ONE FOR OUR SIDE! The U.N. Declares Internet Access a Human Right - Technology - The ... - theatlanticwire.com BY ADAM CLARK ESTESJUN 06, 2011 The United Nations counts internet access as a basic human right in a report that bears implications both to on-going events in the Arab Spring and to the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers. Acting as special rapporteur, a human rights watchdog role appointed by the UN Secretary General, Frank La Rue takes a hard line on the importance of the internet as "an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating inequality, and accelerating development and human progress." Presented to the General Assembly on Friday, La Rue's report comes as the capstone of a year's worth of meetings held between La Rue and local human rights organizations around the world, from Cairo to Bangkok. The report's introduction points to the impact of online collaboration in the Arab Spring and says that "facilitating access to the Internet for all individuals, with as little restriction to online content as possible, should be a priority for all States." The UN report overwhelmingly supports the internet as a communication platform, a boon to all democratic societies, but it also warns how the internet's unique architecture threatens power brokers in those societies: The vast potential and benefits of the Internet are rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach and relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of the Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in "real time" and to mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on the Internet through the use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor and identify activists and critics, criminalization of legitimate expression, and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures.  La Rue's mention of reach and anonymity celebrates Twitter and Facebook role in Egypt as much as it validates WikiLeaks in the United States. The Electronic Freedom Foundation says that the UN's support for anonymous expression and the protection it affords should inform how governments regulate security and surveillance.  Forms of online surveillance--be it Facebook's privacy policy or the United States government's expanding treason law to document leaks--"often [take] place for political, rather than security reasons in an arbitrary and covert manner," La Rue argues. In short, broad surveillance powers or the erosion of privacy online endanger anonymity's ability to protect dissenters and journalists alike when they speak out. Stacked against the administration's assault on whistleblowers, La Rue's warnings are condemning: The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States' international human rights obligations, whether it is through the application of existing criminal laws to online expression, or through the creation of new laws specifically designed to criminalize expression on the Internet. Such laws are often justified as being necessary to protect individuals' reputation, national security or to counter terrorism. However, in practice, they are frequently used to censor content that the Government and other powerful entities do not like or agree with. La Rue acknowledges the logistical barriers that some nations face when it comes to delivering internet service. Without the proper infrastructure, some nations simply can't engage the internet as the "revolutionary" and "interactive medium" it's proven itself to be. However, all nations should make plans to offer universal access and also maintain policy that won't limit access for political purposes. In doing so, La Rue calls on governments to decriminalize defamation, do away with real-name registration systems--including the parameters in Facebook's terms and conditions that allows governments to collect users' names and passwords--and restrict rights only in the face of an imminent threat. The United Nations' strong position on anonymity online reads like a hat tip to WikiLeaks and its campaign for transparency, but it also sounds scolding towards governments like the United States' that have waged wars against transparency. Likening the Obama administration's increasing number of convictions using old treason laws against information leakers is censorship in no uncertain terms, the UN seems to say. And the government's bad track record of protecting this type of free expression is ideologically just as bad as shutting the internet down altogether. Sources ·         United Nations report: Internet access is a human right, Nathan Olivarez-Giles, Los Angeles Times ·         U.N. Special Rapporteur Calls Upon States to Protect Anonymous Speakers Online, Katitza Rodriguez, Electronic Freedom Foundation LONDON — It is the nation that once ran the largest empire the world has ever known, a country so powerful that it claimed to "rule the waves" in a patriotic anthem. But last month a "political tsunami" struck the United Kingdom and this once-mighty state faces being broken up. An astonishing victory for nationalists in the Scottish parliamentary elections means it is almost certain that a referendum will be held within five years on whether Scotland should leave theU.K. and become an independent country. The Scottish National Party (SNP) won 69 out of 129 seats in Edinburgh's Holyrood parliament, with about 45 percent of the vote, up by more than 12 percentage points. Their three main rival parties — Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats — all lost ground. Polls currently suggest only a third of Scots back independence, but the unionist campaign is in disarray and the nationalists boast a leader who even his opponents admit is a highly skilled political operator. Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister and leader of the SNP, is the man plotting the demise of the 304-year-old union of the two countries. He hopes his fellow citizens will heed the message of another tune, "Flower of Scotland," the unofficial national anthem which urges Scots to "rise now and be a nation again." While the U.K. has been one of America's staunchest allies — often concerned with the state of the so-called "special relationship" between the two countries — an independent Scotland would likely be at odds with the U.S. on many issues. Story: An all-American Scottish nationalist on why the UK should split The SNP would rid Scotland of nuclear weapons on moral grounds; it would also take Scotland — which lies in a strategically important position in the North Atlantic — out of NATO. And despite being a significant oil producer, the SNP has already introduced what it describes as "world-beating" climate change legislation with a target to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. 'Illegal, Immoral Conflict' Moreover, the Iraq War was "an illegal, immoral conflict," Salmond told reporters at the Foreign Press Association in London last month, and something that an independent Scotland would never have become involved in. Leaving the U.K. would give Scotland the chance to create "a socially just, economically prosperous society," Salmond added, and not be "a country that excels in nuclear weapons and dominating others." "Being a big country is not a question of size and scale, but of the size of your ideas, the scale of your contribution to humanity," he said. Speaking to msnbc.com, Salmond dismissed suggestions an independent Scotland might have a poor relationship with the U.S., pointing to the mutual warmth between America and the Republic of Ireland, which is not a NATO member. "We'd be in exactly the same position as Ireland is at the present moment," he said. "There's a lot of goodwill towards Scotland from people in America," Salmond added, noting Scots had made a "fairly substantial contribution to the intellectual backbone of the American Revolution." Scotland and the U.S., he said, had "a positive relationship" and that would improve after independence. Salmond told reporters that separation from the U.K. was an idea "whose time has come." 'Psychological battle'  Asked about the poll ratings, he admitted there was a "psychological battle" to be won to persuade Scots to vote for change in the face of a "scare-mongering campaign" by unionist parties. But Salmond said the SNP's victory in the May election showed that Scots were gaining in confidence and had rejected the "mendacious message" that Scotland was "too small and too poor to look after its own affairs." "It was a political tsunami that occurred in Scotland," he said, days after announcing a referendum on independence would be held within the next five years. But tsunami warnings can come to nothing. John Curtice, a professor of politics at Strathclyde University and an expert pollster, said the SNP victory appeared to be partly because of dissatisfaction with the other political parties, particularly left-of-center Labour. Surveys had consistently showed support for independence at between a quarter and a third of voters, he said. However, Curtice said Salmond had a "remarkable ability to spin a positive case for his party and his country." And the unionists, Curtice argued, needed to find "a positive argument for staying in the union," rather than rely on negative campaigning, as well as a leader to sell that message. "Who is going to lead the campaign? Who is there who has the ability to campaign effectively? It's not entirely obvious," Curtice said. "The SNP starts from behind, but you can see the structural weaknesses of the the unionist camp." One possible candidate, Annabel Goldie, currently leader of the staunchly unionist Scottish Conservative Party, has effectively stepped out of contention, saying after her party came third in the elections that she plans to resign. She insisted that "overwhelmingly, people do not want independence, whatever AlexSalmond may claim," while admitting he was a "very astute politician" with "a very formidable political presence." "We are at ease with being part of the U.K.," Goldie said. "It is a relationship that many people acknowledge has served people well, not least in the recent recession and banking crisis." Traditional goodwill She feared an independent country might lose some of the traditional goodwill Americans have toward Scotland if it was "constantly trying to make grandstanding gestures on the world stage." Goldie said it "undoubtedly would be a left-of-center, socialist administration with already well articulated views on issues like nuclear — Trident (nuclear missiles) or nuclear energy — and very strong views on social issues ... all sorts of views which are somewhat alien to the American ethos." One decision that was entirely alien to U.S. traditions was the early release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi — the only person convicted in the bombing attack on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie — on compassionate grounds in 2009, just eight years after he was found guilty of the mass murder of 270 people. SNP Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made the decision after doctors reportedly told him that al-Megrahi, suffering from cancer, likely had three months to live. Nearly two years after his release, al-Megrahi remains alive. The SNP's stance on NATO is another possible source of friction. The naval base at Faslane on the west coast of Scotland — home to the U.K.'s nuclearsubmarine fleet — and the safe harbor at Scapa Flow off the country's northern coast are strategically important locations. Cold War Tracking Stations Scotland is also part of a network of sonar