RightsCon keynote Alaa Abd El Fatah, a prominent Egyptian activist, blogger, and software developer is now languishing in prison for refusing to answer questions from an illegitimate military tribunal on questionable charges of “incitement.” His crime? Demanding that civilians be tried by judges, not soldiers.

Alaa’s case represents a far greater injustice – at least 12,000 Egyptian citizens have been tried by military courts since the overthrow of Mubarak. This is a gross violation of international law and a far cry from the democracy Egyptians called for earlier this year.

Nearly 10,000 people in less than 24 hours have signed the Access petition calling on President Obama and the U.S. Congress to demand Egypt’s military rulers to end emergency law, free Alaa and cease trying civilians in military courts.

Go here to sign the Access petition: https://www.accessnow.org/free-alaa

One of the objectives of the Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference is the creation of a Silicon Valley Standard (SVS). This is a principled statement incorporating the issues discussed at the 2011 Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference. The document includes 15 principles based on the 15 workshop topics covered at the conference.

The document is designed to complement other existing frameworks and uses the international human rights framework as its foundation. These principles served as a useful basis for discussion during the panels and represent a standard, which we hope the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector will use after the conference.

1. Technology and Revolutions: Technology companies play an increasingly important role in enabling and supporting the end user’s capacity to exercise his or her rights to freedom of speech, access to information, and freedom of association. ICT companies should respect those rights in their operations and also encourage governments to protect human rights through appropriate policies, practices, legal protections, and judicial oversight.

2. On Human Rights: In both policy and practice, technology companies should apply human rights frameworks in developing best practices and standard operating procedures. This includes adhering to John Ruggie’s Protect, Respect, and Remedy framework outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

3. Frontline Lessons from Other Sectors: Technology companies should look to the innovative examples and incorporate important lessons from other sectors, such as the apparel and extractive industries. The experiences of these sectors can and should guide them as they develop their human rights policies. These must be reflected in their operating practices in a transparent and accountable manner.

4. On Internet Regulation: To ensure innovation and the protection of human rights, internet regulation should only take place where it facilitates the ongoing openness, quality, and integrity of the internet and/or where it enables or protects users’ ability to freely, fully, and safely participate in society. To achieve this end, it is critical that ICT corporations engage in multistakeholder dialogue.

5. Human Rights by Design: During the research, development, and design stages, technology companies should anticipate how and by whom their products and services will be used. Developing a human rights policy and engaging in due diligence at the earliest stages helps companies prevent crises, limit risk, and enable evidence-based assessment of company activities and reporting.

6. Encryption of Web Activity: Effective internet security is essential to ensuring freedom of speech, privacy, and the right to communicate. Technology companies must provide a basic level of security (e.g., HTTPS and its improvements) to their users by default and resist bans and curtailments of the use of encryption.

7. Getting Practical: Technology companies should implement human rights-respecting policies and practices in their day-to-day operations. These companies should utilize multi-stakeholder and cross-sector dialogues to review challenges faced within their markets with a view to improve their best practices.

8. Coding for Human Rights: Recognizing the human rights implications in code, engineers, developers, and programmers should ensure that technology is used in the exercise of fundamental freedoms, and not for the facilitation of human rights abuses. Technology companies should facilitate regular dialogue between engineers, executive leadership, and civil society to ensure that all parties are informed of the potential uses and abuses of their technologies.

9. Social Networking: Social networking platforms are both increasingly important to their users’ capacity to communicate and associate online and are most used when customers trust the service’s providers. When companies prioritize the rights of their customers, it is good for the long-term sustainability of their business, their brand, and their bottom line.

10. Intermediary Liability: In an era of computer-mediated communications, freedom of speech, association, and commerce increasingly depend on internet intermediaries (e.g., broadband service providers, web hosting companies). These intermediaries should not be required to determine the legality of, or held liable for, the content they host.

11. Legal Jurisdiction in a Borderless Virtual World: To foster the continued growth of an open and interconnected internet, technology companies should work alongside governments and civil society to ensure that users’ rights are protected to the fullest extent possible. Governmental mandates that infringe upon freedom of expression and other human rights should be interpreted so as to minimize the negative impacts of these rules and regulations.

