Given the vituperative pushback of the BBS online against those who participated in the vigil in Colombo a few weeks ago, immediate measures to secure content posted on to web based social media platforms are essential to protect one’s own privacy, and those of family, friends and colleagues. 

Engaging in liking content on Facebook, featuring articles on it, uploading photos and video, linking other social media accounts to it (like Instagram and Twitter) and commenting on others posts all expose personal information, as well as one’s network of friends and their personal information and content.

If you aren’t careful about the protection of your own information on online social media fora, the personal information of your network of ‘friends’ can be compromised. This information can be subsequently digitally manipulated in any number of ways which can put you and them in very serious trouble with the law enforcement agencies both domestically and internationally.

Given the increasing sophistication of the BBS and its ilk to produce and promote web based hate speech campaigns especially across growing numbers of Facebook groups, expect attempts to hack into, disrupt, deface and surveil emails and social media accounts of those leading and participating in pro-democracy activism and advocacy to increase.

Information below was written post-haste to help protect those attending a large rally in against hate in Colombo in late April 2013. It is the nature of online social media platforms in general and Facebook in particular to change their Terms of Service and privacy controls regularly. The predominant bias of all social media sites is to share everything openly and publicly. Privacy is not the default setting. Privacy is hard to configure, not easily attained and never guaranteed in any online social media platform – especially Facebook.

Though content on Facebook and other links are accurate at the time of writing, readers are encouraged to get in touch with the author for specific concerns over online security.

Tamil translation of this guide here. Sinhala translation can be read here.

The document can also be read on Scribd in,

• English
• Sinhala
• Tamil

Download PDFs in,

• English
• Sinhala
• Tamil

Original document on Google Docs.

###

Editor of Groundviews, Sanjana Haththotuwa (sic) commented on the issue, bringing into focus the shortcomings of online privacy. “You can at best get Facebook to shut the page down, but in seconds, another can take its place. And if Facebook then bans the user account that created the pages, another can be created. Using the new account, another new page can be created. If Facebook shuts down all such pages on Facebook itself, a group similar to it can be created, in seconds, on another social media platform. The real problem here is the lack of awareness about privacy online, and in online social media forums in particular.”

“Instances such as these are very much a part of what is known as internet violence against women,” Head of Women and Media Collective, Sepali Kottegoda said. “The focus on school children in Sri Lanka is extremely worrying. We have to look into the aspects of internet security and if the country decides to ban such sites, we need to have a set of clear guidelines that can be used in the human rights framework for women. These incidents go beyond presentation and unauthorized use of content. It is a serious violation against women and girls, and it can be considered a form of sexual abuse if intended in such a way. The lack of knowledge on online privacy needs to be addressed. It’s the kind of technical training both kids and adults need.”

Reblogged from appvocacy:

###

It is evident therefore that the President’s new media presence isn’t seen as a vehicle of engagement with society and polity, but rather, an extension of his government’s policy to pass off propaganda and partisan perspectives as news and official updates.

Complete archive
Because of what’s stated as well as the damning silences and evasion, Groundviews felt it imperative to record for posterity all the tweets published by @PresRajapaksa as well as all interactions referencing this official account, starting from Day One.

Groundviews is pleased to present a novel and easy to use front end to a comprehensive archive, constantly updated, of the President’s interactions and content generation on Twitter.

To see all the tweets (updated daily) access the full spreadsheet here.

There is also a data visualisation giving top-level information about @PresRajapaksa accessible here. Though the screenshot of the dashboard below is accurate at the time of publication, the link will always open a page with updated statistics.

###

Aiding the regime’s increasingly competency and strategic use of new media is (domestic) civil society’s ignorance of its potential and reach. New media knowledge is poor, at best, especially at senior management levels in almost every single NGO working on human rights and media freedom issues. Many senior activists – those at the forefront of street demonstrations – remain new media illiterate. Many NGOs are seriously behind government in leveraging new media for advocacy and activism. At best, web platforms are merely used to promote and feature the tired real world activism amongst and by the usual suspects, which really is to miss the point about the reach, virality, creativity and potential of web based media and campaigns.

