Worse Than China? U.S. Government Wants To Censor Search Engines And Browsers

ACTION ALERT: Tell Congress to Kill COICA 2.0, the Internet Censorship Bill

Demand Progress

We knew that members of Congress and their business allies were gearing up to pass a revised Internet Blacklist Bill -- which more than 325,000 Demand Progress members helped block last winter -- but we never expected it to be this atrocious.  Last year's bill has been renamed the "PROTECT IP" Act and it is far worse than its predecessor.  A summary of it is posted below.

Senators Leahy and Hatch pretended to weigh free speech concerns as they revised the bill.  Instead, the new legislation would institute a China-like censorship regime in the United States, whereby the Department of Justice could force search engines, browsers, and service providers to block users' access to websites, and scrub the American Internet clean of any trace of their existence.

Furthermore, it wouldn't just be the Attorney General who could add sites to the blacklist, but the new bill would allow any copyright holder to get sites blacklisted -- sure to result in an explosion of dubious and confused orders.

Will you urge Congress to oppose the PROTECT IP Act?  Just add your name at right.

PETITION TO CONGRESS:  The PROTECT IP Act demonstrates an astounding lack of respect for Internet freedom and free speech rights.  I urge you to oppose it.

Click HERE to read summary of the bill and sign petition

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US lawmakers to push for online piracy bill

"Blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system" is a "reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech," it (EFF) said.

Senator Patrick Leahy
© AFP/File Mandel Ngan

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic and Republican members of the US Congress pledged Monday to pass legislation that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites engaged in piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of counterfeit goods.

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would introduce a new version "soon" of a bill designed to combat so-called "rogue websites."

A previous bill co-sponsored by Leahy, called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 19-0 vote in November, but never made it to the Senate floor.

Supporters of DHS Domain Name Seizures Undervalue Important Constitutional Protections

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

This site has been generally critical of recent United States policy toward copyright issues.  We have expressed discomfort with the Obama Administration's statements in support of Internet freedom, which seem to clash with a proposal to wiretap suspected infringers and the introduction of COICA legislation.

The most troubling issue has undoubtedly been the series of Government domain name seizures, through which the DHS takes the domain names of accused infringers without first giving the accused a chance to defend their site at a hearing.

Although we question the Constitutionality of the seizures, these issues deserve a vigorous debate that presents the well-reasoned arguments of all sides, including those that are convinced that the Government seizures are right and legal.  Unfortunately, last week, Terry Hart of Copyhype, who has been a vocal defender of the domain name seizures, chose to go beyond that defense to question the motives of the critics of the domain name seizures such as SitesAndBlogs.com and Techdirt.comand attempted to dismiss the importance of the Constitutional issues we have raised.

Obama Proposes Harsh New Copyright Laws for Internet

Do Obama's Proposed New Copyright Laws Go Too Far? (Part I)

Obama Administration IP Czar Victoria Espinel

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

On Tuesday, the White House's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, provided Congress with a White Paper (available for download here), outlining a series of the Obama Administration's recommended legislative changes to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.  Significantly, the recommendations include making it a felony offense to stream infringing content and giving Federal agencies wiretapping authority to obtain evidence of criminal copyright and trademark offenses.

5 Ways DHS Violates the Constitution with Website Domain Seizures

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

US cites Baidu, PirateBay, others in copyright piracy

Baidu is the 6th most trafficked website in the world
© AFP/File Simon Lim

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Monday named leading Chinese search engine Baidu and Swedish torrent download site Pirate Bay in a list of the world's top online and physical markets for pirated and counterfeit goods.

The US Trade Representative said the two websites, a host of others and more than 20 physical markets, like the widely known Silk Market in Beijing and Panthip Plaza in Bangkok, as "notorious" centers openly selling or enabling the sale of counterfeit or pirated goods, from software to industrial products to live sports television broadcasts.

While no action was threatened in the USTR's first global "Review of Notorious Markets", it said the markets were targets for copyright enforcement efforts and could be included in individual country reports on enforcement efforts.


"The United States urges the responsible authorities to intensify efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting in these and similar markets," it said.

While the markets named spanned from physical sites in South America to Southeast Asia and Internet sites in a number of countries, Chinese offenders were the most numerous on the list.

It said that Baidu, the sixth most trafficked Internet website in the world, and the leader in China, according to web surveyor Alexa Internet, was enabling piracy with "deep linking" searches.

Such searches, for instance, could take a user directly to a page for a pirated download rather than to the website's home page.

Also named were business-to-business site Taobao, sports telecast rebroadcaster TV Ants, smartphone applications host 91.com; physical markets in Yiwu, Shenzhen and Beijing; and popular computer markets like Hailong PC Mall in Beijing and Shanghai's Yangpu Yigao Digital Square.

The USTR said that Taobao had moved to curb pirated and copyright-infringing goods on its site, but "it still has a long way to go in order to resolve those problems."

A slew of BitTorrent sites -- which permit speedy downloads of large files like music, videos and books -- were named, including The Pirate Bay, IsoHunt of Canada, Russia-based Rutracker, Demenoid of the Ukraine, and Publicbt.

Russia-based social network site Vkontakte was cited for permitting users "to provide access to allegedly infringing materials."

The list of physical markets included sites in Mexico City, Buenos Aires, New Delhi, Kiev, Jakarta, Hong Kong and Manila.

It said the entire economy of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay "is based in part on the trafficking of counterfeit and infringed goods, with a particular emphasis on electronic goods.

