As the old saying goes, “Information is power.” So it is no surprise that the free media is often the first to go when dictatorial regimes – or even ostensibly “democratic” governments – find themselves in power struggles with the people they govern.

Last month, we called on the U.S. and other democratic countries to speak out against Burma’s shutting down of the Internet and other media in an attempt to quell the pro-democracy protests led by the country’s Buddhist monks.

Now this week – in a shocking dictatorial double-play – both Pakistan and Georgia declared emergency rule (effectively, martial law), suspending their constitutions and clamping down on independent media. Pakistan’s President, General Pervez Musharraf, asserted his need to fight terrorists – but it seems clear that he’s made a desperate move to retain power midst increased calls for his ouster, or at least the shedding of his military uniform. In recent months, lawyers have been the heroes of Pakistan, taking the lead in protesting Musharraf’s longtime military rule, and the current state of emergency.

The Washington Post reported that Musharraf “moved quickly to control the media, which he said was partly to blame for the current crisis. Authorities have blacked out TV networks and threatened broadcasters with jail time, but so far have spared the Internet and most newspapers. Most people in Pakistan, where illiteracy is rife, get their news from TV or radio.” Unlike in Burma last month, that the Internet has been spared in Pakistan is, fortunately, enabling at least some people to communicate with each other and get information out about what is happening in their country.

It was also reported that the pro-Western, formerly Soviet country of Georgia shut down private TV stations this week in a claimed attempt to combat Russia’s efforts to undermine the fledging democracy. Even if Georgia’s president is right about Moscow’s intentions, Georgia will never be a “beacon of democracy” (as U.S. President George Bush has said) if it employs Stalinistic tactics to control its people.

A free and independent media is the cornerstone of a free society. To Westerners, this truism is often taken for granted. But savvy rulers are all too conscious of it. It was Joseph Stalin who said, “Ideas are more dangerous than guns.” What better way to control ideas than to control the media? As with Burma, democratic nations around the world must decry, in words and deeds, emergency rule and the suppression of independent media – such actions have no place in a free society.

Earlier today I had the opportunity to participate in the 3rd Joint London Action Plan-Contact Network of Spam Authorities Workshop, which also featured joint sessions with the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group. Every LAP-CNSA conference includes a panel on organizational updates, and I was pleased to provide an update on the activities of the Anti-Spyware Coalition. The ASC has been hard at work this year, finalizing its Best Practices and Conflict Resolution documents and organizing a successful public workshop of its own in June.

Bigger news from the event came yesterday when Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras announced that a district court judge has put a halt to an international spamming operation that deceptively promoted drugs for weight loss and aging reversal. This is the first case in which the FTC has made use of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act, a law passed late last year to make cross-border enforcement easier for the agency. Allowing cooperation with other nations is an absolute necessity in an age where cross-border networks make multi-national scams a routine occurrence.

In testimony before Congress earlier this year, CDT expressed the hope that the FTC would make increasing use of its new SAFE WEB Act powers. Because the Commission is not required to report to Congress about its usage of the new law for three years, monitoring how the Act is affecting cross-border enforcement is difficult unless the FTC volunteers this information. In this case, the Commission chose to do just that, much to CDT’s delight.

We are pleased to see that the FTC is both making use of its new cross-border powers and disclosing the fact that it has done so. We hope this trend will continue.

Last week, several news outlets reported that Google will alter the version of its Street Views product that it plans to launch in Canada. To comply with Canadian privacy law, the images of Canadian cities available through Street Views – photos of public places taken at eye-level to give the perspective of a pedestrian – will have human faces and vehicle license plate numbers blurred. Google decided to take this step after receiving a letter from Canadian privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, who raised concerns about whether the product would respect national privacy laws.

This incident reveals one of many useful functions that a national privacy commissioner performs. By having an independent privacy entity with the appropriate authority and expertise, the privacy of Canadian consumers is proactively protected. In contrast, privacy policy in the U.S. suffers from a crisis-driven approach – with each new privacy-invasive technology or sector-specific issue that arises, reactions and solutions are tailor-made to manage the particular problem at hand. Commissioner Stoddart was able to identify a potential privacy threat ahead of time, and the pressure her authority provides will hopefully result in a privacy-protective outcome for Canadian consumers as Google Street Views is rolled out in Canada. Unfortunately, we are not so lucky in the United States to have a federal official whose job it is to protect our privacy interests.

Going back nearly a decade, CDT has promoted the creation of an independent privacy entity within the federal government empowered with the scope, expertise, and authority to guide our nation’s policies on privacy. This entity would not only monitor commercial and technological developments with respect to privacy, but could also conduct research, recommend new policies, and provide oversight for government agency privacy compliance. Our neighbors to the north seem to have embraced this concept, and perhaps one day soon we will follow their lead.

