Someone hijacked the Google of China to attack anti-censorship tools

An unknown party hijacked widely used tools developed byBaidu, the largest search engine in China, this week in an apparent attempt to target onlinesoftwareused to get around Chinese censorship.

The assailants injected malicious code into the tools Baidu uses to serve ads on a wide range of Chinese Web sites and to provide analytics for Web developers, according to researchers. The code instructed the browsers of visitors to those sites to rapidly connect to other sites, but in a way that the visitors couldn't detect. That sent a flood of traffic to twoanti-censorship tools offered by the groupGreatFire hosted on GitHub, apopular siteused by programmers to collaborate on software development. One of the tools targeted by the attackeffectively allows Chinese users to access a translated version of the New York Times.

At times the attack made GitHub, which is used by programmers around the world and the U.S. government itself, unavailable for some users.

GitHub was briefly blocked inside China in 2013, but reinstated after an outcry from programmers. Because GitHub uses encryption to hide specific parts of the site, the Chinese government cannotselectively block only some of GitHub'scontent. But blocking the site wholesale could be damaging to China's economy becauseit is so widely used by the tech industry.

GreatFire reported its own site was the subject of a similar traffic flooding attack earlier this month.

While determining the entities behind these types of attacks is difficult, the Chinese government would be an obvious culprit, said James A. Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies."The only people who would really benefit from it would be China," he said. Using such a bold tactic to attack content it dislikes seems to be either a way for the government to send a message or test out new capabilities, he said.

[Related: Is this North Korea? Chinese netizens squirm as party tightens grip on Internet.]

"The last couple months we've seen a real sea change in Chinese Internet policy, where they've become more assertive about blocking Western sites and pushing back on their citizen's ability to access information from outside of the country," Lewis said. Earlier this year, many virtual private network (VPN) services relied on by Chinese citizens to evade censorshipbecame inaccessiblewithin the country.

Baidu -- which is basically China's Google -- denied involvement in the incident. "After a thorough investigation, Baidu security engineers have ruled out either security issues with Baidu products or a hacking attack on Baidu as possibilities," the company told The Washington Post in a statement. "We have been in touch with other security organizations to apprise them of the situation, and we will work together on getting to the bottom of related issues."

GreatFire did not immediately respond to a Washington Post inquiry about the attacks. Nor did the Chinese government. GitHub acknowledged it was the victim of a "continuous" attack for more than 24 hours in a Tweet posted late Thursday night. The latest update on the GitHub's status pagesays the service is "intermittently unavailable for some users" due to the attack.

Read the original post:

Someone hijacked the Google of China to attack anti-censorship tools

Filing sealed by court is unlawful censorship, newspaper attorneys argue

An appellate court order sealing a previously public court filing that disclosed parts of a report on an officer-involved shooting was an unconstitutional censorship of the press, attorneys for the Los AngelesTimes and other news organizations wrote in papers filed Thursday.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday ordered sealed a document filed nine days earlier by the Pasadena Police Officers Assn., which included about a dozen excerpts from an independent consultants report on the 2012 fatal shooting of an unarmed teenager by two Pasadena police officers.

An attorney for the union asked for the order, saying the union's filing had "inadvertently, and mistakenly, included verbatim excerpts" of the report it had previously argued was the officers confidential personnel information and should remain secret. The union was challenging a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge's ruling in October that portions of the report could be released.

In an opposition filed Thursday, attorneys for The Times argued that because the information had already been handed over to members of the public and the newspaper, sealing it after the fact would in effect be prior restraint, or censoring information before publication.

The result of the Courts Order has been the immediate and absolute chilling of the [newspapers] speech, attorneys wrote, calling the unions request for the order more than a week after its papers were madepublicly available an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.

Noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has said only information such as the movement of troops at wartime or information that would set in motion a nuclear holocaust would justify prior restraint, the newspapers attorneys wrote that the unions situation does not come close to presenting such extraordinary circumstances.

Police union attorney Richard Shinee did not respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.

A coalition of several media and 1st Amendment organizations, including the Associated Press, the New York Times and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, separately asked to be heard in the case and urged the court to reverse its sealing order, calling it unconstitutional.

Permitting the March 25 order to stand would set a dangerous precedent of restricting publication of lawfully obtained information, attorneys for the press and free speech organizations wrote. The order removes information of public concern from the hands of the media, preventing the press everywhere from reporting on issues of intense public interest.

The case arose out of the death of Kendrec McDade, a 19-year-old who was shot and killed by Officers Matthew Griffin and Jeffrey Newlen as they responded to a report of armed robbery. The shooting was determined to be justified by the Los Angeles County district attorney'soffice and by the police departments internal review.

Read more from the original source:

Filing sealed by court is unlawful censorship, newspaper attorneys argue

Free speech rights of independent political groups must be protected – Video


Free speech rights of independent political groups must be protected
It was a coincidence that this week saw both the news of an undisclosed million and a half dollar political contribution, and a public hearing on the need to revise state laws on political...

By: Channel 3000 | News 3

Here is the original post:

Free speech rights of independent political groups must be protected - Video

Cash leads to controversy

The old conundrum of "free speech for me, but not for thee" is back before the nation's highest court.

Legislative lust for cash led to a program in Texas that allowed motorists, for a $30 fee, to put their own group messages on their license plates.

But the free exercise of speech ran into a heckler's veto, the result of which is a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the state can veto the presence of a Confederate flag logo on a motorist's plates.

In oral arguments this week, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller said the state can veto the flag because "the First Amendment does not mean that a motorist can compel any government to place its imprimatur of the Confederate flag on its license plate."

R. James George Jr., who represents the Sons of Confederate Veterans, countered that it's not the state speaking, but the individual who carries his own personal message on his license plate. Besides, the state allows more than 400 specialty plates and all those messages can't reflect state speech.

Does that means Nazis or dopers could put "Swastikas" or "Make Pot Legal" on Texas license places, asked Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Sure does, George replied. Freedom means freedom for everybody, he contended, and the state policy allowing individual groups to design their own messages applies equally to all groups.

News accounts indicate that Texas specialty license plates tout everything from favorite schools to political slogans. The state has rarely rejected a proposed design, and it might not have rejected the Confederate logo if opponents hadn't protested at a motor vehicles department board meeting. When they said they found the logo personally offense, board members unanimously voted to prohibit it.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans sued, alleging the state is engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Under the viewpoint discrimination doctrine, government is not allowed to pick and choose the speech it will allow.

The Confederate flag means different things to different people. It's no surprise that a lawyer for the NAACP calls it a "powerful symbol of the oppression of black people." After all, the Confederate flag was the symbol of the Southern slave states during the Civil War.

Go here to read the rest:

Cash leads to controversy

THROWDOWN THURSDAY: Trigger Warning!

By JULIUS KAIREY

Warning: Article may contain principled defenses of free speech as well as ideas and language that may be considered offensive to some readers. Read at your own risk.

One symptom of the hypersensitivity slowly rotting away at liberal education in America is the recent push for trigger warnings. If some students get their way, objectionable material in classroom lectures, discussions and presentations would include warning messages. Giving in to such demands, schools like Oberlin College have instructed faculty to scrub their syllabuses of offensive material that does not contribute directly to the course learning goals. Like proponents of the closely-linked speech code movement, trigger warning advocates equate controversial speech with violence in order to make it seem more regulable. This is a natural extension of a worldview that instructs students to prefer intellectual safety and security over a rigorous educational experience. In this paradigm, the quest for truth is deemed less important than making sure the wrong views are not heard.

When listening to the advocates of trigger warnings attempting to make their case, the careful listener is immediately struck by their boundless capacity for self-pity. They incessantly demand that society recognize their pain and acknowledge their status as a victim. Underlying this mindset is a paranoid fear that certain privileged societal groups are out to get them. Consequently, they cry oppression while censoring the speech of others and some universities are letting them get away with it. The same organizations that once wanted to keep administrators out of the business of regulating speech are now begging, even demanding, that they intervene. To give just one example, hundreds of students and faculty at Miami University last year demanded the university cancel a scheduled speech by syndicated columnist George Will.

A safe campus is a sterile one where we would lose what makes our universities great: innovative thinking, creativity, and a willingness to boldly reach for the next frontier.

The irony of this movement is that it bases its claims on the need to protect certain minorities from discrimination. They most aggressively target speech (and speakers) deemed racist or sexist, supposedly to protect groups they consider particularly vulnerable. Yet, there is a certain bigotry inherent in their line of reasoning. Trigger warning proponents unjustly portray minorities as uniquely fragile and incapable of dealing with controversial and hotly contested issues. They are rarely asked why their own degraded perception of minorities is not tantamount to the racism they so eagerly denounce.

It should hardly be surprising that such policies end up encouraging students to frequently claim offense. The taking of offense is an entirely subjective and utterly manipulable standard, such that a student cannot be made to prove that he really is offended by something he sees or hears. By enabling students to change the behavior of others by demanding to feel safe, students are encouraged to avoid the tough issues raised in class and retreat to the comforts of identity politics and victimization theory. Students must prove themselves capable of an education that prepares them for reality.

Professors have particular cause for concern with the rising popularity of this movement. The burden will naturally fall on them to ensure that students are not triggered from the contents of their lectures and assigned readings. This is an impossible task. Faculty members cannot possibly know the varied personal experiences of each student that could cause them to find material particularly objectionable. Should they refrain from giving a hypothetical involving a house fire for fear that a student might have experienced one? How about teaching law regarding violent assault or rape? It will become increasingly difficult for professors to teach and for students to learn in a context that puts student sensibilities above a free academic environment.

It is not entirely true that trigger warning proponents want the university to closely regulate all speech. Their speech is exempted. The right not to be censored is only conferred on those with the correct ideas. It is precisely the politicization and selective application of hypersensitivity that threatens to make our universities closed to those with unpopular ideas.

Imagine the Bible with warnings like may include homophobia and novels like Huckleberry Finn with the declaration may include racism. And why not make our campus an even safer space by removing such books entirely? After all, who knows if an impressionable young freshman might one day wander into the library, only to be traumatized by these books while innocently browsing the catalog? Do his sensibilities not deserve to be protected?

Read more:

THROWDOWN THURSDAY: Trigger Warning!

SC’s Verdict On Section 66A Protects Individual’s Freedom Of Speech – Video


SC #39;s Verdict On Section 66A Protects Individual #39;s Freedom Of Speech
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, that allowed the government to take anyone into custody for posting objectionable content on the internet....

By: Aaj Tak

Link:

SC's Verdict On Section 66A Protects Individual's Freedom Of Speech - Video

Supreme Court strikes down controversial Section 66 (A) | Freedom of Speech restored – Video


Supreme Court strikes down controversial Section 66 (A) | Freedom of Speech restored
Supreme Court of India has struck down the controversial Section 66 (A), which powered police with the right to arrest individuals making derogatory comments on social media websites, thereby...

By: Mango News

Read the original here:

Supreme Court strikes down controversial Section 66 (A) | Freedom of Speech restored - Video

Freedom of Speech Act, 1576 – Simon De Montfort: 750 years of Parliament – Video


Freedom of Speech Act, 1576 - Simon De Montfort: 750 years of Parliament
The De Montfort University Students #39; Union Executive team highlight the important role that freedom of speech has within the university environment. Steve Burrell, Adam Redfearn, Amie Chapman,...

By: DMU Leicester

View original post here:

Freedom of Speech Act, 1576 - Simon De Montfort: 750 years of Parliament - Video