Global Voices » Global Voices Advocacy

Your Legal Guide to Digital Security for Arab Human Rights Activists

Neil Sadler — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:04:14 +0000

The Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression, in Egypt, issued a “legal guide to digital security” as part of its digital freedoms programme. The guide was produced for campaigners and human rights activists and lawyers interested in freedom of digital expression and the confidentiality of communications and information stored on mobile phones, computers or any other device used to store or distribute data or information. They argue that security problems can present a risk to both users and others, particularly in the case of users living under repressive regimes that restrict freedom of expression and the right to privacy and in countries where activists using the internet and other digital services often face vague charges such as “misuse of communications networks” or “insulting individuals and organisations by means of digital publishing”.

The legal guide to digital security is divided into two parts: the first is a technical manual for ways to secure data and information and how to combat snooping or infiltration; the second is a collection of legal advice for people facing prosecution charged with publishing digital content illegally.

The guide, published as part of the digital freedoms programme by the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression, stands out for its emphasis on the legal aspects of digital security and its attempt to explain the most important aspects to be considered during investigations and trials related to crimes of digital publication where the perpetrators often enjoy a greater degree of anonymity than is the case with other crimes. The technical part of the guide provides a number of tools for digital safety related to browsing, file editing, data storage, restoring lost files, combating viruses and thwarting snooping attempts as well as other tools.

Click here to view the paper [ar].

Digital Freedom: Principles and Concepts

Neil Sadler — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:55:25 +0000

In February, the Egyptian Institute for Freedom of Thought and Expression issued its first statement on digital freedom, a simplified research paper to propose definitions for digital rights and related principles which the paper summarised as: universal access, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to privacy, and the right to creativity, development and innovation.

The paper took the principle of universal access to include universal access to both technology and information, taking into consideration other relevant factors such as the cost and quality of available communication services, in addition to their suitability for all people and even the licenses required to operate and use communication networks. The paper summarised the principle of universal access as:

“حق جميع الأفراد في الاستمتاع بالاتصالات وتقنية المعلومات، عن طريق التقليل من الحواجز، المسافة، والتكلفة وكذلك قابلية تلك ألأنظمة للاستعمال من قبل الجميع، وهناك أكثر من صورة للإتاحة، حيث يمكن -على سبيل المثال- تناول حق المعاقين في إتاحة استخدام وسائل الاتصالات والإنترنت وتوفير الأجهزة اللازمة لذلك، أو حق الأطفال في الريف والمناطق الفقيرة في التعليم الخاص بتقنية المعلومات.”

The right of every person to use communication and information technology by means of reducing barriers and costs in addition to promoting their use by all. Universal access includes a range of things such as, for example, the right of the disabled to use communication technology and the Internet and to be provided with the necessary equipment and the right of children living in rural or disadvantaged areas to be educated about information technology.

The paper also discussed the issue of digital privacy and the threats to privacy that users can face from governments, service providers and malicious software. The paper defined privacy in digital spaces as:

“حق الأفراد في التراسل دون مراقبة والحق في خصوصية بياناتهم الموجودة على الإنترنت ومنع فرض مراقبة من قبل حكومة دولة ما على مجموعات أو أفراد، أو غير ذلك من التصرفات التي تصدر عن حكومات أو شركات تجارية يمكنها أن تشكل انتهاكا لخصوصية الأفراد.”

The right of individuals to send messages and emails without being monitored, the right to privacy with regard to data stored on the internet and the prohibition of government monitoring of either individuals or groups as well as the prohibition of other behaviour by governments or private companies that could represent a breach of individuals’ privacy.

The paper also included a principle related to freedom of expression and considered access to the internet and digital media as tools that provide a platform for the expression of opinions and thoughts to all, be they individuals, groups, or journalistic or media institutions. The paper described freedom of expression in digital spaces as :

“حق الأفراد والتجمعات في التعبير عن آرائهم بالطريقة والكيفية التي يريدونها عبر استخدام أي من أجهزة الاتصال بالإنترنت المتاحة، يجب أن ينظر إلى الإنترنت في إطار السياق المتكامل لحرية التعبير وعلى أنها ضمن سياق حرية الإنسان بشكل عام”

The right of individuals and organisations to express their opinions in the manner of their choosing using any type of device connected to the Internet. The Internet should be seen within a comprehensive framework for freedom of expression and within the context of individual freedom generally.

The final principle discussed by the paper was that of freedom of use, development and innovation which referred to freeware and its philosophy and ability to support digital freedom and technological growth in addition to the principles of open source, free content and open source hardware. The paper referred in this section to article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and highlighted the contradictory behaviour of certain governments and companies. Also discussed in this section was Creative Commons licensing with regard to digital content, programs, user guides and hardware.

Click here to download the report on digital freedom [ar].

World Day Against Cyber Censorship

Mohamed ElGohary — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:09:44 +0000

March 12 is World Day Against Cyber Censorship. International press freedom advocacy group Reporters Without Borders organized the first World Day Against Cyber Censorship in 2008, calling on activists, movements and organizations around the world to participate by reminding their constituents of the importance of protecting free expression online.

Image by RSF, published with permission for reuse.

The Internet and social networks have been conclusively established as tools for protest, campaigning, and circulating information, and as vehicles for advancing human rights and democratic values. The aim of the day is to defend human rights online, promote Internet accessibility for all, and expose enemies of Internet openness — along with governments that are gradually becoming more controlling over how their citizens use the Internet.

Reporters Without Borders will mark the day by releasing its annual “Enemies of the Internet” report at 12:01am (Paris time) on March 12. This year's report focuses on Internet surveillance and describes not only the actions of governments with repressive online surveillance regimes, but also examines the role of corporate actors in this area.

The Egyptian Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression posted the following video [ar], calling out activists and bloggers to blog, tweet, and to spread the word about the day:

We know that other groups are actively participating in the day as well. Please post comments here, or tweet at @Advox and tell the community how you're honoring World Day Against Cyber Censorship!

WCIT and its Relationship to the Internet: What Lies Ahead

Betsy Galbreath — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 07:00:33 +0000

This third part (see the first part here and the second here), concludes the analysis [es] by the Vía Libre Foundation after the the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) which took place in Dubai (United Arab Emirates) between December 3 and 14, 2012.

After the WCIT and Beyond (third part)
By Enrique A. Chaparro

World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012. Photo by itupictures on Flickr, under Creative Commons license (CC BY 2.0).

VIII. The new ITR

The possibility of consensus fell through, the new ITR was passed with the support of most of the Latin American countries (except for those that have Fair Trade Agreements with the U.S.), thereby breaking the informal CITEL (1) agreement. A number of local media notoriously at odds with the government (Clarín, La Nación, La Voz del Interior) took advantage of the opportunity to shamelessly misinform, showing (as if more evidence were needed) their ignorance in these matters.

