Internet Archives

Armenia rated a ‘Free’ country for internet access for the fourth consecutive year

November 15, 2016 by administrator

free-internet Internet freedom remained largely uninhibited in the past year, though Armenia’s overall score declined somewhat after physically attacks against journalists by police were recorded in isolated incidents, Freedom House said on Monday in a newly-released “Freedom on the Net 2016” report. The new report places Armenia among 17 free countries out of the total 67 observed states with a score of 30/100 (0=Most Free, 100=Less Free). To note, Armenia’s score for the previous year was 28/100.

The report states that “historically the internet has remained relatively free in Armenia, with gradual improvements in infrastructure and accessibility connecting more of the population”. For the reporting period, covering June 2015 – May 2016, Freedom House refers to some incidents of censorship occurred during and after the coverage period, coinciding with the periods of violence and unrest. Specifically, it notes that Facebook was briefly restricted (for approximately 40 minutes) in July 2016 while armed militants were challenging the authorities,

The report refers to cases of self-censor as violent clashes briefly resumed on the Nagorno-Karabakh frontline in April 2016. “Expression online was skewed by the Defense Ministry’s appeals to citizens to refrain from discussing the situation on the frontline on the internet, for fear of revealing “war secrets” to the other side. Online commentators practiced self-censorship, and discussions online often turned hostile when publications or users were perceived to be publishing unfavorable information or figures about Armenia’s standing in the conflict,” the reports says. “Armenian internet users are able to access a wide array of content online, though online media outlets based within the country are subject to financial and political pressures,” the report reads, referring to some cases, when journalists are not allowed to deviate from the editorial policy of online media outlets, often linked to one of the political parties. Such pressure has the potential to affect the overall situation of freedom of speech in the country, though online publishers and individual bloggers strongly resist self-censorship. Indeed, there is a wide diversity of opinion on social media, and virtual battles between supporters and opponents of the government are often observed.

A variety of independent and opposition web resources provide Armenian audiences with politically neutral, or oppositional opinions. The report has registered no cases of imprisonment or other criminal sanctions for online activities over the past year. However, it has documented eight cases of physical violence against journalists in 2015. A number involved journalists and media personnel covering the June 2015 protests against energy price hikes in Yerevan or the December 6, 2015 constitutional referendum. On June 23 2015, police attacked journalists live-streaming the Electric Yerevan rally on Baghramian Avenue. Four police officers are under investigation in connection with the attacks. On July 29, 2016, a group of plainclothes men attacked at least 14 journalists while they were covering clashes between riot police and protesters marching in support of armed gunmen who had occupied a police compound in Yerevan. Some of the journalists were hospitalized as a result of the attacks; some of their equipment was broken. Armenian authorities promised to investigate the attacks. According to the report, internet freedom around the world declined in 2016 for the sixth consecutive year. Two-thirds of all internet users – 67 percent – live in countries where criticism of the government, military, or ruling family are subject to censorship. Estonia, Iceland and Canada are at the top of the list of the states with the freest internet, while Syria, China and Iran have the worst record among the observed states. From the regional states, Georgia along with Armenia is rated as free country with a score 25, Azerbaijan is rated partly free, while Turkey has registered a considerable decline coming a not free.

SAN FRANCISCO Internet distributed denial-of-service Attack Spreads, Disrupting Major Websites

October 21, 2016 by administrator

dos-usa By NICOLE PERLROTH

SAN FRANCISCO — Major websites were inaccessible to people across wide swaths of the United States on Friday after a company that manages crucial parts of the internet’s infrastructure said it was under attack.

Users reported sporadic problems reaching several websites, including Twitter, Netflix, Spotify, Airbnb, Reddit, Etsy, SoundCloud and The New York Times.

Dyn, whose servers monitor and reroute internet traffic, said it began experiencing what security experts called a distributed denial-of-service attack just after 7 a.m. Reports that many sites were inaccessible started on the East Coast, but spread westward as the day wore on.

A spokeswoman said the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security were looking into the incident and all potential causes, including criminal activity and a nation-state attack.

Kyle York, Dyn’s chief strategist, said his company and others that host the core parts of the internet’s infrastructure were targets for a growing number of more powerful DDoS attacks.

“The number and types of attacks, the duration of attacks and the complexity of these attacks are all on the rise,” Mr. York said.

And in a troubling development, the attack appears to have relied on hundreds of thousands of internet-connected devices like cameras and home routers that have been infected — without their owners’ knowledge — with software that allows hackers to command them to flood a target with overwhelming traffic.

Security researchers have long warned that the increasing number of devices being hooked up to the internet, the so-called Internet of Things, would present an enormous security issue. And the assault on Friday, security researchers say, is only a glimpse of how those devices can be used for online attacks.

Dyn, based in Manchester, N.H., said it had fended off the assault by 9:30 a.m. But by 11:52 a.m., Dyn said it was again under attack. After fending off the second wave of attacks, Dyn said at 5 p.m. that it was again facing a flood of traffic.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/business/internet-problems-attack.html?emc=edit_na_20161021&nlid=49769097&ref=headline&_r=0

Armenia’s government to spare no effort to implement radical reforms in IT sector – minister

October 5, 2016 by administrator

The 2^nd Internet governance Armenian conference has been launched in Yerevan.

Armenia’s Minister of Transport, Communication and Information Technologies Vahan Martirosyan took part in the conference.

In his speech at the conference, Mr Martirosyan noted that Armenia’s government declared IT development one of the priorities and will spare no effort to ensure radical reforms in the field.

Talking to journalists, the minister said that Armenian content and its export must be in the highlight, which requires cooperation between the government and the private sector.

With respect to the government’s steps to stir up business interest, the minister said:

“The government must only help and ensure relevant legal framework. The premier often says that ‘investors must be caught by the hands, taken everywhere’ for obstacles to be removed,” Mr Martirosyan said.

Freedom on the Net 2015: Armenia among leading free internet countries, Azerbaijan’s repressions lead to self-censorship

October 29, 2015 by administrator

Armenia is among 18 countries with free internet, according to a Freedom House report Freedom on the Net 2015 https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2015, while Azerbaijan is in the list of the partly free countries.

Azerbaijan got 56 scores out of 100 in the report, where 100 is the worst score.

According to the report, despite the Azerbaijani government’s continued insistence that the internet in Azerbaijan is free and that the authorities do not engage in censorship, there is a stark difference between this characterization and the reality for many internet users in Azerbaijan who have witnessed an increasing crackdown against activism in the country, both online and offline. Pro-government trolling continues to distort political discussions, and arrests and intimidation tactics used against netizens and their families over the last few years have threatened online activism. Fearing a spillover of protests from the Euromaidan events in Ukraine, authorities jailed over thirty high profile Azerbaijani citizens between May and December of 2014, some of whom were targeted for their online activism.

“There has been little improvement to the internet infrastructure in Azerbaijan over the past year, and internet access remains expensive for the majority of the population,” Freedom House notes. Citing a recent World Bank report, the organization indicates that 29 percent of all households are connected to the internet via mobile phone connections, but further investigation reveals that the average household in Azerbaijan’s lower income bracket (lowest 40 percent of the total population by income) needs to allocate 21 percent of their monthly disposable income to afford the cheapest mobile broadband package. In addition, over 80 percent of all landlines are concentrated in the urban areas, with 47 percent of all fixed landlines located in Baku. This gap has not changed over the last decade. There are parts of the country where only one rural family out of twelve has a telephone line.

The Ministry of Communication and High Technologies (MCHT) continues to hold a significant share in a few of the leading ISPs, and the government is authorized to instruct companies to cut internet service under very broadly defined circumstances, including war, emergency situations, and disasters. Despite the fact that over 30 ISPs operate in the country, the state-owned companies control over 56 percent of the market share.

