Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Media Facebook Privacy Social Networks News Your Rights Online

Journalist Burned Alive In India For Facebook Post Exposing Corruption 219

arnott writes: Journalist Jagendra Singh used a Facebook page to expose corruption in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India. Though he posted under a pseudonym, he was quickly found and burned alive by police, allegedly on the order of the minister accused. He died a week later from his injuries. This is not the first case of a journalist being attacked in this state. Amnesty International had urged the local government to launch an official investigation, and now five policemen and a politician have been brought up on murder charges. What can Facebook or other companies do to help these journalists report on corruption in a safe manner?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Journalist Burned Alive In India For Facebook Post Exposing Corruption

Comments Filter:
  • Burning people? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MobSwatter ( 2884921 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @10:27AM (#49913745)

    Perhaps India should look into the US 2nd amendment. Moral majority prefer better living conditions for everyone, corruption apposes that, be messy but the smart money is on the masses.

    • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @10:47AM (#49913855)

      And right now, they could buy Colt really cheap.

    • Re:Burning people? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @10:49AM (#49913869) Journal
      India actually has some reasonably peppy militia groups(naxalites being the most prominent; but hardly the only ones). Unfortunately, the response has been less "Oh gosh, we'd better start taking the people's concerns seriously!" and more "Per the powers granted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967; the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1985, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002; if you happen to 'disappear' after a run-in with the cops, or your body shows up unannounced at the morgue with signs of torture and a bullet in its head, we can just say you were a terrorist and drop the issue with impunity".

      It's not like all of India is run this way, any more than all US police forces spend all their time shooting blacks and seizing assets; but there are places(Uttar Pradesh is a good candidate to be one of them) where you are liable to get some really, really, bad news about how 'rule of law' actually works if you cross the wrong local strongman.
      • Re:Burning people? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @11:20AM (#49914085)

        It's not like all of India is run this way

        India is actually becoming much less corrupt, and for a reason that should make us nerds happy: technology. India runs vast welfare schemes, including subsidized rice [wikipedia.org] and fuel, and guaranteed work programs [wikipedia.org]. In the past, these were done on a cash basis, and hopelessly corrupted, with each layer of authorities skimming off their percentage, until only a fraction reached the poor. But the cash has been replaced with a combination ID and debit card [wikipedia.org] that cuts out all the intermediaries. This has weakened corrupt networks, and raised people's expectations, so they are demanding cleaner government in other areas. The Internet, and especially social media, has made exposing corruption much easier. Sites like I Paid a Bribe [ipaidabribe.com] are very popular in India.

        It is sad that this journalist was killed, but it is actually a sign of progress, because at least the crooks saw him as a viable threat. A decade ago he would have just been ignored.

    • Lifted from the wikipedia article on the US 2nd amendment to illustrate the point being made:

      In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[121]

      As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their

    • by jopsen ( 885607 )

      Perhaps India should look into the US 2nd amendment.

      Ha ha, yeah what you need is another reason for the corrupt police to shoot you...

    • Plenty of weapons in India. In fact, only America has more guns.
      It does not help. Why? Because it is lack of FIRST amendment combined with gov. enforcement that allowed this.
      Sad that you do not understand the difference between these or even how the 2nd is applied.
  • Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15, 2015 @10:28AM (#49913751)

    It's not up to Facebook to do anything, other than comply with the applicable laws of the country they're located in. If the company inserted itself into a local and controversial political problem, then it could be putting its own employees at risk.

    • by Jhon ( 241832 )

      You are effectively correct. About the only things that will change the corruption would be those willing to put themselves at risk to expose it and the masses unwillingness to accept corruption when it is exposed.

    • Re:Nothing (Score:5, Informative)

      by rhazz ( 2853871 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @11:04AM (#49913979)
      Seems pretty obvious too. Facebook is a social media platform with policies specifically stating they want people to use their real identities. Facebook is not a whistle-blowing platform. Isn't that what wiki-leaks is for?
      • Wikileaks was indeed built for anonymous disclosure, but Facebook has the audience; if you want to expose corruption, which site provides the widest dissemination?

