From: Chris Chiu [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 October 2003 17:36
To: Gilc-Announce (E-mail)
Subject: [Gilc-announce] GILC Alert
GILC Alert
Volume 7, Issue 7
10 October 2003
Welcome to the Global Internet Liberty Campaign Newsletter.
Welcome to GILC Alert, the newsletter of the Global Internet Liberty
Campaign. We are an international organization of groups working for
cyber-liberties, who are determined to preserve civil liberties and human
rights on the Internet.
We hope you find this newsletter interesting, and we very much hope that you
will avail yourselves of the action items in future issues.
If you are a part of an organization that would be interested in joining
GILC, please contact us at <[log in to unmask]>.
If you are aware of threats to cyber-liberties that we may not know about,
please contact the GILC members in your country, or contact GILC as a whole.
Please feel free to redistribute this newsletter to appropriate forums.
===============================================
Free expression
[1] Hollywood Net lawsuit blitz generates outcry
[2] China prosecutes gov't official over Net speech activities
[3] India bans Yahoo chat group over political content
[4] US gov't threatens reporters over Net security story
[5] World info society summit in turmoil
[6] Thai gov't pushes Net censor plans despite problems
[7] Australian measure may stop oversight of Net censors
[8] German anonymizing service receives favorable court ruling
[9] Court upholds weblinks' legality in Scientology case
[10] Uzbek free speech website censorship flap
[11] Russian gov't searches news Web site's office
[12] Report: Net censorship increasing worldwide
Privacy
[13] Lawsuit: Microsoft dominance leads to Net security woes
[14] Loverspy service may violate Net privacy laws
[15] Controversy mounts over Bangladesh Net spy plans
[16] Congress agrees to shutdown TIA spy program
[17] British gov't again unveils a "Snoopers' Charter"
[18] Multiple bills would restore US privacy protections
[19] Privacy fears haunt built-in mobile phone recorders
[20] Report: Trusted Computing systems bad for Net rights
[21] Euro study calls for privacy rights restoration
=============================================================
[1] Hollywood Net lawsuit blitz generates outcry
=============================================================
As promised, a major recording industry conglomerate has sued numerous
Internet users over their alleged file-sharing activities.
The Recording Industry Association of America has filed 261 lawsuits so far
against various Internet users who they claim have engaged in copyright
infringement by sharing music files online. Apparently not all of these
users actually were infringers; the RIAA dropped at least one of its
lawsuits after discovering that the intended target was a 65-year-old
grandmother, Sarah Ward, who had never downloaded music over the Internet
and did not have any children or grandchildren at home who might have done
so. Cindy Cohn from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member)
expressed disgust at the RIAA's seemingly indiscriminate targeting of Ms.
Ward: "She's had some sleepless nights over it. She said it's been terribly
distressing." These efforts have also led to consternation from various
members of the business community, including Charter Communications, which
is fighting a RIAA subpoena for personal information regarding 150 of its
customers who the Association claim!
s are copyright infringers.
This battle over Internet rights has been especially intense at many
universities. Some entertainment industry legal actions have met with
resistance; for example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC
member) and a local law firm have asked a Federal court to quash a subpoena
for personal data regarding a Boston College student who allegedly engaged
in peer-to-peer file sharing. However, some educational institutions have
decided instead to engage in private censorship of the Internet to avoid
potential copyright liability. For example, the University of Florida has
instituted a new system named Icarus that reportedly detects and disrupts
Internet users from engaging in file-sharing activity. The system first
sends an email message and a pop-up window warning a given user that they
are engaged in improper activity, then disconnects that person from the
Information Superhighway for at least 30 minutes; additional alerts and
longer suspensions are given to alleged r!
epeat offenders. However, it is unclear what mechanisms are used to prevent
Icarus from disrupting noninfringing or otherwise innocent behavior. A
University of Florida official crowed that bandwidth usage had plummeted by
85 percent after Icarus installed, without explaining how many law-abiding
Internet users were among those who had been forced offline.
Nevertheless, various leading entertainment industry figures remain
undeterred by the seemingly detrimental impact their lawsuits have had on
Internet speech. Indeed, during a recent United States Senate subcommittee
hearing on the subject, RIAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mitch
Bainwol called for heavier Internet censorship (notably filtering) for the
benefit of copyright holders.
Meanwhile, oddly enough, the maker of one popular file sharing program is
issuing its own copyright threats to prevent the spread of information
online. Sharman Networks, the maker of the Kazaa peer-to-peer program,
claims that an unauthorized Lite version of the program (which comes devoid
of various spyware routines contained in the regular version) violates the
much-maligned U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The company then
pressured Google not to provide weblinks to copies of the stripped-down
derivative. Google customers who search for Kazaa Lite are simply not shown
certain links and are given a notice that reads (in part): "In response to a
complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have
removed 3 result(s) from this page."