The intimidation and arrest of internet users on trumped-up charges, resorted by the government to limit freedom of expression online, are leading to self-censorship. The government does not engage in extensive blocking or filtering of online content, instead relying primarily on legal, economic, and social pressures to discourage critical media coverage or political activism. There is still no established process through which affected entities can appeal in cases where opposition websites or other materials have been blocked, and there is still no information on the total number of blocked websites in Azerbaijan. Decisions to block online content are not transparent, and when users try to access blocked websites they simply receive an error message, rather than information stating that the site has been blocked. There is no law that includes an exact definition of what stipulates the reasons for blocking or shutting down websites, Freedom House points.

“In addition to sporadically blocking websites, the government has succeeded in removing several social media pages that produce political satire or are otherwise critical of the Aliyev government. In general, authorities rely on pressure and threats (rather than court orders or other takedown procedures) to remove unwanted content: some activists who are administrators of social media websites targeted by the government have subsequently deleted their pages after having been arrested or detained for questioning,” the group reports highlighting that some online journalists, commentators, and ordinary internet users have resorted to self-censorship, especially if they are employed by state media outlets or progovernment platforms. The limits imposed on independent or opposition media outlets make it extremely difficult for them to maintain enough stable advertising to sustain the platform. Often, large businesses and companies shy away from working with these outlets for the fear of losing their business license or receiving other unwanted pressure from the government.

Additionally, new amendments regulating the foreign funding of NGOs have made it easier for the government to target local organizations and media outlets that receive grants from outside sources. Outlets such as Mediaforum.az, Obyektiv TV, Channel 13, and Zerkalo/Ayna all had to cease operations in light of the new restrictions. The vast majority of existing online media outlets publish news in favor of the government, the right group notes.

“In advance of the launch of the European Games, which were held in Azerbaijan in June 2015, international criticism of the country’s rights record grew. While nearly all progovernment media outlets were actively engaged in refuting any claims about the country’s deteriorating human rights record, a group of progovernment youth was deployed to troll international media outlets and foreign and local critics in online spaces, particularly on Twitter. These trolls and bots refuted any antigovernment and anti-Aliyev articles, comments, and statements online, often using violent or degrading language. A brief look at the profiles of these Twitter users showed some of them were students of the Baku State University, Azerbaijani Diplomatic Academy, University of Languages, and Slavic University. Others were members of such progovernment youth movements as AGAT (Integration of Azerbaijani Youth to Europe) and the youth branch of the ruling party, Yeni Azerbaijan,” Freedom House notes in the report.

Additionally, the organization mentions a Facebook page called “Refuse being a volunteer at the European Games,” a new campaign drawing attention to the corruption behind the upcoming European Games, and exposing the ongoing crackdown. While it generated much attention, especially among university students who were forced to volunteer in return for grades and exam passes, it did not lead to significant protests. “It is likely they were afraid of losing their spots in school or feared repercussions from participating in such a protest action,” Freedom House notes.

According to the report, government surveillance and monitoring of social media accounts continues be an issue in Azerbaijan: many activists and opposition party members who are arrested or detained report that police have referenced their online communications during interrogations. Libel is the most common criminal charge used by the authorities against journalists in Azerbaijan. Online activists and journalists are most often prosecuted based on trumped up charges, including drug possession, hooliganism, and more recently, treason, tax evasion, abuse of authority and embezzlement. A number of website administrators and bloggers in Azerbaijan are in jail for their online activities. The government of Azerbaijan also uses travel bans against activists and human rights defenders, as well as members of non-governmental organizations.

“A number of opposition news websites continue to be subject to cyberattacks, resulting in temporary shutdowns. These include the news websites Yeni Musavat, Azadliq and the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty local service, Azadliq Radiosu. The majority of attacks occurred during politically sensitive events, such as elections. As a result, opposition papers subject to attack have speculated that the cyberattacks were launched by the Ministry of Defense. The ministry, however, denies these allegations,” the report says.

Notably, Freedom House gave 28 scores to Armenia. According to the report, the internet penetration rate in Armenia has continued improving over the past few years, alongside improvements in the stability of the internet’s infrastructure. Citizen groups and NGOs have made use of online communication tools to promote and organize campaigns, particularly surrounding the protests in Yerevan against hikes in electricity prices in mid-2015.

