[Chapter-delegates] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace

[Winthrop Yu]

   +1 Imran.

   I sympathize with the problems that Dr. Faisal and many others around the 
world face.  One thing is clear, telling governments that -- "no, you cannot 
control" is not very productive.  Instead there has to be a way to work around 
this and appeal to national and development interests.

   As an example, in mid-September last year, our President signed an 
Anti-Cybercrime bill into law.  Earlier, ISOC-PH had written to our Lower House, 
after our Senate had passed their version of the bill.  (Ref. 
https://www.facebook.com/notes/internet-society-philippines-chapter-isocph/isoc-ph-position-paper-on-anti-cybercrime-final-a4/297700783631704 
)

   We were the only org (ICT, CS or otherwise) to attempt any intervention prior 
to enactment.  Happily, the Lower House did listen and their version did not 
contain the contentious blocking or take-down provision.  Unfortunately, this 
provision along with many others were inserted at the last minute during the 
BiCameral conference.  As a result there was signficant push-back (including 
street action) from a wide spectrum of Philippine netizens.  That last is an 
important point.

   Formal petitions were then filed with our Supreme Court to have the law 
and/or several of its specific provisions struck down.  The SC issued a 
restraining order (TRO) which has suspended implementation of the law until 
today.  During pleadings, the government's Solicitor General himself delcined to 
argue in defense of the blocking/take-down provision stating that his office 
found it possibly unconstitutional.  That was a major victory, and that 
provision will almost certainly be struck-down by the Supreme Court.

   While the Supreme Court has not yet isssued any rulings on what we now call 
Anti-CybCrime v1, ISOC-PH is engaging with government (law enforcement agencies, 
Justice Dept.,etc.) and other orgs (IT Association of the Philippines, PH-CERT, 
etc.) to craft a v2 version of Anti-CybCrime which focuses exclusively on 
CyberCrime issues and excludes contentious content-related provisions, such as 
libel, cybersex, and perhaps even spam.

   At the same time, ISOC-PH also has to work closely and coordinate with other 
stakeholders who would prefer that there be no Anti-CybCrime law.  I personally 
find this goal impracticable and would prefer to have an Anti-CybCrime law, 
*provided that*, its scope is carefully delimited and sufficient rights 
protections are in place.  Else, there is the risk that other laws (perhaps not 
directly related to CyberCrime) will be passed without the needed civil 
liberties and rights protections.

Hope this helps,

WYn



On 5/31/2013 4:56 AM, Imran Anwar wrote:
> Being a Pakistani born American, and having pioneered Internet services and
> co-founded .PK ccTLD for Pakistan, I can understand, appreciate and relate to
> Faisal's concerns about offensive content on the Internet.
>
> That being said, I am both confused, and concerned, about his blanket statement
> "filtering is not a solution, instead efforts must be taken to remove content
> from the source." That to me is quite opposite to the whole idea of a free and
> open platform like the Internet.
>
> Granted some things, like child pornography, can be targeted for "remove content
> from the source" type efforts, but almost anything else on the Internet is
> something that someone, somewhere, sometime or another, can find "objectionable"
> and come up with "valid" sounding excuses demanding it be taken off.
>
> So, much that I do not like the idea of governments, especially in developing
> nations, spending millions on trying to play the role of censor, or content
> monitor, trying to filter what may be unsuitable for them, it is, at least in my
> humble opinion, slightly more palatable than the idea of insisting that any and
> all content anyone finds objectionable be removed from all sources.
>
> To me it sounds like developing nations with highly illiterate populations (and
> even the now political correctness fever ridden modern societies) need to learn
> to ignore things rather than trying to control or erase what they find
> objectionable. Quite frankly, and sadly, I find it laughable how our fellow
> Muslims will use objectionable content (say a video or cartoon) to do things far
> more objectionable to God, and to Prophet Muhammad, like killing innocent people
> in "protests". Even the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did not punish those who
> directly insulted him or even physically dumped things on him (some on a regular
> basis when he used to say his prayers). It seems like current Muslims like to
> think they are representing Islam and the Prophet's way of life by doing the
> exact opposite of what he did or would like to see.
>
> The answer to hate, or abuse, is not to go killing the messenger or destroying
> the medium, it is to engage the abuser magnanimously, or, at worse, ignoring them.
>
> And an essential ingredient to going down that path is to promote education...
>
> As I often say in my speeches to different audiences on similar topics, the
> first word of Wahi that God sent Prophet Muhammad was not "Jihad" or "Kill X, Y,
> Z" or "Block YouTube"...
>
> The word was... "Iqra".... READ....
>
> How ironic that it is the same Muslim countries populations that sadly have the
> highest percentages of illiteracy, from Afghanistan to Pakistan, from Bangla
> Desh to places in Africa.
>
> Let's teach people everywhere to engage, not offend, and to ignore if offended,
> than to go try to kill people or a platform.
>
> These are my personal opinions, not representing any organization, government,
> business, or other individuals.
>
>
> Imran Anwar
> http://imran.com
> http://facebook.com/IMRAN.TV
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Faisal Hasan <hasansf at gmail.com
> <mailto:hasansf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> Bangladesh Govt. plans to filter internet contents. We know that this option
>> of filtering is not a solution, instead efforts must be taken to remove
>> content from the source. The move actually stemmed from Google’s refusal to
>> take down the trailer of a religiously sensitive film from its website
>> Youtube.com <http://Youtube.com>. Bangladesh even asked Google to install a
>> mirror server for Bangladesh nine months ago so that such videos could be
>> filtered out. Youtube is still blocked in Bangladesh since last September.
>> Recently, in Bangladesh the Internet has become a double edged sword which is
>> used not only by activists to raise voice for legitimate reasons but also by
>> some bad politicians to provoke innocent people to create deadly violence. We
>> have already have had 'our spring' last February. Clearly, the government is
>> in a dire situation.
>>
>> From our chapter we are initiating a dialogue with the government in two weeks
>> time. We would like to get your inputs about this issue. I know many govts
>> have implemented filtering like this and all most all the report I have seen
>> suggest that this does more harm than good for the people. The situation in a
>> country like Bangladesh deserves special care as there are millions of people
>> here who donot have basic education and are easily agitated by
>> inappropriate/fake content. To give you an idea about the seriousness of the
>> issue, I would say that in a single day in February 40 people were dead!
>>
>> Please let us know what you think can be done? What is the alternative? Does
>> global companies have more responsibility in making their policies such that
>> it takes care about issues in developing countries?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Faisal Hasan, PhD
>> Internet Society Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter
>> _______________________________________________