RConversation

Happy Internet Human Rights Day!

Today is the 98th anniversary of the 1911 Wuchang Uprising which led to the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and founding of the Republic of China in 1912. (I wonder how the 100th anniversary will be celebrated in the People's Republic two years from now?)  To mark the occasion, 15 Chinese intellectuals have issued a Declaration of Internet Human Rights, suggesting that netizens of China and the world celebrate October 10th to be Internet Human Rights Day.

C.A. Yeung at the blog Under the Jacaranda Tree has done a great public service and posted a translation. I've made a few small changes which I think clarify the meaning of the original Chinese version. Here it is:

Internet Human Rights Declaration
Issued by 15 Chinese Intellectuals

Those of us who are standing on the riverbank overlooking the torrent of history have witnessed the potential of this new technology: the Internet. We understand how this new technological revolution has brought about progress and social change. It has great potential to advance basic human rights and freedom for the Chinese people. Its contribution to civilisation will be on a par with the discovery of iron and fire, or the invention of plough and wheel in ancient times.

We acknowledge the arrival of netizen activism and regard it as an irreversible trend. Citizen reporting, which involves the use of mobile phones and digital cameras for live information dissemination, has already become a popular trend. The Internet has also provided netizens with unlimited space for creativity, and for voicing opinions through weblogs, podcasts, BBS and online comments.

We believe it is a citizen’s responsibility to be concerned about public affairs, and a netizen’s responsibility to care about freedom of speech on the Internet. Netizens are exercising their civil rights when they legally express their opinions or when they report the truth of what has actually happened. The best way to rejuvenate an ancient civilisation is to inject it with new core values based on the advancement of happiness and of basic human rights for individuals. It is also the best way to improve well-being for everyone in China. For these reasons, freedom of speech on the Internet should be encouraged, nurtured and tolerated.

We therefore pledge for the following principles to be endorsed:

1. Freedom of speech on the Internet is a part of citizens’ rights to freedom of speech. It is the most basic human rights and the most fundamental value that should be pursued, treasured and protected.

2. Netizens who express their opinions on the Internet using words, sounds, pictures or videos, should be protected and encouraged, as long as such conduct is in accord with the constitution and local statutes.

3. The right to publish opinion is the most basic rights for netizens. This includes the right to publish through weblogs and podcasts, as well as online discussion forums. Netizens’ rights to publish should not be subjected to unlawful investigation and interference. They should be allowed freedom to hold and to express their views without feeling intimidated.

4. Netizens’ editorial rights should be respected. When they are exercising those rights, they should not be subjected to harassment by authorities who act outside of law.

5. It is the right of Netizens to conduct interviews and to report their findings. This right is protected as a part of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Netizens who excercise this right should endeavour to report the truth, and to avoid distortions, fabrications and malicious slander.

6. It is the right of netizens to make comments and to exchange opinion. This includes the right to ask questions, to monitor, to criticise and to boycott.

7. Netizens’ freedom of speech encompasses a right to express themselves anonymously. Anonymity enables some authors to express their opinions in ways that best suit their needs. This legal right should be respected as long as an anonymous author is expressing his views in accordance with legal and constitutional requirements.

8. The right to search for information on the Internet is an integral part of netizens’ rights to expression, to be informed, and to act as watchdogs. It is our opinion that law-abiding websites should not be filtered, and that netizens’ rights to conduct searches on public information for personal use should be respected and protected.

9. Online privacy should be respected and protected. Netizens’ real identities and personal information should not be disclosed unless the information is required for a transparent legal proceeding, or else if the disclosure is necessary under the rule of law.

10. The free flow of information should be respected and protected as long as it is conducted in line with legal and constitutional requirements. Website monitoring, filtering and blockades that go against the principle of freedom of speech should be condemned by public opinion. Netizens are entitled to seek freedom of expression and justice through judicial proceedings.

We call for the establishing of an Internet Human Rights Day, to remind everyone of the need to safeguard freedom of speech on the Internet. This is the only effective way to make sure all people in China enjoy human rights and happiness.

10 October 1911 was the day when a group of patriots staged an uprising to end the rule of a cruel and racist dynasty. They also put an end to a long imperialist history. As a way of commemorating their bravery and their spirit of freedom, we suggest to make every October 10th China’s Internet Human Rights Day.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Obama administration disappoints on civil liberties

On Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to renew all of the powers granted to the U.S. government by the USA PATRIOT act - passed hastily in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks - that were set to expire by the end of this year.

The committee rejected changes that would have strengthened the protection of Americans' civil liberties and privacy while still retaining expanded power to conduct anti-terrorism investigations. They also voted to approve Republican-sponsored amendments - most of them recommended by the Obama administration - that removed remaining civil liberties protections left in the bill.

Firedoglake blogger Marcy Wheeler has the most comprehensive coverage and analysis of everything having to do with the PATRIOT Act, including an annotated live blog of yesterday's proceedings. Highly recommended.

