Category Archives: Censorship

Wikipedia has made it much harder for governments to block access to individual articles.

AFP/Getty Images

In Iranas you might expectinternet content about womens rights, sex, and religion are censored and filtered. Wikipedia articles on the topic used to be blocked. But in 2015, people in Iran were suddenly able to access Wikipedia posts that were previously censoredall because Wikipedia made a simple switch.

Wikipedia used to operate under both HTTP or HTTPS. With HTTPS, the information in your browser is encrypted. People can see what site youre on, but not which specific page of that site when you use HTTPS. For example, someone eavesdropping on the network could see that youre on Facebook, but not which ex from high school youre looking at.

So if a country didnt want you looking at, say, the Wikipedia page about Tiananmen Square, it could just block that single article. That is, until the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to being completely HTTPS in 2015. Now, if a nation wants to stop its citizens from reading some Wikipedia pages, it has to block the entire site. Without encryption, governments can more easily surveil sensitive information, creating a chilling effect, and deterring participation, or in extreme cases they can isolate or discipline citizens, the Wikimedia Foundation said in a statement back in 2015.

In May, the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard released a study on the effects of the Wikimedia Foundations switch to HTTPS-only. For the most part, according to the report, it has been positive for the fight against censorship. Wikipedia has repeatedly found itself the target of government censors, the authors of the study wrote. But the sites efforts seem to be working. Our research suggests that on balance, there is less censorship happening now than before the transition to HTTPS-only content delivery in June 2015. This initial data suggests the decision to shift to HTTPS has been a good one in terms of ensuring accessibility to knowledge, the study says.

To conduct the study, the Berkman Center used both client-side data and server-side data. Client data comes from the perspective of users around the globe, and server data deals with traffic coming in to Wikimedia servers.

The researchers focused on 15 different countries that had histories of either specifically blocking Wikipedia or general internet censorship. The study found that the primary countries that are censoring Wikipedia at least somewhat are China, Thailand, and Uzbekistan.

The Chinese-language Wikipedia project began in May 2001. Its first brush with censorship came in 2004, when the government blocked the project during the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests. Currently, the entire Chinese Wikipedia site is blocked. Chinas government its own official digital encyclopedia in 2018. A digitized version of the print version that has been around since the 1970s, it will contain 300,000-plus entries made by more than 20,000 scholars.

China is an extreme case, but other countries have dabbled in Wikipedia blockage, too. While states in America have begun to legalize marijuana, Russia still has a problem allowing its citizens to merely look at articles on the subject. Roskomnadzor, the federal agency that supervises electronic media in Russia, blocked all of Russian Wikipedia, aka ru.wikipedia.org, in August 2015 after Wikipedia editors refused to remove an article about cannabis. Because this happened after the switch to HTTPS, the government had to block all access to Wikipedia, instead of just the page. However, the site was restored a few hours later after Roskomnadzor said the article met its standards after being edited, even though Wikipedia editors claimed the article hadnt been changed.

The study concludes that while Russias internet censorship at large continues to grow, the government has not been interfering with Wikipedia. Clients based in Russia were able to access Wikipedia and its subdomains, and the network request round trip was the fastest out of all the countries in the study.

See the original post here:
Wikipedia Seems to Be Winning Its Battle Against Government Censorship - Slate Magazine (blog)

All religious literature would be subject to censorship, sharing beliefs would be banned, adults wanting to study faith abroad would have to notify Religious Affairs officials, and 500 adult citizens in one location would be required to apply for registration if parliament adopts Religion Law amendments.

Full state censorship of all religious literature published, distributed or photocopied in Kyrgyzstan or imported into the country, as well as a ban on sharing beliefs in public particularly from door to door could soon become law. Proposed amendments to the 2009 Religion Law are due to have their first reading in the Zhogorku Kenesh (Parliament) in the capital Bishkek tomorrow (1 June).

The amendments were prepared by the State Commission for Religious Affairs (SCRA), which has been headed since 13 February by Zaiyrbek Ergeshov.

Other provisions in the proposed amendments include a rise in the number of adult citizens living in one place required before a religious community can apply for registration from 200 to 500, as well as a requirement that even adults who travel abroad for religious education have to inform the state where they are studying.

Punishments have not yet been set out for those violating all these provisions.

In addition to the new proposed restrictions, the amendments do not propose removing any of the restrictions on exercising freedom of religion or belief in the current Law. Existing provisions which violate Kyrgyzstan's international human rights commitments include a ban on exercising freedom of religion or belief without state registration (see Forum 18's Kyrgyzstan religious freedom survey http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2013).

