If you support free speech and restoring privacy and civil liberties, please upgrade to become a supporter here. |  | It's a scene fit for a cyber-thriller: a global giant of technology compelled by the most powerful nation's intelligence agency to control narratives. Yet, this isn't a scene from a science fiction novel but an unfolding reality. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been pressuring Facebook to clamp down on alleged Russian "disinformation," based on recommendations from Ukrainian intelligence. Intriguingly, the term "disinformation" is broadly construed by Ukrainian authorities, potentially encompassing views that simply oppose the Ukrainian government's perspective. But interestingly, it's sometimes the opposite.
A deeply troubling chain of events has been revealed to have taken place between American and Ukrainian intelligence services, social media platforms, and free speech rights, echoing the impact on the fraught geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe and the influence of Russian forces on the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU).
In the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the SBU, a body which later proved compromised by Russian double agents, enlisted the support of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Their shared mission, aimed at stifling the spread of what they labeled as "Russian disinformation" on social media platforms, soon turned into a conduit for political censorship...
Become a supporter to keep reading (or listen to) this feature, get exclusive access to the full post archives, and support the mission.
| Watch the video on YT here.
Watch the video on Rumble here.
|  | In response to the recent legislation by the Australian federal government aimed at curbing online "disinformation," Meta, the parent organization of Facebook and Instagram, has voiced apprehension. It alleges that these rules could inadvertently allow the government to stifle speech. (That's Facebook's job of course.)
The legislation, announced a month ago, is poised to equip the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with substantial regulatory powers. This includes the possible implementation of a state-supervised universal standard to combat disinformation and misinformation. Critics, however, liken it to an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth," as it grants ACMA the authority to mandate the removal of certain content or posts from social media platforms.
In a Senate hearing on foreign interference through social media, Josh Machin, Meta's head of public policy in Australia, proposed that while the company is amenable to partaking in a voluntary industry code, it harbors apprehensions about a compulsory state-led program. Meta executives foresee the potential for misuse of such powers, or a chilling effect on valid political speech online.
Machin said that the law, "empowers the ACMA to, for example, develop binding standards around misinformation and disinformation with some very substantial civil penalties and also criminal penalties for individuals who are involved....We can see some potential for that power to be abused, or for it to be used in a way that inadvertently chills free and legitimate political expression online. We're thinking through some constructive suggestions."
Notably, social media corporations risk hefty fines - $2.75 million or 2% of global turnover, whichever is larger - if they fail repeatedly to eliminate disinformation and misinformation. The proposed legislation, which is currently open for public comments, also contemplates significant civil penalties and criminal sanctions for individuals engaged in disseminating disinformation.
The draft legislation outlines misinformation as unintentionally "false, misleading or deceptive" content that could potentially cause serious harm, while disinformation is described as intentionally false material.
Traditional media outlets, however, would be exempt from these regulations.
Such legislation could have constrained Australians from discussing contentious theories, such as the origin of the coronavirus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as per committee chair Paterson, who expressed his concerns during the hearings.
When launching the new rules, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said that they sought to "strike the right balance between protection from harmful mis- and disinformation online and freedom of speech." Rowland added that such disinformation stirs division, erodes trust, and potentially endangers public health and safety. | If this stuff is important to you, please help out by becoming a supporter here. |  | The UK's bold attack on free speech, named the Online Safety Bill and ratified by a majority of 72 in the House of Lords, isn't getting any weaker. In fact, there are proposals to make it even worse.
The proposed changes demand accountability from tech companies for their use of algorithms that direct users towards certain content, not just for the content itself.
The most striking example cited in the debate was that of Andrew Tate, an influencer facing legal charges but also being the target of censorship across various social media platforms.
The bill is in the late stages of enactment and aims to regulate user-to-user service providers such as social media and search engines to protect users from "harmful" speech.
The proposed changes would make it illegal to "deliberately push 13-year-old boys towards Andrew Tate - not for any content reason, but simply on the basis that 13-year-old boys are like each other and one of them has already been on that site."
Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer and the architect of these changes, insisted on scrutinizing the ways companies design their services, often to push users towards specific types of content.
However, while aiming to protect young users from potential harm, this shift in focus will also stifle freedom of expression.
The amendments drew support from a number of political figures such as Baroness Harding, a conservative peer and former chief executive of TalkTalk, and Lib Dem peer Baroness Benjamin.
Nonetheless, some critics argue that the wide-ranging support may overlook the potential threat to the principle of free speech.
Culture Minister Lord Parkinson underlined the government's view that the bill already acknowledges the role of functions, features, and design in the risk of harm. He voiced concern that the amendments may dilute the bill or invite exploitation of legal uncertainties, potentially affecting the free flow of information and user experience on these platforms. |  | In what appears to be an escalating incursion into a user's digital privacy, a collective of film companies continue to implore the court to compel Reddit to surrender its users' personal details. This move is part of an ongoing piracy liability case against Internet Service Providers. Reddit, however, steadfastly resists, staunchly defending its users' rights to anonymous speech.