Here is a sampling of what disappointed civil liberties defenders had to say:

Leslie Harris, Center for Democracy and Technology (as quoted by PC World): "The administration deliberately took a wrong turn on civil liberties here... The administration even opposed civil liberties protections that President Obama sought as a senator."

Kevin Blankston, EFF: to everybody who voted "yes" on Thursday "and especially the Obama Administration: you let down the American people today, undermining our constitutional rights and endorsing a bill that doesn't do nearly enough to protect our privacy."

ACLU's Michael Macleod-Ball in a press release: "We are disappointed that further changes were not made to ensure Americans’ civil liberties would be adequately protected by this Patriot Act legislation. This truly was a missed opportunity for the Senate Judiciary Committee to right the wrongs of the Patriot Act and stand up for Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. The meager improvements made during this markup will certainly be overshadowed by allowing so many horrible amendments to be added to an already weak bill. Congress cannot continue to make this mistake with the Patriot Act again and again. We urge the Senate to adopt amendments on the floor that will bring this bill in line with the Constitution."

CATO's Julian Sanchez on Twitter during the proceedings: "Soul slowly dying."

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, who voted against Thursday's reauthorization bill, wrote a lengthy post on Daily Kos explaining why. A lengthy excerpt:

Before I get into the specific provisions that concern me, I want to say how disappointed I was in the debate in the committee. Today particularly, I started to feel as if too many members of the committee from both parties are willing to accept uncritically whatever the executive branch says about even the most reasonable proposed changes in the law. Of course we should consider the perspective of the FBI and the Justice Department.  Keeping Americans safe is everyone’s priority.  But we also need to consider a full range of perspectives and come to our own conclusions about how best to protect the American people and preserve their freedoms.  Protecting the rights of innocent people should be a part of that equation.  It's not the Prosecutors’ Committee; it's the Judiciary Committee. And whether the executive branch powers are overbroad is something we have to decide. The only people we should be deferring to are the American people, as we try to protect them from terrorism without infringing on their freedoms.

I am also very troubled that administration officials have been taking positions behind closed doors that they are not taking publicly.  I am pleased that we have not heard the type of public fear-mongering from this administration that was such a regular part of the discourse in the past.  But if the administration wanted to further water down the already limited reforms in the bill that was on the table, they should have said so openly.  Instead, at our only public hearing we were told that the Justice Department did not have positions on the crucial issues about to be discussed.  Then, over the past week, in classified settings, the Department has weighed in against even some of the limited reforms that Sen. Leahy originally proposed.  That led to the unusual spectacle today where many members of the committee based their decision to further weaken the bill on a classified briefing held yesterday, but could not fully discuss or debate their reasons.  As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am privy to every bit of the classified information that was referred to today.  And nothing presented in the classified briefings justifies the failure to address the real problems with the expiring Patriot Act provisions and other intrusive powers.

Furthermore, much of this debate is not about classified matters.  Continuing to hide behind a veil of secrecy is not fair to Congress or to the American people.

He concludes:

Democrats have to decide if they are going to stand up for the rights of the American people or allow the FBI to write our laws.  For me, that’s not a difficult choice.

Next stop: the Senate Floor. For those readers who are American citizens, please contact your Senator and tell him or her to stand up for your rights.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Is America getting more like China?

Since Obama became President - and yes, I voted for him - there has been a great deal of optimism and energy around the idea that the Internet can be used to improve  or "reboot" our democracy. The Administration has hired some great people to work on making government more open and transparent.

This is all great. But how much good will all of this nifty e-government do for American democracy if citizens' rights to privacy and free expression are not also fiercely defended?

On that score, the Obama Administration has been dangerously disappointing. This month's news makes me feel like the U.S. is getting more like China in some ways.

A man who was using Twitter to help coordinate G20 protests in Pittsburgh was arrested and had his home searched because he posted information about police movements on Twitter. For more on that story see the New York Times, Democracy Now (with a video interview of Elliot Madison and his lawyer), the Huffington Post, the CDT's Policy Beta blog, and the Digitaldumonde blog.

The FTC has released new commercial endorsement guidelines for anybody who ever posts anything online, be it on a blog, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon reviews, or wherever (except professional journalists who are exempt thanks to the First Amendment which seems only to apply to some Americans these days).  While the guidelines are well intentioned and aim to promote honesty in product promotion and protect consumers on the Internet, they are so broad and vaguely worded that they could only be enforced selectively and unfairly. As Salon's Jack Shafer describes them: "They are written so broadly that if you blog about a good and service in such a way that the FTC construes as an endorsement, the commission has a predicate to investigate." What's more: "As I read the guidelines, the FTC could investigate you if you did disclose but it was not satisfied with the disclosure." See more critques from Dan Gillmor, Jeff Jarvis, the LA Times, and Jeff Bercovici at Daily Finance. As free speech activists living in authoritarian countries like China - or even pseudo-authoritarian pseudo-democracies like Singapore - will readily tell you, over-broad and vague regulations of speech are dangerous because there's no way to enforce them uniformly or fairly. So authorities enforce them selectively based on often arbitrary and generally un-transparent criteria.  Such regulations become a great umbrella excuse to stifle speech that powerful people don't like for whatever reason. Over-broad regulations also have a chilling effect on speech because people tend to over-compensate in order to avoid trouble.

