singapore – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Stories filed under: "singapore"

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Do You Really Want The Government In Your DMs?

from the ctrl-alt-speech dept

Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.

Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.

In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:

This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.

Filed Under: content moderation, deepfakes, digital services act, eu, india, ofcom, section 230, singapore
Companies: facebook, instagram, meta, tiktok, youtube

Prime Minister’s Brother Latest Victim Of Singapore’s ‘Fake News’ Law

from the well-well-well dept

Censorship has always been the name of the game when governments push “fake news” laws. First of all, laws like these allow governments to decide which news is “fake” and which news is “credible.” Those pushing these laws claim they just want to ensure citizens aren’t misled. But, in reality, governments just want more options at their disposal to control the narrative.

Singapore has never been considered a free speech paradise. For that matter, it’s not really high on the list of human rights respecters, despite being a tourist destination. I mean, the country still enforces a death penalty for drug violations, which is even harsher than the punitive practices adopted by the United States, which has never met a Drug War it didn’t love fighting, even though it has yet to rack up a sustained win over the past several decades.

So, when Singapore decided it would get on board the “fake news” train, it was readily apparent the government simply wanted more control over what citizens said, as well as new surveillance powers that would help the government ensure more citizens said what the government wanted them to say.

One of the first deployments of the law confirmed these suspicions. Despite running its own counter-speech website (named “Factually” and I am not even kidding) that gave the government the power to deliver its version of the facts when faced with statements or reporting it didn’t like, it decided to pull the trigger on its “fake news” law to prosecute opposition party leader Brad Bowyer.

Bowyer’s criminal sin was suggesting (with evidence on hand) that the Singapore government had participated in some bad investments — problems that were partly due to the opacity surrounding government contract bidding, which the Singapore government felt its citizens shouldn’t be allowed to examine. Rather than simply use its “Factually” website to address the concerns raised by Bowyer, it also ordered him to post a “correction” of his own on top of his published allegations.

This is, of course, the exact thing laws like these are designed to do. And that’s why they should always be greeted with suspicion and open criticism the moment they’re proposed. (Waiting until the law is enacted to raise concerns just means your concerns will be considered a criminal act.)

This latest use of the “fake news” laws is a bit more unexpected. I wouldn’t exactly call this a show of good faith, but it is rather surprising that the law would be wielded against a close relation to someone in power. Here’s Hannah Fang with the details for Jurist:

The Ministry of Law of Singapore enforced the country’s fake news law Tuesday against Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, for a Facebook post regarding recent political scandals involving the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). In the Facebook post published on July 23, Lee Hsien Yang claimed that “[t]rust in the PAP has been shattered,” referring to several recent incidents involving high-profile officials in the government and the PAP.

Under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), if the Singapore government deems certain online information false or misleading, it has the authority to compel the publisher to insert links to fact-checking statements, to censor the information and to invoke criminal charges. Following the POFMA order, Lee Hsien Yang issued a correction notice on his Facebook on Tuesday.

On one hand, going after the brother of a powerful political figure lets citizens know that no one is immune from the law. On the other hand, it shows a powerful political figure is willing to punish his own sibling because his sibling had the audacity to draw attention to apparent ongoing corruption that likely involves the prime minister himself.

And, according to this report, this targeting of a PM’s brother follows several recent deployments of the law to shut down comments and reporting about ongoing corruption investigations involving several government leaders, with those allegations ranging from misuse of power to secure favorable property rental agreements to engaging in extramarital affairs with other government employees.

What none of this indicates — even given this somewhat surprising use of the law — is that the law’s existence is justified. If the government wants to avoid being implicated in corruption probes, perhaps government employees should stop engaging in acts that resemble corruption. At the very least, they should try to keep it in their pants while on the clock. And if a PM targets a family member, it doesn’t mean the law is good and being deployed honestly. It just means a PM can’t even handle being criticized publicly by the people closest to him. And that’s definitely a problem that can only be made worse by “fake news” legislation.

