Digitale borgerrettigheder – mobiliseringen lykkedes (indtil videre)

I et eksempel på, at det af og til faktisk kan lykkes for græsrødderne at lægge pres på politikere, har EU-parlamentet i dag vedtaget et gammelt ændringsforslag til telekompakken, der vil forhindre den franske “three strikes and you’re out”-lov og gøre adgang til Internettet til en fundamental rettighed i fremtidens samfund.

Det vil sige, det er sådan, det ser ud lige nu! Her er en pressemeddelelse fra La Quadrature du Net:

The debates on the Telecoms Package, thanks to a remarkable citizen mobilization, led to an extremely strong recognition of the access to internet as a fundamental right with the re-adoption of amendment 138/46 in second reading by a qualified majority. It is the final blow against three-strike laws such as Nicolas Sarkozy’s HADOPI bill, which are explicitely banned. The European Parliament nevertheless adopted a soft compromise on issues of network equity: no strong protection against “net discrimination” was adopted.

La Quadrature warmly thanks the numerous European citizens who have contributed to the possibility of this new and stronger than ever statement for fundamental rights. Even on issues connected to network offers, the worst provisions introduced since the beginning of the legislative process were not adopted. Thanks to the public debate, the ill-intended co-operation between ISPs and right holders and discrimination of Net services and contents will not be forced, even though doors are still open for introducing it in Members States.

“A formidable campaign from the citizens put the issues of freedoms on the Internet at the center of the debates of the Telecoms Package. This is a victory by itself. It started with the declaration of commissioner Viviane Reding considering access to Internet as a fundamental right. The massive re-adoption of amendment 138/46 rather than the softer compromise negotiated by rapporteur Trautmann with the Council is an even stronger statement. These two elements alone confirm that the French ‘three strikes’ scheme, HADOPI, is dead already.” explains Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net.

To safeguard these provisions, the European civil society will have to be strongly mobilized during a conciliation phase that would proceed with a newly elected Parliament and a new Presidency. Furthermore, some provisions in the compromise amendments to the Harbour directive adopted today allow telecoms operators to alter the Internet as we know it. Nothing will forbid them to turn the Internet away from a neutral zone where people have equal access to all content applications and services.

As these provisions have been negotiatied with the Council, they are likely to become law. Citizens will have to be particularly attentive to the transposition and implementation of the adopted provisions. It would be disastrous for the Internet to stop being a space where all can create innovative services and contents without permission from gatekeepers. In order for consumers to be in a position to endorse equitable network offers and reject the discriminatory offers, it is essential for at least some of the offers to be non-discriminatory. We will call the regulatory authorities and the Commission to ensure it by all policy means.

“The strong statement for the access to the Internet as a fundamental right demonstrates that the Parliament can be courageous and reject the pressure to compromise when essential values are at stake. Unfortunately, on issues that appear more technical such as the absence of discrimination of services and contents on the Internet, the Parliament did not take the full measure of what it is at stake yet. Citizens must remain mobilized on these crucial questions.”, concludes Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, analyst for La Quadrature.

En halv sejr, kan man sige, og nogle ting kan stadig nå at blive begravet blandt lukkede døre. Men alligevel – den værste vilkårlighed er på mange måder afværget. Lad os håbe, det holder ved.

Link: Amendment 138/46 adopted again. Internet is a fundamental right in Europe

Ytringsfriheden på nettet er truet

Den garvede  skribent og borgerlige blogger Lars Hvidberg har en god kronik i Berlingske Tidende om ytringsfriheden på Internettet og trusler mod den  – ikke mindst i Danmark:

Resultatet af undersøgelsen er lige så øjenåbnende, som det er deprimerende. Konklusionen er, at samtidig med at nettet er blevet vores vigtigste kanal til det politiske liv, så regulerer mange stater nettet, som det passer dem. De teknologiske overvågningsmetoder er sofistikerede og omfattende – ikke kun i »slyngelstater«, men også i retssamfundet Storbritannien, der klarer sig alarmerende dårligt i undersøgelsen. I Storbritannien er krænkelserne af brugernes rettigheder så omfattende og alvorlige, at vores EU-partner på dette punkt scorer dårligere end stater som Sydafrika, Kenya, Brasilien og Georgien…

