GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING: Internet censorship

Showing posts with label Internet censorship. Show all posts

Monday, July 29, 2013

UK Internet Porn Censor to Also Block Conspiracy Theories

Big Brother Weds the Nanny Who's Pregnant with Internet Censorship.

Here is the real problem with the Internet
Dees Illustration

Eric Blair

The totalitarian tip-toe is tap dancing to tyranny with the proposed Internet censorship bill in the United Kingdom. In the name of keeping children safe from porn, the UK law will impose Internet filters on far more than just porn.

According to Wired:

As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course.

The definition of "esoteric" makes clear that censorship of broad topics is the goal of this so-called ISP filter:

N.C. Paleo-Diet Blogger Wins a Round in Federal Court

Sara Burrows

The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals June 27 reversed a trial judge’s decision to dismiss Charlotte-area “paleo diet” blogger Steve Cooksey’s free speech case.

In October, a U.S. District Court judge in Charlotte threw out Cooksey’s lawsuit, which claimed the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition had violated his freedom of speech by censoring his blog about his Paleolithic or “caveman” diet.

The board went through 19 pages of Cooksey’s website with a red pen, marking out what he could and couldn’t say about his diet. Specifically, the board’s director told Cooksey he could not give any individualized or group-specific dietary advice legally unless he had a license issued by the state. In his case, he was not allowed to tell diabetics what they should and should not eat.

The board then asked him to change and remove portions of his website and made it clear he could face fines and jail time if he did not comply.

DoD Blocks Millions of Computers From Viewing Alternative News

Eric Blair

After the initial surge of web traffic to alternative news websites following The Guardian breaking the NSA spying story, traffic has slowed considerably despite the continued interest in the NSA story as well as other alternative headlines.

This dramatic drop in traffic may be due to broad censorship by the Department of Defense on "millions of computers".

What began as a rumor that the military brass was ordering soldiers not to view news about the whistleblower revelations that the NSA is spying on all Americans has swelled into a confirmed military-wide censorship campaign using a high-tech computer filtering system.

The US News and World Report is reporting that the DoD is blocking access to all articles related to the NSA scandal from all DoD computers. The filter reportedly effects millions of computers and potentially thousands of alternative news websites.

Facebook Censoring Some Alternative News Sites While Allowing Hackers To Attack Others

Alexander Higgins
The Intel Hub

Facebook now appears to be censoring some alternative news sites while allowing hackers to go after others. It is no wonder they lost 6 Million users in the US last month.

I recently talked to Alex Thomas from The Intel Hub who was listed as an honorable mention in the top 10 most influential people in alternative media list published by Activist Post.

I am frequently a guest contributor on the site and during our conversation he told me that Facebook is starting to ban articles from the site. At that point I figured most likely his account was flagged and left it at that.

Lo and behold, top item in Reddit’s conspiracy section right now is this.

Facebook Not Allowing Users To Share Articles From The Intel Hub

So it is not just Alex’s account that has been banned but other users are also being censored from sharing Intel Hub articles.

Read the full article and learn about how Alexander Higgins' site was hacked

Saturday, June 11, 2011

US government to set up internet Ministry of Truth as communist-style government-run media

Draconian Anti-Piracy Censorship Bill Passes Senate Committee

TorrentFreak

The controversial PROTECT IP Act unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today. When the PROTECT IP Act becomes law U.S. authorities and copyright holders will have the power to seize domains, block websites and censor search engines to prevent copyright infringements. Introduced just two weeks ago, the bill now heads over to the Senate for further consideration and another vote.

The U.S. Government continues to back legislation that opens the door to unprecedented Internet censorship.

Two weeks ago a group of U.S. senators proposed legislation to make it easier to crack down on so-called rogue websites, and today the Senate’s Judicial Committee unanimously approved the bill.

Governments Order YouTube To Censor Protest Videos

Senate bill makes illegal Internet streaming a felony

Cyber security AFP File image

Eric W. Dolan
Raw Story

Those who illegally stream live video or audio over the Internet could face up to five years in prison under legislation recently introduced to the U.S. Senate.

Ars Technica reported that Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) proposed a bill last week that would make “illegal streaming” of copyrighted content a felony.

Under current law, copyright infringement already carries felony penalties, but questions have been raised about whether broadcasting audio or video live over the Internet could be considered the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.

Streaming content has been considered a “public performance” rather than “distribution.”

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Friday, April 1, 2011

YouTube Accused of Censoring Controversial Content (with Video)

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Activist Post

Many of us believe the Internet to be open and free for us to explore all known information. Indeed, it is true that we currently can surf to any active website with our browser, and we can start a website or blog on any topic we wish to discuss. And it is quite a profound concept that everyone with a smart phone literally has all of the world's knowledge in the palm of their hand.

Ben Franklin knew well the importance of free access to information when he founded the first public library in America to share knowledge with those without the means to their own books. Today, he surely would consider the Internet's unprecedented access to information, and ability to communicate it instantly, as the ultimate level playing field of economic mobility and freedom.

However, this access is now under threat of authoritarian control. First, it is important to note that the gears of the Internet have always been controlled by central authorities, as Douglas Rushkoff recently wrote, "From its Domain Name Servers to its IP addresses, the Internet depends on highly centralized mechanisms to send our packets from one place to another."

Therefore, the idea that our movements on the Web are even remotely private or untraceable is false. The central "authorities" who control the gears of the machine know exactly where you have been, while Google and the CIA have even developed ways of knowing where you're going next as well. It's very creepy to know that our every move is being tracked, traced, and databased, but it has been happening from day one on the Internet, and will likely continue to happen despite the violation of basic rights to our privacy.

Because Internet privacy has never been possible in the current web infrastructure, any proposed "privacy law" would just seem to pay lip service to the idea if it doesn't address decentralizing the control grid. As Rushkoff pointed out, "I'm not trying to be a downer here, or knock the possibilities for networking. I just want to smash the fiction that the Internet is some sort of uncontrollable, decentralized free-for-all, so that we can get on with the business of creating something else that is."

The focus here will be on the multitude of threats to our free access to the current Internet. As Ben Franklin understood, information should be free and open to all, not just the select few. Although the books in Franklin's first library were indeed copyrighted material, they were freely shared. We should think of the Internet as a gigantic open-source public library. A place where information such as news, books, movies, and music should be free to view while we're visiting the library.

Unfortunately, those who have control over the grid and influence over policymakers do not view the Internet in the same light. It appears that they view it as an economic and propaganda playground -- the last one that they don't fully control. Well, given the blight of proposed Internet control laws and web censorship tactics, it seems there is a calculated effort to control the free flow of information.

Below are 6 threats to our free and open access to the World Wide Web:

Legislation: The Protecting Cybersecurity as a National Asset Act, aka the "Internet Kill Switch" bill, has recently been reintroduced with a new Orwellian name, the Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act. This bill would give government the unchecked power to restrict access to the Internet if they declare a "national cyberemergency." CNET recently reported:

But the revised wording (PDF) continues to alarm civil liberties groups and other critics of the bill, who say the language would allow the government to shut down portions of the Internet or restrict access to certain Web sites or types of content. Even former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak didn't actually "shut down" the Internet: at least at first, a trickle of connections continued.

The second piece of legislation that's being reintroduced this year is the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). This bill, clearly written by the mega-media entertainment cartel, would empower the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down, or block access to, websites found to be illegally sharing copyrighted material. It gives the government the authority to force Internet Service Providers to block access to websites from certain IP addresses, much like how the U.S. recently blocked the Al Jazeera feed during the Egyptian protests. COICA has also been referred to as the "Blacklist" bill because it allows the government to blacklist or seize any domain name suspected of infringement -- even if located outside the United States.

DHS Seizures: Who needs there to be laws on the books when the Department of Homeland Security appears to already be above the law. DHS has been on a rampage of arbitrarily seizing websites without due process. In November 2010, they seized over 70 websites suspected of copyright infringement. Just before the Super Bowl, DHS seized another lot of domains for illegally share-streaming sporting events -- some merely for linking to copyrighted material. Most recently, DHS erroneously seized 84,000 domains accused of being affiliated with child porn in some way which the DHS later admitted was done by accident.

Clearly, DHS has displayed its technical ability to censor the Internet by removing these websites. And although the domain seizures were technically accompanied by a court order, it seems that the DHS has partnered with large media outlets and sports entertainment to protect their profits. Finally, these court orders are a guilty-until-proven-innocent ruling which can irrevocably damage small businesses and the livelihoods of many people whose path to justice remains unclear.

Civil Lawsuits: Again who needs laws when you can be frivolously sued in civil court over copyright issues and bullied into settling the claim. Copyright infringement trolls like Righthaven are suing blogs and sites, and despite the only court ruling to date being a dismissal of charges due to Fair Use rights, they are still forcing many settlements. In fact, even Internet giant Drudge Report was forced to settle a civil suit involving a copyrighted image and link.

