Facebook Whistleblower Testifies Before 'Grand Committee On Disinformation'; Which Includes Countries That Lock People Up For Criticizing The Gov't

from the sure-that's-wise? dept

It didn't get as much press as some of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's other high profile talks to government inquisitors, but last week, Haugen testified before the rather Orwellian International Grand Committee on Disinformation. This is a bizarre "committee" set up by regulators around the world, but its focus -- and its members -- are kind of notable. Considering that tons of evidence shows that cable news is a much larger vector of disinformation flows to the general public, it seems notable that the "International Grand Committee on Disinformation" seems to only want to pay attention to online disinformation. I mean, it's right in the group's mission:

The rapid, unregulated expansion of social media is causing lasting harm to the world’s societies and democracies. So long as the technology giants who own these platforms are permitted to put profits ahead of people, malevolent actors will continue to be able to use social media to spread disinformation, spew hate, and disrupt elections.

Hmm. Only online? Only social media? No traditional media? No cable news? How... interesting.

Ah, but it gets even more interesting. Because the International Grand Committee on Disinformation this time included Singapore Parliamentarians who were very excited to show how bad social media is.

Amidst growing international convergence on the need to regulate the internet to protect vulnerable communities from online harms, two Singapore Members of Parliament participated in the fifth meeting of the International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGC5) in Brussels, Belgium on 9 November 2021. They were Ms Sim Ann, Member of Parliament for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, and Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Development; and Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Member of Parliament for Jurong GRC, and Parliamentary Secretary for Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of Health. Ms Sim and Ms Rahayu are also the co-leads of Singapore’s Sunlight Alliance for Action

Great. Great. The readout from these Singaporean Parliamentarians made it clear that they are very, very concerned:

The key themes of this year’s IGC meeting were (i) COVID-19 misinformation and (ii) online hate directed towards historically marginalised groups.

They also note that it's clear that Facebook must be regulated:

There was a clear consensus among the participants that self-regulation by social media companies has not been effective, and regulation is necessary. There was also general endorsement of Singapore’s position that beyond regulation, multi-pronged, multi-stakeholder approaches such as the Sunlight Alliance for Action were necessary to combat online harms effectively.

Oh, great. So, let's see, how is Singapore fighting disinformation again? Oh, right, by jailing anyone who criticizes the Singaporean government.

In 2019, Singapore "regulated disinformation" online with its Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). And how exactly has that worked there? According to Human Rights Watch, it's been a total disaster for free speech and has been used against opposition politicians and critics of the government:

Ministers issued several correction notices to opposition politicians or political parties during the nine-day election campaign in July.

Singapore authorities also use existing laws to penalize peaceful expression and protest, with activists, lawyers, and online media facing prosecution, civil defamation suits, and threats of contempt of court charges. In March, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of activist Jolovan Wham for contempt of court for stating on Facebook that “Malaysia’s judges are more independent than Singapore’s for cases with political implications.”

On July 28, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s nephew, Li Shengwu, was found guilty of contempt and fined S$15,000 (US$11,000) for a 2017 private Facebook post in which he said the Singapore government is “very litigious and has a pliant court system.”

Ah. Notably, while opposition party members kept getting notices about how they violated the law, the ruling party politicians were somehow free of such notices. How odd.

This same "regulation" against "disinformation" was used to block access to a website criticizing the Singaporean government's response to COVID.

So, yeah, sure, we can highlight the problems of misinformation online, but it's difficult to take the "International Grand Committee on Disinformation" particularly seriously when its members include nations that are using "disinformation" regulations as an excuse to suppress opposition political parties and those who criticize the government. It kind of undermines any credibility such a group might have.

Filed Under: disinformation, fake news, frances haugen, international grand committee on disinformation, singapore
Companies: facebook

Singapore Government Tests Out Its Fake News Law Against An Opposition Party Leader

from the who-didn't-see-this-coming dept

Singapore's new "fake news" law has been deployed for the first time. The law the government is using to expand domestic surveillance and minimize dissent is definitely doing the latter. Bhavan Jaipragas reports the initial recipient of a "fake news" citation is none other than opposition leader Brad Bowyer.

The supposedly "fake" news Bowyer posted to Facebook has been subjected to government scrutiny. The government's official rebuttal website -- unbelievably named "Factually" -- performs a point-by-point debunking of Bowyer's claims using its own set of facts. This should have been enough. The Singaporean government wields a great deal of power. This site proves the government doesn't need a fake news law, and yet it has one anyway, presumably because it provides so many side benefits.

Bowyer alleged the Singapore government controls or directs investment companies Temasek and GIC's investment decisions. While it's impossible to say for sure, there certainly is room for conjecture without sliding into "fake news." Both are owned entirely by the Singapore government. Temasek officials have stated publicly the government is not consulted on "day-to-day business" but other companies have complained the government engages in opaque bidding processes that favor government-owned corporations and has displayed other forms of favoritism.

So, Bowyer's implication could have been greeted by this response from the government and pointers to company statements to the contrary. Instead, it chose to invoke the law and issue a rebuttal -- one aimed at political opposition that has not held any significant amount of power in more than 50 years.

Other things Bowyer implied were similarly uncontroversial. He suggested some bad investments had been made by the government. This seems like a normal thing for opposition government officials to do. But the Singapore government isn't willing to be criticized without putting the force of law behind its response.

Fortunately, all the government ordered Bowyer to do is post a correction note on top of his original post with a link to the government's site. It's still government interference in political speech, but he wasn't fined, forced to issue a retraction, or otherwise told to stop talking about government-linked corporations.

But that doesn't make the law innocuous. The government has its own mouthpiece -- the "Factually" section of the government's website -- to issue rebuttals and corrections. This makes the law extraneous. But the government likes the law because it allows the party in power -- the one in power for decades -- to more easily control the narrative. And it allows the government to control what's seen online by turning service providers into extensions of its domestic surveillance programs.

This initial salvo may have been delivered with a light touch, but when things heat up around elections and the discussion of controversial legislation, expect the government's blows to land with a little more force.

Filed Under: brad bowyer, chilling effects, fake news, free speech, intimidation, politics, singapore

Singapore's Fake News Law Is Also An Internet Surveillance Law

from the hidden-bonus-track dept

It appears the fake news law passed in Singapore isn't just a critic-targeting, speech-chilling piece of legislation passed under the cover of providing citizens with a more trustworthy social media experience. It's also a handy vehicle for increased domestic surveillance, as Jennifer Daskal reports for the New York Times.

The law could be used to require any company that operates as an “internet intermediary” — including search engines, social media companies, and messaging services — to keep records of what users view. But it doesn’t stop there. While it’s unclear how the new law will be enforced, it even appears to leave room for the government to require encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp or iMessage to identify who said what to whom.

What this has to do with policing "fake news" is anyone's guess. But "fake news" laws are never really about tracking down and removing fake news. They're about controlling what people see online and providing a handy kill switch for anything governments don't want to see passed around the internet.

The law allows the government to demand removal of content that undermines the government's official narratives. This isn't a loophole or an unexpected side effect. It's the point of the law. Any minister can issue a content removal demand if they see something they feel "undermines democratic processes or society."

Removal demands are supposed to be the last resort. The first response to alleged fake news is the issuance of a correction notice -- again, as demanded by the Singaporean government. This is far less draconian than demanding removal of content, but this response method has its own set of problems. The law requires more than the appending of a correction to alleged fake news. It also requires tech companies to ensure everyone who viewed the alleged fake news is informed of the correction. This will result in the creation and maintenance of web tracking infrastructure solely for the benefit of the government.

Correction notices effectively require websites to track those who post, look at and might be influenced by or attracted to a “false” statement. They can be ordered to identify all those who looked at the infringing material even before it was labeled troubling. They must then send out correction notices to these prior viewers, or risk hefty fines and even jail time.

Once companies are retaining records on all Singaporean users to comply with the fake news law, they won't be able to credibly claim they don't have these records if the government starts demanding them for other reasons. It will sweep in more than just new sources and social media sites. It will also cover anywhere else "fake news" might be posted, which includes comment threads and review sites.

Intentionally or not, the Singapore government has used fake news to create an internet surveillance program. The best part is it won't cost the government a cent to run it. It will be performed free-of-charge by tech companies who will still be on the hook for fines if the government decides they're not fighting fake news well enough.

Filed Under: fake news, internet, privacy, singapore, surveillance

Proposed Update To Singapore's Copyright Laws Surprisingly Sensible

from the EU-should-look-and-learn dept

Techdirt writes plenty about copyright in the US and EU, and any changes to the respective legislative landscapes. But it's important to remember that many other countries around the world are also trying to deal with the tension between copyright's basic aim to prevent copying, and the Internet's underlying technology that facilitates it. Recently, we covered the copyright reform process in South Africa, where some surprisingly good things have been happening. Now it seems that Singapore may bring in a number of positive changes to its copyright legislation. One of the reasons for that is the very thorough consultative process that was undertaken, explained here by Singapore's Ministry of Law:

The proposed changes are made, following an extensive three-year review and two rounds of public consultations conducted from August to November 2016 and May to June 2017 respectively. Three public Town Halls and ten engagement sessions with various stakeholder groups, including consumer, industry and trade associations, businesses, intellectual property practitioners and academics were held. Close to 100 formal submissions and more than 280 online feedback forms were received.

The full 70-page report (pdf) spells out the questions asked during that review, the answers received, and the government's proposals. The Ministry of Law's press release lists some of the main changes it wants to make. One of the most welcome is a new exception for text and data mining (TDM) for the purpose of analysis:

Today, people who use automated techniques to analyse text, data and other content to generate insights risk infringing copyright as they typically require large scale copying of works without permission. It is proposed that a new exception be established to allow copying of copyrighted materials for the purpose of data analysis, where the user has lawful access to the materials that are copied. This will promote applications of data analytics and big data across a gamut of industries, unlocking new business opportunities, speeding up processes, and reducing costs for all.

Importantly, Singapore's proposed new TDM exception applies to everyone -- including big businesses. That's unlike the corresponding Article 3 in the EU's awful Copyright Directive, currently working its way through the legislative process, which imposes an unnecessary restriction that more or less guarantees the European Union will be a backwater in this fast-growing area. An obvious but wise move by Singapore is the proposal for an enhanced copyright exception for educational purposes:

Non-profit schools and their students will be able to use online resources that are accessible without payment, for instruction purposes. This will be in addition to their existing exceptions which generally cover only copying of a portion of a work. The enhancement will facilitate instruction and make it easier for teachers and students to use online materials in classes. For example, teachers and students will be able to use various audio-visual materials (e.g. videos, pictures) found online for their classroom lessons and project presentations. They will also be able to share those materials, or lessons and project presentations which have included those materials, on student learning portals for other schools to view. Online resources that require payment will not be covered by this exception.

Another suggested exception is for non-profit galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) to make copies for exhibition purposes. Also useful for GLAMs is a new limit on the protection given to unpublished works. This will stand at life plus 70 years for literary and artistic works, just as for published versions. GLAMs will be protected from contract override, as is the text and data mining exception. That's important, because it means that copyright owners cannot nullify the new exceptions by insisting organizations sign contracts that waive them. Individual creators receive new rights too:

the report proposes that creators be given a new right to be attributed as the creator of their work, regardless of whether they still own or have sold the copyright. For example, anyone using a work publicly, such as posting it on the internet, will have to acknowledge the creator of the work. This will accord creators due recognition and allow them to build their reputation over time. Currently, they do not need to be attributed as the creator of their work when others use it.

This is essentially a moral right alongside the usual economic ones. As the Wikipedia page on the subject explains, the degree to which moral rights exist for creators of copyright works varies enormously around the world. In France, for example, moral rights are perpetual and inalienable, whereas in the US they are less to the fore. Singapore's Ministry of Law also proposes that where rights have not been explicitly signed away in a contract, they remain with the creator. Although that will prevent naive creators being tricked out of their rights, it won't apply to work created by employees: there, it's employers who will continue to retain rights. As for enforcing copyright, there is the following:

the report proposes that new enforcement measures be made available to copyright owners to deter retailers and service providers from profiting off providing access to content from unauthorised sources, such as through the sale of set-top boxes that enable access to content from unauthorised sources, also commonly known as grey boxes or illicit streaming devices. The measures, which are absent today, will make clear that acts such as the import and sale of such devices are prohibited.

