[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[infowar.de] Re: Fahndungs-Technologie findet Al-Qaida-Server in Deutschland
Danke für die Weiterleitung, Oliver.
Ich nehme das mal als Gelegenheint, ein paar grundsätzliche Aspekte
anzusprechen:
Die PAN AMP AG, der Pionier der Datenfilterung in Deutschland,
bekam im Sommer 2005 von einer türkischen Unternehmensgruppe den
Auftrag, die patentierte FAS©-Filtertechnologie um die türkische
Sprache zu erweitern.
Fasse zusammen: Werbung für Internet-Zensurmaßnahmen, die einer deutschen
Firma gehören.
"Unter den Anleitungen sind einige darunter, wo man mit relativ
geringem Aufwand eine maximale Schädigung hervorrufen kann. Es ist
einfach nachzubauen und nachzuexperimentieren.
Und das kann man in jeden Chemiebuch für die Oberstufe nachlesen. Sollen
jetzt auch Bibliotheken zensiert werden?
Klassischer Fall von Verkennung der Bedrohung: Die Gefahr geht nicht von
den im Internet verbreiteten _Inhalten_ aus, sondern von realen _Menschen_
mit dem festen Willen, Schaden anzurichten. Dort muss man ansetzen. Die
werden aber auch durch ein "sauberes" Internet nicht von ihrer Wut
abzubringen sein.
Die Israelis haben auf der vor knapp zwei Wochen zuende gegangenen
Vorbereitungskonferenz für den Weltgipfel Informationsgesellschaft einen
ähnlichen Absatz für die Gipfelerklärung vorgeschlagen, in dem sie die
Nutzung des Internet durch Terroristen verurteilen wollten. Er wäre ein
Einfallstor für alle möglichen Verletzungen von Freiheitsrechten gewesen.
Wir haben das recht schnell abwehren können, indem wir ein einziges Wort
ersetzt haben. Ich kopiere mal unsere Stellungnahme unten rein, beachtet
den letzten Absatz. :-)
Danach blieb von dem ganzen Ansatz nur noch ein kurzer Satz übrig, bei dem
noch die Hälfte aus Beteuerungen besteht, dass dies nur unter Wahrung
internationaler Menschenrechtsverpflichtungen geschehen darf. Damit
konnten wir leben.
Grüße, RB
-----------------------
WSIS Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group
WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus
Statement in Subcommittee A, morning session, 29 September 2005
Yesterday afternoon Israel proposed a new paragraph 50bis. Because it was
introduced in a drafting group and not in the subcommittee, I will read it
for you for the sake of transparency:
“We underline the importance of countering the manifestations of terrorism
at all its forms in the Internet. In particular, we condemn the use of the
internet for purposes of financing of terrorist acts, radicalization
towards terrorist acts, recruitment for terrorist acts, and glorification
of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.”
Civil society is impressed by the fact that it is possible to use the word
“terrorist” not less than six times in one single sentence.
We are very concerned about this paragraph and strongly oppose it, for the
following reasons:
1. The international community has tried for years, but has not yet been
able to reach agreement on how to define terrorists or terrorism. The
Secretary General Report for the Millenium Summit again called for Member
States to adopt a definition of terrorism. Before this has happened, we
want to remind you of the old wisdom that “one country’s freedom fighter
is the other one’s terrorist”. Therefore, this paragraph would introduce
vague language that is open to all kinds of interpretation and misuse.
2. The same argument applies to the language of “manifestations of
terrorism at all its forms in the Internet”. It is totally unclear what
“manifestations” of terrorism on the internet would be. This language
opens a dangerous door to censorship and infringements on Freedom of
Expression.
3. Likewise, mentioning “glorification of terrorist acts that may incite
further terrorist acts” is equally imprecise and vague. What acts of
terror can you not glorify? What is glorification? Which kind of internet
use “may incite” other acts, and which one would not? If CNN or Al-Jazeera
report about acts of terrorism and show footage of the attacks – as
happened around the world, online and offline, on September 11, 2001 – it
could be seen as glorification. The terrorists’ supporters surely loved it.
4. We are also uncertain what is meant by “financing terror on the
internet”. Maybe this refers to websites that accept donations, but that
already falls under international rules on funding terror – the FATF rules
and other banking rules. This is well covered in other agreements and has
nothing to do with Internet Governance.
5. We get the feeling that some governments are using the debate around
Internet governance to sneak in all kinds of other issues that do not
belong here. In the Compilation of Comments received on the WGIG report,
the contribution from Israel - which includes reference to terrorism - is
listed under "other issues not directly addressed in the WGIG report".
To make clear how imprecise and arbitrary the paragraph is, we want to
read it to you again with a minor change, just exchanging “internet” with
another public infrastructure:
“We underline the importance of countering the manifestations of terrorism
at all its forms in the streets. In particular, we condemn the use of the
streets for purposes of financing of terrorist acts, radicalization
towards terrorist acts, recruitment for terrorist acts, and glorification
of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.”
Would you really want a paragraph like that in a UN summit declaration on
traffic and public transport?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: infowar -
de-unsubscribe -!
- infopeace -
de
For additional commands, e-mail: infowar -
de-help -!
- infopeace -
de