Benton RSS Feed

[Commentary] This month, Jordan blocked local access to about 300 domestic websites. Ironically, this action coincided with the rollout of Abdullah's "democratic empowerment" project.

Putting aside the incongruous timing, the assault on Internet freedom had been legislated months ago. Still, not surprisingly, publishers of these websites accused the palace of implementing the law now to silence dissent. After all, many of the blocked sites are critical of the government and focus reportage and commentary on anti-government demonstrations, news of the tribal opposition movement known as the Hirak and alleged corruption. During a protest outside the journalists union headquarters June 3, Basil Okoor, the publisher of jo24.net — whose site is among those blocked — described the government measures as "political and not legal," and warned that "tomorrow, the state will extend its powers over print journalism." Given the ongoing turmoil in the region, it would be unwise to press for radical political reform in Jordan now. Indeed, the majority of Jordanians are not clamoring for such change. But rolling back the nation's already limited freedoms is not a recipe for enhanced stability. As Abdullah works to insulate Jordan from domestic and foreign threats, the last thing he needs — at home and abroad — is to associate his benign and traditionally enlightened monarchy with the region's most repressive regimes.

[Schenker is director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy]

The chairman of the House Subcommittee on Counterintelligence and Terrorism says that journalists who exposed controversial surveillance programs should be punished.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told CNN that it’s fair to punish both the leakers and those who publish the information. “If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think actions should be taken, especially something of this magnitude,” Rep King said. “I think, with something of this magnitude, there is an obligation — both moral, but also legal — against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security.” Rep King then responded directly to the question about punishing journalists: “The answer is yes, to your question.” Rep King also called leaker Edward Snowden a “traitor,” arguing that he violated the Espionage Act.

Everyone is up in arms about PRISM, the National Security Agency program that allegedly gave the government access to several Internet companies’ servers. But when you go to a news site to read about PRISM, you’re watched by dozens of commercial data trackers, mostly marketing or analytics firms and advertising networks.

The hubbub over the government’s secret data program has renewed the scrutiny of all forms of data mining, both the government and private varieties. Programs like PRISM ostensibly target potential terrorists. But commercial data mining has a much broader mandate: Sell stuff to people by targeting ads based on where they go and what they do online. As a result, consumers are increasingly watched by third parties no matter where they browse the Web. When privacy advocates discuss commercial data tracking, they’re usually referring to a wide range of activities — from data brokers like Acxiom, which aggregates online and offline shopping habits, to services like the Google display network, which tracks browsing data to serve up relevant ads. There are significant and important differences between commercial and government tracking. Chief among them is that companies are subject to market pressures, while the government is not. Still, many users are unaware of the breadth of tracking by commercial data miners, another anxiety for privacy advocates who see big data eroding consumer rights online.

The National Security Agency leaker is lying about both his access to information and the scope of the secret surveillance programs he uncovered, the heads of the House Intelligence Committee charged.

Emerging from a hearing with NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), the senior Democrat on the panel, said Snowden simply wasn't in the position to access the content of the communications gathered under National Security Agency programs, as he's claimed. "He was lying," Chairman Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do." "He's done tremendous damage to the country where he was born and raised and educated," Rep Ruppersberger said. Asked how much additional information — including other Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act verdicts — Snowden has in his possession, Chairman Rogers said, "No one really knows the answer to that today. I think we will know the answer to that shortly." "It was clear that he attempted to go places that he was not authorized to go, which should raise questions for everyone," Chairman Rogers added.