For the latest details, click read Stefanie Olsen, "Charter files suit
against RIAA," CNET News, 6 October 2003 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1027_3-5087304.html
An ACLU press release regarding the Boston College case is posted at
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13802&c=251
For more information about the Senate subcommittee hearing, click
http://govt-aff.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=12
0
Read "Rapper backs download action," BBC News Online, 1 October 2003 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3154316.stm
An EFF press release regarding the Sarah Ward case is posted under
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/20030924_eff_pr.php
Read Benny Evangelista, "Download lawsuit dismissed/RIAA drops claim that
grandmother stole online music," San Francisco Chronicle, 25 September 2003,
page B1 at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/25/BUGJC1TO2D1.DTL
Read John Borland, "RIAA's case of mistaken identity?" CNET News, 24
September 2003 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1027_3-5081469.html
Read "Grandmother piracy lawsuit dropped," BBC News Online, 25 September
2003 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3140160.stm
For more about the Icarus Internet disruption tool, read Katie Dean,
"Florida Dorms Lock Out P2P Users," Wired News, 3 October 2003 at
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60613,00.html
For coverage in German (Deutsch), read "Uni Florida mit Servern gegen P2P
auf dem Campus," Heise Online, 4 October 2003 at
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/cgl-04.10.03-003/
To see the Google DMCA notice regarding Kazaa Lite, click
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=kazaa+li
te
Read Declan McCullagh, "Google pulls links to Kazaa imitator," CNET News, 2
September 2003 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1032_3-5070227.html
See also Dinah Greek, "Google sucked into RIAA/P2P fight," VNUNet News, 2
September 2003 at
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143341
===============================================================
[2] China prosecutes gov't official over Net speech activities
===============================================================
Mainland Chinese authorities have arrested yet another person for speaking
out online.
Li Zhi was a local finance official in the southwestern province of Sichuan
who apparently conducted online discussions with various overseas
dissidents. Chinese government agents have since detained him, claiming he
had engaged in a "conspiracy to subvert state power." The authorities have
searched his home and seized various items, including his computer. If
convicted, he could spend the next 15 years in prison.
Li's arrest is being seen as evidence of Beijing's continued hostility to
free speech through the Information Superhighway. Liu Qing, the president of
Human Rights in China (HRIC), charged that "Monitoring e-mail and Internet
chatrooms is an unacceptable invasion of privacy, and a reprehensible method
of gathering evidence for prosecution of a political crime. Given the U.S.
government's recent statements on China's human rights record, we hope the
government will take particular note of this case and press for the
immediate release of Li Zhi."
In addition, a Chinese appeals court has upheld a 5-year prison sentence for
Huang Qi. He was the proprietor of www.6-4tianwang.com, a website designed
to publicize information about missing people that attracted postings about
human rights abuses, corruption, and political issues. He was arrested over
three years ago after visitors to Huang's site posted several supposedly
"subversive" articles. He has been behind bars ever since and allegedly has
been tortured by his captors. The appeals court proceedings were held in
secret, and his lawyers were forced to withdraw from his defense under heavy
pressure from government agents. Chinese authorities have also warned
Huang's wife not to launch any further appeals.
Meanwhile, another Chinese Internet dissident has finally been released from
jail. Nearly four years ago, Qi Yanchen was arrested, convicted and
imprisoned on subversion charges for "putting out anti-government news" by
posting pro-democracy articles on the Information Superhighway. Although it
is unclear why he was released, Qi reportedly had been suffering from a
variety of ailments, including an ear infection, colitis and gallstones.
For more information on the Li Zhi case, visit the Reporters Sans Frontieres
(RSF-a GILC member) website at
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=8078
Further details are available from the HRIC website under
http://iso.hrichina.org/iso/news_item.adp?news_id=1530
See "China online dissident 'charged,'" BBC News Online, 24 September 2003
at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3134306.stm
For more about the Huang Qi case, click
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=8182
For more information about Qi Yanchen's release, visit the RSF website under
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=8126
========================================================
[3] India bans Yahoo chat group over political content
========================================================
An Indian government order to censor a Yahoo chat group over its political
content has led to user frustration and vehement objections from
cyber-rights experts.
The order targeted a Yahoo group that featured political commentary
regarding the northeastern state of Meghalaya, including discussions of
government corruption, public works problems and police brutality. Indian
authorities claimed that the website should be censored because it
"contained material against the Government of India and the State Government
of Meghalaya" and demanded that Yahoo take it down. When the company
refused, Indian government officials ordered the country's Internet service
providers (ISPs) to block their users from accessing the site. Many of those
ISPs ended up blocking all Yahoo groups (not just the Meghalaya-oriented
site in question) due to technical shortcomings.
According to Indian cyber-law expert Pawan Duggal, "This appears to be the
first case where blocking of a particular website or sub-group has had the
ramification of causing inconvenience to the netizens in the sense of
depriving them of access to legal groups, other than the blocked URL." He
warned that the legal provision that the government cited as justification
for its actions "may be misused by political powers in the regime to silence
political dissent, criticism and debate. The phenomenon of mirror sites and
emerging technologies along with intelligent minds of netizens are likely to
ensure that India's blocking adventure starts its march on a losing note."
Indian Internet users have savaged the government over its blocking action;
Harsh Kapoor of the South Asia Citizens' Web called the order "a violation
of freedom of expression" that "sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and
control over the Internet in India."
See "Indian Net Ban Overshoots Aim," Associated Press, 29 September 2003 at
http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60628,00.html
Read "Outrage over India Yahoo ban," BBC News Online, 29 September 2003 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3148288.stm
See Dinesh C. Sharma, "India bans a Yahoo group," CNET News, 23 September
2003 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-5081021.html
Read Sandeep Dikshit, "Bid to block anti-India website affects users," The
Hindu, 23 September 2003 at
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/09/23/stories/2003092312761100.htm
See also Shibu Thomas, "'Anti-national' Yahoo Groups blocked," MidDay, 24
September 2003 at
http://web.mid-day.com/news/city/2003/september/64623.htm
=========================================================
[4] US gov't pressures reporters over Net security story
=========================================================
United States government attempts to access reporters' notes in various
Internet cases have generated anxiety from press freedom advocates.
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is trying to get notes from
journalists who had reported on the case of Adrian Lamo. Government
prosecutors allege that Lamo committed various computer crimes, including
breaking into the internal computer network of the New York Times. FBI agent
Christine Howard told a Wired News reporter to expect a Federal order to
divulge all notes regarding Lamo, and has said that "[a]ll reporters who
spoke with Lamo" will receive similar orders. Since then, letters have been
sent to a number of other journalists following up on this threat, citing
provisions of the Electronic Communications Transactional Records Act (which
were recently amended by the much-maligned USA PATRIOT Act) and warning
recipients "not to disclose this request, or its contents, to anyone." It is
unclear whether such requests are actually legal; indeed, some law experts
have suggested that the anticipated orders may actually violate Federal
guidelines, which allow o!
rders for reporters' materials only if "the information sought is essential
to a successful investigation -- particularly with reference to directly
establishing guilt or innocence." Those guidelines also require the
government show beforehand that it has "unsuccessfully attempted to obtain
the information from alternative non-media sources."
Several observers have expressed serious concern over whether these requests
will deter press coverage and discussion of Internet security issues. Lee
Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member) noted that
the current administration "has been less than solicitous of the First
Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution (which guarantees free speech and
freedom of the press), "[s]o it should come as no surprise that they're
treating journalists' notes as just another source of information."
After the ensuing outcry, FBI Deputy General Counsel Patrick Kelly issued a
letter admitting that the Electronic Communications Transactional Records
Act "does not apply under the circumstances of this case." Moreover, a U.S.
Justice Department spokesperson admitted that the FBI did not properly
follow internal procedures when it attempted to get reporters' notes
regarding the Lamo case. However, the FBI has since sent revised letters
asking reporters to "voluntarily take appropriate action to preserve
relevant records and materials. ... FBI personnel will be in further
communication with you to determine whether we can reach a mutual
agreement."
For further information, visit the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the
Press website under
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/1008fbilet.html
See Declan McCullagh, "My (brief) career as an ISP," CNET News, 10 October
2003 at
http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-5089267.html
Read Noah Shachtman, "FBI Seeking Reporters' Notes," Wired News, 22
September 2003 at
http://wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60538,00.html
=============================================================
[5] World info society summit in turmoil
=============================================================
Controversy continues to swirl over an upcoming World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS).
The WSIS, which is being organized by the International Telecommunications
Union under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), is supposed to foster
discussion regarding the socio-economic impact of new technologies. The goal
of the Summit is "to develop and foster a clear statement of political will
and a concrete plan of action for achieving the goals of the Information
Society, while fully reflecting all the different interests at stake."
However, many groups have expressed concern over whether the Summit will pay
sufficient attention to a number of issues, including human rights and the
digital divide. These concerns have been heightened by two recent
developments. For one thing, the organizers of the WSIS have excluded two
human rights groups, Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member) and Human
Rights in China (HRIC), from participating in the summit. After being
notified of this rejection, RSF secretary general Robert Menard questioned
how the UN could "still expect to maintain the least credibility in the
light of this kind of decision, which contravenes the most basic principles
of freedom of expression."
In addition to rejecting RSF and HRIC, the president of Tunisia (which will
host the second phase of the WSIS in 2005) has appointed General Habib Ammar
to head the preparatory committee for the 2005 gathering. General Ammar, who
had previously served as Commander of the Tunisian National Guard and as
Interior Minister, has been cited by human rights activists for his forces'
heavy use of torture against demonstrators and political opponents of the
ruling regime. Numerous civil society organizations issued a joint statement
expressing "stupor and indignation" about "the appointment by Tunisian
President Ben Ali of General Habib Ammar. ... The signatory organizations
are already preoccupied by the decision to hold the second phase of WSIS in
a country known for its serious violations of human rights and the rule of
law. They consider that naming this military man ... who has been denounced
by the World Organization Against Torture for his activities, presents a
real risk of c!
ompromising the proceedings of this Summit. This appointment has already
tarnished the image of the WSIS and risks undermining the legitimacy of its
outcome. The civil society organizations consider that the two principal
objectives of the Summit, that is to say the struggle to overcome the
digital divide and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in
the information and communication society, cannot be dissociated from each
other."
These and other issues were hotly debated during a preparatory meeting held
this past September. Due to these disagreements, summit organizers were
forced to schedule an additional preparatory meeting for November 2004, just
one month before the first WSIS phase (in Geneva) is to begin.
The civil society statement concerning the appointment of General Ammar is
posted at
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/petition-tunisia-en.html
An archive of WSIS-related documents is available from the Imaginons un
Reseau Internet Solidaire (IRIS-a GILC member) under
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/
Read "Discord at digital divide talks," BBC News Online, 29 September 2003
at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3148356.stm
See Monika Ermert, "World+dog fight over World Summit of The Information
Society," The Register (UK), 27 September 2003 at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33086.html
For coverage in German (Deutsch), see Monika Ermert, "WSIS: Ringen um die
Netzverwaltung," Heise Online, 25 September 2003 at
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-25.09.03-008/
See also Christianne Schulzki-Haddouti, "Kritik an Vorbereitungskonferenz
zum WSIS," Heise Online, 23 September 2003 at
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-23.09.03-005/
An RSF press release regarding the WSIS is posted at
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=7972
=========================================================
[6] Thai gov't pushes Net censor plans despite problems
=========================================================
Government officials in Thailand are facing numerous problems in their
efforts to restrict access to various types of online content.
Earlier this year, the Thai government had implemented a system that blocked
several overseas and local websites between 10PM and 6AM. While the curfew
supposedly was meant to prevent children from playing games through computer
networks, the ban affected all Thai Internet users, no matter what their age
or where they are located in the country. It was also unclear if the
blocking was actually limited to gaming sites. Since then, the government
instituted a new scheme to force Internet users to supply information from
their national ID cards. More specifically, online game servers will collect
such data from users, ostensibly to determine their age. It is unclear what
procedures are in place to protect the privacy of people whose information
is collected through this scheme or what detrimental impact the plan will
have on free speech.
Meanwhile, Thai government attempts to impose a ratings system on websites
has run aground after the committee charged with creating the system became
bitterly divided over what should be banned. The 100-member panel that was
convened by the country's Information and Communications Technology Ministry
could not come to an agreement over whether to ban such materials as
websites offering lucky lottery numbers and online drug retailers. These
problems were further highlighted in a recent study by Chulalongkorn
University strongly suggesting that government efforts to block
controversial Internet content are doomed to failure. One of the scientists
involved in the study explained: "It's impossible to block the sites and web
filtering or blocking does not work anymore because these web sites can
easily change their domain names."
Read Sasiwimon Boonruang, "Gov't can't block porn sites, claim researchers,"
Bangkok Post, 10 September 2003 at
http://search.bangkokpost.co.th/bkkpost/2003/sep2003/bp20030910/database/10S
ep2003_data61.html
See Karnjana Karnjanatawe, "Online game curfew to be relaxed next month,"
Bangkok Post, 10 September 2003 at
http://search.bangkokpost.co.th/bkkpost/2003/sep2003/bp20030910/database/10S
ep2003_data51.html
See also Porpot Changyawa, "Censors can't agree what to ban," Bangkok Post,
1 September 2003 at
http://www.bangkokpost.com/010903_News/01Sep2003_news06.html
===============================================================
[7] Australian measure may stop oversight of Net censors
===============================================================
The Australian Senate has approved a plan that critics say will reduce the
accountability of government agents who restrict access to Internet content.
The plan came in the form of amendments to the country's Freedom of
Information Act (FOI). Previously, FOI exemptions had allowed several
government agencies, most notably the Australian Broadcasting Authority
(ABA), to deny access (on a case by case basis) to information regarding a 4
year old scheme that restricted Internet content based on a rating system
previously used for films. Thus, when Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA-a
GILC member) requested data regarding the government's content restriction
system, the ABA obscured details such as website addresses and names/titles
of prohibited online content prior to releasing the relevant documents. The
new amendments create a blanket FOI exemption, thereby allowing the ABA, the
Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) and the Classification
(Censorship) Boards to prevent the release of a broader range of information
that does not include identifying information about, or copies of,
prohibited content. Thus, doc!
uments that were previously released regarding the censorship scheme with
some information blacked out will not be released at all.
Not surprisingly, these moves generated fierce resistance from various
quarters, especially cyberliberties groups. EFA pointed out that the
amendments were "designed to further prevent public scrutiny (and potential
criticism) of the operation and administration of the Internet censorship
regime. ... The government provided no justification whatsoever for these
new broad exemptions." Instead, EFA called on the Australian government to
amend current laws "to require the ABA and OFLC to make freely and publicly
available the same amount of information about classification decisions
concerning online content as has long been made readily available about
classification of movies, publications and computer games."
Further information is available from the EFA website under
http://www.efa.org.au/FOI/clabill2002/
Read Sharon Mathieson, "Offensive sites banned under FOI," AAP, 10 September
2003 at
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7223234%255E15306,00.html
==================================================================
[8] German anonymizing service receives favorable court ruling
==================================================================
A new German court ruling has restored protections for anonymous online free
speech.
The case revolved around the AN.ON anonymizing service, which utilizes a
Java Anonymizing Proxy (JAP) from TU Dresden. The German Federal Office of
Criminal Investigation Office (BKA) required AN.ON workers to store
information collected regarding a user (as identified by that person's
Internet Protocol address) for a certain period and to turn that data over
to law enforcement. The BKA's actions drew objections from AN.ON and many
other groups, including the Independent Center for Privacy Protection
(ICPP), which calling the request "obviously illegal." A trial court
rejected arguments made by the ICPP and AN.ON, holding that anonymisers
without backdoors for law enforcement purposes to be illegal.
However, a district court in Frankfurt am Main essentially reversed the
prior ruling. The higher court agreed with the ICPP and said that the BKA
had "no legal ground" to support their request. In a press release, the
Center applauded the decision, calling on "AN.ON users to defend the right
to anonymity" and to fight "against plans in the German Parliament's Upper
House" to require service providers to record data about their users.
The ICPP press release is posted at
http://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/material/themen/presse/anonip3.htm
==================================================================
[9] Court upholds weblinks' legality in Scientology case
==================================================================
A Dutch court has upheld the legality of weblinks on free speech grounds.
The case began in 1995 when a representative from the Church of Scientology
along with a Dutch court officer appeared at the offices of Internet service
provider (ISP) XS4ALL (a GILC member) and tried to take XS4ALL's servers.
The Church was apparently aggrieved because several Scientology documents
had been posted on an XS4ALL hosted website. Karin Spaink, a writer, heard
of the dispute and subsequently reposted those documents on her own site,
which was also hosted by XS4ALL. The Church eventually sued both Spaink and
XS4ALL for copyright infringement, leading to years of court battles.
Eventually, the Dutch Court of Appeal rejected the Church's arguments and
overruled two lower court decisions. One of those decisions had held that
ISPs should be held liable for materials posted by their users and should
remove weblinks to such materials. XS4ALL's Edith Mastenbroek commented that
the appeals court ruling "establishes an important freedom of speech
precedence for the Internet and ISPs in particular. Any laws set to control
how ISPs interact with copyright laws must be made crystal clear."
The ruling is available (in PDF format) at
http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/arrestscientology.pdf
Read Matt Hines, "Scientology loss keeps hyperlinks legal," CNET News, 8
September 2003 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-5072581.html
=============================================================
[10] Uzbek free speech website censorship flap
=============================================================
The website of a free speech group in Uzbekistan has been blocked under
mysterious circumstances.
Ozod Ovoz is a non-profit group that promotes freedom of expression and the
press in the Central Asian nation. Earlier this year, it launched a website
that contained numerous articles concerning Uzbek political issues,
including criticism of the country's president, Islam Karimov. Several weeks
ago, the website was rendered inaccessible throughout the country; people in
Uzbekistan who tried to visit the site (including its editor) received a
message warning that they were not authorized to access it. UzPAK, a
government agency that provides nearly all Internet access in the
Uzbekistan, is allegedly responsible for blocking the site.
The apparent censoring of Ozod Ovoz has drawn concern from a number of other
free speech organizations. Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member)
issued a statement calling on the Uzbek government to explain itself with
regard to these developments, noting that Uzbek "authorities regularly
censor such critical news websites."
The Ozod Ovoz website is located at
http://www.Ozodovoz.org
For further information, visit the RSF website under
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=7941&var_recherche=Ozod+Ovoz
=============================================================
[11] Russian gov't searches news Web site's office
=============================================================
The operators of a Russian independent news website are facing serious
pressure from government agents over a controversial Internet video.
Based in Moscow, Grani.ru provides coverage of a variety of issues,
including ongoing armed struggle in Chechnya. This past August, an anonymous
Internet user sent an email to Grani with a video of two prosecutors working
for the pro-Russian administration in Chechnya who had been kidnapped last
year. The video clip included footage showing one of the kidnapped
prosecutors pleading for help
from Boris Berezovsky, the exiled majority shareholder of Grani who is a
staunch political opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russian
government agents then did a surprise search of Grani's offices. The agents
apparently went beyond the bounds of the search warrant (which only provided
for investigators to get a copy of the video) and interrogated several Grani
employees, including the publication's General Director Yulia Berezovskaya,
editor Vladimir Korsunsky and military correspondent Vladimir Ermolin.
The plight of Grani has attracted the attention of various free press
groups, including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ-a GILC member).
CPJ noted that there are still many disturbing questions that have yet to be
answered regarding this case, including why the government felt the need to
engage in such intrusive behavior.
For further information, visit the CPJ website under
http://www.cpj.org/news/2003/Russia24sept03na.html
Read "Prosecutors search office of pro-Berezovsky website," Gateway To
Russia, 19 September 2003 at
http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_142854.php
=============================================================
[12] Report: Net censorship increasing worldwide
=============================================================
A new study suggests not only that Internet censorship is common around the
world, but that efforts to stifle online free speech are becoming
increasingly effective.
Entitled "Silenced," the report was released during a preparatory meeting of
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva (see item [5]
above). Among other things, researchers found that restrictions on Internet
activity as well as government secrecy and communications surveillance have
reached an unprecedented level across the globe. The twelve-month study
found that a sharp escalation in control of the Internet since September
2001 may have outstripped the traditional ability of the medium to repel
attempts at restriction: "The September 11, 2001 attacks have given numerous
governments the opportunity to promulgate restrictive policies that their
citizens had previously opposed. There has been an acceleration of legal
authority for additional snooping, from increased email monitoring to the
retention of Web logs and communications data. Simultaneously, governments
have become more secretive about their own activities, reducing information
that was previousl!
y available and refusing to adhere to policies on freedom of information."
The report criticizes the United States and the United Kingdom "for creating
initiatives hostile to Internet freedom" by, among things, setting "a
technological and regulatory standard for mass surveillance and control of
the Internet."
The report was compiled and edited by Privacy International (a GILC member)
and the GreenNet Educational Trust. The project was funded by a grant from
the Open Society Institute (a GILC member).
The report is available online at
http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/censorship/
====================================================================
[13] Lawsuit: Microsoft dominance leads to Net security woes
====================================================================
Is a software giant's market dominance having a detrimental impact on
Internet security?
That's the question posed by a new lawsuit filed in Los Angeles. The lawsuit
was filed on behalf of Marcy Hamilton, who claims that a flaw in a
Microsoft-manufactured program allowed a fraudster to steal her personal
information. The suit charges that Microsoft has failed to secure its
software and should be held liable to users who have been affected by
ensuing security breaches. In addition, the plaintiff's lawyers claim that
"Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop software" has exacerbated these
problems and "has created a global security risk. ... As a result of
Microsoft's concerted effort to strengthen and expand its monopolies and by
tightly integrating applications with its operating system... the world's
computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failure."
The lawsuit came just after a report written by several prominent computer
security experts suggested that Microsoft's near-monopoly in various fields
endangered the infrastructure of the United States. The report, which was
commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association,
expressed fears that Microsoft changes to its software that are supposed to
enhance security would actually make it more difficult for individuals to
switch to non-Microsoft products. One of the study's authors, Bruce
Schneier, explained: "Under the guise of security, [Microsoft] achieving
lock-in. It's using security technologies to extend the monopolies."
Read Robert Lemos and Ina Fried, "Lawsuit opens new can of worms for
Microsoft," CNET News, 7 October 2003 at
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39116969,00.htm
See "Microsoft faces fresh lawsuit," BBC News Online, 3 October 2003 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3161752.stm
See also Robert Lemos, "Report: Microsoft dominance poses security risk,"
CNET News, 24 September 2003 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1029_3-5081214.html
For press coverage in Spanish (Espanol), read "Microsoft afronta demanda
colectiva por fallos de seguridad," DelitosInformaticos.com, 5 October 2003
at
http://www.delitosinformaticos.com/noticias/106534675629160.shtml
=============================================================
[14] Loverspy service may violate Net privacy laws
=============================================================
A new commercial Internet spy program is drawing serious criticism from
privacy advocates.
