21stcenturywire--2019-06-29--Nils Melzer Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange

Nils Melzer: Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange

The following Op Ed was written for the occasion of the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, 26 June 2019  I know, you may think I am deluded. How could life in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection. Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years. So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with repulsion and disbelief.  Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the US had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, two women made the headlines in Sweden. One of them claimed he had ripped a condom, and the other that he had failed to wear one, in both cases during consensual intercourse — not exactly scenarios that have the ring of ‘rape’ in any language other than Swedish. Mind you, each woman even submitted a condom as evidence. The first one, supposedly worn and torn by Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure. The second one, used but intact, supposedly proved ‘unprotected’ intercourse. Go figure, again. The women even texted that they never intended to report a crime but were ‘railroaded’ into doing so by zealous Swedish police. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to US extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.  Alright, I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help breaking a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks. In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was too weak.  Well then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with US elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered US voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil lawsuits for just compensation?  But surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist, skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip, and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.  In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.  Very well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well, this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere «mudslinging» in public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.  Yes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.  Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.  Author’s Note: This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek. None responded positively.  ***   Author Nils Melzer is a Swiss academic, author and practitioner in the field of international law. Since 1 November 2016, Melzer has served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  This post has been republished with permission from the author. The original article can be seen here.


21stcenturywire--2019-09-14--Trust and Disclosure Are Civil Rights Being Sacrificed on the Altar of Brexit

Trust and Disclosure: Are Civil Rights Being Sacrificed on the Altar of Brexit?

On Monday evening MPs voted to force the UK government to publish all of its no-deal Brexit ‘Yellowhammer‘ documents.  A majority vote of 311 to 302 was passed in favour of what is known as a “humble address” to force the government to publish all the Yellowhammer documents available to the cabinet or a cabinet committee since 23rd July, the date Boris Johnson was appointed as Prime Minister.  The motion was brought by Tory MP and former cabinet attorney general, Dominic Grieve. In effect, this demanded that the government publish its assessment to show the ‘baseline scenario’ of what would happen if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. On Wednesday evening, the government published the Yellowhammer document described as ‘not a formal cabinet paper’.  In addition to demanding the publication of Yellowhammer, Grieve’s humble address motion demanded the publication of all documents relating to the government’s decision to dissolve parliament, otherwise known as “prorogation,” from 10th September to 14th October.  Historically speaking, prorogation is a relatively standard government procedure, but the dates for prorogation this year became the subject of a legal battle as MPs accused the government of plotting to shut down parliament in order to avoid scrutiny should it attempt to prepare for a ‘No Deal’ Brexit. The UK Supreme Court is expected to rule on the lawfulness of Johnson’s motive for prorogation next week.  The Prorogation documents demanded in Grieve’s humble address include the following:  “…all correspondence and other communications (whether formal or informal, in both written and electronic form, including but not limited to messaging services including WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook messenger, private email accounts both encrypted and unencrypted, text messaging and iMessage and the use of both official and personal mobile phones) to, from or within the present administration, since 23 July 2019 relating to the prorogation of Parliament sent or received by one or more of the following individuals: Hugh Bennett, Simon Burton, Dominic Cummings, Nikki da Costa, Tom Irven, Sir Roy Stone, Christopher James, Lee Cain and Beatrice Timpson…”  It was Grieve’s view that communications involving the named government advisors, might provide proof that Johnson’s decision to shut down Parliament was a tactic to stop debate in the House of Commons before the Brexit deadline of October 31.  Such proof would allow him to demonstrate that Johnson had misled the Queen, who endorsed his decision, so it is believed, on the understanding that a shut down of parliament was in order to introduce a new domestic legislative agenda.  The reaction from government Ministers was to reject the MPs’ demands for all documents and internal communications.  Grieve’s humble address seems to suggest that the British government (Parliament in this case) maintains such an arbitrary approach to information disclosure.  It would seem to be the case that when the status quo is challenged, whether it is through a mischievous leak such as the one around the British ambassador Kim Darroch, or the shattering leaks of truth tellers such as those published by Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks – the political class is poised to crush such publications. On the other hand, we see its eagerness to grab and disseminate at any sources that might bring down elements of its own that seem to have gone rogue. Similar issues about sensitive disclosures and internal government investigations arose the wake of the Huawei Leaks.  The outrage over the Darroch leaks led to a parliamentary debate, an opportunistic Foreign Affairs select committee inquiry driving harsher punishments and the launching of an investigation by the Metropolitan Police with threats directed towards the press against publishing diplomatic leaks – under what seemed to be the expanding remit of the Official Secrets Act. Such was the outcry that the contents of a civil servant’s correspondence might be disclosed.  The overwhelming principle presented to the public by politicians was that public and civil servants’ space to write what they think should be protected and defended, and this seemed to achieve wide-spread endorsement in parliament, including from Grieve.  It should be pointed out that although Grieve’s list comprises names of political advisors, he had originally placed many high level civil servants on it, and had removed them only so that his effort did not look like a fishing expedition, as he explained on Monday.  Darroch’s resignation following the leaks led to panic and outrage, which was then closely followed by condemnation of anyone not criticising Trump and defending the civil service, an accusation lobbed at Johnson.  Politicians lined up to defend the private space of government servants, some of whom, such as the following, have now supported the move to force advisors to submit their personal and private social media messages for scrutiny:  It should be noted that demanding employees hand over personal and private devices could be challenged in court, a point made by the Tory MP and current attorney general, Geoffrey Cox:  “I have been listening with great care to my right hon. and learned Friend’s observations and part of his draft Humble Address troubles me. What legal right do the Government have to require their employees to give up private email accounts and personal mobile numbers? If there is no legal right—I imagine he would contend that there is not—how on earth would the Government enforce the Humble Address if they desired to do so?  This Humble Address has no binding legal effect on individuals. It potentially has a binding effect on the Government, if they observe it, but not on individuals. There seems to be a risk that it will trespass upon the fundamental rights of individuals, as it is currently drafted”  If this is the case, it can be viewed with some irony that this address was passed on the same night that Jeremy Corbyn also passed a humble address to force Johnson to say he would abide by the rule of law (amid suggestions he might try to get around new legislation mandating him to request a three-month delay to Brexit if there is no deal by 19 October).  One question arising from this might be: how can lawmakers who claim to have such passion in the law that they pass a motion to force adherence to it, also vote for a motion that might not be legal, when this is pointed out to them?  An attempt at justifying this was made during the debate by Labour MP Kevin Brannon:  “Is it a point of order or a point of information to point out that the Prime Minister’s special adviser, Dominic Cummings, asked to examine the private text messages on the telephone of a Government employee?”  As if the apparent unacceptable behaviour of one individual justifies the potential breaching of rights of the individual by parliament?  It should be remembered that Grieve was the attorney general when Julian Assange was being hunted by the British and Swedish prosecuting services. Regarding the decision by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNGWAD) that Assange was being arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Grieve commented:  “...the suggestion that he has been the subject of arbitrariness seemed to be very far fetched.”  “What it effectively says in relation to the United Kingdom is that we ought no longer to be extraditing Mr Assange to Sweden because in 2014 we changed our own laws under the anti-social behaviour, crime and policing act to change some of rules on which extradition should take place, and you’ll appreciate … it doesn’t apply retrospectively.”  What Grieve fails to mention is that the law was changed because European arrest warrants were being issued abusively.  Assange’s legal challenge exposed British judges jumping through hoops to legitimise his abusive arrest warrant.  Not making changes to the law retrospective  – when Assange’s case was clearly covered by the changes – made no sense other than to ensure Assange could not walk out of the Ecuadorian embassy without being arrested.  Here we can see Grieve’s own arbitrary approach to the issue, that potential infringements of rights is a small sacrifice if order is to be established:  “If I may say so, picking up on the earlier point that he made, I was just a little bit surprised. Of course he may argue that the Government cannot get this information, but No. 10 Downing Street is saying is that it will not even seek or try to provide it. This again is absolutely illustrative of the slide we are experiencing towards a Government that will not respect the conventions, without which orderly government in this country cannot take place.”  We should remember the type of justice Grieve defends; the one he offered Assange in 2016 – when he suggested that if he left the embassy he:  “…would have the full protection of our English legal system …”  Another ‘man of law’ backing the inspection of personal communication was Labour Shadow Brexit Minister Keir Starmer, former head of the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS).  Freedom of information requests made by the Italian news outlet La Repubblica, have revealed that at the time Starmer was director, the CPS worked closely with the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA) and that certain CPS emails were in fact deleted.  The result was at the very least the partial erasure of the trail of evidence showing why Swedish prosecutors hung the arrest warrant over Assange for so many years but failed to interview him, a factor leading to the UNGWAD decision of arbitrary detention.  “I am sad to say that it is the basic lack of trust that now exists between this House and the Executive.”  Where the political class is concerned, trust, disclosure and transparency would appear to be heavily linked to usefulness.  Neither of the legal big wigs appear concerned for the legalities around acquiring private data from personal devices;  do they think we will be blinded by the drama of Brexit and scheming by right-wing individuals that we might waive civil rights and legal protections?   What is to stop a repeat of their potentially precedent-setting move that could be imposed more widely next time, in the name of ‘order,’ or directed at a popular dissenting leader on the receiving end of allegations?  How is it that political leaders, heads of the UK’s legal system, can appear to dismiss such concerns when their narratives are grounded in law and order?  We have seen how the long road to Belmarsh prison is paved with the same rhetoric.  The response from government to the Grieve address is here.  ***   Author Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher, and contributor to 21WIRE. To see more of her work, visit  Nina’s archive.


