Pegasus spyware worries rights group

SALEEM SAMAD

In neighbouring India, opposition Congress lawmakers in the Indian parliament are at loggerheads with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), as anti-cybercrime firms report claims that opposition leader Rahul Gandhi was “interest to clients” by Pegasus spyware along with 300 politicians, journalists, human rights defenders, and government officials in India.

Recently, a consortium of 17 global media outlets published leaked reports stating that Pegasus spyware developed by the Israeli firm NSO was used to hack into the phones of thousands of people across the world.

The tsunami of global outrage sparked after non-profit journalism organization Forbidden Stories released a major new investigation into NSO Group on July 18. The investigation exposed widespread global targeting with the Pegasus spyware.

On request of Forbidden Stories and Amnesty International, Canada-based Citizen Lab undertook an independent investigation based on forensic methodology. The forensic investigation reveals the dark surveillance market of spyware manufacturers used against “interest to clients.”

Allegations that mostly authoritarian governments used phone spyware or malware capable of spying on journalists, critics, opposition, and heads of state have “exposed a global human rights crisis,” according to Amnesty International.

Pegasus can access both Android phones and iPhones, keeping the user unaware of the secret surveillance. Data thieves stealthily retrieve call lists, SMS, contact lists, photos, and geo-location from phones without the knowledge of the user.

This is the world’s only organized secret surveillance -- a crime which pays back in huge cash. The spyware masters earn millions of dollars against installation, service charges, and other fees. Diving deep into the issue of spyware, it is indeed a very expensive electronic spy.

NSO comes from three founding members’ initial names in 2010. The firm employs 500 dedicated IT experts in command and control centres in the client’s hub. The small team of the former Israeli intelligence agency Mossad Special Unit produced the controversial product for clients mostly in authoritarian and despotic regimes in Latin America, Africa, Middle-East, South Asia, and beyond.

The NSO website describes that their company creates technology to help governments and agencies prevent terrorism, break up paedophilia on the dark web, and prevent sex trafficking, money laundering, drug trafficking, and other organized crimes across the globe.

In a naive statement, the NSO official website says that the spyware can help rescue missing or abducted children, survivors trapped under building collapses, and victims of natural disasters.

Besides Pegasus, there are four other known manufacturers which also produce spyware and provide services to clients. The other products in the surveillance market are Dropout Jeep, RCS Android, Exodus, and PG-GEO. Nevertheless, Pegasus is an all-in-one spyware and has reason for being expensive.

In 2020, media rights organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) branded NSO Group as a “digital predator” and reiterated its aim to punish NSO for the cyber crimes which infringed on privacy and freedom of speech.

In the United States and Pakistan, Cambridge Analytica misused intimate personal Facebook data to micro-target and influence swing voters in the last elections of Donald Trump, and Imran Khan’s in Pakistan.

It was alarming for civil society, when Amnesty launched a ground-breaking report in November 2019 on how the surveillance-based business models of companies like Facebook and Google undermine fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

Nonetheless, rights organizations expressed a clear danger for freedom of opinion and expression, especially preying on journalism, which is guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Rights groups around the world called for accountability in spyware sales and urged nations to wake up to a responsible international standard for snooping.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 27 July 2021

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad

Cybersecurity law to end harassment?

SALEEM SAMAD

The week-long street protests and pro-government intellectuals, academics, rights activists, and defenders of media rights continued to ventilate their anger over the death of writer Mushtaq Ahmed and simultaneously demands to repeal the controversial Digital Security Act (DSA), the government in damage-control mode has hinted to repair the draconian law.

Law Minister Anisul Huq has said that the government is taking measures so that no one can be arrested or sued under the DSA before the investigation, he told BBC Bangla radio.

The DSA came to the forefront after the death of writer Ahmed, who was detained under the draconian law and died in Kashimpur High-Security Jail in Gazipur last week.

The Minister assured that they trying to reach a conclusion where no one can be arrested before investigation.

Admitting the misuse of law, the minister assured that they [government] are taking measures to bring an end to it.

For the first time in the country, there is a repressive cybersecurity law that only protects the government, politicians, and bureaucrats, but not the citizens.

If the controversial DSA could provide security to the citizens, the government must come forward and state who are those citizens benefitted from the draconian law.

The government cannot deny that the law arbitrarily targets critics, netizens, and journalists.

Not surprised that the law has never slammed charges against ‘waz-mongers (Islamic evangelists)’ and seems to have given immunity under the repressive law.