12. Visual Media and Human Rights: Technology companies should pay special attention to the unique human rights challenges of visual media technologies and content — especially on issues such as privacy, anonymity, consent, and access.

13. Social Media in Times of Crisis: Technology companies should resist efforts to shut down services and block access to their products, especially during times of crisis when open communications are critical. Blanket government surveillance of corporate networks should be resisted. Moreover, the burden of proof for privacy-invasive requests should lie with law enforcement authorities, who should formally, through court processes based on probable cause and rule of law, request a warrant for each individual whose information they would like to access.

14. Privacy: Technology companies should incorporate adequate privacy protections for users by default. Furthermore, technology companies should resist over-board requests from governments to reveal users’ information, disclose no more information about their users than is legally required, and inform their users so that they can choose to legally respond to these requests. Furthermore, technology companies should be transparent about how user data is collected, processed, and protected — including disclosures of unauthorized access to user data.

15. Mobile and Telcos: Telecommunications companies must protect their users’ fundamental human rights, including support for the protection of human rights in their operating licenses, and ensure that the free flow of communication is not curtailed or interfered with, even in times of crisis.

Access is an international NGO that promotes access to the internet as a means to free, full, and safe participation in society and the realization of human rights. To learn more, please visit: https://www.accessnow.org or email: info@accessnow.org.

In an unanimous decision, the Canadian Supreme Court today ruled that linking to defamatory material on another website does not constitute publishing the material and webhosts cannot be held liable for the libelous content.

The case stems from a suit brought by a Vancouver political volunteer against a website, after the site refused to take down links to a supposed defamatory article about the man. Wednesday’s ruling upheld rulings from two lower courts, which said only the original publisher of such content is liable.

The high court’s ruling strongly defends an online publication’s right to link to other material, citing it as a critical tool for communication on the internet. Justice Rosalie Abella wrote:

Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression.

If the court had ruled such linking were akin to publishing libel, our interactions on the web would come to a screeching halt.  It would be so disruptive that people would be censoring themselves and be hesitant to share information, in fear of being held liable for another’s words. Everyday, people link to content all around the internet.  It would be impossible for them to know what will eventually be determined to be libel. This unknown would have a chilling affect on the sharing of information.

While the court ruled linking to defamatory material isn’t libelous, it did say that the link created by website itself cannot express those defamatory views. Publishers, then, are only liable for the links they create.

The question of intermediary liability and the challenges facing online publishers and websites when it comes to how the internet is regulated will be discussed and debated at the Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference on Oct. 25 and 26.

Register here or go to the link above to join the conference.

(Via BBC)

The days of major civil unrest at Tahir Square in Egypt seem somehow far in the past. However, the outcomes of the revolution are still unfolding. While the population questions whether a political transition has really occurred, since the Egyptian Armed Forces (SCAF) still holds the power in the country, it is possible to affirm that one paramount transformation has come to stay: the use of social media as a prominent tool for political activism and citizen journalism.

After thousands of civilians have faced military trials post-revolution, local activists decided to launch a campaign on Facebook seeking for people’s support to bombard SCAF’s website with criticism against the practice. After 15 minutes of uninterrupted criticisms at SCAF’s and other ministries websites, an official authority shut down the comments sections on Facebook sites. This is just a simple example of how local population is using social media to keep the Arab Spring alive in Egypt.

Another ongoing practice is regular meetings organized by local activists known as TweetNadwa. The main goal is to exchange information about how to use social media and digital tools to promote political changes in the country. According to Gigi Ibrahim, a prominent participant at TweetNadwa, these digital channels are great weapons to fight corruption and to promote transparency in the country. Social medias allow any citizen to make wrongdoings visible to society, making it easier for the population to become aware of what is really going on in different parts of the country. Besides keeping the population informed, these tools have a unique effect: they create momentum, aligning different people and ideas at the same time and in multiple places. The potential of such “alliance” is immeasurable! For more information go to: http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/09/how-social-media-is-keeping-the-egyptian-revolution-alive256.html

The Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference will be holding different panels discussing the reaches of social medias and their multiple impacts to governments, corporations and civil society. Register on the link above to join us!

The only way to ensure that communications online remain private is to implement strong regulations prohibiting the discrimination of internet services and content.

This was the striking opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor, who said that privacy online starts with net neutrality. Monitoring networks that goes beyond maintaining integrity and security is an invasion of a users private online communications, said Peter Hustinx, the EDPS. Inspecting such communications, Hustinx says, may be a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Here’s Hustinx:

Inspection techniques based on traffic data and inspection of IP payloads, i.e. the content of communications, may reveal users’ Internet activity: websites visited and activities on those sites, use of P2P applications, files downloaded, emails sent and received, from whom, on what subject and in which terms, etc. ISPs may want to use this information to prioritise some communications, such as video on demand, over others. They may want to use it to identify viruses, or to build profiles in order to serve behavioural advertising. These actions interfere with the right to the confidentiality of communications.

Going further, Hustinx argues that users should be given a choice between monitored and unmonitored services, without having to pay more. 

The EDPS strongly worded opinion comes at a time when the European Parliament is debating a net neutrality resolution. Hustinx's opinion calls for much stronger regulation than what the resolution is proposing.  We are interested to see if Parliament decides to heed Hustinx's call for protecting the fundamental right of private online communication.

Net neutrality, online privacy, and government regulation will all be featured topics at the Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference on Oct. 25th and 26th.

Register here or go to the link above to join the Conference. 

(via La Quadrature du Net)

A secret court order was issued allowing the the U.S. government, in its ongoing investigation into Wikileaks, to obtain information from the e-mail account of U.S.-based Wikileaks volunteer Jacob Applebaum, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Google and Sonic.net, a small ISP, were forced to hand over the U.S. government the names of Applebaum’s e-mail contacts from the past two years, though not the contents his correspondences.  The orders were issues earlier this year, but only became public after Sonic fought to have the seal lifted.  Both Google and Sonic fought to inform Applebaum, who has not been charged with any wrongdoing, of the order, the WSJ reported.

U.S. laws like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a law passed in 1986 which preceded the World Wide Web, and the 1994 Stored Communications Act, allow for records to be accessed without a search warrant or any suspicion of criminal activity.  Technology companies, including Google, for some time have been calling for ECPA to be updated, given that it does not require a search warrant for access to cell phone and e-mail correspondence.  Essentially, the government has an easier time getting these types of electronic information than it does landline phone calls or postal mail.

It is important that companies continue to defend the rights of their users, as Google and Sonic did in this case.  Government monitoring of online activity and how it uses its power to access electronic information will be important topics of discussion at the Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference on Oct. 25 and 26.

Register here or go to the link above to join the Conference.

(via the Wall Street Journal)

Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA and FBI, asked Congress this week to allow for the NSA to monitor public networks for threats to ward off potential cyber-based attacks.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security oversees cybersecurity issues regarding government networks and working with private companies to maintain critical infrastructure.  But Hayden, along with other government officials, has said the NSA should be tasked with this responsibility, as well as the ability to monitor private networks.

Hayden’s comments before the House Intelligence Committee revive an old debate: How much, if any, breadth should the government be given when keeping an eye on networks when it comes to cybersecurity issues? And if so, which agency should do it?

Referencing the lack of trust given to his former department (given their history of secret warrantless wiretapping), Hayden assured the committee that the NSA could monitor private networks without reading the communication.

We want NSA to protect us, but we don’t want NSA out there being present where our own communications are flowing. … And we’re just going to have to have a serious chat [about that]. I think we can do that — both the technology and the ethic at NSA would allow us to do that. But it will require some convincing before the agency is given that authority.

Hayden suggested that the real threat posed by cyber-based attacks is not appreciated and such measures are necessary for national security. But can the NSA really be trusted to not invade the privacy of citizens? And if they were given such access, would there be guarantees of transparency and accountability? How far would they be able to stretch the law before stepping on fundamental rights?

Government regulation, or non-regulation, of the Internet (especially when it comes to private citizens) are why we are gathering at the Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference on Oct. 25 and 26.  As these issues continue to come to the forefront, an honest and open debate needs to take place to assure the privacy of citizens as governments looks to maintain a secure and open Internet.