This is clearly aimed at Kodi boxes, which are currently one of the main targets of the entertainment industry. To its credit, the Ministry of Law's proposal does include important additional requirements for the measures to apply:

the product can be used to access audio-visual content from an unauthorised source and additionally must be:

designed or made primarily for providing access to such content

advertised as providing access to such content, or

sold as providing access to such content, where the retailer sells a generic device with the understanding that "add-on" services such as the provision of website links, instructions or installation of subscription services will subsequently be provided

At least that makes a clear distinction between basic Kodi boxes, and those specifically built and sold with a view to providing unauthorized access to materials. That understanding of the difference is of a piece with the rest of the legislation, which is unusually intelligent. Other governments could learn from that, and from the overall thrust of the proposals to move Singapore's copyright law towards a fair use system similar to that of the US -- something that is fiercely resisted elsewhere.

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

Filed Under: copyright, moral rights, singapore, tdm, text and data mining, user rights

Pompous 'International Grand Committee' Signs Useless But Equally Pompous 'Declaration On Principles Of Law Governing The Internet'

from the they're-really-going-all-in-on-this dept

So just a few weeks after a bunch of countries (and companies and organizations) signed onto a weird and mostly empty Paris Call for Trust and Safety in Cyberspace, a group of nine countries -- Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Ireland, Latvia, Singapore and the UK, have declared themselves the "International Grand Committee on Disinformation and Fake News" and signed onto a Principles of the Law Governing the Internet. If that list of countries sound familiar, that's because it's the same list of countries that put on that grandstanding inquisition of Facebook that produced fake news in its own way, by falsely claiming that Facebook had discovered Russians extracting 3 billion data points via its API back in 2014 (it wasn't Russia, it was Pinterest; it wasn't 3 billion, it was 6 million; it wasn't abuse of the API, but using it correctly).

The Declaration makes some grand pronouncements:

Noting that:— the world in which the traditional institutions of democratic government operate is changing at an unprecedented pace; it is an urgent and critical priority for legislatures and governments to ensure that the fundamental rights and safeguards of their citizens are not violated or undermined by the unchecked march of technology; the democratic world order is suffering a crisis of trust from the growth of disinformation, the proliferation of online aggression and hate speech, concerted attacks on our common democratic values of tolerance and respect for the views of others, and the widespread misuse of data belonging to citizens to enable these attempts to sabotage open and democratic processes, including elections.

Affirming that:— representative democracy is too important and too hard-won to be left undefended from online harms, in particular aggressive campaigns of disinformation launched from one country against citizens in another, and the co-ordinated activity of fake accounts using data-targeting methods to try manipulate the information that people see on social media.

Believing that:— it is incumbent on us to create a system of global internet governance that can serve to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of generations to come, based on established codes of conduct for agencies working for nation states, and govern the major international tech platforms which have created the systems that serve online content to billions of users around the world.

Okay. So what does it all mean? Well, here are the details of the "declaration":

i. The internet is global and law relating to it must derive from globally agreed principles;
ii. The deliberate spreading of disinformation and division is a credible threat to the continuation and growth of democracy and a civilising global dialogue;
iii. Global technology firms must recognise their great power and demonstrate their readiness to accept their great responsibility as holders of influence;
iv. Social Media companies should be held liable if they fail to comply with a judicial, statutory or regulatory order to remove harmful and misleading content from their platforms, and should be regulated to ensure they comply with this requirement;
v. Technology companies must demonstrate their accountability to users by making themselves fully answerable to national legislatures and other organs of representative democracy.

Of course, in the context of the committee who created this Declaration having now been revealed to have created "fake news" itself, this kind comes off pretty... weak. But also, the whole thing is kind of meaningless. The companies do recognize their "power" and have been trying to deal with this issue. Yes, perhaps they didn't grasp the severity of the issue in the past, but they certainly have more recently. But simple declarations and pronouncements don't really do anything useful in "solving" those issues. That's because much of it is a human nature issue, and expecting tech companies to "take responsibility" for human nature is... well... nonsense.

Filed Under: argentina, belgium, brazil, canada, content moderation, disinformation, fake news, france, internet regulation, ireland, latvia, prais call, singapore, uk
Companies: facebook

Monster Energy Loses Again, This Time To The NBA

from the losing-streak dept

Longtime readers here at Techdirt will be familiar with Monster Energy's trademark bullying ways, but even relative newcomers will have had the opportunity to witness what has become an impressive losing streak in trademark disputes. This comes with the bullying territory, where the quick trigger finger on the threat letters and oppositions means that many of them are going to be losers. Still, one would think the sheer volume of these cases would mean quite a bit of billable hours going to the legal team that certainly could be spent better elsewhere.