Filed Under: censorship, corruption, fake news, free speech, lee hsien loong, lee hsien yang, singapore

Facebook Whistleblower Testifies Before 'Grand Committee On Disinformation'; Which Includes Countries That Lock People Up For Criticizing The Gov't

from the sure-that's-wise? dept

It didn’t get as much press as some of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen’s other high profile talks to government inquisitors, but last week, Haugen testified before the rather Orwellian International Grand Committee on Disinformation. This is a bizarre “committee” set up by regulators around the world, but its focus — and its members — are kind of notable. Considering that tons of evidence shows that cable news is a much larger vector of disinformation flows to the general public, it seems notable that the “International Grand Committee on Disinformation” seems to only want to pay attention to online disinformation. I mean, it’s right in the group’s mission:

The rapid, unregulated expansion of social media is causing lasting harm to the world?s societies and democracies. So long as the technology giants who own these platforms are permitted to put profits ahead of people, malevolent actors will continue to be able to use social media to spread disinformation, spew hate, and disrupt elections.

Hmm. Only online? Only social media? No traditional media? No cable news? How… interesting.

Ah, but it gets even more interesting. Because the International Grand Committee on Disinformation this time included Singapore Parliamentarians who were very excited to show how bad social media is.

Amidst growing international convergence on the need to regulate the internet to protect vulnerable communities from online harms, two Singapore Members of Parliament participated in the fifth meeting of the International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGC5) in Brussels, Belgium on 9 November 2021. They were Ms Sim Ann, Member of Parliament for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, and Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Development; and Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Member of Parliament for Jurong GRC, and Parliamentary Secretary for Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of Health. Ms Sim and Ms Rahayu are also the co-leads of Singapore?s Sunlight Alliance for Action

Great. Great. The readout from these Singaporean Parliamentarians made it clear that they are very, very concerned:

The key themes of this year?s IGC meeting were (i) COVID-19 misinformation and (ii) online hate directed towards historically marginalised groups.

They also note that it’s clear that Facebook must be regulated:

There was a clear consensus among the participants that self-regulation by social media companies has not been effective, and regulation is necessary. There was also general endorsement of Singapore?s position that beyond regulation, multi-pronged, multi-stakeholder approaches such as the Sunlight Alliance for Action were necessary to combat online harms effectively.

Oh, great. So, let’s see, how is Singapore fighting disinformation again? Oh, right, by jailing anyone who criticizes the Singaporean government.

In 2019, Singapore “regulated disinformation” online with its Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). And how exactly has that worked there? According to Human Rights Watch, it’s been a total disaster for free speech and has been used against opposition politicians and critics of the government:

Ministers issued several correction notices to opposition politicians or political parties during the nine-day election campaign in July.

Singapore authorities also use existing laws to penalize peaceful expression and protest, with activists, lawyers, and online media facing prosecution, civil defamation suits, and threats of contempt of court charges. In March, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of activist Jolovan Wham for contempt of court for stating on Facebook that ?Malaysia?s judges are more independent than Singapore?s for cases with political implications.?

On July 28, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong?s nephew, Li Shengwu, was found guilty of contempt and fined S$15,000 (US$11,000) for a 2017 private Facebook post in which he said the Singapore government is ?very litigious and has a pliant court system.?

Ah. Notably, while opposition party members kept getting notices about how they violated the law, the ruling party politicians were somehow free of such notices. How odd.

This same “regulation” against “disinformation” was used to block access to a website criticizing the Singaporean government’s response to COVID.

So, yeah, sure, we can highlight the problems of misinformation online, but it’s difficult to take the “International Grand Committee on Disinformation” particularly seriously when its members include nations that are using “disinformation” regulations as an excuse to suppress opposition political parties and those who criticize the government. It kind of undermines any credibility such a group might have.

Filed Under: disinformation, fake news, frances haugen, international grand committee on disinformation, singapore
Companies: facebook

Surprise! Singapore Backtracks On Privacy Pledge And Opens Contact Tracing Data To Police

from the making-contact dept

Singapore has a relatively long history when it comes to using modern technology to create a surveillance state within its borders. The monitoring of use of the internet and other digital services goes way back to 2002, sold to the citizenry as both an anti-terrorism bulwark and a tool to keep hate-speech at bay. Of course, though the populace as a whole seemed to take to the government’s use of surveillance for a variety of reasons, Singapore also has a history of clamping down on any speech it simply doesn’t like.