monitoring stations — built during the Cold War to track Russian submarines moving into the North Atlantic — that could become important should the old tensions flare up again. A senior SNP source admitted there was a difference of opinion within the party about NATO membership, with some members so strongly opposed to nuclear weapons on moral grounds that they did not want to be under NATO's "nuclear umbrella." Defense commentator Stuart Crawford, who served as a lieutenant colonel in the U.K.'s Royal Tank Regiment and later became the SNP's junior defense spokesman, said senior party figures had long wanted to get rid of the party's "bonkers" opposition to NATO. Crawford, who has since left the SNP but still supports independence, said the idea of a complete disassociation from nuclear weapons had taken hold among grassroots supporters and the party was "painfully democratic." He said Scotland might have limited significance to the U.S. now, but suggested a possible scenario that would radically change that. "In 2030, the expanding power that is China says, 'Can we lease a naval base from you Scotland?" ... We'll pay you billions of dollars for the privilege' — then I suggest Scotland becomes very important to the U.S.," he said. Crawford compared such a move to the Cuban missile crisis, but added: "China is a friendly country, so what could the objection be?" 'Good for the country's psyche' Crawford said he doubted Scotland would vote for independence in the planned referendum, but said he expected it would happen within 10 to 20 years. "I'm an emotional nationalist and I think it would be good for the country's psyche and soul as a whole," he said. For Alan Roden, an Englishman who covers Scottish politics for the Daily Mail newspaper, that would be a shame. A photo on his Facebook page shows him wearing a traditional Scottish kilt, but makes clear his passion forEnglish football team York City. Many on either side of the border have similar ties and feelings toward the two countries. One of his "favorite quotes" listed on Facebook makes his opinion clear, paraphrasing a line from the 1707 Act of Union that "England and Scotland shall forever after be united into one Kingdom." "People want their MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) to stand up for Scotland, but Scotland within the union," he said, noting the same polls highlighted by Curtice. However, Roden admitted that "you can never underestimate Alex Salmond," saying he was "incredibly popular" and left other Scottish politicians "in the shade." "This is a man who at the start of the Holyrood election campaign was significantly trailing the Labour Party in the opinion polls but who turned that round … and ended up with the first majority in the Scottish parliament's history," Roden said. Partly because of the proportional voting system, previous Scottish administrations have been coalitions or have governed with only a minority of the lawmakers, relying on ad hoc support from other parties. Echoing other commentators, Roden said the unionists needed to unite and "put forward a positive message about why Scotland and England are better together" as well as find a Scot good enough to stand up to Salmond to lead the campaign. A claim made by some in the unionist camp is that businesses, people generally and English people in particular would leave if Scotland became independent. 'Scotland is my home' But Roden plans to stay. "Scotland is my home and I do believe the people of Scotland have a right to choose their own future," he said. Another foreign-born resident of Scotland with a keen interest in the debate is Dr. Mark Aspinwall, head of politics and international relations at Scotland's Edinburgh University. A native of Massachusetts, Aspinwall said he was "very neutral" about the idea when talking with students, but had been "sort of opposed to it" because Scotland and England "are so linked economically." But Aspinwall, who has dual citizenship, showed signs of wavering. "I'm not sure how I would vote to be honest," he said of the referendum. He told msnbc.com that independence was "conceivable," but rated the chances as "less than 50-50." Scotland "would certainly have a future as an independent country," he said, comparing it to Norway. "There's something that is Scottish, there is an identity, a pride, a history that's a bit different," Aspinwall said. "I love Scotland ... It's clean and fresh, open and green. It has the same topography as northern New England, the same mountains, not the same trees ... it's a great place, friendly people, and Edinburgh is a wonderful city, a really cosmopolitan place. It's great here." US Breathes Life Into A New Cold War  By M K Bhadrakumar  There might have been a difference of opinion between the classical Greek dramatist Aeschylus and British romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley regarding the circumstances of the release of the Titan god Prometheus from captivity: whether it followed reconciliation with Jupiter, as the classicist thought, or a rebellion, as the romantic insisted. In either case, Prometheus was "unbound". The exact circumstances of the endgame in Iraq and Afghanistan will remain a moot point, but the outcome is certain to be that the United States, which like Prometheus was chained to a mountain where he was daily punished by Jupiter's eagle and underwent immense suffering, is being "released" to normal life. For Prometheus, it came as an existential moment and when Hercules came to unbind him, he was so relieved at the freedom "long desired/And long delayed" that he pledged to his love that they "will sit and talk of time and change/As the world ebbs and flows, ourselves unchanged". The United States, too, is re-emerging "unchanged". There is a flurry of activity as if