The program is being offered by a company named Loverspy. Under the system,
targeted individuals are sent a doctored email greeting card. Unwitting
individuals who open the card are lured to a website that will
surreptitiously place a Trojan horse spy program on their respective
computers. According to the company, the program can capture a wide range of
Internet information, including passwords, chatroom data, screenshots,
keystrokes and even web camera images (if the victim has such a camera
already installed). This information is then sent to the Loverspy's server
and forwarded to Loverspy clients, who can pay USD 89 to have such
operations performed on up to 5 computers.
Many privacy advocates believe that the entire scheme may be illegal. Chris
Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC-a GILC member)
warned that the Loverspy service "is clearly a wiretapping violation." He
compared Loverspy's activities to Magic Lantern, a controversial computer
virus concept proposed by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations
to allow remote interception of private Internet transmissions. Similarly,
computer expert Mark Rasch believes that Loverspy's e-greeting surveillance
scheme might be "a felony. Loading a program onto someone else's computer
without their authorization is patently illegal." Late word is that the
United States government has launched an investigation to determine whether
Loverspy has indeed violated Federal wiretapping laws.
See "Are You Being 'Snooped'?" CBSNews.com, 10 October 2003 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/03/tech/printable571296.shtml
Read "The e-spy who loves you could be a felon," Reuters, 30 September 2003
at
http://news.com.com/2102-1029_3-5083874.html
=============================================================
[15] Controversy mounts over Bangladesh Net spy plans
=============================================================
Many observers fear that a new surveillance plan will seriously erode the
privacy of Internet users in Bangladesh.
Under the plan, the South Asian nation's 2001 Telecommunications Act would
be amended to allow intercepted Internet communications and phone calls in
judicial proceedings. Previously, Bangladeshi authorities could not legally
conduct wiretaps, and while it has been rumored that government agents have
engaged in such activities anyway, they were not allowed to present the
information gathered through wiretaps in court. The proposal also calls for
government access to customer information that is held by telecommunications
providers, and would alter the Act so that its general privacy guarantee
would be subject to "national security laws."
Not surprisingly, the plan has been savaged by a number of experts and
organizations. Indeed, the proposal is being compared to numerous past
Bangladeshi restrictions on personal communications, such as requiring
security clearances before obtaining mobile phones. Telecom experts Abu
Sayed Khan warned that the amendments "represent a fundamental breach of our
right to communicate. If they are enacted it will be a devastating blow for
freedom of speech and will turn the country into a police state. Bangladesh
already has some of the most restrictive laws in relation to internet and
telephone access in the whole of Asia." Similar concerns were expressed by
Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member): "New information technology
allows greater monitoring of personal messages and the Bangladesh Government
must respect the privacy of its citizens and their right to communicate
freely."
An RSF press release about the proposal is posted at
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=7961
Read Alistair Lawson, "Anger at Bangladeshi snooping plans," BBC News
Online, 23 September 2003 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3131386.stm
See also Mustak Hossain, "Move on to tap phone calls, bust e-mails," The
Daily Star (BG), 4 September 2003 at
http://www.hrea.org/lists/huridocs-tech/markup/msg01049.html
=============================================================
[16] Congress agrees to shutdown TIA spy program
=============================================================
Lawmakers in the United States have decided to essentially halt efforts to
build a massive computer surveillance system.
Conceived by retired Admiral John Poindexter, the Terrorism Information
Awareness (TIA) project (previously named Total Information Awareness) was
being designed by a branch of the U.S. Department of Defense. Its goal was
to gather and compile personal data on a grand scale, including identifying
people at great distances by the irises of their eyes, the grooves in their
face and their gait. The technology would also analyze such things as
airline ticket purchases, visa applications, emails, and phone calls as well
as educational, medical and financial records. Its proponents believed that
by scanning and analyzing this massive pile of data, government agents would
be able to predict and prevent terrorist acts.
In response to public outcry over the project's potential privacy
implications, the U.S. Congress approved a plan to dismantle TIA. The
legislation also bans the government from using the technology envisioned by
TIA in any other successor program. However, the plan does authorize a
separate, classified program for "processing, analysis, and collaboration
tools for counter terrorism foreign intelligence," although there is
language barring the domestic use of this program against Americans. Tim
Edgar of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC member) hailed the
vote as "a resounding victory for individual liberty," but warned: "While
TIA may be dead and buried, we must remain on a constant lookout for other
super-snoop programs."
The text of the legislation is posted under
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/tia.html
An ACLU press release on this subject is available at
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13764&c=206
For background information, read Carl Hulse, "Poindexter's office closed
Department tried terrorism futures," New York Times, 26 September 2003 at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/26
/MN301359.DTL
=============================================================
[17] British gov't again unveils a "Snoopers' Charter"
=============================================================
Undaunted by past criticism, the British government has released revised
versions of proposals that may have serious implications for privacy online.
Last year, the British authorities sought to vastly increase the number of
organizations that could conduct surveillance under the much-maligned
Regulation of Investigatory Powers act (RIP), which mandated
telecommunications providers to facilitate government surveillance. The list
of agencies that would be given RIP wiretapping powers were not limited to
law enforcement bodies and included such groups as the British Food
Standards Agency and National Health Services-over 500 agencies in all.
