Tag: activists

state sponsored harassment and targeting in Azerbaijan is very much alive and kicking – a year in review

Posted on by aiw_admin

Azerbaijan Internet Watch was launched around the time when more evidence kept emerging, on the use of authoritarian technology in Azerbaijan. This technology allowed the perpetrator(s) (in most cases identified as an institution or individual affiliated with the government of Azerbaijan] to target Azerbaijan’s civil society. These revelations marked a significant shift in the way the authorities were persecuting its critics. In addition to offline measures – physical intimidation through kidnapping, arrests, detentions, questioning; bogus trials, and lengthy jail times; and adoption of restrictive new laws limiting the ability of civil society to work –  there were new tools at the state’s disposal that could now deliver phishing attacks, DDoS attacks, targeted harassment, mass fake reporting on social media platforms,  hacking of personal as well as public social media accounts and emails, leaking unlawfully obtained data, online blackmail, the use of trolls and bots, and more. In none of these documented cases, it was possible to hold the state or its institutions, or the actors to account. Dismissals have been a common response. 

“By using its monopoly over the country’s information-technology infrastructure, it has disrupted internet access, placed temporary bans on social media services like TikTok, launched DDoS attacks, and used various digital-surveillance tools, including the Israeli spyware Pegasus, to target and censor activists and journalists. The democracy watchdog Freedom House now considers the internet in Azerbaijan “not free”.” Facebook is Failing Journalists, November 22, 2022, By Arzu Geybulla, for Project Syndicate

State-sponsored surveillance

In 2014, an OCCRP investigation revealed how mobile operators were directly passing on information about their users to the respective government authorities. Last year, AIW looked into the protection of personal data mechanisms that exist in the country. The research and legal analysis indicated that “the national legislation on personal data protection does not effectively protect individuals against the arbitrary use of their personal data by both public and private entities.” In addition, the analysis showed “that the national laws restrict and control personal data with intrusive measures, such as equipping telecom networks with special devices, and real-time access to vast amounts of personal data, in the absence of a criminal investigation or judicial order. As such, the absence of clear and enforceable regulations to protect personal data against arbitrariness and flawed systems due to negligence puts personal data at a higher risk of infringements.” Additional findings included the following information confirming OCCRP’s revelations in 2014:

The Presidential Decree No. 507 dated June 19, 2001 (IV) “On the division of powers of search operations’ entities while carrying out search operations,” ensures that the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Security Service can autonomously connect to the communication networks of telecom operators. That being said, the presidential order regulating the conduct of this kind of search and operation activity in the telecom industry dated February 15, 2017, is not public.

The above-mentioned legal environment makes subscribers’ personal data accessible to the law-enforcement authorities given that all collected user personal data is accumulated in the database established together with the law enforcement authorities or is equipped with the technical means allowing law-enforcement authorities access users’ personal information. Also, according to Article 11 (IV) of the Law on Operation and Search Activities, the decision of the court (judge) or investigative body or the authorized subject of operative search activity on the implementation of operation-search measures can be accepted not only when there is an initiated criminal case but also in a wide range of circumstances.  

In another report released in 2021, AIW identified the following loopholes grating the state further access to the personal information of citizens:

The Law on Telecommunication obligates network operators to install special equipment, provided by the State Security Service, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and Special State Protection Service onto the telecommunication networks enabling the Government to extract (intercept) data on anyone regardless of whether that person(s) is part of an investigation process or not.

The installment of special equipment within communication networks is regulated by the “Rules for equipping telecommunications operators and providers with additional technical means for conducting search operations, reconnaissance and counter-intelligence activities” issued by the Ministry of Transport, Communications, and High Technologies on  June 14, 2016. The Rule obligates telecommunication operators and providers to create technical conditions for the conduct of relevant activities within the communication networks.

The Rule defines that Telecommunication Control System (hereinafter – TCS) – is special hardware and software that provides confidential control over the exchange of information of subjects targeted by the relevant measures (such as search and operation, intelligence, and counterintelligence activities), as well as all statistical data of the network. TNS consists of data extraction facilities, transport networks, and control centers.

The Rule also indicates that relevant measures in the communication networks are carried out in accordance with the requirements of the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On Operation-Search Activity” and “On Intelligence and Counterintelligence Activity”.

However, while the Law on Operation-Search Activity may allow secret surveillance and seizure of private information, there are no rules or procedures within the national legislation for secret surveillance and intercepting information by government agencies. There are also no clearly defined rules on determining the grounds for such surveillance and interception activities, their duration, and whether such activities can be stopped by a court or other higher state authority.

The above legal and investigative findings may explain how in 2012, during the Internet Governance Forum held in Baku, Neelie Kroes’s [who at the time, was the Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda for Europe] advisors had their computers hacked. At the time, Ali Hasanov, who was serving as head of the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Social and Political Department said, “there was no such interference, and couldn’t have been.” Hasanov was “one of the key figures defining the government’s policies regarding media, freedom of speech, and political liberties,” according to an OCCRP investigation into Hasanov and his family’s media business. At home, Hasanov was also known as the “King of trolls.” And although he denied his passion for trolls, even at the time when he was leaving his office in January 2020, as it turned out, Hasanov was a troll factory supplier. In September 2021, AIW published this story revealing how the government of Azerbaijan did indeed operate its own troll factory:

Ever since the 2013 revelations about Russia’s troll factory, many in Azerbaijan wondered whether the country’s leadership too operated its very own troll factory. Unlike its Russian version, known as the Internet Research Agency, there was only anecdotal evidence of whether this was really the case in Azerbaijan. There were no former “factory” employees who came forward or undercover journalists who temporarily worked there and exposed the work carried out later. Not until this month anyway. An investigation against the executive director of the State Media Support Fund Vugar Safarli now reveals that the suspicions were valid after all. And that upon specific instructions a group of “bloggers” were responsible for monitoring Facebook and leaving comments under posts that were critical of the government or relevant government institutions.