At present, of course, surveillance of populations has increased worldwide, though in the form of contact tracing to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. All sorts of technology and tools have been rolled out to accomplish effective contract tracing, with unfortunately far less emphasis put on securing the data of participants. It should go without saying that if contact tracing is going to be effective, it needs to be widely trusted and adopted. Any breaks in the links of the contact chain render it worthless. Which is probably why Singapore had assured its citizenry, when rolling out its plan for contact tracing using the TraceTogether app, that any data collected from it would be secured and used only for tracing purposes.

In its efforts to ease privacy concerns, the Singapore government had stressed repeatedly that COVID-19 data would “never be accessed unless the user tests positive” for the virus and was contacted by the contact tracing team. Personal data such as unique identification number and mobile number also would be substituted by a random permanent ID and stored on a secured server.

Minister-in-Charge of the Smart Nation Initiative and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vivian Balakrishnan, also had insisted the TraceTogether token was not a tracking device since it did not contain a GPS chip and could not connect to the internet. He further noted that all TraceTogether data would be encrypted and stored for up to 25 days, after which it would be automatically deleted, adding that the information would be uploaded to the Health Ministry only when an individual tested positive for COVID-19 and this could be carried out only by physically handing over the wearable device to the ministry, Balakrishnan said.

The promises went on, including assurances that a very small number of contact tracers would have access to the data. This, again, was done specifically to increase the adoption in use of the app in order to get the pandemic in Singapore under control. The interests of public health ruled supreme, said the government.

Those interests lasted mere months, however, now that the Singapore government has announced that law enforcement would get access to the data for any number of reasons, including for use in open investigations.

However, the Singapore government now has confirmed local law enforcement will be able to access the data for criminal investigations. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Singapore Police Force can obtain any data and this includes TraceTogether data, according to Minister of State for Home Affairs, Desmond Tan. He was responding to a question posed during parliament Monday on whether the TraceTogether data would be used for criminal probes and the safeguards governing the use of such data.

He noted that “authorised police officers” may invoke the Criminal Procedure Code to access TraceTogether data for such purposes as well as for criminal investigation, but this data would, otherwise, be used only for contact tracing and to combat the spread of COVID-19.

It’s hard to imagine any such assurances finding much purchase given the one-eighty the government already performed on its previous promises. Privacy advocates are crying foul, with ProPrivacy’s Ray Walsh noting that the Singapore government appears poised to mandate the use of TraceTogether while also opening that data up to law enforcement, a scenario sure to breed distrust of the app during a global pandemic.

“This is extremely concerning considering that the government is planning to make the use of the TraceTogether app mandatory for all citizens,” he said. “Test and trace systems forced on the general public for the purposes of preventing the spread of the pandemic have no right being used to create an extensive surveillance network, and it is extremely unnerving to see a soon-to-be mandatory app being exploited in this way.”

As Churchill said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” One hopes that, when he said it, Churchill didn’t have the creation of a mass surveillance tool excused by a pandemic in mind.

Filed Under: contact tracing, covid, law enforcement, privacy, singapore, surveillance

Facebook Now Altering Users' Posts To Add Singapore Government's 'Fake News' Warnings

from the legislate-locally,-force-action-globally dept

Singapore’s “fake news” law continues to pay off for the Singaporean government. It’s already been used to target allegations made by political opposition leaders and now it’s converted Facebook to an extension of the ruling government.

Alex Tan, the founder of “anti-establishment” news site State Times Review has been irritating the Singapore government for a few years now. Late last year, his site published an article claiming Singapore’s prime minister was complicit in laundering Malaysian government funds through Singapore’s banks.

This resulted in the Monetary Authority of Singapore filing a criminal complaint against Tan for “impugning its integrity.” The Ministry of Law then demanded Facebook remove Tan’s posts from its site. None of this worked. Tan, now a resident of Australia, was beyond the reach of the Singaporean government. Facebook refused to comply with the government’s request because that was all it was: a request.

Tan’s posts and Facebook’s refusal to remove them were cited by the government as evidence a “fake news” law was needed.

The Ministry of Law said in a press statement: “Facebook has declined to take down a post that is clearly false, defamatory and attacks Singapore, using falsehoods.”

“This shows why we need legislation to protect us from deliberate online falsehoods.”

It’s not often a government is so transparent about its self-interest. The Ministry of Law didn’t seem to be suggesting the people needed to be protected from “online falsehoods.” It’s the government that needs to be “protected” from its mostly-powerless citizens — or, in this case, a rabble rouser operating outside of its jurisdiction.

The new law gives the Singapore government what it wanted: protection. And Facebook’s compliance. Roughly a year after the subject was first broached, Facebook is helping Singapore’s government mute the effectiveness of its critics, including Alex Tan.

Facebook said on Saturday it had issued a correction notice on a user’s post at the request of the Singapore government, but called for a measured approach to the implementation of a new “fake news” law in the city-state.

“Facebook is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information,” said the notice, which is visible only to Singapore users.

The good news is the post stays live. The bad news is the government can force Facebook to alter users’ posts by unilaterally declaring news it doesn’t like “false.” And if this doesn’t seem to be working well enough, the government still has the option to jail people or hit them with fines of up to $1 million.

The thing is the government doesn’t have to do this. Obviously, the legislation is bad and will result in censorship. But the government runs its own site for corrections, which should be all it needs to do when faced with reports and criticism it considers to be false. Instead of limiting itself to combating speech it doesn’t like with its own speech, it’s forcing American companies to act on its behalf and dangling the threat of prison time and fines over the heads of anyone whose criticism it feels is invalid.

Filed Under: alex tan, compelled speech, fake news, free speech, politics, singapore
Companies: facebook

Singapore Government Tests Out Its Fake News Law Against An Opposition Party Leader

from the who-didn't-see-this-coming dept

Singapore’s new “fake news” law has been deployed for the first time. The law the government is using to expand domestic surveillance and minimize dissent is definitely doing the latter. Bhavan Jaipragas reports the initial recipient of a “fake news” citation is none other than opposition leader Brad Bowyer.

The supposedly “fake” news Bowyer posted to Facebook has been subjected to government scrutiny. The government’s official rebuttal website — unbelievably named “Factually” — performs a point-by-point debunking of Bowyer’s claims using its own set of facts. This should have been enough. The Singaporean government wields a great deal of power. This site proves the government doesn’t need a fake news law, and yet it has one anyway, presumably because it provides so many side benefits.

Bowyer alleged the Singapore government controls or directs investment companies Temasek and GIC’s investment decisions. While it’s impossible to say for sure, there certainly is room for conjecture without sliding into “fake news.” Both are owned entirely by the Singapore government. Temasek officials have stated publicly the government is not consulted on “day-to-day business” but other companies have complained the government engages in opaque bidding processes that favor government-owned corporations and has displayed other forms of favoritism.

So, Bowyer’s implication could have been greeted by this response from the government and pointers to company statements to the contrary. Instead, it chose to invoke the law and issue a rebuttal — one aimed at political opposition that has not held any significant amount of power in more than 50 years.

Other things Bowyer implied were similarly uncontroversial. He suggested some bad investments had been made by the government. This seems like a normal thing for opposition government officials to do. But the Singapore government isn’t willing to be criticized without putting the force of law behind its response.

Fortunately, all the government ordered Bowyer to do is post a correction note on top of his original post with a link to the government’s site. It’s still government interference in political speech, but he wasn’t fined, forced to issue a retraction, or otherwise told to stop talking about government-linked corporations.

But that doesn’t make the law innocuous. The government has its own mouthpiece — the “Factually” section of the government’s website — to issue rebuttals and corrections. This makes the law extraneous. But the government likes the law because it allows the party in power — the one in power for decades — to more easily control the narrative. And it allows the government to control what’s seen online by turning service providers into extensions of its domestic surveillance programs.

This initial salvo may have been delivered with a light touch, but when things heat up around elections and the discussion of controversial legislation, expect the government’s blows to land with a little more force.

Filed Under: brad bowyer, chilling effects, fake news, free speech, intimidation, politics, singapore

Singapore's Fake News Law Is Also An Internet Surveillance Law

from the hidden-bonus-track dept

It appears the fake news law passed in Singapore isn’t just a critic-targeting, speech-chilling piece of legislation passed under the cover of providing citizens with a more trustworthy social media experience. It’s also a handy vehicle for increased domestic surveillance, as Jennifer Daskal reports for the New York Times.