        Personally, I am firmly convinced that anonymity should be permitted (with few and obvious exceptions) on any web platform, and expressly for this purpose. It's not up to Facebook (or any other website owner) to provide a means to intimidate folks who actually do speak truth to power (as opposed to the trite over-use of the phrase here in the US b

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      Pretty much.
      The big question should be what can India do to stop murder and corruption. It is not Facebooks job to do but the government's. If the Government will not do it then international pressure needs to be applied.
      Maybe Amnesty International or the EFF should have some system for whistleblowers.

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by Penguinisto ( 415985 )

        One way to apply immediate and powerful pressure from the US government's point of view: suspend the issue of all H1-B visas to workers from India until India gets their shit together.

    • by jopsen ( 885607 )

      It's not up to Facebook to do anything, other than comply with the applicable laws of the country they're located in. If the company inserted itself into a local and controversial political problem, then it could be putting its own employees at risk.

      Correct, and as demonstrated by the USA, rouge police officers don't need warrants or probable cause in order to access all records held by facebook.
      Especially, not if it's related to "terrorism" or "national" security...

      This is why the surveillance programs are so bad, they legitimize the same conduct in countries where abuse is much more likely.
      Not that we don't know the US already abuses it's powers for industrial espionage.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by WOOFYGOOFY ( 1334993 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @10:32AM (#49913773)
    This is exactly why strong encryption is a non-negotiable right. Without it, you'll be killed for your words, opinions and beliefs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Good idea. Put out a message nobody can read.

      • So seriously, you don't get the connection between non-attributability of authorship and encryption? You thought I was saying "encrypt the story", not "encrypt the source of the story"?

        Seriously .. or this was a joke?

        • by Holi ( 250190 )
          Yes because Facebook is behind author anonymity.. Oh wait no they aren't. Regardless of your feeling s on encryption, nothing in this story would be changed by access to stronger encryption. How could it? He used Facebook to disseminate the facts. A company that hates anonymity.
    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      How does encryption help when you are posting something publicly?
      • by dave420 ( 699308 )
        Of course absolutely nothing, but one should never let the facts get in the way of a good ol' fashioned rant!
      • SEe above. It's not about encrypting the story, it's about encrypting your connection so your anonymity remains secure.

        • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

          SEe above. It's not about encrypting the story, it's about encrypting your connection so your anonymity remains secure.

          Only if what you're doing is sent to another party, and that party then strips out identifying information.
          And by "another party," I don't mean Facebook or any hosting service. More like a foreign journalist.

          There are two separate issues here, transmission and hosting. Encryption helps protect anonymity during transmission (and it can verify that the endpoints of the transmission are who they claim to be), but that's not what got the journalist identified. He was identified because his public posting was no

    • I doubt encryption would help here. If the set of possible authors is 7 Billion then encryption might help. But given the context, writing style, locale etc the set of possible authors is probably one or two.

      So strong encryption doesn't really help deter the police in figuring out who the author was.

  • by LeadSongDog ( 1120683 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @10:35AM (#49913789)
    A journalist who thought that he would be anonymous on Facebook? Really? His intentions may have been good, but I'm inclined to doubt his perspicacity.
  • by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Monday June 15, 2015 @10:37AM (#49913799)

    Indias legal excecutive is basically "Judge Dredd" in real-life. Courts are so behind, murder investigations and convictions can take up to 25 years before even starting. The police solve this on their own to maintain order by staging "encounters" for people who've killed more than once. They basically find you, arrest you for something petty they can pin on you and then shoot you for resisting/trying to flee.

    With such factually absolute powers for the police, they're bound to turn corrupt.

    I'd say it's no surprise that in such a system an exposure of police corruption get's you killed mafia style.

    • by WOOFYGOOFY ( 1334993 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @11:03AM (#49913969)

      Exactly, for American readers, it's like the Wild West. Courts are literally packed smoked filled rooms filled with defendants, police, lawyers and a judge all shouting and screaming and the defendant is basically unable to decipher what or when the judge is handling his case except his lawyer comes up periodically and tells him something .

      Cases take years and decades to go tot trial and in the meantime, anything goes usually, dependant on the connections and wealth of the defendant. IF yo're poor, you're fucked. If it's high profile, you have a right to a speedy kangaroo court. If you're rich with connections , you skate.

      I know people who legally own homes and property that other just random people have taken up residency in and there's really nothing they can do about it. They can take them to court but it will take years and years for the case to be heard and in the meantime, those random people are just go non living there.

