GitHub Censors Catalonian App Tsunami Democratic
elconfidencial.com
elconfidencial.com
As far as I'm aware, Github has been honouring government takedowns of this nature since long before they were acquired by Microsoft.
Is how I'd translate it and depending on who you are, you might just ignore the GitHub bit if you have no idea who that is and just assume Microsoft's doing this outright. It is confusing, but the subtitle specifically calls GitHub a service owned by Microsoft. They then mention since when Microsoft has owned GitHub, which I'm not sure how accurate it is or isn't. Is it wholly owned by Microsoft at this time? Though as others have said, it's an existing policy.
Github also have a HQ in Amsterdam and likely there's some further ramifications for those based in an EU states in terms of compliance with laws of respective EU states
git add remote plan-b one-of-dozens-of-git-hosts-or-your-own-server
git push plan-b master
And then let people know of your new repo(s).
What makes me worried is that this was not a normal takedown where GitHub thought the content was harmful for their platform. It seems it's only geographically blocked, as in, not available for people in Spain. So GitHub thinks the repository is fine, just that it's not fine in Spain specifically.
This indicates that it's more hairy than just "it was harmful for GitHub"
First it says:
Después de que un juez decidiese bloquear sus direcciones web, obligando a sus gestores a migrar dominios y buscar nuevo alojamiento, ahora ha sido GitHub, el servicio propiedad de Microsoft desde junio de 2018, el que ha acabado por bloquear el acceso al repositorio que alojaba la web y la aplicación de la plataforma desde España.
but then:
Pese a que el servicio de 'software' libre estaba entre los objetivos de las autoridades por dar cobijo a la plataforma independentista, fuentes de Microsoft España han confirmado a Teknautas que ellos no han recibido ninguna petición por parte de las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad del Estado para cerrar los repositorios de Tsunami por lo que la decisión se ha tomado a nivel internacional.
I'm not sure exactly what legal obligation Github actually had.
edit: based on the responses below that just says that Microsoft Spain didn't receive a request, not that Microsoft global didn't receive one. And otherwise, where would the request that Github published have come from?!
First quote:
> After a judge decided to block their web addresses, forcing their managers
> to migrate domains and look for new hosting, it has now been GitHub, the
> service owned by Microsoft since June 2018, which has ended up blocking
> access to the repository that hosted the web and application platform from
> Spain.
Second: > Although the free software service was among the objectives of the
> authorities to give shelter to the independence platform, sources from
> Microsoft Spain have confirmed to Teknautas that they have not received any
> request from the state security forces to close the Tsunami repositories so
> the decision has been taken at the international level.As I understand it, the first paragraph says that a judge blocked access to Tsunami Democràtic's domain names (literally "web addresses")
But according to the second paragraph Microsoft Spain denied having received a takedown request for the Github repository from the Spanish security services. It also says that the takedown request must have been made on an international level, but I'm not sure what that could refer to.
> Github has been honouring government takedowns
The Spanish government requested the information be taken down but only has jurisdiction over it's own users. It therefore makes sense that Github would just restrict access to the content.
Kind of a lesser of evils. Yes, we could blacklist all of Spain from seeing the takedown request and publish it in its entirety. Instead a bit of a screw you to the Spanish government. We can’t say what we had to blacklist, but we had to blacklist something, so wink wink, nudge nudge.
As a result, a government takedown request can bring a rationale country like Germany on the list, doing the right thing, and still be viewed by US standards as violation of free speech.
Legal is different in each country. And honestly, Spain has a territorial integrity and a working democratic process.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/germany-ha...
But with all things learned, "our identity" certainly has a comparably low priority.
I cannot tell you who is in the right in Spain, but I am certainly cautious not to justify a crackdown on content by authorities.
And while it is true that symbols associated with the nazi-era are prosecuted, I do believe that the goal is immediately lost if used as a justification to restrict freedom of expression, which this immediate case could constitute. Maybe not, but I like to defer judgement.
With a perspective on current world politics I have the impression that the German solution is fairly inadequate. That is why I do question it.
It is something by Microsoft that apparently is important for apps. Nothing more you need to know.
The Guardia Civil, the takedown petitioner, is one of the two Spanish national police forces, the Military Police is a different corps entirely which belongs to the Army.
The Guardia Civil is similar to the Gendarmerie corps from many countries, such as France. However it does follow a military-style rank structure, which nothing out of this world for a police force.
Secondly, they are not part of the Army, they are self-described as a "full bodied police force" [1] and they report directly to the Ministry of Interior and only report to Defense in case they take part in a armed forces mission (article 9b of this law: [2]), which is seldom the case.
Like I said they do have a military-style rank structure, which they describe as for "efficiency for performing our duties" or "military nature" [1] as they were created as an infantry division back two centuries ago.
[1] http://www.guardiacivil.es/en/institucional/Conocenos/idcorp...
[2] http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/lo2-1986.t2.h...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21395629 was posted earlier, so we'll merge (most) comments there.
Note, this is a translation. If I understand it right, GitHub is a wholly owned subsidiary. That means it may have been (likely?) GitHub legal rather than Microsoft legal that received the request.
Did the reporter not know to check with GitHub or was it something else?
There is a little bit of organizational dynamics at play here. We may know how these companies are organized but do the masses? How much of the international reporters should we expect to know this?
> Microsoft's GitHub Censors Catalonian App Tsunami Democratic
Verb: Censors
Object: the Catalonian app called "Tsunami Democratic"
Some quotes around the app name, "Tsunami Democratic", would have helped a lot. The structure of the original Spanish headline delineates the app name from other nouns a lot better.
I'm not in Catalonia, and was able to click through to the repository. Surely no developer would be deterred by a simple IP ban?
Except it's not just for developers; it's the homepage for the app.
Though part of me has a feeling that GitHub complies with these takedown notices in the way that they do because they know how easily circumvented they are. Pretty much everyone involved with a modern protest movement has been taught some basic level of digital OpSec by the organizers.
To avoid future possible misunderstandings: I do not support Tsunami Democràtic and I strongly disagree with their methods.