When the Mullah ‘wazi’ makes hate speech against the Ekushey book fair, Ekushey February, elective democracy, gender quality, Independence Day, liberation war sculptures, liberation war, national anthem, national constitution, national flag, Pahela Baishak, pluralism, school textbooks, secularism, Victory Day, women leadership, women’s empowerment, anger the people who suffered and contributed to the liberation.

They dared to challenge the elected government, demand to garbage the state constitution and instead override with Holy Quran and Sunnah as guiding principle of the nation-state, and to declare the nation an Islamic Republic, which was born from a bloody war on the principles of democracy, secularism and pluralism.

Such hate-speech challenges the sacrifice made by the people of Bangladesh – the three million martyrs, more than 400,000 women victims of rape, and 10 million war refugees.

The district administration nor the local police chief monitor the Waz-Mehfils, which gives them an upper hand to deliver hate-speech among tens and thousands of disciples. The audience enlarges when the sermons are uploaded to Youtube and Facebook, which are owned by infidels.

Despite hate-speech by the Mullahs are widely available on social media, but they are never punished. They are not slammed under cybersecurity laws.

Should the government be afraid of the Mullahs? The wazi’s overtly opposed secularism, pluralism, democracy, and are threats to national unity.

The mango-people understand that like the writer Ahmed, who dared to criticise the government’s pandemic management is a soft target for legal harassment.

More than 2,000 people have been booked under the undemocratic law since 2018, including folk singers, children, doctors, netizens, and not the least but the last are the journalists.

The law gives a wide range of authority to a junior police officer to barge into a newspaper or a media office. They can confiscate digital devices, like computers/laptops, WiFi routers, external hard disks, and mobile phones without any warrant.

The accused persons are blamed for tarnishing the image of the nation or have attempted to ‘destabilise’ the state.

Such lambasting accusations against the critics, writers, netizens, and journalists are sweeping statements. At the end of the day, the police investigators do not have any evidence, nor could they list any eyewitness to the alleged cybercrime.

On the other hand, the cybercrime tribunal is ill-equipped and does not have digital equipment, nor any trained personnel to determine what the accused has committed through social media.

The police investigators also do not have the skill and experience to understand what digital offence has been committed.

As the law allows, the detained accused should be kept in prison until a competent court grants bail, or held in custody to stand trial at the cybercrime tribunal.

Meanwhile, civil society and rights groups have reiterated to scrap the controversial cybersecurity law, which shrinks the space for freedom of expression, free speech, press freedom, and right to critique.

First published in the Dhaka Courier, 5 March 2021

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Weaponizing Media Regulation

S. BINODKUMAR SINGH

On May 16, 2020, Police arrested two people from the Lamchari village of Matlab Dakkhin upazila (sub-District) in Chandpur District in a case filed under the Digital Security Act (DSA). The arrestees – Sumon Biswas and Adhir Chandra Mallik – had been allegedly making derogatory comments about Islam, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Bangladesh Police on Facebook for the preceding few days.

On May 6, 2020, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) arrested cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore, writer Mushtaq Ahmed, and two others – Didarul Islam Bhuiyan, an activist of a platform called 'Rashtrachinta', and Minhaz Mannan Emon, a businessman – under DSA, allegedly for making anti-Government posts on Facebook, from the capital, Dhaka city. A total of 11 persons were accused in the case filed under DSA. The seven others accused in the case were Tasnim Khalil, Shahed Alam, Saer Zulkarnain, Ashiq Imran, Phillipp Schuhmacher, Shapan Wahid and Asif Mohiuddin. These seven live outside Bangladesh.

On May 5, 2020, Mahtab Uddin Talukder, Sunamganj District correspondent of private television channel SATV, was arrested from his residence under the DSA for posting a status on his Facebook page allegedly defaming Sunamganj-1 Constituency’s ruling Awami League (AL) Member of Parliament (MP) Moazzem Hossain Ratan. The MP had been interrogated by Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) officials on February 18, 2020, for his alleged involvement in money laundering and the casino business.

Among various provisions of the Digital Security Act, the followings are the more alarming:

Section 17 Punishment for Illegal Entrance in Critical Information Infrastructure, etc.-(1) If any person intentionally or knowingly in any Critical information infrastructure - a. Illegally enters, or b. By means of illegal entrance, harms or destroys or renders inactive the infrastructure or tries to do so, then the above activity of that person will be an offense under the Act. (2) If any person of Sub Section (1) - a. Commits any offense within the Clause (a) then, the person will be penalized by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or by fine not exceeding BDT 2.5 million or with both. b. Commits any offense within Clause (b) then, the person will be penalized by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or with fine not exceeding BDT 10 million or with both. (3) If any person commits the offense mentioned in sub-section (1) for the second time or recurrently commits the offense then, he will be punished with lifetime imprisonment or with fine not exceeding BDT 50 million or with both.

