[IGFmaglist] Online attack launched against work of BPF countering online abuse and violence

Tue Oct 13 04:17:01 EDT 2015

Dear Jac and members of the BPF on Countering the abuse of women online,

It is truly unfortunate that this type of behavior goes on and it reinforces the need for this BPF.

From the Secretariat’s side we are doing all we can to to mitigate this type of behavior on our hosted services (mailing lists, review platform and Webex).  To this extent we have instituted the moderation of all comments on the the review platform and the Countering the abuse of women online mailing list. 

We will block or expel anyone that does not adhere to the general principles of engagement outlined in our Code of conduct <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/aboutigf/igf-code-of-conduct>. 

We hope this malicious behavior does not deter but strengthens the resolve of the group which has been doing excellent work on a very important topic. 

Best regards,

Chengetai 

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Jac,
> 
> Thanks for posting this here. When we participated in the twitter driven engagement on the session, I personally received several positive as well as abusive tweets, posts on multiple pages and twitter accounts, that I run as well as the IGF BPF page that I had initiated. The Hashtag used was indeed #GamerGate
> 
> The threats included 
> 
> 1. An assurance to leak personal data
> 2. Abuse
> 3. An all pervasive threat to own and control all my online identities and a general sullying of the pages, I run in support for feminist voices and to document online and offline abuse.
> 4. I was also assured that we can't take back what was never ours
> 5. There was a specific critique of some of the twitter handles we asked people tweet at, as quite abusive.
> 
> 
> Here's what I did to counter specific handles
> 1. Engaged with them publicly
> 2. Asked them specific questions
> 3. Explained to them the nature of the IGF and the existing relationship with the UN
> 4. Invited them to register and participate at the IGF
> 5. Shared previous material on what the IGF is and the how it promotes a multistakeholder bottom up model for IG
> 6. Also elaborated on where there are meetings points between ITU and IGF
> 
> 
> However concerns have been raised about the legitimacy of the process and the outcome.
> About the choice of handles in the list circulates, the hashtag #TakeBackTheTech
> 
> There were even suggestions that it could have been something non- threatening and generally more positive. (We've heard that one before.)
> 
> 
> But this does lead us to more important questions on the way forward about roles and actors.
> 
> 1. There's a lot of work which has gone into bringing this where we are. It just didn't happen overnight.
> 2. I think two paragraphs can be added as a preface on how we got here.
> 3.It is difficult to navigate the online page and make sense of specific calls.
> 4. Also the online campaign should continue. I have decided to inform all my networks to continue pushing out more information about the BPF and the IGF. We need that.
> 5. This initial round also suggests that keeping a more specific hash tag like
> 6. Also tweeting ways of recourse is helpful. Then people find the information useful and continue to mobilise other networks
> 
> #StopOVAW is better to run with then #TakeBackTheTech
> 
> Also it wasn't all bad. We got some leading news channel editors and sr. journalists here to retweet and share the information and capture the effort.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Subi
> 
> 
> On 13 October 2015 at 04:11, Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org <mailto:jac at apcwomen.org>> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Dear MAG members,
> 
> As some of you may be aware of, an online attack was launched against
> a Twitter conversation that the BPF on countering online abuse and
> violence against women was planning, on Friday, 9 October. The attacks
> seem to come from persons affiliated to the #GamerGate hashtag, and
> centred on the premise that this is yet another attempt of the UN to
> "control and censor the internet". The attack is still on-going, and
> has now extended to IGF's BPF platform where the draft document is
> being hosted for public comments. If you view the comments, you can
> get a sense of the motivations.
> 
> A video was also created as "proof" of the UN's attempt to censor the
> internet, which basically misrepresents the transparency and openness
> of the BPF process as a vulnerability that was exploited. We have
> reasons to believe that the instigator, or at least one of them,
> participated in the last BPF planning meeting and has subscribed to
> the mailing list.
> 
> Since Friday, more than 20,000 tweets that contains abusive,
> anti-feminist, violent and sexist content have been targetted at the
> hashtag. The conversation's hashtag, #TakeBacktheTech - which was used
> as an effort to engage the broader Twitter community already aware of
> and working on the topic of online abuse and VAW - is associated with
> a campaign that APC has run since 2006 on the issue. As such, APC is
> also a subject of the attack. It appears to be a campaign of
> misinformation and intimidation. The volunteer who coordinated the
> Twitter conversation received several threatening personal emails.
> 
> This clearly has an impact on the continued work of the BPF, and we
> would appreciate a discussion around how to move forward on this.
> 
> Best,
> jac
> 
> - --
> 
> - ---------------------------------
> Jac sm Kee
> Manager, Women's Rights Programme
> Association for Progressive Communications
> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/> | www.takebackthetech.net <http://www.takebackthetech.net/> | erotics.apc.org <http://erotics.apc.org/>
> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWHDcEAAoJEJuohLvI/Y6fkOwP/Al/kckcmpUpkdtcQv80f5hp
> 9bQn4HrXsb8i4jREUL3NcP3k9b2lpddIZxaTzofALKV0t9/1F+sfeD1ImyxTZSGI
> yspOKIO4E/xJb7udawLAseKWsz0E1Ikljv97Nnrcn7+x3NJJc4WqtTiGv3QMsb43
> Amc9M2U9E+vl5icshkDscvP9oAhuyVLYyJau4fKBLKoUSbbx3eokWs7zYzAcEjEb
> MqCbUucmoQMuMO5NDJkR2lLE9FH6hjhXN9H4qoWAMqkSIF1HMtM/QpexYIOuWWnW
> XElXjS+Lfi4Xl8497I8rXalZuEZeoAfOfqpdApnr62OHXS5AyUP54orU5tlyWjXX
> 6b8+5GZkz9gASsj3JaMk3X9jAyRrDjDwW/Tef2yjNnwo+lCTCHQ1/RTFQXkD0qjl
> RZ1WzzX6JtidcMVQxQqTF1RkYdObsrkKWXCSgU4CSAJTjVDdovO+N00a3FFIjGmK
> e5dAbK90EqrY1/5j15w4J+W5jecy6Py3boYG5oRNncqTFDDia3E1uCGlFtm3x98q
> PEtTtxJDT4XhWp7SWhg59SnAKMsPVX1LeYFijSrJ/fTY2ml+TmHMQtNjw07ZB3Uc
> Wj0MYT/0QH7rixiHM242WFZ7MysML4P8Qn8c9u3ub2yNFF1uPp4/db8vTmYQduUT
> W8N+TMhCqg2hvzOP69O4
> =0q0z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151013/a042ed34/attachment.html>