HANOI, Vietnam: Vietnamese legislators on Tuesday passed a contentious cybersecurity law, which critics say will hurt the economy and further restrict freedom of expression.
The law requires service providers such as Google and Facebook to store user data in Vietnam, open offices in the country and remove offending contents within 24 hours at the request of the Ministry of Information and Communications and the specialized cybersecurity task-force under the Ministry of Public Security.
Addressing the Communist Party-dominated assembly before the vote, chairman of the Committee on Defense and Security Vo Trong Viet said the law is “extremely necessary to defend the interests of the people and national security.”
Viet said the law doesn’t contradict Vietnam’s commitments to multinational trade treaties such as the World Trade Organization and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but he said there are exceptions on national security grounds.
He said requiring foreign companies to set up data centers in Vietnam may increase their operational costs, but it was necessary for the country’s cybersecurity and will facilitate the companies’ operations and user activities.
“When there are acts of violation of cybersecurity, the coordination in handling the violations will be more effective and more viable,” Viet said, without elaborating.
The United States and Canada have called on Vietnam to delay the passage of legislation.
The US Embassy said last week it found the draft containing “serious obstacles to Vietnam’s cybersecurity and digital innovation future, and may not be consistent with Vietnam’s international trade commitments.”
Amnesty International said the decision has potentially devastating consequences for freedom of expression.
“In the country’s deeply repressive climate, the online space was a relative refuge where people could go to share ideas and opinions with less fear of censure by the authorities,” Clare Algar, Amnesty International’s director of global operations, said in a statement Tuesday.
She said the law grants the government sweeping powers to monitor online activity, which means “there is now no safe place left in Vietnam for people to speak freely.”
“This law can only work if tech companies cooperate with government demands to hand over private data. These companies must not be party to human rights abuses, and we urge them to use the considerable power they have at their disposal to challenge Viet Nam’s government on this regressive legislation,” she said.
The Vietnam Digital Communications Association said the law may reduce the gross domestic product by 1.7 percent and wipe out foreign investment by 3.1 percent.
An estimated 70 percent of Vietnam’s 93 million people are online and some 53 million people have Facebook accounts.
Despite sweeping economic reforms since the mid-1980s that made Vietnam one of fastest growing economies in the region, authorities maintains tight control over almost all aspects of life including the media and religion and tolerate no challenge to the one-party rule.
Vietnam passes cybersecurity law despite privacy concerns
Vietnam passes cybersecurity law despite privacy concerns
US to call for Google to sell Chrome browser: report
- Determining how to address Google’s wrongs is the next stage of a landmark antitrust trial that saw the company in August ruled a monopoly by US District Court Judge Amit Mehta
SAN FRANCISCO: The US will urge a judge to make Google-parent company Alphabet sell its widely used Chrome browser in a major antitrust crackdown on the Internet giant, according to a media report Monday.
Antitrust officials with the US Department of Justice declined to comment on a Bloomberg report that they will ask for a sell-off of Chrome and a shake-up of other aspects of Google’s business in court Wednesday.
Justice officials in October said they would demand that Google make profound changes to how it does business — even considering the possibility of a breakup — after the tech juggernaut was found to be running an illegal monopoly.
The government said in a court filing that it was considering options that included “structural” changes, which could see them asking for a divestment of its smartphone Android operating system or its Chrome browser.
Calling for the breakup of Google would mark a profound change by the US government’s reglators, which have largely left tech giants alone since failing to break up Microsoft two decades ago.
Google dismissed the idea at the time as “radical.”
Adam Kovacevich, chief executive of industry trade group Chamber of Progress, released a statement arguing that what justice officials reportedly want is “fantastical” and defies legal standards, instead calling for narrowly tailored remedies.
Determining how to address Google’s wrongs is the next stage of a landmark antitrust trial that saw the company in August ruled a monopoly by US District Court Judge Amit Mehta.
Requiring Google to make its search data available to rivals was also on the table.
Regardless of Judge Mehta’s eventual decision, Google is expected to appeal the ruling, potentially prolonging the process for years and possibly reaching the US Supreme Court.
The trial, which concluded last year, scrutinized Google’s confidential agreements with smartphone manufacturers, including Apple.
These deals involve substantial payments to secure Google’s search engine as the default option on browsers, iPhones and other devices.
The judge determined that this arrangement provided Google with unparalleled access to user data, enabling it to develop its search engine into a globally dominant platform.
From this position, Google expanded its tech empire to include the Chrome browser, Maps and the Android smartphone operating system.
According to the judgment, Google controlled 90 percent of the US online search market in 2020, with an even higher share, 95 percent, on mobile devices.
Remedies being sought will include imposing measures curbing Google artificial intelligence from tapping into website data and barring the Android mobile operating system from being bundled with the company’s other offerings, according to the report.
Roblox tightens messaging rules for under-13 users amid abuse concerns
- Video game maker said it removed ability to message others outside games on its platform for users under-13
- Roblox said it will also allow parents and caregivers to remotely manage their child’s Roblox account
LONDON: Video game maker Roblox said on Monday that it is implementing new safety measures for users under 13, including permanently removing the ability to message others outside games on its platform.
However, under-13 users can still message others in-game with parental consent.
The gaming platform, which reported around 89 million users last quarter, said it will allow parents and caregivers to remotely manage their child’s Roblox account, view friend lists, set spending controls, and manage screen time.
Roblox has faced claims of child abuse on its platform. In August, Turkiye blocked access to Roblox following a court order, as prosecutors investigated concerns about user-generated content potentially leading to abuse.
A 2022 lawsuit filed in San Francisco claimed that Roblox facilitated the sexual and financial exploitation of a California girl by adult men, allegedly encouraging her to drink, abuse prescription drugs, and share sexually explicit photos.
The company said it has also introduced a built-in setting that will let users under the age of 13 access public broadcast messages only within games or experiences.
Roblox will replace age-based content labels with descriptors ranging from “Minimal” to “Restricted,” indicating the type of content users can expect. By default, users under nine can only access games labeled “Minimal” or “Mild.”
These new restrictions will also prevent users under 13 from searching, discovering, or playing unlabeled experiences, the company said.
Restricted content will remain inaccessible until a user is at least 17 years old and has verified their age.
Twitch adds ‘Zionist’ to hate speech policy amid war tensions
- Amazon-owned streaming platform said term will still be allowed in discussions about political movement as long as they do not target individuals
- Decision follows pressure by US lawmakers and ADL, who accuse Twitch of failing to curb antisemitism on its platform
LONDON: Streaming platform Twitch has updated its hate speech policy to include the term “Zionist” as a potential slur, reflecting heightened sensitivity in online moderation amid escalating tensions stemming from Israel’s war on Gaza and Lebanon.
“Starting today, using the term ‘Zionist’ to attack or demean another individual or group of people on the basis of their background or religious belief is against our rules,” Twitch, owned by Amazon, announced in a blog post.
The platform, widely popular among video gamers, clarified that as “Zionist” and “Zionism” are political terms, they will still be allowed in discussions about the political movement, whether supportive or critical, provided the language does not target individuals.
“Our goal isn’t to stifle conversation about or criticism of an institution or ideology, but to prevent coded hate directed at individuals and groups of people,” the company said.
The policy update comes amid a spike in hateful content on social media platforms following the Oct. 7 attacks.
A report released in June by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue highlighted alarming increases in antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric online, including a 51-fold surge in antisemitic comments on YouTube and a 422 percent rise in anti-Muslim hate speech on X.
Twitch’s move follows pressure from US Congressman Ritchie Torres and the Anti-Defamation League.
In a letter to Twitch executives, Torres criticized the platform’s handling of hate speech, singling out prominent Turkish-American streamer Hasan Piker as a “poster child” for what he described as “terrorism apologist” comments following the Oct. 7 events.
Torres, who recently secured re-election with significant support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, accused Twitch of failing to adequately address antisemitic content and called for stricter moderation.
Twitch’s announcement aligns it with other platforms tightening their moderation policies.
In July, Meta began removing posts targeting “Zionists” when the term was used to demean Jewish people or Israelis, rather than in reference to the political movement.
This step followed allegations that Meta mishandled pro-Palestinian content, including findings from an Arab News investigation last year.