Section 29 Publishing and distributing defamatory information, etc.-(1) If a person publishes or distributes any defamatory information mentioned in section 499 of the Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) via a website or any other electronic format, they will get a maximum penalty of 3 years in jail or BDT 5 lakh in fine, or both.

Section 32 Offence and penalty for breach of Official Secrets-(1) If a person commits a crime or assists someone in committing a crime under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Act No XIX of 1923) via a computer, digital device, computer network, digital network or any other digital media, they will get a maximum penalty of 14 years in jail or BDT 2.5 million in fines, or both. (2) If a person commits a crime mentioned in the sub-clause 1 for a second time or repeatedly, they will be sentenced to life in prison or a maximum fine of BDT 10 million, or both.

• In addition to the sweeping provisions themselves, it is the protracted jail sentences prescribed that are a cause of worry and source of intimidation. According to the International Federation for Human Rights, there have been more than 1,000 cases filed under the DSA since it was introduced in 2018.
• Indeed, the Sampadak Parishad (Editors' Council), a nationwide professional association of newspaper Editors, has been protesting against the DSA since it came into effect on October 8, 2018. The Editors' Council identified fundamental flaws in the DSA:
• In trying to make a law to prevent crimes through digital devices and provide security in the digital sphere, the act ends up policing media operations, censoring content and controlling media freedom and freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by our constitution.
• The act gives unlimited power to the police to enter premises, search offices, bodily search persons, seize computers and networks, servers, and everything related to the digital platforms. According to the Act, the police can arrest anybody on suspicion without warrant and do not need any approval of any authorities.
• The act suffers from vagueness and uses many terms that can be misinterpreted and used against the media.
• DSA will create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation which will make journalism and especially investigative journalism virtually impossible.
• Other than media professionals, the law will create panic among all users of computers, computer networks, etc.

On June 18, 2019, Asia Internet Coalition, a Coalition of which Facebook, Google, Amazon, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Yahoo!, among others, are members, pointed out that Bangladesh’s DSA creates several obstacles to the conducive use of the internet ecosystem due to several vague obligations, unchecked powers, disproportionate penalties, and unworkable compliance requirements.

DSA has become a custom-made judicial weapon for silencing ‘troublesome’ journalists and has created an environment of fear and intimidation under which normal functioning of journalists has become extremely risky, if not impossible. Not surprisingly, since the enactment of DSA, self-censorship has reached unprecedented levels because editors are reluctant to risk imprisonment or the closure of their media outlets.

Further, blocking access to news websites and consequently stifling press freedom is another developing phenomenon in Bangladesh. In December 2019, authorities in Bangladesh blocked access to Netra News, a Sweden-based investigative journalism portal, within three days of the outlet carrying allegations of corruption against Obaidul Quader, the country’s Minister of Road Transport and Bridges, and General Secretary of the ruling AL. In March 2019, the Bangladesh Government blocked Al Jazeera's English news website hours after it published an article detailing the alleged involvement of Tarique Ahmed Siddique, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Security Adviser and head of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), the country's military intelligence agency, in the disappearance of three men as part of a business dispute involving his wife. In December 2018, the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) had ordered 54 news portals to be blocked to prevent spread of propaganda ahead of the December 30 National Election. In November 2017, Indian news website The Wire was cut off after it published a story on the alleged role of the DGFI in the disappearance of an academic, Mubashar Hasan.

Meanwhile, radical Islamist militants continue to murder journalists and bloggers who dare to defend an overly secular vision of society. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), a total of at least 36 journalists and bloggers have been killed since the commencement of the 2013 Shahbagh Movement. The last incident of killing was on June 11, 2018, in which Shahzahan Bachchu (60), an outspoken proponent of secular principles and owner of a publishing house 'Bishaka Prokashoni' was gunned down in his ancestral village, Kakaldi in Munshiganj District.

Unsurprisingly, Reporters Sans Frontières, in its 2020 World Press Freedom Index dropped Bangladesh to 151st out of 180 countries – the lowest ranking it has ever received. It was at the 150th position in 2019 and 146th in 2018.