In practice, the Armenian government and the telecommunication regulatory authority, the PSRC, do not interfere with or try to influence the planning of network topology. Operators plan and develop their networks without any coordination with either the government or the regulatory authority. Moreover, the regulatory authority requires service providers to indicate any technological restrictions in their public offers. Armenian internet users enjoy access to internet resources without limitation, including peer-to-peer networks, voice and instant messaging services, Freedom House highlights.

The group also points out that the Armenian government does not consistently or pervasively block users’ access to content online. The most common incidents of censorship of online content relate to blocking and filtering of platforms and websites by the Russian regulatory authority, which affects access to the same content for some internet users in Armenia, since Armenia receives its web traffic from Russia. However, these cases are promptly resolved by internet service providers once reported by users.
The Armenian government and the ruling political elite have not applied extralegal measures to prevent political opponents or independent internet resources from publishing online content. “Indeed, there is a wide diversity of opinion in social media, and virtual battles between supporters and opponents of the government are often observed. A variety of independent and opposition web resources provide Armenian internet audiences with politically neutral, or oppositional opinions,” the rights group points out.

No cases of imprisonment or other criminal sanctions or punishments for online activities were recorded over the past year; cases of violence or intimidation directed at online journalists, either. Anonymous communication and encryption tools are not prohibited in Armenia; however, the use of proxy servers is not that common due to the fact that since 2008, internet users have not faced problems with website blocking or traffic filtering, according to the report.

“Technical attacks against government websites and civil society groups continue, with most of the attacks originating from the ‘Anti-Armenia’ group based in Azerbaijan. In addition, Turkish hackers from the Turk Hack Team group claimed that they launched DDoS attacks against websites of the Armenian government, as well as Armenian business and media sites, causing disruptions on April 24, the Armenian Genocide commemoration day. However, there were no interruptions recorded by these entities,” Freedom House says.

It’s often difficult to distinguish fact from fiction on the Internet

August 12, 2015 by administrator

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

It is ironic that in this modern age of technology and abundance of information at the fingertips of everyone with an electronic device, it is becoming increasingly difficult, and sometimes impossible, to distinguish fact from fiction.

The Internet, with its vast resources on every conceivable subject, can be a blessing or a curse when one is trying to discern the authenticity of a particular article.

There is no way of knowing if what is being read is true or false, unless the reader is an expert in that specific topic or checks websites like truthorfiction.com or snopes.com to distinguish rumors from reality.

Here are two recent examples of such misinformation that were circulated on the Internet to millions of Armenians and others.

The first is an article supposedly from The Moscow Times, titled: “Russian President to Turkish Ambassador: ‘Tell your dictator President he can go to hell along with his ISIS terrorists; I will make Syria a Big Stalingrad for him!” This article was posted on thousands of websites, e-mailed around the globe, and reprinted in countless newspapers.

Pres. Putin was quoted telling Umit Yardim, the Turkish Ambassador to Moscow, that Russia will cut off diplomatic relations with Turkey immediately unless Erdogan stopped supporting ISIS terrorists in Syria. The article cited “leaked information” as the source of a “two-hour long closed door meeting,” during which Putin reportedly called the Turkish President a “hypocrite” and threatened to turn Syria into a “Big Stalingrad for Erdogan and his Saudi allies,” whom he compared to Hitler.

I received via e-mail several dozen copies of this forged article from Armenians around the world with cheerful exclamations, such as “good for Putin,” “finally someone dared to put Erdogan in his place.” It became tiring to respond to everyone, telling them that this was a fake news story!

Readers and even newspaper editors apparently did not bother to check that there was no such article in The Moscow Times. Furthermore, hardly anyone seems to have wondered how a Russian newspaper could have misspelled Pres. Putin’s name as ‘Purin’?

The second example of misinformation concerns the world famous singer Beyonce who supposedly sang a song dedicated to the Armenian Genocide. The video of the song “I was here,” which opens with the words “Armenian Genocide 1915 April 24,” was posted on YouTube on April 24, 2015 by someone with the nickname ‘Yakosamo.’ The video then displays the words “Never Forget” in bright red letters, followed by footage of visitors at the Armenian Genocide Monument in Yerevan. For the next four minutes, the screen shows three armed Turkish soldiers killing an entire Armenian family and abducting a group of young Armenian girls. The video and the singing end with the words in bright red letters, “1915 April,” right after a Turkish soldier shoots with a pistol, in point blank range, an Armenian boy in the head!