making up for lost time - "unilateralist" military intervention in Libya; deployment of a F-16 squadron in Poland; establishment of military bases in Romania; resuscitation of the George W Bush era plans for deployment of a US missile defense system in Central Europe; revival of the entente cordiale among "new Europeans"; threatened "humanitarian intervention" in Syria; renewed talk of military action against Iran; a push for a long-term military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan; revving up of the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into Central Asia; violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan; the threat of "regime change" in Sri Lanka; and last weekend the announcement of the deployment of light combat ships in Singapore. (More…) The Real Meaning of Santorum Before he was an internet punchline, Rick Santorum was the baby face of compassionate conservatism. Remember that? Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is ardently anti-gay and has an acute talent for tapping into the homophobic imagination of social conservatives. “Man on child,” “man on dog,” incest, “priests with 3-year-olds,” polygamy, the welfare of children, the decline of Western civilization—if it’s in the vocabulary of anti-gay hysteria,Santorum has been there, done that. As a result, he’s become the target of a Google bomb, led by gay columnist Dan Savage, that successfully redefined “santorum” as a substance most straight people probably didn’t know existed and most gay men never thought to name, especially not in honor of a Republican US senator. But hey, shit happens—and now Santorum is widely considered a joke. The launch of his presidential campaign today was greeted with a chorus of knowing sneers. No, not just because of the internet prank, but for all that lies behind its mockery: a generational shift away from right-wing sanctimony and its preoccupation with the decline of the traditional family towards are more mass-mediated, liberal, tolerant, laissez-faire approach to sexuality. Santorum seems dated. In addition to mean and bigoted, his views appear nonsensical and unserious. The great cultural bellwether known as  Miley Cyrus’s twitter account has come out against him, and even his remaining die-hard supporters, like National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, struggled to answer the question: “Why would he bother?” Laugh away—for now he has the support of just two percent of Republican voters—but remember, Santorum wasn’t always just for shits and giggles. Before he crashed and burned in his race for a third Senate term, Santorum was considered a golden boy of the GOP. He had won four elections in a row in a swing state against well-financed Democrats. He was the youngest member of the GOP Senate leadership and, for much of the early 2000s, one of its most frequent TV spokesmen. Most importantly, Santorum was the baby face of compassionate conservatism and an important architect of its signature pieces of legislation. As head of the House GOP Task Force on Welfare Reform, Santorum wrote key parts of what became the landmark 1996 welfare reform bill signed by Bill Clinton. He championed No Child Left Behind and proposed the Santorum Amendment to it, which attempted to insert teaching on the theory of intelligent design. Along with Democrat Dick Durbin, Santorum crusaded for increasing US spending on the global fight against HIV/AIDS, especially if it went to church groups and controversial abstinence-only programs. He considered enlarging the US role in fighting AIDS integral to "American exceptionalism," and he earned the praise of Bono, among others, for his advocacy. Throughout it all, he worked behind the scenes to increase government funding for faith-based social services. As conservative pundit Kathleen Parker lamented in September 2006, when it was clear that Santorum would go down to Bob Casey, “Santorum has been the conservatives’ point man for the world’s disenfranchised—the poor, the sick and the meek. If he loses, the face of compassionate conservatism will be gone.” Parker was right. Nobody on the right talks of compassionate conservatism anymore, especially now that the Tea Party is running the show. In part that’s because it collapsed on its own internal contradictions. As an ideology, compassionate conservatism championed state support for social justice —to fight poverty, illiteracy or disease, for example—but it opposed the state doing that work itself. In practice, that meant turning the state into a giant, heavily politicized pass-through mechanism that redistributed tax-payer dollars to private charities and corporations without meaningful accountability. Because compassionate conservatism is rooted in Christian missionary zealotry, it inevitably engaged in social engineering—abstinence-only sex education and discrimination against gays and lesbians, for example. And most importantly for the Tea Party right, it ran up the deficit. Along with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for Tea Party conservatives, it is the most visible symbol of how Bush went wrong, corrupting real conservatism with profligate cronyism. That’s the real reason why Santorum’s candidacy seems so laughable now. He’s a relic from another time, one marked by plentitude and optimism, when conservatives embraced a global role for the United States, attempted to hijack American progressivism and above all, needed a new brand to bring them back from the mean years of straight-up bashing welfare queens and fags with AIDS (see Jesse Helms). Santorum fulfilled that role, speaking of America’s great and charitable mission to aid the poor while retaining enough smiling hatred to stoke the old base. It didn’t really make sense then. It really doesn’t make sense now.