Then there's the matter of the media shield bill currently before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The idea is to pass a law that would protect journalists who refuse to divulge their confidential sources in federal court. It was bad enough that the definition of "journalist" has now excluded citizen media, bloggers, and student journalists completely. Even worse, the White House has now proposed changes to the bill that would substantially weaken professional reporters' protections. As the New York Times editorial page points out, so much for Obama's promise of transparency:

At the heart of the disagreement is the balance between national security and the public’s right to know. The best approach is to protect legitimate security claims while rejecting those that are made in the name of national security but are really aimed at avoiding embarrassment. That was the constant cry from the Bush administration as the public learned — through the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information — of prisoner abuse, secret C.I.A. prisons for terrorist suspects and warrantless wiretapping.

The Senate bill and a measure passed earlier in the House aim at a reasonable balance by relying on a federal judge to decide when security is not truly at risk and sources must be protected. The White House proposals would instruct judges to defer to the administration’s view of when and if a news leak presents a “significant” security leak. The executive branch would arrogate power to decide the public’s right to know by crimping the news media’s ability to make a case for disclosure.

As Michael Masnick at TechDirt puts it:

If you want to create a chilling effect against any sort of whistleblowing on gov't corruption, that's what this proposal does. It basically lets the gov't say that the shield law only applies to whistleblowing that doesn't make the administration look bad. But, in any case where the administration isn't happy, it gets to wipe out the shield. Apparently, freedom of the press only applies to situations in which the administration is not embarrassed.

Dan Thomasson at Scripps Howard puts it this way: "Now it seems the president also has decided the people's right to know might not be all that beneficial to him or them."

Last but not least, there's the USA PATRIOT Act (full text here), which in 2001 expanded the government's powers to spy on American citizens in the course of anti-terror and criminal investigations. Three of its key provisions are up for reauthorization this year, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will be considering them today (Thursday U.S. time). The Economist's Democracy in America blog has an excellent summary of the current state of play, which I take the liberty to quote at great length:

While some Democratic senators had initially shown interest in using the occasion to review the broad edifice of post–9/11 surveillance powers granted the executive branch, legislators now seem poised to move ahead with reauthorisation absent even the mildest additional civil-liberties safeguards.

The Obama administration had requested reauthorisationof all three "sunsetting" Patriot-Act powers: roving wiretap authority; license to spy on so-called "lone wolf" terror suspects under the broad aegis of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act; and "section 215" orders, which allow investigators to compel the production of business records or any other "tangible thing". Yet the Justice Department had also signaled its openness to "modifications" designed to protect the privacy of Americans and check potential abuses.

Russ Feingold took them up on the offer with an ambitious proposal that would have substantially overhauled the new foreign-intelligence-surveillance architecture. More modest was a proposal by Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee's chairman, that would have somewhat constrained the scope of both 215 orders and the controversial "national security letters", which internal probes found to be subject to endemic misuse.

Yet even the more moderate reforms proved a bridge too far for Dianne Feinstein, who swooped in at the last minute before last week's legislative mark-up session with her own substitute bill, stripping away even the feeble restraints Mr Leahy had supported. The reason was the purported fear of FBI officials that these constraints might interfere with a number of "ongoing investigations", intimated to have sprung from the arrest of suspected bomb plotter Najibullah Zazi. Over Mr Feingold's objections, Ms Feinstein's language was made the template for renewal legislation, and the committee is expected to report a final draft out to the full Senate on Thursday.

For updates on Thursday's developments, a liveblog of the proceedings, and information about how to take action, visit the Patriot Act Action Hub. For very detailed background read the last eight posts or so on Marcy Wheeler's Empty Wheel blog. She will also be live-blogging on Thursday. Also see Glenn Greenwald's The joint Post/Obama defense of the Patriot Act and FISA for a critique of some of the lap-doggish mainstream media coverage on the issue, and a rebuttal of Fox news coverage by Cato's Julian Sanchez. 

I'm worried that most liberals and progressives have stopped paying attention and are just assuming everything will work out ok now that "our guy" is in office. I was tremendously excited about Obama's candidacy. I was jubilant when he got elected. I don't see myself turning Republican any time in this lifetime, but if the Obama Administration doesn't start showing a bit more concern for American civil liberties - putting aside for the moment the question of whether he cares about anybody else's - I'm going to start wishing for a viable third party with a meaningful civil liberties and human rights platform.