The law could be used to require any company that operates as an “internet intermediary” — including search engines, social media companies, and messaging services — to keep records of what users view. But it doesn’t stop there. While it’s unclear how the new law will be enforced, it even appears to leave room for the government to require encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp or iMessage to identify who said what to whom.

What this has to do with policing “fake news” is anyone’s guess. But “fake news” laws are never really about tracking down and removing fake news. They’re about controlling what people see online and providing a handy kill switch for anything governments don’t want to see passed around the internet.

The law allows the government to demand removal of content that undermines the government’s official narratives. This isn’t a loophole or an unexpected side effect. It’s the point of the law. Any minister can issue a content removal demand if they see something they feel “undermines democratic processes or society.”

Removal demands are supposed to be the last resort. The first response to alleged fake news is the issuance of a correction notice — again, as demanded by the Singaporean government. This is far less draconian than demanding removal of content, but this response method has its own set of problems. The law requires more than the appending of a correction to alleged fake news. It also requires tech companies to ensure everyone who viewed the alleged fake news is informed of the correction. This will result in the creation and maintenance of web tracking infrastructure solely for the benefit of the government.

Correction notices effectively require websites to track those who post, look at and might be influenced by or attracted to a “false” statement. They can be ordered to identify all those who looked at the infringing material even before it was labeled troubling. They must then send out correction notices to these prior viewers, or risk hefty fines and even jail time.

Once companies are retaining records on all Singaporean users to comply with the fake news law, they won’t be able to credibly claim they don’t have these records if the government starts demanding them for other reasons. It will sweep in more than just new sources and social media sites. It will also cover anywhere else “fake news” might be posted, which includes comment threads and review sites.

Intentionally or not, the Singapore government has used fake news to create an internet surveillance program. The best part is it won’t cost the government a cent to run it. It will be performed free-of-charge by tech companies who will still be on the hook for fines if the government decides they’re not fighting fake news well enough.

Filed Under: fake news, internet, privacy, singapore, surveillance

Singapore Government Pushes Fake News Law Which Will Give It More Options To Shut Down Critics

from the legislating-the-news dept

Fake news laws aren’t harmless. They don’t protect the public. They’re useless. And they lend themselves to censorship. Given these factors, it’s tough to believe any of the proponents of fake news laws are proceeding in good faith but blinded by good intentions and fuzzy logic.

Anywhere they’ve been put in place, they’ve lead directly to governments taking action against political opponents, dissidents, and activists. Excuses are made about national security and protecting the public, but in the end, it’s the public that ends up short on protection.

Singapore’s new fake news bill is no exception. Legislators began pushing this bill last year, using their own fake news to claim the proposal had widespread support from the country’s residents. The committee behind the legislation heavily editorialized the feedback it received at a public hearing, presenting a vocal opponent’s comments as being supportive of instituting a fake news law.

Roughly a year later, the bill has materialized, according to the New York Times.

Singapore introduced draft legislation on Monday that it said would combat false or misleading information on the internet, but critics said the measure could be used as a cudgel against the government’s critics.

The legislation, called the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, would require websites to run corrections alongside “online falsehoods” and would “cut off profits” of sites that spread misinformation, among other measures, according to the Ministry of Law.

The bill is widely expected to become law in the coming weeks because it has support from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s People’s Action Party, which has a supermajority in Parliament

The bill can’t define “fake news” with any particularity. This all but ensures the law, if it passes, will be abused frequently. What’s being called fake news is anything that “reduces public confidence” or “incites hatred or ill will” between groups of people. So, yeah, this would cover a lot of what’s posted to social media, especially the “inciting ill will” part.

Supposedly, this new law won’t target criticism, satire, or parody. But that’s been said about similar laws, which have gone on to target criticism, satire, and parody. The government will decide what is or isn’t “truth” and enforce accordingly.

According to a draft of the bill, punishments for some violations could include fines of up to about 44,000andaprisontermofuptosixyearsforindividuals,orfinesofuptoabout44,000 and a prison term of up to six years for individuals, or fines of up to about 44,000andaprisontermofuptosixyearsforindividuals,orfinesofuptoabout738,000 in “any other case.”

This will be a welcome addition to the censorial toolkit Singapore’s government can wield against critics and opponents. As the New York Times article notes, Singapore bears a passing resemblance to a democracy thanks to its election process, but there has never been a change in power as a result of this process. The government already uses the country’s criminal defamation law to muffle criticism. This law won’t improve the current state of speech in Singapore. It will only make it worse.

Filed Under: censorship, criticism, fake news, free speech, politics, singapore

from the EU-should-look-and-learn dept

Techdirt writes plenty about copyright in the US and EU, and any changes to the respective legislative landscapes. But it’s important to remember that many other countries around the world are also trying to deal with the tension between copyright’s basic aim to prevent copying, and the Internet’s underlying technology that facilitates it. Recently, we covered the copyright reform process in South Africa, where some surprisingly good things have been happening. Now it seems that Singapore may bring in a number of positive changes to its copyright legislation. One of the reasons for that is the very thorough consultative process that was undertaken, explained here by Singapore’s Ministry of Law:

The proposed changes are made, following an extensive three-year review and two rounds of public consultations conducted from August to November 2016 and May to June 2017 respectively. Three public Town Halls and ten engagement sessions with various stakeholder groups, including consumer, industry and trade associations, businesses, intellectual property practitioners and academics were held. Close to 100 formal submissions and more than 280 online feedback forms were received.

The full 70-page report (pdf) spells out the questions asked during that review, the answers received, and the government’s proposals. The Ministry of Law’s press release lists some of the main changes it wants to make. One of the most welcome is a new exception for text and data mining (TDM) for the purpose of analysis:

Today, people who use automated techniques to analyse text, data and other content to generate insights risk infringing copyright as they typically require large scale copying of works without permission. It is proposed that a new exception be established to allow copying of copyrighted materials for the purpose of data analysis, where the user has lawful access to the materials that are copied. This will promote applications of data analytics and big data across a gamut of industries, unlocking new business opportunities, speeding up processes, and reducing costs for all.

Importantly, Singapore’s proposed new TDM exception applies to everyone — including big businesses. That’s unlike the corresponding Article 3 in the EU’s awful Copyright Directive, currently working its way through the legislative process, which imposes an unnecessary restriction that more or less guarantees the European Union will be a backwater in this fast-growing area. An obvious but wise move by Singapore is the proposal for an enhanced copyright exception for educational purposes:

Non-profit schools and their students will be able to use online resources that are accessible without payment, for instruction purposes. This will be in addition to their existing exceptions which generally cover only copying of a portion of a work. The enhancement will facilitate instruction and make it easier for teachers and students to use online materials in classes. For example, teachers and students will be able to use various audio-visual materials (e.g. videos, pictures) found online for their classroom lessons and project presentations. They will also be able to share those materials, or lessons and project presentations which have included those materials, on student learning portals for other schools to view. Online resources that require payment will not be covered by this exception.

Another suggested exception is for non-profit galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) to make copies for exhibition purposes. Also useful for GLAMs is a new limit on the protection given to unpublished works. This will stand at life plus 70 years for literary and artistic works, just as for published versions. GLAMs will be protected from contract override, as is the text and data mining exception. That’s important, because it means that copyright owners cannot nullify the new exceptions by insisting organizations sign contracts that waive them. Individual creators receive new rights too:

the report proposes that creators be given a new right to be attributed as the creator of their work, regardless of whether they still own or have sold the copyright. For example, anyone using a work publicly, such as posting it on the internet, will have to acknowledge the creator of the work. This will accord creators due recognition and allow them to build their reputation over time. Currently, they do not need to be attributed as the creator of their work when others use it.

This is essentially a moral right alongside the usual economic ones. As the Wikipedia page on the subject explains, the degree to which moral rights exist for creators of copyright works varies enormously around the world. In France, for example, moral rights are perpetual and inalienable, whereas in the US they are less to the fore. Singapore’s Ministry of Law also proposes that where rights have not been explicitly signed away in a contract, they remain with the creator. Although that will prevent naive creators being tricked out of their rights, it won’t apply to work created by employees: there, it’s employers who will continue to retain rights. As for enforcing copyright, there is the following:

the report proposes that new enforcement measures be made available to copyright owners to deter retailers and service providers from profiting off providing access to content from unauthorised sources, such as through the sale of set-top boxes that enable access to content from unauthorised sources, also commonly known as grey boxes or illicit streaming devices. The measures, which are absent today, will make clear that acts such as the import and sale of such devices are prohibited.

This is clearly aimed at Kodi boxes, which are currently one of the main targets of the entertainment industry. To its credit, the Ministry of Law’s proposal does include important additional requirements for the measures to apply:

the product can be used to access audio-visual content from an unauthorised source and additionally must be:

designed or made primarily for providing access to such content

advertised as providing access to such content, or

sold as providing access to such content, where the retailer sells a generic device with the understanding that “add-on” services such as the provision of website links, instructions or installation of subscription services will subsequently be provided

At least that makes a clear distinction between basic Kodi boxes, and those specifically built and sold with a view to providing unauthorized access to materials. That understanding of the difference is of a piece with the rest of the legislation, which is unusually intelligent. Other governments could learn from that, and from the overall thrust of the proposals to move Singapore’s copyright law towards a fair use system similar to that of the US — something that is fiercely resisted elsewhere.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, moral rights, singapore, tdm, text and data mining, user rights

Pompous 'International Grand Committee' Signs Useless But Equally Pompous 'Declaration On Principles Of Law Governing The Internet'

from the they're-really-going-all-in-on-this dept

So just a few weeks after a bunch of countries (and companies and organizations) signed onto a weird and mostly empty Paris Call for Trust and Safety in Cyberspace, a group of nine countries — Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Ireland, Latvia, Singapore and the UK, have declared themselves the “International Grand Committee on Disinformation and Fake News” and signed onto a Principles of the Law Governing the Internet. If that list of countries sound familiar, that’s because it’s the same list of countries that put on that grandstanding inquisition of Facebook that produced fake news in its own way, by falsely claiming that Facebook had discovered Russians extracting 3 billion data points via its API back in 2014 (it wasn’t Russia, it was Pinterest; it wasn’t 3 billion, it was 6 million; it wasn’t abuse of the API, but using it correctly).

The Declaration makes some grand pronouncements:

Noting that:? the world in which the traditional institutions of democratic government operate is changing at an unprecedented pace; it is an urgent and critical priority for legislatures and governments to ensure that the fundamental rights and safeguards of their citizens are not violated or undermined by the unchecked march of technology; the democratic world order is suffering a crisis of trust from the growth of disinformation, the proliferation of online aggression and hate speech, concerted attacks on our common democratic values of tolerance and respect for the views of others, and the widespread misuse of data belonging to citizens to enable these attempts to sabotage open and democratic processes, including elections.

Affirming that:? representative democracy is too important and too hard-won to be left undefended from online harms, in particular aggressive campaigns of disinformation launched from one country against citizens in another, and the co-ordinated activity of fake accounts using data-targeting methods to try manipulate the information that people see on social media.

Believing that:? it is incumbent on us to create a system of global internet governance that can serve to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of generations to come, based on established codes of conduct for agencies working for nation states, and govern the major international tech platforms which have created the systems that serve online content to billions of users around the world.

Okay. So what does it all mean? Well, here are the details of the “declaration”:

i. The internet is global and law relating to it must derive from globally agreed principles; ii. The deliberate spreading of disinformation and division is a credible threat to the continuation and growth of democracy and a civilising global dialogue; iii. Global technology firms must recognise their great power and demonstrate their readiness to accept their great responsibility as holders of influence; iv. Social Media companies should be held liable if they fail to comply with a judicial, statutory or regulatory order to remove harmful and misleading content from their platforms, and should be regulated to ensure they comply with this requirement; v. Technology companies must demonstrate their accountability to users by making themselves fully answerable to national legislatures and other organs of representative democracy.

Of course, in the context of the committee who created this Declaration having now been revealed to have created “fake news” itself, this kind comes off pretty… weak. But also, the whole thing is kind of meaningless. The companies do recognize their “power” and have been trying to deal with this issue. Yes, perhaps they didn’t grasp the severity of the issue in the past, but they certainly have more recently. But simple declarations and pronouncements don’t really do anything useful in “solving” those issues. That’s because much of it is a human nature issue, and expecting tech companies to “take responsibility” for human nature is… well… nonsense.

Filed Under: argentina, belgium, brazil, canada, content moderation, disinformation, fake news, france, internet regulation, ireland, latvia, prais call, singapore, uk
Companies: facebook