Author: Regina Coyula

It is, on the other hand, the fact that the great technological companies have given way to government pressures and have delivered inside information. Furthermore, the companies supplying information and communications technologies possess metadata about their users which, in context, may be relevant.

No one watches over one’s personal interests better than oneself, so the protection of data acquires an individual character. Arguments such as having nothing to hide is weakened before the possibility of joke in bad taste that you cannot handle an email account because someone changed the password or erased the contacts; or following the jokes, you see your profile on the social networks with photos and comments that are not yours and spend enormous efforts to regain control. These would be the simple cases.

It seems that the foregoing and what follows are only loosely related. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which was until last month was under the control of the an agency of the Department of Commerce of the United States Government, has been turned over to an independent agency with the management of multiple interested parties.

This transition has been a subject of controversy regarding the roles appropriate to each one of these multiple actors.  Representatives of controlling governments and some founding entities that, to save themselves from the hegemony of the great powers and of the great businesses of the sector, a minding international regulation is necessary for the use of cyberspace.

They have put into place a closed model with the services of the internet but without internet (for example, Reflejos, Tendedera or Weibo), which favor control of information traffic. In the name of a 20th century mentality, they try to put something as global as the internet in a straitjacket.

The most modern and predominant vision supports the strengthening of ICANN as a global and autonomous organism with a transparent management, in such a way that neither governments nor great private entities could take control of this institution whose functions include more than just naming and numbers. These names and domains and IP addresses allow access to data such as the source and destination of data packets.

The concept of global internet on a fragmented model puts the human being above any other interest with the intention that their approach to the network is free of any monitoring, whether to track their tastes and inclinations for commercial purposes without their consent, as well as their right to inform and be informed to avoid the search of the sites they visit and with whom they communicate.

Whether one lives in a democratic state, or not, is not determinant when the time comes to protect personal data, although it could seem more important in some places than others and, in some cases, determinate of the integrity not only of data, but of one’s physical self: journalists who report on complex scenarios and issues.

Every cybernaut has an idea of the importance of protecting their bank accounts and social network accounts, but digital security, more than a right, is also an obligation. An urgent obligation in complex environments. Even mega-corporations have tried to distance themselves from the lack of confidence that is created by giving out private data and putting in users hands the tools to strengthen the securities of their communications and interactions. It has been a joint achievement of organizations and people who insist on behaving responsibly in the face of the privacy of the numerous but also most indefensible link.

Some basic recommendations for better digital security:

1. Implement complex passwords for one’s devices and accounts.

2. Use email accounts that have two-step verification.

3. Use instant messaging services that are encrypted end to end.

4. Use blog platforms with double verification.

5. Always think before sending a text, and image a video that could affect you or third parties.

6. Check (insofar as is possible) the integrity of programs and downloaded attachments.

“The international community has denounced the US embargo because it violates international law, and also for moral, political and economic reasons.”

This quote is from a report by Amnesty International and reflects the rejection of the extraterritorial character of the set of laws that makes up the embargo. The bold text is intended to bring out the fundamental reason for the widespread rejection of this body of law, which is its extraterritorial nature. International law prohibits any national law to be applied beyond the country ’s borders. The Helms-Burton law is extraterritorial and retroactive, as it applies to events prior to the adoption of the legislation.

The Cuban citizen has become accustomed to hearing only about the damage the blockade  has caused and continues to cause in our economy and society; this citizen ignores in many cases the origin of these measures versus those taken in response to it, but above all, it serves as a smokescreen for domestic disaster resulting from a willful and failed policy. Neither the US blockade nor the one caused by our government have affected even for one second the life of our leaders.

The theme of this Second Meeting is “Legal and Constitutional Transition” and its objective is to propose a set of laws that provide a secure framework and facilitate the reforms Cuban society needs. And, as a result, to prepare, with citizen participation, an orderly and peaceful constitutional text that will lead the Cuban nation to a future of freedom, social justice and progress, transitioning from law to law without traumatic ruptures.

The result is expected to be published on the Center for Coexistence Studies website, once the proposals have incorporated proposals from the session held in our Diaspora Center, as well as the proposals for  “The Cuban economy in the short, medium and long term.”

The debates and creative workshops on thoughts and proposals are animated by the presentations of renowned Cuban jurists among whom are Lic. Rene Gomez Manzano and Lic. Laritza Diversent, who, although she was prevented from leaving her residence in Havana to participate in the meeting in Pinar del Rio, offered her lecture by telephone.

When one wants to work and think for Cuba nothing it is impossible. Also prevented from participating in this meeting was Pedro Campos, a member of the Academic Board of the Centre for Coexistence Studies and Regina Coyula. All other guests were able to attend.

Dagoberto Valdes Hernandez, director of the Center for Coexistence Studies, said in his opening remarks for this second academic session that “Cuba needs organic thinking and constructive and feasible proposals emanating not only from experts in each topic, but also from an increasing citizen participation and broad inclusive consensus building , for the good of the whole nation.”

Accustomed to my WordPress blog, a .com platform, it was striking to me that in the Terms of Use of reflejos.cu moderation (I would say censorship) of comments is included (which are not part of the posts) under ideological considerations; while in WordPress the terms regarding comments are established by the author and WordPress limits itself to offering the tool to perform this function.

It turns out that in the conglomerate of blogs about sports, spirit, food, unfailingly full of applause, respectfully forgettable like almost everything on the platform, El Colimador stood out for being interesting and intense. It unapologetically defended what we know as the Cuban Revolution and its administration always managed a balance that fostered a respectful debate.

Who was the “regulator” (the author exonerates the technical team) who expressed the narrow viewpoint of a sector with power that appears not to live in the 21st Century but rather in the 19th.

Those with a better memory will remember the incomprehension with which La Polemica Digital and La Joven Cuba were dealt with, blogs that won their space and their readers not with obsequiousness but quite the opposite.

It would be lamentable if the enemies of El Colimador take advantage of my complaint to justify their censorship of the blog. These people can’t understand that I want a country where the Ruslans and the Reginas can express themselves without fighting under a nick and a false IP and accusing them of receiving “goodies” from the Cuban government or dollars from the American government.

The violations of personal integrity suffered by opponents at the hands of the repressive forces are real and frequently documented, on Facebook, on personal web pages, or on those of some group or organization. If Rodiles appears frequently as a victim and denouncer of these events it is far beyond “a pattern that repeats itself in Rodiles’ behavior as an activist,” because his activism, and especially his activism in the street, Sunday after Sunday for nearly 40 weeks, is prioritized [by the police and State Security] as a target of repression. Armengol seems to forget that the government intends to defend “Fidel’s streets” at all costs, and the effrontery of the actors, who don’t seem to diminish, predicts nothing more than greater repression.

It makes sense that after observing strange marks on their skin*, Rodiles and Gonzales sought independent medical advice. With regard to Rodiles’ broken nose, such a thing is usually no more complicated that a simple operation, and the spectacular photo — as any photo of a broken nose would be — made clear that a blow from a fist had fractured that bone.

At the risk of being wrong, I believe that the “Ladies in White of Halloween” were apocryphal — a “performance art” action let’s say — by some people in exile with bad taste**, but probably with the best intentions in the world, who wanted to pay tribute to the Ladies, and in particular to one of them who was said to have suffered a miscarriage after a repressive day months earlier.

With regards to the allegations made by Frank Calzon, I don’t know what it’s about, but if it has to do with the idea that historic exile confronting this aggression against activists in Havana is “a sign of clinging to the past or an indication of looking for other means of confrontation with Havana,” it is not surprising that groups on both shores that have openly expressed their opposition to the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States try to demonstrate support and show that that political decision was a mistake.

Let me quote Armengol: “More symptomatic still is this evolution, of a simple and crude display of the Cuban reality — poverty, homelessness, imprisonment — another in the repressive mechanisms that fall within the area of speculation.”

To speculate that one has been injected — or not — with those puncture wounds, is just that: speculation. I do not expect the medical check up to uncover any anomalies, although to merely inject fear would be cruelty enough. To speculate that the event even happened — that is to doubt it — is to try to discredit the couple who founded Estado de Sats (State of Sats), and turn them into mere buffoons.

Far beyond likes and dislikes, whether or not they are personal, or have to do with methods or programs, any opponent who faces systematic repression deserves respect.

Translator’s notes:

*Recently, after participating in violently repressed street march, Antonio Rodiles and Ailer Gonzalez discovered what looked like puncture marks on their skin and were concerned that in the melee they might have been injected with some noxious substance without their knowledge. (See photos below)

**Photos of individual Ladies in White were altered to show injuries as an illustration for an article.