      It's like that.

      • Wow. For all the troubles the American court system has (and there are plenty of them), the Indian court system makes the American one seem like Utopia by comparison.

  • ...What can Facebook or other companies do to help these journalists report on corruption in a safe manner?...

    For starters, they need to want to do something to help. Just because someone happens to post on a Facebook webpage, does that put the onus on Facebook automatically to protect that journalist? Probably not.

    .
    So it then comes down to Facebook actively wanting to provide such a mechanism for journalists.

    Will Facebook want to do that?

    Probably not, as Facebook appears to be more interested in tracking people [dailytech.com] than providing posting sanctuaries for journalists.

    • Exactly this. Facebook - and other websites with "real name" policies - hardly seem the place to post anonymously. Want to post anonymously for free? Set up a Wordpress.com site under a pseudonym and post there. You can even share it on Twitter under a pseudonym account. Will it be impossible for people to find out who you are and where you live? Of course not, but if you do it right, it should be much harder to track than Facebook.

      I found his FB page [facebook.com] and it not only shows his photo, but lists his nam

  • Even though he went by an alias on Facebook, he did post his own picture on the account. I don't think he was even seriously trying to conceal who he was; he probably didn't expect the corrupt official to take such a drastic step. Given that case, there's nothing that Facebook can do in this kind of situation.
    • by Koreantoast ( 527520 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @11:05AM (#49913985)
      Should add... if you actually read the article, the "pseudonym" he was posting under was nothing more than the title of "Shahjahanpur (City) News" with his photograph right there on it. He just setup a second Facebook account act as a news feed.
      • I found his Facebook page. Not only did he have his photo, but his full name on the page as well. If posting under your real name counts as a pseudonym, then I guess I'm posting under a pseudonym as well. *sits back confident that nobody will EVER guess my real name*

    • by bondsbw ( 888959 )

      Facebook has a policy against creating fake accounts or using false information.

      Not saying this journalist should have regarded Facebook's policies as more important than his own security, but Facebook is not a platform for anonymity and I doubt even incidents like this will change their mind. It will probably just result in being told "then don't use Facebook for that purpose".

      • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

        It isn't a matter of how important the journalist thinks FB's policies are, it is a matter of him posting in a place and in a manner that would give away his identity when he has no reason to believe that they wouldn't.

        Facebook makes no claims to protect users from being discovered. Quite the opposite, really. They are very upfront about the fact that they want you to be identifiable.

        I can only believe that this journalist either was unaware that it would go this far, or that he was willing to risk his li

  • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @11:09AM (#49914013) Homepage Journal

    If you're not very careful with your security, you might get burned.

  • Nothing.

    It is up to local checks and balances to meaningfully protect their journalists and combat corruption in whatever form it may take. And, let there be a local population that will take a stand for such measures rather than appeal to the corporation.

    If a system requires the brutality and death of journalist or more open-speaking critics so that checks and balances occur, that is more a question of how local governments of those systems can improve in meaningful ways.

    If Facebook or any other corporati

  • by andyring ( 100627 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @12:04PM (#49914393) Homepage

    Why is it Facebook's responsibility?

  • by chilenexus ( 2660641 ) on Monday June 15, 2015 @12:32PM (#49914599)
    That's unheard of!
    http://www.damninteresting.com... [damninteresting.com]
    Unless you count the thousands of still-living people there that have been declared legally dead by bribed public officials and stripped of their property.
  • A corrupt official, or just a fan of Game of Thrones?
  • Make a little plan Sam. Seriously one needs to get out of the place before releasing a report. Encrypt it and send it into a trusted nation . Destroy any materials that you have in hand and take a long vacation to the elsewhere.
  • Facebook could make sure all of your personal information is kept very safe and confidential, and only made available to anyone who claims to be an advertiser wanting to 'target' you.
  • Just what they're doing now - serving as the medium for conscientious journalists and other concerned individuals to publish accounts of the bullshit going on in their corner of the world. Anonymity is tough, but it can be attained for such purposes. Such techniques should not be the responsibility of Facebook. And yes, anonymity tends to dampen credibility, so there's a balancing act to be performed if one wants to avoid the violent response of the corrupt little men being exposed, but let us give thanks t

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...