De fleste stater – også Danmark – gennemtrumfer en eller anden form for »filtrering« af forbudt indhold. Dette kan ske gennem en blokering af individuelle sider som Facebook eller Youtube, eller en automatisk udrensning af bestemte søgeord, hvilket bruges systematisk i Iran, Tunesien og Kina. Ordet »demokrati« er eksempelvis bortcensureret fra den kinesiske udgave af Google…

Men hvad så med Danmarks internetfrihed? Vi er ikke med i pilotundersøgelsen, men vil sandsynligvis score et sted mellem Estland og Storbritannien. Det største problem i den vestlige verden er, at der mangler offentlighed om kontrollen. Hjemmesider bliver filtreret og kommunikationen overvåget, men det sker uden åbenhed og med uigennemskuelige muligheder for appel. For eksempel bliver listen over de forbudte børneporno-sider udarbejdet administrativt af TDC, Rigspolitiet og Red Barnet. Men hvem siger egentlig, at de skulle være specielt dygtige til at spotte børneporno, og at de ikke blokerer en masse andre sider for en sikkerheds skyld?

At der er grund til at være på vagt, viste en uafhængig undersøgelse foretaget af den finske internetaktivist, Matti Nikki. Da han i 2008 afprøvede det finske børnepornofilter, fandt han ud af, at flertallet af siderne indeholdt helt almindelig pornografi, og at nogle af dem slet ikke havde pornografisk indhold – men blandt andet tilhørte en violinfabrik, en dukkeforretning og en producent af høreapparater. Gælder det samme for det danske børnepornofilter? Det kan vi af gode grunde ikke vide. Så er der sagen om fildelingstjenesten PirateBay, som Danmark i selskab med Kuwait og Kina har valgt at blokere, fordi siden bidrager til at sprede pirat-kopier af film og musik. PirateBay indeholder imidlertid ikke selv ulovligt materiale, men lader kun villige brugere dele filer gennem bittorrent-teknologien. Der skal muligvis findes metoder til at komme den ulovlige kopiering til livs, men simpelthen at blokere for en side virker som et urimeligt indgreb i borgernes frihed.

Dette uddrag har hovedvægt på Danmark, men Hvidberg kommer vidt omkring i sin kronik, som hermed skal være anbefalet.

Link: Friheden på nettet er truet

Til kamp for borgerrettigheder – i Storbritannien


I går blev den store, distribuerede Modern Liberty-konference afholdt i otte byer i Storbritannien. Konferencen havde til formål at appellere til alle briter om at forsvare deres borgerrettigheder i en tid, hvor de er ved at blive undergravet af overvågning, registrering og terrorlove.

The Observer skriver bl.a.:

More than 1,500 people, paying £35 a ticket, attended the Convention on Modern Liberty in Bloomsbury, central London, which was linked by video to parallel events in Glasgow, Birmingham, Belfast, Bristol, Manchester, Cardiff and Cambridge. They heard from more than 80 speakers, including author Philip Pullman; musicians Brian Eno and Feargal Sharkey; journalists Fatima Bhutto, Andrew Gilligan, Nick Cohen and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger; politicians Lord Bingham and Dominic Grieve; a former director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald; and human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy.

In her speech Kennedy said she felt that fear was being used as a weapon to break down civil liberties. “There is a general feeling that in creating a climate of fear people have been writing a blank cheque to government. People feel the fear of terrorism is being used to take away a lot of rights.”

She said that voters were anxious that their communities were ‘being alienated’ by the use of powers designed to protect national security being applied outside their original remit, and that there was now an open window of opportunity for the electorate to make their feelings known to government before the next election: “People are fearful of the general business of collecting too much information about individuals.”

High on the concerns of the convention were the recent allegations against the British security services by Guantanamo Bay torture victim Binyam Mohamed, plans for ID cards, DNA collection databases and controversial surveillance powers being used by civil servants. In addition, concerns were high over Government plans to create a database of all the communciations and movements of ordinary people as well as the profileration of anti-terrorism laws including detention of suspects.

Vi har allerede citeret Philip Pullman,  der holdt oplægget til konferencen i London, for at Storbritannien er inde i en helt forkert retning, hvad borgerrettigheder og overvågning og individets forhold til staten i det hele taget.

The Observers columnist Henry Porter kalder konferencen “the birth of a great moment for liberty” og at det er en “standard raised against Straw and those who would destroy rights and liberties that have taken 800 years to accumulate”. Men der er nu lang vej endnu, før Straw og Brown og New Labour og de konservative og det totalitære regime, de gerne ville forvandle Storbritannien til under påskud af “terrorlove”, er rullet tilbage. Det er godt at se “Modern Liberty” komme, men det er unægtelig også noget sent.

Men det rejser jo unægtelig spørgsmålet: Hvornår får vi sådan en bevægelse i Danmark? IT-Politisk Forening kan ikke gøre det alene.

Læs også:

Liberty Central – The Guardians store debatsektion om Modern Liberty som konference, bevægelse og koncept.

På Guantanamo for at læse satire

Hvor meget eller lidt skal der egentlig til, for at man bliver mistænkt for at være terrorist og sendt til Guantanamo?

Den britiske borger Binyam Mohamed blev sendt afsted og mistede syv år af sit liv, fordi han havde læst en satirisk artikel om, “hvordan man laver en brintbombe”, skriver Mail on Sunday:

A British ‘resident’ held at Guantanamo Bay was identified as a terrorist after confessing he had visited a  website on how to build a nuclear weapon, it was revealed last night.

Binyam Mohamed, a former UK asylum seeker, admitted to having read the ‘instructions’ after allegedly being beaten, hung up by his wrists for a week and having a gun held to his head in a Pakistani jail.

It was this confession that apparently convinced the CIA that they were holding a top Al Qaeda terrorist.

But The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the offending article – called How To Build An H-Bomb – was first published in a US satirical magazine and later placed on a series of websites.

Written by Barbara Ehrenreich, the publication’s food editor, Rolling Stone journalist Peter Biskind and scientist Michio Kaku, it claims that a nuclear weapon can be made ‘using a bicycle pump’ and with liquid uranium ‘poured into a bucket and swung round’.

Despite its clear satirical bent, the story led the CIA to accuse 30-year-old Mohamed, a caretaker, of plotting a dirty bomb attack, before subjecting him to its ‘extraordinary rendition programme’.

During his eight-year imprisonment, Mohamed has allegedly been flown to secret torture centres in Pakistan, Morocco, an American-run jail known as the Dark Prison near Kabul in Afghanistan and, finally, to Guantanamo Bay.

The Foreign Secretary is refusing to release classified documents relating to Mohamed’s detention.

Det har senere vist sig, at den britiske regering selv bad den amerikanske udsende en erklæring om, at det kunne “true forholdet mellem de to lande”, om dokumentationen for den tortur, Mohamed blev udsat for, blev offentliggjort – fordi det naturligvis er pinligt for den britiske regering, at de nu kommer frem, at de i alle disse år har kendt til, bifaldet og assisteret fremmede magters tortur mod deres egne borgere.

Det er pinligt for den britiske regering, som sagt, og for de ministre, som måske kan retsforfølges. Tortur er vold og mishandling og dermed ulovligt  – selv mod en suspekt person som Binyam Mohamed, der uomtvisteligt har gjort sig skyldig i at læse en satirisk artikel på nettet. Gad vide, hvor mange år på Guantanamo man kunne få for at se en video med Jon Stewart eller Ricky Gervais?

Via Lenin’s Tomb.

Philip Pullman om frihedens forsvinden

Philip Pullman, forfatter bl.a. til bøgerne om Det Gyldne Kompas, skriver i The Times om frihedens forsvunden i vore moderne database- og terrorlovstider:

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness – the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another?

The new laws whisper:

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum.

Philip Pullman skal holde oplægget til Moden Liberty-konferencen i morgen, som handler om, hvad der egentlig sker med den personlige frihed i disse år. Det lyder, som om han er godt klædt på til opgaven.

Link: Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms