Category Archives: Censorship

Even the most open, democratic governments have sought laws and new forms of surveillance that many see as a new wave of censorship -- and that includes the United States.

The U.S. government asked Google for data on its users more than 31,000 times in 2012 alone, for example. And the government rarely obtained a search warrant first, Google recently revealed; in nearly all cases, the company ended up turning over at least some data.

Some argue that heightened surveillance, restrictions on Internet freedom and even censorship are necessary to protect intellectual property rights, prevent cyberespionage, fight child pornography, and protect national interests such as nuclear power plants from hackers. And here the U.S. is far from alone.

"A number of democratic states have considered or implemented various restrictions in response to the potential legal, economic, and security challenges raised by new media," notes the Freedom House report "Freedom on the Net 2012."

Anxiety over online theft and cyberattacks is not unwarranted. Virtually every major U.S. company and media outlet has been a victim. Google was attacked back in 2009. Facebook, Apple and Microsoft revealed this month that hackers had breeched their defenses. And The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have fought off Chinese hackers for months. Indeed, dozens of countries have their own online hacking groups -- so-called cyber or asymmetrical warfare divisions.

- Freedom House report Freedom on the Net 2012

"It's been going on in China since at least May 2002," said Alan Paller, founder of the SANS Institute, an information security and training firm.

Consequently, lawmakers -- even President Obama in his State of the Union address -- have been motivated to take steps to stem the hacking tide. However, the road to better security could also stifle free speech.

When the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) met in Dubai in December, some 89 member countries including Russia, China, Cuba and Iran, supported a treaty that would give individual governments more control over the Internet's infrastructure.

Sensing a thinly veiled attempt to suppress dissent, 55 countries -- including Canada and the U.S. -- said no.

Read this article:
BIG BROTHER? US Linked to Censorship, Surveillance on Internet

China's new leaders have inherited a rigorous system of censorship. There are few signs of change under the new leadership, although it is becoming increasingly difficult for the state to control information.

For readers, the New Year edition of the weekly magazine Nanfang Zhoumo was more of the same.

The lead article greeted them with the headline "Dreams are our commitment to do what is necessary." It also contained a quote from new Communist Party leader Xi Jinping: "The great revival in China has always been the great dream of the Chinese people."

Chinese newspapers are full of headlines and quotes like these. But editors at Nanfang Zhoumo were surprised when they saw the magazine in print. They had actually submitted another story for publication with a headline that read "The Chinese dream is a constitutional government."

Turning point?

Headlines like that one are hard to find in Chinese publications, if not impossible. The censor had changed it overnight.

But this time, the editorial team wasn't willing to accept the censorship and went on strike in protest.

"Censorship has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years," said Chang Ping, editor of the exile magazine iSun Affairs and a journalist at DW. Chinese authorities give detailed instructions to editors of how and what to report, he notes. With warnings and sanctions, they also try to prevent critical stories from being published. If journalists decide to publish such stories, they risk being fired, together with their editor.

Chang speaks from experience. He was a former editor-in-chief of Nanfang Zhoumo before he had to vacate his position after publishing a report that was critical of authorities.

Chang doesn't think anything will change in Chinese censorship under the new generation of leaders. "There's currently a lot of talk in China and abroad about a 'tipping point,'" he said. Despite this, Chang, is quick to add, there's also no clear evidence of this happening.

View original post here:
The long arm of Chinese censorship

Google Inc. (GOOG) shouldnt have to remove content from its search engine that was lawfully published elsewhere, the company argued in a case at the European Unions top court that will set boundaries between freedom of expression and data-protection rights.

The operator of the worlds largest search engine isnt a data controller, it is a mere intermediary in terms of the data which it indexes, Google lawyer Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz told a panel of 15 judges at the EU Court of Justice hearing today. Direct requests for personal information to be removed from a search engine -- even if it was put online by a newspaper -- would be a fundamental shift of responsibility from the publisher to the search engine and would amount to censorship.

The dispute raises questions about the scope of EU privacy rules when it comes to personal data on the Internet; the rights of search engines to use any online data to remain commercially successful; and who ultimately is in charge of what happens with the data. The Luxembourg-based courts ruling will be binding on courts across the 27-nation bloc.

The case was triggered by about 200 instances of Spains data-protection authority ordering Google to remove information on people. The information in todays case concerned a Spanish man whose house was auctioned off for failing to pay taxes. Newspaper La Vanguardia published the information in 1998 and years later it could still be found via a Google search.

In this case and in many other cases, serious harm is done to individuals, Joaquin Munoz Rodriguez, a lawyer representing the man, told the EU court. The information is tracked and ordered by Google and contains, to a very large extent, personal data.

Google is liable because it allows easy and quick access to information that wasnt easily found online before, he said.

Google faces privacy investigations around the world as it adds services and steps up competition with Facebook Inc. (FB) for users and advertisers. The Mountain View, California-based company created a uniform set of privacy policies last year for more than 60 products, unleashing criticism from regulators and consumer advocates over whether it was properly protecting data.

People shouldnt be prevented from learning that a politician was convicted of taking a bribe, or that a doctor was convicted of malpractice, Google said in a blog post. The substantive question before the court today is whether search engines should be obliged to remove links to valid legal material.

Data protection is currently policed by separate regulators across the EU. The blocs executive body wants to simplify the system so companies deal with only one.

A lawyer for the European Commission, the EUs executive, argued today that Google does control data. That view diverges from an opinion of a group representing the blocs data- protection watchdogs, which said search engines are generally not to be held primarily responsible for content.

Read the rest here:
Google Cites Censorship Risk in EU Data Control Lawsuit

Who has the right to kill lie cheat steal censorship threatens blackmail
http://www.facebook.com/groups/romaniaRomaNromaSeveNS666N http://www.wuala.com/esgseis Progetto criminale censurato. Miliardi di euro. Milioni ucisi. Milioni mutilati. 309 persone uccise nel 2009, dalla mafia 666 da Italia Israele Romania dopo antico programma teologico. La chiave ROMANIA Roman SromaN SeveN SisraelN. Sei minacce di morte contro di me nel 2012. Gennaio febbraio 2012 due cugini da un contratto. Beneficiario si trova di fronte alla Chiesa di Scientology. Un collaboratore ha genitori uccisi dal monossido di carbonio. Un altro collaboratore, cugino di primo, gli hanno ucciso il figlio nel febbraio 2012 in Francia. In strada Laurana, hanno ucciso una famiglia di ecuadoriani alle 3:30. Melissa Bassi uccisa il 2012/05/20, 16 anni, con bomba di 3 cilindri di gas. 2012/07/13 ore 8, ucciso mio padre. Petrache Baetel. Villa 13 Alley Grivitei. Romania RomaN. Mio cugino ucciso in un #39;esplosione di gas cilindro. Marcel Pastore. 2012/08/08. Figlio di Maria Pastore. In Austria Wien, un collega di lavoro di mio fratello, stato ucciso schiacciato da un camion, dopo due giorni dal suo ritorno dal funerale. Minacce di morte contro di me, uccidendo quelli intorno a me. QQQ: Antivirus firewall antimafia666 http://www.facebook.com Accomplices at wars and prisons intellectual in the last 7000 years: god snake eagle allah 666, mafia pineal gland, stupidity, secrecy, censorship, lies, robbery profit social, demographic, lamb, eagle, sheep, snake, pharaoh, moses, maomet, cristo, maria, death, gods ...

By: itro0000

Here is the original post:
Who has the right to kill lie cheat steal censorship threatens blackmail - Video

Unnecessary Censorship in Smite part 2.
Twitter - @n0r3st Facebook - on.fb.me

By: n0r3st

See the article here:
Unnecessary Censorship in Smite part 2. - Video

Facebook Censorship pt 2
just another day where they try to censor my posts... if this is happening to you please post a video of it or comment... peace

By: Devastation0725

Visit link:
Facebook Censorship pt 2 - Video

Tomorrow in the House of Lords, ministers will try to excise from the Defamation Bill wrecking amendments inserted by peers who are determined to impose on newspapers a draconian version of Lord Justice Levesons proposals for press regulation. If they fail to expunge the amendments, the revised Bill will create in the UK a version of prior restraint censorship before publication that has not existed in this country for 300 years and that is explicitly outlawed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Not satisfied with prior-restraint alone, the wreckers also wish to punish newspapers that do not submit to state-sanctioned regulation by obliging them to pay exemplary damages if defeated in actions for libel or invasion of privacy. Like Sir Brian Leveson, they attach too little weight to the possibility that this might breach Article 10 of the ECHR.

Such restrictions of liberty might please victims of tabloid misbehaviour, such as Max Mosley and Hugh Grant, but it would give the Government no choice but to kill the Bill. This would be regrettable, because it is valuable. Its originator, Lord Lester, an eminent human-rights lawyer, describes it as a charter not for the press but for the public. In fact it is valuable to both groups, which is why it has the support of newspapers and campaigners who wish to open the libel courts to less affluent litigants.

Supporters of the contested clauses claim noble purpose. But, by attempting to hijack Lord Lesters work as a vehicle for state-sanctioned regulation, they have shown that, for them, ends justify means. Their actions reveal something more significant, too. Throughout the phone-hacking scandal, the Leveson Inquiry and the controversy spawned by the Leveson Report, supporters of state-sanctioned newspaper regulation have promoted the idea that they are virtuous servants of the public interest. Their abuse of the Defamation Bill has revealed a less wholesome reality.

The Hacked Off campaign and its supporters should take note: the antics in the Lords have revealed the presence in Parliament of opinions it suits them to pretend do not exist.

Vulnerable to the accusation that a press law, once enacted, might be strengthened rapidly, they say limited statutory backing for a new system of regulation would not be extended to impose tougher controls. They accuse Levesons opponents of imagining the slippery slope down which we believe Britains press laws would slide if his proposals were implemented. The use made of the Defamation Bill by Leveson-supporting peers, such as Lord Puttnam and Baroness Boothroyd, has exposed such views as misguided.

I hope this useful and progressive Bill can be rescued and enacted with the support of both Houses. But whether it lives or dies, it has already performed service to the causes of liberal democracy and press freedom. Britain needs self-regulating newspapers untrammelled by a statutory backstop because there are already in Parliament men and women who believe they are entitled to impose upon others their values and their ideology.

To believe that such well-intentioned meddlers will become less bold in future is wishful thinking. They exist and have made it plain that they could exploit a minimalist piece of legislation to neuter newspapers entirely. We have been warned. Any press regulator supervised or empowered by legislation would give politicians a tool to extend control over the press. Some of them have now shown us how willing they would be to use it.

They would not call it censorship. They would believe they were acting in the public interest. If they shared any of the hubris shown by the peers who amended the Defamation Bill, they might sincerely believe it. Those who consider press freedom and liberty inseparable should not trust them. They need only win once. If we are to preserve liberties that have endured for centuries and made this country a beacon of democracy, we must win every time.

The writer is professor of journalism at the University of Kent and author of the pamphlet Responsibility without Power: Lord Justice Levesons constitutional dilemma

Continued here:
Read between the lines: this is press censorship

Freedom to Read Week begins on Feb. 24, bringing with it the perfect opportunity to kick the tires of democracy and make sure the old jalopys still running as she should.

Whats that you say? The bumper fell off when you touched it? The engine wont turn over? Thats not so good. Better look under the hood.

We like to think of censorship as something that happens over there, in the faraway places where men break into houses at night to smash computers, or arrive in classrooms to remove books they dont like. Not in lovely, calm, respectful Canada. Here we dont necessarily notice freedoms being eroded slowly, grain by grain, like sands through the hourglass, if youll allow me to quote from Days of Our Lives.

Just ask Canadas government scientists. Oh wait, you cant ask them, because theyve got duct tape over their mouths (metaphorical duct tape, but hey its still painful). This week the University of Victorias Environmental Law Clinic and Democracy Watch asked federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault to investigate claims that scientists are being prohibited from speaking freely with journalists and through them, the public.

In a report called Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy, the UVic researchers present some chilling findings: Scientists are either told not to speak to journalists or to spout a chewed-over party line, rubber-stamped by their PR masters; the restrictions are particularly tight when a journalist is seeking information about research relating to climate change or the tar sands; Environment Canada scientists require approval from the Privy Council Office before speaking publicly on sensitive topics such as climate change or protection of polar bear and caribou.

You wouldnt want the average citizen to learn too much about caribou, now. Who knows how crazy he could get with that kind of information? It could lead to panel discussions about Arctic hares, town halls on ptarmigans. The report states that government scientists are frustrated, which is hardly surprising. Its like hiring Sandy Koufax and never letting him pitch.

The other thing that the report makes clear is how deliberate this strategy is: The federal government has recently made concerted efforts to prevent the media and through them, the general public from speaking to government scientists, and this, in turn, impoverishes the public debate on issues of significant national concern.

This is not an issue thats going away. The Harper governments heavy-handed control of scientists research has raised concerns across the world for a few years, including condemnation from such bastions of Marxism as Nature magazine.

A couple thousand scientists from across the country marched on Parliament Hill last July to protest cuts in research (many in the highly sensitive area of environment and climate change) and restrictions on their ability to speak freely about their work. They created what might be the best chant in the history of political protest: What do we want? Science! When do we want it? After peer review!

Last week, Margaret Munro of Postmedia News reported that a University of Delaware scientist was up in arms over a new confidentiality agreement brought in by Canadas Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Im not signing it, Andreas Muenchow told the reporter. What does this mean for bilateral co-operation on research? Nothing good, thats for sure.

See more here:
Censorship is alive and well in Canada – just ask government scientists

China's censorship of the micro-blog account of Frank Hsieh, a prominent Taiwanese politician, leads to mainland soul searching.

Within twenty-four hours of registration, Sina Weibo (China's equivalent of Twitter) deleted the micro-blog account of Frank Hsieh, former premier of Taiwan's pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Ironically, Hsieh's last tweet before he lost the ability to post on Weibo was this: "Whether or not there is freedom of speech does not depend on how freely you speak when you criticize high officials or people in power, but whether you lose your freedom after you speak."

Hsieh's post prompted an interesting response from mainlandChinese netizens: they criticized the Chinese government for infringing on freedom of speech, expressing concerns that such a display of intolerance would antagonize Taiwanese people and diminish prospects for cross-straits reunification.

Yet some Taiwanese officials, in turn, have used this incident to highlight the incompatibility between Taiwan and the mainland, and toemphasizethe need for Taiwanese independence. In a television interview broadcast by Taiwan's United Daily News Group, Su Tseng-chang, current chairman of the DPP (and who lost the 2012 DPP presidential nomination to Frank Hsieh) stated: "From this incident, you can see how precious and praiseworthy a free, democratic, and open Taiwan is, and what differences exist between Taiwan and China. Taiwanese people must treasure their own land and country. We must not have false hopes toward China."

In the same interview, Hsieh stated that he created the Weibo account in an effort to better understand the Chinese public and to share his own thoughts and experiences with them. When asked why his account was deleted, he replied, "I don't know." He then added jokingly, "Maybe there were some 'hackers.'"

Some Taiwanese netizens echoed Su's view, openly displaying their contempt for China. In response to a China Times article reporting on this topic, Web user @ commented, "The two places' basic values have so many differences--how can we ever talk about reunification?" Another user @ wrote, "If Taiwan falls into the hands of the Communist party, Taiwanese people will be like Li Houzhu (renounced poet and the final Southern Tang ruler)--we will wash our faces with tears every day, then drink ourselves to death."

Still others rebuked Frank Hsieh, accusing him of trying to curry favor with the Chinese people. In response to an article written by Taiwan's Central News Agency (CNA), Web user @ commented, "The party that shouts 'Taiwan Independence' every day goes and sets up a Weibo account -- gaining popularity by selling Taiwan and seeking shelter from the Mainland?" Another user called @hungyk5 wrote, "Hsieh tried so hard to gather 'fans' by washing his Weibo account with sensational comments, but he went too far...as a result his account got blocked. It serves him right!"

A few Taiwanese traditionalists seized this opportunity to call for the unification of Mainland and Taiwan -- under the Republic of China's rule. User @9527 commented on the same CNA article, "Fellow Mainland brothers -- rise and revolt for your freedom of speech, throw yourself into to the arms of the legitimate, free, democratic Republic of China."

In Taiwan, opinions toward the cross-strait relationship split not only between DDP and the pro-reunification Kuomintang (KMT), its competitor, but also within the DDP itself. Last October, when Frank Hsieh privately visited top government officials in Beijing , some DDP members praised Hsieh's efforts to improve the party's ties with Beijing, while others maintained that Hsieh's political views and actions do not necessarily represent those of the entire party. As DDP's chairman Su Tseng-chang acknowledged, "The DPP's position [on its China policy] remains unchanged despite there being different opinions in the party."

The belligerent and divergent reactions toward the news of Hsieh's day-long Weibo career show that more than 60 years after the 1949 Civil War, the question of cross-strait relationship -- and reunification -- remain controversial as before.

Go here to read the rest:
In Face of Mainland Censorship, Taiwanese Revisit Reunification Question

China's top media regulator will expand pre-broadcast censorship to cover television documentaries, in an apparent boost to an already formidable control apparatus, a newspaper said on Friday.

China's State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) told TV stations and producers that all documentaries would have to be approved in advance of being shown, the Beijing Morning Post reported.

The notice would bring censorship of TV documentaries into line with requirements on non-fiction films, it said.

A notice posted on SARFT's website on Monday said that TV production companies including joint Chinese-foreign co-productions should report documentary topics in advance.

The notice did not detail topics which would be censored, but said the move would "promote the healthy development of television documentaries".

Previous censorship guidelines released by SARFT have outlawed films which "distort" China's history, or contain "murder, violence, horror, evil spirits and devils and excessively terrifying scenes".

A range of political topics are also blocked by censors, from allegations of high-level corruption to calls for multiparty democracy and works challenging state-approved narratives of historical events.

China is home to a vibrant community of independent documentary makers who bypass officialdom and screen their work at independent film festivals, in bars and at universities, post them online or distribute them on copied DVDs.

People watch the London Olympics at a fast food restaurant in Beijing last August. China's top media regulator will expand pre-broadcast censorship to cover television documentaries, in an apparent boost to an already formidable control apparatus, a newspaper said on Friday.

Continue reading here:
China 'tightens documentary censorship'