The Free Internet Project
Internet rights: strong free speech right in Constitution. Weaker privacy protections.
ISP safe harbor: DMCA safe harbors for copyright claims. CDA Section 230 immunity for non-IP claims.
Net neutrality: FCC rule protects net neutrality.
The Great Firewall of China blocks people's access to many websites, e.g., Facebook, Google.
Government engages in extensive censorship especially related to political organizing or protests.
Foreign social media apps are banned. Users must use real names on social media.
Internet rights: No bill of rights. Some censorship of content. Personal data protected.
ISP safe harbors: limited to Internet access providers, does not apply to other services.
Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution. Article 6 guarantees Internet access, though not implemented.
ISP safe harbor: none.
Net neutrality: law to protect net neutrality in 2014.
Internet rights: free speech, press in Constitution. Privacy law. Hate speech banned.
ISP safe harbor: for conduits, caching, hosting, search engines from copyright liability. "Notice-and-notice" process.
Net neutrality: CRTC policy sets rules for Internet traffic management practices.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Internet bill of rights (Marco Civil da Internet) enacted.
ISP safe harbor: horizontal approach requires court order before takedown of infringing content.
Net neutrality: Marco Civil prohibits prohibits content-based discrimination of Internet traffic.
Crowdsourced Internet bill of rights.
Russia has exercised tighter control online, including blocking websites.
2014 "Blogger law" requires bloggers with 3,000 daily users to register with government.
Websites collecting personal data of Russians must be stored in servers in Russia by 2016.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law.
ISP safe harbor: 2014 law requires court review before takedown of content.
Net neutrality: law prohibits "arbitrarily distinguish[ing] content ... based on the source or ownership thereof."
Internet rights: Constitution protects Internet speech. Data privacy law. Policy for universal access.
ISP safe harbor: none. ISPs have been subject to liability and injunctions.
Net neutrality: Congress considering a proposal on net neutrality.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected.
ISP safe harbor: free trade agreement with U.S. yet to be implemented.
Net neutrality: no legal protection; bill proposed in 2011.
Net neutrality: legal protection since 2012.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data right in Constitution. Government blocking of websites.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy in Constitution. Data privacy bill in 2015.
Net neutrality: legal protection for net neutrality.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
Internet rights: follows French law, which protects speech, privacy, data privacy.
ISP safe harbor: follows French law, which protects conduits, caching, hosting.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Access a fundamental right. Data privacy law.
ISP safe harbor: for conduits, caching, hosting, locator tools. Notice and takedown process.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy, habeas data in Constitution. Hate speech proscribed.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy in Constitution.
Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage, plus search engines.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Statute for personal data. Hate speech outlawed.
ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach protects ISP conduits, caching, hosting.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
Internet right: right of guaranteed access; free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech proscribed.
ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
Internet rights: free speech, strong privacy protections; hate speech proscribed.
Net neutrality :2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech banned.
ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage. ISPs duties go beyond take down.
Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy. Statutory protection for personal data.
ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach. AgCom agency has new takedown process, including fast track.
Net neutrality: no protection.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in ECHR and Human Rights Act. Personal data protection. ISPs filter pornography, adult materials.
ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal safe harbors for conduits, caching, storage.
Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protected.
Net neutrality: law protects net neutrality since 2011. 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech outlawed.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy. Hate speech proscribed.
ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, and passive hosting.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
ISP safe harbor:
Net neutrality: no legal requirement.
Internet rights: free speech in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
ISP safe harbor: Obligated to apply EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, and passive hosting.
Net neutrality: voluntary industry guidelines have been adopted.
Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but media self censors. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
ISP safe harbor: for access, caching, passive storage, and information locator tools.
Net neutrality: no legal protection
Internet rights: Constitution recognizes free speech, privacy but restrictions of speech in practice Data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some impairment. Personal data law.
Net neutrality: none.
ISP safe harbors: none.
Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy. Data privacy protected.
ISP safe harbors: Section 30 of the Electronic Commerce Act provides safe harbor.
Net neutrality: not protected.
Net neutrality: no protection, but voluntary industry code.
In 2014, then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered blocking of Twitter and YouTube in Turkey.
Journalists and people critical of government frequently arrested.
2014 law gives government power to block sites without court order; requires retention of user records for 2 years.
ISP safe harbor: broad immunity without notice and takedown requirement.
Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech. Data privacy protected by statute.
ISP safe harbor: horizontal safe harbor for ISPs from copyright, defamation, and other liability; notice-and-takedown approach.
Net neutrality: recognized by industry guidelines, subject to exceptions.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions. Data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions. Data privacy bill.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy, and data privacy in Constitution. Data privacy law.
Internet rights: new Constitution passed in Dec. 2015. Free speech and privacy protected.
Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.
<li>Internet rights: free speech, data&nbsp;privacy protections.&nbsp;Hate speech proscribed.</li>
<li>ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.</li>
<li>Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.</li>
Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Censorship. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Government censorship and restriction of Internet. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions in practice. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in interim Constitution, but restricted in practice.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some monitoring of websites. Personal data protection.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy bill.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some self-censorship. Data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Some restrictions. Data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy, and data privacy, but speech sometimes restricted in practice.
ISP safe harbor: based on removal of the allegedly infringing material.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions of speech. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. No data privacy law.
Overseas territory of France following French law
Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted and website blocking. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, free press, privacy, human dignity. Personal data protection law.
ISP safe harbor: for conduit, caching, hosting, locator tools. Notice-and-takedown.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protection not yet in effect.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions of speech in practice. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech in Constitution. Data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions and monitoring. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions of speech and online monitoring. No data privacy law.
Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions imposed by government.
Net neutrality: legal protection.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions of speech for morality.
Iran blacklists thousands of disapproved websites and blocked more than 5 million sites.
Extensive government surveillance of Internet content.
Bloggers can be jailed for posting disapproved content.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy recognized but restricted in practice.
<li>Internet rights: free&nbsp;speech in Constitution, but restricted in practice. No right of privacy.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
<li>ISP safe harbor: none.</li>
<li>Net neutrality: no legal protection.</li>
Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but restricted in practice. No privacy right.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy recognzied, but censorship, website blocking, and Internet monitoring in practice.
Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions and website blocking.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy rights restricted by government.
Internet rights: Censorship of content. Lack of privacy protection.
Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions to stifle criticism of government.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy and data privacy in Constitution.
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/az/az019en.pdfInternet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice. Data protection law.
Internet rights: privacy, free speech but some restrictions and censorship.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. But government censorship and monitoring.
Internet rights: Censorship of pornography, defamation, blasphemy. Some personal data protection.
Government engages in selective blocking of websites and accounts on social media.
The government's Central Monitoring System (CMS) surveils phone calls, emails, Internet content.
Net neutrality: Department of Telecommunications report favors net neutrality.
Internet rights: Free speech right subject to exception. Government censors political criticisms, defamation, pornography. Personal data protected.
ISP safe harbor: OSP safe harbors are more limited than US DMCA
Net neutrality: KCC Guidelines allow reasonable traffic discrimination
Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, personal data protection.
Internet rights: speech right, no general privacy right, and limited personal data protection.
Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but censorship in practice. Data privacy law.
ISP safe harbor: no safe harbor, although scope of secondary liability for ISPs unclear.
Internet rights: privacy, free speech but broad defamation law and ban on 774 phrases.
ISP safe harbors: limited; Article 25 of Copyright Act imposes substantial duties on ISPs.
Net neutrality: TBD.
Internet rights: privacy, free speech but broad defamation law used to stifle speech.
Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but no personal data protection.
Net neutrality: draft guidelines in 2018.
Pakistan has increased censorship and restrictions on access to the web for religious, political, and other reasons.
Government engages in blocking of websites. YouTube has been blocked since 2012.
Internet rights: free speech, but no privacy. Temporary Internet blocking in state of emergency in 2018.
Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy of correspondence, personal data privacy.
ISP safe harbors: for access, caching, passive storage, and locator tools.
Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions in practice.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. But government censorship, monitoring, website blocking.
Internet rights: privacy and free speech. No personal data protection.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy. Website blocking.
Cuba restricts Internet access and requires people to apply for a permit to get full "international" access to the Internet, Decree Law 209 (1996).
Most Cubans do not qualify for full Internet access. Only 5% of the population had Internet access in 2012.
Cuba blocks websites, especially ones critical of the government, and deploys propaganda on social media.
Internet rights: protection for free speech, privacy, and personal data.
ISP safe harbors: for access, caching, and hosting.
Internet rights: free speech and privacy rights, but concerns with Cybercrime Code.
Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protection.
Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections, Internet access. Hate speech proscribed.
Internet rights: free speech but not privacy right. Personal data protection. Speech and privacy restrictions.
ISP safe harbors: 4 safe harbors similar to U.S. DMCA safe harbors.
Net neutrality: law requires.
Internet rights: privacy, free speech but speech critical of government is restricted.
Laws to protect Internet freedoms
Laws for all 3 categories: Internet rights (speech, privacy, access), ISP safe harbors, net neutrality.
Laws for most of 3 categories above, but some issues left to market.
Laws for some of 3 categories above, but substantial gaps in protections.
Internet censorship or lack of Internet freedoms.
Still under analysis.
Press country twice for full analysis.
Click for map explanation
- Jump to a country - Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Belize Benin Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Fiji Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Polynesia Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Greenland Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea Bissau Guyana Haiti Haiti Honduras Honduras Hong Kong Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Latvia Lebanon Lebanon Lebanon Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Luxembourg Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova Mongolia Montenegro Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea North Korea Norway Oman Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Syria Taiwan Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor Leste Timor Leste Togo Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
- Select Country - Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Greenland Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor Leste Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
Large Image (800px)
Free the Internet
Medium Image (500px)
Small Image (200px)
Project Safeguarding Elections
Map of Internet Protections
The Free Internet Project Announces New Project on Election Security
The Internet has been championed as an instrument to promote democracy, in part due to its open and decentralized nature that enables millions to organize and spread their views, including dissent. Over the past few years, however, many fear that the Internet is being "weaponized" by governments, foreign and domestic groups, and even by large tech companies, in ways that threaten democracy, particularly free and fair elections—which are the bedrock of democracy.* The Free Internet Project is undertaking a new initiative to analyze and address this problem, to provide people with objective analysis of and proposed solutions to the issues countries face in safeguarding elections from interference. To that end, the nonprofit The Free Internet Project announces the launching of Project Safeguarding Elections (PSE). PSE has two main objectives:
1. To track, report, and analyze major incidents of and responses to election interference around the world on a dedicated blog or website. At least five types of issues will be covered:
Fake news: the spread of disinformation and false information online to interfere with an election;
Hacking of political candidates: the hacking of emails and communications of political parties and candidates;
Hacking of voting machines: the hacking of voting machines and tabulation of results
Fake results: the spread of false election results to undermine the true result; and
Duties of corporations and governments: the roles and responsibilities (if any) of the law, governments, and companies to address these problems.
2. To convene experts from different relevant fields to provide opinion pieces and proposed best practices to address these issues around the world.
*See, e.g., Nicolas Weaver, Our Government Has Weaponized the Internet. Here's How They Did It, Wired, Nov. 13, 2013; Tim Berners-Lee, Tim Berner-Lee is fighting for the web's future, and he wants you to join him, Quartz, March 12, 2018.
Review of EU's Rapid Alert System to protect elections from disinformation and interference: did it work?
The New York Times has a front page article critiquing the EU's new Rapid Alert System (RAS), which was established to identify disinformation related to elections and to issue a rapid alert, warning voters in the EU. Any EU member country can notify the EU office of possible election disinformation. The Rapid Alert System was set up as a part of the EU's Action Plan against disinformation, which followed on the heels of the East Stratcom Task Force, which is tasked with countering Russian disinformation. The NYT article reports that some in Brussels, where the EU's disinformation analysts are stationed, jokingly describe the Rapid Alert System as follows: "It's not rapid. There are no alerts. And there's no system." The NYT article includes one incident in which EU officials identified suspicious tweets about an "Austrian political scandal," which may have been from Russian trolls, but the EU officials--for whatever reason--did not issue an alert. In fact, the office never issued any alerts during the last election season, although officials claim that they were successful in protecting the EU elections from interference.
