Mirko Schubert, „Sicherheit: Kriminalbeamte fordern Notschalter fr das Internet,“ Netzwelt (2010), http://www.netzwelt.de/news/83381-sicherheit-kriminalbeamte-fordern-notschalter-internet.html (in German), accessed January 20, 2011.
These points are summarized in two online articles: Klaus C. Koch, “Telekommunikationsberwachung: Feind hrt mit,” Sueddeutsche.de, September 14, 2009, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/telekommunikationsueberwachung-feind-hoertmit-1.28782 (in German); “Superabhrzentral in Kln ohne gesetzliche Grundlage: Datenschtzer Peter Schaar kritisiert Bundesverwaltungsamt,” Golem.de, August 4, 2009, http://www.golem.de/0908/68812.html (in German).
GERMANY FREEDOM HOUSE Freedom on the Net nominates the members of the G 10 Commission.59 The latter assesses the necessity of telecommunications surveillance and controls the whole surveillance process. Its chairperson must have the qualifications to serve as a judge. The G 10 Commission is also responsible for overseeing telecommunications measures undertaken on the basis of the Counterterrorism Act of 2002 and the Counterterrorism Amendment Act of 2007. The Parliamentary Control Panel reports periodically to the parliament about the activities of the G 10 Commission and, by extension, of the secret services.Data retention requirements apply to ISPs and mobile-phone companies, but not to internet cafes. The Federal Constitutional Court struck down a central law on data retention in March 2010, leaving a great deal of uncertainty on this issue.61 The Law for the New Regulation of Telecommunications Interception and Other Covert Methods of Investigation as well as Compliance with the European Union Directive 2006/24/EG, which took effect in January 2008, had been challenged by more than 30,000 people, including Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberg.62 It was partly incorporated into the Telecommunications Act, and required telecommunications and internet providers to store all traffic data for six months. The court ruling ordered the deletion of this data. The court argued that the law was unconstitutional because it did not contain any specific measures to keep the data safe and failed to erect enough hurdles for accessing the information.
However, the court left open the possibility that a data-retention law could be constitutional, so long as it was limited to facilitating the prosecution of clearly delineated, serious criminal offenses. There would also need to be “transparent control” over what the data could be used for,63 and the law would have to establish strict procedures to be implemented by telecommunications providers.Cyberattacks are becoming an important issue in Germany. Citing the private security company G Data, the BKA report for 2009 stated that 350,000 to 700,computers—hijacked by hackers and organized into so-called botnets—were put to See the description on the website of the German parliament, http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/bundestag/committees/bodies/scrutiny/index.html (in German).
See the two briefings by the Parliamentary Control Panel to the parliament in 2010 (Drucksache 17/549 on the measures relating to the Article 10 Act and Drucksache 17/550 on the measures relating to the Counterterrorism Act), both covering the year 2008, available at http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/005/1700549.pdf and http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/005/1700550.pdf (in German), accessed September 13, 2010.
Bundesverfassungsgericht, 1 BvR 256/08, 1 BvR 263/08, 1 BvR 586/08; verdict available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20100302_1bvr025608.html (in German), accessed September 13, 2010.
Privacy International, “German Federal Constitutional Court Overturns Law on Data Retention,” news release, March 9, 2010, http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtmlcmd=x-347-566038.
It was along these lines that the Federal Constitutional Court limited the use of the law on March 11, 2008, after it received the first formal complaints. Bundesverfassungsgericht, “Eilantrag in Sachen ‘Vorratsdatenspeicherung’ teilweise erfolgreich,” news release, March 19, 2008, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg08-037.html (in German).
Bundesverfassungsgericht, “Konkrete Ausgestaltung der Vorratsdatenspeicherung nicht verfassungsgem,” news release, March 2, 2010, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg10-011 (in German).
GERMANY FREEDOM HOUSE Freedom on the Net fraudulent use every day in Germany.65 G Data also enumerated several major cyberattacks for the first half of 2010.66 For instance, in January, the website of the German Agency for Emissions Trading was subjected to a phishing attack, in the course of which emission allowances were illegally transferred to Denmark and Britain and the perpetrators made up to ˆ3 million. In February, German online news portals such as Golem.de, Handelsblatt.com, and Zeit.de became victims of “malvertising,” in which malicious code was downloaded onto the computers of site visitors through infected advertisement banners.
In March, the website of the Federal Environment Agency was infected and spread a Zeus Trojan virus for several days. And in May, the data of more than two million students was stolen from the social-networking platform SchlerVZ, apparently in an attempt to alert the site to its security failures.
The German government created the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) in 1991 to strengthen the security of federal information technology. The act that established the BSI was amended in 2009,67 giving more leeway to the entity, which has 500 employees.
A constitutional complaint has been directed against a paragraph in the amended act that allegedly allows the office to engage in massive data-retention activities. Bundeskriminalamt, IuK-Kriminalitt: Bundeslagebild 2009, 10. These numbers should perhaps be viewed with some caution, given that a private provider of security services has an interest in portraying computer crime as a pervasive threat.
G Data issues semiannual malware reports. See Ralf Benzmller and Sabrina Berkenkopf, G Data Malware-Report:
Halbjahresbericht Januar–Juni 2010 (Bochum: G Data, 2010), http://www.gdata.de/uploads/media/GData_MalwareReport_2010_1_6_DE_mail2.pdf (in German).
