Bolivian President Plans To Sue The US For Diverting Presidential Planes

from the this-could-get-interesting dept

You may recall the craziness from back in July when frantic US officials had an airplane carrying the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, diverted from its planned path and forced to land, because of rumors that Ed Snowden might be hidden away on board. That turned out to be totally false, but the ensuing outrage about US government bullying, and forcing a Presidential plane to land has been growing. Now, Morales has announced that he's planning to sue the US government for "crimes against humanity" over a similar, but slightly different incident: the supposed diversion of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's plane on his flight to China. While the US has now granted clearance, originally Venezuela claimed otherwise, and Morales is fearful of a pattern:

"The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights," stressed Morales.

Of course, the US can (and probably will) continue to do that sort of thing, because that's what the US does, but acting like a big bully just for the hell of it really doesn't seem to make much diplomatic sense these days.

Filed Under: airspace, bolivia, evo morales, human rights, lawsuits, nicolas maduro, venezuela

Human Rights Lawyer Explains Why He's Working For Kim Dotcom: Exposing American Corruption

from the corruption-laundering dept

We recently wrote about how Kim Dotcom has retained famed human rights lawyer Robert Amsterdam to explore whether or not there's a human rights angle to his case, specifically alleging "contract prosecution" by the entertainment industry. I'm still somewhat skeptical that such an argument could go anywhere, but Amsterdam himself has put up a rather detailed blog post, explaining why he's taking the case, which may seem quite different than his usual fare: taking on corruption and human rights violations in far flung parts of the world, including Africa and Latin America. After highlighting the many problems with the case (and the continued failures in court to date), as well as the close ties prosecutor Neil MacBride has with big copyright holders, he points out that he sees some serious similarities to what's happening here with the kind of corruption he's witnessed in third world nations.

This case highlights not only the issue of “state capture” by the Hollywood lobby, but at the same time should lead to a thoughtful discussion on how we define corruption. No one would venture to allege that there is any form of cash payment taking place when official bodies appear to act at the behest of special interests motives. Because that’s not how these groups work.

It is a demonstration of the growing ambiguity of the lines between regulators and the regulated, and the proper role of intellectual property in the digital age. As we’ve seen in the sad and tragic case of Aaron Swartz, for whom Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz was seeking 13 criminal charges and more than 50 years in jail, the American justice system is increasingly flawed by this prosecutorial exuberance aimed at future political reward.

It is one thing when the victims of these abuses are American citizens, who live at the whim of an unaccountable prosecutorial machine driven by personal political ambitions and an appetite for headlines. It is something else entirely when these prosecutors visit their ambitions upon foreign citizens, charging them with heinous crimes with no basis under law, even if that person has never once set foot inside the United States (like Kim Dotcom).

That is, he appears to be aware of the nature of corruption laundering that's going on -- using the close connection between big businesses and governments to create laws where people can make the case that cracking down on some behavior is necessary to stop crime, but where the details show it's really about cracking down on competition and innovation.

And, he notes, this sort of activity is a huge stain on the US and the federal government:

With this attempt to “colonize” the global internet under U.S. laws, Washington is quickly making a bad name for itself, and putting its considerable influence on the wrong side of digital rights, free markets, and competitive innovation. They do this in the name of protecting a broken business model, subsidizing monopolies, and seeking to destroy crucial online functions instead of adapting to the incredible opportunity afforded to them through mass connectivity. We deserve better, we can do better, and everyone can benefit from a more reasonable approach focused on the best interests of the public, not the best interests of lobbyists and the politicians in their pockets.

We see this as a grand ideological debate with far-reaching implications, and sadly, my lengthy experience in countries where special interests control the levers of power may have some utility here.

Even if there isn't a legal human rights angle, it should be interesting to see what Amsterdam turns up. This growing recognition of how laws are created to benefit legacy players, and then used against innovators, is a real problem. Shining more light on that would be tremendously helpful in actually promoting important innovations.

Filed Under: corruption, human rights, kim dotcom, robert amsterdam
Companies: megaupload

Kim Dotcom Hires Human Rights Lawyer To Claim MPAA's Chris Dodd Targeted Him In 'Contract Prosecution'

from the seems-like-a-longshot dept

Lost in all of the hype about the launch of Kim Dotcom's new Mega service was the fact that he's hired a new high profile lawyer, with a different focus. Some of the details were buried in Ars Technica's coverage of the Mega launch party, in which they mention the adding of Robert Amsterdam to the legal team:

Also circling is the latest addition to Dotcom’s ever-expanding legal team: Robert Amsterdam of Washington, DC and London-based Amsterdam & Partners. The human rights lawyer says his key work has been in Venezuela, Russia, and Nigeria. Now he's contracted by Kim Dotcom to investigate a possible human rights angle on the Megaupload case—in particular whether one human, former Senator and current MPAA head Christopher Dodd, breached Dotcom’s rights by going out of his way to engineer what Amsterdam said could be seen as a “contract prosecution.”