But the losses keep coming. Monster Energy recently lost an opposition filed by the NBA for the Toronto Raptors team imagery in Singapore, of all places.

Monster Energy argued that the Toronto Raptors logo is too similar to its “claw device mark”, and consumers would likely confuse Monster’s three vertical slashes with the NBA Toronto Raptors’ circular logo of a basketball with three horizontal raptor claw marks out of it.

Here are the images Monster Energy said would cause confusion in the public.

Confused yet? No, of course you're not. Now, Monster Energy and the Toronto Raptors both have a lengthy roster of variations of these images and branding, but absolutely none of them come remotely close to resembling one another and, even any of them did, there is still no chance for actual confusion in the public about any of this. Fortunately, the adjudicator of the opposition agreed.

The adjudicator presiding over the case said: “[The] mere similarity in the subject matter of the competing marks (for example the three-pronged claw-shaped devices with jagged edges) was not sufficient to establish visual similarity for the purposes of opposing the registration of a trademark.” The adjudicator went on to add that consumer knowledge of both brands would mean that confusion would not occur.

I get that bullies are gonna bully, but I still fail to see how any of this has been productive for Monster Energy as of late.

Filed Under: basketball, energy drinks, monster, singapore, trademark
Companies: monster energy, nba, toronto raptors

Singaporean Government Creates Fake News To Push Fake News Legislation

from the home-team-refs dept

The government of Singapore is working its way towards regulating "fake news." This is already a problem, as no government that has tackled this issue has been able to define what "fake news" is, other than news the government doesn't like. A government granting itself the power to unilaterally remove competing narratives is something that never goes out of style, and those picking up the "fake news" torch from the Twitter feed of the leader of the free world tend to be of the authoritarian variety.

The government's "Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods" sought input from citizens on the proposed legislation. Then it recast that input by memorializing it in a way that downplayed, if not excised completely, any input that didn't align with the government's views.

Freelance journalist Kirsten Han stated her opinion on several matters during the committee's hearing, only to find out the government's prepared summary of the session portrayed her dissenting opinions as roughly concurring with the committee's views.

I generally argued that there should be no new legislation that would police or censor content, such as legislation that might allow the government to issue takedown orders, as Singapore already has plenty of legislation that can deal with online falsehoods or content that incite social disharmony or exert undue influence on elections. I also argued for the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act in Singapore — one of the recommendations I made in my written submission.

I was horrified to see my views so drastically misrepresented within the Summary of Evidence.

Yes, the committee on fake news created fake news. The summary of the committee hearing -- which will presumably be used to inform legislators about potential issues with a fake news law -- is a misrepresentation of what actually happened during the hearings. Here's one example from Han's post, which should be read in its entirety to gain a full appreciation of the committee's editorializing of meeting minutes. (The committee's phrasing is in italics, with Han's response in bold.)

i. 92% of Singaporeans, at face value, supported more effective laws, including to remove falsehoods. Ms Han did not support the need for more effective legislation as there were existing powers and she accepted that she may be out of step with the majority of the population.

I was asked about the REACH survey a few times during the session. Firstly, I questioned the survey, and said that I did not accept the survey’s results at face value. This was also reflected in Ms Bertha Henson’s blog post on the session.

While I do accept that perhaps I might be “out of step” with the majority, I am once again registering for the record that I question the survey and its results.

Another point of discussion was rewritten by the committee to make it appear as though Han had admitted some of her other writing was possibly "fake news."

vi. On her article in relation to the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act, she agreed that it could be interpreted as being incomplete or misleading.

I did not agree that my article could be interpreted as being incomplete or misleading. I stand by my article. I accepted that Mr Tong had a different opinion, as is his right, and advocated engagement and discussion over conflicting interpretations.

Rather than leave this open to interpretation or allow the committee to turn it into an our-word-against-hers "victory," Han has also uploaded clips of her responses to the committee's questions to YouTube (these are included in her Medium post), where anyone can compare the camera's record of the hearing with the committee's rose-tinted recollections.

Speech regulation predicated on vague terminology is always a vehicle for government censorship. The committee overplayed its hand here, though, offering up pre-censorship censorship of the official record in hopes of showing no one was all that opposed to letting the Singaporean government control what's said about it.

Filed Under: censorship, fake news, free speech, kirsten han, propaganda, singapore