Access Now

Photo

mikeaccess — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:49:18 -0500

Photo

mikeaccess — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:44:42 -0500

Two years from Tahrir, no progress on telcos and rights

jeffataccess — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:56:00 -0500

By Jeff Landale and Katherine Maher

Two years ago today, protesters responded to a call for a “Day of Rage” by pouring into Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo. Thus began the first of the “Eighteen Days” of struggle to end then-president Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30 years in power.

Less than 48 hours after the protests began, Egyptian telecoms and ISPs complied with a order by the Mubarak regime to shut down their networks, ultimately removing Egypt from the global internet. This effort to prevent protesters from organizing and keep images and news of a government crackdown from spreading had an inverse effect, driving people to the streets and drawing the world’s attention to Tahrir Square.

Inside Egypt, protesters condemned the government, but on the outside attention focused on a different target: the internet and mobile network operators that complied with the regime’s arbitrary shutdown. This unprecedented action thrust the importance—and vulnerability—of internet and telecommunications networks into the global consciousness, and raised the question over corporate responsibility in the face of flagrant human rights violations by authoritarian regimes. Vodafone Egypt and MobiNil—two of the country’s three mobile network operators—are majority owned by companies based in France (Orange) and the UK (Vodafone International).

Faced with international outrage, Vodafone argued the company was merely complying with local law. Although this was true in a strict sense, the event catalyzed a movement to examine telco responsibilities under both local and international legal frameworks. Multinational telecoms struggle to balance their human rights responsibilities—as enshrined in the UN Ruggie Framework—with the realities of operating in politically oppressive environments.

In response to the events in Egypt, a group of global telecoms came together to form the “Industry Dialogue on Freedom of Expression and Privacy,” with the purpose of common consultation on the development of best-practice rights-respecting policies for the industry. However, two years after the protests in Cairo, the Industry Dialogue has yet to release any principles or establish a permanent structure. Most embarrassingly, it does not even have a public website.

Meanwhile, internet and phone shutdowns have become an increasingly common tool for political repression. From the San Francisco Transit authority mobile network shutdown in 2011 to the Syrian internet blackout in November 2012, governments around the world are finding it convenient to disrupt activists by simply disconnecting them from the world.

Much of Access’ work includes consultations with telecoms, ISPs, and social media platforms to implement rights-respecting policies, and to ensure that companies cannot be pressured or bribed into abandoning us again. At first, the Industry Dialogue appeared to be take step in this direction—but following two years of inaction, and continued rights-violations around the world, it risks appearing as nothing more than a rights-washing exercise for multinational telecoms.

International telecoms, including those actively participating in the Industry Dialogue, continue to enter into new markets in countries without even the most basic policies in place to respect human rights. Scandinavian mobile network giant TeliaSonera is currently considering expanding operations into Burma, all while profiting off of cooperation with security forces in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. Despite a declared adherence to guidelines and principles like the Ruggie Framework, global telecoms continue to trade respect for human rights for record profits.

Many industrialized nations are resistant to national blackouts, due to the number and diversity of their international ISPs, with direct connections out of the country. More often, it is countries with authoritarian governments—where the public space has been so diminished that the internet serves as the only real forum for the free exchange of information and ideas—that are most at risk, and most in need of telecommunications companies who have policies in place to keep them online.

Two years after Tahrir, more than 6 billion mobile subscribers continue to wait for the telecom industry and its Dialogue to deliver on long-promised policies. Inspired by the determination of the protesters in Egypt, and in recognition of their Eighteen Days that finally pushed international telecoms into dialogue on human rights, Access will spend the next eighteen days highlighting two years of telecom inaction and rights violations. At the end, we’ll ask you to help us select the worst of the offenders for a particularly special recognition.Two years ago today, protesters responded to a call for a “Day of Rage” by pouring into Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo. Thus began the first of the “Eighteen Days” of struggle to end then-president Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30 years in power.

Less than 48 hours after the protests began, Egyptian telecoms and ISPs complied with a order by the Mubarak regime to shut down their networks, ultimately removing Egypt from the global internet. This effort to prevent protesters from organizing and keep images and news of a government crackdown from spreading had an inverse effect, driving people to the streets and drawing the world’s attention to Tahrir Square.