Last Friday it was reported that the government of Burma government had shut down the Internet and cell-phone service in an attempt to quell the pro-democracy protests led by the country’s Buddhist monks. The sharp drop in reporting on the peaceful demonstrations over the weekend seems to indicate that the government has been successful in shrouding the country in electronic silence. There are no dramatic pictures of monks being beaten by the military. There are no first-hand accounts of protesters being text-messaged around the world.

Burma has withdrawn from the 21st century and, in doing so, deprived its citizens of their human rights, and the world a fair account of events. Has the country’s military dictatorship in fact crushed the protests and restored order? Or are the demonstrations still ongoing? What has happened to the countless of people who have been arrested, including scores of monks? By denying Burma’s citizen journalists and activists the tools necessary to communicate with the world through the Internet, the regime is free to peddle its own, heavily edited version of events with little fear of the truth ever being revealed.

The right to live, of course, is the ultimate human right. President Bush and the State Department joined leaders from around the world in rightly issuing strong statements condemning the military junta’s violent and sometimes deadly response to the protests.

However, it is surprising that the more democratic nations around the world have not specifically condemned the blackout of the Internet by the Burmese government. Freedom of speech, which includes the rights to express oneself, communicate with others, share and receive information, hold and state opinions, and even freely associate, is a fundamental human right, recognized by Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom of speech is essential for government accountability and the achievement of human potential, and the Internet facilitates free expression like never before.

While private actors such as business, academia and Internet users themselves have a role to play, they alone will not be successful in advancing “Internet Human Rights” around the world. An open Internet is a human rights issues, thus the U.S. and other democratic countries must vehemently denounce any attempt by governments to interfere with their citizens’ legitimate and rightful use of this powerful medium. Burma, by silencing its people has violated their human rights and ours.

On Thursday I had the opportunity to join CDT Executive Director Leslie Harris when she spoke on a panel entitled “Freedom of Expression in the Internet Era” at the State Department’s annual Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Officers Conference, “Defending the Defenders.” The panel, which also featured speakers from the Jefferson Institute and the International Research & Exchanges Board, reviewed the state of freedom of speech, especially Internet speech, around the world, focusing on the challenges facing the media in restrictive environments.

Leslie noted that repressive foreign regimes currently take a reactionary approach to Internet freedom of press, by which a journalist might be imprisoned or a blogger silenced, leading to worldwide outcry. Instead of this incident-based strategy, Leslie urged the proactive establishment of sound front-end policy frameworks for the Internet, opening the door for a free press to evolve on top of that policy.

By keeping the barriers to entry low, letting users decide what content they add to and view on the Internet, and not holding operators liable for the content that passes over their networks, Leslie said, policymakers encourage a robust regime unburdened by self-imposed or governmental censorship.

While U.S. Foreign Service workers are trying to urge Internet freedom in developing countries, Leslie pointed out, the United States’ domestic policies can actually undermine its foreign policy efforts in this regard. Our own government’s changing standards for and restrictions on Internet speech as part of the war on terror, along with practices such as demanding that the makers of Internet backbone routers install “backdoors” for law enforcement monitoring into their products, send a “do as we say, not as we do” message to governments already sensitive to U.S. attempts to impose American values on their countries.

(more…)

Its been four months since CDT — in partnership with Business for Social Responsibility — announced the launch of a multi-stakeholder initiative to produce a set of principles to guide the decision-making of high-tech companies when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with the achievement of human rights. The initiative has brought together a number of high tech companies, (including Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!), investors, technology leaders, press organizations and human rights groups into an ambitious year-long dialogue that aims to not only draft principles, but to establish an ongoing governance process to measure progress, ensure accountability and foster ongoing dialogue and collaboration.

I have just returned from a meeting of the group in London and am optimistic with the progress that we are making. The group reviewed and commented on a first draft of principles and proposed operational procedures. That input will inform the second round of the drafting process and an additional subgroup is beginning the difficult task of considering metrics to measure company progress.

Progress is also being made in attracting other companies to the table. TeliaSonera, a major Swedish telecommunications company with operations in Russia and Eastern Europe has joined the group and a number of other Internet and telecommunications companies are closely following the process.

Hard questions remain. What should the real goal of corporate principles be? Should they be viewed as a road map to help companies analyze and minimize risks to human rights, or should they be expected to eliminate that risk altogether? How can companies be held accountable for adherence to the principles? Are there measurable and meaningful metrics to track progress, and, if so, can they be applied to the wide array of business models in the sector?

Still, having participated for more than a year in the informal dialogue that preceded the drafting process, I have no doubt that we have made progress. There is a great deal of trust and good will in the room that simply did not exist a year ago. The shared learning that has taken place has lead to a much more thoughtful and informed dialogue and all participants have made a commitment to put human rights at the center of the discussion. Getting to a consensus on all the elements of the principles and their implementation will not be easy. But it is important to step back and see how far we have come.

As for London, the dollar is so weak that the Americans in the group were counting every pound. But good conversation and a few breakthrough moments were had in the local pub where a pint of stout was still within reach. Team-building at its best.