Amsterdam agrees his work could help Dotcom seek redress from the US government down the track. But his immediate aim is to publicize Dodd’s role. “This prosecution should not be afforded the presumption of regularity," he says. "The way this was done—the helicopters; the rappelling down the buildings [of Dotcom mansion]; the over-reaction—all of these are signs of a classic political prosecution.”

Amsterdam will spend the next two days interviewing the Megaupload team as part of his preparations for a “white paper” he will publish in around two months’ time.

This strikes me as a huge longshot for a variety of reasons, but it certainly makes for an interesting storyline to follow. If such an investigation actually does get somewhere, there could actually be blowback for those who led the charge against Dotcom. As it stood, it seemed unlikely that, even if the case fell apart, there would be any ramifications for those who championed the cause in the first place. Again, I find it highly unlikely that this exploration will lead anywhere, but Dotcom's legal team has done amazingly well on a variety of fronts to date, so perhaps they know more than has been made public already about all of this.

Filed Under: chris dodd, contract prosecution, human rights, kim dotcom, robert amsterdam
Companies: megaupload, mpaa

European Union's Data Retention Law Could Breach Citizens' Fundamental Rights

from the that's-awkward dept

Back in April 2011, we wrote about the Czech Constitutional Court ruling that the country's data retention plans were illegal. As we noted then, many other EU countries had also run into similar problems trying to implement the European Data Retention Directive. In one of them, Austria, the issue was referred to the country's Constitutional Court, which has now commented on the case, as this story in PC Advisor explains:

"We doubt that the E.U. Data Retention Directive is really compatible with the rights that are guaranteed by the E.U. Charter of Fundamental Rights," Gerhart Holzinger, president of the Constitutional Court of Austria said in a statement.

In view of this doubt and its potential implications, the Austrian judges have referred the matter to Europe's highest court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), to determine the directive's validity. And they aren't the only ones:

the Irish High Court has also asked the ECJ to rule on whether the Data Retention Directive respects the rights of the user. That request stems from a case brought by Digital Rights Ireland against the Minister for Communications in which the group argued that forcing telecoms companies to retain information about how customers use their services breaches individual rights to privacy.

These referrals are important, because a decision from the ECJ that the EU's data retention approach breaches citizens' rights would affect all countries in the EU -- including those that have already implemented the Directive. Moreover, it would presumably have a big impact on even more intrusive plans to store user data, such as the UK's Snooper's Charter.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: data retention, eu, human rights, privacy

European Court Of Human Rights Reinforces Right To Access Online Content

from the blanket-bans-are-out dept

Back in 2010, Techdirt reported on Turkey's habit of blocking Google over certain holdings on its various sites. Mostly these were YouTube videos it took exception to, but other services were banned too. An earlier case, from 2009, received less attention at the time, but has now led to a precedent-setting ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that could have a big impact on future cases in Europe, and maybe even beyond.

The case was brought by a Turkish PhD student named Ahmet Yildirim, who complained that he had faced "collateral censorship" when his Web pages hosted on Google Site were shut down by the authorities in 2009 as a result of a court action aimed at another set of pages held there. Open Society Foundations, which had filed a brief with the European Court of Human Rights in support of the applicant's claim, explains the background:

Yildirim's academically-focused site was blocked by the Turkish regulator, TiM, as a result of a court injunction that ordered it to close down local access to the entire Google Sites domain. The move was supposedly aimed at a single website hosted by Google which included content deemed offensive to the memory of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, in breach of Turkish law.

Yildirim's appeals against the injunction were turned down by the Turkish courts, which argued that the blanket ban was reasonable because it was not possible for the authorities to block a single Google-hosted site.

In its judgment, the ECHR noted that the regulator had not attempted to contact Google to seek the closure of the offending site, and that the 2007 law that allowed the regulator to close down foreign-hosted sites did not permit blocking an entire domain such as Google Sites.

As this makes clear, the problem was the over-blocking that resulted in all Google Sites being taken down, even though only one of them was accused of insulting modern Turkey's founder. The court's judgment (pdf) explains that such blocks are only compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights if they fulfil various strict conditions:

The Court reiterated that a restriction on access to a source of information was only compatible with the Convention if a strict legal framework was in place regulating the scope of a ban and affording the guarantee of judicial review to prevent possible abuses. However, when the Denizli Criminal Court had decided to block all access to Google Sites, it had simply referred to an opinion from the TiB without ascertaining whether a less far-reaching measure could have been taken to block access specifically to the site in question. The Court further observed that there was no indication that the Criminal Court had made any attempt to weigh up the various interests at stake, in particular by assessing whether it had been necessary to block all access to Google Sites. In the Court's view, this shortcoming was a consequence of the domestic law, which did not lay down any obligation for the courts to examine whether the wholesale blocking of Google Sites was justified. The courts should have had regard to the fact that such a measure would render large amounts of information inaccessible, thus directly affecting the rights of Internet users and having a significant collateral effect.

The broader importance of this decision is explained in a comment quoted by the Open Society Foundations press release:

Darian Pavli, a lawyer at the Justice Initiative who worked on the submission, said: "This is the first ruling by an international tribunal on wholesale blocking of internet content, and a very significant precedent. The court made clear that access to online content is a fundamental right, and that it can only be restricted in exceptional cases, subject to full judicial review."

Although there is a three-month period in which the ruling can be appealed, the fact that the court's verdict was unanimous among the seven judges, one of whom is from Turkey, suggests that any such appeal is unlikely to stand much chance of overturning this important decision.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: blocks, censorship, court of human rights, echr, europe, human rights, internet access, turkey

No, Copyright Is Not A Human Right

from the dig-a-little-deeper dept

We recently discussed the common fallacy that "copyright is in the Constitution", but that's only one example of copyright defenders misrepresenting a document to support their cause. Another favorite, often invoked by folks like Rob Levine and David Lowery, is the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a relatively toothless document in the US (compared to the Constitution) but one that feels good to have on your side.

But here's the thing: it doesn't say what copyright supporters think it does. Not even close. Not only are they focusing on only one half of the declaration's relevant article, and ignoring additional detail from another UN declaration that is meant to go hand-in-hand with the first... even the tiny part they focus doesn't match their position. Let's take a look.

The line in the declaration that establishes a right to some sort of intellectual property is Article 27, Section 2:

Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Right off the bat, we see a problem: moral and material rights. The US, explicitly and intentionally (with some very minor exceptions) does not protect the moral rights of creators—the copyright system is based almost exclusively around economic rights. So when copyright supporters in America cite the Declaration of Human Rights, they are in fact pointing to a clause that the US directly violates.

Now, maybe that doesn't sound like much—after all, at least US copyright is in line with the "material rights" part. But is it? That's where we need to look at the bigger picture of international rights. That's something that copyright supporters never seem to do, and it's pretty obvious why. As mentioned, the line they cite is the second section of the relevant article—now lets have a look at Section 1:

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Now it's starting to look like the Human Rights Commission intended for there to be a little bit more balance in Article 27—and that they had their priorities straight. Sections 1 and 2, taken together, would seem to suggest (at the very least) that copyright should be focused primarily on commercial endeavours (and that patents are a pretty questionable concept all around).

Is that a subjective interpretation? By itself, yes—but don't take my word for it. See, there's something else that copyright supporters are leaving out of the picture: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just one of three documents that, together, form the International Bill of Human Rights (nobody ever accused the UN of efficiency). Another, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, provides considerable additional detail on the question of creators' rights. Let's take a look at Article 15 of that document:

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:

(a) To take part in cultural life;
(b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications;
(c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for the conservation, the development and the diffusion of science and culture.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and development of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields.

That's an awful lot of caveats and addenda, all focused on ensuring that the copyright reins aren't too tight. In fact it seems like the text is specifically trying to distance itself from traditional intellectual property regimes. This time, you definitely don't have to take my word for it, because here's where we get to the really damning evidence: the general comment (pdf) on the document from the Economic and Social Council, which attempts to further explain the intention of all the rights. Here are some choice quotes:

Whereas the human right to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from one’s scientific, literary and artistic productions safeguards the personal link between authors and their creations and between peoples, communities, or other groups and their collective cultural heritage, as well as their basic material interests which are necessary to enable authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living, intellectual property regimes primarily protect business and corporate interests and investments. Moreover, the scope of protection of the moral and material interests of the author provided for by article 15, paragraph 1 (c), does not necessarily coincide with what is referred to as intellectual property rights under national legislation or international agreements.

It is therefore important not to equate intellectual property rights with the human right recognized in article 15, paragraph 1 (c).

...

The right to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from one’s scientific, literary and artistic productions seeks to encourage the active contribution of creators to the arts and sciences and to the progress of society as a whole. As such, it is intrinsically linked to the other rights recognized in article 15 of the Covenant, i.e. the right to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1 (a)), the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (art. 15, para. 1 (b)), and the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity (art. 15, para. 3).

...

Moreover, the realization of article 15, paragraph 1 (c), is dependent on the enjoyment of other human rights guaranteed in the International Bill of Human Rights and other international and regional instruments, such as the right to own property alone as well as in association with others, the freedom of expression including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, the right to the full development of the human personality, and rights of cultural participation, including cultural rights of specific groups.

Starting to paint a different picture, no? The comment goes on to offer some specifics, underlining how thoroughly different this human right is from intellectual property rights. For one thing, it's not transferable:

The Committee considers that only the “author”, namely the creator, whether man or woman, individual or group of individuals, of scientific, literary or artistic productions, such as, inter alia, writers and artists, can be the beneficiary of the protection of article 15, paragraph 1 (c). This follows from the words “everyone”, “he” and “author”, which indicate that the drafters of that article seemed to have believed authors of scientific, literary or artistic productions to be natural persons, without at that time realizing that they could also be groups of individuals. Under the existing international treaty protection regimes, legal entities are included among the holders of intellectual property rights. However, as noted above, their entitlements, because of their different nature, are not protected at the level of human rights.

For another, it calls for a bunch of specific moral rights that do not and have never existed in the US:

In line with the drafting history of article 27, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 15, paragraph 1 (c), of the Covenant, the Committee considers that “moral interests” in article 15, paragraph 1 (c), include the right of authors to be recognized as the creators of their scientific, literary and artistic productions and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, such productions, which would be prejudicial to their honour and reputation

And even when it comes to material rights, special mention is given to the fact that this doesn't have to resemble traditional copyright, although it can:

The term of protection of material interests under article 15, paragraph 1 (c), need not extend over the entire lifespan of an author. Rather, the purpose of enabling authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living can also be achieved through one-time payments or by vesting an author, for a limited period of time, with the exclusive right to exploit his scientific, literary or artistic production

Now, in addition to all this, the general comment does include plenty of lines that make room for traditional intellectual property laws—it's not as though the whole thing reads as a total condemnation of copyright. However, this closer look at the contours of international human rights makes it abundantly clear that it was not intended as an endorsement of copyright either. Every time something that sounds like US copyright is mentioned, it's because it's being permitted but not required—and often written in such a way as to suggest that it's not recommended either. Moreover, it's impossible to avoid the fact that the US does not recognize the moral rights called for in the declaration—which I actually think is probably a good thing, but can't just be ignored by those who want to use the declaration as ammo for defending copyright.

I think the question of whether or not there is an innate human right to control one's creative output, in either the moral or material sense or both, is a fascinating and important topic with lots of room for debate. But that has very little to do with the current economic regime of copyright—least of all in the US, since many other countries do wrap moral rights into copyright law. Apologies to the IP crowd, but neither the Founding Fathers nor the United Nations support you the way you think they do—so you're going to have to stop falsely appealing to their authority and come up with some new arguments.

Filed Under: copyright, human rights

Tim Berners-Lee Says UK's Net Spying Plans Would Be 'Destruction Of Human Rights'

from the and-he-should-know dept

Not content with inventing the Web and then giving it away, Tim Berners-Lee remains highly active in warning about the threats the Internet and its users face. Most recently he has taken on the British government's disproportionate plans to store information about every email sent and Web page visited in the UK:

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who serves as an adviser to the government on how to make public data more accessible, says the extension of the state's surveillance powers would be a "destruction of human rights" and would make a huge amount of highly intimate information vulnerable to theft or release by corrupt officials. In an interview with the Guardian, Berners-Lee said: "The amount of control you have over somebody if you can monitor internet activity is amazing."

What's particularly useful about his latest intervention is not just the authority with which he speaks on this subject, but the specificity of his warning:

"The idea that we should routinely record information about people is obviously very dangerous. It means that there will be information around which could be stolen, which can be acquired through corrupt officials or corrupt operators, and [could be] used, for example, to blackmail people in the government or people in the military. We open ourselves out, if we store this information, to it being abused."

That is, even leaving aside concerns about crucially important issues such as privacy and total surveillance, the UK plans are an awful idea from a purely practical viewpoint: they will actually make the UK less safe for all the reasons that Berners-Lee lists. Because of this fundamental flaw, he emphasizes:

"the most important thing to do is to stop the bill as it is at the moment"

Let's hope the UK government listens to its own adviser, at least.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: human rights, internet freedom, spying, tim berners-lee, uk

Chinese Internet Users Relish Irony Of SOPA's Great Firewall Of America

from the shoe-on-the-other-foot dept

After being on the receiving end of the West's pointed comments about the Great Firewall of China and the online censorship it helps to enforce, Chinese Internet users are enjoying the deep irony that SOPA will effectively copy China's approach by creating a Great Firewall of America. As one wrote:

It looks like that we can finally export our technology and value to the Americans. We’re strong, advanced, and absolutely right!