activistpost--2019-01-01--Mother Of Detained Journalist Julian Assange And WikiLeaks Call On Journalists And Supporters To Pro

Mother Of Detained Journalist Julian Assange And WikiLeaks Call On Journalists And Supporters To Protest In Times Square On New Year’s Eve

Recently, WikiLeaks highlighted that its founder and former editor Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained 8+ years without charge by the UK Govt (6+ years within the Ecuador Embassy in London where he was granted asylum from U.S. threats) and 2 years house arrest, despite two UN rulings stating he should be allowed to walk free.  The mother of Julian Assange, Christine, and WikiLeaks are calling on supporters in New York City to flood the streets of Times Square tonight — #BootsOnTheGround4Julian — in protest for her son on New Year’s Eve to highlight Assange’s current situation in the Ecuadorian embassy and “celebrate press freedom” at a planned event in NYC for journalists when the ball drops at midnight.  Tonight at midnight, Press Freedom Celebrations will be held on the main stage at Times Square where well-known journalists will be invited to take part in an event. Christine Assange, WikiLeaks, and Unity4J are calling for protests to bring light to Julian Assange’s current plight, including asking journalists who are attending the event to stand up for their imprisoned colleague Julian Assange by holding/wearing a sign in his support.  It’s been suggested that signs may be removed by police so users on Twitter are recommending putting written messages on a pillowcase to still be able to display support for Julian Assange.  In November of this year, Christine Assange used Unity4J to urge officials to allow access to medical attention for her son, and for the UK and Ecuador to end Assange’s illegal detainment that is heading into the 9th year (2 years of virtual house arrest, into 7th year confined inside the Ecuadorian embassy) without charge as determined by the UN.  For the past 6 years in the embassy, the UK government has refused Assange’s request for access to basic health needs: fresh air, exercise, sunshine for vitamin D and access to proper medical and dental care according to Christine Assange and Julian Assange’s lawyer, Greg Barns.  As a result, his health has seriously deteriorated; and his examining doctors warn these detention conditions are life-threatening.  “The slow and cruel assassination is taking place before our very eyes in the embassy in London,” Christine expressed.  Assange’s doctor, Sean Love, has previously stated in an opinion piece that depriving him of medical care is “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” Adding, “It is time for Australia to intervene.”  Other doctors who examined Assange, Sondra Crosby, an associate professor at Boston University’s school of medicine and public health, and Brock Chisholm, a clinical psychologist in London have stated much the same.  All three called on safe passage for Assange to a hospital in an article for the Guardian, they wrote:  The above health concerns are coupled with surveillance technology that was a requirement for Assange to remain in the embassy, including signal jammers and all of the additional technology that is emitting various electromagnetic waves.  Assange’s doctors recently examined him as the mainstream press is too busy pushing salacious and baseless lies pushed by the Guardian (likely linked to CIA intelligence) that conform to the “Russia hacked the election” narrative about Assange meeting with Paul Manafort.  Many so-called journalists are too busy to care about their colleague, which now Democrats are using the lies printed by the Guardian to demand Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pressure Ecuador to hand over logs of all Assange’s personal, legal and other visitors to the embassy, as WikiLeaks noted.  A lawyer for Assange stated he did not know the results of the medical tests, while further calling on Ecuador to produce documentation proving that the UK would not extradite him to any country where his life would be at risk. Most notably, an at-risk country would be the United States, which WikiLeaks noted just tortured a former CIA agent and suspected alleged WikiLeaks Vault 7 leaker Joshua Schulte by bolting him to the floor, video-monitoring and strip-searching him. Which, if we are being honest, if they got their hands on Assange, would probably do much of the same except 100x worse to the WikiLeaks founder for exposing numerous crimes by the U.S. government through various releases over the years.  “We insist that they show us the letter from the United Kingdom,” Assange’s lawyer, Carlos Poveda said. Adding, “the protocol is meant to set the rules of his living situation, but it seems more like a penitentiary regime.”  Allegations against Assange in Sweden have long been dropped, and he is facing only a minor infraction in the UK for failing to turn up to a court hearing, a police bail warrant. The warrant issued in question arose 12 days after Julian entered the Ecuador Embassy seeking asylum from U.S. threats against his life and liberty. So that warrant should never have been issued in the first place, as Asylum/international law overrides domestic (UK) law.  Instead, the Bail warrant should have been dropped after Sweden dropped its preliminary investigation and Julian wasn’t charged as the warrant was attached to the European Arrest Warrant on that case.  Assange’s health isn’t the only topic Christine touched on; she also detailed at a recent press release by WikiLeaks which noted that Ecuador’s former President, Rafael Correa (whose administration granted Assange political asylum), said that the current U.S. Trump administration is “trying to break him psychologically” and that a deal had been struck during Pence’s visit to Ecuador earlier this year.  This news comes as Ecuador is being pressured to end Assange’s asylum and citizenship so he can be arrested by British police and extradited to the U.S. to presumably face charges under the Espionage Act — the federal law often used to punish whistleblowers. This is due to the fact that under the Ecuadorian constitution extradition is forbidden.  Although, Lenín Moreno made comments on a radio interview stating that “Britain had provided sufficient guarantees that the WikiLeaks founder won’t be extradited to face the death penalty abroad in the U.S.,” Associated Press reported.  Moreno further added that a deal had been reached between London and Quito to allow Assange to leave. “The way has been cleared for Assange to take the decision to leave in near-liberty,” Moreno said, failing to expand on what exactly “near-liberty” means in context. One can only speculate what that means for Assange … and it’s not good news.  Assange has denied the agreement through his lawyer, Barry Pollack, who told The Telegraph that the “deal was not acceptable.”  The facts are contrary to what Moreno stated; the real truth is that Ecuador is trying to sell out Assange in a “deal” with the U.S. for debt relief loans, as WikiLeaks tweeted.  In October, lawyers for Julian Assange — specifically, Baltasar Garzón, a lawyer for WikiLeaks — also sued Ecuador, accusing the government of violating Assange’s “fundamental rights and freedoms.”  WikiLeaks claims Assange’s access to the outside world has been “summarily cut off” and stated Ecuador has threatened to remove all protection given to his person that he has been granted when he was accepted into a political asylum if he doesn’t abide by Orwellian guidelines.  Lawyers for Assange have said they will also challenge the legality of the Ecuador government’s “special protocols,” which make his political asylum contingent upon “censoring” his own freedom of opinion, speech, and association, as well as violate Assange’s property and his visitors without any just warrant.  Britain is far from providing “sufficient guarantees.” In fact, the UK’s Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, dared Assange to walk out of the Ecuadorian embassy earlier this year. He further let comments slip alluding to an active investigation when he said that Assange was facing “serious charges.” That article was then deleted and absent from News.com.au’s website and others, Activist Post reported.  In November, the U.S. accidentally revealed sealed charges it had against Assange, so it’s a far-fetched lie to state “Assange won’t be extradited to face the death penalty.” The truth is no one knows what the U.S. has planned for Assange if somehow they got their hands on him in a U.S. court. Who knows what the sentencing would be. What’s for certain is that they would surely try to make an example out of him.  In June 2018, a letter to UK Home office Member of Parliament Zac Goldsmith revealed that the government would not confirm whether it has received an extradition request from the U.S. until Assange is arrested in relation to that request according to Assange Legal.  As such, the Trump administration is threatening to step over a never-crossed line – applying the secret documents provision of the Espionage Act to journalistic practices, according to the EFF, which last year condemned the threats of prosecution against WikiLeaks and Assange.  Assange’s situation is getting worse with each passing day between his health and the isolation without charge, which according to Human Rights Watch General Counsel Dinah PoKempner his conditions to stay at the embassy are looking more and more like solitary confinement. Which Assange has been barred from visitors and prevented internet access for almost a year, while he has never been allowed to exit the embassy for some sunshine.


activistpost--2019-01-16--Anonymous Pirates and Activists Challenge Articles 11 12a 13 With Stop ACTA 2 Protests January 19

Anonymous, Pirates and Activists Challenge Articles 11, 12a, 13 With Stop ACTA 2 Protests January 19th Across Europe

The European Union is attempting to censor the Internet with several new initiatives called Article 11, 12a, and 13 while numerous other Articles are pending to be drafted that could affect your Internet freedom rights.  These Articles will have legal implications that will break the Internet as we know it. Not only will they include an “upload filter” if passed to block copyrighted (or unwanted) content from being uploaded on the Internet, it will also be impossible to link to source material, including educational content and even memes. Yes, memes, the EU is coming for your memes, hide your meme stash!  Pending Articles like 12a, for example, will make it illegal to upload any personal video from a sporting event because the copyright will be fully to those hosting or sponsoring the event. It is a shocking contention that it could be criminal to record your beloved sports team or showcase a short snippet of a video of your favorite play from a game.  Meanwhile, Article 13 is designed to make website owners responsible for the content that users post on their websites, effectively forcing website owners to move behind an upload filter to protect themselves against huge claims by copyright owners and agencies that work on their behalf like the MPAA and RIAA. Article 11 is an even worse concept. That has been dubbed the “link tax” article; if passed, linking to any copyrighted material is taxed upon.  Imagine wanting to link to a news article because you want to have a free discussion about it? Under the law, you the user may now need to pay to link the article of copyrighted material — absolute insanity!  This is something that “will destroy our internet, And we cannot accept it. So we are fighting back. Activists, hacktivists and pirates are now uniting under the banner of StopACTA2,” Anonymous Bites Back writes.  Anonymous Bites Back further expresses that the radio show hosted by Anons is in “full support of the (street) protests against these Orwellian moves to censor the internet. We have had several episodes about this subject already, and we plan to join the protesters on the street and broadcast live to our network.”  There are no leaders in Anonymous like the feds think; everyone networks and works together for common like-minded causes, be it hunting pedophiles, animal abusers, domestic terrorists or uniting together to stop previous laws against the Internet like ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and the cleverly named never forgotten CISPA 2.0, or numerous anti-war actions just to name a few of the collective’s operations over the years.  There are no specific goals for the collective; there is, however, an overarching desire to combat censorship, promote freedom of speech, and counter government control within the collective. While anti-oppression and supporting whistleblowers seems to be something most can agree on.  Years before 2011, Anonymous became known as the government’s and Internet’s final boss. (You just lost the game!)  Anonymous actions have been taken against Sony, HB Gary, Aaron Barr, Operation Payback, and protests against organizations like Westboro Baptist, Church Of Scientology, and various governments worldwide including Iran, Egypt, Australia, and Ireland to name a few of those targeted in early Ops.  Utilizing a number of techniques such as digital web sit-ins (DoS attacks) with LOIC (sending HTTP header requests to sites), “rudimentary exploits,”,d0xing and sometimes the more extreme hacking of a database and leaking of its tables and contents for the Lulz.  Meanwhile, for those who support the idea of Anonymous decentralization, government transparency, and freedom for everyone, the march is seen as days to meet, trek, network and form ideas with like minds, leaving behind hacktivist deeds that individuals of the collective might (or might not) have taken part in. (You do not talk about fight club; rule 9001 of the Internet – everyone is a fed, don’t brag.)  We urgently ask you to do everything in your power to support the StopACTA2 movement, that is coordinated by the Polish StopACTA2 crew and the crew of Anonymous Worldwide and many others including Pirate Parties International with its co-chair Bailey Lamon and board member Raymond Johansen.  Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda notes that users will be responsible and liable for any copyright infringements they make on Internet platforms.  “The negotiators have reached agreement on the core of Article 13, which will change the internet as we know it: They want to make internet platforms directly liable for any copyright infringements their users commit,” Reda notes.  European Parliament is expected to finalize the final text of Article 13, which is part of the EU’s copyright reform law by Monday, Torrent Freak reported.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns that the proposed policies will increase censorship and surveillance throughout Europe creating a stasi state. The digital rights organization specifically calls on people from Germany, Sweden, Poland, and Luxembourg, to speak out.  “Your national government depends on your goodwill to win the votes to continue its mandate. This is a rare moment in European lawmaking when local connections from citizens matter more than well-funded, international corporations,” EFF writes.  Supporters of the fight against ACTA 2 include wolnemedia, SoMee. Social, Bitchute, Presearch, blogmedia24, Anonym ous Bites Back, wykop, polskapartiapirat ow, Pirate Parties International,  kontestacja, H ackread.com, inspro, Stowarzys zenie Libertarianskie, Anonymous Info Army Poland, and Anon Ops Poland according to the StopActa2.org website.  Numerous other organizations and individuals are coming out and speaking about the negotiations of Articles 11, 12a and 13 and what’s fundamentally wrong with them.  Already, 54 NGOs including the EFF and 40 academics have issued separate open letters to the EU Council stating these “texts risk creating severe impediments” or the Internet and its users.  The NGOs declared that the implementation of article 11 is both unnecessary, as well as a risk to a majority of media and hinders the ability of users to share information. Similarly, they note that article 13’s requirement for “error-prone, intrusive and legally questionable” upload filters represent a threat to fundamental rights, leading to the blocking of legitimate content.  Academics have expressed much of the same concerns when rumors began that the EU was discussing the potential copywrong policies in 2016.  However, scholars note they are doubtful of “CJEU case law and its reference to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and whether Article 13 of the proposed copyright Directive is actually proportionate, even if Article 17(2) of the European Charter provides that intellectual property shall be protected, as Article 17(2) does not have the same beneficiary basis as Articles 7 and 11. Articles 7 and 11 of the European Charter are fundamental pillars of any democratic society. Copyright infringements should not be put too quickly in the same category as serious crimes such as child pornography.” Last month, a more than 4 million strong petition of Internet users and businesses was sent to the European Parliament calling for an end to the ACTA 2 proposals in the various Articles for “reforming digital copyright law.” EFF notes that the petition was created because the law will inevitably lead to the creation of algorithmic copyright filters that only US Big Tech companies can afford (making the field less competitive and thus harder for working artists to negotiate better deals in) and because these filters will censor enormous quantities of legitimate material, thanks to inevitable algorithmic errors and abuse. Creative Sectors are also calling for a suspension of negotiations on Article 13 with 14 organizations calling for its halt according to Creative Refresh another group supporting a “free and open Internet.” Creative Sectors Call for a suspension of negotiations on Article 13 #SaveYourInternet The first wave of street protests in at least 20 different cities in 15 countries are being planned and prepared for January 19, 2019 all across Europe.  Share this article, organize together amongst one another and send a message, show the powers-that-be that the Internet belongs to the people and not the corporations or the power-hungry elites that seek to profit off of the free sharing of information. On social media, supporters are using the following hashtags for digital protests — #stopACTA2, #CopyrightDirective, #SaveYourInternet, #SaveTheInternet, #Article11, #Article13, #UploadFilters, #LinkTax, #Filternet, #ACTA2 #Anonymous. You can find out more information by visiting StopActa2.org a website being run to support operation Stop Acta 2. The website will be kept up to date with a full list of the existing protest locations. Are you an experienced organizer who wants to help organize in Europe for protesting against ACTA 2? Then contact [email protected] for any information, or if you want to start your own protest. As this article details, the cards are stacked against European MEPs; the more presence they see from we the people, the further they might listen instead of passing a dual draconian Orwellian law that threatens Internet freedoms. Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.


activistpost--2019-02-21--The Final Version of Europes Meme Ban is Here and Its Worse Than We Thought

The Final Version of Europe’s “Meme Ban” is Here and It’s Worse Than We Thought

A wide-ranging and draconian set of new rules in the European Union (EU) known as the Copyright Directive may end up destroying the Internet as we know it. If Brussels has its way, everything from memes to alternative news and a range of Internet past-times could be rendered a thing of the past.  The EU has already agreed on the final wording of the new copyright rules, which will see online platforms held liable for any sort of copyright violation, doing away with elementary notions of what could constitute “Fair Use” and transforming the way in which Internet users share information online.  While monopolist Internet companies like Google and Amazon surely wield far too much power, the Euro bureaucrats’ attempt to force the proposed rules onto platforms constitutes what Internet experts call “an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.”  At the heart of the new directive, which is expected to be passed despite widespread public outcry, are two specific parts that have riled up critics and threaten to chill the sharing of music, memes and news articles.  Article 11 of the rule, dubbed the “link tax,” would effectively force news aggregators including Google News, Bing, Yahoo and others to get a license from news publishers to link articles while also compensating publishers.  According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):  “Article 11, which allows news sites to decide who can link to their stories and charge for permission to do so, has also been worsened. The final text clarifies that any link that contains more than ‘single words or very short extracts’ from a news story must be licensed, with no exceptions for noncommercial users, nonprofit projects, or even personal websites with ads or other income sources, no matter how small.”  Article 13 has been described as the “meme ban” provision of the Copyright Directive, and would see major platforms screen all uploads to prevent any form of copyright infringement. According to the article, “online content sharing service providers and right holders shall cooperate in good faith in order to ensure that unauthorized protected works or other subject matter are not available on their services.” What this means, however, is that in order to protect their own assets, websites that are older than three years old that host user-generated content (like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, among others), regardless of size, would be forced to crack down on content lest they face legal liability for material seen as infringing on copyrights.  As a number of privacy watchdogs and civil liberties advocacy groups said in a letter to EU policy-makers, Article 13 would force “obligations on internet companies that would be impossible to respect without the imposition of excessive restrictions on citizens’ fundamental rights.”


activistpost--2019-03-19--Activists Speak Out Against Iraqs Cybercrime Bill

Activists Speak Out Against Iraq’s Cybercrime Bill

Human rights groups and activists are urging the Iraqi parliament to withdraw a controversial cybercrime bill that would greatly restrict freedom of expression online, if adopted.  The bill imposes long prison sentences for speech-related offences that are only vaguely defined in the text of the bill. Article 3 prescribes a lifetime prison sentence and steep fines for those convicted of using “computers and the internet” to “undermine the independence, the integrity and safety of the country, or its supreme economic, political, military, or security interests” or to “provoke sectarian strife, disturbing the security and public order, or harming the reputation of the country.”  Articles 4 and 6 impose the same punishments for those convicted of promoting ”terrorist acts and ideas” (Art. 4) or “publish[ing] or broadcast[ing] false or misleading facts with the intention of weakening confidence in the electronic financial system” (Art. 6.)  Earlier this year, the Gulf Centre for Human Rights warned:  Internet-related rights are already on shaky ground in Iraq. Last summer, authorities responded to protests denouncing corruption and dire living conditions in Basra and other cities by shutting down the Internet.  If adopted, the bill will only make it harder for Iraqis to exercise their rights to communicate, speak freely and access information online.  Earlier this month, nine human rights groups including AccessNow, Amnesty International and the the Iraqi Observatory for Human Rights published a statement urging the Iraqi parliament to withdraw the bill:  …the law will result in Internet users becoming fearful of exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms online, and will empty the right to freedom of expression of its substance. The law would also have far-reaching effects on the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of information as well as the right to participation in public affairs in Iraq.  The parliament was scheduled to debate the bill on March 14, but it was later removed from the day’s schedule.  On Twitter, the official account for the Iraqi Council of Representatives thanked those who contacted it to “criticise some laws,” but did not specify which laws. Rights groups and activists welcomed this response, but they remain wary.  It remains unclear if the parliament will introduce changes to the bill or when it will be scheduled for debate again.  Afef Abrougui is Advox Editor for the Middle East and North Africa  This article was sourced from GlobalVoices.org


activistpost--2019-05-13--French Activists Successfully Block Saudi Ship From Loading Weapons

(CD) — A human rights organization called it a “victory for mobilized civil society” when a Saudi cargo ship left France on Friday without a planned batch of weapons.  France, along with other Western countries including the U.S. and U.K., has been supplying arms to Saudi Arabia, which is leading the coalition bombing Yemen. In so doing, say human rights campaigners, they “risk complicity in committing grave violations of the laws of war.”  Leaked classified French military documents published last month showed that French weapons are being widely used in the coalition’s bombing campaign “including in civilian zones.” The conflict has already killed thousands of civilians.  Fearing that the new shipment of weapons could be used against the Yemeni civilian population, French rights group Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT-France) filed a legal challenge Thursday to block a new batch of French weapons from being loaded onto the Saudi vessel the Bahri Yanbu at the French port city of Le Havre. The ship had been anchored 15 miles offshore since late Wednesday.  The weapons, said ACAT, would violate one article of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.  “The article says that one country cannot authorize the transfer of weapons, if at the time of the authorization, the country knew that weapons could be used to commit war crimes,” said lawyer Joseph Brehem, speaking on behalf of ACAT.  While ACAT didn’t win their case, the ship nonetheless did not dock to pick up the shipment, but instead moved on to Spain.  A French judge threw out that legal challenge but the Bahri-Yanbu set course for Santander shortly after minus the weapons, officials said and ship-tracking data showed. The saga is an embarrassment for [French] President Emmanuel Macron, who on Thursday defended arms sales to Saudi Arabia.  ACAT-France praised the development, saying that it happened not as a result from a judge but because of an activated citizenry who sounded alarm about the weapons.  It’s clear, said Bernadette Forhan, president of the organization, “that French civil society can constitute a real opposition force to international interests that undermine the fundamental rights of millions of people.”  Provide, Protect and Profit in unstable times! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-08-21--Facial Recognition 10 Reasons You Should Be Worried About The Technology

Facial Recognition: 10 Reasons You Should Be Worried About The Technology

Facial recognition technology is spreading fast. Already widespread in China, software that identifies people by comparing images of their faces against a database of records is now being adopted across much of the rest of the world. It’s common among police forces but has also been used at airports, railway stations and shopping centres.  The rapid growth of this technology has triggered a much-needed debate. Activists, politicians, academics and even police forces are expressing serious concerns over the impact facial recognition could have on a political culture based on rights and democracy.  As someone who researches the future of human rights, I share these concerns. Here are ten reasons why we should worry about the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces.  1) It puts us on a path towards automated blanket surveillance  CCTV is already widespread around the world, but for governments to use footage against you they have to find specific clips of you doing something they can claim as evidence. Facial recognition technology brings monitoring to new levels. It enables the automated and indiscriminate live surveillance of people as they go about their daily business, giving authorities the chance to track your every move.  2) It operates without a clear legal or regulatory framework  Most countries have no specific legislation that regulates the use of facial recognition technology, although some lawmakers are trying to change this. This legal limbo opens the door to abuse, such as obtaining our images without our knowledge or consent and using them in ways we would not approve of.  3) It violates the principles of necessity and proportionality  A commonly stated human rights principle, recognised by organisations from the UN to the London Policing Ethics Panel, is that surveillance should be necessary and proportionate. This means surveillance should be restricted to the pursuit of serious crime instead of enabling the unjustified interference into our liberty and fundamental rights. Facial recognition technology is at odds with these principles. It is a technology of control that is symptomatic of the state’s mistrust of its citizens.  4) It violates our right to privacy  The right to privacy matters, even in public spaces. It protects the expression of our identity without uncalled-for intrusion from the state or from private companies. Facial recognition technology’s indiscriminate and large-scale recording, storing and analysing of our images undermines this right because it means we can no longer do anything in public without the state knowing about it.  5) It has a chilling effect on our democratic political culture  Blanket surveillance can deter individuals from attending public events. It can stifle participation in political protests and campaigns for change. And it can discourage nonconformist behaviour. This chilling effect is a serious infringement on the right to freedom of assembly, association, and expression.  6) It denies citizens the opportunity for consent  There is a lack of detailed and specific information as to how facial recognition is actually used. This means that we are not given the opportunity to consent to the recording, analysing and storing of our images in databases. By denying us the opportunity to consent, we are denied choice and control over the use of our own images.  7) It is often inaccurate  Facial recognition technology promises accurate identification. But numerous studies have highlighted how the algorithms trained on racially biased data sets misidentify people of colour, especially women of colour. Such algorithmic bias is particularly worrying if it results in unlawful arrests, or if it leads public agencies and private companies to discriminate against women and people from minority ethnic backgrounds.  8) It can lead to automation bias  If the people using facial recognition software mistakenly believe that the technology is infallible, it can lead to bad decisions. This “automation bias” must be avoided. Machine-generated outcomes should not determine how state agencies or private corporations treat individuals. Trained human operators must exercise meaningful control and take decisions based in law.  9) It implies there are secret government watchlists


activistpost--2019-10-01--Whats the Big Problem With Facial Recognition

What’s the Big Problem With Facial Recognition?

The Oakland City Council recently gave final approval to an ordinance banning facial recognition in that city. This is part of a broader movement at the state and local level to ban outright or at least limit this invasive surveillance technology.  So, what’s the big problem with facial recognition?  In the first place, it’s just not very accurate, especially when reading African American and other minority facial features. It gets it wrong a lot of the time.  This isn’t just theoretical musing. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.  But as ACLU attorney Matt Cagle said, this isn’t a problem that can be fixed by tweaking an algorithm. There are more fundamental issues with facial recognition. Government use of facial recognition technology for identifying and tracking people en masse flies in the face of both the Fourth Amendment and constitutional provisions protecting privacy in every state constitution.  Berkeley, California, City Councilmember Kate Harrison is pushing for a facial recognition ban in her city. In her recommendation of the ordinance, she pointed out the inherent constitutional problem with facial recognition.  It eliminates the human and judicial element behind the existing warrant system by which governments must prove that planned surveillance is both constitutional and sufficiently narrow to protect targets’ and bystanders’ fundamental rights to privacy while also simultaneously providing the government with the ability to exercise its duties. Facial recognition technology automates the search, seizure and analysis process that was heretofore pursued on a narrow basis through stringent constitutionally-established and human-centered oversight in the judiciary branch. Due to the inherent dragnet nature of facial recognition technology, governments cannot reasonably support by oath or affirmation the particular persons or things to be seized. The programmatic automation of surveillance fundamentally undermines the community’s liberty.  Facial recognition puts every person who crosses its path into a perpetual lineup without any probable cause. It tramples restrictions on government power intended to protect our right to privacy. It feeds into the broader federal surveillance state. And at its core, it does indeed fundamentally undermine liberty.  Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-10-16--India Partially Lifts Communications Blackout in Kashmir, Internet Still Down

Indian authorities have partially lifted access to communication networks in Kashmir. Access to the internet, however, remains cut off.  On August 5, Srinagar, the main city in Jammu and Kashmir, went under complete lockdown as the government of India revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution that provided special autonomy status since 1950 to the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. Access to mobile, landline, and internet networks were suspended and roadblocks were put on the streets and restrictions on almost all movement were enforced.  he authorities eased up the restrictions in phases. They first restored all 50,000 landlines in the region by the first week of September. On October 14, after 72 days from the lockdown, the authorities restored SMS and call services for postpaid mobile subscriptions. However, prepaid mobile connections and internet services are still suspended. According to the Telegraph India, there are about 400,000 post-paid phones connections and 260,000 prepaid connections in the region. The government did not provide an explanation as to why it restored access to call and SMS services for only postpaid subscriptions. However, this decision could be explained by the fact that users of prepaid subscriptions are harder to track and monitor since unlike users of postpaid subscriptions, they are not required to submit personal data that make it easier for the authorities to identify them such as bank details and mailing address.  Satya Pal Malik, the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir has claimed that “the situation is normal as there had been no violence since two months”. The minister defended the blackout as a measure to protect the “safety of Kashmiris” and said that access to the internet “will soon be restored”, without specifying when.  Despite the easing of restrictions, the authorities soon resorted to disrupting access to SMS services for postpaid subscriptions.  During the night of October 15, text messaging services were disrupted in Jammu and Kashmir when a truck driver was killed by suspected armed rebels who then set the truck ablaze. The services were restored after a few hours.  Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research commented that the restrictions on mobile communications were placed to limit the activities of militants, who usually coordinate attacks over phones. However, Kashmiris are paying the price as the tourism business which depends on the internet had literally stopped. The restrictions also hamper Kashmiris’ rights to express themselves and access to information online, and prevent them from connecting and sharing with the rest of the world what is happening on the ground.  According to Internetshutdowns.in, 55 shutdowns were imposed in jammu and Kashmir in 2019. The longest shutdown was observed in Jammu and Kashmir was in 2016 when mobile internet services were suspended for 133 days.  Indian Supreme Court lawyer Nitya Ramakrishnan, and Nandini Sundar, a professor of sociology at the Delhi School of Economic visited Kashmir from October 5 to 9, 2019. They mentioned in a report after their visit that Kashmiris are resisting the actions imposed by the Indian Central Government “through satyagraha or non-violent civil disobedience”. They also added that since the entire leadership is in confinement – from mainstream political parties to separatist leaders – the disobedience is entirely voluntary. They both claimed that “almost every single person wanted azadi or freedom”.  The Indian government claims that restrictions on freedom of movement have been lifted in most of Kashmir, barring a few areas and that restrictions on tourists visiting the region have been lifted. The spokesperson for state government Rohit Kansal also stated that internet facilities will be opened at “touristic spots”.  In an interview with India Today, the Indian Home Minister Amit Shah said that the situation is “peaceful” and “returning to normal” in Jammu and Kashmir.  However, On October 15, 2019, authorities arrested 13 women for holding an anti-India protest in a park in Srinagar, the capital of Jammu and Kashmir. They were carrying placards reading “Respect Fundamental Rights” and “Why downgrade Jammu and Kashmir”.  On October 3, journalists from the Kashmir Valley staged a silent demonstration in Srinagar to protest the ongoing communication blockade.  Meanwhile, a few sporadic protests against the clampdown were held across India:


activistpost--2019-12-30--Activists Worldwide Face Off Against Face Recognition: 2019 Year in Review

We’ve all heard the expression, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.” We might hope that what we do and where we go will only be known to those who were there in person. Yet maintaining such anonymity and privacy in public spaces is becoming ever more difficult. 2019 has marked the year where a growing digital rights network around the world is pushing back against governments and companies’ use of face recognition technologies in public spaces. This year, in an attempt to prevent people from having their movement and actions meticulously tracked, these activists took action against face recognition in countries all over the world.  Ban on Mass Use of Face Recognition  Digital rights activists have long argued that face recognition constitutes mass surveillance when used to track the movements of entire populations in public spaces by matching faces obtained from CCTV cameras, drones or other devices against existing databases. In October, more than 90 NGOs and hundreds of experts gathered in Albania at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners and called for a global moratorium on mass surveillance by face recognition. The Public Voice coalition urged countries to review all face recognition systems “to determine whether personal data was obtained lawfully and to destroy data that was obtained unlawfully.” In addition, the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union (FRA) has also published a paper recognizing that “given the novelty of the technology as well as the lack of experience and detailed studies on the impact of facial recognition technologies, multiple aspects are key to consider before deploying such a system in real-life applications”. It further said that “[f]orms of facial recognition that involve a very high degree of intrusion into fundamental rights, compromising the inviolable essential core of one or more fundamental rights, are unlawful.” And the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, David Kaye, called for an immediate moratorium on the sale, transfer, and use of surveillance technology, including face recognition, until legal frameworks are established that meet human rights standards.  In Russia, Roskomsvoboda launched a campaign calling for a moratorium on government mass use of face recognition until the technology’s effects are studied and the government adopts legal safeguards that protect sensitive data. In the United Kingdom, 25 NGOs including Big Brother Watch, Article 19, Open Rights Group, and Privacy International called on U.K. police and private companies to immediately stop using live face recognition for public surveillance. In 2016 and 2018, face recognition trials in London erroneously identified individuals as potential criminals in 96 percent of scans, a pervasively high rate of false-positive matches. Also this year, Big Brother Watch launched a legal challenge against the London Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary to demand an immediate end to the police’s use of live face recognition. In France, La Quadrature du Net (LQDN) called for a ban on the mass use of face recognition to identify protesters. In the last six years, the French government has adopted several decrees—without any public debate—that allow for automatic identification of protesters. And in the United States, local activists took up the fight against face recognition by successfully passing face recognition bans at the city level. Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Somerville, Massachusetts all passed bans on government use of face recognition technology. Earlier this year, California prohibited the use of face recognition on law enforcement body-worn cameras, causing San Diego to end its long-running mobile face recognition program.  La Quadrature du Net and other French NGOs also filed an action to ban the use of face recognition in two high schools in Nice and Marseille. Those actions led CNIL, France’s data protection authority, to conclude that the use of face recognition at the entrance of the schools to target mostly minors is not “necessary or proportionate,” and that the goals of the program could “be achieved by much less intrusive means in terms of privacy and individual freedoms.” In a similar case in Sweden, the Swedish Data Protection Authority (DPA) imposed a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) fine of approximately 20,000 euros on a municipality after a school conducted a pilot using face recognition technology to track students’ attendance. The Swedish DPA rejected the municipality’s argument that the school had consent to process sensitive biometric information, as required under the GDPR, indicating that “consent was not a valid legal basis given the clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller.” Unfortunately, only a few months later, the same Swedish DPA issued another decision allowing police departments to use face recognition to compare face images from CCTV footage to criminal biometric databases. The decision clarified that police must set a retention period for biometric information collected from cameras.  This year, Latin American NGOs have been fighting back against a deeply rooted culture of secrecy surrounding face recognition providers’ identity, data sources, data collection methods, applications, and customers. TEDIC, the main digital rights organization in Paraguay, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Ministry of the Interior resolution that denied TEDIC’s public records request for further details about the Ministry of Interior and the National Police’s use of face recognition technology. Face recognition has been used in Asunción’s downtown area, airport, and bus stations since 2018, and is now planned to be expanded throughout Asunción.  In Argentina, Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC) filed a lawsuit against the Government of the City of Buenos Aires challenging the constitutionality of Resolution 398/19, which introduced a face recognition system linked to the city’s security camera infrastructure and monitoring centers. ADC filed the lawsuit after receiving responses to two information requests about the face recognition system.  Access Now, in collaboration with ADC and the Observatorio de Derecho Informático Argentino, sent an information request to the Argentine province of Córdoba related to the October 2019 announcement of a test of a biometric recognition system linked to video cameras that use artificial intelligence. In Peru later that month, Access Now and Hiperderecho sent similar information requests to La Victoria, San Martín de Porres, and Miraflores, municipal districts of Lima. Among the information requested are the technology provider’s identity, the system’s technical specifications, and the procedures for identification and apprehension of suspicious persons.  Latin American NGOs also launched advocacy campaigns against face recognition. Derechos Digitales launched an advocacy campaign to shine a light on the different face and biometric recognition proposals being considered in Latin America. And in Brazil, inspired by the images Gu Da Cei received through an information request, the artist carried out human intervention campaigns at bus stations in Brasilia to expose photos taken by a bus face biometrics system and reinforce the right of public transport users to their own image.  Role of Private Companies In The Use of Face Recognition for Surveillance  This year, reports have also come to light about the role of private companies in the public use of face recognition. A New York Times report revealed how Chinese companies such as C.E.I.E.C. were successfully commercializing versions of China’s mass face recognition system by exporting them to developing countries, in particular, Ecuador, Bolivia, Angola, and Venezuela. The implementation of the system in Ecuador, ECU911, has simultaneously been popular among Ecuadorians worried about street crime and amplified fears about abuse of the system for political repression. Just before the end of the year, 78 facial recognition CCTVs linked to ECU911 were installed in the Historic Center of Quito, the site where hundreds of indigenous activists recently protested the Ecuadorian government. Derechos Digitales published a report finding that C.E.I.E.C. was also active in Bolivia’s security program and that the funding for the program came from a Chinese national bank. Internet Bolivia told Derechos Digitales that Bol-110, the ambitious project to acquire surveillance technologies in Bolivia, “will be in everything: in schools, taxis, hospitals.” And although Bol-110 was not approved by the Bolivian Congress, the face recognition system has already been purchased.  In Serbia, SHARE Foundation submitted a request for information about a new video surveillance system with face recognition and license plate reader technology. Huawei, a Chinese company, was revealed to be the Serbian government’s main partner in the endeavor. Additionally, SHARE Foundation unearthed a case study published on Huawei’s website about new generation surveillance cameras that have already been installed in Belgrade. Huawei removed the case study from its website soon after SHARE Foundation’s revelation was made public. In November, SHARE called for the immediate suspension of Serbia’s face recognition program. In a recent report, SHARE, along with NGOs Partners Serbia and Belgrade Center for Security Policy, concluded that the Ministry of Interior’s privacy impact assessment of the surveillance cameras does not meet the standards required by the Serbian data protection law. Brazilian legislators, meanwhile, received an all-expenses-paid trip to China to learn about and view demonstrations of face surveillance technology that Chinese firms hoped Brazil would also choose to acquire.  The Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense (IDEC) sent a demand to Dataprev, a Brazilian public company responsible for the security of Brazilian social security information, requesting that it halt its bid for the acquisition of face recognition and fingerprint technology until cases of beneficiaries’ existing data leaks are resolved. IDEC explained that while the company aimed to integrate face recognition into an app to help people with disabilities access their banking and social security information remotely, the technology’s high risk of breach would compromise the personal information of approximately 35 million Brazilians.  In the Netherlands, Bits of Freedom launched an activism campaign to demonstrate the insecurity of a Dutch Face Recognition pilot program in Amsterdam’s central square, Dam, where a webcam is live-streaming to YouTube and the website webcam.nl. Bits of Freedom downloaded images of its members at the Dam, and then ran the images through Amazon’s face recognition software, Rekognition. The software was able to identify the members. Bits of Freedom concluded that face recognition software, combined with mass surveillance in public spaces, threatens the privacy and security of vulnerable people, including victims of stalking and domestic violence.  This year, governments around the world have moved quickly to adopt face recognition technologies for use in public spaces. But activists have been quick to respond, demanding transparency and winning moratoria and bans on the use of this powerful technology. As we look forward to 2020, the tensions between the government’s use of this technology for public safety and individuals’ right to privacy will continue to heighten. EFF will remain vigilant and continue the global fight against the government adoption of face recognition technology.  This article is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2019.  This article was sourced from EFF.org  Katitza Rodriguez is EFF’s international rights director. She concentrates on comparative policy of international privacy issues, with special emphasis on law enforcement, government surveillance, and cross border data flows. Her work in EFF’s International Program also focuses on cybersecurity at the intersection of human rights. Katitza also manages EFF’s growing Latin American programs. She was an advisor to the UN Internet Governance Forum (2009-2010). In 2018, CNET named Katitza one of 20 most influential latinos in technology in the United States. In 2014, she was also named one of “The heroes in the fight to save the Internet“.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


ageofautism--2019-02-22--Autism Action Network Alert US Take Action FDA head threatens state exemptions from vaccine mandat

Autism Action Network Alert: US Take Action: FDA head threatens state exemptions from vaccine mandates  - Time for Trump to appoint a new head of the FDA

In a report released by CNN on Wednesday, Scott Gottlieb, MD, the head of the Food and Drug Administration, threatened federal action to eliminate religious and secular exemptions from vaccine mandates to attend school in response to several hundred measles cases in a country of 330 million people.      "Some states are engaging in such wide exemptions that they're creating the opportunity for outbreaks on a scale that is going to have national implications." Gottlieb is reported to have said. If, "certain states continue down the path that they're on I think they're going to force the hand of the federal health agencies."      Several hundred cases of measles, a disease that was considered a routine childhood inconvenience a generation ago, can be manipulated as a pretext for draconian new federal powers, yet annual increases in autism of 50,000 to 100,000 new cases per year don't event merit comment.      Please click on the Take Action to send a message to the White House asking the President to replace Gottlieb with someone who takes seriously fundamental rights and relevant information for policy making.       And please call the White House at the number below and politely let the staffer know you would like to see a new head of the FDA.    The vaccine industry is creating hysteria over a trivial measles outbreak to eliminate vaccination rights in the US. It's a program that worked successfully in California, France, Italy, Croatia and Romania, why not the rest of the United States?     But the facts just don't support the hype. "Overall vaccination coverage among young children remained high and stable in the United States in 2017," according to the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of October 12, 2018.      The vaccine industry's claim that measles vaccination rates are falling are not supported by the federal government's own statistics. According to the CDC's National Immunization Survey, there was no change in the percentage of children who received one or more MMR vaccines from 2013 through 2017, holding steady at around 91.5% with no statistically significant changes for the past 5 years. Children who are unvaccinated make up less than 1% of all children and pose no threat to achieving herd immunity.     Please share this message with friends and family, and please share on social networks. If you support the work of the Autism Action Network please make a donation at http://www. autismactionnetwork.org


aljazeera--2019-01-13--The PTM in Pakistan Another Bangladesh in the making

The PTM in Pakistan: Another Bangladesh in the making?

A year ago today, a young man named Naqeebullah Mehsud was killed in an alleged shoot-out in Pakistan's southern port city of Karachi. The police initially claimed that Mehsud was a "hardened member of the Pakistani Taliban" and was killed during a raid on "a terrorist hideout".  But his family, friends and some human rights organisations questioned this claim, saying Mehsud was just an innocent shopkeeper and aspiring model.  The government ordered an investigation. The police committee probing the incident found no evidence of a shoot-out or terrorist activity and was determined that Mehsud was killed by the police in a "fake encounter" - a practice Pakistani security forces are often accused of being involved in. Officers accused of being involved in the killing were put on trial which is still ongoing.  In the past, allegations of extrajudicial killings similar to this one were regularly ignored by the authorities, and security forces were allowed to operate with impunity. What set Mehsud's case apart, and forced the government to take swift action, was a little-known movement which started in his Waziristan hometown of Makin: the Pashtun Tahaffuz (Protection) Movement (or PTM).  The PTM was launched by human rights activist Manzoor Pashteen to address the many grievances of Pashtuns, who are the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan and mostly live in the north-western part of the country, close to the Afghanistan border.  The Pashtuns have been bearing the brunt of the so-called "war on terror" for nearly two decades. When the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, members of terror groups operating in that country passed the border with Pakistan and took refuge in the areas where Pashtuns reside. In response, the Pakistani military started carrying out operations to "clear the area from terrorists".  However, rather than stopping terrorist activity, military operations in the area increasingly victimised innocent civilians. Pashtuns across Pakistan started to be stereotyped as terrorists even though they themselves were victims of terrorism.  After the killing of Mehsud in Karachi, Manzoor Pashteen called for a march from Waziristan towards Islamabad. Thousands joined Pashteen on his way to the capital city demanding justice not just for the murdered man, but for all Pashtuns who have been facing discrimination in Pakistan.  This march rapidly transformed into a nationwide rights movement and the PTM was born. In rallies held across the country, Pashteen and his supporters raised questions about the reasons behind the army's failure to drive out militancy from their region and asked whether Pakistani authorities really wanted to eradicate such groups.  One slogan that they commonly used was "Yeh jo dehshatgardi hai, is ke peechay wardi hai" (behind this terrorism, is the [military] uniform), alleging a collusion between terrorists and the military.  The PTM also called for all accusations of extrajudicial killing to be investigated independently and demanded the practice of enforced disappearances - a legal term coined to explain abductions allegedly carried out by the Pakistan Army - to come to an end. Moreover, Pashteen and his supporters started pressuring the Pakistani government to reform the draconian laws that govern the tribal belt that violate basic human rights, such as the law of collective responsibility which the Pakistani state routinely uses against locals from the tribal belt - punishing entire families, villages and tribes for the crimes of one person.  Rather than addressing the genuine grievances expressed by this growing movement, the Pakistani government chose to embark on a crackdown.  The Pakistani media stopped reporting on the movement's gatherings. Many of the members and leaders of the movement were repeatedly arrested by the police. The leaders were prevented from entering parts of Pakistan where they wanted to hold rallies. Recently some of PTM's members were also barred from leaving the country.  In one public briefing, the military media spokesperson accused the PTM of working on "an anti-Pakistan agenda" with the help of foreign hostile governments - a tactic often used by the Pakistani military to discredit its critics.  But the Pakistani state's efforts to silence and contain the movement have backfired. As a result of this state-led harassment campaign, the PTM gained more traction and its gatherings are becoming larger than ever.  While the movement has always claimed to be non-violent, there are now fears that the continuous use of such heavy-handed tactics to suppress the movement may result in a confrontation that may go out of control, as seen before in Pakistan.  In the past, a similar rights movement launched by East Pakistani residents eventually culminated into a movement for independence from Pakistan, and let to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.  In the 1960s, the Bengali population living in East Pakistan, the largest ethnic group in the country at the time, felt neglected by the central government that was headed by General Ayub Khan. Instead of listening to the grievances of this group and addressing the injustices they say they have been facing, the military launched an operation against the aggrieved population. This caused the Bengalis to start an armed resistance which resulted in Pakistan's division.  Almost 50 years later, it seems that Pakistan's ruling elites have not learned much from history and seem to be repeating the same mistakes that led to much pain, bloodshed and irreversible damage to the nation in the 1970s.  Today as the PTM marks one year of its struggle, it is of utmost importance that the Pakistani civilian and military leadership address the legitimate concerns of the Pashtun population, meet their demands which are well within the scope of the Pakistani constitution and immediately stop persecuting those demanding their basic fundamental rights.  If this does not happen, the PTM may become a catalyst for the break-up of an already divided nation and Pakistan may head towards another national disaster.  The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


aljazeera--2019-02-07--Spanish PM travels to Strasbourg to defend countrys judiciary

Spanish PM travels to Strasbourg to 'defend' country's judiciary

Madrid, Spain - Spain's Pedro Sanchez is in Strasbourg to speak to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), making him the country's first serving leader to do so.  Sanchez will visit both the ECHR and the Council of Europe on Thursday, where he is expected to "defend" the Spanish court system a week before 12 Catalan politicians go on trial.  Spanish media said Sanchez will assure the ECHR that "individual rights, public liberties and the rights of minorities are guaranteed" and will stress on Spain's "respect of jurisprudence".  The trial of the 12 Catalan leaders is due to begin in Spain's capital Madrid on February 12.  The Catalan separatists have been charged with rebellion, disobedience and embezzlement of public funds during a failed independence bid in 2017 and face up to 25 years in jail.  One of the legal teams representing the jailed Catalan leaders confirmed to Al Jazeera on Thursday that they plan to appeal to the ECHR if the Spanish Supreme Court delivers a guilty verdict.  Critics say Spain's Supreme Court lacks independence and is politically biased against the Catalan leaders.  Indictments against those facing trial say they ignored the "grave" risk of violence while holding the October 1 referendum, which met a police crackdown described by rights groups as "excessive".  In March last year, Spanish newspaper El Diario wrote that Pablo Llarena, the judge charged with investigating the Catalan referendum case, distorted "the reality of what occurred in Catalonia to extremes difficult to believe".  Josep Costa, the first vice president of the Catalonia parliament, told Al Jazeera in an interview that the court's "impartiality" regarding the trial must be taken into account.  "It's a very conservative court," Costa, who is also a professor of political science at Barcelona's Universitat Pompeu Fabra, said. The judges "have political ties with the more conservative branch of the judiciary," he said.  Spanish conservatives have taken a hardline approach towards Catalan nationalism.  During the push for independence, the government headed by former Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy from the conservative People's Party, refused to speak with Catalan leaders about self-determination, suspended the region's autonomy and called snap elections hoping to depose separatist leaders.  Many Catalans believe the Supreme Court will adopt a similar strategy during the trial: "They will have the opportunity to show their [judicial] independence which will confirm their conservative approach," said Costa.  There is no legal precedent of the trial of the Catalan leaders in Spain's democratic history. This makes the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case open to interpretation.  But Ignacio Garcia Vitoria, assistant professor of constitutional law at Madrid's Complutense University, told Al Jazeera that "there is no basis for a general criticism of the independence of judges in Spain".  "We are a country completely in agreement with European standards," he said.  Among the many concerns critics have is the issue of which court being competent to try the accused.  Apart from its Supreme Court, Spain also has an Audiencia Nacional, a special high court which has jurisdiction over the country as well as on cases of international crimes over which it has authority.  Both courts have held sessions concerning their jurisdiction over the trial of the 12 Catalan leaders, though the proceedings were eventually sent to the Supreme Court.  Lawyers for the Catalans say the Supreme Court trying the criminal case violates fundamental rights, since the court's decision cannot be appealed within Spain and must be taken up with the ECHR.  "We will see how they are resolved and, where appropriate, the decision will be reviewed by the Constitutional Court and by the ECHR," Garcia said.


aljazeera--2019-02-08--Nigerias democracy is fading away

Nigeria's democracy is fading away

On January 25, Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari suspended the country's top judge, Walter Onnoghen, and replaced him with an acting chief justice merely weeks before a presidential election in which judiciary can play an important role.  Onnoghen, as the head of Nigeria's independent judiciary, had helped resolve electoral disputes in past elections, some of which have been marred by violence and vote-rigging. He was similarly expected to preside over any dispute that may arise in the upcoming February 16 election.  The judge's controversial suspension so close to the election date caused uproar across Nigeria, with the Nigerian Bar Association embarking on a two-day strike and the main opposition candidate, Atiku Abubakar, calling the president's decision "an act of dictatorship". The international community also expressed dismay over the usurpation of the judicial arm of the government by the executive branch, with the US and the EU suggesting the judge's removal could "cast a pall over the electoral process".  Only four years ago, following the March 2015 presidential election, former President Goodluck Jonathan conceded his defeat to then-opposition candidate Buhari, becoming the first sitting president in Nigeria to do so. Jonathan's voluntary admission of electoral defeat, which was a rarity not only in Nigeria but across the African continent, encouraged Nigerian voters to place their trust in Buhari, an erstwhile dictator who famously labelled himself "a reformed democrat", to protect their rights and freedoms.  Democratic governments function on the principle of separation of powers - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary - which aims to prevent a descent to autocracy by providing for checks and balances. This is why Buhari's decision to suspend Onnoghen, an apparent violation of judicial independence, was a cause for disappointment and alarm for many who believed the president would uphold democratic values. However, it needs to be noted that the suspension of the chief justice was hardly the first time the Buhari administration infringed the principle of separation of powers and put the future of Nigerian democracy at risk.  Since Buhari took over the presidency, the federal government repeatedly used the fight against corruption - one of the cardinal promises of the current administration - as a tool to side-step the judiciary and illegally lock away, intimidate and silence its opponents and adversaries. For example, the federal government refused to release former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki, who had been arrested on corruption charges in December 2015, even though he has been granted bail by several Nigerian high court judges and the ECOWAS court of justice. He remains behind bars to this day.  Moreover, throughout his first term in power, President Buhari openly argued for putting national interests over the rule of law, preparing the ground for authoritarianism and lawless actions.  At the 2018 General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association, for example, the president said, "Rule of law must be subject to the supremacy of the nation's security and national interest," and maintained that the state should be allowed to waive fundamental rights of alleged offenders when national security and public interest were threatened. Ironically, the suspended Chief Justice Onnoghen was in attendance at the event, but failed to respond to the president's blatant attack on the rule of law and the integrity of the judiciary.  The judiciary was not the only branch of the government that faced attacks during Buhari's presidency. The members of the legislative branch have also been targeted by state operatives for acting against the Buhari administration.  In August 2018, armed and masked officers from the Department of State Services (DSS) staged a blockade of the National Assembly. That very same summer, prominent senators who have maintained opposition to the government also had their homes raided. The Senate president, Bukola Saraki, and one of his key allies in the Senate, Dino Melaye, are currently being investigated and harassed by the police over alleged criminal activities. The list can go on.  When the institutions that are meant to provide checks and balances, such as the National Assembly and the Supreme Court, are subdued, independent media and civil society are supposed to take over the responsibility of holding corrupt executives to account.  Unfortunately, neither the media nor the civil society fared any better in Buhari's Nigeria.  Nigeria declined three places in RSF's World Press Freedom Index in the last three years, ranking 119th out of 180 countries in 2018. Under the Buhari administration, several journalists and activists have been imprisoned and tried on terrorism charges. A section of the Nigerian Cyberterrorism Act 2015, which was signed into law by former President Jonathan, has also been weaponized against dissenters, especially Nigerian citizens active on social media. Moreover, in 2016 the Nigerian Senate flirted with the Frivolous Petitions Bill, aka "the anti-social media law", which included over-reaching provisions for social media regulation. The bill, seen by many as a dangerous encroachment on free expression, was eventually pulled following public outcry. A similar bill that seeks to equate hate speech with terrorism, however, is currently being deliberated in the National Assembly.  In the last four years, the Buhari administration erased all the gains we made in the 2015 election and created the perfect environment for autocracy by further weakening our democratic institutions, muzzling our civil society, silencing independent journalists and questioning the supremacy of the rule of law. As Nigerians head to vote in the upcoming polls, we must bear in mind that elections do not make a democracy. The current state of affairs in Nigeria should be a bigger concern for us all than any potential outcome of the upcoming election.  The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


aljazeera--2019-03-29--Quebec introduces bill banning religious symbols

The Canadian province of Quebec has introduced legislation that will ban public sector employees from wearing religious symbols during work hours, a controversial move that critics say targets Muslim women who wear hijabs or other head coverings.  It will also apply to crucifixes and yarmulkes.  The proposed law, introduced on Thursday, sets the province's right-leaning Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) government on a collision course with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who promotes religious freedom, in a federal election year with Quebec a vital battleground.  "It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimise discrimination against citizens based on their religion," Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.  The legislation, which is expected to pass, will cover public workers in positions of authority, including teachers, judges and police officers. It exempts current government employees and civil servants in the mainly French-speaking province.  The bill asserts that secularity "should be affirmed in a manner that ensures a balance between the collective rights of the Quebec nation and human rights and freedoms".  Governments in Quebec have been trying for years to restrict civil servants from wearing overt religious symbols like headscarves, turbans and Jewish skullcaps at work in an effort to cement a secular society.  A ban on full-face coverings on anyone giving or receiving public services in Quebec passed in 2017, but was suspended by a Canadian judge last June and remains in legal limbo.  The CAQ was elected late last year in part on pledges to restrict immigration and impose a secular charter. Quebec Premier Francois Legault told reporters on Thursday the bill "represents our values and it's important".  But condemnation was quick, with Jewish advocacy group B'nai Brith calling the bill "an assault on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Quebecers", while the National Council of Canadian Muslims said it will make Muslims and other minorities "second-class citizens" and overwhelmingly affect Muslim women.  Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante voiced "serious concern about the message that this bill sends to minorities about their fundamental rights".  The important thing, she said, was that the process of making laws was secular, not that people divested themselves of religious attire and symbols.  Teachers unions said they would not enforce the law, while pundits and the government's own lawyers, according to reports, anticipate a court challenge for contravening Canadians' Charter right to personal religious freedom.  This is the fourth attempt by successive Quebec governments to try to get the bill turned into law.  Like France, which passed a ban on veils, crosses and other religious symbols in schools in 2004, Quebec has struggled to reconcile its secular identity with a growing Muslim population, many of them North African emigrants.  Eight other European countries enforce restrictions on religious attire.  While the Quebec legislation does not single out any religion by name, Muslim headgear has long been a source of public debate in Quebec.  Quebec's minister for the status of women drew condemnation from opposition politicians earlier this year after she said the hijab (a headscarf worn by many Muslim women who feel it is part of their religion) is a symbol of female oppression.  And a Montreal-area municipal politician faced backlash this weekend after she wrote a Facebook post expressing her anger over being treated by a doctor wearing a hijab, calling the headscarf a symbol of the "Islamification of our country".  To shield the new legislation from legal challenges, the Quebec government is invoking a rarely used clause that enables it to override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom for up to five years.