Deputies told Forum 18 the amendments could be adopted before parliament's summer break, or after parliament returns in September.

Many provisions of the proposed amendments are close to provisions proposed in 2014. They were strongly criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (see below).

The SCRA's amendments

The proposed amendments were prepared by the SCRA. They were approved by the government on 11 April and sent to Parliament. The text of the draft was published in April on several government websites, including those of the Justice Ministry and the SCRA.

On 16 May Parliament's International Affairs, Defence and Security Committee approved the proposed amendments.

At a hearing on 29 May, the Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee also approved it. SCRA's Director Ergeshov spoke up in the Committee in support of the amendments.

In a demonstration of the wide backing for the proposed new restrictions, the Committee invited to the hearing the Interior, Justice, Foreign, Education and Culture Ministers, the head of the secret police and the General Prosecutor.

Also invited were Chief Mufti Maksat Toktomushev and Russian Orthodox bishop Daniil (Kuznetsov). (The Chief Mufti gained religious education in Pakistan and the bishop in Russia.)

Muftiate representatives backed the amendments, according to the parliamentary website. "Everyone must adhere to their own faith," one insisted. "Cases arise when there are followers of different movements in one family, Muslims and Baptists. This leads to conflicts."

Committee member Ryskeldi Mombekov "supported the amendments in Committee and will speak up in support of them tomorrow in parliament", his assistant told Forum 18 from parliament on 31 May.

Three Committee members opposed the amendments, Committee member Yevgeniya Strokova told Forum 18. One of them, Tazabek Ikramov, described the draft as "unfinished" and called on it to be sent back for further work, according to the parliamentary website.

The proposed amendments have been included in Parliament's agenda for a first reading on 1 June, according to the parliamentary website. The draft will require three readings in parliament before being adopted. It would then be sent to the President to be signed into law.

How soon?

Many previous proposed laws or amendments about religion have failed to be adopted or have been approved by Parliament but not signed into law. Many observers therefore remain unsure whether these amendments will be adopted and, if so, when.

Religious studies expert Galina Kolodzinskaya acknowledges that deputies could adopt the amendments before Parliament's summer break at the end of June, particularly as she believes they have strong political support from leading state figures and agencies.

"If there is no unified voice from civil society and religious communities, the amendments might move through parliament quickly," Kolodzinskaya told Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May. "Sadly, religious communities are fragmented and are unlikely to work together on this."

"But it's quite possible they will be postponed until after the presidential elections now scheduled for 15 October," Kolodzinskaya added. "If that is the case, all will depend on what attitude the new president will take, as religious policy is in the hands of the president."

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Natalya Nikitenko, who has concerns about some provisions in the draft amendments, says that ten days should separate the three readings at minimum. "But the initiators could speed up the adoption of the amendments," she told Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May.

Nikitenko hopes consideration of the draft will not be rushed. "There must be time to consider this properly, hopefully in the autumn after parliament has had a proper chance to listen to people's views in public hearings."

Proposed new restrictions: religious censorship

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 22 would introduce full state censorship of all religious literature produced, copied or distributed in Kyrgyzstan or imported into the country. Only registered religious organisations are identified as being allowed religious literature and only "commensurate with their needs" (which are undefined).

Individuals would be allowed to acquire only "individual copies" of religious books and materials and only "in line with procedures established by the government".

All religious literature in print or digital form and other materials would be subject to compulsory prior state censorship by the SCRA. The amendments specifically ban the printing or publication of any works without its express permission.

SCRA Deputy Director Zakir Chotayev denied that this would represent censorship. "It is the same as in the current Law," he claimed to Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May. However, while the current Law allows the SCRA to censor religious literature it does not mandate it.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Strokova supported the religious censorship. "I'm not against freedom," she claimed to Forum 18. "But there must be limits."

But fellow Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko warned that the proposed state religious censorship would increase the powers of the SCRA. "There is no control over what the SCRA does," she complained to Forum 18. "It's not a transparent organisation."

Proposed new restrictions: ban on sharing faith

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 5 widens the ban on sharing faith. "Illegitimate proselytism, going round flats or homes with the aim of spreading religious views is banned, as is any illegal missionary activity. Those guilty of violating this provision bear responsibility under the Code of Administrative Offences."

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 3 defines "illegitimate proselytism" as "actions directed at attracting to one's own faith followers of other faiths by means of psychological and physical pressure, threats and violence".

The current Article 5 bans only "insistent actions" aimed at sharing faith, though it does ban "illegal missionary activity".

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Strokova defended this restriction. She complained that "religiously illiterate people" share their faith and argued that this has to be stopped.

