El proyecto de ley “De protección de los niños, niñas y adolescentes contra contenidos nocivos en internet” busca instalar filtros que bloqueen “contenidos nocivos” para la niñez en las redes de acceso público a internet, lo que podría resultar en el alza de la censura previa y la imposibilidad de que adultos accedan a material al que sí están facultados a ver.
Como una propuesta que “vulnera abiertamente el derecho a la libertad de expresión y genera condiciones que hacen prácticamente imposible el ejercicio del periodismo”, calificó Catalina Botero, ex relatora especial para la Libertad de Expresión de la Comisión Interamericana de los Derechos Humanos, un anteproyecto que obligará a los portales de internet a borrar los datos de cualquier ciudadano de forma “inmediata y completa”, si la persona considera que esa información afecta su intimidad.
El gobierno de Bolivia ha mostrado al menos dos frentes para controlar la difusión de contenidos propios y ajenos en redes sociales: la creación de la Dirección General de Redes Sociales y la intención de elaborar una normativa que prohíba el anonimato y la difamación de funcionarios públicos.
La red social precisó que el número de artículos restringidos por infringir la ley ascendió el segundo semestre de 2015 a 55.827, una cifra muy elevada en comparación con la del mismo periodo de 2014, que se situó en 20.568. La red social Facebook recibió en el último semestre 2015 un total de 46.763 solicitudes de acceso a datos de sus usuarios, un 13 % más que en el mismo periodo del año anterior, según informó la compañía estadounidence
Brazilian internet freedom activists are nervous. On Wednesday, a committee in the lower house of Congress, the Câmera dos Deputados, will vote on seven proposals ostensibly created to combat cybercrime. Critics argue the combined effect will be to substantially restrict open internet in the country by peeling back the right to anonymity, and providing law enforcement with draconian powers to censor online discourse and examine citizens’ personal data without judicial oversight.The bills are ripped straight from what has become a standard international playbook: Propose legislation to combat cybercrime; invoke child pornography, hackers, organized crime, and even terrorism; then slip in measures that also make it easier to identify critical voices online (often without judicial oversight) and either mute them or throw them in jail for defamation — direct threats to free speech.
New legislation, designed to monitor would-be Islamist attackers, would allow spies to tap phones and emails without permission from judges
French spies could get more powers to bug and track would-be Islamist attackers inside the country and require internet companies to monitor suspicious behaviour under a bill to be debated in parliament on Monday.
Web hosting companies have raised concerns that the legislation could frighten away clients, while advocates for civil liberties say it lacks adequate privacy protections – concerns dismissed by the government.
More than three months after 17 people were killed in attacks by three gunmen in Paris, the government is pushing measures that would allow spy agencies to tap phones and emails without seeking permission from a judge.
Surveillance staff will also be able to bug suspects’ flats with microphones and cameras and add “keyloggers” to their computers to track every keystroke.
“The measures proposed are not aimed at installing generalised surveillance,” the interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, said in an interview with the newspaper Libération. “On the contrary it aims to target people who we need to monitor to protect the French people.”
France is monitoring an estimated 1,200 Islamists and about 200 people who have returned from fighting with militant groups in Syria and Iraq.
It has earmarked about €425m (£300m) to recruit thousands of extra police, spies and investigators to beef up surveillance and boost national security and intelligence.
Former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden last year disclosed classified details about the breadth of the intelligence gathering, triggering an international outcry.
Among those critical of the French bill are internet service providers who in a column published on 9 April threatened to relocate outside of France because the bill would allow intelligence services to place “black boxes” on their infrastructure with algorithms to filter communications.
El gerente general de la Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (Entel), Óscar Coca, propuso este miércoles regular las redes sociales a través de una norma o reglamentación para que los usuarios no sigan corriendo el mismo nivel de riesgo en el uso irrestricto de estas nuevas tecnologías de comunicación.
“Esa lectura de un internet irrestricto, de una posibilidad de acceso a las redes sin control, es pretexto (para decir que no se) limita su libertad; (sin embargo) no es una lectura correcta, tiene que haber una normativa, una reglamentación, para eso hay autoridades”, dijo Coca en un encuentro institucional.
Por otro lado, el director de la Autoridad de Regulación y Fiscalización de Telecomunicaciones y Transporte (ATT), Luis Felipe Guzmán, afirmó que no se puede realizar este control.
“No, no se puede (regular) sólo estamos para hacer prevención, el internet es libre”, respondió Guzmán.
Short-Changes Rights Obligations; Bad Model for Other Countries
(Paris) – Draft legislation authorizing sweeping powers of digital surveillance is inconsistent with France’s international human rights commitments, Human Rights Watch said today. The bill, which has already won approval of the National Assembly’s Law Commission, would create a highly damaging model for other countries and should be reconsidered and revised, not rushed through the parliament.