CDT has previously noted that the effort at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to create new, I.P.-like rights for broadcast and cable companies — a project that raises serious concerns — has received little attention to date from U.S. lawmakers. In a very welcome development, Senators Leahy and Specter, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Thursday added their voices to the debate in a letter to the Copyright Office and Patent and Trademark Office.

The letter hits the nail on the head. It notes that the draft treaty goes beyond the narrow purpose of protecting against signal theft and instead creates copyright-like rights that “could limit legitimate, fair use of the content and add an unnecessary layer of uncertainty in consumer use” and that “appear to be inconsistent with United States law.” It is great to see that the two leaders of the relevant Senate committee are on top of this issue and are weighing in with a united bipartisan voice.

Earlier today we announced our participation in a joint effort intended to address the challenging civil liberties issues that arise when technology companies expand internationally. The joint process actually ties together several independent efforts begun by major high companies, academics and public interest advocates, including a series of consultations that CDT coordinated last year.

From our perspective, there are few technology policy issues in the International arena of greater concern, and we deeply commend all of the technology companies, academic leaders, human rights advocates, investors and others who have agreed to participate in the process. Particular commendation is due the high-tech companies that have been at the vanguard of this effort. Their commitment to getting out ahead of a difficult issue like this sets a very good example.

As I said in our press release: “Technology companies have played a vital role building the economy and providing tools important for democratic reform in developing countries. But some governments have found ways to turn technology against their citizens — monitoring legitimate online activities and censoring democratic material It is vital that we identify solutions that preserve the enormous democratic value provided by technological development, while at the same time protecting the human rights and civil liberties of those who stand to benefit from that expansion.”

This is an issue that will require a nuanced approach. People in developing nations stand to benefit enormously from technological expansion, and its a trend we should be encouraging, but it is incumbent that the broad technology community also identify solutions to ensure that such development strengthens, rather than weakens free expression and liberty in those countries.

Today’s announcement is an early step, but a very important one. CDT is committed to doing everything it can to make the joint process a success.

[Editors Note: CDT Policy Director Jim Dempsey is in Athens this week, participating in the first global Internet Governance Forum (IGF). He'll be blogging about the experience throughout his stay. Check back regularly for updates.]

The Internet Governance Forum opened today in the rainy seaside Athenian suburb of Vouliagmeni. “Internet governance” has always been a subjective term, and it’s pretty clear from the opening remarks that much of the discussion here will be driven by how various stakeholders define it. There have been enough divergent comments thus far (often coming from the same speaker) to both appease and rile advocates on all sides of the debate.

So far, there has been broad agreement that the Internet is essentially a good thing, or has had essentially good effects, but comments about applying technology cautiously and adopting the “correct” legal and policy framework are subject to multiple interpretations.

Key themes so far include dialogue, multi-stakeholder, the Internet as a global resource, diversity, the needs of users, security, stability, protecting children, multilingualism, free flow of information, diversity, and development.

Vint Cerf, Internet pioneer and chairman of the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) had a thoughtful comment today in response to calls for more global Internet governance. As he explained, there is already a lot of governance in the system, and, suggested that we should ask which parties need to be governed and for what purpose. To this, I would add, since governance need not always mean governments, what is the best kind of institution for implementing that governance? For service providers, the question may be is there enough competition. If not, we may want to regulate it. Higher up, there are different players, different interests, and different institutions may be appropriate.

There seems to be an assumption that the IGF is here to stay as an institution. The sites of the next three events have already been selected:

Brazil 2007
India 2008
Egypt 2009

The transcript of the morning is now available. Vint Cerf’s morning remarks (second to last) are worth reading in their entirety.

More to come…

Good news out of Geneva earlier this week: instead of rushing forward with a Diplomatic Conference to finalize the controversial proposed broadcast treaty, as recommended by the chairman of the relevant WIPO committee, WIPO’s General Assembly opted to hit the brakes. WIPO certainly didn’t bring the process to a full stop. But it slowed things down in a way that could permit a much-needed change of direction.

Yes, WIPO still approved the convening of a Diplomatic Conference near the end of 2007. But first, there will be two meetings aimed at achieving consensus on the treaty’s approach and scope. WIPO’s decision indicates that if no consensus is reached, the Diplomatic Conference may not happen.

Moreover, the decision calls for discussions to focus on a “signal-based approach.” CDT and a variety of industry and public interest groups have argued that a treaty narrowly focused on protecting against signal theft could be unobjectionable. But the current draft takes an entirely different approach, creating a complex set of new intellectual-property-like rights for broadcasters and cablecasters. For a discussion of the problems raised by such a rights-based approach, see our policy post. Any move to a signal-theft approach would be a very welcome development.

Thus, a lot will depend on the WIPO committee meetings now slated for January and June 2007. It remains to be seen what kind of revised treaty proposal, if any, will emerge. But for the moment, it appears that the critics of current draft treaty have considerable momentum.