SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
fight for the future
US-Trained Military in Uganda Targets Oil Pipeline Protesters
"The arrest of climate activists against EACOP is a blatant move to silence crucial advocates for change," said Fridays for Future Uganda.
Aug 26, 2024
Police and soldiers from Uganda's U.S.-trained army cracked down on demonstrators at two Monday protests against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, continuing the globally condemned oppression of EACOP opponents.
In the capital city of Kampala, where protesters tried to march on Parliament and the Chinese Embassy "there are 21 people arrested, they included 19 males and two females," defense attorney Samuel Wanda toldAgence France-Presse. They were taken to the city's central police station and charging details were not yet available. Eight protesters would be directly impacted by the project.
As AFP noted, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation has an 8% stake in EACOP, which is set to carry crude nearly 900 miles from Uganda's Lake Albert oilfields to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. Ugandan and Tanzanian state-owned companies each have a 15% stake, and the remaining 62% is controlled by the France-based multinational TotalEnergies.
"The arrest of Stop EACOP activists in Kampala today is an attack on democracy and the right to protest," said climate campaigner and environmental consultant Ashley Kitisya on social media. "We condemn this crackdown and call for the immediate release of all detained activists. Peaceful voices demanding justice must not be silenced. #StopEACOP."
Fridays for Future Uganda declared that "the arrest of climate activists against EACOP is a blatant move to silence crucial advocates for change."
"Many affected are misled and unaware of the true risks," the youth-led group added. "We must oppose this injustice and demand EACOP’s immediate halt to protect people and the environment."
Hundreds of peaceful pipeline opponents—including breastfeeding mothers—also gathered in Hoima City, according to the Kampala-based Monitor. They were at a Kitara Secondary School (SS) and planned to demonstrate at regional EACOP offices but "were surrounded by heavily armed police" and Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) soldiers "who foiled the protest."
As the outlet noted last year, declassified U.S. State Department data shows that from 2019-21, Uganda received $8.5 million in military training assistance from the United States, and from 2012-16, the African country got grants for equipment worth $21.9 million .
On Monday, Christopher Opio told Hoima Resident City Commissioner Badru Mugabi that the project affected persons (PAPs) he represents had not received a government response to an April petition "so, we decided to say we can again put our concerns in writing. Today, we were taking our petition to the offices of EACOP, and Petroleum Authority of Uganda (PAU) peacefully."
As the Monitor detailed:
Mugabi responded saying: "If you have a court case and the court has not heard you, please come to our offices. We shall put these courts to order, or we shall appeal to their supervisors. But walking to these offices will not change the status quo legally."
Later, Mugabi selected a few PAPs' representatives and escorted them to deliver their petition to the offices of EACOP and PAU while the rest of the aggrieved locals were left at Kitara SS under tight security.
In a series of social media posts, the StopEACOP campaign called out law enforcement for blocking the peaceful protest in Hoima, highlighting the threats and intimidation faced by PAPs and local climate activists.
Despite the oppression in Uganda, protests are planned in Tanzania on Thursday, according to the global climate organization 350.org.
"The EACOP project threatens local communities, water resources, biodiversity, and efforts to curb climate change while providing little to benefit ordinary Ugandan and Tanzanian people," the group said Monday. "Already, tens of thousands of people along the pipeline's route and near its associated oil drilling sites have been forcibly displaced, losing their land, livelihoods, and traditional ways of life. Many have been relocated to inadequate homes on infertile land, making it impossible to grow crops or sustain their families. Others have received inadequate compensation or none at all, leaving them unable to rebuild their lives."
"Additionally, community members and activists face escalating threats, including violence, intimidation, arrests, harassment, and even abductions for resisting the project," 350 added. "Impacted communities and land, human rights, and environmental defenders in the project's host countries are taking to the streets to demand an end to EACOP and justice for the harm that has already been caused."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Warn Senate-Passed Online Safety Bill 'Makes Kids Less Safe'
Sen. Ron Wyden echoed their concerns that "a future MAGA administration could still use this bill to pressure companies to censor gay, trans, and reproductive health information."
