86
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
U
KRAINE
appearing as a genre of online news websites.
36
In addition, there are about 500,000 Ukrainian
Twitter accounts, with a large majority of them in Kyiv.
37
The number of Ukrainian users on
Facebook grew from nearly 2 million users as of April 2012 to 2.3 million in December 2012.
38
Ukrainian bloggers, journalists, NGOs, and citizen activists have been joining forces and creating
online projects aimed at scrutinizing government policies, monitoring elections, and uncovering
corruption in the higher ranks of power.
39
During the recent parliamentary elections in October
2012, a number of NGOs and civic organizations used online tools to keep the election process
transparent and accountable, providing tools for citizens to help monitor the elections. Some of
these networks sprung out of the Orange Revolution, but activists are now exploring new tools to
fight election corruption. The OPORA civic network, for example, created an interactive map
with all 33,000 polling stations, and its 3,800 professional observers documented violations on the
map.
40
Regular citizens could also submit reports of violations through an online form.
Another project called “Maidan-monitoring,”
41
launched by the online citizen-activism hub Maidan,
used crowd-mapping and the Ushahidi platform to create a map of violations with textual and visual
evidence supporting the reports.
42
Maidan-monitoring activists made it a point to verify all
incoming information, also calling on election commission members and voters to join the People’s
Central Election Commission (CEC)
43
and post digital photographs of the final voting protocols
that were later posted online in order to prevent any manipulations of the election results.
ElectUA,
44
a nonpartisan crowdsourced election monitoring project by Internews Ukraine, grew
out of the practice of using Twitter hashtags to report possible voting violations during previous
elections in 2009 and 2010.
45
Voters were able to submit messages to ElectUA in 2012 via e-mail,
SMS, and phone, as well as through the project's website, Facebook or Twitter. All three election
monitoring websites experienced DDoS attacks on the day of the elections, October 28, 2012.
46
36
Yandex, “Антон Волнухін, Яндекс «Дослідження української блогосфери 2011»” [Anton Volnukhin, Yandex “Research on
Ukrainian Blogosphere 2011”], presented at Microsoft BlogFest 2011, shared by Microsoft Ukraine, November 19, 2011,
http://docs.com/G65I.
37
“Яндекс дружит с Твиттером” [Yandex Gets Friendly With Twitter], Yandex Company Blog, February 21, 2012,
http://clubs.ya.ru/company/43938.
38
Maksym Savanevsky, “Українська аудиторія Facebook в 2012 році зросла на 630 тис” [Ukrainian Facebook Audience in
2012 Grew by 630 Thousand], Watcher.com.ua, December 25, 2012, http://bit.ly/ZxsYKi.
39
Examples include the New Citizen partnership's initiative ЧЕСНО (Honestly, a movement for transparent and fair
parliamentary elections), and PRYAMA DIYA
39
(Direct Action, a movement of student unions organizing street protests on
relevant issues).
40
ELECTIONS 2012. Observation, OPORA network, accessed February 26, 2012, http://map.oporaua.org/en/.
41
Natalka Zubar, New Interactive Map of Electoral Violations in Ukraine, Maidan.org, July 10, 2012, http://bit.ly/1fRTFP3.
42
Майдан Моніторинг: Вибори 2012 [Maidan Monitoring: Elections 2012], Maidan, accessed on February 27, 2013,
http://maidanua.org/vybory2012/.
43
Запис до Народної ЦВК [Join the People’s CEC], Maidan, accessed on February 27, 2013, http://bit.ly/18eUg9i.
44
Veronica Khokhlova, Ukraine: Crowdmapping Election Violations, Global Voices, October 26, 2012,
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/10/26/ukraine‐crowdmapping‐election‐violations/.
45
“(прес‐реліз) 1700 повідомлень про можливі порушення – результат Twitter‐трансляції місцевих виборів” [(press‐
release) 1700 Tweets About Possible Violations – Result of Local Elections Twittercast], Blog of Elections Twittercast Project,
November 3, 2010, http://electua.blogspot.com/2010/11/1700‐twitter.html.
46
Tetyana Bohdanova, Ukraine: Election Monitors’ Websites Under DDoS Attack, Global Voices, October 28, 2012,
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/10/28/ukraine‐election‐monitors‐websites‐under‐ddos‐attack/.
750
60
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
U
KRAINE
The attacks lasted for several hours, and the sites were inaccessible for a period of time, but
activists were not able to provide direct proof that these were intentional DDoS attacks.
47
The security situation for journalists and online users further declined in 2012–2013. Traditional
journalists continue to face regular intimidation and threats of physical violence, although this trend
has not been seen as frequently in regard to online journalists. However, in August 2012, a well-
known online journalist for the internet publication Ukrayinska Pravda was reportedly beaten up by
the guards of a member of the Party of Regions. Additionally, during the parliamentary elections in
October 2012, there was an increase in the number of DDoS attacks against election monitoring
and opposition websites.
The right to free speech is granted to all citizens of Ukraine in Article 34 of the constitution,
although the article also specifies that the state may restrict this right in the interest of national
security or public order. In practice, this right has been frequently violated. Part three of Article 15
of the constitution forbids censorship, though this norm is routinely violated, with especially grave
violations observed during the time of President Leonid Kuchma, who served before the 2004–
2005 Orange Revolution. In addition, Article 171 of the criminal code provides fines and detention
sentences for obstructing journalists’ activity. The Ukrainian judiciary, however, is prone to the
same level of corruption evident in other branches of power. Many businesses, including media
companies, often resort to bribes to influence the consideration of their affairs in the courts.
48
In 2011, online journalists achieved similar status and privileges as traditional journalists, such as
being able to obtain accreditation for parliamentary sessions and other official meetings frequented
by the press. Nevertheless, there has been an ongoing discussion about the need for online media to
register, with some suggesting that registration would provide additional mechanisms for
protecting journalists, while others refute this idea, considering any form of registration to be an
impediment to press freedom and internet freedom.
49
On September 18, 2012, a draft bill calling for up to five years of jail time for defamation (both
offline and online) passed the first reading in the parliament.
50
The bill caused a wave of indignation
from Ukrainian journalists and activists, and international organizations such as Reporters Without
Borders appealed to the parliament to reconsider adopting the bill that would recriminalize
47
OPORA Citizen Network (Facebook page), October 28, 2012,
https://www.facebook.com/cn.opora/posts/10151093684415108.
48 “Судова реформа не розвіяла сутінків у бізнес‐настроях” [Judiciary reform does not banish twilight in business mood],
Deutsche Welle, June 1, 2012, http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15992775,00.html.
49
Ukrainian Internet Association, “Підсумки прес‐конференції: "Саморегулювання вітчизняних електронних медіа як
альтернатива державному регулюванню в Українському сегменті Інтернет” [Summary of Press‐Conference: “Self‐regulation
of Ukrainian Electronic Media As An Alternative To State Regulation In The Ukrainian Internet Segment”], InAU (Ukrainian
Internet Association), July 19, 2011, http://www.inau.org.ua/170.3675.0.0.1.0.phtml.
50
Tetyana Bohdanova, “Ukraine: Protesting the Controversial Defamation Bill,” Global Voices, September 29, 2012,
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/09/29/ukraine‐protesting‐the‐controversial‐defamation‐bill/.
V
IOLATIONS OF
U
SER
R
IGHTS
751
76
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
U
KRAINE
defamation.
51
A number of online media outlets and active online users launched a wide-reaching
campaign against the defamation bill, creating a Facebook group with over 7,700 members, placing
stark banners on the front pages of many media outlets, and posting calls to “Say ‘No’ to
Defamation Law” throughout social networks.
52
As a result of the campaign pressure, the bill was
rejected at its final reading on October 2, 2012.
53
However, some pointed out that Vitaly
Zhuravsky, a member of parliament (MP), might have agreed to recall the draft bill to improve his
chances in the coming parliamentary elections.
54
In June 2012, a criminal investigation was initiated against the news website Levy Bereg (Left Bank),
reportedly upon request of MP Volodymyr Landyk, who claimed the website published his private
text messages without his consent.
55
Sonya Koshkina, the editor-in-chief of Levy Bereg, temporarily
left the country, citing pressure and fears for her life. Koshkina claimed she would not return until
the criminal investigation was dropped.
56
The Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office later dropped the case,
citing that “there was no significant harm done by the publication to the claimant.”
57
There is no obligatory registration for either internet users or mobile phone subscribers.
Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of extralegal surveillance of Ukrainians users’ activities is unclear.
From 2002 to 2006, mechanisms for internet monitoring were in place under the State Committee
on Communications’ Order No. 122, which required ISPs to install so-called “black-box”
monitoring systems that would provide access to state institutions. This was mainly done to
monitor the unsanctioned transmission of state secrets. Caving to pressures from public protests
and complaints raised by the Internet Association of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human
Rights Union, the Ministry of Justice abolished this order in August 2006. Since then, the Security
Service has seemingly acted within the limits of the Law on Operative Investigative Activity, and
must obtain a court order to carry out surveillance.
58
At the same time, some human rights groups
are concerned that the Security Service is still keeping intercepted messages and carrying out
internet surveillance on a large scale.
59
Physical attacks against online journalists and activists are rare; however, the intimidation and
harassment of traditional journalists is a regular occurrence. In August 2012, the activist Mustafa
51
“In Victory for Journalists, Recriminalization of Defamation Rejected,” Reporters Without Borders, October 2, 2012,
http://en.rsf.org/ukraine‐appeal‐on‐parliament‐about‐02‐08‐2012,43153.html.
52
“Скажи ні закону про наклеп. Це стосується кожного” [Say ‘No’ to Defamation Law. This is Everyone’s Business], Facebook
group, accessed on Febryary 27, 2013, https://www.facebook.com/groups/naklep/members/.
53
“In Victory for Journalists, Recriminalization of Defamation Rejected,” Reporters Without Borders, October 2, 2012,
http://en.rsf.org/ukraine‐appeal‐on‐parliament‐about‐02‐08‐2012,43153.html.
54
Tetyana Bohdanova, “Ukraine: Protesting the Controversial Defamation Bill,” Global Voices, September 29, 2012,
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/09/29/ukraine‐protesting‐the‐controversial‐defamation‐bill/.
55
Olga Karpenko, “В отношении интернет‐издания LB.ua возбуждено уголовное дело (дополнено)” [Criminal Case Started
Against Online Publication Levy Bereg (updated)], AIN.UA, July 17, 2012, http://ain.ua/2012/07/18/91273.
56
“Соня Кошкіна виїхала з України” [Sonya Koshkina Has Left Ukraine], Ukrainska Pravda, June 30, 2012,
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2012/06/30/6967733/.
57
“Повідомлення” [Notification], Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office official website, August 3, 2012,
http://www.kyiv.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=109821.
58
“Ukraine: Country Profile 2010,” OpenNet Initiative.
59
Kharkiv Human Rights Group, “Права людини в Україні ‐ 2006. V. Право на приватність” [Human Rights in Ukraine in 2006.
V. Privacy Rights], Human Rights in Ukraine, March 5, 2010, http://www.khpg.org/index.php?id=1186147137.
752
72
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
U
KRAINE
Nayyem, who is a well-known TV and online journalist, was on his way to a Party of Regions
congress when he was attacked by the guards of a party member.
60
The Prosecutor’s Office in Kyiv
has started an investigation into the attack, in which Nayyem was beaten and had his phone stolen.
In March 2013, Andriy Dzindzya, a journalist with Road Control, an online crowdsourcing website
documenting road police corruption, was arrested on charges of hooliganism—a common charge
for activists in Ukraine.
61
Earlier, in February 2012, journalists from Road Control had an altercation
with police. After other journalists and NGO activists arrived at the police station, Dzindzya was
released on bail. Observers claimed his arrest was unwarranted, as were the hooliganism charges.
62
On March 22, 2013, police officers arrived at the offices of the website Censor.net and claimed
they had a warrant, based on a preliminary investigation, to obtain information about the website’s
users. They were unable to present any proof or documentation, but threatened to remove the
servers from the office.
63
Further comments from the local cybercrime division officials indicated
that police had acted due to a post on an online forum and comments on Censor.net criticizing a
local judge for parking her car illegally in the backyard of her apartment complex.
64
The judge then
instigated criminal proceedings to determine who was criticizing her on the website. Censor.net
reported the actions and alleged motivations of the police on its website, after which the police
dropped the matter.
Cyberattacks are not very common in Ukraine, although some recent cases were recorded during
the parliamentary elections of October 2012. Several crowdsourced election monitoring websites
were attacked,
65
as well as the websites of opposition parties.