"Anyone could say they are doing this, but there's no guarantee they're professing the faith that they should profess," she told Forum 18. "You don't allow unqualified people to talk about medicine the same goes for religion. We need to prevent spiritual violence." Asked whether adults are incapable of making up their own mind about any views they hear on religion, she responded: "You're deliberately twisting my words."

Proposed new restrictions: Further registration obstruction

Religious communities which want to gain state registration will find it even harder if the amendments are adopted. A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 8 would require not 200 adult citizens as at present but 500 to apply to register a religious community. The amendment also implies that these 500 adult citizens must live in one region of the country.

SCRA Deputy Director Chotayev insisted to Forum 18 that the suggestion for 500 adult citizen members in one location came from a "public consultation". He declined to say who had proposed this or why it had been included.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko told Forum 18 she sees no need for the number of required members to be increased. She fears this could harm "law-abiding religious communities", including smaller communities such as of Jews or Buddhists. Fellow deputy Strokova told Forum 18 of her similar concerns.

However, another proposed amendment to Article 8 would allow the creation of a centralised religious organisation to religious organisations from a minimum of seven of the country's nine regions. Under the current Law, organisations have to be present and registered in all nine regions before they can apply for a centralised religious organisation.

The proposed amendments at least in theory remove one of the obstacles for local communities to apply for formal registration (known in Russian as "uchetnaya registratsia"). Previously this required local keneshes (councils) to approve such applications, but the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled in September 2014 that this was illegal. However, officials have so far ignored this ruling and many local communities struggle to get such registration (see F18News 11 November 2016 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2230).

Proposed new restrictions: State notification to study religion abroad

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 6 requires anyone wishing to study in a foreign religious educational establishment to notify the SCRA of where they intend to study. The amendments do not say whether the SCRA is empowered to withhold permission for an individual to study their faith abroad.

Another proposed amendment to Article 6 would ban private teaching of religion. The current Law bans the private teaching of "religious studies".

Proposed new restrictions: SCRA's warning, liquidation powers

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 26 would allow the SCRA greater powers to warn, halt or seek to liquidate religious organisations that conduct activity "contradicting the goals" of an organisation or "not specified in the statute". A warned or halted religious organisation can challenge the SCRA's decision in court. The SCRA would have to seek liquidation of an organisation through the courts.

The SCRA is empowered to conduct inspections of religious organisations to ensure that they are abiding by the law either at its own initiative, at the initiative of state agencies or in response to complaints.

UN comments ignored

The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee commented on the Religion Law and possible plans to amend it in March 2014 Concluding Observations (CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/2) to its consideration of Kyrgyzstan's record under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It noted that "the Committee is concerned about the restrictions incompatible with provisions of the Covenant [ICCPR] contained in the current law, including with respect to missionary activities, registration procedure and dissemination of religious literature" (see F18News 1 April 2014 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1944).

The Committee stressed that the then planned amendments to the Religion Law should "remove all restrictions incompatible with Article 18 of the Covenant, by providing for a transparent, open and fair registration process of religious organizations and eliminating distinctions among religions that may lead to discrimination" (see F18News 1 April 2014 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1944).

However, many provisions of the current proposed amendments are similar to those proposed in 2014.

SCRA Deputy Director Chotayev dismissed the UN's stated views. "We live in Kyrgyzstan and have our own procedures," he told Forum 18. "We're an independent state." When Forum 18 reminded him that Kyrgyzstan is a member of the UN and has acceded to the ICCPR he put the phone down.

Religious communities mostly no comment

While Muftiate leaders have been vocal in their support for the proposed restrictions, leaders of most other faiths have remained silent. Forum 18 could find no leaders of other faiths prepared to express their views publicly.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko said she had seen no comments from other communities. "Our Committee was not given any comments," she told Forum 18.

Nikitenko acknowledged that many communities are afraid to come forward with comments. "There is fear among the population, which is a limit on freedom of speech. But parliament must hear the voice of the people that's why we are calling for public hearings in parliament on the proposed amendments."

Privately, a number expressed concerns over at least parts of the draft. One spoke of the "onerous registration requirements which make registration for minority religions virtually impossible", adding that the "total ban" on sharing faith is also a concern.

"After the SCRA published the draft in April, most religious leaders preferred not to lodge official comments," a religious activist told Forum 18 from Bishkek. "This was because of the negative response last time around, when their comments were used to make the draft even harsher. In effect they were revealing their Achilles heel." (END)

For more background information see Forum 18's Kyrgyzstan religious freedom survey at http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2013.

More reports on freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Kyrgyzstan can be found at http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?query=&religion=all&country=30.

A compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments can be found at http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1351.

A printer-friendly map of Kyrgyzstan is available at http://nationalgeographic.org/education/mapping/outline-map/?map=Kyrgyzstan.

Twitter: @Forum_18

Follow us on Facebook: @Forum18NewsService

All Forum 18 News Service material may be referred to, quoted from, or republished in full, if Forum 18 is credited as the source.

See original here:
KYRGYZSTAN: Religious censorship, sharing faiths ban? - Forum 18

The impulse to do something after a horrific event is universal, and perhaps even more pronounced in politicians than typical civilians. And so, in the wake of the horrific murder of two commuters on a Portland, Oregon, light rail over the weekend, it's not entirely surprising to see that city's mayor attempt an ill-conceived attack on free speech as a palliative.

Jeremy Joseph Christian, who allegedly murdered two people who were attempting to protect two young women that he was harassing on the crowded train, is a well-known white supremacist. Christian also stabbed a third man, who survived the attack.

Christian happens to have also attended a Portland "alt-right" rally in April; the organizer of said rally, Joey Gibson, claims he asked Christian, who was screaming obscenities, to leave the demonstration.

Gibson has another march planned for Portland on June 4, this one to purportedly "bring back strength and courage to those who believe in freedom." The rally will take place on federal grounds in downtown Portland; the federal government has already approved permitting for it.

Now, Portland mayor Ted Wheeler is demanding that the feds revoke their approval: "Our city is in mourning," the mayor said, "our community's anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation I am calling on every elected leader in Oregon, every legal agency, every level of law enforcement to stand with me in preventing another tragedy."

There's a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand here; why would banning the rally prevent another terrible murder? And the message is alarming: The mayor is suggesting that certain viewpoints effectively be censored. Oregon's ACLU chapter recognizes this danger, releasing a statement shortly after Wheeler's demands were made public. "The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators," the ACLU said, ""It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech."

Again, it appears that Mayor Wheeler wishes to do somethinganythingto relieve the city of its trauma. That's an understandable urge. But rather than suppress speech, the mayorand any WEEKLY STANDARD readerscould channel their impulses in more productive directions, by, for example, donating to the GoFundMe page of the man who was attacked on the train and survived.

Originally posted here:
Censorship Won't Help - The Weekly Standard

A 'free speech' gathering deserves a place, even if the mayor and others disagree with the group hosting Saturday's event.

Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it.

That's why we are joining Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler in asking the organizers of two upcoming public demonstrations to put their plans on hold.

The first, slated for Sunday, June 4, is billed as a Trump Free Speech Rally aimed at "exercising free speech" in "one of the most liberal areas on the West Coast." The second, more-disturbing, event is a March Against Sharia on Saturday, June 10.

Both events were planned before the sickening attack last Friday in which two men on a MAX train were killed after coming to the aid of two young women, one of whom wore a Muslim hijab, who was being verbally attacked by Jeremy Joseph Christian.

Alt-right organizers for the June 4 pro-Trump rally have tried to distance themselves from Christian, though he attended their previous "free-speech" rally earlier this spring. But any event supporting our president is ill-timed, given his past anti-Muslim statements and the three days it took him to issue a tepid condemnation of last week's fatal attack.

The June 10 event is one of 22 nationwide being organized by ACT for America, which cloaks anti-Muslim sentiments in a purported concern about Muslim women's rights. Even if the group was truly interested in drawing a distinction between Muslims who twist a part of Islamic tradition to justify violence and the vast majority of the peaceful practitioners of that faith, doing so would be nearly impossible in Portland's highly charged political climate right now.

There's nothing organizers can do to unlink the planned public events to Christian's actions, so for the good of the community as well as their own political messages they should call off the events.

If, however, they choose to go forward, the city must ensure everyone's safety without standing in the way of constitutionally protected speech.

That's why we were troubled by Wheeler's announcement on Monday that he'd asked the federal government to revoke the permit for the June 4 event and deny a permit for the June 10 event. (Both events are planned for the federally owned Terry Schrunk Plaza downtown.)

We understand his motivation, but believe he's on shaky constitutional grounds.

Yes, the murders on the MAX were horrific, particularly because the men killed were defending two young women from ugly, bigoted verbal assault.

But that doesn't justify using political influence to try and deny permits for people to express their opinions, even unpopular opinions, without proof that doing so poses an imminent threat of harm. And, despite violence at past events put on by the organizers of the June 4 rally, Wheeler did not on Monday offer any evidence that public safety was an issue.

Wheeler has every right to ask organizers of the permitted marches to reschedule them and we strongly concur with his request.

But if they don't, absent any proof of threat, they must be allowed to continue and any hateful rhetoric espoused should be matched and overmatched with a peaceful, clear, response that Portland will not stand for bigotry (or censorship).

Read the rest here:
Our Opinion: Rallies distasteful, but so is censorship - Portland Tribune

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region Iranian authorities have granted a license to publish a Kurdish novel that focuses on the role of the father figure in patriarchal society after it was partially censored for years.

The Fence and the Dogs of My Father by renowned Kurdish author Sherzad Hassan was published in Kurdish in the early 1990s.

It was then translated into Farsi.

I translated the novel into Farsi in 1998. But the Iranian censorship body censored more than 15 pages and then gave permission for the novel to be printed. I didnt accept this decision. Mariwan Halabjatyi, who is based in the capital Tehran, told Rudaw.

I am however happy now that the novel has been licensed to be printed without censorship. It will be reprinted, he added.

The novel centers on the father figure in a patriarchal society. A man married to several women controls every aspect of his sons and daughters lives. It begins with the eldest son talking about how he murdered his father, believing that after his death everything will be alright.

Sherzad Hassan is one of the rare Kurdish novelists. He is one of those writers who saved Kurdish literature from repetition and similarity. He is a writer who reinvigorated the Kurdish story, Halabjayi said of the Kurdish author whose novel had has been published with partial censorship.

Sherzad Hassan was born in 1952 in Erbil. He completed English language and literature in 1975 at Baghdad University. He has authored 10 books.

Read the original here:
Iran lifts more than decade-long censorship on Kurdish novel - Rudaw - Rudaw

The new Netflix adaptation has young readers (and their parents, and their teachers) casting a curious eye at Jay Ashers Thirteen Reasons Why and if the suicide of its main character is likely to influence real-life tragedies. A librarian tackles this subject for Book Riot, pointing to an instance in Colorado where the book was briefly banned from a high school campus in the wake oflosing several students to suicide.The pain ofsuch an incident overwhelms the reason of even the most reasonable adult, creating the ideal conditions for censorship: In response, we become desperate to do something. Thats good, writes Amy Diegelman. The trouble, though, is that we want something to do now and there are no fast or easy answers. She goes on to list some of the other steps a community can take to ensure that the needs of its young people are taken care of.

By handing its Best Director award to Sofia Coppola, the Cannes Film Festival seems to have set a new standard for representation in the film world, but according to Jessica Chastain, ifyou watch all the movies themselves, you might get a different impression. Speaking out asthe eventconcluded, the actress (and festival judge) offered a grimdiagnosis, having just watched twenty movies in ten days: The one thing I really took away from this experience is how the world views women from the female characters that I saw represented. And it was quite disturbing to me to be honest. (She did note there were some exceptions.) The article also points out that, despite Coppolas historic win and an overall increase of films directed by women, they still only made up 15.8% of the competition. While these moments of progress are definitely something to celebrate, this is hardly the time to start feeling complacent.

Speaking of female directors, Patty Jenkins may have achieved the impossible with her newWonder Woman adaptation, which is already a hit with the critics. Unlike so many of the superhero movies that have preceded it, Jenkinss Wonder Woman required very few reshoots (which means there are almost no deleted scenes), nor did we change the order of one scene in this movie from the script that we went in shooting with. In the age of action films that end up mostly being made (and re-made) in the editing room, this is a terrific accomplishment. Just dont expect to see a teaser about the sequel in the closing credits, because so far no one (including Jenkins) has any idea what happens next.

David Sedaris has opened some of his diaries to the public in the new bookTheft by Finding, but the author claims thatanythinghe found while diggingthrough these old records is somewhat outshone by the material thatsnotably absent. Sedaris explains how growing up in the pre-digital era putlimits on what he was willing to commit to paper: I think thats one of the reasons that Ive never written about sex. Because early on you had to worry that someone was going to find your diary, so its bad enough to be writing like Joan Didion, but writing like Joan Didion about sex acts youd performed with somebody you had known for twenty minutes, thats a bit worse. So I would write in my diary, I met J. and we had sex five times last night. But I would never write about what we did. Now Id give anything to know what I did. Id give anything to know!

Read this article:
The Case Against School Censorship of 'Thirteen Reasons Why' - Signature Reads

"Knowledge is power," as the old saying goes, so it's no surprise that Wikipediaone of the largest repositories of general knowledge ever createdis a frequent target of government censorship around the world. In Turkey, Wikipedia articles about female genitals have been banned; Russia has censored articles about weed; in the UK, articles about German metal bands have been blocked; in China, the entire site has been banned on multiple occasions.

Determining how to prevent these acts of censorship has long been a priority for the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, and thanks to new research from the Harvard Center for Internet and Society, the foundation seems to have found a solution: encryption.

In 2011, Wikipedia added support for Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS), which is the encrypted version of its predecessor HTTP. Both of these protocols are used to transfer data from a website's server to the browser on your computer, but when you try to connect to a website using HTTPS, your browser will first ask the web server to identify itself. Then the server will send its unique public key which is used by the browser to create and encrypt a session key. This session key is then sent back to the server which it decrypts with its private key. Now all data sent between the browser and server is encrypted for the remainder of the session.

"The decision to shift to HTTPS has been a good one in terms of ensuring accessibility to knowledge."

In short, HTTPS prevents governments and others from seeing the specific page users are visiting. For example, a government could tell that a user is browsing Wikipedia, but couldn't tell that the user is specifically reading the page about Tiananmen Square.

The researchers saw a sharp drop in traffic to the Chinese language Wikipedia around May 19, 2015, indicating a censorship event. This did in fact turn out to be the casethe site had been blocked in anticipation of the upcoming anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Image: Harvard

Up until 2015, Wikipedia offered its service using both HTTP and HTTPS, which meant that when countries like Pakistan or Iran blocked the certain articles on the HTTP version of Wikipedia, the full version would still be available using HTTPS. But in June 2015, Wikipedia decided to axe HTTP access and only offer access to its site with HTTPS. The thinking was that this would force the hand of restrictive governments when it came to censorshipdue to how this protocol works, governments could no longer block individual Wikipedia entries. It was an all or nothing deal.

Critics of this plan argued that this move would just result in more total censorship of Wikipedia and that access to some information was better than no information at all. But Wikipedia stayed the course, at least partly because its co-founder Jimmy Wales is a strong advocate for encryption. Now, new research from Harvard shows that Wales' intuition was correctfull encryption did actually result in a decrease in censorship incidents around the world.

The Harvard researchers began by deploying an algorithm which detected unusual changes in Wikipedia's global server traffic for a year beginning in May 2015. This data was then combined with a historical analysis of the daily request histories for some 1.7 million articles in 286 different languages from 2011 to 2016 in order to determine possible censorship events. At the end of their year-long data collection, the Harvard researchers also did a client-side analysis, where they would try to access various Wikipedia articles in a variety of languages as they would be seen by a resident in a particular country.

Read More: Jimmy Wales to China After Blocking Wikipedia: I Can Outwait You

After a painstakingly long process of manual analysis of potential censorship events, the researchers found that, globally, Wikipedia's switch to HTTPS had a positive effect on the number censorship events by comparing server traffic from before and after the switch in June of 2015.

Although countries like China, Thailand and Uzbekistan were still censoring part or all of Wikipedia by the time the researchers wrapped up their study, they remained optimistic: "this initial data suggests the decision to shift to HTTPS has been a good one in terms of ensuring accessibility to knowledge."

See the article here:
Wikipedia's Switch to HTTPS Has Successfully Fought Government Censorship - Motherboard

With nearly 2 billion users, Facebook reaches nearly a quarter of the people on the planet. And while its broadcasting power can be used for promoting good causes and unleashing viral cat videos, it can also be used to distribute hateful and violent content. This has put Facebook in the uncomfortable position of making judgment calls about whether the millions of posts flagged by its users as objectionable each week should be allowed to stay, flagged to other users as disturbing, or removed completely. Its an unprecedented responsibility at this scale.

The range of issues is broadfrom bullying and hate speech to terrorism and war crimesand complex, Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, recently wrote in an op-ed. To meet this challenge, she said, our approach is to try to set policies that keep people safe and enable them to share freely.

Once Facebook sets these rules, it relies on 4,000 human content moderators to apply them to individual flagged posts.

The job isnt straightforward. According to a Guardian report based on thousands of pages of Facebooks content moderator training materials, Someone shoot Trump should be permitted, but not the phrase Lets beat up fat kids. Digitally created art showing sexual activity should be removed, but all handmade erotic art is fine. Videos showing abortions are also permittedas long as they dont feature nudity.

Guidelines like these illustrate the complexity of content regulation, which until social media came around, involved questions that, for the most part, only governments faced at scale. What constitutes dangerous speech? Should some peoplesuch as the presidentbe treated differently when they make criticisms or threats, or hate speech (paywall)? When is it in the public interest to show obscenity or violence? Should nudity be permitted, and in what contexts?