Thousands of Armenians were probably tricked into thinking that this was indeed a Beyonce song dedicated to the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide. The link to the video along with hundreds of appreciative comments were posted on countless facebook pages and YouTube.

I just learned about this song last week. At first, I was somewhat embarrassed that as a newspaper editor I was hearing of such an important song on the Armenian Genocide several months after its release. I checked the lyrics of the song and quickly discovered that it had absolutely nothing to do with Armenians or the Genocide. The singer kept repeating, “I was here, I lived, I loved, I was here….” The words Armenian, Genocide or Turkey were nowhere to be found!

I finally realized that someone had taken a Beyonce song and added to it film footage from a movie on the Armenian Genocide. Regrettably, many Armenians were ecstatic that a world famous singer was publicizing the facts of the Armenian Genocide!

I have no magical formula on how to distinguish fact from fiction for every Internet posting. It may be useful to remember the popular saying: “if something is too good to be true, it probably is” too good to be true! Readers should have a healthy dose of skepticism, without going overboard — by being either too suspicious to believe anything or too gullible, blindly swallowing everything on the Internet!

Source: Panorama.am

Islamist Websites in Turkey Manage to Evade Strict Internet Censorship not Kurd

March 13, 2015 by administrator

By TIM ARANGO MARCH 13, 2015

A hallmark of the leadership of President Erdogan has been a crackdown on freedom of expression. Credit Burhan Ozbilici/Associated Press

ISTANBUL — The websites of an atheist association, the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a Kurdish separatist organization are blocked to Turkish Internet users. But many sites that promote extreme Islamist messages — even some that are outright sympathetic to the Islamic State, the militant organization that has marauded through Iraq and Syria — escape Turkey’s censors.

A hallmark of the decade-long leadership of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Islamist Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., has been a crackdown on freedom of expression. Yet what Turkey chooses to censor reflects the Islamist values of the government, critics say. With the rise of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, this dynamic has been set in sharp relief, highlighting the deep divide between Turkey and its Western allies in the fight against the militants. report New York Times

The contradictions are often striking, as Turkey largely maintains a hands-off approach to extremist Islamist expression while widely cracking down on other speech. Last year, for instance, Twitter fielded more requests from Turkey to remove material than from any other country. And lately, a beauty queen, a top newspaper editor, an actor, a teenage boy and dozens of others have been targeted by prosecutors for insulting Mr. Erdogan.

At the same time, one prominent site, Takva Haber, a widely used forum for recruiting Turks to the Islamic State, operates freely. It is also a popular news site for jihadists, and it recently offered tips to fighters in Iraq and Syria about how to avoid being spotted by drones from the American-led coalition carrying out an air campaign against the militants.

“It sparked curiosity in me and guided me to the forums where people provide information about the recruitment process and logistics,” said Can, a 27-year-old from Ankara, the capital, who had joined the Islamic State and then defected, speaking on condition that he be identified only by his middle name, out of fear of reprisals.

“The ISIS Internet community in Turkey is big and has a big following,” he said. “That’s how everyone comes together and communicates. If we all met on the street, people would notice.”

American officials have sharply criticized Turkey for doing little to aid the fight against the Islamic State, denying coalition planes an air base for strikes in Syria and Iraq and standing by while the militants attacked the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani. American diplomats say the reluctance is attributable in part to the government’s dependence in this Sunni nation on a deep well of religious conservatism that bridles at assisting in attacks against a Sunni group, even one as brutal as the Islamic State.

But allowing militant websites to flourish is problematic, analysts say, alienating allies and, at worst, opening the government to accusations of tacitly collaborating with the militants.

“Leaving the ISIS propaganda to flourish is equivalent to endorsement,” said David L. Phillips, the director of the Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University and a former State Department official who has researched Turkey’s policy on the Islamic State.