66
In March 2013, several regional news websites reported that they had been the victims of DDoS
attacks. Three outlets based in Cherkassy—Procherk, Provintsiya and Dzvin—were taken down on
March 6, 2013 during President Yanukovich’s visit to the region. According to Procherk editor
Nazariy Vivcharyk, their website was also subject to cyberattacks during most of the day.
67
60
“Мустафа Найем рассказал, кто его избил на съезде Партии регионов” [Mustafa Nayyem Told Of Who Beat Him Up At
The Party Of Regions Congress], ZN.UA, August 3, 2012, http://bit.ly/18A2lpT.
61
“Журналіста "Дорожнього контролю" арештували за рішенням суду – міліція” [Road Control Journalist Arrested on Court
Warrant – Police], Ukrainska Pravda, March 15, 2013, http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2013/03/15/6985666/.
62
“Суд відпустив журналіста "Дорожнього контролю" під заставу” [Court Releases Road Control Journalist on Bail],
Ukrainska Pravda, March 19, 2013, http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2013/03/19/6985900/.
63
“Міліція посягала на сервер інтернет‐видання через коментарі про суддю” [Police threatened to remove server of online
news outlet because of comments about a judge], Ukrainska Pravda, March 28, 2013, http://bit.ly/16U1vAO.
64
“Судья хозяйственного суда Жанна Александровна Бернацкая своим джипом порше кайен демонстративно и нагло не
дает выехать никому со двора. Как бороться с такими уродами?” [Economic court judge Zhanna Aleksandrovna Bernatskaya
blocks exit from yard for everyone with her Porshe Cayenne jeep. How do we fight such bastards?], Censor.net, February 12,
2013, http://bit.ly/14rbjFe.
65
Tetyana Bohdanova, “Ukraine: Election Monitors’ Websites Under DDoS Attack,” Global Voices, October 28, 2012,
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/10/28/ukraine‐election‐monitors‐websites‐under‐ddos‐attack/.
66
Maksym Savanevsky, “Сайти Тимошенко, Фронту Змін, Гриценка лягли під DDoS атакою (оновлено)” [Websites of
Tymoshenko, Front Zmin, Hrytsenko Down Under DDoS Attack (updated)], Watcher.com.ua, October 28, 2012,
http://watcher.com.ua/2012/10/28/sayty‐tymoshenko‐frontu‐zmin‐hrytsenka‐lyahly‐pid‐ddos‐atakoyu/.
67
“Барометр свободи слова за березень 2013 року” [Freedom of Speech Barometer for March 2013], IMI, April 3, 2013,
http://imi.org.ua/barametr/40525‐barometr‐svobodi‐slova‐za‐berezen‐2013‐roku.html.
753
129
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
U
NITED
A
RAB
E
MIRATES
U
NITED
A
RAB
E
MIRATES
The state continued to block certain political and social websites, as well as
pornography, gambling sites, and other content deemed offensive to public order,
religion, or morality (see L
IMITS ON
C
ONTENT
).
The new cybercrime law introduced in 2012 outlined harsh punishments for users who
post content that is critical of the state, is offensive to religion, or violates another’s
right to privacy (see V
IOLATIONS OF
U
SER
R
IGHTS
).
Scores of users were detained and given 7 to 15 year sentences for their online activity,
including several belonging to the so-called “UAE 94” group of political detainees (see
V
IOLATIONS OF
U
SER
R
IGHTS
).
2012
2013
I
NTERNET
F
REEDOM
S
TATUS
N
/
A
N
OT
F
REE
Obstacles to Access (0-25)
n/a 13
Limits on Content (0-35)
n/a 22
Violations of User Rights (0-40)
n/a 31
Total (0-100)
n/a
66
*0=most free, 100=least free
K
EY
D
EVELOPMENTS
:
M
AY
2012
–
A
PRIL
2013
P
OPULATION
:
8.1 million
I
NTERNET
P
ENETRATION
2012:
85 percent
S
OCIAL
M
EDIA
/ICT
A
PPS
B
LOCKED
:
Yes
P
OLITICAL
/S
OCIAL
C
ONTENT
B
LOCKED
:
Yes
B
LOGGERS
/ICT
U
SERS
A
RRESTED
:
Yes
P
RESS
F
REEDOM
2013
S
TATUS
:
Not Free
754
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
