Daily Archives: December 3, 2019

Observers have been waiting to see how Singapores Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (known more commonly as POFMA) would be applied since it was passed in Parliament in May this year, coming into effect on 2 October. But it was only in the past week that the first directive was issued under the law quickly followed by the second and third.

On 25 November, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat directed the newly established POFMA Office to issue an order to opposition politician Brad Bowyer over a Facebook post. Bowyer was thus required to edit his post, adding a notice indicating that it contained false statements of fact, with a link to a government website containing the correct facts.

Three days later, Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam issued a directive to the States Times Review a website known for its political stance against the ruling Peoples Action Party demanding that they publish a similar correction notice on a Facebook post. While the sites publisher, Singaporean-turned-Australian Alex Tan, refused to comply, the minister then issued a directive to Facebook instead.

This isnt just Singapores problem. A law that offers so much additional power over its peoples flow of communications and information is a tempting one to adopt for all sorts of governments.

Unsurprisingly, the tech giant complied. The cost-benefit analysis was clear: failure to do so could have led to a fine of up to S$1 million ($1,072,500), with an additional S$100,000 per day of noncompliance after conviction. Then theres the unwritten but presumptive cost of damaging a relationship with the government of a country in which Facebook has a significant presence an estimated 3.5 million Singaporeans, well over half the population, actively use Facebook.

The least they could do was make it clear that it wasnt a voluntary move. Facebook is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says that this post has false information, said a terse notification alongside a button pointing people to the government page. The company also told the media it hoped that the Singapore governments assurances that it will not impact free expression will lead to a measured and transparent approach to implementation.

This hope, of course, is highly optimistic, dependent on the whims and preferences of the Peoples Action Party and the ministers in its government (all of whom have power to issue directives under POFMA). When it comes to legislation that allows the government to decide what is or isnt a false statement of fact, there are few restraints on power.

The question of whether its easy to really distinguish fact from opinion is still an unanswered one; looking at the correct facts issued on Bowyers Facebook post, we see that the authorities are taking offence at what they say is implied as well as clear factual statements. Beyond that, it isnt even clear why a blunt yet powerful tool like POFMA was required in these instanceswas there any real risk of harm to society or incitement of hatred or violence? Why would normal press statements and clarifications measures that the government has resorted to for years to respond to articles and criticism not have sufficed?

Few of the concerns raised before the passage of the bill have been adequately addressed, and weve yet to see how some of the reassurances given such as expedited and less cost-prohibitive court processes will play out in practical terms. While time might perhaps offer a little bit more clarity on some details, the problem with POFMA is not just a matter of execution or implementation, but issues of checks and balances, due process, fairness, and respect for democratic rights.

The fact is that, in Singapores current (and long-standing) political landscape, the only political party that has direct access to POFMAs powers is the ruling Peoples Action Party. Using this law, the party is free to take aim at political opponents or anti-PAP platformsas they have done. No other political party or civil society group is able to wield such power, even though falsehoods and misleading claims are also circulated about opposition politicians and activists online, including from pro-PAP pages.

What POFMA does, then, is give the PAP government more control over discourse in Singapore, allowing it to take aim at what it says are false facts or implied false facts while asserting its own set of correct facts. To further cement this imbalance in power, Section 61 of law also allows ministers to exempt any person or class of persons from any provision of this Act, thus allowing the PAP government to grant immunity from this law to anyone they choose.

This isnt just Singapores problem. A law that offers so much additional power over its peoples flow of communications and information is a tempting one to adopt for all sorts of governments. The Nigerian government, for example, has mooted an almost identical bill a suggestion that has been met with protests from Nigerians. An Anti-False Content bill, also bearing remarkable similarity to POFMA, has been introduced in the Philippines Senate, triggering criticism of suppressing freedom of expression, and likely in contravention of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Anxieties about disinformation and misinformation are going global, but so is the practice of capitalising on these anxieties to consolidate power. The use of a law like POFMA and the compliance of the big tech companies whose platforms so often perform the role of a virtual public square for citizens might only be taking place in Singapore today, but its apparent success provides legitimacy and political cover for it to be used elsewhere tomorrow.

Read the rest here:
As Facebook caves to Singapore censorship, the writing is on the wall - The Interpreter

Chinese American users of the messaging app WeChat are finding their messages containing political criticism of China particularly those aimed at the protests in Hong Kong are being censored, The Verge reports.

In one instance an American information security analyst named Bin Xie had his account taken down after writing "The pro-China candidates totally lost," referring to Hong Kong's recent election in which pro-democracy candidates gained huge ground against pro-China candidates.