Jul 30, 2024
As the U.S. Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed legislation intended to better protect children on the internet, rights groups renewed their intense criticism of parts of the package.
The Senate voted 91-3 on the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSPA), which includes the Children's and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) as well as the controversial Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which opponents say "makes kids less safe."
KOSA requires online platforms to enable the strongest privacy settings for children by default as well as prevent and mitigate specific dangers to them. It also requires independent audits and research. Critics argue some provisions would "threaten young people's privacy, limit minors' access to vital resources, and silence important online conversations for all ages."
The trio who voted against the bill on Tuesday was Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime privacy advocate who said on social media last week that "the final version of this bill is improved" but he would still vote no.
"The changes that I, LGBTQ+ advocates, parents, student activists, civil rights orgs, and others have fought for over the last two years have made it less likely that the bill can be used as a tool for MAGA extremists to wage war on legal and essential information to teens," Wyden said.
"While constructive, these improvements remain insufficient," he continued. "I fear KOSA could be used to sue services that offer privacy technologies like encryption or anonymity features that kids rely on to communicate securely and privately without being spied on by predators online."
Wyden added that "I also take very seriously concerns voiced by the American Civil Liberties Union, Fight for the Future, and LGBTQ+ teens and advocates that a future MAGA administration could still use this bill to pressure companies to censor gay, trans, and reproductive health information."
The ACLU and Fight for the Future reiterated those concerns on Tuesday, joined at a press conference by leaders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, TransOhio, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation.
"We need legislation that addresses the harm of Big Tech. And still lets young people fight for the type of world that they actually want to grow up in," declared Evan Greer, director at Fight for the Future.
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, said that "as state legislatures and school boards across the country impose book bans and classroom censorship laws, the last thing students and parents need is another act of government censorship deciding which educational resources are appropriate for their families."
The bill still needs to get through the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives. Already, two of the chamber's leading progressives, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) have come out against it. Leventoff declared that "the House must block this dangerous bill before it's too late."
Last week, the ACLU led over 300 students in a lobbying day on Capitol Hill to oppose the package.
"It's called the Kids Online Safety Act, but they have to consider kids' voices, and some of us don't think it will make us safer," Anjali Verma, a 17-year-old high school senior, said Tuesday. "We live on the internet, and we are afraid that important information we've accessed all our lives will no longer be available. We need lawmakers to listen to young people when making decisions that affect us."
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) celebrated the package's passage, joined by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
Cassidy and Markey spearheaded COPPA 2.0, which has not elicited criticism from rights groups the way KOSA has. They said in a joint statement that their bill's passage "is an overdue and much-needed victory" for young people and with the vote, "the Senate has sent a clear message that Big Tech's days of targeting and tracking kids and teenagers online are over."
"Enough with harmful targeted advertising," the senators said. "Enough with collecting deeply personal information on young people. Enough with ignoring the health and well-being [of] millions of young people. Enough with leaving teens and parents powerless to delete a mistaken social media post. Enough with lining Big Tech's pockets at the expense of our young people."
"To the parents, advocates, and young people who have been heroically fighting for these privacy protections for more than a decade, we thank you. We would not be here without your passion, commitment, and bravery," they added. "This vote is a breakthrough moment for tech regulation in the United States with Congress finally stepping up to the plate and putting real guardrails on Big Tech's pernicious business model."
Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay and co-founder of ParentsSOS, said that "today's historic vote is a testament to the tireless efforts of parents who have lost their children to Big Tech's greed and an incredible coalition that believes a better internet for young people is possible. We thank Sens. Blackburn, Blumenthal, Cassidy, and Markey for introducing this game-changing legislation and call on the House to follow the Senate's lead."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Signs TikTok Ban—Among the 'Stupidest and Most Authoritarian' Tech Bills
One critic said that "the bill doesn't touch the homegrown spyware U.S. companies churn out" and "also strikes at the First Amendment right to receive information."
Apr 24, 2024
Digital rights defenders on Wednesday slammed the passage of a U.S. foreign aid package containing a possible nationwide TikTok ban as unconstitutional, xenophobic, and ill-advised during an election year in which President Joe Biden desperately needs as many young votes as possible.
Biden signed the $95 billion bill late Wednesday morning after senators voted 79-18 the previous evening to approve the package, which includes tens of billions of dollars in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel—which is waging a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.
One of the bill's provisions would force ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, to sell the app to a non-Chinese company within a year or face a federal ban. Approximately 170 million Americans use TikTok, which is especially popular among members of Gen-Z and small-to-medium-sized businesses, and
contributes tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy annually.
"Whether it's dressed up as a ban or a forced sale, the bill targeting TikTok is one of the stupidest and most authoritarian pieces of tech legislation we've seen in years," Fight for the Future director Evan Greer said in a statement.
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, called the provision "nothing more than an unconstitutional ban in disguise."
"Banning a social media platform that hundreds of millions of Americans use to express themselves would have devastating consequences for all of our First Amendment rights, and will almost certainly be struck down in court," she added.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University,
said:
The First Amendment means that the government can't restrict Americans' access to ideas, information, or media from abroad without a very good reason for it—and no such reason exists here. Repackaging the government's reasons for the ban in the language of "national security" does not change the analysis. There's no national security exception to the First Amendment, and creating such an exception would make the First Amendment a dead letter.
Proponents of the possible ban attempted to spin it as something else and pointed to precedents including the 2020 forced sale of the popular LGBTQ+ dating app Grindr, formerly owned by a Chinese company.
"I want to be very clear: This is not a 'TikTok ban,'" Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who voted to approve the bill, said in a statement. "I have no interest in banning TikTok. This bill will simply make TikTok safer by separating it from the Chinese Communist Party so that the data of 170 million Americans—many of whom are children—is protected."
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said before Tuesday's vote that "Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel."
"Banning TikTok without passing real tech regulation will just further entrench monopolies like Meta and Google, without doing anything to protect Americans from data harvesting or government propaganda."
However, Kate Ruane, who directs the Center for Democracy & Technology's Free Expression Project, asserted that "Congress shouldn't be in the business of banning platforms. They should be working to enact comprehensive privacy legislation that protects our private data no matter where we choose to engage online."
Greer said that "not only is this bill laughably unconstitutional and a blatant assault on free expression and human rights, it's also a perfect way to derail momentum toward more meaningful policies like privacy and antitrust legislation that would actually address the harms of Big Tech and surveillance capitalism."
Greer continued:
Banning TikTok without passing real tech regulation will just further entrench monopolies like Meta and Google, without doing anything to protect Americans from data harvesting or government propaganda.
We could be months away from another Trump administration, and top Democrats are busy expanding mass surveillance authority and setting the precedent that the government can ban an entire social media app based on vague 'national security' concerns that haven't been explained to the public.
Some critics questioned the wisdom of Biden signing off on a potential ban of the most popular social media app among many young users during an election year in which many younger voters are disappointed in the president's record on climate, student debt relief, the Gaza genocide, and more.
One user of X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter, said earlier this year that signing the bill would demonstrate a "comical level of political malpractice, the equivalent of seeing the rake on the ground and purposefully stepping on it."
Moments after Biden signed the bill, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew
vowed, "We aren't going anywhere."
"The facts and the Constitution are on our side and we expect to prevail again," he said, referring to the three times when federal judges blocked efforts to ban TikTok.
TikTok CEO Shou Chew responds to the bill that could ban the app: “Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.”
“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere.”
pic.twitter.com/qElI8JvY0D
— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) April 24, 2024
In the most recent case, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy ruled last December that a Montana law that would have banned the app "violates the Constitution in more ways than one" and had a "pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment."
It is unclear who would buy TikTok. Analysts estimate the platform is worth upward of $100 billion, placing it out of reach for all but the biggest U.S. tech titans and, ironically, setting up possible antitrust challenges from the very administration that ultimately forced the sale.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular