al jazeera – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Israel Shows It Has Nothing To Fear From International Coverage Of Palestine Conflict By Kicking Al Jazeera Out Of The Country

from the I-guess-we'll-just-have-to-take-the-state-media's-word-for-it dept

Wars, conflicts, domestic dust-ups, whatever you want to call them… they’re sensitive situations, easily made worse by even the most mild fluctuations in the political climate or the public temperament.

And while I’m completely aware there’s no enshrined rights protecting journalism on par with the First Amendment in Israel, this latest turn of events does the country’s government no favors… especially when it’s already on the losing end of a lot of battles in the court of public opinion.

Israeli authorities raided a Jerusalem hotel room used by Al Jazeera as its office after the government decided to shut down the Qatari-owned TV station’s local operations on Sunday, an Israeli official and an Al Jazeera source told Reuters.

Video circulated online showed plainclothes officers dismantling camera equipment in a hotel room, which the Al Jazeera source said was in East Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet shut down the network for as long as the war in Gaza continues, saying it threatened national security.

This is the sort of thing that happens almost everywhere when the domestic situation starts to get a bit war-ry. Having blacked its own eye several times — not the least of which was the apparent “targeted” killing of international aid workers providing food for Palestinians on the other side of Israel’s siege tactics — the Israeli government apparently won’t be allowing this particular non-Israeli news agency from criticizing it while enjoying the relative safety of a Jerusalem hotel room.

As usual, the excuse used for ejecting foreign journalists is a favorite of any country whose government wants to oust critics, dissidents, or unfriendly journalists: “national security.”

Certainly Al Jazeera’s coverage has been critical, but no more so than plenty of other news agencies. Its recent exposure of even more abuse of Israeli-crafted spyware by a questionable government customer couldn’t have helped, but Israel’s domestic news agencies have been doing this for years, helping contribute to the worldwide woes suffered (deservedly so!) by malware merchants like NSO Group and Candiru.

This decision to boot Al Jazeera was the result of a concerted effort that required a vote from the members of the Israeli government cabinet. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the vote was “unanimous.”

And it’s not as though Al Jazeera’s hands are completely clean, either. Accusations that its journalists cohabitate and collaborate with members of Islamic extremist groups have dogged the new outlet for years. There have been several accusations over the past several months that Al Jazeera journalists are not only embedded with Hamas, but apparently acting as operatives. (Of course, most of these accusations tend to come from governments irritated with Al Jazeera reporting, rather than sources with little to gain from silencing apparent critics.)

But there’s no reason to believe the journalists staying in Jerusalem were involved with anything more than providing ongoing coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. And this ousting by the Israeli government hasn’t earned it any international accolades. Instead, it has been met with united criticism from other governments as well as news agencies around the world.

Given the circumstances of this ejection, it looks far more like the Israeli government wants to wrest control of the conflict narrative. If it had any genuine concerns about Al Jazeera, it had plenty of time to address them before it became the subject of international criticism for its actions and tactics in this latest flare-up in hostilities. The timing here says this is just opportunistic and completely unmoored from any legitimate national security concerns. But when all you have is a war, everything looks like a “national security threat.”

Filed Under: free speech, gaza, israel, journalism, palestine
Companies: al jazeera

Appeals Court Tells Lying Cop No 'Reasonable' Officer Would Think It's OK To Tear Gas Journalists For Performing Journalism

from the pretty-much-as-clearly-established-as-something-can-get dept

For some reason, we, the people, keep having to shell out cash to employ a lot of unreasonable law enforcement officers.

We’ve already seen some federal courts respond to violent law enforcement responses to the mere presence of journalists and legal observers during protests. The targeting of non-participants by law enforcement has been met with injunctions and harsh words for the officers participating in these attacks.

Much of what’s been covered here deals with months of ongoing protests in Portland, Oregon and violent responses by federal officers. But this appeals court ruling (via Mike Scarcella) shows the problem isn’t confined to the Northwest or federal law enforcement. Cops are attacking journalists in other cities as they try to do nothing more than cover highly newsworthy events.

And the problem isn’t new either. This case [PDF], handled by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, deals with an attack on three Al Jazeera reporters covering protests in Ferguson, Missouri following the killing of Michael Brown.

Local law enforcement officers may not have been wearing cameras, but the journalists brought their own. The events that transpired were captured in the course of their attempted coverage of Ferguson protests. Fortunately, this footage exists. The version of events offered by the sued deputy is a lie. Here’s what was captured by Al Jazeera cameras:

The SWAT Team approached the reporters as they prepared the live broadcast, a block and a half from the street where most of the protests occurred. Their video shows a calm scene. An unidentified officer begins shooting rubber bullets at them. They yell, identifying themselves as reporters. Anderson then deploys a single canister of CS gas (also known as “tear-gas”). It lands in front of the reporters. They move away from the camera, but can be heard talking in the background. An unidentified person walks past the camera. Other people stop in front of it. The police do not fire at them. One reporter re-appears in front of the camera, is shot at, and leaves. Another person walks past the camera (possibly the same unidentified person as before). A second group poses in front of the camera, thinking they are on CNN. They talk to the camera for over two minutes.

Minutes later, police deploy another canister of tear-gas at men standing on the corner, several feet from the camera. Over a speaker, the SWAT Team appears to ask the reporters to “turn the spotlight off.” SWAT Team members then lay down the lights and turn the camera lens toward the ground. The reporters re-appear. After speaking to the officers, they pack their equipment and leave.

As the court notes, this narrative (the one captured by cameras) is “disputed.” But it’s only “disputed” because Deputy Michael Anderson (the defendant) would prefer to use an alternate history to exonerate himself.

Anderson claims the reporters were told to disperse and turn off the lights but refused. He also claims he saw projectiles launched from the area of the bright lights. He says he had difficulty seeing what was going on. He believes there was an imminent threat to safety. He stresses that his sergeant ordered him to deploy the tear-gas.

Submitted in support of this narrative is Anderson’s sworn declaration that everything he said is true, even when nothing on record supports his version of the incident.

Before the SWAT Team arrived, the reporters counter that their location was a calm scene. The videos support this. None records any orders to disperse. They also do not show any projectiles thrown from the reporters’ area. They do not show orders to turn off the light before Anderson deployed the tear-gas.

The court doesn’t call Anderson a liar. It might have, if other questions had been presented. It’s limited to determining whether or not Deputy Anderson should be awarded qualified immunity. Once this returns to the lower court, Anderson will get another chance to prove he’s not lying. It seems unlikely he’ll be able to, but he is definitely going back to the lower court and is definitely going to have to defend himself against at least one allegation.

The Appeals Court says Anderson’s actions clearly violated the reporters’ First Amendment rights. No qualified immunity on this count.

The videos confirm the reporters’ version of the facts. They do not show dispersal orders or flying projectiles. They do not show orders to turn off the lights before the tear-gas. Rather, they show a peaceful scene interrupted by rubber bullets and tear-gas. Anderson presumes disputed facts in his favor, which this court cannot do because he moved for summary judgment. See Duncan, 687 F.3d at 957. Taking the facts most favorably to the reporters, Anderson did not have arguable probable cause to use the tear-gas.

Even if the court were inclined to believe Anderson’s apparent bullshit, he still wouldn’t be granted qualified immunity.

Anderson is not entitled to qualified immunity even if his sergeant told him to deploy the tear-gas. Anderson cites the Heartland case for the proposition that §1983 “does not sanction tort by association.” Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 806 (8th Cir. 2010). True, but nothing in Heartland says that a government official is immune if a superior instructs him to engage in unconstitutional conduct. Instead, Heartland says that defendants must be individually involved in the unconstitutional act to be liable under §1983. Id. See also White, 865 F.3d at 1076 (“[A] plaintiff must be able to prove ‘that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.’ ”), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Here, it is undisputed Anderson was involved. He is the one who deployed the teargas at the reporters.

The deputy argued the reporters weren’t engaged in First Amendment activity. Instead, they were ignoring a dispersal order. Again, the court points to the recording which shows no dispersal order being given during the entirety of the incident. Even if one had been, there’s no reason to assume a dispersal order requires reporters to leave the scene. Reporters reporting on newsworthy events are not engaged in unlawful activity.

The deputy also argued the plaintiffs were required to provide proof of his motive — his alleged desire to retaliate against the reporters for engaging in protected activities. Wrong again, says the court. There’s enough doubt in here a jury should examine it.

To support its conclusion that the reporters had alleged enough about causation to survive summary judgment, the district court noted that the videos show a peaceful scene interrupted by Anderson’s tear-gassing of the reporters, but not others. Quraishi, 2019 WL 2423321, at *7 (“The raw footage from Al Jazeera, however, showed that numerous people came into the area where the reporters were standing, but only the reporters were shot at and tear gassed.”). The reporters were singled out—other people were in their immediate area but only the reporters were tear-gassed at the scene. (Minutes later, men were tear-gassed several feet from the camera.) Anderson’s motive is not “so free from doubt as to justify taking it from the jury.”

And, again, the court highlights the video that shows a chain of events that contradicts Anderson’s claims.

The district court’s summary judgment facts are not based on allegations of actions by unknown individuals. They come from videos showing Anderson deploying the tear-gas. As noted, the district court does not have to rely solely on Anderson’s account of events to discern what motivated him.

It is clearly established that firing tear gas at journalists to prevent them from covering newsworthy events is a violation of their rights, the Appeals Court says, rattling off a list of ten previous decisions reaching the same conclusion. Any assumption otherwise is unreasonable.

A reasonable officer would have understood that deploying a tear-gas canister at law-abiding reporters is impermissible.

Deputy Anderson is headed back to the district court to face the reporters’ First Amendment allegations, as well as state-level excessive force claims. (The Appeals Court grants qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims, noting that being tear-gassed is not a “seizure” as there is no detention or other form of police custody.) And it would seem he’s destined to lose. His version of the events isn’t supported by anything tangible. The other side has plenty of footage showing things didn’t happen the way Deputy Anderson apparently wishes they would have happened. This isn’t a “factual dispute.” This is a recording contradicting a law enforcement officer’s lies. Hopefully, the district court will further highlight this, shall we say, “disparity” upon his return.

Filed Under: 8th circuit, journalism, michael anderson, police, protests, qualified immunity, tear gas
Companies: al jazeera

Israel's NSO Group Exploits And Malware Again Being Used To Target Journalists In The Middle East

from the are-we-the-baddies-asked-no-one-at-NSO-ever dept

You’d think the government of a land surrounded by enemies would do more to regulate malware distribution by local companies. It’s one thing to hold your enemies close. It’s quite another to provide them with the tools to ensure your own downfall.

One would think malware purveyors like the Israel’s NSO Group would post photos of countries like Saudi Arabia on its “DO NOT ACCEPT CHECKS FROM THESE GOVERNMENTS” wall at its HQ. But it doesn’t care. It sells to whoever will buy, even if that means subjecting Israeli citizens to surveillance programs run by Israel’s enemies.

This has been part of NSO’s far from illustrious history for years. When not being sued by American companies for leveraging their messaging services to deliver malware, NSO Group has allowed a variety of authoritarian governments to spy on activists, journalists, and dissidents with its toolkit of exploits and scalable attacks.

The latest expose on NSO’s unsavory tactics comes from Citizen Lab, which has been exposing the nastiness of malware purveyors for years. Citizen Lab says NSO is still allowing Israel’s enemies to target critics, making it far more dangerous for them to engage in activities that expose heinous government actions. Unsurprisingly, it’s longtime human rights violators making the most of whatever NSO Group will sell them.

In July and August 2020, government operatives used NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware to hack 36 personal phones belonging to journalists, producers, anchors, and executives at Al Jazeera. The personal phone of a journalist at London-based Al Araby TV was also hacked.

The phones were compromised using an exploit chain that we call KISMET, which appears to involve an invisible zero-click exploit in iMessage. In July 2020, KISMET was a zero-day against at least iOS 13.5.1 and could hack Apple’s then-latest iPhone 11.

Based on logs from compromised phones, we believe that NSO Group customers also successfully deployed KISMET or a related zero-click, zero-day exploit between October and December 2019.

The journalists were hacked by four Pegasus operators, including one operator MONARCHY that we attribute to Saudi Arabia, and one operator SNEAKY KESTREL that we attribute to the United Arab Emirates.

Al Jazeera is one of the only independent news outlets covering Middle East issues. That makes it a popular target for governments that would prefer their own narratives dominate news coverage. NSO’s tools make it easier to undercut competing narratives by compromising independent reporting and intimidating journalists who won’t act as stenographers for government talking heads.

Citizen Lab’s investigation uncovered attacks on journalists’ phones, resulting in exfiltration of data and communications. In addition, it saw evidence of capabilities that are present in NSO’s malware, even if they aren’t being exploited yet. These include taking control of mics on devices to surreptitiously record in-person conversations, as well as accessing audio of encrypted phone conversations. In addition, the malware has the ability to track users’ locations and access their stored credentials.

These are powerful tools. And like all powerful tools, they shouldn’t be allowed to fall into the wrong hands. But NSO Group not only allows them to fall into the wrong hands, it makes its own countrymen and allies targets by actively placing them in the wrong hands. Then it stands back and says it has no control over its customers’ actions, even if it knows certain customers are definitely not going to use these powers for good.

Filed Under: exploits, journalists, malware, surveillance, zero day
Companies: al jazeera, nso group

Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments

from the enjoy-your-new-muzzle dept

Fri, Sep 1st 2017 01:34pm - Karl Bode

We’ve noted time and time again how numerous websites have been killing news comments because they’re too lazy and too cheap to cultivate an on-site community, and/or don’t like having story errors pointed out in quite such a transparent, conspicuous location. Of course editors and publishers can never admit this is their real motivation, instead offering a rotating crop of disingenuous prattle about how they’re muzzling their readers and shoving them over to Facebook because they’re just so very into building relationships and are breathlessly-dedicated to improving conversation.

This week Al Jazeera joined the hottest trend in media, penning a missive over at Medium about how they’re banning public news comments as part of their quest to… wait for it… give a voice to the voiceless:

The mission of Al Jazeera is to give a voice to the voiceless, and healthy discussion is an active part of this. When we first opened up comments on our website, we hoped that it would serve as a forum for thoughtful and intelligent debate that would allow our global audience to engage with each other. However, the comments section was hijacked by users hiding behind pseudonyms spewing vitriol, bigotry, racism and sectarianism. The possibility of having any form of debate was virtually non-existent.

Except that’s simply not true. Numerous websites, including this one, have shown repeatedly it’s possible to discuss complicated, divisive subjects without the metaphorical house burning down. Yes, it’s true that when you don’t moderate, show up, or give much of a damn about your comment system, it’s quick to devolve into a cesspool of trolls and nincompoops. But the reality is that websites can’t monetize quality discourse during budget meetings, so it’s easier to just outsource all conversation to the homogeneous blather zone of Facebook, where listening to what your own customers are saying becomes somebody else’s problem:

`Over time, we found social media to be the preferred platform for our audience to debate the issues that matter the most to them. We encourage our audience to continue to interact with us this way. We realise that this move will come as a disappointment to the members of our audience who did try and engage in thoughtful debate on our site. However, we will be working hard over the coming months to figure out how best to bring back debate to aljazeera.com. To continue the debate on social media, please share your thoughts with us on our Facebook page and get in touch via Twitter.

Again, does anything really give a “voice to the voiceless,” foster quality conversation, or cultivate relationships quite like muzzling your customers, then shoving them toward a massive social media site where their thoughts, insights and contributions will get lost in a tsunami of prattle? It’s clear that countless publishers really love the idea of reverting back to the era of “letters to the editor,” when public feedback to your reporting could be carefully censored and repackaged as a genuine dialogue with your readership. But this line of thinking is a disservice to the quickly-evolving conversation the news has become.

I keep waiting for a news website to ban comments then candidly admit it was because they just didn’t give much of a damn. Until then, the best we’ll get are missives about how the best way to bring a voice to the voiceless is apparently with a good, swift kick in the ass.

Filed Under: comments, community, voice
Companies: al jazeera

Move Over Ed Snowden, Al Jazeera Has A Huge New Stack Of Spy Documents

from the and-the-revelations-just-keep-on-coming dept

There have been questions of when (not if) the next “Ed Snowden” situation would show up. There certainly have been a few recent leaks that appear to have been from folks other than Snowden, but they’ve mostly been one-off leaks. However, this morning, Al Jazeera is claiming that it got its hands on a huge trough of spy documents, in the form of cables from South Africa’s spy agency, the State Security Agency (SSA), and it will begin reporting on what’s in those documents, in collaboration with reporters at The Guardian:

Spanning a period from 2006 until December 2014, they include detailed briefings and internal analyses written by operatives of South Africa’s State Security Agency (SSA). They also reveal the South Africans’ secret correspondence with the US intelligence agency, the CIA, Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Russia’s FSB and Iran’s operatives, as well as dozens of other services from Asia to the Middle East and Africa.

The files unveil details of how, as the post-apartheid South African state grappled with the challenges of forging new security services, the country became vulnerable to foreign espionage and inundated with warnings related to the US “War on Terror”.

As Al Jazeera points out, this is not “signals intelligence” (SIGINT) material, but rather “human intelligence” (HUMINT) of the kind normally done by the CIA, rather than the NSA. It’s about spies on the ground — and also, according to Al Jazeera, their humdrum daily office existence. Honestly, it almost sounds like the plot of a bad sitcom: come work at a premier national intelligence agency… and bitch about the lack of parking:

At times, the workplace resembles any other, with spies involved in form-filling, complaints about missing documents and personal squabbles…. One set of cables from the Algerian Embassy in South Africa relates to a more practical concern. It demands that “no parking” signs are placed in the street outside. The cable notes that the British and US embassies enjoy this privilege, and argues that it should be extended to Algeria as well.

Whether or not this latest leak turns up anything more interesting than parking disputes, it is worth noting that another trove of intelligence documents have leaked…

Filed Under: cia, fsb, leaks, mi6, mossad, south africa, ssa, surveillance, whistleblower
Companies: al jazeera, guardian

Al Jazeera Offers Up Egypt Coverage To Anyone Who Wants To Use It Under Creative Commons License

from the but-what-incentives-do-they-have-to-create-content? dept

If you’ve been following the goings on in Egypt over the past week, it’s likely that you at least saw some of Al Jazeera’s rather comprehensive coverage. The Egyptian government was so annoyed by the coverage that it “shut down” Al Jazeera’s Egyptian offices (and Egyptian politicians are calling for trying Al Jazeera correspondents as “traitors”). Of course, it’s worth pointing out that most of us in the US have no options for watching Al Jazeera via a regular TV channel either, since almost no US TV companies are willing to carry the channel.

However, Al Jazeera has embarked on a fascinating way to deal with all of this: it’s released a lot of its reporting under a Creative Commons license. In fact, the media operation has set up a CC specific site, that archives and aggregates all of the Al Jazeera content that is free for anyone to use, with just an attribution. Thankfully, it’s not even using a “non-commercial” license. Instead, the license just requires attribution for anyone to use the content in question.

This is pretty interesting for a variety of reasons. If you listen to the classic arguments concerning scarcity, some would probably argue that Al Jazeera should be keeping a tight leash on all this great content. It’s in high demand right now, and given its extensive coverage and knowledgeable reporters on the ground, some might argue that now is the perfect time for Al Jazeera to be as restrictive as possible with its content. But the media operation seems to be thinking much longer term, recognizing that its coverage is being relied on by more and more people around the globe (with a huge influx of interest from the US). This is actually a chance for the company to grow its brand quite a bit, and maybe even push past some of the stereotypes and attacks from the US and a few other western countries. And the way to do that is to get more people seeing its content and recognizing that the content is worthwhile. Given all that, going Creative Commons (or something like it) makes perfect sense.

Filed Under: al jazeera, copyright, creative commons, egypt, sharing
Companies: al jazeera