Though there is no way whatsoever of accurately foretelling how and to what ends the government will leverage its increasingly sophisticated use of new media, several obvious challenge arise as a consequence for dissent groups and individuals, including independent web based media and journalists.

Pro-Govt content creation: Silencing through volume
A group of say around 15 distinct voices (on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, Flickr, YouTube) can, for example, effectively and efficiently subsume vital updates from civil society (e.g. from @vikalpasl, @groundviews on Twitter) by just putting up content with greater frequency. All web based social media is irascibly ephemeral – relentlessly bombard each platform with sophisticated, believable propaganda and the real stories are lost in the melee. The government has plausible deniability, and the chilling effect of being perennially subject to vicious attacks by anonymous as well as openly pro-regime identities online can serve as significant barriers to civil society collaboration and output.

Shaming, and the threat of shaming
Coupled with hacking, detailed below, personal, institutional and family secrets can be used to blackmail prominent voices to retract earlier stories or cower into silence. The culture of over-sharing online – including location data, travel, meeting and other personal updates – lends itself to authoritarian regimes which can take advantage of civil society’s poor understanding of privacy and security settings to listen in, monitor, build up personality, financial, activist, meeting and movement profiles.

Another new threat vector is to infiltrate personal (web based) social networks through the less protected accounts of friends and children. An example could be a politically apathetic yet good friend of a civil society activist or a teenage family member, who is relatively careless about good Internet and web security. It is fairly easy to hack into this person’s account, which then provides easy backdoor access to most activities and updates of the intended target even if they are accounts closed to the larger public. The primary objective here is to listen in rather than to disrupt. Again, information gathered can be used in any number of ways – from identity theft to the threat of hate, hurt or harm to close members of family with a view to silencing dissent.

Hacking and Denial of Service attacks
The websites of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (serving as the institutional anchor of Groundviews), Groundviews itself and Vikalpa (our sister site) have since December 2012 faced unprecedented levels of hacking attempts, numbering in the dozens each day, from technically savvy individuals or groups, whose geographic point of origin cannot be easily traced. While it is emphatically not the case that, at least to date, Anuradha Herath or the President’s office of Sri Lanka are assembling group of hackers against local and international dissident groups, it would be logical to invest in such capacities – following the likes of the former Tunisian and Egyptian regimes, and the current Syrian regime – if the government wanted to thwart growing civil society output online. It may also be the case that whatever group that is assembled under the blessings of Temple Trees, out of greater patriotism or ambition (or just too much arrack on any given evening), takes it upon themselves – without any directive from a higher authority – to engage in hacking attempts on sites they see fit to silence, deface or delete.

Existing surveillance architectures covering voice and data across multiple channels and platforms can also be leveraged to silence dissent, an easy enough task with State and private telcos unwilling and unable to stand up robustly for the privacy of customers in the face of extra-legal governmental edicts and Ministry of Defence demands.

Coupled with outright blocks of websites and physical threats to content creators / journalists / civil society activists and the hate speech they already endure through more traditional media channels, the landscape for online output of critical dissent is going to get more challenging than it has ever been in Sri Lanka.

Meeting this challenge is not impossible, but will require every single individual and institution working on Sri Lanka’s democracy, governance, rights and accountability frameworks (in the country and outside) to emphasise – more than ever before – new media safety, security and innovative content generation strategies for online fora.

“The demographics on (sic) these hate groups on social media are very young, which is alarming,” says Sanjana Hattotuwa, editor of Groundviews. “A thrust of hate speech today takes place more on social media than on mainstream media, and it is going viral. These ‘pages’ also carry a lot of photographic and illustrative content that is edited to look frightening and incredibly offensive. My fear is that, should another ethnic conflict arise, the target this time will be human, not simply property.”

Journalist and friend Anukshi Jayasinha has a good piece in Ceylon Today (When words do more than hurt) on the spread and promotion of hate, hurt and harm on online fora in Sri Lanka, especially regarding a growing wave of Islamophobia in the country, championed by groups like the Bodu Bala Sena.

Rather than blocking, banning and censoring (which against hate speech is about as effective as attempts to block, ban and censor dissident voices online) I proposed that there should be more discussion and debate about the venomous content promoted through online fora, requiring parents, schools and even the office environment (often used to produce and access this content) to be more aware of the detrimental effects of such content going mainstream, and influencing the minds of, inter alia, school going children (who are part of these groups).

“Space on the Internet is unlimited. Blocking or banning hate groups on social media is not feasible,” adds Hattotuwa. “Young children must have guidance from parents, schools and the media in understanding what hate speech is. I am not in favour of banning, because freedom of expression requires putting up content that we might not necessarily agree on.” Hattotuwa also adds that the best counter to hate speech, both in mainstream and social media, is to put out alternative viewpoints through various initiatives at all levels; civil society, religious and inter-religious groups and the government. “You cannot erase fringe lunatics, but you can ensure more moderate, inclusive, respectful content and discussions. Give more space for various moderate voices. There is a lot the government can also do through new media.” Hisham also believes that while freedom of expression is important, condoning hate speech will only lead to hate-mongers taking the law unto themselves. “It is important for people to hear what they have to say, but when their communication becomes offensive in an obvious way, it becomes worrying.” Says Deepan: “I believe everyone should be given a platform to express, but it has to be done with moderation, caution and sensitivity to ethics. When the government ignores them, it only feeds their ideologies, and minorities feel vulnerable.”

Especially in light of the Media Ministry’s upcoming media code of ethics, I told Anukshi that instead of more oversight and imposition of possibly self-serving regulations by (any) government, more useful would be to impose some of the existing guidelines and self-regulatory practices at play in print and broadcast media to online spaces.

Groundviews, according to Hattotuwa, has its own site guidelines, which does not allow for posts or comments that are deeply offensive. “We embrace disagreement and difference, but we also believe in respectful communications.” Sadly, many news websites, both state and private, have poor moderation of comments by readers that are hateful, racist and even foul in nature. “Most news organizations follow the Code of Ethics issues by the Sri Lanka Press Insitute (SLPI) and their own ethics. It is just a matter of someone taking the decision to apply these same ethics in their online platforms as well,” says Hattotuwa.

1. Anti-Muslim/Anti-Buddhist sentiments are being spread around effectively by social media, how do you analyse this?
2. How can social media be used to stop such conflicts between communities?

I responded in some detail. Since the article in question was never published, I published my email here.

The Sri Lankan chapter of South Asian Women in Media Network (SAWM Sri Lanka) organised a panel discussion on women’s engagement with new media, which I was invited to moderate. In addition to Sachini Perera from Women and Media Collective speaking about women’s participation in new media in general, four distinguished women delivered presentations of around 15 minutes each,

1. DushiYanthini Kanagasabapathipillai (Journalist, Photographer) http://passionparade.blogspot.com/
2. Tehani Ariyaratna (CEPA, Blogger) http://www.cepa.lk/
3. Rushda Mohinudeen (Reach Out) http://reachoutlk.wordpress.com/ 
4. Sanjeewika Manohari (Boondi, Blogger) http://www.boondi.lk, http://lihinisara.blogspot.com/

The presentations were uniformly excellent, and I understand will be published online anon by WMC and/or SAWM. I requested the panellists to consider the following points when preparing their submissions,

Some notes I took down as moderator, to stimulate discussion and also responding to the presentations by the panellists, follow.

###

The lectures were delivered in Sinhala, and I believe there are Sinhala translations of some of these presentations, which I can try to get and forward on request. Though the presentations were made with a Sri Lankan audience and context in mind, the examples and platforms flagged can be more broadly used and applied. A few slides may not make sense because they are actually still images from embedded video, since the presentations were made for the purpose of interactive classroom lectures. Nevertheless, most of the content will easily resonate with a wide audience.

All the presentations can be downloaded as high quality, print ready PDFs. Please share, adapt and use as you see fit.

Introduction to blogs and blogging

Primer: New and Social Media

Social media for advocacy and audience engagement

Bearing witness through civic media

Primer: Digital Security for Sri Lankan Activists