"If you have censorship in China, fine," he told The Verge. "But in this country? I'm a Republican, but on WeChat I suffer the same as Democrats we are all censored."

Xie then joined a WhatsApp group full of Chinese Americans who had similarly been kicked off WeChat for expressing political views.

For Chinese Americans with family in China, being kicked off WeChat is a major problem. The WeChat app is more or less ubiquitous in China, where it covers a broad range of uses. It acts as a messaging app, a dominant payment platform, a social network, and a platform for accomplishing everyday tasks like paying utility bills and booking doctor's appointments. WeChat and its rival Alipay's payment systems have become so everyday that even street vendors and buskers use QR codes rather than accept cash.

Losing access to the app is a major hindrance to anyone wishing to contact Chinese relatives as popular Western messaging apps like Facebook and WhatsApp are blocked in China and for anyone who wants to visit the country.

The Verge notes that while generally WeChat applies different censorship rules to Chinese nationals and foreigners, Chinese Americans may fall through the net if they once possessed a Chinese phone number.

In a statement to Business Insider, WeChat's parent company Tencent noted that WeChat is a separate app to Weixin, which operates inside China. Tencent said WeChat and Weixin are are interoperable, describing them as "sister apps." People signing up with Chinese phone numbers would be using Weixin, while people with international numbers would use WeChat.

"Tencent operates in a complex regulatory environment, both in China and elsewhere. Like any global company, a core tenant is that we comply with local laws and regulations in the markets where we operate," a spokeswoman said.

"Weixin and WeChat use different servers, with data stored in different locations. WeChat's servers are outside of China and not subject to Chinese law, while Weixin's servers are in China and subject to Chinese law," she noted.

She added that the interoperablity between WeChat and Weixin messages could lead to "misunderstandings."

"For example, if a WeChat user sends a message to a friend using Weixin, China law applies to the Weixin user and certain content may be blocked. The same content shared between two WeChat users however, would not be blocked," she said.

The extension of Chinese censorship laws beyond its borders has become more pertinent to American citizens in recent months through three high-profile news stories.

Here is the original post:
WeChat users in the US say the app is censoring their messages about Hong Kong - Business Insider

Even convicted felons have more rights than university allowed its students

Do you think Ohio taxpayers are tired of subsidizing the lawless, aloof administrators who run their public universities?

Ohio University has evidently learned nothing from its unconstitutional suppression of the First Amendment rights of students who did absolutely nothing wrong, by its own admission.

Practically daring students to file a lawsuit, administrators suspended the organizational activities of all 15 fraternities in its Interfraternity Council earlier this fall, based on hazing allegations against nine of them, according to The Athens News.

What do these activities include? Not only hosting gatherings but communication with and amongthe group via any social media platform or application, according to an administrators letter to fraternities obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Taylor Tackett, assistant dean of students and director of community standards and student responsibility (left), literally told fraternities that any communications among members had to be pre-approved by me.

Following FIREs legal warning letter Nov. 12 and pressure campaign against the taxpayer-funded university, interim General Counsel Barbara Nalazek sent back a condescending one-page letter.

She complimented FIREs Zachary Greenberg, a Syracuse Law graduate who previously defended indigent Syracuse residents on misdemeanor charges, for the obvious effort put into the Nov. 12 letter. Nalazek did not respond to the voluminous case law against Ohio University that Greenberg cited.

MORE: Want to see fascism in action? Look what Syracuse did to fraternity members

Instead, she justified the unconstitutional restrictions on students rights by citing the unprecedented number of hazing allegations allegations! the university received this fall. They were only temporary so that the situation could be assessed. A few weeks later, restrictions for most punished organizations had been lifted or significantly modified.

It also removed a frequently asked questions document elaborating on the restrictions, which FIRE had faulted, and clarified with all the organizations that the restrictions on communications had been lifted. Nalazek claimed these restrictions on all social media communications among members were limited.

Showing her amazing skills in half-assing a legal response, the interim general counsel said OU disagrees that the original directives were constitutionally infirm. She failed to explain why, in any level of detail.

Its worth reading Greenbergs Nov. 12 letter in full to see just how much case law Nalazek had to ignore to portray the universitys draconian response to hazing allegations against some fraternities as perfectly acceptable. Willful ignorance of the law may be whats required to become the permanent general counsel.

Out of compliance with its own federal appeals court

It is not a close call that OU has exceeded the lawful scope of its authority under the First Amendment, as Greenberg wrote.