Turkey’s reluctance to crack down on militant websites also reflects the government’s view that the primary enemy in Syria is the government of President Bashar al-Assad, not the Islamic State. Turkey has also opposed efforts by Kurds within Syria to secure an autonomous region, fearing it would embolden Turkey’s restive Kurdish minority.

“They continue to be more concerned with Assad and Kurdish separatism than they are about ISIS,” said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Haass said Turkey’s reluctance to go after Islamic State-related websites is consistent with a “domestic tolerance” within Turkey toward the group.

The government’s priorities in the arena of censorship are protecting “the reputation of political figures” and religious defamation cases, such as the decision to block the Charlie Hebdo website, said Yaman Akdeniz, a cyberlaw expert and professor at Istanbul’s Bilgi University who is advising the legal teams defending the beauty queen and the atheist association.

“The censorship is in line with government sensitivities and matters that make them uncomfortable,” he said.

A senior government official, speaking anonymously as a matter of protocol, refused to address the issue of what is censored and what is not, at least not directly. “The regulation of the Internet is a very technical matter that involves many different factors, from citizen complaints to court orders,” he said. “The government doesn’t sit around a big table and make decisions on what should and shouldn’t be blocked.”

Susan Corke, the director of Eurasia programs at Freedom House, an advocacy group that promotes freedom of expression, said that the government’s censorship priorities were quite evident. “Apparently,” she wrote in an email, “that means blocking sites it deems offensive like those promoting atheism, but being tolerant of radical Islamist sites like Takva Haber.”

In addition to Takva Haber and countless Twitter accounts that promote the Islamic State, there is the work of Ebu Hanzala, a Turkish Salafist cleric who is sometimes called the “spiritual leader” of the militant group within Turkey. He has been arrested several times over the years — once on suspicion of planning attacks on synagogues in Istanbul, other times in raids targeting Al Qaeda — but he is free today, and his online magazine promotes Shariah law. While he does not explicitly promote the Islamic State, his teachings have helped inspire recruits.

Speaking in New York last week at the Council on Foreign Relations, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was asked by Mr. Haass about what appeared to be the contradiction of his participation in a march in Paris after the attack in January on Charlie Hebdo’s offices and Turkey’s record of censorship.

Mr. Davutoglu said, “Freedom of speech, that does not mean freedom of insult.”

Asked who decides what expression to censor and what to allow, Mr. Davutoglu said, “The social values decides.”

Turkey was no paragon of free speech under its old secular and nationalist system, although, then, the frequent offense was to insult notions of “Turkishness.” Now the government focuses on speech it deems insulting to Islam or the president, or that promotes atheism.

“Social values in Turkey today are Islamist values,” Mr. Phillips said. “The A.K.P. sees itself as the enforcer of Turkey’s values.”

Turkish gov’t in new bid to block Internet access without legal order

December 25, 2014 by administrator

The Turkish government has been preparing to make yet another move which would add insult to injury for those who have been concerned over plight of freedom of expression in the country, as a Cabinet member has confirmed they are drafting a bill which would grant the prime minister and the communication minister the ability to block access to certain webpages without a court order if they deem them posing a danger to “national security and public order.” Reported by Hurriyet daily news

Minister for Transportation, Maritime Affairs and Communications Lütfi Elvan, speaking with daily Vatan, recalled that they have already announced bringing in legislation which outlines pecuniary penalties up to 500,000 Turkish Liras for those who don’t implement court rulings to block access to certain webpages or remove content from certain webpages.

Noting that this was the first article of the draft, Elvan said there was a second article planned.
“On matters related to public order and national security, action will be taken upon notification by either the prime ministry or the related ministry if there is a delay, as stated in Article 22 of our Constitution,” Elvan elaborated.

Article 22 of the Constitution covers freedom of communication.

“Unless there exists a decision duly passed by a judge on one or several grounds regarding national security, public order, prevention of crime, protection of public health and public morals, protection of the rights and freedoms of others, or unless there exists a written order by an agency authorized by law in cases where a delay is prejudicial, on the above-mentioned grounds, communication shall not be impeded nor its secrecy be violated,” says the section of the article to which the minister referred.