Netflix says 50 million households worldwide tuned in for Paul-Tyson match
Netflix said on Saturday that 60 million households worldwide had tuned in for the highly anticipated boxing match between Jake Paul and Mike Tyson, and the event peaked at 65 million streams, according to a statement.
The bout between the 27-year-old social media influencer-turned-prize fighter Paul and the 58-year-old former heavyweight champion Tyson, which Paul won, was streamed live on Netflix.
Nearly 50 million households tuned in for the co-main event between Ireland’s lightweight champion Katie Taylor and Puerto Rico’s featherweight champion Amanda Serrano, according to Netflix.
“The bout is likely to be the most watched professional women’s sporting event in US history,” Netflix said in its statement.
There were some hiccups during the live-stream of the match, with over 90,000 users reporting problems on Netflix at its peak, according to outage tracking website Downdetector.
However, the streaming platform was back up on Saturday after the outage that lasted roughly 6 hours in the United States.
Renowned Lebanese journalist quits MTV over death threats by alleged Hezbollah supporters
- ‘I decided to leave MTV because of the intimidations that reached the point of death threats,’ says Dr. Eman Shweikh on X
- Samir Kassir Eyes Center reports that since Nov. 12 Shweikh had been subjected to a campaign of threats, incitement, accusations of treason
DUBAI: A renowned Lebanese journalist has taken to social media platform X to announce her departure from MTV following alleged death threats believed to have been made by supporters of Hezbollah.
Not mentioning the Iran-backed group by name, Dr. Eman Shweikh, a TV presenter at MTV, journalist and university professor, wrote: “I decided to leave MTV because of the intimidations that reached the point of death threats and the harassment that I am exposed to, which reached the point of following me home and chasing me on the road, in addition to harassing my family.”
The Samir Kassir Eyes Center reported that since Nov. 12 Shweikh had been subjected to a campaign of threats, incitement and accusations of treason due to her political opinions that she publishes on X, and because of her work for MTV.
The purported threats and harassment prompted her to leave her job at the channel.
The TV presenter added in her tweet: “The (Lebanese) state is absent, and laws are inexistent, and I do not want to expose my life and the lives of my family to danger. I want to live in safety and peace. Thank you to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of MTV Michel Murr.”
Shweikh’s tweet received thousands of likes and hundreds of retweets and comments.
Speaking to Arab News, Shweikh said things got worse since the escalation between Israel and Hezbollah.
“In addition to the threats from Hezbollah supporters, my old friends sent me very negative comments, saying they wouldn’t allow me to enter the south, where my family house is located in Tyre, or return to my hometown of Al-Mansoury, she said.
“Some relatives even threatened to send me to Syria to be killed by criminals. I believe that the best decision for me now was to quit my job, although I am very sad and shocked. However, I believe that Hezbollah’s control will end very soon.
“As for my plans, I am ready to work as an anchor or perhaps a TV hostess, but I will not declare my political opinions until the appropriate moment,” she added.
Replying to her tweet, advocate Tarek Chindeb said: “The threat to kill journalist Eman Shweikh makes us believe at every moment that we cannot build a state in Lebanon in the presence of illegal weapons and militias outside accountability.”
Expressing solidarity, Chindeb hoped that the Lebanese security and judicial authorities would do their duty to protect her, and arrest the culprits.
Political analyst Magdi Khalil also replied to Shweikh’s tweet, saying: “Ideological militias do not know participation, but rather overpowering. They do not know dialogue, but rather the threat of violence.”
MTV journalist Nawal Berry and cameraman Dany Tanios were attacked in July while attempting to cover the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburb, a Hezbollah stronghold.
It was not the first time Berry and her team had been assaulted by Hezbollah loyalists. During the early days of the Oct. 17 revolution in 2019, she and her team faced a violent attack and had their camera smashed.
Supporters of Hezbollah have a history of assaulting and threatening journalists. Targets have included Layal Alekhtiar, who received death threats in 2021 and faced legal action last year for interviewing an Israeli spokesperson; Dima Sadek; Ali Al-Amin; and others.
At the time of publishing, Shweikh could not be reached for comment.