The FAQ document, which purported to clarify the restrictions on associational and speech rights, limited fraternity members to 1:1 conversations between friends on personal topics. It refused to define what the university considers a prohibited chapter event, telling students there was no magic number [if] people could associate it with your organization, fraternities should avoid it.

In other words, OU will arbitrarily decide how many people talking are too many people talking, Greenberg wrote in a Nov. 13 blog post. Its unclear whether they were even allowed to discuss their organizations punishment.

MORE: Syracuse fires prof for disagreeing with punishment of frat members

The justification by Nalazek (right) for the draconian punishments hazing allegations have no bearing on the legal analysis, Greenberg told the university in his Nov. 12 letter. OU effectively bans any communication whatsoever among Group members and thereby threatens their existence as viable student organizations, he wrote: Courts have correctly viewed less onerous restrictions as impermissibly burdening associational freedoms.

The public university is out of compliance with its own federal appeals court, the 6th Circuit, which struck down a Cincinnati ordinance excluding convicted drug dealers from drug-exclusion zones.

If thats an impermissible restriction on associational freedoms, as Greenberg notes, what chance does OU have in court if the fraternities decided to sue for restricting communications that have nothing to do with hazing?

It is difficult to imagine how prohibiting all unofficial meetingsregardless of how brief, innocuous, or unrelated to pledging or university affairsis at all tailored, much less narrowly tailored, to address the universitys cognizable interests. Such wide-ranging restrictions cover a virtually unlimited array of student activity bearing no reasonable relationship to maintaining a safe educational community.

Willfully violating Supreme Court precedent

The university and its interim legal counsel also appear to be contemptuous of Supreme Court precedent.

Greenberg cites the high courts 2016 rejection of a North Carolina law that bans registered sex offenders not just drug dealers! from using websites that allow children to become members orto create or maintain personal Web pages, such as social media.

Such a restriction still violates the First Amendment because social media are integral to the fabric of modern society and culture, the rulings summary says:

Even convicted criminalsand in some instances especially convicted criminalsmight receive legitimate benefits from these means [social media] for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.

Greenberg elaborates on this ruling, known as Packingham, in a footnote:

Considering that OUs blanket ban on social media platforms to communicate is arguably more restrictive than the law in Packingham, and the universitys interests in policing student expression is markedly diminished in contrast to the important interests in warding against convicted sex offenders use of the internet to contact children, OUs restrictions stand on significantly weaker constitutional footing than the law struck down by the Packingham Court.

MORE: Syracuse admits it doesnt protect free speech to get out of lawsuit

The idiotic prior-approval requirement laid down by Tackett, the assistant dean of students, is also plainly unconstitutional. Not only does it encourage self-censorship but fails to set forth any objective criteria for approval, Greenberg wrote leading to a situation where students need permission from the university to criticize the university.

Greenberg portrayed the universitys alleged end to unconstitutional restrictions as a victory for students, even though OU has suffered no consequences for actions it never bothered to defend and will likely repeat.

FIRE and these students sent OU a clear message: administrators cant muzzle student speech and get away with it, he said in a blog post last week. (Except administrators did get away with it.) FIREs reputation and history of successful action no doubt got Ohio Universitys attention and helped restore constitutional rights, said a lawyer for the students, Timothy Burke. (How long will they remain restored?)

FIREs action may have gotten this pitiful, one-page response from the university. But its clear that nothing short of litigation and ruinous damages against individual administrators will ever stop them from willfully and repeatedly violating students rights.

MORE: Frat pledges sue UT for punishing them after flimsy investigation

IMAGES: jorgen mcleman/Shutterstock, Ohio University

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

See the original post:
Ohio University refuses to apologize for unconstitutional censorship of innocent students - The College Fix

A recent Reddit post details the danger of using a popular built-in tool in the iOS image editing menu. The tool, commonly referred to as the highlighter (its actually a chisel-shaped marker, dont @ me) is often used to cover sensitive information in screenshots or photographs such as credit card numbers or the address on a drivers license.

The problem is in the default opacity of the tool. Its meant to be used as a highlighter, not a tool to censor sensitive details, and as such its set with an opacity value under 100. That is to say, its semi-transparent. The lower the opacity value, the more see-through the markings become.

But even with an opacity near 100, a few quick photo editing tricks will reveal the information underneath.

Redditor u/M1ghty_boy, the threads original poster, first colored over the text using the highlight tool from the default toolset a pen, pencil, and marker/highlighter. After a few passes, it appears that the text is properly censored and unreadable. The user then opens the image in the default iOS photo editor and adjust settings like exposure, highlights, shadows, and contrast until the image again comes into view.