According to Steve Green, who's been diligently covering these lawsuits for the Las Vegas Sun, claims they are a new type of legal enterprise:

Attorneys say the Righthaven lawsuits are unprecedented in recent memory because, in the past, newspapers dealt with online copyright infringement by simply asking infringing websites to remove the infringing material and to replace it with a link to the source newspaper. Most Righthaven defendants say they were sued without warning.

Not surprisingly, most of the cases are settled out of court. However, this tactic is a very effective intimidation tool against small websites who seek to share information. In some cases the costs and aggravation of combating the lawsuit can force the closure of these website defendants.

Net Neutrality: It would seem that net neutrality should fall under the legislative category. However, it is actually considered more of a "market based" regulation than actual law, yet the taxpayer still funds its enforcement through the FCC. Before identifying the reasoning behind and specific aspects of net neutrality rules, it's worth noting that Internet futurist, Douglas Roshkoff, views the details as irrelevant because:

The moment the 'net neutrality' debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network -- its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation -- is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them -- that network loses its power to effect change. (source)

The concept behind net neutrality is just what it says; to keep Internet access neutral for all users. But again, it is a very Orwellian term where true supporters of a free an open Internet can be tricked into supporting so-called neutrality rules. Blogger Timothy Karr wrote, "The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users."

What they are, in fact, are rules to allow service providers to charge tiered price levels depending on the amount of broadband used by individual web-surfers or websites. In other words, certain access will be discriminated against through reduced access speeds or additional fees. Besides limiting size of the surfer's information wave, this tiered approach to the Internet will likely make it very difficult for smaller websites to compete with the big boys who can afford to pay ISPs for unadulterated access.

Technical Censorship: Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Wikipedia have become the most powerful information sharing tools the world has ever known. Combined, these five websites could literally rewrite history or shape the entire flow of current information if they chose to do so. Indeed, each of these virtual libraries has been repeatedly accused of censorship in many various forms; from blatant removal of content to manipulating the searchable strength of disapproved content.

Google, who seems so powerful that they may actually run the world, recently revealed that they are tweaking their search algorithm to weaken the search engine ranking of information aggregating websites referred to as "content farms." It seems that Google seeks to reduce websites with little original content to the level of spammer status in their search results. What's more, Google can wield the power of their Google Page Ranking for individual sites. Their constantly changing algorithm may actually penalize websites for search engine optimization, as with the recent case of JC Penney losing business due to Google penalizing them for SEO.

Taxes: If Congress or local governments elect to tax websites, the level playing field on the Internet is finished. In May 2010, the Federal Trade Commission proposed the "Drudge Tax" which would seek to tax news aggregators as if they are brick and mortar media companies. The FTC report also suggested that news aggregators be forced to pay copyright fees to link to mainstream news sources. And in perfect wealth distribution fashion the report also discusses the "possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations."

More recently, some states have proposed taxing online retailers such as Amazon, arguing that it's not fair for local retailers who must pay taxes for selling the exact same items. In the past,Amazon has terminated its contracts with third-party affiliates in states who have adopted online tax laws. California Congressman, Dan Lungren, introduced the resolution Supporting the Preservation of Internet Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses aimed at preventing states from impose these new taxes on online retailers.

What's more, some states and even municipalities are beginning to impose a blogger fee referred to as a "privilege license" as a sort of business license for blogs. Philadelphia has forced bloggersto pay a $50/year, or $300 lifetime, fee for the privilege of expressing ideas online.

Conclusion
It seems clear that the powers-that-be are engaged in an all-out assault the free flow of information on the Internet. Blogs and websites must be prepared to combat the coming onslaught of news laws, regulations, and fees. For those who believe information should be free for all who pay for Internet access, we must fight to maintain this liberty. Stay tuned to the new blog Sites & Blogs for breaking Internet news and legal commentary about online copyright and privacy rights.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Copyright Extortionist Righthaven Sues Drudge: Backed by CFR, Rockefeller, and Monsanto Money

Drudge Facing Copyright Lawsuit over this image and link
Image: Denver Post (gotta cover our ass too)

Eric Blair
Activist Post

Shady Las Vegas copyright infringement company, Righthaven LLC, seems to be a small-time legal firm using a canned lawsuit to slap down bloggers for copyright infringement for meager settlements. But now they are going after alternative news kingpin and globalist critic Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report.

