freespeech
Latest
Interactive map shows you where internet censorship is strongest
If you're reading this, you probably enjoy open internet access as a matter of course. However, other countries aren't quite so liberal. How do you know where you're truly free? IVPN's new interactive censorship map might just answer that question for you. The site lets you click on a given country to quickly learn about its tendencies to block free speech online, attack critics and shred anonymity. Not surprisingly, very authoritarian governments like China, Cuba and Iran don't score well -- they tend to insist on real names when you post, and will throw you in prison for challenging the internet status quo. Many other countries, like Russia and Venezuela, walk an awkward line between freedom and trying to crush dissent.
Australian bill would jail those who report on leaked spying operations
Journalists in the US and UK may be relatively safe from the government's wrath when they report on surveillance leaks from the likes of Edward Snowden, but the Australian press may have to tread carefully before too long. Attorney General George Brandis has presented a bill that would make it a crime to reveal information that might "prejudice the effective conduct" of "special intelligence operations," such as those from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). It also creates new charges specific to people who might become whistleblowers, such as contractors and the spies themselves.
Turkey's prime minister accuses Twitter of tax evasion
Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan isn't happy that free speech rights thwarted his desires to block Twitter and silence corruption allegations, so he's switching to plan B: accuse Twitter of shady dealings. He's now promising to "go after" the social network for tax evasion, and has implied that other internet-based peers like Facebook and YouTube might be breaking local laws. We've reached out to Twitter for its response, but we wouldn't expect the company to take Erdogan's charge lightly.
China wants microbloggers to register with the government, hand over real identity
Thought that Facebook's and Google+'s requirements that you use your real name were draconian? Just be thankful you're not a weibo addict in China. The government is planning to expand a program that demands users register their real names and disclose their identity. Wang Chen, China's top internet regulation official, said the eventual goal would be to get all 250 million microbloggers registered, starting first with any new users signing up. The obvious privacy and free speech issues that could arise from such a move shouldn't need to be explained -- especially considering the country's track record of censorship and politically motivated arrests. Sadly, unlike SOPA, putting an end to this troubling law isn't as simple as putting up a black banner or emailing your congressman.
Democratic Republic of Congo bans text messaging
After a controversial presidential election that saw Joseph Kabila retain the office amid fierce protests, the Democratic Republic of Congo has shut down the nation's text messaging services in order to restore public order. Civil liberties concerns aside, it's proving to be highly dangerous for the one point four million deaf residents who rely on text messaging. Normally they would receive safety signals when conflict broke out in their vicinity -- leading to people being caught unawares in crossfires who would otherwise have remained indoors. Human Rights organization ASADHO has said the crackdown could lead to further deaths, especially for people in remote areas and has joined numerous others in requesting the repeal of the ban.
UK Gov wants opt-in system for adult material, imagine a boot stamping on a trackpad, forever
Looks like Prime Minister David Cameron's not content with just shuttering the internet during social unrest (whilst condemning others who do the same). He's declared that four of the UK's biggest ISPs have entered into an opt-in system for adult material. The move is backed by the Mothers Union but has been flatly denied by the ISPs, who insist they're offering McAfee parental controls with new signups rather than Government-level web filtering. (Probably a massive let down to those eagerly waiting to delegate their parental responsibilities.) Of course, given the flaky nature of web filtering, any sanguine word that contained an expletive (the word "arsenal", for example) could be impossible to access until you had an awkward conversation with someone over the phone.
Telex anti-censorship system promises to leap over firewalls without getting burned
Human rights activists and free speech advocates have every reason to worry about the future of an open and uncensored internet, but researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of Waterloo have come up with a new tool that may help put their fears to rest. Their system, called Telex, proposes to circumvent government censors by using some clever cryptographic techniques. Unlike similar schemes, which typically require users to deploy secret IP addresses and encryption keys, Telex would only ask that they download a piece of software. With the program onboard, users in firewalled countries would then be able to visit blacklisted sites by establishing a decoy connection to any unblocked address. The software would automatically recognize this connection as a Telex request and tag it with a secret code visible only to participating ISPs, which could then divert these requests to banned sites. By essentially creating a proxy server without an IP address, the concept could make verboten connections more difficult to trace, but it would still rely upon the cooperation of many ISPs stationed outside the country in question -- which could pose a significant obstacle to its realization. At this point, Telex is still in a proof-of-concept phase, but you can find out more in the full press release, after the break.
