Techdirt. Stories filed under "diplomacy"

US Denies That It's Ready To Dump The ITU Over Internet Regulations

Mike Masnick — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:20:00 PST

Last week, we covered the key fight at the ITU's World Conference on Telecommunications (WCIT) and it was all over just one word: would any new international telecom regulations apply to "recognized operating agencies" or just "operating agencies." The difference may sound minor, but it could mean a world of difference. If it's just recognized operating agencies, then the rules are limited to giant national telcos. If it's all "operating agencies" then the rules could apply to, well, just about everyone who runs any kind of internet service. This is a huge difference. As the debate rages on -- and even as the worst proposal from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and others is now off the table -- reports started circulating that the US had announced that it was prepared to walk away from WCIT entirely if there was continued movement towards significant changes in internet governance. That was seen as a pretty big threat, because a US rejection of the overall process might doom it from any sort of acceptance. However, in an emailed statement, US ambassador Terry Kramer is claiming that the reports that he's made such a threat are simply untrue (and not particularly helpful):

In the past few days, a small number of media reports have characterized the United States as “threatening” to withdraw from the WCIT negotiations. These speculative reports are inaccurate and unhelpful to the Conference. The United States has made no such threat, and it remains fully committed to achieving a successful conclusion to the WCIT.

To be honest, whether or not it's "helpful," it seems like it might actually be a lot more effective. As some are beginning to point out, almost everything about the ITU is a mess, and it's time that the US stood up and told it to stop messing where it doesn't belong. That article quotes former White House CTO Andrew McLaughlin describing why the ITU has no business regulating the internet.

"What is so bad about the ITU?" Mr. McLaughlin asked in a speech to the New America Foundation in Washington on Nov. 29. "It's just simple things like the nature, structure, culture, values and processes of the ITU. They are all inimical to a free and open Internet, and they are all inconsistent with the nature of the technical infrastructure that now characterizes our communications networks." Voting rules let repressive governments "engage in horse trading that has nothing to do with the technical merits of the decisions under consideration."

Indeed. So why are we even playing the game?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

US: India, Stop Censoring Websites! India: Wikileaks, Hello? US: That's Different!

Mike Masnick — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:11:00 PDT

We've argued for a while that the US's effort to censor websites at home while talking about internet freedom is hypocritical and takes away any moral high ground the US might have had with other countries concerning their efforts to censor the internet. What's stunning, unfortunately, is how rarely US officials seem to recognize this problem. When confronted on it -- they always revert to a "but that's different!" claim, missing that this is exactly the excuse that other countries use to justify their own censorship efforts.

Case in point: there's been significant concern in India, as the government has been censoring Twitter accounts of certain journalists and political groups, as well as blocking certain websites (sometimes just blog posts, other times, full websites). As that last link explains, the content targeted for censorship tends to have to do with content around "communal issues and rioting," and thus there's an argument to be made that the censorship is for the benefit of the public, to prevent riots. Even so, of course, one can question whether or not such censorship is even effective, let alone the rather obvious temptation for those in power to overblock for their own benefit. Indeed, that last link explains that there have been "egregious mistakes" in how the blocks have been carried out.

And what about the US? With plenty of attention being paid to the debate over this Indian censorship, the US State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, was asked her thoughts about what was happening, and trotted out the standard line about internet freedom:

"On the larger question of Internet freedom, you know where we are on that issue, and we are always on the side of full freedom of the Internet," she said.

Which sounds great, of course, but if Nuland thought that such a blanket statement would let her off, she was mistaken. Reporters immediately hit back, pointing to examples of the US fighting against internet freedom in its own back yard. And Nuland apparently wasn't happy, and pulled out the "but that's different!" excuse:

But when she was probed on the issue of WikiLeaks, Nuland snapped: "WikiLeaks didn't have to do with freedom of the Internet. It had to do with the compromise of US government classified information."

To be fair the US government has not "blocked" Wikileaks. It has blocked it on certain government computers and has used public pressure to have its hosting and payment processors cut it off. Whether or not that's to the same level as to what's happening in other countries may be debatable, but it certainly opens up the US to criticism on that point. And that's the real issue here. Even if you argue "but that's different," just the fact that the US has opened itself up to such an easy retort any time it argues for internet freedom in countries that espouse censorship, it makes it that much harder for the US to seriously push an internet freedom agenda abroad.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Same Day Russia Sentences Pussy Riot, It Condemns The UK Over Julian Assange

Mike Masnick — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:23:00 PDT

Someone suggested to me recently that Pussy Riot is to Russia what Julian Assange is to the US. The parallels are not exact -- especially given the accusations that were leveled in Sweden against Assange are not, on their face, political (and those who insist they know what happened between Assange and the two accusers should admit they have no idea what really happened, because only those three individuals truly do). That said, it does seem clear that there is a separate factor at work in the Assange mess, and it involves significant political pressure from the US, who it has been claimed have a sealed indictment ready for Assange, who for a variety of reasons they feel will be easier to get from the Swedes than the Brits.

So it seems positively bizarre that on the very same day that Pussy Riot was sentenced to jail, Russia warned the UK against "violating fundamental diplomatic principles" in its pursuit of Assange to ship him off to Sweden. Honestly, if you had to pick one of those two cases to be sympathetic to, it seems that the Pussy Riot case is a much more clear-cut one of absolutely egregious behavior on the part of a prosecution. For Russia to complain about the treatment of Assange -- on the very day that Pussy Riot was found guilty and sentenced -- seems especially rich.

Both cases may involve significant levels of political tinkering against those who have embarrassed certain governments, but it's also pretty clearly taken away any moral high ground for the countries involved in speaking out against one another.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Estonia Next In Line To Receive US 'Encouragement' To Adopt Harsher Anti-Piracy Laws

Glyn Moody — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 22:31:46 PST

Numerous Wikileaks cables have highlighted the pressure that the US has brought to bear on several foreign governments behind closed doors in an attempt to get the latter to pass maximalist copyright laws. But it's worth noting that plenty of arm twisting takes place openly. Here, for example, is a letter (pdf) from the American Chamber of Commerce in Estonia addressed to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Economic Affairs and Communications of that country:

We find that the level of intellectual property protection in Estonia needs to be improved, both on the legislative and practical fronts. Estonian government should also focus more on investigating the commercial IPR infringements committed through the Internet, and not only breaches of law in relation with cyber terrorism. In addition, the government must follow the EU and national level debates that might have an impact on IPR legislative framework.

In other words, Estonia really ought fall into line like the other countries. Because if it doesn't: Insufficient IPR protection has a negative effect on the entire economic situation in Estonia. As long as the IPR holders cannot be sure that their rights are protected, the international groups are hesitant in having their R&D units in Estonia and it is likely that R&D projects are run in countries with more comprehensive IPR protection. Insufficient IPR protection can also be an obstacle for starting new production units in Estonia as the IPR holders feel that the risk of IPR infringement is too high in Estonia and therefore it is better to produce their products in countries where the IPR-s are better protected.
Although the letter touches on trademarks and other areas, its central concern is copyright infringement, especially on the Internet. Its list of demands -- sorry, suggestions -- is depressingly familiar: stronger protection; more criminal prosecutions; intermediary liability for ISPs and website owners; and an "effective mechanism of damage compensation, without having to go through lengthy, complicated or costly procedures for achieving redress through the courts."

However, as an excellent post on the Estonian Public Broadcasting site explains, the letter's underlying assumptions about lack of enforcement are simply wrong:

They claim, for instance, that there is poor intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement in Estonia. However, Estonia’s IPR laws and enforcement, at least in the commercial space, are quite adequate. Operations, including websites, that exist for commercial exploitation of unlicensed rights, are already illegal and get shut down. The operators can be imprisoned for up to three years.

The article goes on to point out one of the likely casualties of any harsher approach to copyright enforcement in Estonia: if suing for non-commercial infringement is allowed, sooner or later, the pubs, restaurants and hotels offering free WiFi will be receiving legal threats and fines because someone downloaded something via their connection. It will be simpler for businesses to close their free internet access points, rather than face the legal harassment and risk of huge crippling fines that could result from one of their clients downloading something illegally.

When that happens, the Open Internet, an item of national pride in Estonia, will effectively be dead.
That's an important point: copyright legislation does not exist in isolation, but can have serious knock-on effects on the digital life of a country -- in this case, jeopardizing Estonia's place in the vanguard of open wireless Internet coverage. Let's hope the Estonian ministers bear that in mind when their visitors from the US Embassy come calling.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Isn't It Time To Drop The Laughable 'Special 301' Report?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:57:40 PST

We've written about the USTR's "Special 301" report many times. It's a report that the USTR puts out each year which names which countries have been "naughty" when it comes to intellectual property laws -- and then tries to shame/coerce them into putting in place much stricter copyright and patent laws. In the recent State Department cable leaks about copyright laws in other countries, what quickly became clear is that diplomats frequently use this list to put pressure on countries that have perfectly reasonable copyright laws to create copyright laws that will almost certainly harm citizens and local culture. The "process" for putting together the report involves nothing objective at all. Instead, the USTR basically asks a bunch of lobbyists to name the countries they hate the most, and voila, there's the basis for the list. Last year, I filed my own comments, pointing to various research and evidence that suggested the entire 301 process was flawed. It didn't make a difference, of course. The report still came out and it was more of the same: a lobbyist's wishlist.

This year, I didn't even bother, because it's pretty clear that the USTR has no interest in actually doing its job in improving overall trade, but is clearly going to continue to carry out its role as a lobbyist mouthpiece. Still, some groups, including Public Knowledge and Knowledge Ecology International made filings this year, pointing out how screwed up the whole Special 301 process is, and suggesting it's about time the USTR changed the overall process.

What I want to know is why we bother at all any more? Isn't it time to just drop the whole thing? It's widely considered to be a joke among those who understand how the list works. Each year Canada is named, and Canadian officials laugh and repeat the same claim about how they don't recognize a list like the Special 301 that is clearly nothing more than an attempt by US companies to influence Canadian policy in their own favor. Even people at the Copyright Office -- who normally are closely aligned with the USTR -- have spoken out in public about how the Special 301 is a joke, not to be taken seriously.

When so many people consider the list to be a total joke, isn't it reasonable to question why we still have it at all? The list has nothing to do with improving trade or improving economic conditions. It's a simple protectionism process that allows a small group of big companies to get the US government to act as their mouthpiece. It's an embarrassment, and it's time to dump it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Once Again, More State Dept. Cables Show Swedish Copyright Enforcement At The Behest Of US

Mike Masnick — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 01:22:57 PST

There's absolutely nothing surprising at all about the following, but Christian Engstrom (one of the two European Parliament Members from The Pirate Party*) highlights yet another leaked State Department cable that shows that many of the copyright enforcement efforts of the Swedish government were in response to a six point checklist given to the Swedish government by the US Embassy (English translation from the original Swedish -- though at the end of the Swedish post the original cable is available in English). The six point check list passed on by the embassy was almost certainly originally from US industry lobbyists. There's nothing in this that is even remotely surprising (and hints of this had already leaked previously).

What really gets me about this is why do countries like Sweden even really care about the Special 301 Report, which is used as the main "stick" by the US Embassy. As we discuss every year, the US Trade Rep (USTR) each year puts together a silly "Special 301 Report" which lists out who's been naughty and who's been nice on intellectual property issues... according to US industry. The list is widely regarded as a joke by many -- including within the US government. I was once at a copyright conference where people from the US Copyright Office openly mocked the Special 301 Report as being a meaningless joke. In part, that's because it's not based on any hard science or actual data at all. Instead, it's written mainly based on what US industry says are problem countries... with a review from US diplomats stationed in those countries. The "leaked" cable is the US embassy in Sweden weighing in on the 2009 report.

Of course, getting on that list is somewhat meaningless. All it really means is that US diplomats will put more pressure on those countries to fix and/or change the situation in that country -- which is exactly what the cable shows the US embassy was already doing in Sweden. What I don't really understand is why Swedish officials caved so easily. Canada has been in the same position for years, with US industry making up completely bogus and totally unsubstantiated claims about how Canada is a "haven" for copyright infringement, despite the fact that Canada's copyright laws are much more stringent than the US's in many ways. While some Canadian politicians have pushed for new copyright reform, the attempt two years ago that was almost certainly written by US industry got shot down. However, what's really interesting is that Canada responds each year to the Special 301 report by noting its ridiculously flawed methodology and pointing out that it's purely a political list, and not one to be concerned about.

What's unfortunate is that Sweden did not do the same, but that its government pretty much folded. Of course, what's amusing is that the undertones of this cable, and previous cables on this issue suggest that Swedish politicians know that the public absolutely does not support them in pushing this "made in America" approach to copyright law. But, for whatever reason, they still seem to feel compelled to follow through with it. What I don't quite understand is why that is? I would guess the concern is trade sanctions by the US against Sweden, which is the undercurrent of all of the Special 301 threats, but at some point the Swedish government should stand up for itself and not be bullied in such a manner.

* I normally do not list out political parties of politicians on this blog, as it tends to drive the discussion in a political direction, rather than on the facts of the article. However, when I did this last time with a Pirate Party MEP, I was falsely accused of trying to "hide" the fact. So I'll mention it here, in part, because (after thinking about it) I don't think mentioning the Pirate Party leads to the same sort of political mudslinging that naming a major party creates.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story