Thus, we have a brand new ITU, which will take effect in 2015. Since it is an international treaty, it must be approved in each case according to the legal mechanisms of each country. Many signers (and those who didn’t sign), including Argentina, created exceptions, as is usually the practice. In the not too distant future, the Executive branch will send it to Congress for approval. The final acts of WCIT 2012 are available on the ITU website.

Now, after all the hoopla created, what can we say about the ITR?

In general terms, with respect to the issues we’re interested in, the new ITR is better than the 1988 version. Though the improvements are purely declaratory, they recognize some important issues:

It incorporates the issue of human rights (Preamble);

It expressly excludes the regulation of the issue of content (Art. 1.1);

It incorporates a new article (8A) urging states to adopt best practices for energy efficiency and electronic waste.
It includes a new article (8B) promoting access to handicapped people.
It makes an attempt (weak, restricted and short range) to move in the direction of universal access by declaring the right of states to access international telecommunications services (Preamble).

The result of the process has been generally satisfactory, in that it doesn’t promote the proposals that could potentially mean a danger (as we saw above, very amplified by an intense publicity campaign).

The treaty expressly establishes that the references to ITU-T Recommendations in the text are not mandatory;

The definitions of “telecommunications” and “international telecommunications” did not change, and the new term “ICT” was not incorporated.

The treaty does not make any mention, express or implied, to the Internet. In any case, the ambiguity of scope remains the same as it was in 1988.

None of the regulatory proposals regarding “cybersecurity” were incorporated.

There was no trace of ETNO’s proposals about “sender pays” or quality of differentiated services.

Provisions for numeration are limited to references about numeration resources specified in the ITU-T recommendations, and do not extend to nomenclature, numeration or identification beyond that.

There are some potentially problematic issues, though their seriousness has been seriously exaggerated by some sources:

The incorporation of article 5A regarding network security and robustness. The wording (2) is too general, which allows multiple interpretations. But the worry expressed is legitimate, and the safeguards built into the treaty – see item 1 above – appear to be sufficient to ensure that there will be no legal basis for a repressive interpretation. The practical reality, as noted is another matter; and even without this clause, repressive regimes will continue to censor and monitor in the name of “security”.

The incorporation of article 5B regarding unsolicited bulk electronic communications. The wording is careful to not make any mention of the Internet. Given the safeguards imposed in the Preamble and in Article 1.1, its scope is limited: at best, it authorizes anti-spam mechanisms that do not work on content (and yes, it is possible to establish this type of mechanism) (4). Moreover, in many countries there are laws that prevent access to content without proper judicial safeguards, which further reduces the framework of possibility for this rule to work (5). Again, reality is another thing.

The approval of a resolution (PLEN/3), “Fostering an Enabling Environment for the Internet.” This resolution, which is not part of the treaty and as such is not binding, can be seen as a minimal concession to the members who pushed for a bigger part by the states, via the ITU, in management of the Internet. The ability this will have in shaping the future of the Internet can be considered negligible: all it says is that a majority of members states of the ITU want to keep discussing the issues of “governance” of the Internet in the ITU (6). Calling it a “Trojan horse” designed to empower Russia or China is at best–and assuming good faith–an exaggeration.

As an indirect result, this WCIT yielded another small positive result: due mostly to the pressure of social organizations, the transparency of the process, which still remains obscure, improved significantly.

IX. In the meantime…

While many organizations, many of them aligned with our positions, concentrated on this process, and invested an enormous amount of effort and resources, there were other actions much less publicized, with impact limited to academic circles that follow in detail the “governance” of the Internet and which constitute attacks on fundamental freedoms.

The GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) of ICANN and its attacks on freedom of expression: the GAC is one of the groups that forms a part of the complex web of ICANN (7). The policy of assigning new top-level domains (TLD) allows for “early warnings” about the applications for new TLDs; this equivalent of veto power in the hands of the GAC has been used to block names that some states, led by the U.S., do not like, outside of any procedures or any adherence to international law. Thus, recently there have been a large number of early warnings against proposed TLDs. The majority of these objections don’t come from Russia or China, but from Australia, which with the argument of dealing with terms with “excessively negative connotations” and that they “lack sufficient mechanisms to address the potential for a high level of defensive registrations” (8), it has rejected the TLDs of .sucks, .gripe, .fail, .wtf and others. The argument of defensive registration is ridiculous, given that it doesn’t appear the $20 registration cost is going to have much affect on the costs for a corporation with enough minions to protect itself from a .sucks domain. But the other argument is plainly an attack on freedom of expression: an Internet user can write here “Australia sucks!”, he can publish it in a book; and can even try to register australiasucks.com….but he will not be able to register australiasucks. The basis in law? None, great, thank you.

At the end of November, the board of ICANN conceded to the International Olympic Committee, the Red Cross, and another set of intergovernmental organizations extraordinary powers for the registering of names under the new TLD. An arbitrary decision of the board, not based on any policy or process, undoing with one hand its previous ruling by the other hand, dismissing a process of ongoing policy development, and reversing a decision of ICANN’s own work group in charge of domain name policies, the GNSO Council.

Another concession to the trademark empire, but also an example of ICANN’s failure in becoming a legitimate institution for the generation of policies, which in practice belies the alleged “bottom up process” and shows that in reality what weighs in decision-making is the lobbying capacity of certain groups.

Another example of ICANN dynamiting their own processes and bowing to pressure from powerful groups: after heavy lobbying, the President of ICANN, Fadi Chehadi, caved in to demands by a trademark interest group to call a closed meeting in Los Angeles, which also, because of short notice about the event, had very uneven representation deciding on the requests of the lobbyists. The result, however, was not as bad as expected, but the whole process was another nail in the coffin of the alleged “transparent and democratic management” of ICANN.

How many cries of alarm, certainly legitimate, from well-meaning sectors would have brought to light facts like these three, if they had been carried out by an agency in the United Nations system?

X. Lessons learned and strategies for the future
There are helpful lessons amid this turmoil. The first is that even social organizations above suspicion can be led (for reasons often attributed to naivety) to positions that have nothing to do with their principles, which lead to being unable to differentiate them from positions taken by certain governments and corporations.

The second is that it is essential to take a deeper political reading of what is happening in international forums. This time, looking from the point of view of organizations that advocate the observance of human rights in all areas, there was no major damage in terms of consequences, nor loss of credibility for social organizations, a good number of which unintentionally played the game for a long time that one of the disputed sectors tried to play. A combination of smell, good instincts, reading habits, disproportionate media reactions and various trolls, meant that at the end of the process some organizations were able to discern that the outcome of the WCIT was far from serious enough to merit the theatrical bang by the U.S. and its allies.

In fact, some organizations have reached less alarmist conclusions that are not consistent with the analysis presented here. “Access” makes its diagnosis of the “the good and the ugly” of WCIT in terms we do not share, and is a good example of such a position (10).

Regarding the ITR itself, and at the local level, Congress must deal with it at some point. At best, it would be ideal to deposit an interpretive reserve letter for articles 5A and 5B, that says something like “Argentina understands, in line with the general principles set forth in the Preamble and Article 1.1 of the ITR, that in no case does a member state have the right to interpret Articles 5A and 5B as authorization to intervene in telecommunications, impose any restriction on freedom of expression, or act upon telecommunication content without law and specific order of a competent judge.”

This safeguard is much more important in laying the groundwork for Argentina’s position with respect to fundamental values (and both the government party as well as the opposition should be in agreement on this) than for any practical effect it might have. In all likelihood, these issues of the ITR in practice will be harmless (and the reserve will not in any way alter the actions of states which violate freedom of expression and privacy).

Moreover, we must continue to insist on the need for greater transparency in the ITU’s processes in general, and before our government in the need to integrate societal representation in processes like this.

The enormous public relations stunts surrounding the WCIT 2012 process which has raised dust for some time, has managed to set up something that Milton Mueller aptly called “ITUfobia”, and has served as an effective deterrent to prevent system stakeholders, particularly social organizations dealing with issues of freedom and fairness on the Internet, from discussing the real issue: how to build new “governance” institutions that are minimalist, open and effective, and legal principles applicable worldwide that regulate and limit the power of states and private sector actors to abuse users. This is Vía Libre’s commitment in all areas in which we work.

1. CITEL is a sort of “mini-UTI” formed within the Organization of American States (OAS).
2. “41B. Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public.”
3. “41C. Member States should endeavor to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in this sense.”
4. It is likely that users would appreciate it if cell phone operators stopped sending unsolicited messages unrelated to their service, and if call centers stopped insisting on trying to sell you anything over the phone.
5. In Argentina, Article 5 of Law 25520. [INT]
6. The resolution is brief and does not say much. It can be seen in its entirety on the ITU website. The main part says:
The World Conference of International Telecommunications (Dubai, 2012) (…) resolves:
to invite Member States
1. to elaborate on their respective positions on international Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums including, inter alia, the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum, the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and ITU study groups;
2. to engage with all their stakeholders in this regard, instructs the Secretary-General1. to continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the development of broadband and the multistakeholder model of the Internet as expressed in § 35 of the Tunis Agenda;
2. to support the participation of Member States and all other stakeholders, as applicable, in the activities of ITU in this regard.7. 108 countries of the UN are represented in the GAC, three of these generally not known (Cook Island, Niue, and Taiwan), one absolute theocracy (the Vatican), three administrative subdivisions of other states (Monserrat, Hong Kong and Bermuda), the European Commission and the African Union Commission.
8. “Defensive registration” is to preemptively register a domain name that could represent negative publicity for a company, but cannot be disputed based on the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (extra regulatory framework imposed by ICANN), for example cocacolasucks.com.
9. GNSO: Generic Names Supporting Organization, the ICANN group in charge of policies on generic domain names.
10. Accessnow.org, WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs, part 1 [es] y part 2 [es].

WCIT and its Relationship to the Internet: Issues and Challenges

Betsy Galbreath — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:51:18 +0000

The second part (see the first part) of the analysis [es] by Vía Libre Foundation, takes up the issues and challenges posed by the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai (United Arab Emirates).

After the WCIT and Beyond
By Enrique A. Chaparro

VI. Conflicting Positions

World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai. Photo by itupictures on Flickr, reproduced by Creative Commons license ((CC BY 2.0).

No one will be surprised if we say there are sectors (government and private) that see communication only or primarily as an opportunity to generate income; others for which the scope of communications should be subordinated to state politics, and then others, like us and other social organizations, who believe that the fundamental issue is public service and unrestricted access.

All of these positions are confronted and intertwined in every forum related to telecommunications, whether or not the Internet is included. The WCIT is not immune to this, and in fact we are aware of the existence of various positions. The most interesting were:

(P1) That of the United States and the European Union (EU), who made sure the ITR 1988 was not touched except for cosmetic changes. This posture was supported by countries linked to the U.S. by political alliances and FTAs, the Tier 1 networks of the United States, Australia, Japan and India, and large companies with Internet-based services, of which Google is the most prominent. This position is akin to the majority of the EU (and therefore I encompass them into one), that the ITR is no longer necessary and that the issue should be left to free market action (1);

(P2) A sum of proposals from China, the Russian Federation, the Arab world and some African nations, who wanted the explicit inclusion of the Internet in the ITR (2), a greater involvement of ITU member states in the management of the Internet, including issues of “cybersecurity”, and a “guarantee of no exclusion” to Internet access for all states.

(P3) That of large European telecommunications operators (including Tier 1 networks in Europe) grouped in ETNO, whose main agenda was to increase profits, based on the fact that they are the ones who provide the infrastructure that makes the Internet possible. The most “dangerous” of their proposals was the option to negotiate guidelines for quality of service freely between operators, which when applied to the Internet automatically destroys net neutrality (3), and the idea of making the method of “sender pays” widespread (which you will easily understand how much this was disliked by corporations like Google, Facebook or Twitter).

Strong campaigns were woven ahead of time around these positions, to enhance their own and discredit others. The main argument of the supporters of (P1) in favor of the classic “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” (4) against the supporters of (P2) argued that state control over local Internet implied threats to freedom of expression and information, and the right to privacy (5). The campaign against proposal (P2) (and to a lesser degree, against (P3), which because of its technical intricacies appears harder to explain) reached a global scale, driven not only by state supporters of (P1), but also by corporations such as Google, especially active, the media and NGOs usually concerned with civil liberty issues in the Internet.

VII. Progress

That campaign was not only very intense in the days before the WCIT, but kept up during the conference and was reflected in the catastrophic media headlines and doomsday articles (6). The intensity of the campaign led to the president of the ITU, Hammadoun Touré, agreeing at the beginning of the conference that the ITU would not deal with issues and decisions relating to the Internet, as had historically happened in the ITU, but that they would be agreed upon by consensus.

The supporters of proposal (P2) insisted on this, presenting a draft of its most extreme position to test the waters, then withdrawing it to present something a little calmer, which they also withdrew. The situation appeared to bog down.

With all moves aimed at incorporating Internet issues explicitly to the ITR failed, the last drafts before the final session seemed to get pretty close to proposal (P1), except for some small details. The text that moved toward the final meeting contained no mention of the Internet, and they had added two extremely important safeguards:

In the Preamble, the statement that “The Member States affirm their commitment to implement these regulations in a manner that respects and sustains their obligations to human rights” and

In Article 1.1, the statement that “These regulations do not address aspects of telecommunications related to content” (7)

But the day before the last [session], the United States and its usual allies (the UK and Canada) stirred things up. What made the U.S. “angry”, along with all the media that usually parrots the U.S. government, and the big corporations shouting disaster–Wall Street Journal (8), Forbes (9), going through CIO Magazine (10) or AOL Government (11)?

Apparently, it was because of the incorporation of Articles 5A and 5B. Too much, upon analysis, to generate a move that, according to the New York Times (12), was pre-arranged. Another factor is that on Wednesday, the consensus broke down and a vote was taken about an Internet resolution (13), but a main irritant seems to be the inclusion of a statement about the rights of member states to access international telecommunications services.

Why would such a seemingly innocuous statement (14) placed in the preamble be so serious for the U.S. and its allies? This statement, which was previously proposed as part of Article 3 is consistent with a proposal of the Arab states in the recent WTSA: T09-WTSA 12-C-0064 (15). If approved, it prevents (de jure, of course, which in practice is another matter), the United States from arbitrarily blocking access to international telecommunications (and by reasonable extension, the Internet) to or from countries considered “enemies” without formal declaration of hostilities. By way of example: An internet user in Iran cannot access Google services such as Analytics (16), cannot register domains on GoDaddy, cannot connect to Android Market or Appstore, cannot get an SSL certificate for an .ir site, etc., etc.

Let’s revisit the claims of the U.S., its allies and major corporations arising from (P1):

It avoids any progress that means transferring Internet regulatory issues from the realm of U.S. domestic law to international law.

It avoids any progress that implies universal service obligations.

It avoids any rate regulation.

The first and third objectives can be considered a “done deal”. The second as well, to a large extent, although the right of access statement leaves a loophole. Chances are this is at the root of the media show and scandal. Everything else a giant PR maneuver by the U.S. and its allies that managed to involve, frankly, a large number of social organizations that defend human rights in cyberspace.

Not that it’s wrong or bad to speak up against the possibility that governments not known for their respect of freedom have an international legal instrument enabling them to control its citizens’ action, but let’s see what happens in reality:

The ITR is applicable to international telecommunications services. But to access these services, a user must necessarily pass through a national service (17). And the national sphere is reserved to the respective states.

Nothing suggests that international telecommunications regulation stops the actions of censorship and surveillance of states seeking to do so.

Nothing indicates a priori that the scope of international law is worse for the Internet than the domestic law of the United States.

That the ITU, and consequently its member states, has a bigger role in that which results in being indispensable in regulating the Internet is not a good idea. In particular, because of its procedures which are not very transparent in the adoption of standards, and for its historical ineffectiveness. That the regulative issues of the Internet are governed by a “one state = one vote” mechanism is even worse.

But in the current state of affairs, ICANN–which is responsible for these issues (and others which would not need regulation, but even so it has dealt with) (18) — commits atrocities which make the ones ITU could commit pale in comparison (more about this in the section “Meanwhile…”, below).

Apart from these questions, it’s important to note that the ITU has no sanction power to enforce any of the rules issues, which means the alleged “threat” is an idle one: states who want to comply will, and those who don’t, won’t, without any consequences. As has happened so far. And unlike ICANN or WIPO, which thrive and grow fat on tariffs generated by the sectors that monitor (19), ITU’s finances depend on membership fees, the sale of standards documents, and donations. Its economic power is more than limited. Finally, the role of the ITU as a standardizing body has been declining since the 1980s, which in turn coincides with the downturn in technical quality of its subcommittees, in a downward spiral process. Only rules about radio from ITU-R have significant importance today in standardization.

1. Interestingly, “free market” is not the position of the United States, which in 2008 indicated the need for review of the ITR.
2. Reading the existing ITR allows an exact interpretation that international connections among Internet service providers is tacitly included, as defined in Art. 2.2.
3. In order to understand more clearly: Under this form of organization, carrier X could have agreements for preferential quality of service with service provider Y, so that all traffic going through X to Y has higher priority relative to that going to Z, P, Q, or other services competing with Y.
4. Hypothesis that implies that today managing the Internet works fine, and as we will see later, is at least partially false.
5. It’s likely that China or Saudi Arabia, having the power, would censor its citizens’ access to the Internet. But it’s absolutely certain that they would do it, with or without ITR’s authorization, so the objection in most cases is purely rhetorical. And they do so with the express and voluntary cooperation of corporations that have headquarters in apparently democratic countries.
6. On December 6, Techdirt published an absurd article. Whether due to ignorance about how the ITR is applied, or in bad faith, either way it offends the concept of the word “journalism”. An excellent example of this campaign is this article in Vanity Fair from May, entitled “World War 3.0”.
7. (7) Translated directly from the original in English. The official version in Spanish, therefore, may be slightly different.
8. L. Gordon Crovitz: “The U.N.’s Internet Power Grab”, Wall Street Journal.
9. Larry Downes “Why is the UN Trying to Take over the Internet?”, Forbes Magazine.
10,. Stephen Lawson “Controversy erupts at WCIT over resolution on Internet”, CIO Magazine, 13 Dec 2012.
11. Kevin G. Coleman “UN Agency Opens International Internet Traffic To Government Scrutiny”, ”AOL Government”, 14 Dec 2012.
12. Eric Pfanner, “Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World”, ”The New York Times”, 15 Dec 2012.
13. This deals with Resolution PLEN/3 (Dubai 2012), which we address below. Conference resolutions are not binding, unlike the ITR itself.
14. “These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services.”
15. WTSA is the World Assembly of Telecommunications Standards, a technical and political decision-making mechanism of the ITU. The latest WTSA was held in Dubai, just before the WCIT. The reference text is available here.16. Doing so will display the message: “We’re unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. A connection has been established between your current IP address and a country sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/.”
17. Except for very limited exceptions, like direct satellite access… but these fall under the regulatory authority of the radio-electric spectrum of the states.
18. Furthermore, in the regulatory process, ICANN has managed to create weak or strong hierarchies, and therefore adjustable, resources that are not, by design, from the Internet, for example propelling the establishment of a “safe” infrastructure for domain names (DNSSEC) or for authorization of source routing (ROAs).
19. According to its financial statements in 2011, ICANN gets $65 million in fees paid by registries and registrars of domain names, and a net profit of $15 million (almost 20% of net profits).

WCIT and Its Relationship to the Internet

Betsy Galbreath — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 01:53:02 +0000

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is the United Nations agency specializing in information and communication technologies – ICTs.

From December 3 to 14, 2012, the ITU organized the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai (United Arab Emirates) in order to review the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs).

The Vía Libre Foundation analyzes the issues of this important conference in the article entitled Después de la WCIT y más allá [es] (After the WCIT and Beyond), the first part of which we present below.

After the WCIT and Beyond
By Enrique A. Chaparro

I. Preliminary remarks and necessity
We have long maintained that certain aspects of the Internet that require some form of regulation should be managed in a way that's minimalist, democratic and respectful of human rights. In keeping with this position, we believe that a significant intervention by the ITU would bring more harm than good. But that does not turn us ipso facto into defenders of ICANN, an organization that needs deep reform, democratization and reduced authority.

Nor do we trust the good intentions of authoritarian governments (read, for example, Iran or Saudi Arabia), but neither does that necessarily generate confidence in seditious “democracies” (like the United States, which holds the world record in incarcerated people, both in absolute and relative terms, and the systematic use of torture, kidnapping and murder of those deemed political enemies). And of course a reasonable skepticism about government doesn't imply a confidence in corporations. That said, let's get to the point.

II. Introduction
The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), like any international diplomatic conference, is a complex web of interests and a morass of overlapping poker games. Each side has its agenda, its objectives, its minimum and maximum positions, and strategies to achieve results. That's the game, and those of us looking in from the outside, but who may be affected by the outcome, must proceed with caution so as not to get involved in spite of ourselves in some of these strategies. In this particular conference, there has been a lot of “lapwing strategy” (translator's note: South American bird that lays its eggs in one place but throws its voice to sound to predators like it's somewhere else) that, in the light of the evidence, has involved–in general unwittingly–social organizations concerned with the defense of cyberspace liberty and Internet users “on the ground”.

Continuing this process, we take into account our principles regarding the issues under discussion: that communication is a fundamental right, and therefore, communication infrastructure should be considered an essential public service; that this infrastructure should be free of censorship and restrictions to privacy; and that there must be a guarantee that the regulated aspects of the Internet are kept to a strict minimum, and managed openly and democratically.

III. What is the ITU?
The ITU is an agency of the United Nations system, and predates it, emerging in 1934 as a merger of the existing International Telegram Union founded in 1865) and the International Radiotelegraph Union, in order to coordinate international radio, telegraph and telephone traffic. As we will see, it is much more than a “technical organization”.

The ITU has a unique feature among multilateral organizations of the UN system, to admit members outside the states (although only members have the right to vote) which usually means lobbying by big telecommunications companies and other pressure groups.

IV. What is the ITR?
The ITR agrees on technical standards for telecommunications (through its technical arm the ITU-T, formerly CCITT), and for radio (via ITU-R), and two key treaties that provide the political framework for international communications traffic: the RR, Radio Regulations, as amended (2008) was approved by the WRC (2), and the ITR, International Telecommunication Regulations. These treaties are reviewed from time to time to ensure they are more or less abreast of technological developments.

The ITR in effect was adopted at a WCIT in Australia in 1988. At that time, the Internet was little more than an academic experiment on connectivity in heterogeneous networks, the great wave of privatization of phone services had not reached the crest, the cell phone was in diapers (3)… For years, many member states noted the need for an update.

The object of the WCIT of 2012 in Dubai was to review the ITR and produce a new version, if necessary. Being an international treaty, it is subject to the principles of international law (in particular, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1968). We note this to emphasize the importance of the instrument, which is not a simple technical rule.

V. And what does the Internet have to do with all of this?

Although not obvious by the mythical character it has acquired in recent times (4), the packets exchanged by the Internet are moved by the physical infrastructure of international telecommunications. But by design, the Internet was conceived differently than traditional telephone and telegraph communications: the voluntary joining of autonomous networks, and a small set of standards that guarantees interoperability.

Consequently, and given that its origins primarily involve the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense of the United States, issues of the Internet requiring regulation remained de facto outside the sphere of the ITR.

Of course, there are things on the Internet that should be regulated. There isn't any other choice, when we're talking about administering scant resources with alternative uses. And other shortages, implicit in the design of the Internet, were invented along the way.

The history of the administration of these transitions is very interesting, and will be worth telling another day. It's enough to know for now that today it is in the hands of ICANN, which acts by delegation of the United States Department of Commerce (5).

The U.S. government has stated, on numerous occasions and at the highest levels, that there are certain critical aspects of the Internet the control of which it does not intend to give up, such as control of the root servers of the domain name system (DNS). Moreover, as ICANN is a non-profit corporation registered in the United States, it is subject to the laws of that country.

Notes
1. “[...] but they are like the lapwings / to hide their little nests / their cries are in one place / while their eggs are in another” — José Hernández, El gaucho Martín Fierro, Canto XII
2. World Radiocommunications Conference, Geneva, 2007
3. The first public cell phone network was inaugurated by NTT in Japan in 1979. In the United States, the first network “1G” from AmeriTech, appeared in 1983.
4. Clarke's Third Law maintains: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
5. Of the plutocracy of ICANN and its processes, we will talk another time. For now, it can be said that its relationship with the U.S. government is defined by an instrument which, if set up 300 years ago, could be labeled as a ‘letters patent'.

Global Voices: Where Every Voice Counts

Sana Saleem — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:42:59 +0000

Every year Human Rights Day provides an opportunity, to many of us, to highlight issues that matter to us and to advocate human rights for all. This year the spotlight is on the rights of people – the poor, the marginalized and the disingenuous, women and youth and those across the gender spectrum. Every one has the right to be heard and the right to participate.

The idea that every voice counts is one that is very close to the notion of Global Voices as a platform and as a community. As netizens unite to have their voices heard when the world's authorities argue on who should run the internet, we decided to ask our diverse community to participate and speak out on issues that matter to them and look back at issues we have covered over the year bearing in mind that every voice counts.

Global Voices community members make their #VoiceCount. Image collage by author.

With Syria and Gaza plunging into information by pulling the plug on the internet, the right to access remained one of the most pertinent issues. Our special coverage included Syria,archiving online reactions to Syria's internet blackout and the resurgence as parts of Syria regained connectivity, protests in Bahrain and Yemen amid media blackout, conflict voices from Caucasus and Sudan revolts, in-depth coverage of Russia's protest movements,bearing witness to Egypt's historic presidential elections and the aftermath and the intense elections in Venezuela, seeking indigenous voices representing 370 million people that speak more than 4000 languages, a spotlight on the forgotten voices of Myanmar's Rohnigya, keeping an eye on the worldwide #occupy movements and SlutWalks a new protest movement defending women's rights and most importantly monitoring and defending internet freedom, free speech and freedom to access with Global Voices Advocacy evolving in to a community determined to take a stand.

Then there were other stories that needed the world's attention as we stood true to the notion that we are reminded of today; every voice counts.Qatar's life imprisonment of a poet that praised Arab spring,Russia's crackdown on online satire, women being barred and penalized from using mobile phones in villages in India, stricter SIM card registration process hampering communication in Zambia, Pakistan's consistent pursuit to replicate the great firewall of China, Tajikistan blocking of facebook and summoning Mark Zuckerberg – a move startlingly similar to that of Pakistani authorities, Internet companies overlooking user privacy, the fight for free expression as authorities muscle in more control, we continued to speak out against impunity and for justice for threatened voices, these are the few issues global voices as a community has been able to bring attention to. As we move forward towards the end of the year, there will be a more comprehensive overview of the year through the eyes of the networked.

For now, on Human Rights Day, we stand in solidarity with people around the world and believe in every individual's right to be heard, to participate and be counted. Our commitment remains, to amplify the voices of the networked and to enable and support the indigenous communities to become a part of the larger community.

Syria Plunges Into Total Info Darkness

Hisham Almiraat — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:11:40 +0000

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011/12.

On Thursday, the US-based internet connectivity monitoring firm, Renesys, reported that internet was cut off in Syria. Starting at 10.26am GMT on Thursday, the company reported that all of Syria's 84 IP address blocks were inaccessible, “effectively removing the country from the Internet.”

Renesys also posted the following graph which seems to show a nationwide total internet shutdown:

Image courtesy of Renesys

Renesys’ observation was later corroborated by Akamai, a major internet monitoring company, which posted a similar graph indicating a complete collapse of internet connectivity on Thursday morning.

Google Transparency Report, a tool that provides information about traffic to Google services from around the world, indicates a collapse in the use of all of its services in Syria, starting at 13:36 GMT on Thursday.

Scattered reports on Twitter from activists and Syrian expats unable to reach friends and loved ones inside the country also suggested a major disruption of mobile phone and landline networks.

Leila Nachawati Rego, a Syrian-Spanish expat, tweets:

Trying to call my family in Damascus for hours now. Internet and all communications shut down. Help us trend #InternetCutinSyria.

Reuters reported that on Thursday activists were resorting to satellite phones to make contact with the outside world.

Who pulled the plug?

Many seem to believe that the outage is a deliberate effort on the part of the Syrian government to cut the country off the internet.

Lama Bashor tweets :

The #InternetCutInSyria could mean one of 2 things: Either a bad sign of things to come or a regime that has completely run out of moves.

The Syrian Government has resorted to internet blackout tactics in the past. Last September, the internet was cut off focal fighting areas like Aleppo for 10 days as regime forces intensified their attacks against rebel forces in the city. This is, however, the first time the entire country is plunged into a near total information darkness.

“Terrorists,” not the state, were responsible for the countrywide Internet outage on Thursday, Syria's minister of information is said to have told al-Ikhbariya, a Syrian state-owned TV station. A claim swiftly rejected by experts. “In order for a whole-country outage, all [...] cables would have had to been cut simultaneously. That is unlikely to have happened,” comments CloudFlare, a website specialized in internet security and performance.

Any cracks in the wall?

As during the Egyptian revolution in early 2011, when the deposed regime decided to shut down the entire internet in an effort to take the steam out of the growing popular uprising, online activists rushed to provide alternate ways to connect to the global network. Telecomix, a hacktivist group, offers dialup numbers and access codes as tweeted by Anonymous earlier on Thursday:

Dial up access #Syria: +46850009990 +492317299993 +4953160941030 user:telecomix pw:telecomix OR +33172890150 login:toto pw:toto

Many international flights in and out of Syria were reportedly cancelled as fighting erupted near the Damascus airport area fueling speculations that the regime may be preparing for a major offensive against rebel forces.

Later on Thursday afternoon Syrian state TV announced the Damascus airport road was “secured” following major fighting.

For recent updates, please follow our coverage page of the Syrian revolution, and #internetcutinsyria and #syriablackout on Twitter with comments related to today’s internet blackout.

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011/12.

Madagascar: Journalists and Blogger Prosecuted over Rosewood Trafficking Report

Rakotomalala — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:10:22 +0000

Reporters sans Frontières (RSF) reports that four journalists and a blogger are prosecuted for defamation and ”complicity in spreading false news” [fr]. The charges against the reporters were submitted by Mamy Ravatomanga, a billionaire who owns several news outlets and is the former employer of the Minister of Communication. Blogger Alain Rajaonarivony and several newspapers reported that Mamy Ravatomanga is involved in illegal rosewood logging [fr] that threatens the survival of Madagascar rain forest.

Syria: Cartoonist Detained for Criticizing Assad

Rami Alhames — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:22:42 +0000

This post is cross-posted from Global Voices Advocacy.

Syrian cartoonists who dare depict Bashar Al-Assad's character are paying a heavy price. Earlier on August 25, 2011, Ali Ferzat, the 60-year-old famous cartoonist was dragged and beaten by three masked men, who then also broke his hands.

“Freedom to Akram Rslan.” Source: ArabCartoon

Akram Rslan, is another Syrian cartoonist who works in the government-run newspaper Fedaa [ar]. He was detained on October 2, 2012, after publishing a cartoon critical of the Syrian President, as reported by blogger The-Syrian blog [ar]:

كان من الغريب بقائه خارج أقبية الأمن، رغم أنه استمر في نقد النظام و قمعه، و وصل إلى شخص الرئيس، وهو لم يتخفّى وبقي في سكنه وفي وظيفته، في جريدة الفداء الرسمية، التي تصدر في حمـاة. مؤخراً ؛ فقد النظام صبره و قام باعتقاله من مكان وظيفته، يوم الاثنين 2/10/2012، ولا يوجد أي معلومات عنه

It was only a matter of time before [Rslan] was arrested as he continued to criticize the regime and its oppression, going so far as to attack the President himself. [Rslan] did not hide and he remained in his home and at his job in the Hama-based Fedaa newspaper. The regime eventually lost its patience with him and arrested him from his workplace on Monday, October 2, 2012. Since then, there has been no information about him.

The blogger also publishes the cartoonist's biography and a selection of his work, including the one cartoon that is believed to have caused his arrest (see below). The cartoon illustrates an infamous slogan often chanted by Assad's henchmen, the “Shabiha,” who claim they prefer to burn the country than to leave power:

أكرم رسلان، 1974، صوران–حمـاة، خريج الآداب 1996، و للأسف الكثير الكثير، من جنود ثورتنا، يفضلون النضال بعيداً عن الضجة و الأضواء و نجهلهم قبل الاعتقال أو الاستشهاد!! الحريـة لـ الفنان أكرم والتالي عينة من آخر أعماله، علماً أنّ الصورة الأولى هيَ سبب اعتقاله

Akram Rslan, born in 1974 in Soran-Hama, is an 1996 literature graduate. He is one of the many, many members of our revolution who prefer to struggle away from the media and the limelight, and whom we know little about until they get arrested or martyred. Freedom for the artist [Rslan] Akram. Following is a selection of Rslan's work, including the cartoon (the first one) that caused his arrest.

“Assad or burn the country” by Akram Rslan.

The Doha Center for Media Freedom has condemned the detention of the cartoonist, issuing the following statement:

The centre urges the Syrian authorities to release Rslan immediately and to put an end to the ongoing targeting of journalists and critics of the Assad regime. The government must do more to ensure that members of the media are protected and do not face intimidation, harassment or detention as a result of carrying out their work.

The website ArabCartoon has also condemned the arrest.

A campaign to free Akram Rslan has been launched on Youtube under the banner: “Freedom to Akram Rslan”.

This post is cross-posted from Global Voices Advocacy.

Cuba: Yoani Sánchez Released After 30 Hours in Custody

Ellery Roberts Biddle — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 21:50:46 +0000

Yoani Sánchez, Reinaldo Escobar, and Agustín Díaz were arrested on Thursday, October 4. A brief post covering the details of their arrest can be found here.

At 9pm EST on Friday, October 5, acclaimed Cuban blogger Yoani Sánchez and bloggers Agustín Díaz and Reinaldo Escobar (Sánchez's husband), were released from police custody in Havana, Cuba, after having been detained in the eastern city of Bayamo the previous day. Shortly thereafter, Sánchez tweeted,

@YoaniSanchez: #Cuba Acabamos de ser liberados!! 30 horas de arresto y muchas anecdotas que contar :-(

@YoaniSanchez: #Cuba We've just been released!! 30 hours of arrest and many anecdotes to tell :-(

Blogger Yoani Sánchez. Photo by Andre Deak and republished under Licence CC-BY-2.0.

Sánchez and her colleagues had traveled to Bayamo hoping to witness and report on the trial of Angel Carromero, a Spanish national accused of vehicular manslaughter after a car crash that killed renowned democracy advocate Oswaldo Payá and activist Harold Cepero. Carromero traveled to Cuba in July to meet with human rights activists on the island. Sánchez tweeted that her intention had been to cover the trial.

@YoaniSanchez: #Cuba Mi intencion era totalmente periodistica. Asistir al juicio a @angelcarromero y reportar desde #Bayamo a traves de mi cuenta #Twitter

@YoaniSanchez: #Cuba My intentions were purely journalistic. To attend the trial of @angelcarromero and report from #Bayamo using my #Twitter account.

After being released, Sánchez reported that she was attempting to follow news of the Carromero trial online. She tweeted that the arrest was “nothing” compared to what the Payá family has experienced.

@YoaniSanchez: #Cuba Lo mas triste y significativo es el drama que vive la familia de @oswaldopaya Nuestros arrestos no son NADA comparados con esa perdida

@YoaniSanchez: #Cuba The saddest and most significant thing is the drama that the family of @oswaldopaya has lived. Our arrests are nothing compared with their loss.

Cuba: Blogger Yoani Sánchez Arrested

Ellery Roberts Biddle — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:21:15 +0000

Yoani Sánchez, Reinaldo Escobar, and Agustín Díaz were released several hours after this post was published. A brief post describing their release can be found here.

Award-winning Cuban blogger and human rights activist Yoani Sánchez was arrested last night in the eastern province of Bayamo, where she had traveled to attend and report on the trial of Angel Carromero, a Spanish national accused of vehicular manslaughter after a car crash that killed renowned democracy advocate Oswaldo Payá and activist Harold Cepero. Carromero traveled to Cuba in July to meet with human rights activists on the island.

Yoani Sanchez. Photo by Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo.

Author of the blog Generacion Y and editorial director of the collective blog Voces Cubanas, Sánchez was arrested along with her husband, Reinaldo Escobar, an independent journalist, and blogger Agustin Diaz. Very few details are known about the arrests. The Committee to Protect Journalists, an international press freedom advocacy organization, has called for the immediate release of the three bloggers.

The original source of this information remains unclear, but several media outlets have indicated that Yohandry Fontana, a pro-government blogger, first reported the story [es]. Fontana described Sánchez as attending the trial in order to create a “media circus.”

Yoani Sánchez fue detenida ayer en la ciudad de Bayamo, lugar a donde viajó para intentar una provocación y show mediático que perjudicara el buen desarrollo del juicio que se seguirá mañana contra el ciudadano español Ángel Francisco Carromero Barrios

Yoani Sánchez was detained yesterday in Bayamo, where she had traveled intending to provoke a media circus and to interfere with the judicial process that will take place tomorrow against Spanish citizen Ángel Francisco Carromero Barrios.

Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo [es], also a well-known blogger and a close friend of Sánchez’s, tweeted soon after that he suspects Sánchez’s cell phone has been confiscated.

‏@OLPL: Movil 52708611 de @YoaniSanchez fue cortado, por eso ella no pudo denunciar arresto.

@OLPL: The mobile phone of @YoaniSanchez was cut off, this is why she couldn’t report on her arrest.

Foreign media outlets reported receiving an automated message saying that Sánchez’s cell phone, which she uses regularly to communicate with supporters and journalists outside of Cuba, had been disconnected. Sánchez has been detained by police in the past, but never for more than a few hours. In a 2010 incident, Sánchez was detained but was able to communicate with friends and family via SMS.

On Twitter, supporters from around the world are tweeting about the arrest and using the hashtag #YoaniLibre.

Ernesto Hernández Busto, blogger at Penúltimos Días [es], tweeted:

No hay nadie con un poco de vergüenza en el @PPopular que condene detención de Yoani Sánchez por hacer su trabajo de periodista indep? #Cuba

Is there no one with any shame in the @PPopular (People’s Party) who will condemn the detention of Yoani Sánchez for working as an independent journalist? #Cuba

On Facebook, Jose Conde wrote,

Cuban authorities arrest Yoani Sanchez for speaking her mind. I guess not much as changed en la isle…sad and disturbing.

Yoani Sánchez, Reinaldo Escobar, and Agustín Díaz were released several hours after this post was published. A brief post describing their release can be found here.

Cuba: Police Detain Blogger, Disrupt Independent Scholarly Forum

Ellery Roberts Biddle — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:33:58 +0000

On Saturday, September 1, the well-known Cuban author and blogger Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo was detained by state police for several hours. Pardo Lazo had been slated to moderate a session of Estado de SATS, an independent, informal scholarly forum in Havana later that day. Estado de SATS has endured increasing criticism from government officials who claim the program to be “counterrevolutionary.”

Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo. From Boring Home Utopics. http://vocescubanas.com/boringhomeutopics/

Police allegedly arrived at Pardo Lazo’s home early Saturday morning and took the blogger, along with his girlfriend, to a nearby station where they were held and questioned for most of the day, leading Estado de SATS organizers to cancel the day's event.

In the blogosphere and on Twitter, the majority of voices agreed that Pardo Lazo’s detention was directly linked to Estado de SATS.

Alberto Muller [es] wrote:

Todo parece indicar que la detencion conllevaba el objetivo de que Pardo no pudiese moderar la mesa de discusion sobre el Nuevo Pensamiento Cubano.

All signs seem to indicate that [Pardo Lazo’s] detention came with the objective of leaving Pardo unable to moderate the discussion panel about New Cuban Thought.

A well-known blogger whose fiction and poetry writings were published in Cuba until 2008, when editors abruptly ceased publication of his work, Pardo Lazo has been detained by police in the past, likely due to his involvement with anti-government groups and online dissent on the island. On Pardo Lazo’s blog, commenter Miguel Grillo Morales [es] wrote:

Secuestrar, detener a un escritor a un bloguero por expresar sus ideas en un papel o en un blog no solo es un crimen, es una bejesa politica. OLP tu detras de las rejas eres el mas libre de todos los cubanos.

To seize [and] detain a writer or blogger for expressing his ideas on a piece of paper or on a blog is not only a crime, it is politically humilitating. OLP behind bars you are the freest of all Cubans.

After his release, Pardo Lazo [es] wrote:

Respirando otra vez fuera de los barrotes y la luz mortecina de una estación de provincia de una capital de provincia de un país de provincia de una historia provinciana con el título grandilocuente de Revolución…

Breathing once again outside of the bars and the faint light of a provincial station in a provincial capital of a provincial country with a provincial history with the grandiose title of Revolution…

The Estado de SATS meeting was rescheduled for the following Monday. Netizens who attended the meeting reported that police kept several attendees from traveling to Rodiles’ house, where the forum is held. Nevertheless, over twenty individuals were able to attend and Pardo Lazo moderated the panel as originally planned.

Responding to the incident, Estado de SATS organizer Antonio Rodiles [es] wrote:

Seguiremos haciendo Estado de SATS, ni amenazas, ni detenciones, ni mitines de repudio, ni operativos policiales nos detendrán. Somos ciudadanos libres y queremos otra Cuba, no hay fuerza bruta que pueda contra eso!!

We will continue to do Estado de SATS–neither threats, nor detention, nor repudiation, nor police operations will stop us. We are free citizens and we want another Cuba, there is no brute force that can compete against this!!

Syria: Razan Ghazzawi and Female Colleagues Freed

Hisham Almiraat — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:42:15 +0000

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011/2012.

Syrian Blogger and Freedom of Speech advocate Razan Ghazzawi was released on Saturday along with her female colleagues. The news came via Razan's sister, who tweeted earlier this evening:

@NadineGhazzawi: Sister is home :) but she can't leave the country anymore…they won't allow her.

Free Razan poster used by supporters to call for her released and that of her colleagues

At the time these lines are being written, Razan's male colleagues remain in prison, according to Free Razan page on Facebook:

Razan and all the females from the SCM are FREE , Razan is FREE !

Razan was arrested earlier this week along with 13 of her colleagues during a raid on the offices of the Syrian Center for Freedom of Expression in Damascus.

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011/2012.

Syria: Razan Ghazzawi Arrested … Again

Hisham Almiraat — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:53:12 +0000

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011/12.

UPDATE: Razan Ghazzawi was released on Saturday along with her female colleagues. At the time of writing these lines Razan's male colleagues were still in custody.

Syrian security forces arrested Syrian blogger and freedom of speech advocate Razan Ghazzawi on Thursday 16 February, 2012, during a raid on the offices of the Syrian Center for Freedom of Expression in Damascus where the activist works. Ghazzawi was arrested along with 13 of her colleagues, including the Head of the Center, Mazen Darwish.

This is the second time Razan Ghazzawi is arrested by the Syrian authorities. She was first detained in December 2011 at the Syrian-Jordanian border while on her way to attend a conference on freedom of expression online. Her arrest sparked an online outcry and an international campaign called for her immediate release. Razan was eventually released after spending 15 days in jail.

One of the Free Razan posters shared by supporters after Razan Ghazzawi was arrested in December last year

Ghazzawi is a US-born Syrian blogger who has contributed to Global Voices Online and Global Voices Advocacy. She is one of the few courageous bloggers in Syria who writes under her real name, even after her first arrest.

The Syrian blog Nidalat [ar] was one of the first outlets to break the news. It posted the following statement:

إننا في المركز السوري للدراسات والأبحاث القانونية ندين هذا الاعتقال ونطالب السلطات السورية بإطلاق سراحهم فورا ونعتبر هذه الخطوة تجاه المدافعين عن حرية التعبير تؤكد موقف وسعي السلطات السورية لخنق أي صوت وحتى خنق الأصوات المدافعة عن حرية التعبير وزيف الادعاءات بالانفتاح والحوار وتعديل الدستور والسماح بالحقوق الأساسية للإنسان.

We at the Syrian Center for Legal Studies and Research condemn this arrest and call on Syrian authorities to release [the activists] immediately. We consider this action against the advocates of freedom of expression confirms the position of the Syrian authorities who want to stifle any voice advocating for freedom of expression. It exposes the false claims [of the Syrian government] about openness, dialogue and constitutional reform.

The news caused disbelief among netizens who were very quick to react. Nadine Ghazzawi, Razan's sister, tweets:

@NadineGhazzawi: They arrested my sister Razan Ghazzawi again! She got arrested at work in the center of Damascus today evening

Journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin laments:

@ASE: Yet another sad day for #Syria and #FreeSpeech

BSyria remembers his last conversation with Razan:

@BSyria: I chatted with Razan yesterday. I asked her: Are u being harassed? She said, “No, I told u I'm not that important.” #FreeRazan #syria

For more reactions on Ghazzawi's arrest, please check the hashtag #FreeRazan on Twitter. A Facebook page calling for her release is also up.

This post also appears in Global Voices Advocacy.

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011/12.