“We are looking for hackers to disable the Tamilnet but could not find anyone yet”

Here’s Keheliya Rambukwella’s response to a question about the blocking of TamilNet reported in BBC Sinhala service.

“When questioned by media, minister Keheliya Rambukwella said that he was not aware of the shut down. “We are looking for hackers to disable the Tamilnet but could not find anyone yet” the minister said.”

ICT4Farce?

Article19 statement on the ban of Tamilnet in Sri Lanka

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release – 20 June 2007

Sri Lanka: News Agency Website Blocked in Attack on Press Freedom
The Sri Lankan government yesterday took the radical move of blocking access from within Sri Lanka to TamilNet, a website hosted in Norway which provides alternative reports on local events. The move marks the employment of a new and more extreme form of censorship than ever before.

“This is a blatant and unjustified attack on freedom of expression” said Dr Agnès Callamard, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19. “Until now, control measures have largely been directed at local media. Applying these measures to the Internet represents a serious escalation which threatens to cut off an important source of independent and alternative news. This not only threatens press freedom but also undermines efforts to address the conflict.”

The site first went offline on Friday, 15 June 2007, but it was only yesterday, 19 June, that local TamilNet readers attempting to access the site realised that it was actually being blocked in accordance with a directive issued by “higher authorities” to local Internet service providers (ISPs).

Although some claim it has an LTTE bias, the online paper has, over its ten-year life span, earned a solid reputation for providing alternative news and opinions with a particular focus on the North and East of the country, operating under the banner of “Reporting to the World on Tamil Affairs”. It is relied upon as a credible news source by journalists, civil society and the diplomatic community both within Sri Lanka and globally. Over the years, the site has endured various threats and attacks, including the gunning down in April 2005 of editor, Sivaram Dharmaratnam.

The site is still available internationally and the Sri Lankan citizen journalist news site, Groundviews, has published instructions on how to access the site via Google. They have also reproduced TamilNet’s latest articles on the Groundviews site. The local blogosphere community has expressed its outrage and condemnation of the blocking. In a possible snub to press freedom groups, the blocking coincided with visits to the country by press freedom groups RSF and CPJ.

ARTICLE 19 views this move as a clear breach of the right to freedom of expression. We are particularly concerned that this may signal a move by the government to add Internet censorship to its already considerable control over the media. We also note that attempting to curtail access to alternative views can only perpetuate the conflict and undermine efforts at conflict resolution. We call for an immediate lifting on the block and urge the government to make a commitment to respect freedom of expression online.

NOTES TO EDITORS
For more information, please contact Catrina Pickering, Programme Officer, catrina@article19.org +44 20 7278 9292

To view Groundview’s details of how to access TamilNet from within Sri Lanka, see: http://www.groundviews.org/2007/06/19/tamilnet-banned-how-to-continue-to-access-the-site-from-sri-lanka/

ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works globally to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech

###

Download the PDF version of this statement from here.

The ban on Tamilnet in Sri Lanka

In January, in a post titled HRW 2007 Report’s essay on Internet & Web Censorship – Lessons for Lanka?, I wrote:

While the Sri Lankan government, for instance, is not (as yet, or to the best of my knowledge) directly censoring content on the web and internet, the blanket anti-terrorism and emergency regulations give them the necessary means through which to curtail online free speech. In other words, in countries like Sri Lanka, while censorship of online content may not be overt, existing legislation and other regulations may in effect have severely detrimental effects on media freedom in general, and its corollary, freedom of expression on the web. Censorship of print and electronic media have, in other words, a direct effect on web and internet free speech – and it is the contest between local censorship and the global diffusion of voices & nodes of dissent that the web & internet offers that will be an increasing battle-ground for free speech advocates and those who are opposed to it.

The Government’s current block on Tamilnet – as illogical, imbecilic and myopic as we have come to expect and identify the actions and policies of this government – is nevertheless a disturbing marker that may well set a trend that restricts the free flow of information on the web & Internet.

A blog post I point to in Policing the Internet avers:

Not to say that terrorism should be tolerated, but is the internet really the source of the problem? Isn’t this merely skirting the issue, and grasping at straws? Even if the Al-Qaida presence is shut down online, will that really end terrorism? At best, it slows them down temporarily. Is that worth the cost? If you start policing the internet for terrorists, why stop there? Why not take down any anti-American website? Why not take down any site that isn’t completely pro-America? Even if you shut down a terrorist site, it’s only a matter of time before it reappears. Perhaps we should be worrying about physical terrorism, instead of online terrorist conversations. If nothing else, these sites give us an insight into what the terrorists are thinking. These sites aren’t doing any harm, it’s the terrorists themselves that are the problem. Leave our blessed internet alone.

The Free Media Movement statement on the Tamilnet ban states:

The FMM stresses that the danger of censoring the web & Internet is that it gives a Government and State agencies with no demonstrable track record of protecting & strengthening human rights and media freedom flimsy grounds to violate privacy, curtail the free flow of information and restrict freedom of expression – thus adding a heavy price in terms of diminished civil liberties to the high toll exacted by terrorism itself.

The action by the Sri Lankan Government also contravenes established best practices in the free flow of information on the Internet and internationally recognised principles of the Freedom of Expression on the web. In particular, the ban goes against the declaration by Reporters Without Borders and the OSCE on Freedom of the Media in 2005 that states, inter alia;

#2. In a democratic and open society it is up to the citizens to decide what they wish to access and view on the Internet. Filtering or rating of online content by governments is unacceptable… Any policy of filtering, be it at a national or local level, conflicts with the principle of free flow of information.

#4. … A decision on whether a website is legal or illegal can only be taken by a judge, not by a service provider. Such proceedings should guarantee transparency, accountability and the right to appeal.

Blocking access to media and restricting information are characteristic of the reprehensible strategies adopted by terrorists. The FMM is gravely concerned that the Sri Lankan government, in adopting the same tactics and strategies, severely undermines media freedom and the freedom of expression and calls upon it and relevant State authorities to immediately rescind the orders to block the access to Tamilnet.

The RSF & OSCE declaration referenced in the FMM statement can be read in full here.

For those in Sri Lanka who don’t know how to or can’t be bothered with setting up / accessing proxy servers, there’s an easy way in which you can continue to access Tamilnet posted on Groundviews.

Read more:
Modern terrorism, technology and fundamental rights
Terrorists also use Google: So what?
Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering

Technorati Tags: Tamilnet, Censorship, Web, Internet blocking, Media Freedom

Modern terrorism, technology and fundamental rights

The use of Google Earth by suspected terrorists resulted in the usual knee jerk reactions by a fearful, anxious America. One of the more thoughtful responses comes from Bruce Schneir in a post on Wired’s blog.

Speaking on recent terrorist threats to the US, Schneir says:

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have all the facts in any of these cases. None of us do. So let’s have some healthy skepticism. Skepticism when we read about these terrorist masterminds who were poised to kill thousands of people and do incalculable damage. Skepticism when we’re told that their arrest proves that we need to give away our own freedoms and liberties. And skepticism that those arrested are even guilty in the first place.

There is a real threat of terrorism. And while I’m all in favor of the terrorists’ continuing incompetence, I know that some will prove more capable. We need real security that doesn’t require us to guess the tactic or the target: intelligence and investigation — the very things that caught all these terrorist wannabes — and emergency response. But the “war on terror” rhetoric is more politics than rationality. We shouldn’t let the politics of fear make us less safe.

That could well apply in Sri Lanka too. Read the article in full here.

Technorati Tags: Terrorism, Technology, Rights

Terrorists also use Google: So what?

The attacks against Estonia by the Russians would have constituted an act of aggression in military terms and even resulted in all out war were it conducted by conventional weapons. Estonia didn’t hear a single bomb. And yet, it suffered the brunt of Russian wrath as system after system, and website after website was downed in massive DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service Attacks) in May this year. And all this, over a statue. As an article in The Economist noted:

The alarm is sounding well beyond Estonia. NATO has been paying special attention. “If a member state’s communications centre is attacked with a missile, you call it an act of war. So what do you call it if the same installation is disabled with a cyber-attack?” asks a senior official in Brussels.