Bundesministerium des Innern [Federal Ministry of the Interior], “Act to Strengthen the Security of Federal Information Technology,” August 14, 2009, http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_183/sid_4F946AA4F22A39F6785D8D2AE5F723D9/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Gesetzeste xte/bsi_act.htmlnn=105406.
“Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen BSI-Gesetz eingereicht,” Heise Online, September 1, 2010, http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Verfassungsbeschwerde-gegen-BSI-Gesetz-eingereicht-1070391.html (in German).
GERMANY FREEDOM HOUSE Freedom on the Net INDIA 2009 POPULATION: 1.2 billion INTERNET FREEDOM Partly Partly INTERNET PENETRATION: 5 percent STATUS Free Free WEB 2.0 APPLICATIONS BLOCKED: No Obstacles to Access 12 SUBSTANTIAL POLITICAL CENSORSHIP: No Limits on Content 7 BLOGGERS/ONLINE USERS ARRESTED: Yes Violations of User Rights 15 PRESS FREEDOM STATUS: Partly Free Total 34 INTRODUCTION Although India’s internet penetration rate of less than 10 percent is low by global standards, the country is nonetheless home to tens of millions of users and has become an important leader in the high-tech industry. Meanwhile, access to mobile phones has grown dramatically in recent years, with penetration reaching nearly 60 percent of the population.
In the past, instances of the central government and state officials seeking to control communication technologies and censor undesirable content were relatively rare and sporadic. However, since the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed people, the need, desire, and ability of the Indian government to monitor, censor, and control the communication sector have grown.1 Given the range of security threats facing the country, which also include a persistent Maoist insurgency, many Indians feel that the government should be allowed to monitor personal communications such as telephone calls, e-mail messages, and financial transactions.2 It is in this context that Parliament passed amendments to the Information Technology Act (ITA) in 2008. The changes came into effect in 2009 and have expanded the government’s censorship and monitoring capabilities.
The spread of information and communication technologies (ICTs) began accelerating in India with the liberalization of the telecommunications sector as part of the Joshua Keating, “The List: Look Who’s Censoring the Internet Now,” Foreign Policy, March 24, 2009, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/03/23/the_list_look_whos_censoring_the_internet_now.
“Security Forces, Media, 2 Pillars of Freedom: Poll,” Times of India, August 15, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Security-forces-media-2-pillars-of-freedomPoll/articleshow/6312697.cms.
INDIA FREEDOM HOUSE Freedom on the Net New Economic Policy in July 1991.3 Throughout the early 1990s, various aspects of the telecommunications industry were opened to the private sector, including radio paging and mobile phones.4 The government’s New Telecom Policy of 1999 and New Internet Policy of 1998 have further spurred the growth of the ICT sector,5 resulting in a large number of manufacturing units and internet-service providers (ISP) setting up bases in the country.
OBSTACLES TO ACCESS Infrastructure limitations and cost considerations restrict access to the internet and other ICTs in India, though both infrastructure and bandwidth have improved in the last two years. Estimates on internet penetration in India vary considerably. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) reported 61.3 million users as of 2009,6 while the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) found that about 77 million Indians had used the internet at least once in their lifetimes.7 A spring 2010 survey by the New Delhi–based research and marketing firm Juxt resulted in an estimate of 51 million “active” internet users, who had used the internet at least once in the past year. (40 million urban and million rural).8 Despite this confusion, most measurements put the overall internet penetration rate at a rather low 5 to 8 percent of the population. There are signs that this figure is increasing, however, and one recent study predicted that the number of Indian users would reach 237 million in 2015, from a current estimate of 80 million.Internet use among urbanites appears to be more evenly distributed across the country than several years ago, with the total number of users in towns of under 500,people exceeding the total number in the eight largest cities. IAMAI attributes this growth to the prevalence of cybercafes and government e-kiosk initiatives.10 The latter entail the Invest India Telecom, “Indian Telecom Sector,” Ministry of Communications and Information Technology–Department of Telecommunications, http://www.dot.gov.in/osp/Brochure/Brochure.htm, accessed January 3, 2011.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, “New Telecom Policy 1999,” http://www.trai.gov.in/TelecomPolicy_ntp99.asp, accessed January 3, 2011; Peter Wolcott, “The Provision of Internet Services in India,” in Information Systems in Developing Countries: Theory and Practice, ed. R. M. Davison and others (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, 2005), http://mosaic.unomaha.edu/India_2005.pdf.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), “ICT Statistics 2009—Internet,” http://www.itu.int/ITUD/icteye/Indicators/Indicators.aspx#.
Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), I-Cube 2009–2010: Internet in India (Mumbai: IAMAI, 2010), http://www.iamai.in/Upload/Research/icube_new_curve_lowres_39.pdf; IAMAI, Internet for Rural India: 2009 (Mumbai:
Juxt, India Online Landscape 2010 (New Delhi: Juxt, 2010), slides, http://www.juxtconsult.com/Reports/Snapshot-of-JuxtIndia-Online-Landscape-2010-Press.ppt.
Tripti Lahiri, “India to Have 237 Million Web Surfers in 2015,” India Real Time (Wall Street Journal blog), September 1, 2010, http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/09/01/india-to-have-237-million-web-surfers-in-2015/.
IAMAI, I-Cube 2009–2010: Internet in India, 7. Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr., “The 2nd Tech Revolution in Village India,” Hardnews, http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2006/12/686, accessed January 4, 2011.
INDIA FREEDOM HOUSE Freedom on the Net creation of 100,000 local facilities that would include computers, printers, digital cameras, scanners, projection systems, and telemedicine equipment.