[Chapter-delegates] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace

Fri May 31 12:15:14 PDT 2013

Jason,

indeed; the SSAC report SAC-056 is particularly meaningful in the analysis of blocking and filtering Internet content through technical measures in the infrastructure.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: Livingood, Jason [Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com]
Enviado el: viernes, 31 de mayo de 2013 12:06
Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Shreedeep Rayamajhi; Winthrop Yu
CC: Chapter Delegates; ISOC-PH Officers; ISOC Chapter Support
Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace

It is also worth reading ICANN SSAC's report, SAC-056. It is available in several languages at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents.

- Jason Livingood

On 5/31/13 10:43 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan at unam.mx<mailto:apisan at unam.mx>> wrote:

Shreedeep, Wyn, Faisal, Imran, all,

you may find some use for the Camden Principles published by an organization called Article 19, which explain and set some clear guidelines on the possible limitations to free speech. They take the discussion we are having here to a fairly reasonable conclusion: limitations on free speech have to be exceptional and legally mandated.

The Camden Principles are in http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/the-camden-principles-on-freedom-of-expression-and-equality.pdf or abbreviated URL http://bit.ly/rotdX7

They have been useful in some debates and campaigns. Some people feel that they should leave more room to restrain hate speech but there you have it, a good basis for discussion.

Article 19 also has a neat game-like tool to help understand these issues of free speech vs. hate speech, in http://hatespeechexplained.org/in-progress.html - hope you like it and find it useful in your communities.

A scholarly angle but simply explained by Zeynep Tufecki (@techsoch), whose work I highly recommend: http://technosociology.org/?p=1135

Another useful basis for discussion is the academic work that shows or discusses the effect of hate speech on free speech, a "chilling effect" of importance. A starting point is the work of Prof. Danielle Citron (close to Jonathan Zittrain and a great scholar) http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2055&context=fac_pubs on "Intermediaries and Free Speech".

You may care to read a less-dense article which our friends in ISOC Kenya may help validate (or the opposite): http://www.eurasiareview.com/28022013-tackling-online-hate-speech-in-kenya/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29

Hope some of this helps while you are in the middle of the heated battles in each of your countries.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org<mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org> [chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org<mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org>] en nombre de Shreedeep Rayamajhi [weaker41 at gmail.com<mailto:weaker41 at gmail.com>]
Enviado el: viernes, 31 de mayo de 2013 00:10
Hasta: Winthrop Yu
CC: Chapter Delegates; ISOC-PH Officers; ISOC Chapter Support
Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace

Sympathize with the situation and act of what has happened, Internet is open to all sort of content which to some extent has its pros and cons. In one hand its openness is its key advantage and on the other at times it can be a threat. I believe censoring or filtering content on regional basis by National authorities certainly can result in  solving the problem instantly but in long run it may result in tragic consequence, so it is not a solution. Regional tolerance in respect to value and social norms needs to be recognized and accepted.

I do understand the importance of censoring the web Dr. Faisal, but once the filtering/censoring  software is enabled it will be a direct approach from the authorities to regulate in the potent scenario of what content is appropriate or not. Regarding the banning,  will that solve the problem, I believe no it can always be overlooked by one or other means. The global community should look into this matter in consideration with the conflict and chaos that has been created with just one video. Moreover, a constructive solution can evolve with a better mechanism to deal with issue of social interest. Its high time we all think about such issues as if 40 people have died in Bangladesh then that kind of act can happen anywhere due to lack of absence of consideration and monitoring.

I think its a more dynamic scenario which can be  contemplated with a broad ideology in safe guarding the social values and norms.

Cheers to Life
Shreedeep Rayamajhi
00977-9841374547(Nepal)
00977-9851049683(Nepal)
00977-9813900099

+1(301)485-9395(US)
[https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/307188_273906535976793_1054301566_n.jpg]<http://www.rayznews.com/>

DISCLAIMER: This message is intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Winthrop Yu <w.yu at gmx.net<mailto:w.yu at gmx.net>> wrote:
  +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>
<mailto: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.