UK teen arrested for illegal BBM, social media crackdown gains steam
Lending further gravity to the proposed crackdown being bandied about in British parliament, an Essex teen has been arrested for sending a BBM that ran afoul of the Serious Crime Act of 2007. The 18-year old, now free on bail, allegedly used the service to encourage copycat attacks of the violent rioting that's swept London, and is set to appear in court on September 1st. It's the second known case to put RIM's private messaging service -- "popular among urban teenagers" as a cheap texting alternative -- in the UK's legal hotseat. For its part, the Canadian electronics maker has since reached out to police, promising to aid the investigation "in any way [it] can." Although no decision has yet been made to extend law enforcement's powers over social media services, such as Twitter and Facebook, arrests like these seem to indicate a murky free speech future.
UK Prime Minister exploring social media crackdown in wake of London riots (video)
As Londoners continue to pick up the rubble and carnage from this week's riots, UK Prime Minister David Cameron is exploring new ways to maintain order -- including, apparently, a government crackdown on social media. In a speech to members of Parliament today, Cameron made clear his belief that law enforcement officials should be able to curb and monitor the use of social networking sites under certain circumstances, lending credence to the theory that mechanisms like Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry played a critical role in inciting the recent violence: "Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality." There's a fine line separating issues of national security from the rights to free speech, but it's a line that Cameron seems willing to toe. And, though he and his Conservative government are only mulling the idea, it's difficult to ignore the irony in his statements. Keep in mind that this is the same man who roundly condemned Hosni Mubarak for shutting down Egypt's internet at the height of its revolution, calling for the now-ousted leader to fully respect the "freedom of expression and communication, including use of telephones and the internet." Cameron, of course, isn't calling for anything nearly as drastic as what Mubarak orchestrated, nor is he facing anywhere near the same level of domestic turmoil. But the fundamental narrative remains the same: in the face of social upheaval, a national leader instinctively reaches for a digital muzzle as a stop-gap measure, while (perhaps) ignoring the larger, longer-term ramifications of his actions. Fortunately for the UK, though, Cameron is already doing one thing that Mubarak apparently never did -- he's thinking about right and wrong. Head past the break to see Cameron's speech, in its entirety.
PROTECT IP Act called unconstitutional by bipartisan group of law professors
Turns out Eric Schmidt is not alone in his vehement opposition to the PROTECT IP Act, and the resistance is hardly partisan. A group of over 100 law professors signed a letter (jointly authored by Mark Lemley, David Levine, and David Post) arguing that the legislation working its way through congress is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that speech can't be suppressed without the speaker being given an opportunity to defend his or her actions. Yet, under the bill being advocated for by the RIAA the MPAA, a judge can issue a temporary restraining order that will essentially shutdown a site based only on evidence presented by the government. The letter warns that, not only could overseas domain owners be cheated of the right to due process but, plenty of protected speech could be censored based a single piece of infringing material. As we warned, this can only get nastier and this nascent battle is still only just getting started. Check out the full letter at the source.
US Supreme Court strikes down California law, says video games are protected as free speech
It's already been found unconstitutional by lower courts, and now the Supreme Court of the United States has finally weighed in on the infamous California state law that sought to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. In a seven-to-two ruling on the Brown v. The Entertainment Merchants Association case, the Supreme Court said that video games are indeed protected as free speech under the First Amendment, and noted that under the constitution, "esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority." Inevitable, perhaps, but still a fairly historic day or the video game industry -- and one that we're guessing will be a bit more positively received than a certain other milestone involving violent video games this year. You can find the complete ruling in PDF form at the source link below.
Tennessee law bans 'distressing images,' opens your Facebook inbox
Congratulations Tennessee! Governor Bill Haslam has put your state in the national spotlight and, for once, it has nothing to do with Bonnaroo or how bad the Titans are. The republican executive of the state signed a ban on "distressing images" into law last week that we're sure constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with. Anyone who sends or posts an image online (and yes, that includes TwitPics) that they "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" could face several months in jail and thousands of dollars in fines. The best part? Anyone who stumbles across the image is a viable "victim" under the law and the government doesn't even have to prove any harmful intent. So, Tennessee residents who aren't cautious enough using Google image search could get a few people in trouble. Another, and perhaps more perturbing, part of the same bill also seeks to circumvent restrictions on obtaining private messages and information from social networking sites without a search warrant. We give it about a month before this gets struck down on obvious grounds that it's unconstitutional.