"This activity spills over into the entire Tri-Border Region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, creating a hotbed of piracy and counterfeiting."

RELATED ARTICLE:
6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

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

BREAKING: WikiLeaks Being Used to Justify "Patriot Act" Legislation For Internet

Eric Blair
Activist Post

Senator Mitch McConnell called Assange a "high-tech terrorist" on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday and said, "if it‘s found that Assange hasn’t violated the law, then the law should be changed."

Over the weekend, an insightful article by Zen Gardner exposed how WikiLeaks resembles an establishment creation. The article correctly pointed out that the WikiLeaks storyline was conforming nicely to the elite's problem-reaction-solution method, with the solution of more tyranny for our safety.

WikiLeaks is being used to bring in the agenda on so many levels, but most importantly by setting the precedent of shutting down websites for politically "dangerous" content. Gardner writes:

After all, if information is now the enemy, we must carefully police any and every aspect of this dangerous medium -- all for the safety and protection of 'we the people.'

Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the 'approved' list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get 'on the net.'  No biggie. Thanks Julian -- job well done.

 First, let's be clear, the 250,000 pages of cables amounted to some geopolitical Jerry Springer he-said-she-said nonsense to make countries look petty and stupid.  They revealed nothing new that wasn't already known or well suspected.  The information simply stoked existing flames by airing geopolitical dirty laundry, nothing more -- no secret weapons, no major arms deals, no tactical locations of troops, and no revealing the ID of secret agents, etc.

Yet, the government has used its corporate muscle to illegally limit access to WikiLeaks.  It was recently revealed that Amazon, the server host for WikiLeaks, caved to political pressure to drop the website.  Then, in dictatorial fashion, PayPal removed its service for donations to WikiLeaks, and now their bank account has been frozen.  And all this comes a week after the shutdown of 80-plus websites for "copyright infringement," apparently in preparation for passing the "Blacklist" bill.

Now, Gardner's weekend speculation and McConnell's call for action has turned into political reality. The Hill reports today that Senators unveil anti-WikiLeaks legislation, which seems to be a sort-of "Patriot Act" for the Internet.  It's astonishing how fast these guys can write legislation when major events occur. And again, it's tyranny-saurus rex, Joe Lieberman, leading the charge with scandal-ridden Ensign (R-Nev.) and empty-suit Scott Brown (R-Mass.).  Ensign was quoted:

WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.

That, we agree with.  Yet, therein lies the concern for establishing new Internet rules of what can and can't be discussed, and who qualifies as a "journalist."  Look, Assange is clearly either a kinda-smart "useful idiot" or a brilliant insider to the elite. He is certainly not a genuine whistleblower.  Admittedly, though, for those of us who hoped he was the real thing, the elite have used some savvy tactics to boost WikiLeaks' rogue credibility in order to confuse us.

The White House has sent down a warning to government agencies to restrict employee access to WikiLeaks in order to make Assange and crew appear dangerously off limits. Apparently, this warning has already trickled down to "potential" government employees as well.  It was revealed that the State Department warned Columbia University students who may apply for a Federal job:

DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. 

In other words, the Thought Police are out in full force telling job-hungry students to not apply if they discuss current events if authorities label those events dangerous or harmful to America.  Soon, they'll most likely publicly fire a mid-level employee who went over the line to prove how serious they are. After all, they desperately need to keep the slaves on the plantation.

Furthermore, an Interpol arrest warrant has been issued for Julian Assange for shady rape charges, making him an internationally "wanted" man. 

And Assange is playing the clever but likable villain part so well, too, claiming to have an encrypted "insurance" file in case anyone kills him or terminates the website.  Assange is the perfect international man of mystery with the dark shades in press conferences; endless mainstream media interviews with his exotic accent and short temper; and his famous silver-blond locks. What a great show they're putting on for us.  I'm sure the movie industry is already clamoring for the rights to the script.

In the meantime, it has become the typical political game show. Only in America could Cablegate become such a divide-and-conquer partisan issue.  The Right have successfully defined WikiLeaks as a dangerous terrorist organization and desire the assassination of its leader, while the Left defends the public's right to knowledge, but disparages the damage the documents may cause, thus setting up the obvious bipartisan compromise: tighter control and surveillance of the Internet.

It will go down like this: the Right's extreme calls for Assange's execution will give the establishment the publicly defensible compromise to at least shut down their website by way of pressuring their service providers, etc. And the wimpy Left will compromise by letting it happen, while Assange will be allowed to remain alive and free.

It fits ever so perfectly for them to extend the definition of an "enemy combatant" to a website that publishes "anti-government" material.  Enter Attorney General Eric Holder, who has authorized "significant" action into the probe of WikiLeaks.  Can't you just smell the tyranny coming to the Internet?

Ron Paul said it best in his book Revolution: A Manifesto: "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." Paul reiterated this principle of transparency in a recent interview.  Paul said we need more WikiLeaks if we expect to live in a free society:

'In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,' Paul insisted.  'In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble.'

Given the angry calls for action and today's developments of government proposals, not to mention the blight of Internet legislation already on the table, we will likely get the exact opposite of the free-flow of information that Paul is advocating.  In fact, if history is any indicator, get ready for nothing less than the Patriot Act for the Internet!

RECENTLY by Eric Blair:
Why the Tester Amendment Does NOT Help Small Farmers
Citizens of Europe Rage Against the Machine

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