The investigation is part of a criminal case launched against Vugar Safarli who until recently headed the State Fund for Media Development in Azerbaijan. Safarli was arrested in 2020 on charges of money laundering (allegedly 20million AZN) and abuse of authority. 

On September 2, Azerbaijan Service for Radio Free Europe, Azadliq Radio published parts of the testimony by Safarli where the former government official implicates not only that the government did indeed deploy trolls but that several high ranking officials including then Presidential advisor Ali Hasanov and former head of the Presidential Administration Ramiz Mehdiyev were well aware of this. Moreover, the building from where trolls operated belonged to Hasanov himself. 

“Ali Hasanov told me that the new rented space, will have internet bloggers who will work from there. And indeed there were a few, who sat there, working unofficially,” Safarli reportedly said in his statement according to Azadliq Radio reporting. 

Predating 2014 revelations, are a series of examples that were documented in this report showing how state-sponsored surveillance was used as early as 2008, albeit at the time, using less sophisticated technology such as black boxes and wiretaps.   

In the years that followed, the state-sponsored surveillance got worse as has been documented either here or by other platforms. The culmination was the use of Pegasus and targeted harassment of civil society activists online through the dissemination of their personal data obtained through hacking of their devices as well as social media accounts. 

As AIW described in this report:

Members of opposition political parties, independent journalists, political and human rights activists have long faced systematic pressure and persecution orchestrated by the government of Azerbaijan. The unprecedented crackdown against civil society that began in 2013, marked a new chapter, in the history of Azerbaijan’s civil society. One, marred by arrests and prosecution of high-profile activists, rights defenders, and journalists.

This systematic pressure and harassment were not only offline. It was only a matter of time, that the internet too would become a place to target activists, journalists, and human rights defenders, holding them accountable for their online criticisms on bogus accusations that often ended with lengthy jail sentences, forced apologies on public televisions (see The State of Internet Freedom in Azerbaijan report), detentions and further forms of persecution.

In a country where almost all avenues for freedom of expression and activism were eliminated, the internet, specifically online media platforms, and social media networks became new targets. To monitor discussions online, prevent citizens from accessing independent news online, or social media platforms, and to further curb freedoms online, the government of Azerbaijan embarked on a shopping spree, becoming a client of companies selling sophisticated surveillance equipment and technology.

By 2021, the government of Azerbaijan has successfully deployed a Remote Control System (RCS), Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), phishing, and spear-phishing attacks often with homegrown malware. The most recent addition to a wide variety of authoritarian technology deployed in Azerbaijan is Pegasus spyware.

The Law on Operation-Search Activity overseas phone tapping and information extraction from communication channels. Further, the third section of article 10 of the Law on Operation-Search Activity does not require a judicial act or supervision of higher authority while wiretapping and extracting information from technical communication channels unless there is a need to install technical devices such as voice, video, or photo recorders at the place of residence of the individuals.  

In other words, anyone in Azerbaijan can be subject to such a form of oversight.

In Azerbaijan, “anyone” is often, a representative of Azerbaijan’s civil society. This includes political activists, rights defenders, journalists, members of opposition political parties and movements, and feminists, to name a few. As AIW documented in its February 2023 report: 

2022 has been no different than recent years in terms of online attacks and internet censorship in Azerbaijan. Human rights defenders, activists, politicians, and media professionals in Azerbaijan are increasingly becoming victims of cybercrimes, including electronic surveillance, privacy infringement, and cyberstalking, due to their independent and legitimate professional activities. The online targeting of individuals critical of the government has become increasingly frequent and constant. And yet neither of these cases has been effectively investigated, and the perpetrators have not been identified.

Despite the active use of the criminal and administrative offenses legislation, including other technical resources to limit freedom of expression on the internet [including the blocking of key opposition and independent news websites, summoning and punishing individuals for critical opinions distributed online], the state systematically fails to provide effective investigation on the complaints of the individuals subject to unlawful covert surveillance (Pegasus), cyber-attacks, online blackmailing and hacking attempts against activists and media professionals. In most cases, reveal that online harassment against government critics is organized by the government or government-linked institutions.

In April 2022 report, Meta reported that it removed a hybrid network operated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan that combined cyber espionage with Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior (CIB) to target civil society in Azerbaijan by compromising accounts and websites to post on their behalf.

