July 08, 2009, By Claire Berlinski

Very few people in Turkey are exercised by the YouTube blackout, now in its second year. Despite the ban, the video-sharing site is believed to be the ninth most popular site in Turkey. Almost every Internet user — from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the humblest teenage porn connoisseur — knows how to circumvent it with proxy browsers. ‘I get in,’ Erdogan told reporters in November, 2008. ‘You can do so as well.’

But maybe they should be more concerned. Blocking the exchange of information through the Internet is a top priority with some of the world’s most oppressive regimes. China is devoting considerable energy to developing technology to block the best Web 2.0 sites, for example. Inexorably, a line is between drawn between countries that restrict their citizens’ access to information and those that do not. And which side of that line does Turkey – with its European Union membership aspirations – find itself on?

Turkey’s YouTube ban originated in a March 2007 flame war between Turkish and Greek users. One of the original offending videos depicted the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, weeping pastel-colored tears to the music of the Village People. In Turkey, insulting Ataturk is a crime, as is ‘insulting Turkishness.’ The association of Ataturk with 1970s disco-ball music was interpreted — by the country’s highest legal authorities — as a profound insult.

Contrary to rumors in online chat rooms, the blackout was not imposed by Turkey’s governing Justice and Development (AK) party. It cannot be attributed to the party’s Islamic orientation. The ban originates with the secular judiciary. Indeed, there is no love lost between the AK and the judiciary, as evidenced by the latter’s recent efforts to ban not only YouTube, but the entire AK party.

The judges say they are obliged to observe the law, even if this consigns Turkey to an unattractive YouTube-banning club comprising Armenia, China, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. Senior AK members claim to be opposed to and embarrassed by the ban. ‘I do not want to see Turkey among those countries in the world that ban YouTube,’ said President Abdullah Gul last January.

But these same senior AK members have done nothing to change or clarify the legislation to which the court is appealing, suggesting that they find it convenient for Turkish citizens — and the world — to regard Turkey’s judicial branch as lunatic, primitive, and best ignored or replaced. Certainly this argument has been made by newspapers closely associated with the AK, such as ‘Zaman.’ ‘YouTube Ban Hits Judiciary’s Credibility,’ it reported with no little pleasure on June 3, 2008.

Silent Protest

The offhand effacement of a major venue for political speech and cultural contact with the rest of the world has prompted no street demonstrations here, no acts of civil disobedience. ‘There have been no ‘real life’ protests,’ says blogger Alper Sarikaya, who studies media at Bilkent University in Ankara and often writes about Internet censorship. ‘Just some people protesting the ban online, mostly anonymously. [Protest] pins and T-shirts are so American.’

The issue wasn’t mentioned during the municipal election campaign in April. ‘Since the issue had to do with Ataturk, I don’t think any of the political parties wanted to risk being misunderstood,’ says Sarikaya. No one, he suspects, wanted to be seen as favoring insulting Ataturk.

Turkish civil rights groups have largely ignored the ban. The Turkish press rarely mentions it. The only action that could conceivably be called an organized protest was a desultory movement in August 2008 among fewer than 500 Turkish bloggers to ironically censor their own websites with the words: ‘This site is blocked because the author himself chose to do it.’ Some of these bloggers subsequently formed a group called SansureSansur, or ‘censoring censorship,’ which tries to raise awareness of the issue by designing anti-blackout banners for online reproduction.

The organizer of the self-censorship gesture, Selim Yoruk, works for 4play, a company that creates and develops mobile and Internet-based projects. ‘Turkish people tend to approach their problems by ignoring them,’ Yoruk says. ‘They don’t mind Internet censorship. They think because they can reach the sites, there’s no problem. But reaching the sites is not the issue here — censorship is. It’s not about the Internet. It’s about freedom. Today we see censorship of the Internet and the media. What about tomorrow? When will we react?’

In a country facing a great number of pressing civil rights challenges, the YouTube blackout may seem to many the least of their worries. But the indifference raises obvious questions: Don’t Turkish citizens think there’s an important point of principle involved here? Why have so few complained that this is an outrage against freedom of expression? And since they haven’t, why would any European want Turkey to be admitted to the EU?

If admitted, Turkey would be entitled, by virtue of its population of 71 million, to the second-largest delegation in the European Parliament, exceeded in power only by Germany. If demographic projections prove correct, Turkey would become the dominant member of the parliament in 2020.