Inside Egypt, protesters condemned the government, but on the outside attention focused on a different target: the internet and mobile network operators that complied with the regime’s arbitrary shutdown. This unprecedented action thrust the importance—and vulnerability—of internet and telecommunications networks into the global consciousness, and raised the question over corporate responsibility in the face of flagrant human rights violations by authoritarian regimes. Vodafone Egypt and MobiNil—two of the country’s three mobile network operators—are majority owned by companies based in France (Orange) and the UK (Vodafone International).

Faced with international outrage, Vodafone argued the company was merely complying with local law. Although this was true in a strict sense, the event catalyzed a movement to examine telco responsibilities under both local and international legal frameworks. Multinational telecoms struggle to balance their human rights responsibilities—as enshrined in the UN Ruggie Framework—with the realities of operating in politically oppressive environments.

In response to the events in Egypt, a group of global telecoms came together to form the “Industry Dialogue on Freedom of Expression and Privacy,” with the purpose of common consultation on the development of best-practice rights-respecting policies for the industry. However, two years after the protests in Cairo, the Industry Dialogue has yet to release any principles or establish a permanent structure. Most embarrassingly, it does not even have a public website.

Meanwhile, internet and phone shutdowns have become an increasingly common tool for political repression. From the San Francisco Transit authority mobile network shutdown in 2011 to the Syrian internet blackout in November 2012, governments around the world are finding it convenient to disrupt activists by simply disconnecting them from the world.

Much of Access’ work includes consultations with telecoms, ISPs, and social media platforms to implement rights-respecting policies, and to ensure that companies cannot be pressured or bribed into abandoning us again. At first, the Industry Dialogue appeared to be take step in this direction—but following two years of inaction, and continued rights-violations around the world, it risks appearing as nothing more than a rights-washing exercise for multinational telecoms.

International telecoms, including those actively participating in the Industry Dialogue, continue to enter into new markets in countries without even the most basic policies in place to respect human rights. Scandinavian mobile network giant TeliaSonera is currently considering expanding operations into Burma, all while profiting off of cooperation with security forces in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. Despite a declared adherence to guidelines and principles like the Ruggie Framework, global telecoms continue to trade respect for human rights for record profits.

Many industrialized nations are resistant to national blackouts, due to the number and diversity of their international ISPs, with direct connections out of the country. More often, it is countries with authoritarian governments—where the public space has been so diminished that the internet serves as the only real forum for the free exchange of information and ideas—that are most at risk, and most in need of telecommunications companies who have policies in place to keep them online.

Two years after Tahrir, more than 6 billion mobile subscribers continue to wait for the telecom industry and its Dialogue to deliver on long-promised policies. Inspired by the determination of the protesters in Egypt, and in recognition of their Eighteen Days that finally pushed international telecoms into dialogue on human rights, Access will spend the next eighteen days highlighting two years of telecom inaction and rights violations. At the end, we’ll ask you to help us select the worst of the offenders for a particularly special recognition.

New nomination to US privacy oversight board, just ahead of cybersecurity fights in Congress

jeffataccess — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:54:00 -0500

By Jeff Landale

With the recent re-nomination of David Medine as chairman, the long-dormant US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) may finally come to life.

The renewal of the Board and its mandate comes not a moment too soon. A strong, independent oversight body is necessary to protect digital rights as Congress is likely to consider cybercrime and cybersecurity issues, such as a proposed amendment to the highly controversial federal Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), which would require all communications providers to install backdoors in their products and services.

The PCLOB is a Congressionally-mandated body that sits within the executive branch. It arose out of the 2004 final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States — better known as the 9/11 Commission. As information gathering and sharing between government agencies intensified, the Board was created to ensure the protection of privacy and civil liberties. As Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the Commission, explained: “We thought everything with a national security label on it was going to pass… So we felt very strongly that there had to be some voice for civil liberties in the debate.”

Despite this urgency, the Board didn’t convene for the first time until 2006. Only a year later, one of its five members resigned, criticizing the board for lacking independence from the executive branch.

In response to these criticisms, the PCLOB was reconstituted in 2007 as an independent agency with the authority to obtain information on its own. In its new form, Congress stipulated that, for the purpose of enforcing its mandate, that the Board shall:

“have access from any department, agency, or element of the executive branch, or any Federal officer or employee of any such department, agency, or element, to all relevant records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other relevant material, including classified information consistent with applicable law,”

And yet, despite being voted into existence twice by Congress, the second time with an even wider mandate and broader powers, the Board’s mandate has gone unfulfilled. The Bush and Obama administrations dragged their feet in nominating board members, and the Senate repeatedly allowed those nominations that have occurred to expire.