Earlier this month, four men were charged with conspiring to blow up jet fuel supply tanks and pipelines at John F. Kennedy International Airport. What is interesting here is that Abdul Kadir, one of the men accused of plotting to blow up fuel pipelines, fuel tanks, and buildings at John F. Kennedy International Airport, instructed his cohorts to use Google’s online mapping software to obtain more detailed images of the airport, court documents say.

The Sydney Morning Herald, in a blog post titled Terrorists also find Googe useful, stated that:

While I love Google’s mapping tools and would be disappointment if they were taken away, it concerns me that a would-be terrorist can more easily than ever access detailed satellite images of targets – anonymously and for free.

The knee jerk paranoia of the (somewhat obvious) realisation that the interweb can be used for terrorism resulted in posts such as this, which pointed to everything from websites to social networking as potential sites for fomenting terrorism. One of the comments in response to this post was from “Ipanema” who said that “Technology is marching on. It’s advancement, unstoppable. It’s how we use technology that makes it good or bad.”

In an article on this blog I explored whether technology is, or has to be, neutral for us to use it for progressive social transformation. In fact one can argue that the New Terrorism, as its called, can and will use commercially available technology – from airplanes to Google Earth – to plan terrorist attacks. This is a given, and should come as no surprise to those who study the evolution of terrorism and asymmetrical warfare, in which the most developed societies founded upon technology are the most vulnerable to attack. Furthermore, there are those – such as Sen. Liberman recently – who make the case that examples such as the plot to blow up the JFK airport highlights the need for greater policing of the interweb.

In Understanding terrorism better through technology I explore how technology can help us respond to Manichean worldviews and actions by extremists – cognisant that the technologies that help us better understand and respond to terrorism may well be the very same that they use to terrorise us.

The SMH blog post in particular got a number of interesting responses. Anton for example said:

“Can Google maps be used to assist terrorist acts – sure! But terrorists also find paper maps useful, and planes, and automatic weapons, and even certain household chemicals. Strangely enough, no-one seems to be recommending getting rid of those so that the world isn’t so terrorist friendly.

If you think about it, virtually anything could be useful for terrorism.”

The general argument is that just because the terrorist use technology for their own parochial ends, it does not mean that the technology itself should be banned, or restricted to a wider population. We do not ban printing because the terrorists print their propaganda, and in Sri Lanka, we continue to consume State media in spite of the fact that they are obnoxious mouthpieces of any incumbent government (and in many occasions in the past, used to foment, exacerbate and otherwise promote State terrorism). The media, not the medium is the problem and as I’ve stated in the past, the best way to address the appropriation of the interweb by miscreants and terrorists is to use the same technology against them and in defense of the principles of liberty, equality and democracy.

See also:
Writing in pacifism to technology – An impossible vision?

Technorati Tags: Terrorism, New Terrorism, War, Internet, Web, Google Earth, Technology, Google, ICT4Peace

RCTV: Broadcasting on YouTube in defiance of Chavez

After the Venezuelan government closed RCTV last Sunday, the station turned to YouTube to continue broadcasting news. As of this writing, the YouTube page for El Observador (the name of RCTV’s news program) had more than 9,000 subscribers and 333,0000 views — which made it YouTube’s most-subscribed video of the week.

As Putin in Russia, Chavez and even Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime in Sri Lanka demonstrate, censorship of the media is alive and kicking. Also alive is the spirit of democracy and with the increasing access to web based media (through PCs as well as mobiles), it’s becoming almost impossible to censor news and information deemed unpalatable for a few.

Also see:
The limits of online freedom and activism?
Defeating repressive regimes
Draft Paper on Mobile Phones and Activism

Technorati Tags: YouTube, Censorship, Media, Media Freedom, New Media