On Sunday, May 19 at 7 p.m. ET and PT, “60 Minutes” will have include a segment, “A Face in the Crowd,” on the issue of privacy and facial-recognition technology. Here’s what “60 Minutes” says: The odds are you are not just a face in the crowd any longer. Even if your picture isn’t plastered [...]
Privacy Lives
GLOBAL
Report: World Media Freedom At Low Point
Media freedom throughout the world declined last year to its lowest point in almost a decade, according to a new report from Freedom House, a U.S.-based democracy-monitoring organization. (Radio Free Europe)
CANADA
Harper Government muzzles scientists
The Harper government is facing an investigation by the Federal Information Commissioner’s Office concerning allegations of the censorship of Canadian scientists. (The Canadian)
CUBA
No freedom of speech in Cuba despite easier foreign travel
The Castro government’s easing of foreign travel restrictions on Cubans has not led to greater freedoms on the island, a leading dissident said yesterday. (Free Malaysia Today)
INDIA
No consensus on sex, violence and censorship in Bollywood
Getting directors, producers and activists into a room to figure out Indian cinema’s connection to violence toward women, rape and crudeness in society can be like a family gathering. People shout, get angry and fail to solve fundamental problems because they can’t agree on anything. (Reuters)
LIBYA
Voices in Danger: In Libya, Gaddafi’s media suppression lingers
Though Gaddafi is gone, the tools he used to stop Libyan journalists attacking him are still being used. (The Independent)
The New Libya Is Free, if You Don’t Count the Jailed Journalists
Being a journalist under the autocratic rule of Libyan dictator Moammar Qadhafi was an exercise in choice: between promoting state propaganda and spending time in jail. Now that NATO has toppled the regime, Libya is a little better at letting reporters practice their trade. But the press in Libya is by no means free. (Wired)
SOUTH KOREA
S. Korea ranks higher in terms of press freedom in 2013
How free is the press in South Korea? Well, according to the U.S.-based human rights organization Freedom House’s latest report, Korea’s level of press freedom increased this year ranking sixty-fourth out of 196 countries. (Arirang News)
SRI LANKA
World Press Freedom day, Uthayan and Freedom of Expression in Sri Lanka
This year, World Press Freedom Day focuses on themes that are particularly relevant to Sri Lanka. “Safe to Speak: Securing Freedom of Expression in All Media” and focuses on safety of journalists, combating impunity for crimes against freedom of expression, and securing a free and open Internet as the precondition for online safety. (Ground Views)
TRINIDAD
Libel laws to be amended
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar will today take a note to Cabinet to amend the laws to ensure that no journalist can be jailed under section nine of the Libel and Defamation Act for the malicious publication of any defamatory libel. (Trinidad Express)
UGANDA
We should protect freedom of expression in all media
World Press Freedom Day is celebrated every May 3 to celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom and to honour journalists who have lost their lives in pursuit of their profession. (Daily Monitor
UNITED KINGDOM
Don’t give politicians final say on changes to press regulation system, say public
Most members of the public do not want to see politicians interfering in a new system regulating the press, new research suggests. (The Telegraph)
UNITED STATES
Black pastor uninvited from speaking at college for criticizing Obama
Rev. Kevin Johnson, senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia and alumni of the famed Morehouse College in Atlanta, was scheduled to speak at the school until he criticized Barack Obama in an op-ed at the Philadelphia Tribune. As a result of that op-ed, The Blaze reported Tuesday, Johnson was uninvited by the school. (Examiner.com)
In First Amendment Case Over Afghan War Memoir, Justice Department Asks Judge to End Lawsuit
The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to conclude that a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer “has no First Amendment right to publish the information at issue” in a memoir he penned at on his service in the war in Afghanistan. (The Dissenter)
Texas House OKs measure mitigating defamation lawsuits
The Texas House has passed a bill allowing publishers to mitigate the effects of libel lawsuits if the party affected by a mistake doesn’t request a correction or retraction. (SFGate)
FINALLY, we have the full video of Mark Pearson’s inspiring UNESCO World Press Freedom day lecture available on YouTube.
This was the inaugural such lecture with the theme “Press freedom, social media and the citizen,” delivered by Professor Pearson on May 3 at AUT University’s impressive communications “heart” at the Sir Paul Reeves Building.
In his opening words, he said: “Firstly I wish
Café Pacific – David Robie | Media freedom and transparency
An arm of the US government named 15 nations as the “worst violators of religious freedom”.
The Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent advisory body created by the International Religious Freedom Act to monitor religious freedom abuses internationally, released its 2013 report, which idenitifes “governments that are the most egregious violators.”
The 15 countries are Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam, all of which severely restrict independent religious activity and harass individuals and groups for religious activity or beliefs. These nations are classified as Tier 1 “countries of particular concern” (CPCs) in the report.
Despite its recent opening and political reforms, change in Burma have “yet to significantly improve the situation for freedom of religion and belief.” The report states that most violations occurred against minority Christian and Muslim adherents. China’s government is also cited for its ongoing severe abuses against its citizens’ freedom of thought.
The report said that Egypt’s transitional and elected governments have made progress toward religious freedom, it further highlighted the attacks that Coptic Christians have sustained in the period after the Arab Spring that brought down the Mubarak regime. “In many cases, the government failed or was slow to protect religious minorities from violence.”
The former Soviet states of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were included for pursuing state control over religion, targeting Muslims and minorities alike. Iraq was cited for, among other things, tolerating “violent religiously motivated attacks” and Iran for “prolonged detention, torture, and executions based primarily or entirely on the religion of the accused.”
Saudi Arabia continues to suppress religious practices outside of the officially-sanctioned Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, interferes with the faith of guest workers and prosecutes individuals for “apostasy, blasphemy and sorcery”, according to the report. Pakistan has a strict blasphemy law and failure to prosecute acts of religious violence, the report said.
The situation in Sudan has deteriorated since South Sudan gained its independence. Criminalization of apostasy, the imposition of the government’s strict interpretation of Shari’ah on both Muslims and non-Muslims and attacks against Christians, were cited in the report for the decline.
The report also identified Nigeria for continuing religious violence between Muslims and Christians compounded by the government’s toleration of the sectarian attacks. North Korea’s totalitarian regime was also included for its ongoing harassment and torture of citizens based on religious beliefs.
A second tier includes Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos and Russia, where abuses of religious freedom are tolerated by the government and meet the threshold for CPC designation by the US Department of State, but don’t meet all of the standards for “systemic, ongoing, egregious” measurements.
Other countries regions being monitored included Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Ethiopia, Turkey, Venezuela and Western Europe.
Thanks to the Financial Times for their article on this.
When we hear that a company has been hacked by China what is usually meant is that the company has been hacked from a computer with a Chinese IP address. The immediate implication is that it is Chinese government sponsored.
Of course, there are many ways in which the attacks might not be from anyone in China at all. Using proxies or compromised computers as relays, would allow the attacker to be anywhere in the world while appearing to be in China. The fact that there is so much hype about Chinese government hacking right now, makes China the perfect false flag for any attacker. It sends investigators down the wrong path immediately. However, there is growing evidence that many of the attacks are actually being perpetrated by independent Chinese civilian criminal hackers out to make a buck. They are intent on stealing and selling intellectual property. The huge supply, and under employment, of computer trained people in China may be to blame. They have the skills, the time, and a need for money.
The Chinese government has also been very lax about trying to track down these individuals and generally suppress this kind of activity. The hacking activity is certainly beneficial to the Chinese economy, as the IP is generally stolen from outside China and sold to give advantage to Chinese companies. That gives a kind of covert and subtle support to the hacking activity without any actual material help or direction.
So, it is not quite government sponsored, and it IS actually Chinese. The bottom line is that it is a real problem, and a threat that is actually harder to track down and prevent because it is so amorphous.
Pacific Media Centre’s David Robie … “We need to educate the universities.”
Photo: Jamie Small/Te Waha Nui
INVESTIGATIVE journalists are calling for new models of funding to
fill a gap in the industry where the private sector has failed.
By Jamie Small of Te Waha Nui
Nicky Hager, author of The Hollow Men and Other People’s Wars, says there is not enough support for investigative
Café Pacific – David Robie | Media freedom and transparency
Yesterday Google announced that it was updating its certificates to use 2048 bit public key encryption, replacing the previous 1024 bit RSA keys.
I have always found the short keys used by websites somewhat shocking. I recall back in the early 1990′s discussion about whether 1024 bits was good enough for PGP keys. Personally, I liked to go to 4096 bits although it was not really officially supported.
The fact that, 20 years later, only a fraction of websites have moved up to 2048 bits is incredible to me.
Just as a note, you often see key strengths described in bit length with RSA being 1024 or 2048 bits, and AES being 128 or 256 bits.
This might lead one to assume that RSA is much stronger that AES, but the opposite is true (at these key lengths). The problem is that the two systems are attacked in very different ways. AES is attacked by a brute force search through all possible keys until the right one is found. If the key is 256 bits long, then you need to try, on average, half of the 2^256 keys. That is about 10^77 keys (a whole lot). This attack is basically impossible for any computer that we can imagine being built, in any amount of time relevant to the human species (let alone any individual human).
By comparison, RSA is broken by factoring a 1024 or 2048 bit number in the key into its two prime factors. While very hard, it is not like brute force. It is generally thought that 1024 bit RSA is about as hard to crack as 80 bit symmetric encryption. Not all that hard.
Last Friday it was widely reported that ESPN was looking to work with an un-named wireless carrier to subsidize smartphone users so that they could watch more of its programming without affecting the users’ data cap limits. Groups like Public Knowledge immediately cried foul, calling it a clear Net Neutrality violation.
Let’s get this straight – it is not a Net Neutrality violation.
To be sure, on the wired side of the equation, Net Neutrality regulations are more stringent, potentially banning an ESPN-like arrangement. On the wireless side, however, the rules are more relaxed, allowing (or even encouraging) this type of pro-consumer “discrimination.“ Consequently, if the ESPN deal is real, it simply reflects a practice widely employed in most all other segments of our economy to enhance consumer welfare – one likely envisioned by the Net Neutrality rule itself.
This fact really gets the “consumer interest” groups all in a lather. They wanted rules so confined that the ecosystem (other than edge provider Google) couldn’t swing a cat. The suggestion that network providers should be allowed to operate like any other aspect of the economy – that is, as they see fit, as long as they don’t plainly harm consumers – just flips their lid.
Don’t network providers know their place?
You see, the pro-Net Neutrality groups firmly believe that America’s broadband carriers are not part of the Internet. To them, they are mere conduits, “dumb pipes” or digital sherpas, indentured to the service of the edge, ‘cuz that’s where all the innovation happens. Moreover, the Net Neutrality rules (for wired and wireless providers) mean they may never stray from that role, remaining conduit-only companies…
…Forever.
Anti-free market advocate, Tim Wu, describes this Net Neutrality-imposed cage as some kind of benign bargain, noting:
Think of it this way: net neutrality, which sets all these prices at zero, is effectively a grand truce between the big app firms and the infrastructure providers. It eliminates an unnecessary middleman: consumers deal directly with content vendors and app firms. That’s a much healthier market dynamic than one driven by hidden, passed-on costs…
But what it really does is not so benign. The rules place an outright ban on otherwise legal business models, agreements and partnerships that benefit consumers. It puts such arrangements in a category of contracts that are so “evil” that they must be banned as a matter of public policy to “protect” the public.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
FTC Commissioner, Joshua Wright, seemingly agrees. In his view, there’s simply no evidence in the Internet space that such arrangements harm consumers.
As Wright states:
At its heart, the Net Neutrality Order seeks to prohibit broadband providers from entering into vertical contractual relationships out of fear that they have an incentive to disadvantage rivals and ultimately harm competition…[But the] fundamental failing of the Net Neutrality Order is that it creates a categorical prohibition against vertical contracts without acknowledging the vast economic literature and empirical evidence that support the view that such vertical arrangements are usually precompetitive…[Further,] there is no evidence that sufficiently shows that vertical contracts in broadband markets…are more likely to be anticompetitive than precompetitive…
The freedom to reach ESPN-like deals – or similar “discriminatory” agreements with other content, applications, device and service providers – should be the rule, not the exception. We should want companies with the drive and resources to innovate as far as they can, unfettered by needlessly prophylactic regulations.
Why just today it was reported that ESPN and Twitter are working on an arrangement to bring video sports clips to the 140-character medium. Gosh, wouldn’t it be great to see that in full 1080p (or higher, when that technology arrives) in a manner that both pleases consumers and manages limited bandwidth? Wouldn’t it be cool if YouTube came to us without all the jerking, halting and jitters in 1080p – all the time, without any of those persistent QoS concerns? Wouldn’t it be awesome if…
…You get the point. Wouldn’t it be pretty darn terrific if Internet companies could be treated just like regular companies, allowing them to ”discriminate” or prioritize their services as consumers demand?
Net Neutrality hogties the whole ecosystem – from the network providers on down to the content, app, service and device makers. Man, what a waste of a policy lever based on nothing more than fear. We pay for “discrimination” / priority in every segment of our economy, like the mail, the airlines, shopping clubs, hot lanes, etc. It makes these services better.
The Internet should be so lucky, too.
I’m taking a few months off to concentrate on some personal developments. Until then, please visit the sites in my blogroll to keep up on privacy and civil liberties news.
Privacy Lives
Syria
“Attacks on journalists have threatened the flow of news to the outside world”, says Amnesty International, launching a report on threats to media workers in that country’s civil war. According to AP, killings of journalists in the conflict number “somewhere between 44 and 100, depending on who does the counting”. (AP)
Burma
A Muslim woman, Win Win Sein, has been charged with “religious defamation”, after she accidentally knocked over the alms bowl of a Buddhist monk (AFP)
France
The video for “College Boy” by rock band Indochine has been banned from TV for its portrayal of bullying and the crucifiction and shooting of a schoolboy (Huffington Post France)
(Warning: video is graphic)
Turkmenistan
Government officials searched phones and cameras of spectators at a horse racing event in an attempt to suppress footage of President Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov falling off his horse at the end of a race he “won” (The Times £)