Righthaven claims that Drudge knowingly misused a Denver Post copyrighted photo of a TSA agent groping the crotch of a male traveler, along with a link to a story about airport security on the Las Vegas Review-Journal website. Righthaven is seeking copyright infringement damages of $150,000 and forfeiture of his domain name.

Drudge Report was instrumental in inciting the recent TSA revolt by repeatedly posting stories that exposed rights abuses by Big Brother, or "Big Sis" when referring to DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano. It seems, this time, Drudge went too far by posting the obvious headline to the groping photo; TSA XXX: Airport Wants 'Opt Out.'

According to the Las Vegas Sun, a newspaper competitor of Las Vegas Review-Journal, these lawsuits are a new type of legal enterprise:

The Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner, Las Vegas company Righthaven LLC, has sued 98 North American websites and blogsites in federal court in Las Vegas since March -- typically demanding $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names.

Attorneys say the Righthaven lawsuits are unprecedented in recent memory because, in the past, newspapers dealt with online copyright infringement by simply asking infringing websites to remove the infringing material and to replace it with a link to the source newspaper. Most Righthaven defendants say they were sued without warning and without anyone from the Review-Journal informing them there was a concern with their use of Review-Journal material.

None of Righthaven's lawsuits have had a judge rule on their validity although several cases are pending. Instead, their practice appears to be a business scheme to make the defendants settle out of court:

Twenty-two of the suits have been settled and closed under generally undisclosed terms, though court filings revealed two defendants paid $2,185 and $5,000, respectively, to close their cases. The settling defendants haven't had to forfeit their website domain names (Las Vegas Sun).

These settlements hardly appear to be worth the trouble, especially considering it cost them around $1,500 for each lawsuit and they've gone after blogs with as little as 20 hits a day leading one defendant to call it extortion:

'It’s legal extortion,' said Mostofi, who fears he may be forced to pay a cash settlement to avoid the expense of a court fight. 'They’re going after small bloggers who can’t afford representation.'

Media watchdogs are monitoring the lawsuits closely to see if a judge will ultimately rule in one of these cases, thus setting a precedent that will surely send shock waves to independent news blogs. This golden precedent may be the actual goal of Righthaven's enterprise. A closer look at the company reveals some very close ties to the most nefarious globalists.

According to RighthavenLawsuits.com (which is not affiliated with Righthaven LLC):

Righthaven LLC is owned 50/50 by two limited liability companies. The first is Net Sortie Systems, LLC, which is owned by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson – the Nevada attorney who is behind all of the lawsuits filed by Righthaven. The second is SI Content Monitor LLC, which is owned by family members of investment banking billionaire Warren Stephens whose investments include Stephens Media LLC which owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The billionaire Warren Stephens made his money as an off-Wall Street banker whose clients include some very powerful elitist organizations:

The firm, a closely held family enterprise which doesn’t have to make its investments public, touts itself as the largest brokerage off Wall Street. Now run by Warren Stephens, the firm’s list of clients includes the Waltons, Tyson Foods, Monsanto and whatever interests David Rockefeller (Council for the Americas, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.) might have. Stephens Inc. is proud to be off-Wall Street, but they do deals with Goldman Sachs and Lazard Freres on a regular basis.

Matt Drudge has always proven to be a thorn in the Left side of politics, but as of late he has also taken on the globalists. Intriguingly, the most notable and quotable of said globalists are all listed as Mr. Stephens' primary clients. Because of his success and readership power, Drudge also has been the target of proposed website taxes, appropriately dubbed the "Drudge tax."

At first glance it would seem that Drudge would crush this puny ambulance-chasing law business, yet when these globalists are lurking in the nearby shadows, you can bet these copyright infringement cases have an ulterior motive of silencing their critics. This is nothing more than a blatant tactic to squelch free speech in the Internet's swelling "infowar."

Given the damage that "Anonymous" hacktivists have done to major corporate websites over freedom of speech violations, the list of newspapers who are Righthaven's current clients here, here, and here may need to boost their Internet security.

(Keep tabs on journalist Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun who has been covering Righthaven from the beginning.)

RECENTLY by Eric Blair:
Wikileaks Being Used to Justify 'Patriot Act' Legislation for Internet
Endgame Legislation: Lame Duck Session Ushers in Tyranny

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Translate

GPA Store: Featured Products

Monday, July 29, 2013

UK Internet Porn Censor to Also Block Conspiracy Theories

Tuesday, July 2, 2013