Internet freedom: What should Azeri people know before turning on their computer?

(TURAN's Interview with Freedom House's Mai Truong)

The battle over internet freedom, as the Freedom House's newly released report "Freedom on the Net 2012", explains and  comes at a time when nearly one third of the world's population has used the internet. Access is growing, but freedom is likely not. 

Repressive regimes are developing ways to effectively manage and limit the growth of internet freedom. From post-Soviet region, the most pronounced cases of threats to net freedom came from Uzbekistan, Belarus, Russia, and:. Azerbaijan, which in particular was singled out as one of seven countries worldwide at a higher risk for seeing setbacks in the near future, especially as Internet penetration continues to soar.

Mai Truong is a Staff Editor of Freedom on the Net at Freedom House. 

Question: How would you highlight the main challenges/problems of net security in Azerbaijan? What should Azeri people know before turning on their computer?

Answer: From our analysis in the Freedom on the Net 2012 report, there are worrying indications from the past few years that internet security is deteriorating for Azeri users. Currently, the country's opaque and corruption?prone governing environment makes it unclear to what extent security agencies monitor ICT activities or track user data. Nevertheless, there are a few challenges that users should keep in mind when turning on their computers. 

For example: First, much of Azerbaijan's ICT infrastructure and service providers are either owned by or have strong ties to the government, which enables the authorities to have relatively easy access to users' communications. The lack of an independent regulatory agency or judiciary means that there are limited safeguards to prevent the government from abusing users' privacy rights.  

Second, while arbitrary invasion of privacy is explicitly prohibited in Azerbaijani law, another law that aims to "prevent serious crimes" allows security agencies to conduct surveillance of communications without a court order. What constitutes preventive action is ill?defined and unclear, leaving the law open to abuse. Further, there are strong suspicions that government agencies have long monitored the phone and internet communications of certain individuals, particularly journalists or activists known for their criticism of the authorities. This was somewhat confirmed after prodemocracy protests in March 2011 when those detained reported that the authorities referred to their private communications during interrogations.

Third, user privacy is also threatened by the authorities' practice of cybercafe raids for obtaining user identities and information, as occurred during the March 2012 protests in Guba.

Fourth, many users do not have licenses for the software of their computers, which makes them vulnerable to viruses and malware that could be implanted to monitor their activity.

To protect themselves from these various internet security challenges, Azeri users should take the following measures when logging online: At cybercafes, users should turn on the "private browsing" function on their internet browsers to make sure that their online activities are not stored. Users should also never save any documents directly on the computers at cybercafes.  On personal computers and/or laptops, users should make sure to get licensed software products as well as anti?virus software that will protect their computers from potential viruses and malware.

Question: Why exactly do the governments in countries like Azerbaijan need to block or monitor people on the net? What are they up to?

Answer: In authoritarian countries like Azerbaijan where the legitimacy of the governing regime is not based on electoral support and must be manufactured, the authorities often feel the need to block or monitor people on the net in order to both quell opposition voices and also maintain a positive image of the government. 

Thus, while we have seen some examples of the Azerbaijani authorities blocking certain opposition news websites such as Radio Azadliq, the government also seems intent on restricting generally embarrassing information they regard as a threat to their legitimacy, as occurred during the crackdown against the Guba protest in March 2012 that was prompted by an embarrassing YouTube video of a public official.

Question: As usual, when facing calls for freedom, the Azeri government excuses itself with "terrorists' threats" in the region. When and under what conditions are the government forces allowed to monitor or block their citizens' internet connections in the western democracies?

Answer: According to UN Special Rapporteur for Free Expression, Frank LaRue, under the standards of international law, government authorities are only allowed to prohibit types of expression that can be characterized as child pornography, hate speech, and incitement to terrorism or genocide. In taking action against these proscribed forms of expression, governments must have sufficiently precise legislation that narrowly defines these activities. 

Furthermore, independent regulatory bodies or courts must be in place to safeguard against abuse or misuse of such legislation. Unfortunately, in many undemocratic settings, legislation seeking to govern illicit types of expression is often vaguely defined and unchecked by an independent regulatory authority, enabling governments to broadly apply the law to meet their interests, usually to prosecute journalists and citizens for their oppositional activities.

Question: Last July President Aliyev stated that there were "no restrictions on access to internet" in Azerbaijan because of the government's desire to promote media freedom. So, the government, as a rule, is denying all the accusations. How to enhance awareness of security risks among internet users in this case?

Answer: From our research, it is true that, to date, the Azerbaijani government has not placed any major restrictions on access to websites or other digital media tools, for example by systematically blocking or filtering. Meanwhile, the government has indeed helped increase internet penetration in recent years, as part of its effort to bill itself as a leader of ICTs in the region. Nevertheless, the government has still shown tendencies to restrict the free flow of information online.

In our analysis, we found Azerbaijan to be within a category of countries we call "nonblockers," which describes countries in which the authorities have not yet begun to systematically block online content but have used other methods to undermine internet freedom. Instead of blocking, the Azerbaijani authorities have sought the appearance of a free media landscape, as declared by Aliyev, while employing other less visible censorship tactics, such as through cybercafe raids for information on user identities, arrests of politically active netizens on trumped?up charges, and harassment of online activists and their family members. 

The recent discovery that the government has installed "black boxes" on a major mobile phone network that enable security agencies to monitor communications in real time is another worrying development that demonstrates the government's desire to control ICTs while maintaining the semblance of an unrestricted online environment

Despite the country's challenging media environment for both traditional and online journalists, the excellent investigative journalism that persists in Azerbaijan has been integral in enhancing the awareness of security risks for Azerbaijani users, and such journalism and activism will be key in helping fight against increasing encroachments on internet freedom as they arise. 

Another way to enhance the awareness of security risks among users is to empower citizens with information from research publications like Freedom on the Net. In fact, a previous edition of the Freedom on the Net "Azerbaijan" chapter was translated in the local language for distribution in the country, and Azeri citizens can greatly benefit again if the 2012 edition of the report can be translated and disseminated.

Question:  What do you believe the international community should do to help provide internet freedom in such countries, as Azerbaijan?

Answer: To fight against growing restrictions on internet freedom experienced around the world, the international community should certainly increase its support of civil society organizations and initiatives that are courageously pushing back against government infringements on freedom of expression online.

However, in countries such as Azerbaijan where civil society may still be weak or face suppression, the international community must remain vigilant over the internet freedom situation in those countries and make a concerted effort to place pressure on the authorities when they pursue initiatives or employ tactics that infringe on freedom of expression online or violate user rights. 

The international community should also work to expand awareness of and support for lawyers taking cases to regional human rights courts that can be used to adjudicate human rights violations perpetrated by governing authorities. This latter strategy was successful in negotiating the early release of jailed journalist Eynulla Fatullayev in May 2011 after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment demanding his release.

The significant international advocacy campaign that led to the ECHR judgment is a testament to the importance of the international community fighting for internet freedom in Azerbaijan and beyond.

Alakbar Raufoglu

Washington, DC

10/01/2012