Legitimate concerns regarding the abuse of the Internet and social media, particularly by extremist and terrorist formations as well as by unscrupulous political and criminal elements, do require legislation for the regulation of these media. But the sweeping provisions of DSA, and the use against journalists carrying out legitimate investigations and reportage, cannot be part of a legitimate response to these concerns. The arbitrary arrests and a crackdown on freedom of expression under the draconian DSA raise critical questions of intent and accountability of the Government. Ensuring the freedom of the Media, as well as the safety of media professionals and the civil discourse, both from state intimidation as well as from the threat from radical Islamist forces, even as the state is empowered to act against intentional malfeasance, must be the objective of both legislation and practice with regard to regulation of the Media. Freedom of the Media and acceptance of criticism are crucial for the survival of democracy in Bangladesh.

The article was first published in the Volume 18, No. 47, May 18, 2020 of SOUTH ASIA INTELLIGENCE REVIEW

S. Binodkumar Singh is a Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi, India

Cybercrime laws continue to silence journalists, writers and whistleblowers in Bangladesh

SALEEM SAMAD

The global outburst after a series of arrests, detentions, harassments, and intimidation of journalists and whistleblowers in Bangladesh amid lockdown in response to the coronavirus pandemic has shaken the myth of transparency and accountability of the Covid-19 healthcare management and food aid to disadvantaged people.

The outburst of civil society and rights group after 11 persons, including journalists, writers, cartoonists, bloggers, and micro-bloggers on social media were arrested and booked under the controversial Digital Security Act, allegedly for “spreading rumours and misinformation on Facebook.”

Among the dozen accused under cybercrime laws, the arrests of writer Mushtaq Ahmed, cartoonist Ahammed Kabir Kishore, social justice activist Didarul Islam Bhuiyan, and stockbroker Minhaz Mannan Emon have sparked protests by the civil society and media too.

An aide-memoire, that Minhaz Mannan’s brother is Xulhas Mannan, who was brutally hacked to death in April 2016 for publication of a gay rights magazine Roopbaan.

The four whistleblowers were slapped with cybercrime laws Section 21, Section 25(1) (b), Section 31, and Section 35 for “knowingly posting rumours against the father of the nation, the liberation war, and the coronavirus pandemic to negatively affect the nation’s image,” and to “cause the law and order situation to deteriorate,” which their colleagues and relatives denied.

Regrettably, the cybercrime laws were never applied for the disreputable sermons of the “waz-mongers” on social media for spreading rumours regarding the coronavirus pandemic.

The “waz-mongers” often dare to vilify the Liberation War, state constitution, national flag, national anthem, women’s empowerment, women’s leadership, secularism, Ekushey February, Pahela Baishakh, and whatnot.

Possibly, I have not missed hearing any of the Muslim zealots been booked under the Digital Security Act? The controversial law is deliberately misapplied to silence the journalists, writers, and whistleblowers.

The digital security laws, instead of checking for cyber crimes, hackers, mongers, fake news, and sexual harassment on social media, the laws were discriminately applied only against journalists and whistleblowers.

In a flashback of my ordeal in November 2002 during the repressive regime of Khaleda Zia, I was arrested and tortured in police custody. British TV Channel 4 hired me as fixer for a documentary on the widespread persecution of Hindus post-elections on October 1, 2001.

I was arrested along with two British and Italian TV crew, war-crimes historian Prof Muntassir Mamoon, and writer and documentary filmmaker Shahriar Kabir. We were charged under sedition laws and accused of defilement of the image of Bangladesh.

Fortunately, the superior court had rescued us from being awarded the death penalty.

It was understood how much the High Court judges were angry with the regime. How much the mainstream media in Bangladesh was frustrated with Khaleda’s administration for hobnobbing with the anti-liberation nexus.

The Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists criticized the detention of several journalists under the controversial Digital Security Act. Since 2018, 180 journalists have been intimidated by the cybercrime law, which challenges the justice system, the statement read.

Finally, the Sampadak Parishad (Editors’ Council) has once again reiterated its demand to repeal the notorious Digital Security Act.

If the state allows the police and civil administration to discipline the media, they will surely shrink the space for freedom of expression, which will undermine the tenets of democracy and the elected government too.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 12 May 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow, and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter: @saleemsamad; he could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Violence against journo swells in lockdown

SALEEM SAMAD

The UNESCO declares 3rd May as World Press Freedom Day and is a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom and is also a day of reflection among media professionals about issues of press freedom and professional ethics.

Meanwhile during first 30-days of lockdown, since 26 March, the journalists and citizen-journalists are frequently targeted by state and non-state actors while reporting in social distancing, which the media rights defenders deemed as a serious threat to freedom of expression.

When Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina took an effort to scale-up food aid for the disadvantaged population in response to the nationwide shutdown, the media organizations, journalists and whistleblowers had to take the brunt of vengeance by local leaders and government officials including the police during the 30 days of lockdown.

Nearly twenty journalists were attacked, intimidated, harassed, or arrested for reporting on pilferage of food aid meant for poor people, who are facing extreme hardship during the lockdown.

The Forum for Freedom of Expression, Bangladesh (FExB), a network of media rights defenders expressed deep concern over series of violence, intimidation, and judicial harassment of journalists and news organisations during the lockdown.

The platform states that Thakurgaon district is the worst place for journalism in the country after six journalists were subjected to judicial harassment within a week.

Two editors, Toufique Imrose Khalidi of bdnews24.com, Mohiuddin Sarker of jagonews24.com along with three other local journalists were accused under draconian Digital Security Act.

After ten days of publication of news in two news portals on misappropriation of open market sale (OMS) rice, the Baliadangi Upazila's Swechchhasebak League, also a local ruling party leader Mominul Islam filed a case against the journalists.

In a separate case, police sued Al Mamun, a local journalist in Thakurgaon under notorious cybersecurity laws for criticising the district civil administration in Facebook for its failure to take effective measures to contain the spread of coronavirus during the lockdown.

Another journalist in Thakurgaon, Abdul Latif Litu, a correspondent of Bangladesh Pratidin was assaulted by police at a check post during the lockdown.

Sagor Chowdhury, an editor of a local news portal in Borhanduddin Upazila, Bhola posted a video on Facebook on embezzlement of food aid which angered the son of Jashim Uddin Hyder, president of Borhanuddin Upazila Awami League and also chairman of Boro Manika Union Parishad.

However, Borhanuddin Upazila police arrested the perpetrator Nabil Hyder, a member of the Chattra League of Dhaka University who posted a video on the Facebook assaulting Sagor Chowdhury.

In Habiganj, three journalists Shah Sultan Ahmed, a local journalist of Protidiner Sangbad, Mujibur Rahman, correspondent of Dainik Amar Sangbad and Bulbul Ahmed, correspondent of private TV Channel-S were attacked with a cricket bat by Mahibur Rahman Harun, chairman of Aushkandi Union Parishad.

Sultan posted a video on Facebook which revealed that the local Aushkandi Union Parishad was distributing 5 kg of rice instead of allocation of 10 kg for each ultra-poor fishing community.

Nasir Uddin Rocky, a staff reporter of Dainik Jugantor in Chittagong was crossing a check-post in a motorbike. The police arrested the journalist but was released unconditionally.

A similar incident at a check post in Bogura, police assaulted two journalists Majedur Rahman, correspondent of Shomoy TV, and Shahjahan Ali of Ekattor TV. The journalists were dragged to the police station in handcuff and were released without charges.

In the capital Dhaka, police arrested Golam Sarwar Pintu, journalist of Dainik Bangladesher Alo after a Dhaka city councillor of Ward 38 filed a case under notorious Digital Security Act with Badda Police Station.

Pintu's crime was the publication of news regarding angry urban-poor community held protest demanding food aid during the lockdown.

In a check-post in Dhaka police assaulted Tuhin Howlader, court correspondent of Bangladesh Pratidin.

Again in the southern district of Barishal, Bangla Vision TV correspondent Kamal Hossain was attacked by hooligans when he tried to cover a gathering - in violation of the lockdown.

Rezwan Karim Sabbir, a Jaintapur Upazila correspondent of Dainik Nayadiganta was hospitalized at Sylhet Medical College with serious head injuries after he was attacked by Abul Hasim, who was annoyed by an article in which the journalist had reported a local coronavirus case.

Not far from the capital, Chairman of Amirganj Union Parishad in Narsingdi mercilessly attacked Baten Biplob, Senior Crime Reporter of SATV and Sajal Bhuiyan, Narsingdi correspondent of SATV.

Baten Biplob in his Facebook post described the barbaric attack on journalist Sajal Bhuiyan who was profusely bleeding and crying in pain.

Meanwhile, international media rights organisation Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has also expressed alarm in the increase of violence and judicial harassment of journalists trying to cover coronavirus-related issues in Bangladesh in the month since a general lockdown was imposed on the population.

First published in The Asian Age, 05 May 2020

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellow (USA) and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad, Email:saleemsamad@hotmail.com