Register here or go to the link above to join the Conference.

(via Wired)

In an unprecedented reaction to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s newly proposed Wiretap Act, which would impose a 12,000 euro fine to any website that didn’t take down content within 48 hours, Wikipedia has posted a warning in its Italian page. The organization highlights the potential damages of the project to freedom of speech and to the pillars upon which Wikipedia has founded its basis: neutrality; freedom and verifiability of content.

Wikipedia also calls users attention for the long-term consequences of the Act. According to the organization, the harsh sanctions could lead to a complete shutdown of Wikipedia in Italy, depriving millions of citizens of the information provided  by the online encyclopedia.

The following statement can be found at http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en

“Dear reader,

At this time, the Italian language Wikipedia may be no longer able to continue providing the service that over the years was useful to you, and that you expected to have right now. As things stand, the page you want still exists and is only hidden, but the risk is that soon we will be forced to actually delete it.

Over the past ten years, Wikipedia has become part of the daily habits of millions of web users looking for a neutral, free-content, and – above all – independent source of Knowledge. A new, huge multi-lingual encyclopedia, freely available to all, at any time, and free of charge.

Today, unfortunately, the very pillars on which Wikipedia has been built – neutrality, freedom, and verifiability of its contents – are likely to be heavily compromised by paragraph 29 of a law proposal, also known as “DDL intercettazioni” (Wiretapping Act).

This proposal, which the Italian Parliament is currently debating, provides, among other things, a requirement to all websites to publish, within 48 hours of the request and without any comment, a correction of any content that the applicant deems detrimental to his/her image.

Unfortunately, the law does not require an evaluation of the claim by an impartial third judge – the opinion of the person allegedly injured is all that is required, in order to impose such correction to any website.

Hence, anyone who feels offended by any content published on a blog, an online newspaper and, most likely, even on Wikipedia can directly request the removal of such contents and its permanent replacement with a “corrected” version, aimed to contradict and disprove the allegedly harmful contents,regardless of the truthfulness of the information deemed as offensive, and its sources.

During all these years, the users of Wikipedia (and we want, once more, to point out that Wikipedia does not have an editorial staff) have always been available to review – and modify, if needed – any content deemed to be detrimental to anyone, without harm to the Project’s neutrality and independence. In thevery rare instances it was not possible to reach a mutually satisfactory solution, the entire page has been removed.

The obligation to publish on our site the correction as is, provided by the named paragraph 29, without even the right to discuss and verify the claim, is an unacceptable restriction of the freedom and independence of Wikipedia, to the point of distorting the principles on which the Free Encyclopedia is based and this would bring to a paralysis of the “horizontal” method of access and editing, putting – in fact – an end to its existence as we have known until today.

It should be made more than clear that none of us wants to question safeguarding and protection of the reputation, honor and image of any party – but we also note that every Italian citizen is already protected in this respect by Article 595 of the Criminal Code, which punishes the crime of defamation.

With this announcement, we want to warn our readers against the risks arising from leaving to the arbitrary will of any party to enforce the alleged protection of its image and its reputation. Under such provisions, web users would be most probably led to cease dealing with certain topics or people, just to “avoid troubles”.

We want to be able to keep a free and open-to-all encyclopaedia, because our articles are also your articles – Wikipedia is already neutral, why neutralize it?

The users of Wikipedia”

The Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference will host a variety of panels discussing the impacts of governmental regulations on digital freedom of speech and to what extent these regulations are really desirable. Register at the Conference website to participate in some amazing debates involving leading technology companies, governmental authorities and civil society representatives.

Via Business Insider

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, an international treaty with far-reaching implications for how we share and access information online, is expected to be signed by key negotiators in Japan on Oct. 1, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

How exactly ACTA will play out is still unknown, though many anticipate it to have wide-spread effect on the Internet.  Supporters believe the agreement will stymie copyright violations and protect the work of rightsholders.  Critics, though, have been very outspoken about ACTA, calling into question the negotiating process and what the treaty will mean to freedom of expression and privacy on the Internet.