Danish newspaper protests App Store censorship
According to The Mac Observer, Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet isn't too happy with Apple's App Store policies regarding nudity. In a series of recently published editorials, the newspaper takes issue with Apple banning the Ekstra Bladet iPhone and iPad app because of their Page 9 Girl, a nude photograph of a woman they have been publishing for 34 years. Accusing Apple of double standards and acting like "an American nanny," the paper's Heine Jørgensen writes that he can't understand why they would ban something seen by Danes as "an innocent Danish institution on par with The Little Mermaid." Whether seen as an innocent institution or not, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that Apple has rejected an app from the App Store for nudity. As mentioned here on TUAW before, Apple has not only been banning sexual content in the App Store for quite some time now, but they have also started banning anything seen as controversial, such as the Manhattan Declaration, which we wrote about just last week. While what offends me may not offend you, Apple has to draw the line somewhere -- and they have decided to start with the idea that even "innocent" nudity is sexual content. I can't blame the folks at Ekstra Bladet for being upset at the removal of their app, but them's the rules as they stand right now.
On the Manhattan Declaration and Apple's curation of the App Store
After receiving thousands of complaints, Apple removed the "Manhattan Declaration" app from the App Store this week. The app, which espoused anti-gay and anti-abortion views, was originally released by a religious group founded by Chuck Colson. The app's ejection from the store has raised the ire of some who now decry Apple for not supporting free speech and/or being anti-Christian. Let's see if we can separate the light from the heat on this issue. First of all, stories about App Store rejections have been a staple since the dawn of the App Store. Then came stories of apps that were accepted and subsequently removed. The most infamous instances of yo-yoing in and out of the store were the Google Voice apps, which have since been restored after over a year's absence, but that is a rare case. Most times, when an app is removed, it is gone forever. Some great apps have been yanked, including MiTube, Camera+, iDOS and many more. On the inappropriate content front, Apple also removed a "Baby Shaker" application and a huge number of apps that were deemed "too sexy" for the App Store. Of course, porn apps have been banned since the App Store was announced.
Tim Berners-Lee entreats us to keep the net neutral, standards open, and speech free
We've always thought pretty highly of this Tim Berners-Lee fella, and now we've got a whole essay penned by him to show you why that is. In a six-page treatise on the current state of the web, Tim discusses why universality of access is so important to our freedom of speech and other democratic liberties, why open standards will always prevail over closed ecosystems (with a special critique of Apple's iTunes and concordant appification of the web), and also why it's necessary to distinguish between the web and the internet. Oh, and he also manages to squeeze in one of the most succinct explanations of net neutrality and its growing importance in our massively interconnected world. Hit the source for the full shot of enlightenment. [Image courtesy of Paul Clarke]
PlayStation Home full of immature jokers, unlike other virtual communities
It's not been a good month for Sony. Layoffs, poor holiday sales for the PS3 and a wee bit of hacking over at PlayStation Home surely have the electronics giant hungry for some good press, which has made the newest PR kerfuffle over at the nascent online service quite unfortunate. According to Ars Technica, Home has become something akin to the nightmare futurescape of The Warriors, a service "incredibly unwelcoming to women, with female players quickly mobbed as players dance around them or type sexual come-ons... a disturbing look at the worst part of human nature." This is heady stuff, but as the company is quick to point out, the thing is still in Beta, and it's still evolving -- hopefully, as it becomes more popular the free service will move itself out of the adolescent ghetto. In the mean time, they've been rocking a bit of good old fashioned censorship, banning words like "gay," "Jew," and "Hell" -- perfectly understandishable if you've ever spent a minute on any online gaming service, but highly uncool if you're trying to build any sort of inclusive social network. In the meantime, what's a homosexual Jewish Satanist to do? There's always Second Life...
Microsoft, Google, and others developing code of conduct
It's not often you see a group of companies like this working together on something, but Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and Vodafone look to have put aside their differences and sat down with each other in an effort to address concerns of privacy rights and freedom of expression relating to their various business dealings (most prominently those with China), joining with a group of nongovernmental organizations to develop a code of conduct that each will follow when such issues arise. While there's no indication when the code of conduct will be finalized or go into effect, the groups working to develop it certainly lead quite a bit of credibility to it, with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, Business for Social Responsibility, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders all having a hand in its drafting. What's not so clear, however, is what, if any, consequences the companies would face should they violate the code, only that they'll be held "accountable for their actions."