The same post on Global Voices Online reports that others are taking things more seriously, and worry about the knock-on effects SOPA will have on Net freedom around the world:

Most Chinese-language blogs and microblog messages emphasize the disastrous outcomes that the bill could bring. What people worry about most are bill's endorsement of surveillance by web services and Internet companies to prevent “infringing” content, and the implications for individual privacy.

None of this will come as any surprise to Techdirt readers. But it's extraordinary that the politicians supporting SOPA can't see – or don't care about – the huge damage it will do to the international reputation of the US, and the harm it will cause human rights around the globe.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: china, human rights, protect ip, sopa

More Collateral Damage From SOPA: People With Print Disabilities And Human Rights Groups

from the add-them-to-the-list dept

As people wake up to the full horror of what SOPA would do to the Internet and its users, an increasing number of organizations with very different backgrounds are coming out against it. Here's one more to add to that list, from the world of non-profit humanitarian groups.

As Jim Fruchterman, president of the Silicon Valley-based Benetech, explains in his post "Why I am Scared of the SOPA bill":

We write software for people with disabilities as well as human rights and environmental groups. We’re against piracy, and have made commitments to authors and publishers to encourage compliance with copyright law.

So, we shouldn’t have anything to fear from a bill entitled “Stop Online Piracy Act,” right? Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

We’re getting very worried that our organization and the people we serve: people with print disabilities (i.e., people who are blind or severely dyslexic), and human rights groups will be collateral damage in Hollywood’s attempt to break the Internet in their latest effort to squash “piracy.” And, if we’re worried, a lot of other good organizations should start getting worried!

Fruchterman goes on to explore two major areas of concern. The first is that Bookshare, an online library for people who can’t read standard print books, might lose the ability to raise funds or take subscriptions.

As he points out, Bookshare is legal in the US, but that doesn't stop authors, agents or publishers who don’t know much about people with disabilities or copyright law sending cease and desist letters. At present, Benetech has time to talk people through the law before anything drastic happens. Here's how SOPA would change all that:

SOPA apparently has shoot first, ask questions later provisions. If any single publisher or author of any one of the more than 130,000 accessible books in our library gets antsy, they can send a notice to VISA and MasterCard and say, stop money from going to Benetech and Bookshare. No more donations to our charity. No more subscriptions from individual adults with disabilities.

No need to send us a letter. Or file a DMCA notice. Or do any real research. Just send out a bunch of notices and get all those pirates! Except, we’re not pirates. But, now the burden of proof has shifted to us: we’re presumed guilty, and we have to spent time and money defending ourselves.

There are two major problems here. First, the money gets cuts off immediately, jeopardizing the entire Bookshare project. Secondly, Benetech has to spend its limited funds paying lawyers to get the financial blocks removed. That will not only take time, it will hamper other worthwhile projects that Benetech could have been working on instead of fighting to get its revenue sources turned back on again.

It's those other projects that Fruchterman worries about in his second concern. Benetech develops free software to help human rights activists around the world safely record stories of human rights abuse. As Fruchterman points out, if SOPA becomes law, his organization will find itself in an impossible position:

The problem is that we provide technology that allows for security, privacy and circumvention. We do it for human rights groups. But, when asked if we know whether or not there are “pirated” copyrighted materials, we can’t say. Because, if we make software that promises to keep your life or death sensitive information secret to the best of our abilities, we won’t build a back door in for Syria, or China, or the U.S. government or even (heavens!) Hollywood.

But SOPA will give the US Attorney General the power to shut down sites that can be used for evading controls on piracy, and Benetech's software could certainly be employed in just that way (even if that is not its purpose). To avoid that, Benetech would presumably have to stop writing and distributing its code - which would place human rights organizations and activists at risk.

What makes this situation particularly ridiculous is that the US government is itself encouraging the spread of just this kind of software, even going so far as to invest in companies producing it. Does that mean the US government will be giving out money to write such software, and then using SOPA to shut it down?

Fruchterman's comments are particularly valuable since they come from an organization that has a proven record of encouraging compliance with copyright law. This is no evil "friend of piracy", as opponents of SOPA are so often branded: this is just some people deeply concerned that two vulnerable groups – those with print disabilities and human rights activists – will be collateral damage if this ill thought-out bill is enacted.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: disabilities, human rights, pipa, protect ip, sopa