mobile phone surveillance equipment to Iran. Many Iranian dissidents blamed the company for aiding a regime that they believed was oppressive.

“These intercepting devices were used in crackdowns of the dissent,” said Ali Herischi in an interview with Deutsche Welle. Herischi is an attorney with the law firm Moawad & Herischi LLP, which is representing the two Iranians.

“And it’s exactly what happened to my client,” he added. ”He was in northern Iran in hiding when he used his cell phone, and as soon as he used his cell phone he was located and arrested.”

Isa Saharkhiz, an Iranian reformist journalist and former government official was arrested in June 2009 and has yet to be charged with a crime.

His son, Mehdi Saharkhiz, now lives in New Jersey in the United States. The two of them have sued Nokia Siemens under the Alien Tort Statute.

The law allows foreign nationals to sue in American courts for offenses that happened abroad provided that there are violations of American treaty law – in this case, the filing alleges the elder Saharkhiz was tortured as a result of Nokia Siemens’ actions.

Wrong court, wrong party, wrong premise

Nokia Siemens Networks is a joint venture founded in 2006 between the Finnish telecom giant Nokia and the German corporation Siemens. Since the company first came under fire over a year ago, it has argued that it was following the law at the time, and that it is no longer involved in the sale of surveillance equipment to Iran.

Testifying before a European Parliament committee on human rights over two months ago, Nokia executive Barry French said his company had sold “roughly one third of the deployed capacity” for mobile and data service to two major Iranian mobile operators, MCI and Irancell.

As part of these networks, Nokia Siemens provided a “lawful interception capability to both operators” and “a related monitoring center to MCI.”

But Herischi, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, alleged that Nokia Siemens either knew or should have known that lawful interception in Iran does not conform to international standards.

“Lawful interception is required for every network,” he said. “And that’s what we’re asking. The one that Iran used was unlawful interception with the same device, and they knew that it was going to be used unlawfully.”

Nokia Siemens on Friday expanded on their previous statements concerning the US lawsuit, saying that it was “brought in the wrong place, against the wrong party, and on the wrong premise.”

“The Saharkhizes allege brutal treatment by the government in Iran, but they have not sued that government,” the company wrote on its Web site. “Instead, they are seeking to blame Nokia Siemens Networks for the acts of the Iranian authorities by filing a lawsuit in the US, a country that has absolutely no connection to the issues they are raising.”

Case may settle out of court

While the filing requests a jury trial, cases like this usually settle out of court, according to Adam Kanzer, an attorney with Domini Social Investments in the United States. He added that it could be in the plaintiffs’ interest not to agree to a settlement.

“For a lot of activists the fact that they’re bringing the case and if they can get it to court, and get it to a jury trial, that’s a victory in and of itself,” he told Deutsche Welle. “They’re airing their grievances and bringing a lot of publicity to the situation.”

Kanzer is also a board member of the Global Network Initiative, an organization designed to help companies, human rights activists and others figure out how to stay within the letter and the spirit of the law, make money, and protect human rights concerns.

Currently major tech companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft also participate in the organization.

Yahoo in particular, has been in a similar situation, when it handed over data concerning a Chinese journalist to the government of China.

Human rights activists sued Yahoo in 2007, and the case was later settled out of court. Kanzer said that both the Yahoo and now the Nokia Siemens case show how there are small actions companies can take to make sure they’re respecting the rule of law.

“You need to make sure that that’s an official request,” he said. “There are things that you can do to encourage development of rule of law in these countries and to make sure that you’re not flooded with requests to do all sorts of things.”

Malaysians use social media to bypass censorship

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | Luca

By Romen Bose | AFP | August 18, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia bumps along the bottom of international rankings for press freedom, but the explosion of social media like Twitter and Facebook is revolutionising how journalists work.

Dissenting views, which for decades were screened out of the government-linked mainstream media, are now everywhere, including the blogosphere and mobile SMS messages, making repression extremely difficult.

One veteran reporter with one of the country’s leading newspapers said that for most of his career it was virtually impossible to write about the opposition or any issues deemed off-limits by authorities.

“But today, government MPs are forced to engage and debate their counterparts across the aisle in social media like Twitter and Facebook, allowing us to report on the opposition and avoid much censorship,” he says.

“Where previously we had to accept at face value a minister’s version of events or policies, today their disgruntled aides and opponents are already tweeting or leaking details on Facebook, giving us uncensored access.”

“Although the restrictions and controls are still in place, it’s become much harder to censor what the opposition or rights groups say in the media,” says the journalist who, due to the sensitivity of the issue, declined to be named.

Malaysia was ranked 131st out of 175 countries in the 2009 Reporters Without Borders (RSF) press freedom index, because of its tight controls on print and broadcast media.

The watchdog says Malaysia prevents journalists from properly covering sensitive subjects such as corruption or human rights abuses, using a publishing permit system which allows it to shut down media outlets at will.

After decades of such policies, self-censorship became rife and political leaders hardly even needed to make the much-feared phone call to the news room.

But the seeds of change were sown in 1996 when the government pledged not to censor online content as part of a campaign to promote its information technology sector.

Despite occasional raids, bans and government criticism, the web and online media remain relatively free.

 Today, Facebook fan pages highlighting political rallies and civil society forums, as well as Twitter exchanges with lawmakers, have reshaped the reporting landscape.

“All our reporters have BlackBerrys and use that to follow these tweets. The social media has changed the way journalists work in fundamental ways,” says Premesh Chandran, the founder of pioneer online news portal Malaysiakini.

Chandran says the new immediacy hampers government attempts to “spin” or control a story as journalists get real-time reaction from the opposition and experts and use it to seek an immediate response from officials.

With the advent of Twitter, politicians from both sides of the aisle freely disseminate their views, so much so that legislators have been known to take debates out of the chamber and continue them in the Twitterverse.

Social media also have a knack of eliciting more candid commentary than politicians would usually choose to put in a regular press release.

 That phenomenon was on display this week when Khairy Jamaluddin, influential leader of the ruling party’s youth wing, gave a quick response to a government decision not to drop a ban on students joining political parties.

“Cabinet decision not allowing university students to be involved in political parties is gutless and indicates outdated thinking,” he said in a much-discussed tweet.

 Opposition politician Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, 28, tweets daily on his constituency work, lists all his public events on Facebook and even carries out interviews and dialogues online.

“Social media definitely gives the opposition and alternative voices a space to express our views without censorship,” he says.

“The limitation is that we are restricted to 140 characters on Twitter so we can’t really flesh out many of the arguments and positions but it at least allows people and the media to read and understand our perspective.”

Malaysians have flocked to the Internet for news and views, a phenomenon credited with the opposition’s stunning performance in 2008 polls when the government lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority for the first time.

RSF’s regional correspondent Patrice Victor says the Malaysian experience could be replicated in other countries as they develop a potent combination of repressive governments and reasonable Internet access.

“We are seeing social media free the way journalists report in this region and the trend in Malaysia can also be seen happening in Singapore, Thailand and Burma (Myanmar),” he says.

“Governments here are slowly realising that it is very had to censor and restrict information once people have access to the Net and this trend of using social media to break down censorship looks like it is here to stay.”

North Korea creates Twitter and YouTube presence

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | Josh Berglund

By Clark Boyd | The World | August 17, 2010

It is common to use words like “reclusive” and “secretive” when writing about North Korea.

But last Thursday, the North Koreans created a Twitter account – @uriminzok, a shortened version of a Korean word that translates as “our people”.

It already has more than 4,500 followers.

The move to Twitter follows last month’s launch of a North Korean YouTube channel, which now hosts close to 80 videos.

“The North Koreans are technologically literate,” says Hazel Smith, a long-time North Korea researcher at Cranfield University in Britain.

Ms Smith says that the North Koreans have been investing heavily in information technology now for more than 20 years.

“They have a cadre of people who can use modern social networking sites. But the problem for them is the content,” she said.

On the North Korean YouTube channel, that content includes a lot of propaganda laced with bombastic rhetoric; the United States and South Korea are often called “warmongers”.

In a recent Twitter post, the North Koreans said the current administration in South Korea was “a prostitute” of the US.

“As far as content goes, there’s nothing new as far as I can tell,” says Sung-Yoon Lee, professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston.

Mr Lee says that the agency responsible for the videos and the tweets is a major arm of the country’s ruling communist party.

“They’ve been putting out stuff like this for years now,” said Mr Lee.

‘Government’s voice’

The irony is that the vast majority of North Korea’s 23 million people have no Internet access, and therefore cannot follow their own government’s social networking sites.

And even if they could follow, they would not be allowed to use social media to criticize the regime, says Gilles Lordet, chief editor of Reporters without Borders in Paris.

“There is absolutely no press freedom at all in North Korea, no independent media,” Mr Lordet said. “There is only the government, the voice of the regime.”

For now, North Korea’s online offerings are only in Korean.

But Professor Lee thinks that they might soon expand their offerings to include video clips and posts in English.

“The North Koreans already produce propaganda material in English, through the Korean Central News Agency,” he said. “They have the wherewithal to do it.”

He added: “It will just take them a little more time and effort.”

PRI’s The World is a co-production between the BBC World Service, WGBH Boston, and Public Radio International. It is heard on public radio stations across the US and on-line at theworld.org.

Malawi: Missing out on online technology for transparency

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | Michiel Van Balen

By Victor Kaonga | Global Voices Online | August 16, 2010

If there is one online tool that has attracted many Malawians, then it is Facebook. It appears to be the “in thing” for many who are increasingly accessing the Internet. Then there are tweets. In the 2009 presidential and parliamentary elections, Twitter was heavily used for the first time to share developments in Malawi. The same applies to blogs — at least a hundred and fifty Malawians have personal online diaries. Such new media tools help “net” citizens connect with others throughout the world, enabling online civic engagement. While Malawi seems to be doing well in terms of online social networks, it has yet to make progress in using these tools for transparency and accountability.

The fight against corruption

When Malawi became a multiparty democracy in 1994, words like transparency and accountability became buzzwords in both public and civil society. As a result, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) was born out of a 1995 constitutional provision that emphasized the need to introduce measures to “guarantee accountability, transparency, personal integrity and financial probity and which by virtue of their effectiveness and transparency will strengthen confidence in public institutions.”

Malawi has made strides in the fight against corruption using several approaches. In Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index, which measures the perceived level of public sector corruption, Malawi ranked 89 out of 180 countries and territories. This was step up from previous indices.

Some countries have seen technologies for transparency help them in the fight against corruption, strengthening the credibility of governments and helping with their provision of public services. Having picked a lesson or two and joining the information highway, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Malawi recently upgraded its website, a development that the bureau secretary Tokha Manyungwa described as “a big step in enlisting online support in the fight corruption.”

Asked why the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has taken so long in having a functional website, he said that among other issues, “the main reason was capacity problems in the ACB’s ICT section mainly due to staff turn over in the section.” One can appreciate the challenges with the bureau since this is a government-funded institution where bureaucracy is involved.

The website upgrade means that for the first time, Malawians are able to report any corrupt practices by using the web. However, it is clear that the bureau is far from being online-friendly. Compared to other anti-corruption websites in the sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission and South Africa’s Special Investigating Unit), the site needs further tools if it is to enable people to easily report on and follow corrupt practices. The site can only be used by those who are able to understand and read English and this may discriminate against those who cannot use the language.

Challenges to technology for transparency

The danger with many other transparency initiatives linked to governments is that their sites contain too much raw information, much of which does not make sense to a common citizen. Some of it is irrelevant, inaccessible, irregular and inaccurate. From what I know about people in Malawi, few people can manage to read through large amounts online information. This would therefore not only affect participation of the people in the fight against corruption but also kill the transparency initiative.

According to the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA), Internet penetration is growing by the day through hot-spot services by ISPs and mobile phone operators who have since introduced affordable internet services. Still, the Internet is a new development in Malawi.

Apart from procedural issues regarding technological initiatives, there is also a problem with what I would call “Internet will.” There are still many public servants who have yet to appreciate the role the Internet and new media play for development, let alone transparency. For instance, the Malawian government began its Government Wide Area Network (GWAN) project in 2003, but the project is not yet fully functioning. The GWAN’s main objective is to provide government officers with a computer network that is secure and available at all times in order for the officers to access relevant information in a cost effective manner that will save government hard-earned money. This is supposed to be at the center of the government’s administrative system.

At a broader level, technology for transparency projects will have to deal with Malawi’s current level of e-readiness, which is understandably low. According to a study published by the United Nations (PDF), Malawi’s national leaders need to “be sure about the state of E-readiness for their own country, what needs to be changed, what barriers exist, and often fail to see the benefits of such changes.” Malawi rates low when it comes to the electronic climate on transparency and electronic awareness of leaders.

Civil society and transparency initiatives

Civil society has a key role in developing and using online technologies to promote transparency, accountability and civic engagement. Unfortunately, this is still work in progress. Sometimes some of the civil society initiatives are seen with suspicion by the government.

The Malawi Economic Justice Network, which is implementing the DFID-funded Governance and Transparency Fund, says it is yet to introduce online technologies to assist in achieving transparency. Launched in November 2008, the project aims at “Strengthening Citizen Demand for Good Governance Through Evidence Based Approaches.” It is not clear what aspects will be online and indeed to what extent.

A media expert and keen follower of the digitalization developments in Malawi, Baldwin Chiyamwaka, said that Malawi is still far away from utilizing online technologies to promote transparency and accountability. He pointed out that “most public institutions have no capacity to develop effective ICT infrastructure,” adding that “there is still a strong inclination and preference for traditional means information management.”

Chiyamwaka, who heads the Media Council of Malawi, observed that Malawi’s legal framework is an obstacle its own right to transparency initiatives. “The current legal framework does not allow sharing of information and let alone making it public. Public policy prohibits publicizing public information,” he noted. Chiyamwaka further explained that a common reality in Malawi is that “most public officers are skeptical about online technologies. They feel it is not safe and secure means of sharing information.” Clearly the battles for transparency in Malawi are big.

Hope for online transparency projects

It has to be noted though that there are multiple challenges in Malawi for technology for transparency projects. Poor Internet infrastructure, technophobia, high connection and connectivity costs, the lack of ICT policy in some countries, and inadequate knowledge and ICT personnel all constitute obstacles to the use of technology for transparency.

Malawi has lack of economic and technical resources in addition to a lack of funding and well trained personnel to creatively keep the transparency battle afloat. A visit to several websites run by civil society organizations involved in transparency, civic engagement and election issues reveals frequent lapses in updating the content of the sites, which is linked to inadequate funds and the shortage of personnel.

There is need to promote usage of online technologies in the country, especially among top public servants and professionals in the civil society. One may find it disappointing to see how little or inadequate information about Malawi is available online. Malawians have a free online environment where issues of control and censorship do not really arise as it is in some countries. On this, Global Voices co-founder Ethan Zuckerman strongly advised Malawians to speak out using online tools on issues that affect them and are about Malawi. He promised to further amplify such voices using Global Voices Online. “Our project seeks to aggregate, curate, and amplifies the global conversation online, shining light on places and people other media often ignore. We would love to get more stories from and about Malawi whether in English, Chichewa or any local language, and we will share such with the rest of the world. Your stories need to be heard,” said Zuckerman in an interview.

Though Malawi is yet to plug into some local and regional online networks, there is hope that with more “Internet will,” it will reap benefits of technologies on transparency. For instance, it can tap into the Africa I-Parliaments Action Plan, an Africa-wide initiative implemented by the UN/DESA to empower African Parliaments to better fulfill their democratic functions by supporting their efforts to become open, participatory, knowledge-based and learning organizations.

Conclusion

Though in many sub-Saharan African countries, it is the NGOs that are pushing for the use of technology in their advocacy for transparency, there is need for other stakeholders — e.g., government, ICT professionals, academicians, etc. — to take the leading role in using the online technologies.

Such challenges impinge on a country’s ability to plug into online technologies that would promote transparency, accountability and civic engagement. It is encouraging, though, that the era of multiparty democracy has ignited people’s desire to start demanding transparency and accountability from those they elected.

The reality is that if an individual or a country is not plugged into the information highway, they only have themselves to blame, as they will belong to the museum of history when it comes to modern communication, aid transparency and accountability.

On Cat Videos and Human Rights

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | Shayan

By Christina Gagnier | Huffington Post | August 15, 2010 

With the giggles of children and adults alike in the background, you know what’s coming. Instantly, you hear a recognizable ballad and there appears a captive feline dancing, or for the more technically-inclined in video editing, singing along.

This is the “cat video” we have probably all seen some version of, whether emailed from a bored co-worker or our grandmother. While these videos are ridiculous by their very nature, protection of the vehicle by which these “cat videos” are disseminated is the same protection through which we can preserve something much greater: human rights online.

Hang with me for just a moment.

There is a gaping void in international human rights law concerning the Internet. A lack of treaty law as well as customary international law concerning human rights in the online world leaves those who are denied basic freedoms very little to turn to. While principles protecting free expression are codified in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the concept of Internet freedom is unknown in many countries.

In A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow wrote, “We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.” In 2003, the first World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) convened with 175 countries. While it failed to come to an agreement on a framework for global Internet governance, what it did accomplish was to set out a general statement, a Declaration of Principles, that stated: “We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outline in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

The United States, throughout its history, has positioned itself as a beacon of democracy, and, particularly, that of free speech and expression. Yet, neither Congress nor the Federal Communications Commission has taken any action to preserve these rights online within our own borders, most notably with the issue we have come to know as network neutrality. Congress has failed to enact legislation that would regulate the behavior of corporations, like Google and Yahoo, abroad when they have taken actions contrary to the civil and political rights of citizens, most notably in China. As the United States has been a leader in “all things democracy,” it is essential for the United States to be a leader in the preservation of human rights online. Human rights online start here.

For those of us who got online in what was relatively early for the Internet in 1994, our experiences were the primitive AOL and chat rooms. Many could not have envisioned an Internet that would enable international awareness of revolution in places like Iran or a place where the virality of content spreads messages across the world within a handful of hours. The Internet we enjoy today was unimaginable to many of us even ten years ago, and to many, the Internet freedom we currently enjoy is unimaginable to our neighbors a few blocks away not to mention millions across the world.

As one of those privileged to live in the United States, one cannot imagine what promise the Internet must hold to someone living under a repressive regime: by opening the eyes of children to an unimaginable wealth of information, by allowing people to learn of rights enjoyed by others abroad or by serving as a cross-section of ideas that may lead to positive economic and social change.

A New York Times article today lauds competition as the answer to our “lack of Internet neutrality” woes. This competition does nothing to ensure that the people who currently lack access to the Internet, all of those on the other side of the digital divide who do not have the luxury of even reading a blog, or the ability of gaining access to the day’s news, something that has become exceedingly difficult due to the shuttering of community newspapers, will be ensured access. These Internet issues do not exist in a vacuum.

In April 2008, while sitting at the Federal Communications Commission hearing on network neutrality at Stanford University, the seats may not have been filled that time with fillers sent by Comcast, but it was apparent that the FCC lacked the wherewithal to take a stand, whatever that may be, on the critical issues underlying content discrimination practices.

Today’s solution proffered, and even accepted by many, is that corporate regulation will do. While we may feel comfort in the shiny veneers of corporate social responsibility measures, self-regulation in many instances has proven itself to be a failed experiment. This piece has no space for the laundry list of failed self-regulatory attempts. With the money that stands to be made from a pay-for-play tiered Internet access scheme, it is doubtful these companies can be relied upon to pave the way for freedom.

Cats have nine lives, but their videos may not. Beyond the silliness of much Internet content, there lies the path for speech and expression, the cornerstones of freedom. You may not want to throw your political confidence in our elected officials and regulatory bodies, but our freedom, as well as basic human rights for those abroad, will not be found in the pocketbooks of Google and Verizon.

Internet is Latest Battleground in Thailand’s Heated Political Landscape

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | SpecialKRB

By Ron Corben | Voice of America | August 11, 2010

The Internet is the latest battleground in Thailand’s stormy political climate as the government attempts to shut down Web sites critical of it and the monarchy. The government is using tough laws to silence online criticism, but net users are finding ways to be heard.

During months of political protests earlier this year, the Thai government shut down thousands of Web sites it said fanned the protests or criticized the royal family.