The bill (“draft law on intelligence,” “projet de loi relatif au renseignement”), which was planned even before the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper-Casher supermarket attacks, is slated for plenary consideration by the National Assembly beginning April 13, 2015, under an accelerated legislative procedure that precludes a second reading. Serious flaws include expansive powers for the prime minister to authorize surveillance for purposes far beyond those recognized in international human rights law; lack of meaningful judicial oversight; requirements for private service providers to monitor and analyze user data and report suspicious patterns; prolonged retention periods for some captured data; and little public transparency.
“Though the goal of the bill is to place France’s surveillance practices under the rule of law, it in fact uses law to clothe a naked expansion of surveillance powers,” said Dinah PoKempner, Human Rights Watch general counsel. “France can do much better than this, especially if it wants to distance itself from the overreaching and secretive mass surveillance practices of the US and the UK that have attracted so many legal challenges.”
“Se ha prestado para malinterpretaciones porque la gente cree que si publica en su Facebook más de cuatro veces será automáticamente considerado diario”, dijo el parlamentario después de la batahola que causó en las redes sociales una columna de la ONG Derechos Digitales que disparó contra varios aspectos de la iniciativa.
Una columna publicada por la abogada Rayén Campusano, encargada de políticas públicas de la ONG Derechos Digitales, encendió el lunes último las redes sociales después de acusar al proyecto de ley de Medios Digitales de “atentar contra la libertad de expresión”, por el hecho -aseguró- de terminar con el anonimato en la red y obligar a los autores de distintos blogs a iniciar actividades y a realizar un pago legal a la Biblioteca Nacional si actualizaban o posteban en su página más de cuatro veces a la semana.
El proyecto de ley de medios digitales que se discute en la Cámara, hará que todos quienes posean un sitio web o red social con cuatro publicaciones semanales, sean consideradas responsables de un medio de comunicación social. Acá te contamos cómo te afecta si eres un usuario o usuaria de Internet en Chile.
En Chile, hay una creciente tendencia en parlamentarios de presentar proyectos de ley que castigan más duramente acciones realizadas por Internet. Un ejemplo claro de ello es la denominada ley de medios de comunicación digital (proyectos de ley 9460-19 y 9461-19 que modifican la Ley 19.733), que ya informamos en su oportunidad, y que ha encontrado un terreno fértil en la Cámara de Diputados donde ha avanzado de manera firme, a pesar de sus múltiples y evidentes problemas.
Si usas Internet, te invitamos a estar atento a los siguientes aspectos de la ley que, de aprobarse, afectarán para siempre tu libertad de expresión en Internet.
Sex workers and campaigners have gathered in front of parliament to protest against changes to UK pornography regulations.
Organiser Charlotte Rose called the restrictions “ludicrous” and said they were a threat to freedom of expression.
Protesters say the list of banned activities includes “face-sitting”, and campaigners planned to carry out a mass demonstration of this while singing the Monty Python song Sit On My Face.
“These activities were added to this list without the public being made aware,” Charlotte Rose said. “They’ve done this without public knowledge and without public consent.
“There are activities on that list that may be deemed sexist, but it’s not just about sexism, it’s about censorship. What the government is doing is taking our personal liberties away without our permissions.”
The protest comes after the government said a list of sex acts has been banned from online porn videos filmed in the UK, in a bid to crack down on “harmful” content.
A quiet change in legislation has ruled that paid-for online porn videos must now adhere to the same rules as content produced for sex shop-type videos.
Uno de los cofundadores del sitio web Pirate Bay, el sueco Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, fue hallado culpable en el caso más importante de piratería informática en Dinamarca, anunció el jueves la justicia danesa.
“El ciudadano sueco de 30 años fue hallado culpable de piratería y de acto malintencionado”, declaró un tribunal de Copenhague. Un danés de 21 años también ha sido hallado culpable por complicidad en un intento de pirateo.
Los dos hombres descargaron ilegalmente ficheros de la policía y de la seguridad social en 2012. Por estos hechos, el fiscal pidió seis años de prisión contra Svartholm Warg, de 30 años, y dos años contra el otro acusado. La pena, no obstante, se conocerá el viernes.
El acusado sueco negó las acusaciones, al afirmar que alguien tomó el control de su ordenador a distancia para acceder a los ficheros.
Forty-nine MPs have voted against rushing the government’s emergency surveillance legislation through all its Commons stages in just one day.