There has been a shift however in the use of technology. Based on the monitoring of cases documented by AIW, one scenario indicates that as a result of several forensic exposes tracking the source of phishing attacks and the use of other pervasive surveillance tools to the state, the latter now relies on targeting critics through online harassment and online targeting campaigns in order to damage and/or discredit their reputation. That and the use of restrictive new laws makes silencing dissent less reliant on technology. That being said, there are still cases of phishing attacks as was the case with activist Abulfaz Gurbanli, who was phished through an email and WhatsApp messages in February 2022. A file disguised as grant-related information from a known donor organization containing a virus was sent to Gurbanli via his email. On WhatsApp, the activist received a message from someone impersonating herself as a BBC Azerbaijan Service journalist. The targeting resulted in the installation of spyware on his device and the hacking of his social media accounts. At the time, AIW requested assistance from Qurium media to analyze the link shared in the email and despite the journalist’s assurances, the link did contain a virus. “The mail pointed to a RAR compressed file in Google Drive that once downloaded required a password to be decrypted. The password to decrypt the file was included in the phishing e-mail: bbc. Compressed files that are password protected are common in malware phishing attacks as the files can not be scanned by antivirus,” concluded Qurium in its preliminary report. The further forensic report identified malware written in AutoIT. Once the link (in our case the link to a drive where the alleged journalist left questions for the political activist) was opened, the hacker through the deployed malware installed a persistent backdoor in the system. “The software connects to the domain name smartappsfoursix{.}xyz to download the rest of his software requirements. It downloads gpoupdater.exe and libcurl.dll which look responsible for uploading files to the command and control server. During the execution of the malware several (10) screenshots of the Desktop were uploaded to the server,” read the Qurium analysis.

Targeted harassment: the case of Bakhtiyar Hajiyev

The most recent case of state-sponsored digital targeting is of political activist Bakhtiyar Hajiyev. Hajiyev was arrested in December 2022, shortly after his return to Azerbaijan from a trip abroad. Charged with hooliganism and contempt of court, the activist was then sentenced to 50 days in pretrial detention. That time however was extended twice, most recently until April 2023. Prior to his arrest, Hajiyev often criticized the Ministry of Internal Affairs over its targeted harassment. He was then abducted by unknown men and during his time in captivity was forced to delete his social media posts critical of the ministry. The investigations into Hajiyev’s kidnapping have not been conducted and up to this day, it remains unclear who were Hajiyev’s kidnappers. Throughout the past few years, Hajiyev was also the target of an online blackmail campaign. Three years ago, Hajiyev said there were multiple attempts to break into his social media and email accounts. 

At the end of December 2022, while Hajiyev was already behind bars, some anonymous social media accounts shared private correspondence between Hajiyev and Vusala Mahirgizi, an editor. The leaked conversations alleged Hajiyev was a marionette of one of the clans [in reference to various clans in key government positions in Azerbaijan]. Hajiyev published a statement in which the activist said, the leaked correspondence was a violation of his privacy, given it was obtained through hacking of his personal accounts and that the allegations of him being a marionette, were false.

It is worth noting that this correspondence was leaked during calls for the activist’s release. The leak was largely viewed as an attempt to turn the activist into a scapegoat and weaken the advocacy campaign calling for his release.

Since February 22, 2023, however, Hajiyev has been the target of another blackmail campaign. At least six different Telegram channels have been disseminating conversations between Hajiyev and various women:

Identified Telegram channels:

  • https://t.me/bextiyarhaciyev18

  • https://t.me/baxtiyarifsa

  • https://t.me/+SzloVHfBVkg1YjEy

  • https://t.me/BextiyarinIfsasi

  • https://t.me/BextiyarinIfsasi

  • https://t.me/+DiENXqq3ed4zMzcy

Similar information was leaked by fake Facebook accounts. The leaked correspondence also contained sexually explicit photos of women appearing with Hajiyev. The online targeting of women with their faces publicly disclosed in these groups has led to at least two women being forced to leave their homes and go into hiding from their families, fearing reprisals for ‘immorality’ from their families.

Although there is proof that some of the shared correspondence was photoshopped the targeting has tarnished Hajiyev’s public image and placed the lives of women in the photos in danger. 

The anonymous admins of these chats have also published the names of other activists, threatening to leak their conversations with Hajiyev as well. Some of these activists are advocates calling for Hajiyev’s release. 

The Ministry of Internal Affairs refuted the claims that it may have been behind the leaked information. However, according to Hajiyev’s lawyers, Hajiyev arrived at the Baku General Police Department in his car and left his phone in the car. The car stayed there for three days and it is likely his phone was compromised during this period.

In October of last year, this story explained how Telegram is being used in Azerbaijan. “In Azerbaijan, the app has become a nexus for hate speech, propaganda, and the repression of dissent. In March 2021, multiple Telegram groups were identified in Azerbaijan sharing sex tapes and nude photographs of women. Among the victims were journalists, civic activists, and female family members of exiled political activists as well as ordinary women. The groups and pictures were reported to Telegram, but it took weeks before they were taken down. The damage to the women targeted was done. The channels shared sensitive videos of journalist Fatima Movlamli, the sister of exiled dissident blogger Mahammad Mirzali, civic activist Narmin Shahmarzade and Gunel Hasanli, daughter of opposition party leader Jamil Hasanli.”