David Medine, the current nominee for chairman, was first nominated by the Obama administration in 2012, alongside Jim Dempsey, the vice-president for public policy at the Center for Technology and Democracy, and three others. While the Senate approved the four board nominees, they did not consider Medine, forcing Obama to re-nominate him after the recent elections. Absent a chairperson, the Board remains ineffectual — in large part because it can’t hire staff without one.

Medine has extensive experience as a lawyer dealing with privacy and data security concerns: between 1995 and 2000, he was the lead Federal Trade Commission staffer on internet privacy issues and represented the US at the OECD on privacy and data security issues — as well as a sitting member of the Communications, Privacy, and Internet Law Practice Group.

However, the majority of his past work experience has been in the context of the private sector, leaving open questions about how he would address questions on individual privacy and civil liberties. Furthermore, Medine would chair a board that includes members who have publicly disavowed international human rights frameworks, such as Rachel Brand, who—in her nomination hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee—responded to committee member Chuck Grassley’s question on the role of international law by affirming her unqualified support for US interpretations of privacy and civil liberties through the prism of national security.

Around the globe, legislative bodies are drafting laws to deal with a new world of big data and digital privacy. As it often has, the United States may serve as a trendsetter for many of these laws, both through example as well as by pushing other countries to bring their own legislation in line with US standards when entering into trade agreements. A resurrected PCLOB has the potential to influence Europe’s ongoing Data Protection Reform efforts, and other digital privacy legislation around the globe, by ensuring that US legislation is implemented in a way that respects the digital rights of US citizens. This is especially timely, given that right now many US companies — and US government staffers — are in the EU, actively lobbying against the DPR.

But filling the empty seats on the PCLOB is only a start. President Obama has requested a grossly inadequate $1,000,000 for the Board to oversee the vast, multibillion dollar US national security apparatus. With 2013 sure to witness big fights around data privacy, location privacy, and cyber security, there’s a long way to go to ensure that the digital rights of users are not sacrificed to the demands of the US national security apparatus.

Broken promises: Pakistan announces plans to launch censorship firewall, possibly with Chinese tech

jeffataccess — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:50:00 -0500

By Peter Micek

New mechanisms to censor websites and filter mobile communications could come online in Pakistan, possibly within 60 days, according to government officials in the country and activists on the ground. News that the censorship system is being built directly conflicts with promises made by Pakistani government officials a little less than a year ago to not pursue massive online censorship.

On Jan. 3, the Director of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), Farooq Ahmed Khan, confirmed to Pakistan Today that “in the next 60 days a new mechanism for blocking un-Islamic, pornographic and blasphemous material from websites will be activated.” According to the newspaper, the new system would create a central chokepoint for all Pakistani internet traffic, whether landline or mobile. It would also enable filtering of content through mechanisms placed at the landing points of undersea data cables.

The announcement is not a complete surprise. Blogger and activist Sana Saleem has previously discussed how Pakistan has covertly controlled expression online for several years. “While the [Pakistani] authorities remain enamored by China’s fast growing economic model,” Saleem recently wrote, “they have also long been eyeing the China’s system of censorship and surveillance.”

Saleem, executive director of the advocacy group Bolo Bhi, believes Chinese firms are now supplying the technology for this new system. On Nov. 30, Saleem, who also blogs at Global Voices, wrote an open letter to Chinese netizens calling on them to show solidarity and demand that their corporations refuse to be involved in this project. Saleem called out Chinese firms ZTE and Huawei, both major global telecommunications equipment makers, as having aided censorship in Libya and Iran and possibly being involved in Pakistan’s new firewall.

Saleem’s letter drew a huge response. The South China Morning Post reports that Saleem received over 300 comments on her Google Plus post in a few hours. Huawei commented immediately, citing its “full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including those of the United States and the United Nations.”

ZTE, however, took several weeks to weigh in. On Dec. 19, it responded to the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre’s request for comment by stating, “ZTE has business in more than 140 countries, and complies with the laws and regulations in all the markets where we operate. As an international company, we are respectful of local cultures and customs.”

Earlier last year, the PTA published a request for bids to build a censorship firewall to be submitted by March 16, 2012. Access joined Saleem and Bolo Bhi to get tech companies to publicly denounce the firewall, and refuse to submit proposals. The campaign and international outcry yielded successful outcomes, including a verbal commitment from Pakistan’s Ministry of Information Technology to shelve the program as well as commitments from five European and American companies to not be involved. (The latest news reports suggest a split in the Pakistani government: the Ministry of Information Technology opposes the new filtering program, while the PTA is pushing ahead with its installation.)

Global dialogue on telecoms and corporate accountability

Telecommunications companies have eagerly embraced the possibilities of new technologies and services, resulting in a worldwide explosion of mobile phone use and wireless data exchange. However, internet firms, and telecoms in particular, have been slow to recognize that with these new powers, enabling more users to innovate and enjoy their freedom of expression rights, come new responsibilities to respect privacy. Government requests to conduct mass surveillance, filtering, and throttling—or even shut down entire networks—violate the human rights of users, domestic legal protections, and even the telecoms’ own policies.

A number of initiatives are underway to expose these restrictive government requests, for example, through corporate transparency reports, and to educate governments on ways to legally access data while protecting privacy.

Some governments, of course, are more responsive than others. To date, Pakistan has shown that it is susceptible to public pressure, having shelved the proposed firewall earlier in 2012 and cancelling a SMS filtering program in 2011 in the face of civil society outcry.

At the same time, many telecoms and internet companies have made changes to their policies and practices in an effort to ensure that their new services do not harm the fundamental rights of users. Industry-wide responses like the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue correctly assert that the pressures on telcos are best dealt with in consort with partner companies. However, without meaningful and continuing guidance from all sectors, including civil society and government, these self-regulation efforts are likely to fall short of the robust framework needed.

Others in the field, like Chinese firms ZTE and Huawei, prefer to ignore their human rights impacts, issuing cursory statements prioritizing ‘local’ law and customs over international human rights law and norms. Bolo Bhi labeled ZTE’s response “noncommittal,” demonstrating their “indifference towards the human rights violations carried through the technology they sell.” To truly respond to the call by Sana Saleem and Pakistani and Chinese users, ZTE and Huawei must acknowledge their impact on the human rights of users, and work transparently to address their impacts. As unlikely as this sounds, Huawei at least has shown some flexibility, having scaled back activity in Iran in response to international concerns.

Given the Pakistani government’s back and forth record of proposing restrictive technologies, and retracting in the face of international outcry, we urge users to once again raise their voices in support of the digital rights of Pakistani users. We support Sana Saleem and Bolo Bhi, as well as their partners in China, and call on the Ministry of Information Technology to honor its commitment not to pursue censorship and to seek to ensure that the entire Pakistani government follows suit.

Access joins other activists to call on Skype clarify privacy policies

krmaccess — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:20:00 -0500

[Full disclosure: Access receives funding from Skype.]

Today Access joined more than forty organizations and 61 individuals in sending an open letter to Skype, asking the company to clarify its policies for protecting users’ security and to release a comprehensive transparency report detailing government requests for user data.

Skype serves more than 663 million users worldwide, among them activists and human rights defenders who depend on the service for secure and private communications. The company’s disruptive innovation has transformed the way the world connects, enabling families, individuals, and businesses to stay in touch across continents and oceans—often, without charging a cent.

However, despite its role as an increasingly essential communications tool, Skype has resisted calls to clarify its privacy policies, particularly regarding governments’ requests for user data.

Following its acquisition by Microsoft in October 2011, Skype’s headquarters moved from Luxembourg to the United States and many of its key executives have been integrated into Microsoft’s corporate structure. These changes lead Access and others to ask whether Skype’s policies, technical infrastructure, and legal jurisdiction may have similarly changed.

At this time, it is imperative for Skype to clarify the company’s policies. The company’s hundreds of millions of users around the world have the right to know if their communications are secure—or if they are putting their privacy and security at risk when they connect.

The open letter calls on Skype to clarify their policies and procedures, and to release a regular transparency report that includes:

Quantitative data regarding the release of Skype user information to third parties, disaggregated by the country of origin of the request, including the number of requests made by governments, the type of data requested, the proportion of requests with which it complied — and the basis for rejecting those requests it does not comply with.
Specific details of all user data Microsoft and Skype currently collects, and retention policies.
Skype’s best understanding of what user data third-parties, including network providers or potential malicious attackers, may be able to intercept or retain.
Documentation regarding the current operational relationship between Skype with TOM Online in China and other third-party licensed users of Skype technology, including Skype’s understanding of the surveillance and censorship capabilities that users may be subject to as a result of using these alternatives.
Skype’s interpretation of its responsibilities under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), its policies related to the disclosure of call metadata in response to subpoenas and National Security Letters (NSLs), and more generally, the policies and guidelines for employees followed when Skype receives and responds to requests for user data from law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the United States and elsewhere.