A deal between the three major parties, however, secured the fast-track timetable by 436 votes to 49, despite accusations from one Labour MP that the move amounted to “democratic banditry resonant of a rogue state”.
The vote on the timetable motion for the data retention and investigatory powers bill, known as the Drip bill, came as it emerged that the home secretary was to accept Labour amendments strengthening its safeguards.
The government has accepted that the promised longer-term review of all surveillance legislation, known as Ripa, should be written into the Drip bill to put it on a statutory footing, and that there should six-monthly reviews of its operation by the interception commissioner.
The former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis told ministers that the rush to push through the Drip bill undermined parliament’s role.
por Paz Peña 25 de junio, 2014
Es cierto: poner en una misma frase “redes sociales” y “seguridad” es más bien un contrasentido, pero localmente, el problema de inseguridad de los datos personales de los usuarios de estas plataformas reviste una gravedad especial: la policía y la fiscalía chilena las tienen como objetivo de vigilancia, sin garantías para los derechos de privacidad y debido proceso de sus ciudadanos. Al menos, eso se puede concluir con las últimas noticias.
En una noticia salida hace algunos días en La Segunda, la Brigada del Cibercrimen de la Policía De Investigaciones (PDI), explica cómo la vigilancia a Facebook se ha convertido en un elemento esencial para las investigaciones policiales. En la nota se afirma:
“Con su explosivo crecimiento en los últimos años en Chile, las redes sociales son hoy un “paso obligado” en cualquier investigación, afirman las autoridades. Al empadronamiento tradicional que los policías realizan en terreno se suma hoy un “empadronamiento digital” que puede arrojar resultados igual de valiosos”.
Según la nota, la policía efectivamente ha llegado a establecer la identidad y las relaciones de los delincuentes gracias a las pistas que estos dejan en Facebook. Pero los antecedentes que la policía y la fiscalía entregan en esta noticia, hacen pensar que el precio de ese hecho lo pagan los derechos de privacidad y al debido proceso de todos los chilenos. Dos hechos preocupantes:
We remember anniversaries that mark the important events of our era: September 11 (not only the 2001 Twin Towers attack, but also the 1973 military coup against Allende in Chile), D-day, etc. Maybe another date should be added to this list: 19 June.
Most of us like to take a stroll during the day to get a breath of fresh air. There must be a good reason for those who cannot do it – maybe they have a job that prevents it (miners, submariners), or a strange illness that makes exposure to sunlight a deadly danger. Even prisoners get their daily hour’s walk in fresh air.
Today, 19 June, marks two years since Julian Assange was deprived of this right: he is permanently confined to the apartment that houses the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Were he to step out of the apartment, he would be arrested immediately. What did Assange do to deserve this? In a way, one can understand the authorities: Assange and his whistleblowing colleagues are often accused of being traitors, but they are something much worse (in the eyes of the authorities).
Assange designated himself a “spy for the people”. “Spying for the people” is not a simple betrayal (which would instead mean acting as a double agent, selling our secrets to the enemy); it is something much more radical. It undermines the very principle of spying, the principle of secrecy, since its goal is to make secrets public. People who help WikiLeaks are no longer whistleblowers who denounce the illegal practices of private companies (banks, and tobacco and oil companies) to the public authorities; they denounce to the wider public these public authorities themselves.
We didn’t really learn anything from WikiLeaks we didn’t already presume to be true – but it is one thing to know it in general and another to get concrete data. It is a little bit like knowing that one’s sexual partner is playing around. One can accept the abstract knowledge of it, but pain arises when one learns the steamy details, when one gets pictures of what they were doing.
When confronted with such facts, should every decent US citizen not feel deeply ashamed? Until now, the attitude of the average citizen was hypocritical disavowal: we preferred to ignore the dirty job done by secret agencies. From now on, we can’t pretend we don’t know.
Published time: May 27, 2014 16:36
Key digital rights activists – including Edward Snowden and hacker Jacob Appelbaum – have been blacklisted from the Stockholm Internet Forum (SIF) on internet openness and freedom. The move has caused a stir at the gathering and outraged Twitter users.
The third annual European meeting of internet activists kicked off in Sweden on May 26, with its main theme being “Internet– privacy, transparency, surveillance and control.”
But strangely enough, those whose names immediately spring to mind when it comes to the issue of surveillance were not allowed to attend the event.
Former CIA employee Edward Snowden, who revealed the NSA’s mass spying program, was not invited. Neither was journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story.
Hacker Jacob Appelbaum, who found German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone number in Snowden’s database, didn’t receive an invitation either.
The conference also failed to invite representatives of WikiLeaks, which repeatedly made headlines worldwide by leaking diplomatic cables.