Creeping Ban

YouTube is not the only banned site in Turkey. As of last month, 1,874 other websites were blocked. The courts have in recent years banned the blogging site Wordpress, the websites of a teachers’ trade union, and a Turkish dictionary. Censorship, Yoruk says, ‘is a very common Turkish government policy. If they don’t like a comment or an idea, they think the best thing to do is censor it. They like to use this policy not only for the Internet but also with newspapers, television, and even comic-strip magazines.’

In November 2008, Google, which owns YouTube, agreed to use Internet-provider blocking to prevent viewers in Turkey from watching videos that were in clear violation of Turkish law. With the offending videos blocked, the judges then restored access to the site.

But six months later, a Turkish prosecutor decided that no Turk, anywhere in the world, should be exposed to the risk of viewing (presumably by accident) a video that might offend him. Google refused to cooperate with this initiative to wipe the disputed videos off the face of the planet, maintaining that one nation’s government shouldn’t be able to decide the limits of speech for Internet users worldwide. The full ban was slapped back on. Users of Internet providers in the Caucasus who rely upon Turkish service networks have reported that they, too, are unable to visit the blocked domains.

For most people here, the ban represents nothing more than a few seconds of inconvenience when they fancy looking at a video. The real ramifications, however, are far wider. What does it say about Turkish political values that the word ‘censorship’ seems to carry less stigma here than the words ‘Village People?’

If you were a Turkish entrepreneur, would you devote your innovation and creativity to developing technology platforms such as weblogs, social networks, and video-sharing sites that enable people to have a greater voice in their societies? Given that the courts obviously feel no hesitation about banning these sites, and do so regularly, would you feel any incentive to do so? What kind of legal precedent does this ban set? What does it say about the degree to which Turkey has truly embraced the values upon which the European Charter of Human Rights is based?

Although in principle anyone who believes himself to be harmed by the ban can appeal to the courts, no ordinary citizen has mounted a legal challenge. ‘People like to define themselves as ‘protesters’ so long as they don’t have to get too involved themselves,’ says Yoruk. ‘A lot of people here are intimidated by courts and legal issues.’

Under Ataturk, Islamic courts were abolished and replaced with a secular legal apparatus modeled on the Swiss, German, and Italian civil and penal codes. The development of these institutions in Europe, however, was accompanied by centuries of social and cultural evolution. The idea that the legal system should protect, rather than restrict, basic rights remains largely alien to Turkey. People justify the ban, Sarikaya adds, ‘with the idea of the ‘judicial state’ — it is what the Law decided, and it’s above anything else and knows what is good.’

‘We have to recall that the government cannot rule us,’ Yoruk says. ‘We do not have to obey them. That’s democracy. We select them in order to serve us. They are just politicians. Some say, ‘You can’t change anything — why bother?’ But if the whole country said, ‘That’s against freedom and it should be changed,’ then the elected government would have to change it. If not, they would know they wouldn’t be reelected.’

Unfortunately, the country is not saying anything of the sort. Particularly given Turkey’s demonstrated eagerness to impose its standards of speech on other countries, it would hardly be unreasonable for Europeans to be concerned about what this means for their freedom should Turkey become an extremely powerful member of their supranational government.

Claire Berlinski is a novelist, journalist, and travel writer based in Istanbul. The views expressed in this commentary are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

Following social media flurry in Iran and China, lawmaker calls for a hearing to look into online censorship abroad.

July 9, 2009, By Kenneth Corbin

In response to the recent flurry of street-level updates from citizens using social media during the unrest that followed the disputed Iranian election, a lawmaker is calling for a congressional inquiry to ensure that those services don’t go dark under pressure from repressive governments.

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) has appealed to the leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to hold a hearing to revisit the contentious issue of Internet censorship overseas, hoping to raise awareness and lend a formal stamp of approval to the groups and companies working to keep Web sites and services like Twitter and Facebook up in the face of government restrictions.

‘It is becoming increasingly evident that communications technologies and applications that are developed in the United States are becoming a growing part of the lives of people beyond our borders,’ Bono Mack wrote in a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet.

‘It is imperative that the U.S. government do more to uphold and promote basic human rights, free expression and the economic activity generated and supported by the Internet,’ she said.

Spokespeople for the committee leaders told InternetNews.com they were reviewing Bono Mack’s request, but that there were no immediate plans to convene a hearing on the issue.

This would not be the first time online censorship abroad has caught the attention of lawmakers. In 2006, executives from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Cicso appeared in a high-profile hearing to defend their Internet operations in China. In the last Congress, Sen. Richard Durbin chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing revisiting the Internet heavies’ China policy.

But in the time since, the face of the Internet has changed considerably as sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have marched steadily into the mainstream and given people easy ways to broadcast real-time updates in areas where the mainstream media might not have access.

In the demonstrations that followed the election in Iran last month, for instance, the government moved swiftly to expel media outlets, and, for a time, the world watched as eye witnesses posted updates on Twitter, while correspondents from outlets like the BBC and Associated Press filed their reports from cities in neighboring countries.

Reflecting on the demonstrations a few weeks later at a security conference outside Washington last month, New York Times reporter David Sanger described the use of social media in the Iranian elections as a point of no return, both for sharing news with the world and organizing resistance within a repressive state.

‘The art of street protest against a government will never be the same after what we saw a few weeks ago,’ Sanger said.

He said he was not convinced that the protests ‘would have come together had it not been for the technologies that many Americans had not really thought of in political terms prior to this month.’

The Iranian people’s reliance on Twitter to communicate with the outside world was not lost on the State Department, which contacted the site’s executives to request that they delay a scheduled service outage so Twitter would stay online in Iran.

But it was broader than just Twitter. Images of the death of Neda Agha Soltan, known to most of the world simply as Neda, appeared on YouTube and Flickr and quickly became among the most recognizable icons of the Iranian government’s efforts to put down the demonstrations.

‘At a time when the Ahmadinejad government was doing everything in its power to control messages and images leaving Iran, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube became unfiltered, citizen-fueled news bureaus of reports filed straight from the streets of Tehran,’ Bono Mack said.

She also called attention to China, a key U.S. trading partner long criticized for restricting access to online content deemed subversive.

The most recent flare-up in China involved the uprising of the ethnic Uighars in Xinjiang province, but China has also come under fire in recent months for censoring Internet access to YouTube content documenting harsh tactics used against Tibetan demonstrators and blocking certain sites during last year’s Olympics in Beijing.

‘A hearing held by your committee will help shed light on government-sponsored censorship and around the world and its serious implications for trade and human rights that cannot be ignored,’ Bono Mack said.

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

“

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

“

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

“

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

Censorware not going anywhere after all

China’s controversial mandatory censorware has only been delayed rather than abandoned, according to state media.…

“

(Via The Register - Comms.)

Not looking good for ad tech

BT has abandoned plans to roll out Phorm’s controversial web monitoring and profiling system across its broadband network, claiming it needs to concentrate resources on network upgrades.…

“

(Via The Register - Comms.)

Published: 1:18PM BST 06 Jul 2009

The communist authorities who built the so-called Great Firewall of China raced to stamp out video, images and words posted by internet users about the unrest in Xinjiang, which left at least 140 people dead.

Twitter and YouTube appeared to be blocked in China late on Monday afternoon, while leading Chinese search engines would not give results for ‘Urumqi’, the city in Xinjiang where the riots occurred.

Traditional press carried only the official version of events, which blamed the unrest on ethnic Muslim Uighurs.

However, similar to the phenomenon seen last month during Iran’s political turmoil, pictures, videos and updates from Urumqi poured onto social networking and image sharing websites such as Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.

In many cases, items were reposted by other internet users on sites outside China to preserve the content, while Twitter helped link people around the globe to images Chinese authorities did not want seen.

A US academic in Urumqi broke news about the unrest via Twitter, saying hours before the mainstream news organisations on Sunday night that security forces were blocking off streets in the city.

State-run China Central Television (CCTV) showed its first images of the violence just before midday Monday - more than 12 hours after footage began circulating on the internet.

CCTV broadcast images of a woman apparently being kicked as she lay on the ground, protesters throwing stones at police, vehicles on fire, and two young girls with bloodied hands comforting each other.

However, its footage gave a different impression to some of the clips on YouTube that Uighur exile groups said backed their case the protesters were largely peaceful.

Footage posted on YouTube showed what appeared to be, at least initially, a peaceful protest, with men and women marching, chatting on mobile phones, sipping bottled water and raising their arms as they cheered.

Another video on the site apparently taken by low-grade video technology in Urumqi showed police in black helmets leading away handcuffed protesters.

Meanwhile some Chinese internet users were able to express frustration at having their postings on the violence deleted. In one case, Chinese blogger Wen Ni’er reposted an entry on a Google site.

“Chinese mainland websites repeatedly deleted my post, which seriously violated China’s law and violated my freedom and rights. I hereby want to express my strong disgust and condemnation,” she wrote.

She had help from other anonymous sites based outside of China that were aggregating and saving both official and non-official materials about the incident, such as drop.io/urumuqi.

“I saved them primarily because once the Chinese censors order a take-down, they might not be seen again. Indeed, since I saved them, many of these pictures were ‘harmonised’ and can no longer be accessed,” the site’s operator wrote.