Activists in Azerbaijan also pointed out that it is not Hajiyev’s reputation that is placed on the line with this blackmail campaign, but the women too, whose photographs are shared in the absence of their consent. Last year BBC published this investigation about the use of the platform in targeting women specifically “to harass, shame and blackmail them on a massive scale.” Gulnara Mehdiyeva, a feminist activist who has been targeted herself in the past, said in a Facebook post on February 28, “Terrible things are happening in the country. The government, which is responsible for protecting the safety of citizens, deliberately and knowingly wants to make those women victims of suicide or murder.” Two years ago, Mehdiyeva was targeted in a video shared via Facebook, containing a series of leaked private audio messages, that were extracted from Mehdiyeva’s social media accounts and emails. In a February 28 Facebook post, Mehdiyeva also wrote that not only faces of these women were not blurred but the perpetrators of the blackmail campaign also shared the names of the women and at least in one correspondence leaked, the home address of one woman. One of the women whose identity has been exposed in this campaign, was Tunay Aliyeva, an actress and model who said this blackmail campaign was a “cybercrime and invasion of people’s privacy.” In a letter addressed to the First Lady and the First Vice President Mehriban Aliyev, the actress asked that the First Lady personally stepped in, as a woman and a mother herself, in order to put an end to this “abomination.”

No-war activists and feminist activists

AIW has documented how activists who openly criticized the second Karabakh war were targeted by state-sponsored harassment before:

From public Facebook posts and pages targeting the activists, with threats of violence and physical harm, calls for public shaming and punishment, to questioning at Security Services, this has no doubt been one of the harshest, collective, online public harassment campaigns observed until now in Azerbaijan.

In a recent piece published by Lossi 36, Thijs Korsten and Viktoria Kobzeva also wrote:

Following the two-day war and increased public disapproval of Azerbaijan’s actions towards Armenia, government-linked media accounts launched a social media campaign. The photos and names of individuals who condemned the government’s aggression were circulated with the hashtag “Recognise the Traitor” on Facebook and Twitter. The people who were singled out are not marginal anti-war activists but rather prominent opposition figures, who the government sees as a greater threat.

The use of Telegram for the purpose of targeting and harassment has been in use not only in the case of Hajiyev. Previously AIW documented how the platform was used to target feminist activists too:

In recent days, at least three telegram channels were reported for sharing profane content targeting women in Azerbaijan. One channel called “Wretched men club” shared sensitive videos of journalist Fatima Movlamli, and exiled dissident blogger Mahammad Mirzali’s sister. Another group called “Expose bad-mannered girls” has targeted other women activists. A third one, targeted specifically one woman whose Facebook account was hacked shortly after the International Women’s Day march in Baku. 

In the past, other women journalists and activists were targeted in an online harassment campaign. 

Activist Gulnara Mehdiyeva was targeted with a video shared on Facebook, containing a series of leaked private audio messages, that were stolen when Mehdiyeva’s social media accounts and emails were hacked last year. 

Activist Narmin Shahmarzade’s Facebook profile was hacked, her name changed alluding to her interference with people’s private lives. The hackers flooded her Facebook feed with private messages, some of which were fake, and shared nude photographs of her, including at least one edited photo and audio. Several hours later, a Telegram channel was set up, sharing Shahmarzade’s intimate photos. In an interview with VoA Azerbaijan service, Shahmarzade said, “When my account was hacked, video footage and other posts with criticism of the ruling government were deleted. Then, my personal messages on Facebook messenger were compromised. Some of them were shared after being edited and taken out of context. My personal phone number was exposed and as a result, I received numerous calls and messages of threatening nature.” Shahmarzade said, she has informed the Ministry of the Interior and the State Security Services and describes what happened to her, a crime and that she will be going to court. Shahmarzade also pointed out to AIW that the hacker who compromised her Facebook profile is likely the same person or member of the same group that targeted activist Gulnara Mehdiyeva last year because at least one of the audio that was shared via Shahmarzade’s hacked Facebook account targeting her, does not even belong to the activist and that she never had access to. Contrary, it was among material hijacked from Gulnara Mehdiyeva. 

Among the women targeted, is also dissident blogger Mahammad Mirzali’s sister. Mirzali told AIW that the intimate video of his sister was leaked to harm him. “On February 15 my family members and I received several messages from a US number threatening me to stop my work. Otherwise, they told me they would release the videos of my sister. They told me they were not joking. They leaked the video on March 5. Later they shared the video on telegram channels. The same video was also sent to our relatives,” explained Mirzali. Mirzali suspects the authorities are behind this nasty campaign against his family. On March 14, Mirzali was reportedly stabbed by a group of unknown men. Mirzali is currently at the hospital. 

In September 2020, activist Rustam Ismayilbeyli was intimidated by someone who presented himself as an employee of state security that unless Ismayilbeyli did not stop his activism, intimate pictures of his girlfriend would be leaked online. 

In 2019, journalist Sevinc Osmangizi was the target of a smear campaign that accused her of being a double agent and working as a spy selling government secrets. 

The same year, journalist Fatima Movlamli was targeted with a fake Facebook page created under her name, sharing intimate photos and videos of her in her bed.

In all of the incidents, the targets voiced their suspicion of the government involvement behind these attacks. No responsibility was taken.

Last year, feminist activist Sanay Yaghmur was targeted in a social media blackmail campaign. The perpetrators shared personal information about the activist which they obtained by hacking her email account. 

The practices of digital authoritarianism widely used in Azerbaijan also extend beyond its borders. Last year, Ahmad Mammadli, the leader of a political movement D-18, reported that local authorities intercepted a letter of acceptance to a Master’s program from a university in Turkey. The authorities accused Mammadli of forging the letter. 

This is not an exhaustive investigation and documentation by all means. But AIW will continue to document and monitor the situation and work with partners to keep exposing the use of information controls in Azerbaijan. 

Alert: an uptick in online attacks

Posted on by aiw_admin

In recent weeks AIW has documented an uptick in digital attacks against civil society activists in Azerbaijan. On February 17, AIW reported a targeted wave of attacks on political activist Abulfaz Gurbanli. Although he was able to restore access to his Facebook account, more hacking attempts were documented on February 23. At the time of writing this post, access to his Gmail has not been restored.

There were others too. At least two lawyers faced similar attacks although not as pervasive and deliberate as in the case of Gurbanli. Hackers attempted to compromise their Facebook and Telegram accounts. One lawyer said, he was receiving a barrage of phone calls and text messages from unknown numbers. Another activist, Narmin Shahmarzade said that her Facebook account was targeted too. A bug on the platform also prevented Shahmarzade’s followers from leaving comments on a post she wrote and shared in February. Since then, it was possible to fix the bug thanks to Facebook’s intervention and the post is back online. Shahmarzade originally reported that after sharing the post, her followers lost the ability to post comments. There were also attempts to hack email accounts. 

It is hard to pin down any specific reason for an uptick in digital attacks. One likely explanation is the upcoming International Women’s Day. AIW documented how last year a number of activists were targeted. Narmin Shahmarzade, said she lost access to her Facebook profile on March 9, 2021, in what looked like an attempt to discredit the activist. Shahmarzade, was among scores of women who took the streets on March 8, marking International Women’s day in the capital of Baku, and was detained by the police who prevented women from marching peacefully. In an interview with AIW, Shahmarzade said, the hacker, removed her email and changed her user name. Ahead of March 8, another activist, Gulnara Mehdiyeva was targeted by a page, that leaked her sensitive personal audio messages on Facebook. 

In 2020, AIW documented how Mehdiyeva was targeted as well. On March 8, 2020, women’s rights activist and head of the Feminist Movement of Azerbaijan Gulnara Mehdiyeva and one of the main organizers of the march, realized, someone was trying to break into her Telegram account. Then her Gmail was hacked and much of her archive including photographs and documents were “downloaded” by the attacker. In less than 48 hours Mehdiyeva’s personal Facebook account was hacked. She was removed from several Facebook groups that focus on LGBTQI and women’s rights in Azerbaijan, where she was an “admin”. Then, these groups were compromised, suspended and one was deactivated. Both groups lost thousands of subscribers and content that were shared via the Facebook group page. Next in line was Mehdiyeva’s Protonmail.

Hacks and compromised accounts continue to target journalists and activists in Azerbaijan [updated September 13]

Posted on by aiw_admin

Account compromise, website hacks, DDoS attempts, phishing are just a handful of tactics used to target journalists, rights defenders, and activists in Azerbaijan. 

Here is a list of new cases: 

Earlier in July, Azerbaijan Internet Watch reported a phishing attack that targeted some of the civil society activists. Following a forensic investigation carried out in partnership with Qurium, it was possible to confirm that the email was indeed a virus. According to preliminary conclusions, “the e-mail included a link to malware, with the capability of webcam and Desktop recording, execution of windows commands (WMI) as well as extraction and uploading of selected files from the victim’s computer.

Then the civil society was targeted with another phishing, this time the sender pretended to be the National Endowment for Democracy inviting recipients of the email to apply for a Pegasus Grant. 

Preliminary forensic results indicated that the malware sent around in this email was similar to a phishing campaign from 2017, that was widely covered and reported by Amnesty International: 

The victims and targets identified, as well as the political theme of bait documents, indicate that the campaign is largely targeting human rights activists, journalists, and dissidents. This campaign also aligns with findings by VirtualRoad.org in their report, “News Media Websites Attacked from Governmental Infrastructure in Azerbaijan”, which links some of the same network address blocks with “break-in attempts” and “denial of service attacks” against several independent media websites

The malware that was observed is not sophisticated, and is in some manner extremely crude. However, combined with social engineering attempts and an unprepared public, these tactics can remain effective against many targets.

The same month, Azerbaijan Internet Watch received confirmation that the former political prisoner, Tofig Yagublu’s Facebook profile was subject to numerous hacking attempts. 

In early August, former leader of the opposition Musavat party, Isa Gambar reported that all of his social media accounts were compromised including his Facebook profile, Facebook page, and Instagram account. 

The hackers, who took hold of Gambar’s Facebook profile, changed settings, recovery emails, and an affiliated phone number, and have since then shared irrelevant posts. 

On August 27, the website for popular platform HamamTimes was hacked. The team behind the platform, reported all of its content removed, suspecting that the hackers used the site’s vulnerability as a result of weak security protocols in place. So far, HamamTimes, managed to restore all of the website’s archive of stories however its hosting remains vulnerable to new targeting. 

HamamTimes was targeted before as reported by Azerbaijan Internet Watch in a mass phishing attack. 

On September 4, editor of anews.az news website, Naila Balayeva, reported that her Facebook account was compromised. The hacker switched the email account and the phone number originally registered for the profile. Although Balayeva was able to restore access to her email and change the emails, according to the journalist, the hacker continues to use Facebook as the owner often deleting posts that are critical either of the police or the government institutions.  

Anews.az and Balayeva were targeted before. Last year, several Facebook pages affiliated with the website were hacked. 

While it was possible to provide assistance in some of the cases, the response from platforms like Facebook, especially in the case of Gambar has been slow and at times, comical. So far, twice, the platform requested new emails not associated with the platform or any of its apps and twice, Gambar sent proof of identity.  

[Update] On September 9, political activist Bakhtiyar Hajiyev was reportedly threatened by Baku Police Chief Alekper Ismayilov over a Facebook post, that Hajiyev wrote the same day. The post, Hajiyev wrote on Facebook was addressing the Ministry of the Interior, specifically the Minister of the Interior, Vilayat Eyvazov. The activist alleged the ministry was delaying a response to his complaint submitted 50 days ago over a street hooligan. 

[From Hajiyev’s post on Facebook published on September 9, 2021] Instead of investigating why my Ministry of the Interior cannot question street hooligan, who is refusing to speak to them, humiliating police officers who show up at [the hooligan’s] home, Vilayat Eyvazov is going after me for reminding [the Ministry] of my complaint and is threatening me with arrest, death and blackmailing.  

The activist told Turan News Agency that he was summoned to the police on September 9 where Baku Police Chief, Alekper Ismayilov allegedly told Hajiyev less he removes the Facebook post, the activist would face a greater punishment than arrest. 

On September 12, Gubad Ibadoglu, Azerbaijani academic, and an economist reported that his Facebook profile and page were compromised. In an interview with Turan News Agency, Ibadoglu said despite his attempts to strengthen the security of his accounts, they were compromised anyway. “I got a message this morning that my password was changed using my own computer. This means that the hackers of the Azerbaijani government, even in London,” Ibadoglu told Turan. The fact that he received a notification informing him that his computer was the device from which the passwords were changed, means the device was infected with a virus containing some form of keylogger. It won’t be the first time, this type of information extraction is used to target Azerbaijani civil society. 

[Update] In September, online news platform Toplum TV, reported it lost 16k followers on its Facebook page. 

activists trolled for exposing child abuse in Azerbaijan

Posted on by aiw_admin

Vafa Nagi, an activist who recently exposed systemic abuse of young girls in one region of Azerbaijan has herself become a target of harassment as a result. 

Writing about the harassment on her Facebook account, Nagi explained that ever since she shared the story of a 14-year-old  girl, a resident of a small village subject to sexual abuse and the involvement of one police officer in this abuse, Nagi and her family members have faced targeting from the officer and his family members.  

On Facebook Nagi has been targeted with slurs by users related to the police officer.

In the meantime, according to this BBC Azerbaijan service story, the victim was relocated to a shelter in the capital Baku, where she is receiving psychological help. 

In their statement issued earlier, the Ministry of the Interior said they are investigating the case but so far, have not taken any measures against the police officer involved. 

***

Vafa Nagi is an elected member of the local municipality of the region where this abuse has taken place. Recently Nagi was targeted in March of this year after taking part in a women’s march organized to mark International Women’s Day in Baku. 

Azerbaijan’s desire to regulate online hate speech: What problems should Azerbaijan fix first?

Posted on by aiw_admin

This is part two in a series of detailed reports and analyses on existing legal amendments and new legislation affecting freedom of expression, media, and online rights in Azerbaijan and their compliance with international standards for freedom of expression.  

Background

On September 17, 2020, Zahid Oruc, member of the parliament and the head of the Human Rights Committee at the National Parliament, suggested parliament adopts a new law on hate speech. At the time, Oruc said the main goal was to prevent hate speech in the information space, possibly with the inclusion of social media platforms [several members of the parliament and government representatives have stressed that social networks should be regulated by law in Azerbaijan in recent years]. While stressing the urgency in adopting such a law, Oruc failed to address the exact nature of this urgency. In addition, likely in response to a possible backlash from the independent lawyers and civil society in Azerbaijan the MP said, the new bill, cannot be viewed “as a document against freedom of speech and expression”. Nevertheless, much of the responses that came following this announcement, were critical of the proposal especially in light of the legal context where plenty of other existing laws and procedures already address hate speech in one form or another.

In January 2020, the discussion on adopting the bill on hate speech was back on the agenda. Speaking at the first meeting of the spring session of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights the chairman of the committee Zahid Oruj noted that the spring session will focus on the analysis of world experience in the field of defamation and “hate speech” legislation.

But what about the analysis of Azerbaijan’s experience in the field of defamation? 

In Azerbaijan, a number of conceptual elements of hate speech are envisaged in the different normative legal acts, including in the Code of Administrative Offences, Criminal Code, the law on Information, informatization and protection of information and Law on Mass-Media.  In other words, several Azerbaijani laws include measures that are designed to address unacceptable online content (including hate speech), ranging from removing content, and making content temporarily inaccessible on the information-telecommunication network.

According to Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, everyone has the right to freedom of thought and speech. Agitation and propaganda, inciting racial, national, religious, social discord and animosity, or relying on any other criteria is inadmissible. Azerbaijan has also ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “ECHR”) where Article 10 provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

Azerbaijan’s history is rich with examples where existing laws, were abused to restrict freedom of expression, and the national legislation so far failed to comply with international human rights standards with respect to the safety of the media workers or citizens who exercise their right to freedom of expression. That and the lack of independent judicial oversight over the restrictions to freedom of expression and thought post additional challenges in a current environment.

In 2017, when changes were made to the law on combating religious extremism, two prominent members of the Popular Front Party were arrested relying on the existing legislation, even though it was clear, it was a setup, as neither of the activists had any religious affiliation. In January 2017, a Baku court convicted senior opposition Popular Front member Fuad Gahramanli to 10 years in jail for inciting religious and ethnic hatred. Gahramanli was known for his criticisms of the government on Facebook. In July 2017 a court convicted Faig Amirli, another Popular Front member and financial director of the now-closed pro-opposition Azadlig newspaper, on bogus charges of inciting religious hatred and tax evasion. Amirli was handed a suspended sentence.

Four out of seven alerts in 2019 related to detention. Despite the March 2019 release of some wrongfully imprisoned journalists, including anti-corruption blogger Mehman Huseynov, the detention and harassment of journalists continue to this day.

During the height of the pandemic in Azerbaijan, the parliament introduced a series of amendments to existing laws that were then used to prosecute activists. Scores of activists were rounded up, including members of the opposition Popular Front [some of these arrests were captured here]. 

The government of Azerbaijan has consistently ignored the international calls, including the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) requiring Azerbaijan to reform its domestic legislation with respect to freedom of expression and media rights in order to ensure that it is in line with the international standards. Instead of reforms, the government of Azerbaijan has aggravated the criminal liability for defamation and expanded the scope of the criminal liability to the online spaces (2016 amendments to the Criminal Code), adopted a criminal liability for extremist views on vague grounds, and established administrative liability for spreading false information.

These developments were contrary to the ECtHR’s findings in the Fatullayev, Mahmudov, and Agazade v. Azerbaijan cases (2008) where the Court found that application of provisions of the criminal law on defamation had been contrary to Article 10 of the Convention and the Council of Europe calls to the Member States that prison sentences for defamation should be abolished without further delay [Resolution 1577 (2007) of the Parliamentary Assembly, Towards decriminalization of defamation, to which the Strasbourg Court has referred on a number of occasions].

The country’s poor ranking on most of the rights and freedoms indexes attest to the grave reality in the country. It was also reflected in a statement issued following the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatović’s visit to Azerbaijan in July 2019 where the Commissioner said, “Freedom of expression in Azerbaijan continued to be under threat”.

The key state obligations while regulating the online hate speech and general concerns for the Azerbaijani context

Despite the term “hate speech” widely used in legal, policy-making, and academic circles, there is often disagreement about its scope and about how it can best be countered [Dr. Tarlach McGonagle. The Council of Europe against online hate speech: Conundrums and challenges, p. 3.]

There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. However, in 1997 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a Recommendation (No. R (97) 20) on hate speech which stated the term (non-binding) “shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin”. 

In its case law the European Court of Human Rights, without adopting a precise definition, has regularly applied this term to forms of expression that spread, incite, promote or justify hatred founded on intolerance, including religious intolerance.

Key concerns for the abusive application of the hate-speech regulations

There have been growing concerns in many countries that hate speech regulations (both online and offline) are often misused or result in a violation of freedom of thought and expression. To this end, many international human rights organizations have often emphasized raising concerns on this matter and issued general recommendations, and developed standards for the regulation of hate speech to ensure that such regulations are in line with international human rights standards.

As noted, hate speech has threatened freedom of expression in many countries. Despite the importance “to prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance …,” [Erbakan v. Turkey judgment of 6 July 2006, § 56] the presence of hate speech constitutes a serious threat for the freedom of expression in the process of potentially limiting the expression as such.

On May 13, 2020, Freedom of expression organization ARTICLE 19 has warned that France’s new “Avia” Law, will threaten freedom of speech in France. When a draft bill on hate speech was discussed in France, “the French government has ignored the concerns raised by digital rights and free speech groups, and the result will be a chilling effect on online freedom of expression in France”. Consequently, on June 18, 2020, the French Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel) the highest constitutional authority in France, declared that the majority of the Law on Countering Online Hatred, more commonly known as the Avia Law, was unconstitutional. This declaration rendered the key provisions in the law invalid. In its decision, the Constitutional Council held that certain provisions infringe “on freedom of speech and communication, and are not necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the aim pursued”.

The international human rights law provides that states may restrict freedom of expression (only) where provided by law with the condition to meet the principles of legality or necessity and proportionality.

Alongside these principles, an effective judicial review is needed to prevent any abuses of laws capable to restrict freedom of expression. The judicial review of such a measure, based on a weighing-up of the competing interests at stake and designed to strike a balance between them, is inconceivable without a framework establishing precise and specific rules regarding the application of preventive restrictions on freedom of expression [Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, § 64; Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, § 62, which concerns the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas; see also OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, §§ 40-43]. Furthermore, in some cases, for determining the proportionality, the ECtHR assesses the quality of the parliamentary and judicial review of the necessity of the measure [Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], §§ 108-109].

The First and foremost among these safeguards is the guarantee of review by an impartial decision-making body that separate from the executive and other interested parties.

The UN Special Rapporteur notes that “any restriction imposed must be applied by a body that is independent of political, commercial or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse” (A/67/357, para. 42).

This is not the case in Azerbaijan. For instance, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies is the main body regulating the internet in Azerbaijan, something that experts have called to change and share this role with an organization that is not under state control. The ICT market is also fairly concentrated in the hands of the government.

In its report (A/74/486, 9 October 2019), the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression evaluates the human rights law that applies to the regulation of online “hate speech” and notes that any restriction – and any action taken against speech should meet the conditions of legality, necessity, and proportionality, and legitimacy [Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/74/486, 9 October 2019), para. 20] and to establish or strengthen independent judicial mechanisms to ensure that individuals may have access to justice and remedies in case of restrictions. The Special Rapporteur further notes that “as a first principle, States should not use Internet companies as tools to limit expression that they themselves would be precluded from limiting under international human rights law. [para, 29]. In the meantime, the same Recommendation envisages a principle [third principle] that requires from the governments that interference with freedom of expression, in the context of combating hate speech, are narrowly circumscribed and applied in a lawful and non-arbitrary manner on the basis of objective criteria and must be subject to independent judicial control.

In addition to discussions on adopting the law on Hate Speech, there are also plans to adopt a new law on Media at the moment. The consistent view of the government to regulate social networks with the “hate speech” law poses an additional risk to the systematically undermined freedom of expression in Azerbaijan. There is no guarantee that Azerbaijan’s government will not use lex ferenda regulations as a tool of oppression against its political opponents and civil society.

Without genuine consultations with civil society organizations, independent journalists, disregarding the constant calls of the human rights organizations and ECtHR judgments to reform the domestic laws to remove irrelevant and restrictive frameworks over freedom of expression, new hate speech, and media laws should be taken into account as a serious concern [Dr. Tarlach McGonagle. The Council of Europe against online hate speech: Conundrums and challenges, p. 29].

Instead of addressing the systematic shortcomings, in particular, rendering the restrictive legal frameworks in the sphere of freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and thought, and internet freedom, the government of Azerbaijan continues to add more restrictive regulations into its legislation that is likely to undermine last remnants of the freedom of expression – the online spaces.

In addition, while in a hurry to pass restrictive legislation against freedom of expression, the government of Azerbaijan remains inactive when it comes to the effective investigation of the smear campaigns and hateful attacks against minority groups, such as LGBTQ- communities, and feminists. 

Finally, having reviewed the current environment of repression and crackdown, and specifically, in the absence of effective judicial oversight and a fully independent regulatory body accountable to the public, it can be concluded that there is no urgency for any new regulations at the moment in Azerbaijan.

parliament in Azerbaijan is discussing law on hate speech

Posted on by aiw_admin

Parliament in Azerbaijan is set to discuss a draft law on hate speech. While independent critics say there is no need for a separate law, given the existing legal framework that does offer context on hate speech, there is suspicion it is another law with an intention to harm independent voices. 

On September 17, Zahid Oruc, member of the parliament and the head of the Human Rights Committee at the National Parliament, suggested parliament adopts a new law on hate speech. Oruc said the main goal of the law would be to prevent hate speech in information space. While promising, the draft law will be released for public discussion before it goes to the parliament during the fall session, the MP also added the draft law, may consider including social media platforms as part of the information space.

Azerbaijan Internet Watch talked to Elesger Memmedli, a media law expert in Azerbaijan about the draft law. Memmedli thinks there is no need for a separate law on hate speech because Azerbaijan already has plenty of laws that can be amended to regulate hate speech. “What is worrying is the intention. At the moment, the draft law is aimed at political speeches and other instances. But the likelihood of this law to be used as a limiting norm is high.”

The tradition of using existing legal framework or laws against opposition or independent voices goes back to the case of the then opposition journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, explained to Azerbaijan Internet Watch, lawyer Khaled Aghaly. At the time of the sentence [in 20o7] Fatullayev was accused of terrorism, defamation, and incitement to racial hatred. Like Memmedli, Agahly agrees there is no need for a new law when Azerbaijan has Article 283 of the Criminal Code – on Excitation of national, racial, social, or religious hate and hostility.

During the height of the pandemic in Azerbaijan, the parliament introduced a series of amendments to existing laws that were then used to prosecute activists explains Elesger Memmedli. “Shortly after [the amendments] scores of activists were rounded up, including members of [opposition] Popular Front. Some were taken straight from their homes and sentenced to lengthy administrative detention,” recalls Memmedli [some of these arrests were captured here]. 

In 2017, when changes were made to the law on religious terrorism, two prominent members of the Popular Front were arrested relying on the existing legislation, even though it was clear, it was a setup, as neither of the activists had any religious affiliation or background explains Memmedli. 

  • In July, a court convicted Faig Amirli, an APFP member and financial director of the now-closed pro-opposition Azadlig newspaper, on bogus charges of inciting religious hatred and tax-evasion. He received a suspended sentence.
  • In January 2017, a Baku court convicted senior APFP member Fuad Gahramanli to 10 years’ imprisonment for inciting religious and ethnic hatred; he posted criticisms of the government on Facebook.

 

So while hate speech may be a legitimate concern the existing examples tell a different story says Memmedli. 

Meanwhile, Zahid Oruc, vowed the drat law, would not limit the freedom of speech.