According to German magazine Cicero Online, the only non-governmental organization among the hosts of the conference – .SE – had made a list of possible candidates and sent it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for approval.The ministry vetoed the activists from attending the SIF – the brainchild of Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. Snowden’s name was marked red, the magazine wrote, suggesting that could be code for “do not invite.”
Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know the apparatus of repression has been covertly attached to the democratic state. However, our struggle to retain privacy is far from hopeless
In the third chapter of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon gave two reasons why the slavery into which the Romans had tumbled under Augustus and his successors left them more wretched than any previous human slavery. In the first place, Gibbon said, the Romans had carried with them into slavery the culture of a free people: their language and their conception of themselves as human beings presupposed freedom. And thus, says Gibbon, for a long time the Romans preserved the sentiments – or at least the ideas – of a freeborn people. In the second place, the empire of the Romans filled all the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world was a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. As Gibbon wrote, to resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly.
The power of that Roman empire rested in its leaders’ control of communications. The Mediterranean was their lake. Across their European empire, from Scotland to Syria, they pushed roads that 15 centuries later were still primary arteries of European transportation. Down those roads the emperor marched his armies. Up those roads he gathered his intelligence. The emperors invented the posts to move couriers and messages at the fastest possible speed.
Using that infrastructure, with respect to everything that involved the administration of power, the emperor made himself the best-informed person in the history of the world.
That power eradicated human freedom. “Remember,” said Cicero to Marcellus in exile, “wherever you are, you are equally within the power of the conqueror.”
The empire of the United States after the second world war also depended upon control of communications. This was more evident when, a mere 20 years later, the United States was locked in a confrontation of nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union. In a war of submarines hidden in the dark below the continents, capable of eradicating human civilisation in less than an hour, the rule of engagement was “launch on warning”. Thus the United States valued control of communications as highly as the Emperor Augustus. Its listeners too aspired to know everything.
We all know that the United States has for decades spent as much on its military might as all other powers in the world combined. Americans are now realising what it means that we applied to the stealing of signals and the breaking of codes a similar proportion of our resources in relation to the rest of the world.
The US system of listening comprises a military command controlling a large civilian workforce. That structure presupposes the foreign intelligence nature of listening activities. Military control was a symbol and guarantee of the nature of the activity being pursued. Wide-scale domestic surveillance under military command would have violated the fundamental principle of civilian control.
Instead what it had was a foreign intelligence service responsible to the president as military commander-in-chief. The chain of military command absolutely ensured respect for the fundamental principle “no listening here”. The boundary between home and away distinguished the permissible from the unconstitutional.
The distinction between home and away was at least technically credible, given the reality of 20th-century communications media, which were hierarchically organised and very often state-controlled.
When the US government chose to listen to other governments abroad – to their militaries, to their diplomatic communications, to their policymakers where possible – they were listening in a world of defined targets. The basic principle was: hack, tap, steal. We listened, we hacked in, we traded, we stole.
In the beginning we listened to militaries and their governments. Later we monitored the flow of international trade as far as it engaged American national security interests.
Turkey‘s Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk has said that the situation in his country “is going from bad to worse and even towards terrible” following the government’s attempts to block access to Twitter, as a phalanx of major writers, from Zadie Smith to Günter Grass, line up to state their “grave concern” about “the freedom of words” in Turkey today.
The authors, who also include Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood, Karl Ove Knausgaard, and Grass and Pamuk’s fellow Nobel laureate Elfriede Jelinek, have added their names to a joint letter from PEN International and English PEN which calls last week’s ban on Twitter “an unacceptable violation of the right to freedom of speech“. The Turkish government restricted access to the micro-blogging website, and prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan indicated the ban could be extended further, saying he would not “leave this nation at the mercy of YouTube and Facebook” and pledging to “take the necessary steps in the strongest way”.
On Thursday, he appeared to follow up that threat as Turkish media reported that the country’s telecommunications authority (TİB) had blocked YouTube as a “precautionary administrative measure”. The latest curbs came hours after an audio recording of a high-level security meeting was leaked on the video-sharing website. Turkey previously banned YouTube in 2007, but lifted the ban three years later.
According to PEN, the Twitter ban currently remains in place despite an administrative court order on 26 March ordering its suspension pending a court judgment.
Tal y como ocurriera tras la aparición de SOPA, la Casa Blanca ha emitido un comunicado mostrando su preocupación sobre la propuesta de ley que se llevará a debate la próxima semana conocida como CISPA. Según el gobierno de Obama, la regulación no será vetada por la administración, aunque deberá “preservar la intimidad y las libertades civiles”. Un “detalle” que choca frontalmente con la redacción de CISPA.