After a blizzard of protests, government shelved the plan, then unveiled a
modified version of the proposal that, among other things, allowed only a
handful of additional government agencies to access telecommunications
information. In addition, the British Home Office released a second
consultation paper, this time regarding a voluntary code of practice for
retention of communications data, which could then be accessed by law
enforcement agents. This second document recommends that tel!
ecom providers should store such data for up to a year. The types of data to
be retained under the scheme might include email header information, web
surfing habits, callers' and recipients' names, and the geographic locations
of individual mobile phones. Privacy advocates and communications service
providers remained concerned over the government's intentions, especially
with regard to the data retention issue.
The Home Office has since released a further revised list of agencies that
would be given broader access to telecommunications data. Under this
multi-tiered scheme, several agencies, including the British atomic energy
constabulary as well as the maritime and coastal agency, would be given
automatic access to a full range of customer data, while a number of other
groups (including designated agencies in all 468 local councils in the
United Kingdom) would get access to subscriber information with the prior
approval of the British communications commissioner. Additionally, the Home
Office announced that telecom providers will be asked to retain customer
records for up to a year for the benefit of law enforcement and other
government agencies, and that they would force telecom providers to turn
over such records if the code of practice did not work.
The emergence of these revised proposals has angered many privacy advocates.
Shami Chakrabati, the director of Liberty (a GILC member), hoped that
history would repeat itself: "After the original 'snoopers' charter' was
published last year, the government was forced to retreat. ... We hope the
same happens again." Ian Brown from the Foundation for Information Policy
Research (FIPR-a GILC member) challenged the broad scope of the telecom data
access provisions: "If sensitive data is stored for anti-terrorism purposes,
it should not be available to a wide range of officials such as tax
inspectors." Indeed, FIPR released an analysis of the Home Office's plans,
complaining that while "they gave the impression of a change of heart ...
closer examination of the detail of their proposals shows that their plans
are almost entirely unchanged" from prior versions.
For more information regarding the data retention proposal, click
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/draft/20037607.htm
The text of the revised so-called "Snoopers' Charter" is posted (in PDF
format) under
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/sipt1chapt2.pdf
The aforementioned FIPR analysis is available at
http://www.fipr.org/press/030915ripa.html
Read Stuart Millar, "Blunkett revives plan to let agencies trawl phone and
net users' records," The Guardian (UK), 13 September 2003 at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1041392,00.html
See "'Snooper' powers to fight terror," BBC News Online, 13 September 2003
at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3106158.stm
=============================================================
[18] Multiple bills would restore US privacy protections
=============================================================
The United States Congress is considering several proposals to remedy
apparent privacy problems with legislation that was passed nearly two years
ago.
Known as the USA PATRIOT Act, the 2001 legislation enhanced the ability of
law enforcement officials to collect personal information, including through
the Internet. Among other things, the Act allowed the U.S. government to
make greater use of controversial spy tools such as Carnivore by applying
loose pen register protections (previously used for such things as phone
numbers) and apply them to the Information Superhighway, rather than
requiring law enforcement agents to show probable cause that a crime is
being committed and get a court order. It also expanded the powers of a
secret United States court, created under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), whose procedural protections are not as strong as
those of other tribunals. In addition, the law provided the government with
the ability to conduct "sneak and peek" secret searches.
Although U.S. law enforcement agencies continue to seek further expansions
of their surveillance powers, a growing public backlash against the USA
Patriot Act has led to a bevy of counterproposals that would amend, delete
or otherwise prevent implementation of many of the Act's provisions. One
such proposal, sponsored by U.S. Representative C.L. "Butch" Otter, would
essentially prohibit implementation of 2001-enacted law that allowed the use
of "sneak and peak" warrants. Another bill, the True Patriot Act, would,
among other things, render numerous provisions (including the "sneak and
peek" and Internet pen register sections) of the 2001 legislation
ineffective within 90 days; under the bill, U.S. President George W. Bush
could request Congressional hearings "to determine whether a particular
section should be removed from the list" of provisions to be deactivated.
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has also introduced broadly similar legislation.
Privacy advocates view these counterproposals as an encouraging sign. Greg
Nojeim of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC member) explained:
"We now know that the PATRIOT Act and other measures went too far, too fast.
... We remain committed to ensuring that America remains both safe and free.
History has shown the potential for abuse remains too high for Americans to
simply 'trust the government.'"
The text of the True Patriot Act is available under
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.r.3171:
An ACLU press release about the True Patriot Act is available at
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13731&c=206
For more about the Murkowski bill, click
http://murkowski.senate.gov/betafolder/pressapp/record.cfm?id=207362
A press release from Rep. Otter concerning these proposals is posted under
http://www.gop.gov/item-news.asp?docId=58585
Read Carolyn Lochhead, "Democrats seek rollback of Patriot Act," San
Francisco Chronicle, 25 September 2003, page A4 at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/25/MN286896.DTL
See Sabrina Eaton, "Kucinich leads move in Congress to curb controversial
Patriot Act," Cleveland Plain Dealer, 25 September 2003 at
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1064482450206
850.xml
An ACLU memo regarding efforts to further expand government surveillance
powers is posted under
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14000&c=206
Read "Bush Seeks Terror Law Tweaks," CBSNews.com, 10 September 2003 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/10/national/printable572554.shtml
=============================================================
[19] Privacy fears haunt mobile phones with built-in wiretaps
=============================================================
Plans to rollout mobile phones with built-in wiretapping features have
increased anxiety over individual privacy rights.