While governments and law enforcement agencies have increasingly sought user details from Reddit — with over 1,000 requests, 277 search warrants, and 582 subpoenas last year, Torrent Freak reported — Reddit has staunchly resisted, drawing a firm line in the sand to protect its users' privacy.
The battle over privacy rights came to a head earlier this year when film companies, involved in litigation against ISP RCN, attempted to extract personal details of Reddit users via a DMCA subpoena. Reddit objected, criticizing the subpoena as a sweeping and excessive invasion of user privacy, rather than a reasonable search for evidence. Reddit made a stand, yielding the details of only one user and rejecting the rest, underscoring its commitment to the right to anonymous speech.
The court sided with Reddit, ruling that the right to anonymity outweighed the copyright holders' interests. US District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler further reinforced this stance, suggesting the film companies could obtain necessary information through alternative channels, such as directly from the ISP in question.
Undeterred by the earlier legal setback, the film companies are now making a similar push against ISP Grande, targeting a fresh group of Reddit users. Reddit, maintaining its position as a defender of user privacy, declined to release the requested information, triggering another motion to compel in court.
The film companies assert that they have exhausted all other options for evidence and insist on the need to reveal Reddit users' identities. However, their earlier attempt to contact Grande's repeatedly pirating subscribers failed to yield useful results, forcing them to resort to targeting Reddit users once again.
In response to this potential breach of privacy, Reddit has reiterated its commitment to preserving its users' rights to anonymous speech. Reddit contends that the film companies have not presented a convincing case to justify the infringement of privacy, arguing that its users are not an "irreplaceable source" of evidence.
Reddit has further pointed out that the film companies already procured the identifying details of 118 of Grande's most frequent pirating IP addresses. This action, according to Reddit, debunks the claim that violating user privacy is the only path to necessary evidence.
Reddit also questioned the film companies' approach, noting they have yet to subpoena the Grande subscribers they contacted, an alternative step that could have been taken before pursuing Reddit users.
The film companies have singled out a Reddit user, "xBROKEx," citing a 12-year-old comment admitting to pirating the movie The Expendables.
Reddit counters that this attempted breach of privacy is unwarranted, given that the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is just three years.
Ultimately, Reddit implores Judge Beeler to maintain the protection of user privacy, stressing that the film companies' current case is even less compelling than before. The ongoing saga underscores Reddit's unwavering commitment to defending the privacy rights of its users against invasive legal attempts.
Reddit's motion to oppose the unmasking of the user can be found here. | PARTNERING ON CHECKPOINT SOCIETY |  | | In a landmark initiative aimed at securing and streamlining the digital realm for citizens across the European Union, three of the continent's major mobile operators - O2 Telefónica, Deutsche Telekom, and Vodafone - are partnering with the EU to conduct an extensive field trial of digital identities.
This initiative is a part of the EU's broader effort to promote digitization and deeper integration across its member states and outlines the furthering of a checkpoint society.
A digital identity is an online persona that can be authenticated in a digital world. The field trial will focus on standardizing these identities across the EU and could involve making them interoperable.
Existing online services, spanning online shopping to healthcare, and civic services offer convenience but have been subject to criticism due to insecure or expensive identity verification methods. The EU's new regulations aim to rectify these issues. However, a salient concern is that the concentration of sensitive information in digital identities may pose significant privacy risks, given that a breach could expose a broad range of personal data.
Leaders from the partnering mobile operators expressed support and enthusiasm for the project. Valentina Daiber, a Board Member and Chief Officer Legal & Corporate Affairs at o2 Telefónica, pointed out that digital identities will enhance the utility of smartphones, facilitating smoother interactions between public authorities and citizens.
Furthermore, the accessibility of data consolidated in digital identities may present opportunities for misuse. Governments and corporations could exploit this information for surveillance or discriminatory practices. This concern amplifies the importance of implementing stringent privacy laws and ethical data use guidelines.
Vodafone Germany's Michael Jungwirth, Director of Public Policy & External Affairs and Executive Board Member, emphasized that digitization must be simple, secure, and borderless. He suggested that a digital identity could only add value when individuals trust and easily utilize the application, a goal his organization aims to promote through participation in the EU project "POTENTIAL."
The "POTENTIAL" consortium, the largest among the four consortia spearheading the EU field trials, will test digital identity wallets in 19 countries. The tests involve using digital identities for tasks such as opening bank accounts, acquiring digital driver's licenses, and renting cars. Trials for online citizen services and electronic signatures are also underway.
| Reclaim The Net exists because of paid readers. If you can, please help out and become a supporter. Thank you.
| | Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net
| | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment