Category Archives: Legislation
Twitters Transparancy Report and Government Surveillance
As reported in the Huffington Post on 28 January 2013, Twitters second transparency report was released last week and the report disclosed that 1,009 requests for Twitter account information was received by Twitter from July 2012 to December 2012.
Twitters Manager of legal policy, Jeremy Kessel, said in a recent blog post that: “It is vital for us (and other Internet services) to be transparent about government requests for user information and government requests to withhold content from the Internet,” where he believed that: “These growing inquiries can have a serious chilling effect on free expression — and real privacy implications.”
Under US law, Twitter is often asked to hand over data without warrant under the 1986 Electronic Communication Privacy Act where the requests are usually for E-Mail addresses associated with the Twitter account.
The Power of Twitter and The Sharing Of Information
It is interesting to note in the Transparency Report that Twitter received requests from almost 30 countries for user information and almost all were denied as Twitter believes that it is under no obligation to hand over information to foreign governments because almost all of its servers and employees are in the US.
However as announced recently, Twitter is planning to open an office in Australia in 2013, and as they will have an Australian presence they may well find requests from local law enforcement agencies being served on them for information.
Will Twitter be a ‘good corporate citizen’ and comply with Australian requests or will they ignore such requests by saying that all of its data is stored offshore and therefore not subjected to Australian laws?
Recently in a radio interview, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy voiced his frustration, where he said: “My department has been trying to get in touch but they (Twitter) have no Australian presence,” and it is well known that these frustrations are held by many government and law enforcement agencies across the globe.
Maybe the Australian office will be the solution or will Australian authorities have to continue to rely on the Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth), which from experience can be a very slow process that requires requests being made by the Australian Attorney Generals Office to member states.
Mutual assistance is an important tool in obtaining evidence for the investigation and prosecution of transnational crime, particularly drug trafficking, fraud, money laundering, child pornography and other child exploitation offences and terrorism offences.
As outlined in the Australian Attorney Generals Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters legislation summary, mutual assistance is the process countries use to obtain government to government assistance in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Mutual assistance is also used to recover the proceeds of crime. Mutual assistance to and from Australia is governed by the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) (the Mutual Assistance Act).
Australia can make requests to any foreign country and can receive requests from any foreign country where countries assist on the understanding that they will receive assistance in return when the need arises and the process is assisted by over 25 bilateral mutual assistance treaties to which Australia is a party.
Overview of the Mutual Assistance Process
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act Process
Overall, it will be interesting to see how Twitter will operate their Australian office and most importantly how will they deal with law enforcement requests for user information.
Reference:
Australian Attorney Generals International Relations 2013,
http://www.ag.gov.au/Internationalrelations/Internationalcrimecooperationarrangements/MutualAssistance/Documents/Mutual%20assistance%20overview.pdf
accessed 28 January 2013.
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/twitter-transparency-report_n_2569250.html accessed 29 January 2013.
Can Interpol Cleanse Australia’s Internet Content?
The current government for over seven years has stated that Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) filtering is a key component of the Australian Government’s cybersafety plan. Filtering of online material at the ISP level reflects the view that ISPs should take some responsibility for enabling the blocking of such content on the internet.
This is consistent with the recent child online protection guidelines issued by the International Telecommunications Union. The guidelines state that the strategic objective for the internet industry for child internet safety should be to reduce the availability of, and restrict access to, harmful or illegal content and conduct.
ISP-level content filtering is already occurring in other countries, including Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom and the government wanted to ensure a similar level of protection for internet users in Australia.
So, what internet content falls within ISP-level content filtering?
ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification Material
Several years ago the government announced that it will introduce legislative amendments to require all ISPs in Australia to use ISP-level filtering to block overseas hosted Refused Classification (RC) material on the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) RC Content list.
As reported on the Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy web site, content is defined under the National Classification Scheme as Refused Classification (“RC”) and includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
The RC Content list was to be based on public complaints to the Australian Communication Management Authority (“ACMA”) and assessed using existing criteria set out in the National Classification Scheme.
ACMAin one of its roles, liaise with highly reputable overseas organisations to identify lists of child abuse material suitable for incorporation into the RC Content list, following a detailed assessment by the ACMA of the processes used to compile those lists.
The Australian newspaper on November 10 2012, reported in an article titled ‘Mandatory web filter ‘would never have worked’, where the Coalition and the Greens said that: “LABOR was forced to abandon its promised mandatory internet filter because it would never have worked and would not have passed through parliament.”
It was further reported in The Australian that the Communications Minister Stephen Conroy dumped the proposed filter five years after it was promised by Labor, following an outcry from civil libertarians and technology businesses.
He said the government instead would force internet service providers to block sites on Interpol’s “worst of” child-abuse list.
“Given this successful outcome, the government has no need to proceed with mandatory filtering legislation,” Senator Conroy said.
The minister said the decision was in line with a 2010 Australian Law Reform Commission recommendation that the government’s previous internet “black list” was too wide and did not reflect community expectations.
So where does that leave us now? Cyber Guardians Online will be reviewing the outcomes of this monumental ‘backflip’ and will be featuring some legislative analysis of where ISP’s are now positioned.
Furthermore, Cyber Guardians Online will assess if Australia’s adoption of the 2009 INTERPOL General Assembly Resolution (AG-2009 Res-05), a Resolution that limits the online distribution of child sexual abuse images whilst encouraging member countries to promote the use of all the technical tools available, including access blocking of websites containing child sexual abuse images is sufficient in preventing such images being accessed in Australia.
As INTERPOL is tasked with leading this work by providing a list of domains containing the websites that disseminate the most severe child abuse material worldwide where they work in tandem with international police forces in the construction of the “Worst of”-list of domains, Australia needs to ensure that all internet users are protected from explicit images and content.
A National Disaster & A Twitter Troll
As Hurricane Sandy the recent national disaster in the northern hemisphere struck, it seems the activities of Twitter Trolls remained active as ever with one person ‘tweeting’ false information during the national disaster. The timing of such ‘tweets’ undoubtedly contributed to the anxiety and panic that was gripping New York. The Twitter Trolls ‘tweets’ began with “Breaking” where one said that “…the floor of the New York Stock Exchange had been flooded…”. Another said that power company Con Ed would, “…cut off service to all of Manhattan…”.
With power and phone lines going down across New York City and with the false ‘tweets’ of the Twitter Troll being disseminated in the twittersphere and social media, emergency services may have been unnecessarily deployed believing that assistance was required. As such, it could be argued that such ‘tweets’ could be deemed in breach of local and federal legislation with regards to ‘false reports to emergency services’ and to ‘using telecommunications services’ where it has been criminalised to use a carriage service (telecommunications or Internet service) to access or make available “offensive”, menacing or harassing material.
The time has come for persons who pass such information to be identified and prosecuted by the relevant agencies.
Bradley W. Deacon