Some of Facebooks answers to these difficult questions mimic content regulation laws created by democratic governments. According to the Guardian, for instance, Facebook tolerates some violent content, unless it gives us a reasonable ground to accept that there is no longer simply an expression of emotion but a transition to a plot or design. This is somewhat similar to how the US views violent content, which tends to be protected unless it incites immediate violence. (Many European countries, meanwhile, have laws that prohibit violent content or hate speech.)

But the process Facebook uses to create and apply these policies has little in common with democratic governments, which have long, often-transparent processes for creating new laws and courts that weigh each case with considerations that arent available to Facebook moderators. Facebook could improve its content moderation policies, some suggest, by also borrowing some of these ideasrelated to process rather than policyfrom democratic governments.

The multiplication of guidelines, says Agns Callamard, the director of Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University, as well meaning and well written as they may be, cannot be the answer.

Time to a decision: Facebook relies on thousands of content moderators to make decisions about whether to remove, permit, or label specific content as disturbing based on its rules. To deal with the massive scale on Facebook, the company recently said it would hire 3,000 additional people to review posts. It has also invested in artificial intelligence that could reduce the amount of work for human moderators.

For now, according to one report, a typical Facebook content moderator makes a decision about a flagged piece of content about once every 10 seconds (a Facebook spokesperson declined to confirm or deny this number, saying she didnt have the data). Context is so important, Facebooks Bickert told NPR last year. Its critical when we are looking to determine whether or not something is hate speech, or a credible threat of violence, she said. We look at how a specific person shared a specific post or word or photo to Facebook. So were looking to see why did this particular share happen on Facebook? Why did this particular post happen? Those questions take time to evaluate effectively.

Thats one reason why in most democratic countries, Callamard says, content regulation by media regulators and the courts involve decisions that take days or weeks.

Debate: Content moderators on Facebook dont hear arguments for why they should either permit or remove a piece of content. Users whose pages or accounts they remove do have an option to appeal the decision by submitting it for another review (Facebook recommends they remove the violating content first).

Government content regulators usually have more input from opposing sides. [Decisions] will often involve a judicial process, including several parties arguing one side or the other [as well as] judges reviewing the various arguments and making a decision, Callamard says.

Open discussion of rules: Facebook publishes broad guidelines for what it allows and disallows on its site, but, to keep users from gaming the system, the specifics are only shared in internal documents like the hundreds of training manuals, spreadsheets, and flowcharts that leaked to the Guardian.

A Facebook spokesperson says the company consults experts and local organizations to inform its community standards, but the public doesnt know all of Facebooks content moderation rules, nor is it part of creating them.

By contrast, Callamard says, in a democratic government, the laws upon which these decisions are made have been discussed and debated in Parliament by members of Parliament; by government ministers and where they exist by regional inter-governmental bodies. These laws or decrees would have been the object of several readings, and in the best case scenarios, the general public (including those particularly concerned by the law, e.g. the media) would have been brought in a formal consultation process.

Fundamental context: Governments have different goals than Facebook. In a democratic society, fundamental guiding principles include freedom of expression, freedom of political debate, and protecting content related to the public interest. At an advertising business like Facebook, success involves attracting and retaining users, many of whom dont want to visit a website that shows them offensive or dangerous content. This is a fundamental dimension of the way, in my opinion, Facebook always approaches content regulation, Callamard says. It cannot go so far and so as to undermine or weaken a business model based upon, and driven by data and more data (individuals data).

Continue reading here:
Facebook has a government-size censorship responsibility without the structure to handle it - Quartz

NGO suit claims US agencies are illegally withholding information about the suppression of climate science in public communications

The Centre for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against four US federal agencies over what it called censorship of climate change information.

Filed at a district court in Washington DC, the legal challenge targetsthe Environmental Protection Agency and Departments of Interior, State and Energy.

It concerns the removal of informationon climate science and policy from government websites and public communicationssince the advent of Donald Trumps presidency.

The environmental group submitted requests under freedom of information law on 30 March to disclose directives to federal employees on this subject. These requests were not answered within the statutory deadlines, according to the complaint.

The Trump administrations refusal to release public information about its climate censorship continues a dangerous and illegal pattern of anti-science denial, said Taylor McKinnon fromthe CBD. Just as censorship wont change climate science, foot-dragging and cover-ups wont be tolerated under the public records law.

Since Trump took office in January, online datafactsheets as well as policy informationhave been taken down, pending review. Scientists have expressed fearsentire datasets could be airbrushed from public record.

Trump is seeking to revive US coal mining and expand oil production, in defiance of the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels destabilises weather patterns and drives sea level rise.