These are not onerous demands. Many of the world’s largest internet technology companies, including Google and Twitter, have committed to releasing regular transparency reports. Skype lags other major services: last year the company received the lowest possible marks in EFF’s “Who’s Got Your Back?” report, which cited the service for failing to push back against unreasonable government requests for data, or even inform users when such requests were made.

These concerns are heightened by Microsoft’s track record when it comes to respecting user privacy. The company has demonstrated leadership on human rights issues writ large, including playing a founding role in the industry-leading Global Network Initiative. However, its credentials on privacy are mixed: a history of vague and inconsistent policies, and outstanding known vulnerabilities.

Corporate transparency on the issue of government requests for users’ data has never been more important: this year, the US Congress is expected to consider a proposed amendment to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) that would require backdoor access to be built into all communications technologies.

Concerns about backdoor access—including so-called ‘lawful intercept’—are obvious. Even in a perfect world, where no government oversteps its bounds, backdoors create security risks that can be exploited by anyone and create compliance costs that hurt innovation while increasing costs for consumers. Even if a legal mandate for these backdoors is put in place on a national level, users who want security will simply buy software and products produced in other countries. EFF, which has been tracking these issues for years, has a useful recent roundup of some of the reasons why regulating cryptography and mandating backdoors is always a bad idea.

Access signs open letters because we remain optimistic that—with enough encouragement—companies will do the right thing and live up to their human rights obligations. To that end, we hope for a swift response that clarifies Skype’s policies, the introduction of a regular and meaningful transparency report and a commitment to more proactive and transparent disclosure.

The full text of the letter to Skype can be found below. (http://www.skypeopenletter.com/)

Time for Congress to offer help against cyber attacks

mikeaccess — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:32:23 -0500

Time for Congress to offer help against cyber attacks

We love the internet. And we’re guessing you do too. Think about...

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:08:00 -0500

We love the internet.

And we’re guessing you do too. Think about all the awesome things it gives us: A vast communication network; innovative businesses; a platform to freely speak or challenge powerful governments; and hundreds and hundreds of hours of cat videos.

All this great stuff is available because the internet was designed in an open and inclusive way, with a multitude of voices being able to get a say on how it’s governed.

But the internet is in danger.

There’s a meeting between the world’s governments in a just a few weeks, and it could very well decide the future of the internet through a binding international treaty. It’s called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), and it’s being organized by a government-controlled UN agency called the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

If some proposals at WCIT are approved, decisions about the internet would be made by a top-down, old-school government-centric agency behind closed doors. Some proposals allow for access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimize monitoring and blocking online traffic. Others seek to impose new fees for accessing content, not to mention slowing down connection speeds. If the delicate balance of the internet is upset, it could have grave consequences for businesses and human rights.

This must be stopped.

Only governments get a vote at WCIT, so we need people from all around the world to demand that our leaders keep the internet open.

Watch the video, and take action above to tell your governments to oppose handing over key decisions about the internet to the ITU. Let’s use the internet’s global reach to save it.

The future of the internet if we dont act now! Stop Cyber...

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:31:47 -0400

The future of the internet if we dont act now!

Stop Cyber Martial Law!

Junk the Cybercrime Prevention Law!

Click through to sign the petition!

Photo

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:27:41 -0400

Click through to sign our petition

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:57:12 -0400

Click through to sign our petition

adcanencia: :(

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:54:04 -0400

adcanencia:

:(

8 Things I Found Out While Attending The Cybercrime Forum

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:21:14 -0400

8 Things I Found Out While Attending The Cybercrime Forum

said the Filipino government

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:08:00 -0400

said the Filipino government

Photo

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:07:21 -0400

Photo

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:06:33 -0400

Photo

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:05:19 -0400

ineestivitivitskk: UPHOLD INTERNET FREEDOM!

ieatmediaforbreakfast — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:04:53 -0400

ineestivitivitskk:

UPHOLD INTERNET FREEDOM!

Photo

ctack2013 — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:55:21 -0400

Got an awesome idea on how to use technology for human rights?...

mikeaccess — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:52:00 -0400

Got an awesome idea on how to use technology for human rights? Submit it to the Access Innovation Prize and you could win $20,000 for your idea.