One expert the NYT quotes, Jakub Janda, the executive director of a Czech-policy group, described the Rapid Alert System as a failure: "It's a Potemkin village. People in the know, they don't take it seriously." Few countries have contributed to the RAS, although it is not clear the reason for the lack of submissions stems from members' low view of the RAS or simply the lack of problematic cases of election disinformation. EU officials defend the system as the first of its kind and the office is cautious about issuing an alert. Presumably, too many alerts would undermine its effectiveness.
Although the NYT article provides helpful information about the RAS, it seems too early to tell how well it operates after just one election. The fact that no alerts issued during the past election is not evidence, in itself, of a failure of the system. The EU officials' cautiousness in issuing alerts seems wise as their effectiveness would likely be diminished if alerts were frequently issued for every single piece of election disinformation. In some cases, an alert might give more viewers to a piece of disinformation, also known as the Streisand effect. More generally, the experience shows the complex set of issues regulators face in trying to ensure the integrity of elections. The EU does not take the same broad approach to free speech as the U.S. does, so the EU regulators have more authority to combat disinformation. Yet, even with more expansive power, it's not clear how EU regulators can best fight election disinformation online, where posts and ads can have an effect on people as soon as they are viewed.
House passes election security bill, H.R. 2722, Securing America's Federal Elections (SAFE) Act
On Thursday, June 27, 2019, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2722, an election security bill aimed at strengthening the nation's election system. Introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D. Calif.), the Securing America's Federal Elections (SAFE) Act authorizes $600 million to update voting equipment to comply with new standards.
The SAFE requirements mandate that voting machines be manufactured in the United States, stay disconnected from the Internet, and produce paper records;
The SAFE bill provides an additional $175 million biannual appropriation for "sustainment" funds for maintain election infrastructure and
a $5 million grant program administered by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to research accessible paper ballot verification methods. [The Hill]
The bill passed the House floor in a near party-line vote 225 to 184; Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) was the only Republican to vote for the bill. [Washington Post] In a party conference before the vote, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described the bill as an effort to "further strengthen the defense of our democracy." At the same conference, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "We're standing with our House colleagues today—we're standing with the American people today, to protect the integrity of our elections." Much of the Democratic support stems from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report finding foreign political influence in the 2016 presidential election.
Though legislators from both parties have acknowledged the need for increased election security, the parties disagree how to achieve this goal. While congressional Democrats view the bill as a safeguard against foreign interference, their Republican counterparts view the bill as a form of federal encroachment into an area (overseeing elections) traditionally regulated by the states. Rep. Rodney Davis (R.-Ill.), the ranking Republican of the House Administration Committee, stated that the bill "focuses on forcing states to restructure their election systems through federal mandates and ignores states' rights to choose the election system that best fits their unique needs." [The Roll Call]
The bill faces steep opposition in the Senate. On Thursday morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) deemed the bill a "nonstarter." Citing Congress's previous grant of $380 million to states for election security, McConnell believes additional funding unnecessary, as reported by the New York Times. On Tuesday, June 25, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) tried to force a vote on a measure that would require backup paper ballots and authorize $1 billion in grants for states to improve election protection until Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) blocked the move. [The Hill] In the week prior, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R.-Tenn.) similarly blocked Sen. Mark Warner's (D-Va.) attempt to bring forth a bill requiring campaigns to report to the Federal Election Commission any foreign nationals who make donations or provide election assistance. [The Hill]
Criticizing Republican opposition to the bill, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) emphasized how Democrats would spend the upcoming July 4th holiday "fanning out all across the country" to advocate for election security measures. "We're going to have a simple message: pass legislation with provisions of the SAFE Act, and tell Mitch McConnell that the future of our democracy is too important for him to stand in its way," Sen. Wyden expressed. [The Roll Call] Speaker Pelosi announced that election security officials would brief Congress on July 10 in an effort to further increase pressure on Leader McConnell. [The Hill]
Your Guide to Democratic Presidential Candidates' Proposals for Election Security
With the 2020 election approaching, Presidential candidates are sharing their views on how to protect election security. Although candidate engagement with the issue ranges from detailed plans to single sentences in online platforms, election security is beginning to play a larger role in national conversations about democracy and national security. Below is a summary of where the Democratic presidential candidates stand in terms of strengthening election security. This post will be updated as more candidates offer their own plans and views.
Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are co-sponsors of one of the most comprehensive plans is the Secure Elections Act, S. 2261, introduced by Republican Senator James Lankford. The bill would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create an advisory panel charged with developing detailed standards for the purchase and operation of voting systems. DHS would then fund state efforts to implement the panel's recommendations. Finally, the plan would create a "Hack the Election" competition to increase early detection of election cybersecurity threats. Notably, the legislation has achieved bipartisan acclaim. Its primary sponsor is Senator James Lankford (R-OK) and two other Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors. Despite this bipartisan support, opposition from President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have stalled Senate consideration of the bill, according to the New York Times. For more, visit Sen. Harris website and Sen. Klobuchar website.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has offered her own detailed election security proposal. Citing Russian interference in the 2016 election and outdated voting systems used by many states, Senator Warren calls for paper recording of vote tallies, post-election audits, and mandatory cybersecurity training for state election officials. Her plan would require the use of federally provided voting machines, a uniform federal ballot, and the development of a "security firewall" similar to Fort Knox. For more, visit Sen. Warren website.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has also been vocal on election security issues. She has called for increased cybersecurity training for military officials and worked with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to propose a national commission to investigate election security vulnerabilities. The commission would be tasked with reviewing election interference in 2016, review incidences of election interference in other countries, and making "a full and complete accounting of what emerging threats and unmitigated vulnerabilities" exist at all levels of government. For more visit, Sen. Gillibrand website.
Sen. Michael Bennet
Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) has proposed, among other reforms, requiring social media companies to prohibit foreign nationals from publishing political ads on their sites. For more, visit Sen. Bennet website.
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX)
Rep. O'Rourke's platforms calls for improvements to election security that will "aggressively tackle interference in our elections." He specifically lists federal funding for states seeking to bolster their cybersecurity standards, provide paper balloting, and conduct "risk-limiting" election audits. Similar to Senator Bennet, he also mentions requiring social media sites to "disclose sponsors of political ads on their sites."
Vice Pres. Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Cory Booker, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg - no detailed proposals yet
Still other candidates, including Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg, have recognized the importance of election security in public statements or through their online platform, but have not issued detailed proposals on how they would address the issue. For more, visit the websites of Vice President Biden, Sen. Sanders, Sen. Booker, and Mayor Buttigieg.
Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang believes that "Americans should be able to vote via their mobile device, with verification done via blockchain." Other candidates have offered a range of ideas to address threats to election security. Former Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO) and former Congressman John Delaney (D-MD) have each proposed the creation of a federal office designed to coordinate cybersecurity efforts, specifically including election security.
Pres. Donald Trump
President Trump's 2020 campaign website highlights his administration's sanctions against Russian entities, the expulsion of Russian diplomats, and creation of "the Election Infrastructure Government and Sector Coordinating Councils" as key election security achievements. These claims, however, conflict with public statements from the President, who has repeatedly waivered on whether he believes Russia interfered in the 2016 election at all. As recently as last week, President Trump appeared to joke about election interference commenting in a one-on-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a G20 summit: "Don't meddle in the election, please." As noted above, President Trump has publicly opposed bipartisan legislation that aims to protect election infrastructure.
Given the prominence of election security concerns surrounding the 2016 election, it comes as no surprise that candidates are proactively addressing the issue in the run up to the next Presidential contest. A 2018 poll shows that 70% of Americans believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and 68% believe that the administration has not taken sufficient action to protect the election system from interference. As both Democratic primary candidates and President Trump tout their election security goals and accomplishments, it is clear that the issue will play a prominent role in the 2020 race.
Should tech companies do more for election security?: hard lessons from Russian social media warfare in 2016 U.S. elections
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, joined the growing number of high-profile individuals demanding that the U.S. government step up its regulation of big tech companies. In a June 2019 interview at the Economic Club of Washington, DC, Gates said, "Technology has become so central that governments have to think: What does that mean about elections?" Gates focused on the need to reform user privacy rights and data security.
This concern comes following the details of a Russian-led social media campaign to "sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed 'information warfare'" outlined in Volume I Section II of the Mueller Report. According to the Mueller Report, a Russian-based organization, known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA), "carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton." As early as 2014, IRA employees traveled to the United States on intelligence-gathering missions to obtain information and photographs for use in their social media posts. After returning to St. Petersburg, IRA agents began creating and operating social media accounts and group pages which falsely claimed to be controlled by American activists. These accounts addressed divisive political and social issues in America and were designed to attract American audiences. The IRA's operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of American persons and entities.
Once the IRA-controlled accounts established a widespread following, they began organizing and staging political rallies within the United States. According to the Mueller Report, IRA-controlled accounts were used to announce and promote the events. Once potential attendees RSVP'd to the event page, the IRA-controlled account would then message these individuals to ask if they were interested in serving as an "event coordinator." The IRA then further promoted the event by contacting US media about the event and directing them to speak with the coordinator. After the event, the IRA-controlled accounts posted videos and photographs of the event. Because the IRA is able to acquire unwitting American assets to contribute to the events, there was no need for any IRA employee to be present at the actual event.
Throughout the 2016 election season, several prominent political figures [including President Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Kellyanne Conway, and Michael Flynn] and various American media outlets responded to, interacted with, or otherwise promoted dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by the IRA. By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA had the ability to reach millions of Americans through their social media accounts. The Mueller Report has confirmed the following information with individual social media companies:
Twitter identified 3,814 IRA-controlled accounts that directly contacted an estimated 1.4 million people. In the ten weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, these accounts posted approximately 175,993 tweets.
Facebook identified 470 IRA-controlled accounts who posted more than 80,000 posts that reached as many as 126 million persons. IRA also paid for 3,500 advertisements.
Instagram identified 170 IRA-controlled accounts that posted approximately 120,000 pieces of content.
Since the details of the IRA's social media campaign were publicized, big tech companies have been subject to heightened levels of scrutiny regarding their effort to combat misinformation and other foreign interference in American elections. However, many members of Congress were pushing for wide-ranging social media reform even before the release of the Mueller Report.
In April 2018, Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified over a two-day period during a joint session of the Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. These hearings were prompted by the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Cambridge Analytica—a political consulting firm with links to the Trump campaign—harvested the data of an estimated 87 million Facebook users to psychologically profile voters during the 2016 election. Zuckerberg explained that, when functioning properly, Facebook is supposed to collect users' information so that their advertisements can be tailored to a specific group of people that the third party wishes to target as part of their advertising strategy. In this scenario, the third-parties never receive any Facebook users' data. However, Cambridge Analytica utilized a loophole in Facebook's Application Programming Interface (API) that allowed the firm to obtain users' data after the users accessed a quiz called "thisismydigitallife." The quiz was created by Aleksandr Kogan, a Russian American who worked at the University of Cambridge. Zuckerberg explained to members of Congress that what Cambridge Analytica was improper, but also admitted that Facebook made a serious mistake in trusting Cambridge Analytica when the firm told Facebook it was not using the data it had collected through the quiz.
Another high-profile hearing occurred on September 5, 2018 when Twitter Co-Founder and CEO Jack Dorsey was called to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee to discuss foreign influence operations on social media platforms. During this hearing, Dorsey discussed Twitter's algorithm that prevents the circulation of Tweets that violate the platform's Terms of Service, including the malicious behavior we saw in the 2016 election. Dorsey also discussed Twitter's retrospective review of IRA-controlled accounts and how the information gathered is being utilized to quickly identify malicious automated accounts, a tool that the IRA relied heavily on prior to the 2016 election. Lastly, Dorsey briefed the committee on Twitter's suspicion that other countries—namely Iran—may be launching their own social media campaigns.
With the 2020 election quickly approaching, these social media executives are under pressure to prevent their platform from being abused in the election process. Likewise, the calls for elected officials to increase regulation of social media platforms are growing stronger by the day, especially since Gates joined the conversation.
[Sources: Mueller Report, PBS, Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian, Vox I, Vox II]
Tm Berners-Lee launches Inrupt and Solid for people to control their personal data
Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, announced in October 2018 the launch of a new project called Inrupt to launch a new, open-source technology or platform called "Solid." Solid is an ecosystem that enables users to store anything, including personal data, in their own Solid POD (personal online data store), which acts as the interface with other sites. So, instead of "logging in with Facebook" or "logging in with Google," people can "Log in with your own Solid POD." Through your POD, you can control the permission of how much other sites or apps can "read or write" to your POD. The main thrust of the POD approach is that it enables people to control and limit any sharing of their personal data via their single POD, instead of being beholden to websites such as Facebook or an app's user policy. As the Solid site describes:
You give people and your apps permission to read or write to parts of your Solid POD. So whenever you're opening up a new app, you don't have to fill out your details ever again: they are read from your POD with your permission. Things saved through one app are available in another: you never have to sync, because your data stays with you.
This approach protects your privacy and is also great for developers: they can build cool apps without harvesting massive amounts of data first. Anyone can create an app that leverages what is already there.
Berner-Lee took time off from his position at MIT to work on the commercial venture Inrupt. Inrupt is meant to facilitate developers to adopt Solid in their programming and develop new programs incorporating the Solid approach. It's too early to tell how much adoption Solid will get, but it has the potential to radically transform the Internet. For example, in an interview with Fast Compnay, Berners-Lee gave one example of a new home assistant that protects people's privacy, instead of tracking their every word: "one idea Berners-Lee is currently working on is a way to create a decentralized version of Alexa, Amazon's increasingly ubiquitous digital assistant. He calls it Charlie. Unlike with Alexa, on Charlie people would own all their data. That means they could trust Charlie with, for example, health records, children's school events, or financial records. That is the kind of machine Berners-Lee hopes will spring up all over Solid to flip the power dynamics of the web from corporation to individuals."
The EU's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) goes into effect May 25, 2018
The new EU General Data Protection Regulation goes into effect May 25th, 2018. You may have recently received notices of changes to privacy policies by Google, Twitter, and other tech companies. The reason: the GDPR. It attempts to create uniform rules for how personal data is managed in EU countries. The European continent's first piece of legislation pertaining to the protection of personal data was the "Convention 108", adopted in 1981 by the Council of Europe (a different international institution that the EU which brings together 47 countries). Later, in 1995, the European Union passed its directive "on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data". Unlike the 1995 personal data directive, which must be implemented by EU countries in their nationals laws, the new GDPR is EU law that applies without reliance on national implementing laws. The GDPR is also broader than the personal data directive. The key changes are discussed below. OVERVIEW OF KEY CHANGES BY GDPR 1. Extensive territorial scope: controllers of data with no establishment in the EU can still be subject to the Regulation for processing related to the offering of goods and services in the EU, or to the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects located in the EU.
No longer matters whether controllers actually process data within the EU.
If an EU citizen's data is processed, the controller is subject to the GDPR.
2. Enhanced rights of data subjects:
New right to 'data portability': in certain situations, controllers will be bound to transmit personal data to new controllers, on the request of data subjects who may wish to switch from on service to another;
Upgraded rights to erasure ('right to be forgotten') and to restriction of processing;
Substantial increase of the number of information items which must be provided to data subjects, including in particular the retention period of the collected data;
More stringent conditions for a valid consent (where required): it will have to be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous, by statement or by affirmative action.
3. Redesigned obligations for controllers and processors:
Auto-compliance and accountability: controllers and processors must ensure and be able to demonstrate that they have implemented any technical and organizational measures in order to ensure that the processing carried out comply with the Regulation. Such demonstration may be helped through adhesion to codes of conducts, or through certifications;
The end of prior notifications: the obligation to notify the competent supervising authority prior to each processing is replaced by an obligation to keep detailed records of processing activities;
Data by design and by default: controllers and processors will be expressly bound to respect these principles which is viewed as an effective means for compliance;
Specific measures to be implemented in certain situations: (i) appointment of a data protection officer; (ii) privacy impact assessments; and (iii) notification of data breaches to supervising authorities and to concerned data subjects;
Other new obligations related in particular to the (i) joint controller regime (the breakdown of the different responsibilities will have to be determined); and to (ii) the choice of data processors and to the contracts between controllers and processors.
