The seal of the U.S. National Security Agency. The first use was in September 1966, replacing an older seal which was used briefly. For more information, see here and here. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Three
of the government bodies designated as “Enemies of the Internet” are located in
democracies that have traditionally claimed to respect fundamental freedoms,
the international press freedom agency, Reporters Without Borders, RSF, has
said.
They
are the Centre for Development of Telematics in India, the Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in the United Kingdom, and the National
Security Agency (NSA) in the United States.
RSF
said identifying government units or agencies rather than entire governments as
Enemies of the Internet “allows us to draw attention to the schizophrenic
attitude towards online freedoms” that prevails in some countries.
The
2014 Enemies of the Internet report
published on “World day against Cyber
censorship” on March 12, stated that the NSA and GCHQ have spied on the
communications of millions of citizens including many journalists.
“They
have knowingly introduced security flaws into devices and software used to
transmit requests on the Internet. And they have hacked into the very heart of
the Internet using programmes such as the NSA’s Quantam Insert and GCHQ’s
Tempora,” the report stated.
Turned into
weapon
It
indicated that the internet was a collective resource that the NSA and GCHQ
turned into a “weapon” in the
service of special interests, in the process flouting freedom of information,
freedom of expression and the right to privacy.
“The
mass surveillance methods employed in these three countries, many of them
exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, are all the more intolerable
because they will be used and indeed are already being used by authoritarian
countries such as Iran, China, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to
justify their own violations of freedom of information,” says Lucie Morillon,
Head o Research Department.
“How
will so-called democratic countries will able to press for the protection of journalists
if they adopt the very practices they are criticizing authoritarian regimes
for?”
Alongside
the NSA and GCHQ, the following are listed as using “national security as
pretext”: Ethiopia’s Information Network Security Agency, Saudi Arabia’s
Internet Services Unit, Belarus’ Operations and Analysis Centre, Russia’s FSB
and Sudan’s National Intelligence and Security Service.
These
are security agencies that have gone far beyond their core duties by censoring
or spying on journalists and other information providers, Morillon added.
Internet cops
In
countries such as Turkmenistan, Syria, Vietnam and Bahrain the government
ensures a “dangerous monopoly of infrastructure”, the report stated. “The
government’s control of Internet infrastructure facilitates control of online information.”
While
in Syria and Iran, it stated that internet speed is often reduced drastically during
demonstrations to prevent the circulation of images of the protests.
Internet
Service Providers, website hosting companies and other technical intermediaries
find themselves being asked with increasing frequency to act as Internet cops, the report indicated. Some
cases border on the ridiculous. In Somalia, for example, the Islamist militia
Al-Shabaab banned using the Internet in January 2014.
The
right to privacy is enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(article 12), the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(article 17), the European Convention on Human Rights (article 8) and the
American Convention on Human Rights (article 11).
Legislative
weapon
Countries
like Vietnam, The Gambia, Bangladesh and Grenada are listed in the Enemies of the Internet Report for
legislating laws that are considered “draconian”. “Legislation is often the
main tool for gagging online information,” says RSF Head of Africa Desk, Cléa
Kahn-Sriber.
“In
Gambia, the government gave itself a new ‘legislative
weapon’ in July 2013 by getting the national assembly to pass amendments to
the Information and Communications Act – the main law limiting freedom of information,”
Kahn-Sriber said.
“The
amendments make the ‘spreading of false news against the government or public
officials’ punishable by up to 15 years in prison or a fine of 3 million Dalasi
(64,000 Euros).”
The
report also indicated that in
countries like Singapore, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia – online news media are
required to seek “permission to publish” based on licencing or registration
regulations.
RSF’s Head of Asia Desk, Benjamin Ismaïl,
has said: “The creation of a licencing system for news websites serves as an
administrative and sometimes economic barrier and is a widely-used method for
controlling online information.”
“In
Singapore, under a measure that took effect in June 2013, news websites that
post more than one article a week about Singapore and have more than 50,000
Singaporean visitors a month need a licence that requires depositing ‘a
performance bond’ of 50,000 Singaporean dollars (39,500 US dollars). The
licence has to be renewed every one year,” Mr Ismaïl explains.
Possible response
Now,
RSF is considering what forms of response are possible in order to preserve
online freedom of information.
“We
think it is essential to: Press international bodies to reinforce the
legislative framework regulating Internet surveillance, data protection and the
export of surveillance devices and software.
“Train
journalists, bloggers and other information providers in how to protect their
data and communications. RSF has been doing this in the field for several
years. It has organized workshops in many countries including France,
Switzerland, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Tajikistan.
“Continue
to provide information about surveillance and censorship practices. That is the
purpose of this report.”
You
can access RSF’s full report and recommendations HERE.
A version of this entry first appeared HERE
Written by Modou S. Joof
Follow on Facebook: The-North-Bank-Evening-Standard
No comments:
Post a Comment
The views expressed in this section are the authors' own. It does not represent The North Bank Evening Standard (TNBES)'s editorial policy. Also, TNBES is not responsible for content on external links.