Weekly briefing:Sign up for your essential climate news update

The centres lawsuit is part of a wave of litigation seeking to promote and defend action to address dangerous climate change.

A surveyfrom Columbia Universitys Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law identified 654 such cases in the US more than three times the number across the rest of the world.

These range fromobjections to specific projects like airports or coal plants to a high profile pleafrom 21 young people for stronger climate policy to protect their future.

International examples include a Pakistani farmers campaign to enforcegovernment policy protecting citizens from the impacts of climate change and a Norwegian NGO lawsuit against oil exploration in the Arctic.

Judicial decisions around the world show that many courts have the authority, and the willingness, to hold governments to account for climate change, said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Centre.

In the United States, climate change litigation has been absolutely essential, from the first lawsuit demanding the US Environmental Protection Agency regulate greenhouse gas emissions, to a recent lawsuit claiming a constitutional right to a stable climate system. Similar litigation all over the world will continue to push governments and corporations to address the most pressing environmental challenge of our times.

Researchers foresee a growth in cases in developing countries, as theybring in more climate laws, and an increased focus on climate refugees.

See the original post here:
Trump administration sued over climate change 'censorship ... - Climate Home

MANILA, Philippines - The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is monitoring reports of censorship threats and instances of warrantless arrest following the declaration of martial law in Mindanao as Marawi City is under siege by the Maute terror group.

We shall study the matter as we are still waiting for reports from our regional offices, CHR spokesperson Jacqueline de Guia told The STAR yesterday.

She was reacting to reports that several people were taken into custody in Mindanao after they failed to present identification cards to authorities.

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesman Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla was also quoted as saying that the military will exercise its right to censor to ensure that no sensitive information will get into the wrong hands.

The military has yet to release details and guidelines regarding the censorship.

Earlier, the CHR urged the public to report any instance of abuse of power to the AFP, citing the assurance made by Padilla that the military will take quick action should any case of abuse be reported to them.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

The commission also reiterated its reminder to law enforcers to protect and uphold the basic rights of all people.

We would like to reiterate the guidelines stated in the Philippine National Police (PNP)s refresher on the dos and donts of martial law, as well as the Department of National Defense (DND)s Guidance on Martial Law Implementation enjoining government to ensure that human rights and the rule of law prevail, De Guia said.

The commission reminds the members of its police force and army in Mindanao where the limits of their power lie in regards to protecting civilians, she added.

De Guia also reiterated that there is legislation and protocol in place to ensure that the human rights abuses that have occurred in the past are not repeated, noting that the 1987 Constitution has provisions to protect the rights of citizens and those within the territory of the Philippines.

As stated by the PNP and DND, we encourage all police officers and military personnel to study this list of dos and donts... and to strictly comply to reduce the possibility of any misdemeanor or breach of citizens rights happening during this time of conflict, she added.

The CHR said police and military personnel cannot issue or conduct warrantless arrests outside the circumstances provided by the Rules of Court.

Those who are arrested or detained cannot be charged beyond the period of three days, nor can civilians be tried in military tribunals. The declaration of martial law does not suspend the functioning of the civil courts and the legislative assemblies, the CHR said.

Any arrest, search and seizure executed in the area where martial law is declared, including filing of charges, should comply with the Revised Rules of Court and applicable jurisprudence, the CHR added.

The House of Representatives, which is dominated by President Dutertes new and old allies, supported his declaration of martial law in the entire Mindanao.

Quezon City Rep. Alfred Vargas lauded the AFPs action on the matter as well as Dutertes decision to cut short his trip to Russia in order to deal with the situation in Mindanao.

Rep. Harry Roque ofKabayan party-list believes martial law in Mindanao is justified.

During emergencies such as this, the government must act swiftly. While many fear martial law because of its negative connotations in the past, we should look at the present facts with a sober perspective, he said.

Sen. Cynthia Villar, another ally of Duterte, chided martial law critics in Luzon for criticizing Dutertes decision to declare martial law in Mindanao.

Villar, who ran for the Senate under the ticket of former president Benigno Aquino III of the Liberal Party, said critics of martial law should just shut up and let the Mindanaons do what they think is best to resolve the conflict in Marawi City.

For Quezon City Rep. Winston Castelo, the President may try to seek the help of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in fighting the Maute group that has links to the terrorist group Islamic State (IS).

Castelo cited a newspaper report from the Singapore Straits Times saying two Malaysians were among the 13 IS-linked militants killed in the militarys battle against the Mautes in Marawi City. With Delon Porcalla, Robertzon Ramirez

See original here:
CHR to monitor censorship, arrests - Philippine Star