4. Reinforcement and clarification of the supervising authorities' roles and powers:
Administrative fines up to 20 million Euros or 4% of the worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year;
For cross-border processing, a lead authority will handle issues in accordance to a new co-operation procedure between it and other concerned supervising authorities (which will remain competent alone in certain situations);
Supervisory authorities will have to offer each other mutual assistance, and may conduct joint operations when necessary;
A new entity, the "European Data Protection Board", will replace the Article 29 Working Party and will be in charge of providing opinions to supervising authorities on certain matters, of ensuring consistent application of the Regulation (by supervising authorities) in particular through a dispute resolution mechanisms, of issuing guidelines, of encouraging the drawing-up of codes of conducts etc.
Illinois Introduces State Bill Seeking to Protect Net-Neutrality
Since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality rules in December 2017, many states have been at work trying to safeguard against the possible negative fallout. On February 14, 2018, Illinois State Rep. Ann Williams filed House Bill 4819, the Broadband Procurement and Disclosure Act. HB 4819 requires that all internet service providers (ISPs) who do business with state agencies adhere to basic net neutrality principles. The bill requires that the ISPs make "clear and conspicuous" statement disclosing the ISP's network management practices. Most importantly, the bill aims to restore basic net neutrality rules by mandating that all ISPs providing service to Illinois agencies "shall not block" users from accessing lawful content. The bill also provides that ISPs shall not "impair" or "degrade" lawful traffic to the user, based on content. Finally, the bill prohibits ISPs from manipulating broadband service to favor certain traffic, and from unreasonably interfering with either the end user's ability to access desired content or content producer's ability to make content available to users.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission votes to repeal net neutrality law
On December 14, 2017, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to repeal Obama's net neutrality protections. These now-eliminated protections include barring internet providers from slowing down or blocking access to online content, and prohibiting internet providers from promoting their own content. Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC, stated "[the repeal] is not going to destroy the internet. It is not going to end the internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online." Others, have voiced strong opinions against the repeal. "This is a matter of enormous importance with significant implications for our entire economy and therefore merits the most thorough, deliberate, and thoughtful process that can be provided," stated Maine Senators Susan Collins, Republican, and Angus King, independent. The FCC also received millions of comments supporting current net neutrality protections. States have voiced their stance against the FCC's net neutrality protection repeals. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has declared intentions to sue to stop the FCC's rollback of net neutrality, stating "We will be filing a claim to preserve protections for New Yorkers and all Americans. And we'll be working aggressively to stop the FCC's leadership from doing any further damage to the internet and to our economy." Washington State Attorney Bob Ferguson also announced his intention to take action, stating "Today, I am announcing my intention to file a legal challenge to the FCC's decision to roll back net neutrality, along with attorneys general across the country." Other states, including Oregon, Illinois, Iowa, and Massachusetts, will join the lawsuit as well.
China blocks What's App
China partially blocked the popular messaging service called What's App, owned by Facebook. China reportedly blocked photos and videos from being shared on the service, and, in some cases, even messages. The New York Times stated: "According to the analysis that we ran today on WhatsApp's infrastructure, it seems that the Great Firewall is imposing censorship that selectively targets WhatsApp functionalities,' said Nadim Kobeissi, an applied cryptographer at Symbolic Software, a cryptography research start-up." The conjecture was that the censorship was part of the government's leadup to the upcoming selections in Congress: "To complicate matters, the 19th Party Congress — where top leadership positions are determined — is just months away. The government puts an increased emphasis on stability in the run up to the event, which happens every five years, often leading to a tightening of internet controls."
The Free Internet Project is a nonprofit whose mission is to provide the public with information about the latest legal and technological efforts to protect Internet freedoms around the world.
Founded in 2014, TFIP provides a user-friendly resource for the public to follow and comment on the latest bills, decisions, constitutional amendments, and technologies to protect the "free and open Internet." The Project is based on the belief that the Internet is an amazing tool for sharing knowledge, and that people around the world can learn from and share in the efforts to protect Internet freedoms in other countries.
If you have a tip or would like to contact us, write us: thefreeinternetproject[at]gmail.com
Stay connected with us. Subscribe to our mailing list
Thank you for your support of The Free Internet Project!
We have been approved by the IRS for 501(c)(3) status as a tax-exempt entity. Your contributions to TFIP are deductible as charitable donations for U.S. federal income tax purposes.