Japanese telecom giant NTT DoCoMo and Texas Instruments (TI) are hoping to
manufacture mobile phones that would come with an innate ability to record
phone calls and other information (such as videophone images). For example,
the TI phone would apparently record the information as a digitally encoded
file that could be stored on the phone or sent elsewhere, ostensibly through
the Information Superhighway. In addition, at least two other companies,
notably Nokia and Motorola, are offering phones with slightly less powerful
"voice note" abilities that can capture short snippets of conversations.
Many details regarding these systems are still hard to come by, such as
storage capacities and restrictions on transmission of recorded
conversations.
Nevertheless, a number of experts are worried that these and other mobile
phone systems that could be used for surveillance purposes. Harvard Law
School professor Jonathan Zittrain said that fair information practices
(such as prior notice) should be applied: "It's only fair to warn somebody
that their casual remarks can be transcribed and attributed to them
worldwide. Otherwise, we'll all end up talking like lawyers."
Read Ben Charny, "Cell phone recording may breach privacy," CNET News, 3
September 2003 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1039_3-5070618.html
=============================================================
[20] Report: Trusted Computing systems bad for Net rights
=============================================================
A new report suggests that attempts to create "trusted computing" systems
will have a damaging impact on individual rights in cyberspace.
Entitled "Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk," the report focuses on
various n operating systems projects such as Microsoft's Next-Generation
Secure
Computing Base (NGSCB, previously known as Palladium) as well as a hardware
specification project run by the Trusted Computing Group consortium (TCG,
previously known as the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance or TCPA).
Proponents of these systems envision a scheme where NGSCB would be used on
TCG-designed hardware; the combined scheme would create a special zone
within a personal computer, where software could run and private data could
be stored. The type of data that might be kept in the zone could include
personal details such as credit card numbers. Information inside this zone
generally would not be accessible even to other programs on the same
computer, but applications that run within the zone could communicate with
sources from outside the given computer, such as software manufacturers.
Indeed, reports indicate that such systems will constantly monitor what goes
on individual machines to make sure all operations are "trustworthy."
Critics fear that NGSCB and TCG-designed hardware will be used to control
everything that users can do on their machines. Indeed, the study, which was
published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member), warns
that "trusted computing systems are being deliberately designed to support
threat models in which the owner of a 'trusted' computer is considered a
threat. These models are the exception rather than the rule in the history
of computer and communications security, and they are not part of the
rationales for trusted computing publicly offered by its proponents." The
report goes on to suggest that any such trusted computing system could
produce a monopoly where software providers can prevent people from using
software from a competitor. The study goes on to suggest an alternative
approach by which computer owners themselves would control what security
systems are installed on their machines, instead of software manufacturers
and data providers. "[T]reating!
computer owners as adversaries is not progress in computer security. The
interoperability, competition, owner control, and similar problems inherent
in the TCG and NCSCB approach are serious enough that we recommend against
adoption of these trusted computing technologies until these problems have
been addressed. Fortunately, we believe these problems are not
insurmountable, and we look forward to working with the industry to resolve
them."
A press release regarding this report is posted under
http://www.eff.org/Infra/trusted_computing/20031002_eff_pr.php
To read the report, click
http://www.eff.org/Infra/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php
=============================================================
[21] Euro study calls for privacy rights restoration
=============================================================
A report to a European Parliament committee suggests that various digital
technologies may seriously erode individual privacy.
The report, entitled "Security and privacy for the citizen in the
Post-September 11 digital age: A prospective overview," was released earlier
this week. Among other things, the study documents the development of
systems that bring "new risks and potential abuses to the privacy of
personal data," ranging from biometrics, radio-frequency identity devices
(RFIDs), mobile phone geolocational trackers and various Internet
surveillance tools. In addition, the report notes how, over the past two
years, "there has been a strong governmental reaction" to terrorist attacks
that has enabled "security measures to be imposed that might previously have
been objected to on the grounds that they encroached on privacy." The
study's authors argue that, as a result of these forces, "the balance"
between "citizen's security and privacy requirements" which had been
"established over years of democratic process has been upset."
The report makes a number of suggestions for future action, including a call
for policy makers to restore the balance between security and privacy before
such technologies become commonly accepted, such as through "new regulations
and enhanced educational policies." The European Union (EU) commissioner for
research, Philippe Busquin, issued an accompanying statement warning:
"Citizens are not prepared to let privacy be one of the casualties in the
war on terrorism."
The report is available (in PDF format) via
http://www.jrc.es/home/publications/publication.cfm?pub=1118
A European Commission press release about the report is posted under
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guestfr.ksh?p_action.getfile=gf&doc=IP/
03/1344|0|RAPID&lg=EN&type=PDF
=========================================================
ABOUT THE GILC NEWS ALERT:
=========================================================
The GILC News Alert is the newsletter of the Global Internet Liberty
Campaign, an international coalition of organizations working to protect and
enhance online civil liberties and human rights. Organizations are invited
to join GILC by contacting us at
[log in to unmask]
To alert members about threats to cyber liberties, please contact members
from your country or send a message to the general GILC address.
To submit information about upcoming events, new activist tools and news
stories, contact:
Christopher Chiu
GILC Coordinator
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10004
USA
Or email:
[log in to unmask]
More information about GILC members and news is available at
http://www.gilc.org
You may re-print or redistribute the GILC NEWS ALERT freely.
This edition of the GILC Alert will be found on the World Wide Web under
http://www.gilc.org/alert/alert77.html
To subscribe to the Alert, or to change your subscription options
(including unsubscribing), please visit
http://www.2rad.net/mailman/listinfo/gilc-announce
========================================================
PUBLICATION OF THIS NEWSLETTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY A
GRANT FROM THE OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE (OSI)
========================================================
_______________________________________________
Gilc-announce mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://www.2rad.net/mailman/listinfo/gilc-announce
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