Here is why you shouldnt censor sensitive info with the black highlighter on iOS, this video shows just how easy it is to reveal sensitive info censored with the black highlighter from r/ios

If youre looking for a better way to censor information, weve got you covered. The easiest way would be just to use the same highlighter tool, but to turn the opacity to 100, meaning its fully opaque and no longer see-through.

Or, if you want a more foolproof method (in case you forget to adjust the opacity before covering the information), use a color-filled shape the rectangle tool, for example (found in the + menu) instead.

Read next: Study: Our universe may be part of a giant quantum computer

The rest is here:
This is why you shouldn't use Apple's highlighter tool to censor sensitive info - The Next Web

Earlier this year, French crypto graffiti artist Pascal Boyart painted a mural and hid $1,000 worth of Bitcoin in it. One month later, local authorities had censored the artwork by covering it with gray paint.

The artwork depicted French protest group the Gilet Jaunes in a re-imagining of Eugne Delacroixs artwork La Libert guidant le peuple (Liberty leading the people). It was a decidedly political statement.

But one cryptocurrency enthusiast and artist isnt standing for its censorship. Meet BnoiitC, whos using blockchain to make cryptoart immutable and virtually impossible to censor.

Over the past week, BnoiitC recreated Boyarts Parisian mural in the Ethereum-based virtual world Cryptovoxels, and you can own a piece of it.

I just finished it this morning, they told Hard Fork. [It] took me approximately five to six hours.

Cryptovoxels is a pretty simple idea. Its a virtual world where ownership of its land is tracked and traded using the Ethereum blockchain.

Users can buy land, build on it, and then sell it on. The look and feel is somewhat akin to Minecraft. I was inspired by Minecraft and loved the idea of a Minecraft city that is owned by its users, Ben Nolan Cryptovoxels lead developer told Hard Fork earlier this year.

Every asset in Cryptovoxels can also be sold as a non-fungible token, a unique digital asset that cannot be duplicated and is registered on the blockchain, BnoiitC told Hard Fork.

It means that everyone can cross-reference the blockchain to see who owns what in the virtual world. Assets in Cryptovoxels including land and artwork can be bought or sold on crypto-collectible marketplace OpenSea.

To display [your asset] in Cryptovoxels you need to buy land and build blocks on it, BnoiitC said.

Then you can paste the OpenSea links. When you click on a picture it opens the OpenSea listing and you can buy the NFT, they added.

BnoiitCs recreation of Boyarts mural is split up into 100 non-fungible tokens that can be bought and sold on OpenSea.

This Parisian mural from Boyart isnt the first artwork BnoiitC has put on the blockchain. In fact, in Cryptovoxels they built and maintained the Museum of Cryptoart.

BnoiitC invested in 18 land parcels in Cryptovoxels and managed to sell four of them for a four-fold profit. I kept the others to build a museum and display art, he told Hard Fork.

If youre browsing Cryptovoxels, the museum is a 1,500 square meter series of buildings based in the Le Marais District. Or click here.

The museum serves as a place to celebrate, promote, and display the works of crypto-inspired artists.

Even though BnoiitC put all the effort and money into buying the land for and building the museum themself, they run it as a non-profit organization.

Maybe someday someone will be willing to subsidize my museum (just like art foundations in the real world) or maybe propose partnership to display their business info in my lands because of traffic, BnoiitC told Hard Fork.

In the case of the depiction of the Parisian mural, all proceeds go to its original artist, Pascal Boyart.

The funds help artists like Boyart finance their next murals and continue their work. After all, theres no one else paying freelance artists a salary.

But why would you spend over five hours making something that exists entirely in a virtual word?

For BnoiitC, its all in the name of promoting cryptocurrency, decentralization, financial independence, censorship resistance, and of course art.

Pascals mural was censored (covered with gray paint). It cannot be covered in Cryptovoxels and no one can expropriate the land and cover the wall, BnoiitC says.

Whats more, it allows artists to display their work, take payment directly, operate with low commissions and get paid in a form that cannot be seized.

Physical art can be censored so can digital art (close down a website for instance.) But cryptoart cannot, no one can overwrite a blockchain register, BnoiitC added.

For politically motivated art, perhaps the blockchain is the only way that it can survive the test of time and censorship. Thankfully there are enthusiasts like BnoiitC working to preserve the worlds crypto-inspired works.

Published December 2, 2019 14:42 UTC

Go here to read the rest:
Meet the artist building a crypto-inspired art museum on the blockchain - The Next Web