“The decision of the authorized agency shall be submitted for approval by the judge having jurisdiction within 24 hours. The judge shall announce his decision within 48 hours from the time of seizure; otherwise, seizure shall automatically be lifted. Public establishments or institutions where exceptions to the above may be applied are defined by law,” says the same article.

In September, as part of an omnibus bill, the government granted Turkey’s Telecommunications Directorate (TİB) extraordinary authority to monitor Internet users and block websites and their content without court permission.

The bill was, however, overturned by the Constitutional Court a month later.

December/25/2014

Freedom House names Armenia a country with free internet

December 5, 2014 by administrator

Freedom House called Armenia a country with free internet in its new report “Freedom of the Net 2014”.

The report indicated that internet penetration rate in Armenia has continued improving over the past few years, accompanied by fewer restrictions on online content.

In terms of obstacles to access Armenia got 7 points out of 25, in terms of limits on content – 9 out of 35 and 12 points out of 40 on violation of user rights.

Thus, Armenia and Georgia are the only states with free internet in the CIS area.

Azerbaijan and Turkey, as well as Russia and Ukraine, are named countries with “partly free” internet.

Syria, Iran and China are among the states with the worst state of internet freedom.

Reporters without borders slams Turkey for tightening Internet censorship with amended law

September 11, 2014 by administrator

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has released a written statement on its official website in which it harshly criticizes Turkey for granting the Telecommunications Directorate (TİB) extensive powers over Internet use — such as the power to block access to websites without a court order — with new amendments recently made to the country’s Internet law.

The RSF stated that Turkey’s Parliament “passed two last-minute amendments expanding the grounds under which [TİB] can temporarily block websites without a court order, and allowing it to gather Internet user connection data independently of any ongoing investigation.”

“Coming just after the end of the Internet Governance Forum [IGF] in İstanbul [last week], the amendments showed that the Turkish authorities are ready to go even further down the road of Internet censorship,” the RSF statement continued.

TİB has already been able to order the “preventive blocking” of websites since February in cases of “attacks on privacy” or “discriminatory or insulting” content. Under the most recent amendments, it can now also block sites in case of a perceived attack on “national security,” to “protect public order” or to “prevent a crime from being committed.”

“Blocking a website, even for 48 hours, without referring to a court violates the principle of the separation of powers as well as freedom of information,” the RSF statement reported Johann Bihr, the head of the RSF Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk, as saying.

“By increasing the possibility of blocking sites in this way, the authorities are yet again reaffirming their determination to control the Internet. Online resources play a key role in informing the Turkish public, one that is all the more important because harassment of the traditional media is being stepped up. We urge President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan not to sign these amendments into law,” Bihr said.

-2

Islamic state of Turkey unveils legislation to tighten control over Internet

September 11, 2014 by administrator

Turkey’s lawmakers have passed a law expanding the powers of the country’s telecom authority and tightening Internet controls.

The regulations are part of a broader bill that was proposed earlier this week by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Sources say the new law would broaden the authorities’ power to block access to websites without a court order.

The new regulations also authorize telecommunication authorities to store Internet users’ data, potentially letting them track online activity.

Social activists and legal experts have strongly opposed to the new legislation and regulations.

“This is intensely problematic because based on this broad terminology a public servant will make the judgment to block access to websites,” media outlets quoted Yaman Akdeniz, a legal expert who has fought the government on Internet cases.

“I find it incompatible with the constitution…. This is a dubious power to give to a questionable public authority such as the telecoms directorate,” the expert added.

Ankara also blocked access to Twitter on March 20, after it was used to spread corruption allegations against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his inner circle.

YouTube was blocked on March 27 after the release of an audio recording revealing a discussion among top Turkish security officials about a possible false-flag operation to justify a military offensive against Syria.

The laws governing Internet in Turkey were already updated this year in a move that activists said is harming freedom and increasing censorship.

The developments come as protesters used social media during last year’s anti-government protests, and the platforms were used this year to spread audio recordings containing corruption allegations against the government.

Source: presstv.com