Chinese search engine Baidu sued by New Yorkers

China’s biggest search engine, Baidu was sued on Wednesday by eight New York residents who accused China’s biggest search engine of conspiring with the country’s government to censor pro-democracy speech, Reuters reported.

The lawsuit claims violations of the U.S. Constitution and according to the plaintiffs’ lawyer is the first of its type.

It was filed more than a year after Google Inc declared it would no longer censor search results in China, and rerouted Internet users to its Hong Kong website.

Baidu did not return a request for a comment.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Baidu acts as an “enforcer” of policies by the ruling Communist Party in censoring such pro-democracy content as references to the 1989 Tiananmen Square military crackdown.

This censorship suppresses the writings and videos of the plaintiffs, who are pro-democracy activists, to the extent that they do not appear in search results, the complaint said.

It also violates laws in the United States because the censorship affects searches here, according to the complaint.

“We allege a private company is acting as the arm and agent of a foreign state to suppress political speech, and permeate U.S. borders to violate the First Amendment,” Stephen Preziosi, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an interview.

Preziosi said the alleged censorship also violates federal and New York civil rights laws, as well as New York’s human rights law, on the grounds that “an Internet search engine is a public accommodation, just like a hotel or restaurant.”

The lawsuit seeks $16 million in damages, or $2 million per plaintiff, but does not seek changes to Baidu’s policies.

“It would be futile to expect Baidu to change,” Preziosi said. The plaintiffs live in the borough of Queens in New York City and on Long Island.

China’s Internet censorship practices are viewed as reflecting its belief that keeping a tight grip on information helps the government maintain control. There have been mounting concerns in China that open dissent on the Internet could contribute to destabilizing the country.

Searches for terms deemed sensitive by Chinese censors are routinely blocked, and search engines such as Baidu voluntarily filter searches.

China also blocks social networking sites Facebook, Flickr, Twitter and Google’s YouTube, and President Hu Jintao has called for additional oversight and “mechanisms to guide online public opinion.

Google effectively pulled out of China last spring by redirecting inquiries on its main Chinese-language search page to a website in Hong Kong, avoiding direct involvement in any censorship by the “Great Firewall of China.”

Mozilla defies DHS request to take down MafiaaFire Add-on

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of DHS, has seized dozens of domains in an effort to crack down on piracy and copyright infringement, blocking access to the sanctioned websites via the most common domain URL.

From time to time, Mozilla receives government requests for information, usually market information and occasionally subpoenas. Recently the US Department of Homeland Security contacted Mozilla and requested that Mozilla remove the MafiaaFire add-on.  The ICE Homeland Security Investigations unit alleged that the add-on circumvented a seizure order DHS had obtained against a number of domain names. Mafiaafire, like several other similar  add-ons already available through AMO, redirects the user from one domain name to another similar to a mail forwarding service.  In this case, Mafiaafire redirects traffic from seized domains to other domains. Here the seized domain names allegedly were used to stream content protected by copyrights of  professional sports franchises and other media concerns.

Mozilla has initially refused a Department of Homeland Security request to remove the third-party tool. To evaluate Homeland Security’s request, Mozilla has asked them several questions similar to those below to understand the legal justification:

• Have any courts determined that the Mafiaafire add-on is unlawful or illegal in any way? If so, on what basis? (Please provide any relevant rulings)
• Is Mozilla legally obligated to disable the add-on or is this request based on other reasons? If other reasons, can you please specify.
• Can you please provide a copy of the relevant seizure order upon which your request to Mozilla to take down the Mafiaafire  add-on is based?

According to the Mozilla, they haven’t received any response from Homeland Security nor any court order so far.

One of the fundamental issues here is under what conditions do intermediaries accede to government requests that have a censorship effect and which may threaten the open Internet. Others have commented on these practices already.  In this case, the underlying justification arises from content holders legitimate desire to combat piracy.  The problem stems from the use of these government powers in service of private content holders when it can have unintended and harmful consequences.  Longterm, the challenge is to find better mechanisms that provide both real due process and transparency without infringing upon developer and user freedoms traditionally associated with the Internet.

Pakistan planning to completely ban Facebook

Internet censorship and intolerance towards free speech is becoming a common place in many countries. On the lines of India’s new Internet censorship law that allows the government to ban any website that contains content that can be considered an act of Blasphemy, Pakistan’s Justice Azmat Saeed passed the order on a petition seeking a permanent ban on Facebook in Pakistan for holding a contest called the 2nd Annual Draw Muhammad Day.

According to The Express Tribune, the Pakistani edition of the International Herald Tribune, Advocate Mohammad Azhar Siddique who is contesting the case has sought directions for the Pakistani government to stop the display of blasphemous material against the Holy Prophet (pbuh) on Facebook and other similar websites in Pakistan.

He also requested the court to direct the government to establish a permanent authority to monitor objectionable online activities. He said that Facebook and similar websites should be permanently blocked for placing caricatures of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and other prophets. The petitioner said that the contest, scheduled for May 20, was the evidence of international mischief against Islam.

Facebook had earlier generated much controversy in Pakistan when cartoonist Molly Norris had announced a contest to sketch caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in May 2010. The sponsors had later apologized and cancelled the contest. The temporary ban imposed on Facebook was then lifted within two weeks.

India announces Internet censorship law

The growing Chinese aggression seems to have motivated India to follow suit, but perhaps in the wrong context. China was recently rated as the most restricted country in terms of Internet censorship. And, if India’s new censorship laws are enforced, India could be right be in the league of countries with most restricted Internet usage policies.

The new Information Technology Rules, 2011 lists down all the content restrictions that an ISP, cloud provider or a hosting provider needs to impose on bloggers, online news websites and individuals. It also defines the time frame within which the ‘intermediary’ needs to pull down a website or a blog in case any violation of the rules is observed. The new rules not only define censorship laws but also allows the government to abuse terms such as ‘invasion of another’s privacy’, ‘defamation’, ‘harassment’ and ‘threat to the nation’. China has already been prosecuting people exercising free speech by terming the content as ‘threat to nation’ etc.

According to IT Rules 2011,  Sub Rule 2, “Users shall not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever;”

Additionally, Sub Rule 2 also states that users may not publish anything that threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any other nation.

Sub rule 4 states that

“(4) The intermediary (ISP, hosting companies etc), on whose computer system the information is stored or hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub-rule (2). Further the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days for investigation purposes.”

Leaving so much power in the hands of the ISPs may not be a good idea for a country like India where there are highest number of complaints to shut down Facebook pages and profile as ‘someone’ finds them offensive. Now, instead of first battling out a complaint in the court of law, the ISP would straight away block your website in case your content seems offensive to someone.

Sub rule 7 on Interception states that: “When required by lawful order, the intermediary shall provide information or any such assistance to Government Agencies who are lawfully authorised for investigative, protective, cyber security activity. The information or any such assistance shall be provided for the purpose of verification of identity, or for prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, cyber security incidents and punishment of offences under any law for the time being in force, on a request in writing stating clearly the purpose of seeking such information or any such assistance.”

The previous version of the order did not allow intermediaries to disclose personal information, but there the Indian government is clearly ensuring that it can access information.