May protests

The protests, which left 90 people dead and more than 1,400 injured, ended on May 19 when the army dispersed the crowds.

But the battle over the Internet continues.

Internet crackdown

Using the Computer Crimes Act and an emergency decree, the government shuts sites it thinks support the red-shirt protest movement. Media rights groups say more than 50,000 Web sites have been closed.

Chiranuch Premchaiporn is a director with Prachatai.com, an on-line news site the government shut down in April. A big concern for the government apparently was the site’s discussion boards.

She says Prachatai shut the discussion board in July. Chiranuch faces charges under the Computer Crimes Act and if convicted could go to jail.

“Even I believe in the freedom of expression or free speech but I understand some limitation and we also set up a kind of system to moderate some content that can be considered violate the rights of the people or violate the law,” Chiranuch said.

Government position

Government spokesman Panitan Wattanaygorn defends the Internet censorship policy.

“The situation under the emergency decree is very different,” said Panitan. “On one hand we still keep the freedom of the media. But on the other hand we do look into certain messages that create tension, confrontation and push people to confront among one another and that activity is monitored.”

A decade ago, it was easier for the government to control the media. TV and radio have long been state-controlled.

And newspapers faced attacks during Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s administration earlier in this decade.

Tough to control

Chris Baker, an author and political analyst on Thailand, says new technologies are harder to control.

“In the past the government was able to control all broadcast media very closely and generally could influence the press,” Baker said. “But that situation has totally changed with cable and satellite TV spinning out of control, community radio and the whole Internet as well.”

Prachatai.com is an example of that. Pinpaka Ngamson, an editor for the site, says the government could only shut it temporarily.

“Now it’s not difficult for us to work anymore, we know how to cope with this kind of order from the government,” said Pinpaka. “We just change our server and use another URL [Uniform Resource Locator] and go on with our work.”

Media plea

Thai media commentators have called on the government to rethink on-line censorship. They say it reinforces international opinion that Thailand’s media is increasingly less free.

Supinya Klanarong, a media activist, says the Computer Crimes Act is applied too broadly beyond insults against the royal family. Supinya says more media restrictions have emerged since the anti-government protests ended in May.

“It means a general opposition Web site related to the red-shirt movement or the critics of the government are also being blocked as concern for national security, too,” Supinya said. “So it’s not only about the issue related to les majeste but is also about political Web site in general, especially the dissident point of and the opposition.”

Some of the concerns appear to have been heard.

Improvements

Government leaders say they hope to improve draft legislation on the Internet laws.

Panitan, the government spokesman, says the there is a need to balance security and Internet freedom.

“On the one hand we regulate these activities in such a way that it’s not going to harm our national interests,” Panitan added. “Specific activities may not be allowed to be in those Web sites. But on the other hand we want to keep other communications open.”

But media groups such as the Southeast Asian Press Alliance say the government has been intimidating Web users who engage in “sensitive political discussion”. The group warns that shutting down Web sites may backfire and lead to the radicalization of those who post political comments on-line.

Google lets uneasy Germans opt out of ‘Street View’

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | Alberto Varela

By Deborah Cole | AFP | August 10, 2010

BERLIN — Google said Tuesday it would allow Germans to opt out of its disputed Street View navigation service ahead of its launch in the country this year but privacy watchdogs were still not happy.

The move is part of an effort to placate German authorities, who have serious concerns about the service that allows users to view online panoramic still photos at street level taken using specially equipped vehicles.

“Google will roll out Street View for the 20 biggest German cities by the end of the year,” the company said in a statement, meaning Germany will join the list of 23 countries featured on Street View.

The service, launched in 2007, allows users to view street scenes on Google Maps and “walk” through cities such as New York, Paris or Hong Kong on their computers or smartphones.

But Street View has been dogged by legal problems. On Tuesday South Korean police searched Google offices on suspicion of breaching privacy laws while collecting information for the service.

The debate has been particularly heated in Germany, where authorities forced concessions from the Internet giant.

“Germany had very unique experiences with data protection during the two dictatorships,” under the Nazis and the East German communists, said Internet specialist Falk Lueke of the VBVZ consumers association.

Uniquely for Germany, Google will launch a campaign Wednesday informing citizens concerned about safety or privacy how they can have pictures of their homes or businesses pixelled out before they are published.

“Renters or owners can apply to have their building made unrecognisable before the pictures are published online” from next week, the company said.

Google already blocks out people’s faces and car number plates in the other countries featured on Street View and will also do so in Germany.

In April Consumer Affairs Minister Ilse Aigner and Google reached an agreement after a lengthy dispute under which the company would only provide Street View images from Germany after it had addressed privacy concerns.

Aigner, a fierce defender of privacy rights online, made headlines in June when said she would delete her Facebook profile over data protection issues.

She welcomed Google’s concessions as a victory for her hardline stance.

“My demands and the public debate about Google publishing information about homes and property on the Internet have borne fruit,” her ministry said in a statement.

Google’s announcement failed to silence the most vocal critics, who said the opt-out policy was far too complicated.

Johannes Caspar, the commissioner for data protection and freedom of information in Hamburg, where Google’s German unit is based, said he was “stunned” about the quick roll-out.

“My concerns about implementing these complex opt-out proceedings were unfortunately not respected,” said Caspar, who was involved in the initial negotiations with the company,

He noted that Google was launching the campaign when many Germans are still away on their summer holidays and was limiting it to four weeks, after which photographs can only be pulled from the Web post-publication.

Lueke said the launch would be an experiment for Google and Germany.

“Many problems will only be identifiable once the software is launched,” Lueke said. “For example, will faces be better pixelled out than in Britain, where you can still recognise them?”

The company noted, however, that Germans were already among its most avid users of Street View when making their travel plans abroad, with nearly one million clicks per day.

“That is the problem: no one wants to see his house on the Internet. But everybody wants to find photos of their vacation rental,” Lueke said.

RIM headache grows as govts seek BlackBerry access

By Tsering

Flickr Creative Commons | Honou

By Yara Bayoumy | Reuters | August 5, 2010

BEIRUT, Aug 5 (Reuters) – BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd (RIM.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) on Thursday faced more demands to open up its smartphones to government scrutiny as Lebanon joined India, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in raising concerns over security.

RIM’s co-CEO Michael Lazaridis fought back in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, accusing foreign officials of picking on smartphones to score political points.

“This is about the Internet,” Lazaridis was quoted as saying in the Journal interview. “Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can’t deal with the Internet, they should shut it off.”

Shares of RIM fell nearly 2 percent in trading on the Nasdaq and Toronto stock exchange. The stock has lost about 8 percent of its value since the United Arab Emirates threatened over the weekend to ban BlackBerry email, messaging and Internet services after three years of negotiations with RIM over access to encrypted user data.

The BlackBerry also faces a potential ban in Saudi Arabia as early as Friday if RIM is unable to reach a compromise there. RIM and Saudi officials met on Thursday ahead of the pending ban.

Lebanon raised concerns over the smartphone on Thursday, saying it was studying security concerns related to the BlackBerry and would begin talks with RIM.

Media reports earlier had said that Indonesia was also pressing on RIM to allow monitoring of BlackBerry data, though the country’s communications minister said it was not banning the service.

India, worried that BlackBerry’s highly secure messaging services could be misused by militants, has demanded more access for its security agencies, and the country’s telecoms minister said it had not yet reached an agreement with the company.

The Indian government may block the BlackBerry messenger service but allow emails and voicemails if a solution is not reached, the Times of India said on Thursday, citing unnamed sources.

A broadening stand-off with global governments could hurt sentiment on RIM on Wall Street, which had initially been reassured that a ban by the Gulf states would affect a tiny portion of the BlackBerry’s more than 41 million subscribers.

Lazaridis acknowledged the company was in discussions with various governments, and said the issue will likely get resolved.

RIM has said BlackBerry security is based on a system where customers create their own key and the company neither has a master key nor any “back door” to enable RIM or third parties to gain access to crucial corporate data.

The company said Wednesday it has never provided anything unique to the government of one country and cannot accommodate any request for a copy of a customer’s encryption key. (Additional reporting by Souhail Karam, Writing by Ritsuko Ando in New York, Editing by Tiffany Wu, Dave Zimmerman)