Information Policy

A Victory for the Internet: SOPA Act Dropped After Mass Protest

The blockage last week of SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2012, is a tentative victory not only for net neutrality and changing definitions of intellectual property, but also an impressive display of new online organizing.

SOPA is the first of what will likely be several attempts to censor the Internet, under the logic of media's intellectual property law. Nominally, the act would have shut down offshore torrenting sites, a move which the FBI already took in part on Jan. 19, when massive file share sites Megaupload and Megavideo were shut down. Actually, the law would have the capacity to shut down or censor some of the most trafficked sites, including Facebook, Twitter and Google, as well as numerous smaller sites with much less clout and bargaining influence.

SOPA is not the last we've seen of the push to censor the Internet. As our modes of information access have shifted from newspapers and libraries to the vast universe of the web, law, especially intellectual property law, has struggled to keep up. It's no secret that record sales, newspaper sales, movie attendance and other hallmarks of our media-saturated era have plunged in recent years, and the industries have scrambled to save their bottom lines. SOPA and its ilk will not go without a fight.

The most interesting outcome, then, of the SOPA debacle is the massive backlash from the general public. Goaded in part by blackouts of popular sites such as Wikipedia and Reddit, millions of angry consumers signed petitions large and small to "save the Internet!" The sites in blackout, and even those that weren't, linked viewers to a place where they could look up their representative and send an email in protest, as well as sign a petition.

People's activist fervor, at least as exhibited through Facebook and Twitter, was overwhelming. Seasoned organizers might argue that anything done in front of a computer screen is not activism but "slacktivism"; yet behold, the architects of the bill have backed down and vowed to go back to the drawing board.

The utter criticalness of SOPA is determined by the means we had to use to protest it, indicating ever more clearly the Internet's omnipotence and almost crippling power in our lives. A censorship of the Internet would be a censorship of the people's power, through the means we in the developed world now use to express it.

The anti-SOPA petitions are a heartening harbinger of the massive quantities of fervor and activism, even via the Internet, waiting to be tapped. This was a large-scale version of the rapid-fire Change.org petitions that stunned corporations, such as Molly Katchpole's Change.org petition against Bank of America's proposed $5 fee for debit card usage. Katchpole, a 22-year-old nanny (and full disclosure, a former coworker of mine), collected 300,000 signatures through an online petition and the bank relented. Several months later, SOPA protests ignited the same kind of public fervor, just on a larger scale. Both protests indicate the ubiquity and power of online organizing, and both capture public distress at a time when banks and governments are overstepping their limits more than ever.

Attempts to legislate the Internet will not go away. The Internet is a relatively young place and as such is inevitably going to be reined in as the boundaries of authority shift with the meaning of intellectual property. Fortunately, the medium shapes the message, and the millions of signatures, calls and emails to our representatives indicate how the general online public can organize not just for net neutrality, but for anything.

http://www.smithsophian.com/opinions/a-victory-for-the-internet-sopa-act-dropped-after-mass-protest-1.2760787

ACTA activates European civil society

Online activists across Europe are protesting against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which officially aims to protect intellectual rights but which critics say violates privacy. An online petition against the international treaty attracted more than a million signatures, EurActiv's network in Central Europe reports.

Perhaps the most spectacular protest action will take place in Poland, where Palikot, a political party, said it would put a Guy Fawkes mask on the country's 33-meter high statue of Jesus Christ in western Świebodzin to protest against ACTA.

Guy Fawkes was a 16th-century English Catholic famous for having planned the Gunpowder Plot, an unsuccessful assassination attempt against King James. His mask, stylised in modern times, has become the symbol of protests groups, among which the 'Occupy' movement and the 'Anonymous' global hacker nebula.

The liberal Polish Palikot's Movement already put the Guy Fawkes mask on a statue of former US President Ronald Reagan in Warsaw on Sunday. Its leader Janusz Palikot said he would afix the mask on other statues throughout Poland, including those of pianist Frederic Chopin and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.

Members of the Palikot party already appeared with the Guy Fawkes mask in Parliament after Poland signed with 21 other EU countries the controversial ACTA agreement (see background). Critics say it will lead to intrusive surveillance and censorship.

After persistent protests, which grew stronger after Prime Minister Donald Tusk dismissed a call of the opposition for a referendum on ACTA, Polish President Bronisław Komorowski asked the country's ombudsman to clarify whether the agreement restricted civil rights.

'Bad organisation'

In the Czech Republic, hackers have attacked various websites in protest against ACTA in the past few days, including those of the government and of the Czech Association of copyright protection. At the same day, the Anonymous nebula send a threatening letter to the Czech Parliament.

However, a plan of the Anonymous nebula and the Czech Pirate Party to organise demonstrations against ACTA throughout the whole country failed because of bad organisation. Only a few dozens of people gathered in Prague, while in many other cities the planned protests did not take place at all. The public discussion was thus limited mostly to Facebook and other social media.

ACTA was strongly criticised by Czech MEP Zuzana Roithová (EPP), who said lawmakers should have focused on sanctions against piracy on the commercial scale, "not on the bullying of citizens".

Another Czech MEP, Pavel Poc (S&D), said he would "definitely not back the approval of ACTA by the Parliament". MEP Jan Březina (EPP) said there were many rumours around the treaty brought by the media and that it would be fair to bring clear and true information, for example about the issue of intrusive controls on software and hard disc memory while crossing borders.

Sitting on the fence

Slovakia, as one of the five countries that have not yet signed ACTA, still awaits an official statement from the Ministry of Economy. However, the party holding the  ministry, Freedom and Solidarity (SaS), which is responsible for the ACTA agreement, issued a statement saying that neither the party nor the ministry led by its nominee Juraj Miškov would support anything that will lead to limitation of individual freedoms.

"We have serious concerns that ACTA constraints basic human rights like the freedom of individual or the right to privacy. In case these concerns are confirmed, the SaS party will not support the approval of this agreement by the government neither the ratification in the parliament," SaS stated.

But in spite of this, on Friday the Anonymous nebula hacked the webpage of the Slovak government. 

Germany too hasn't signed ACTA yet, due to formal procedures but it was announced that the country would do so as soon as possible. The federal government had decided to sign ACTA on 30 November 2011 and looks forward to finalize the ACTA ratification procedure this year, Spiegel Online reported.

Nevertheless German internet activists have started to mobilise against ACTA. Germany's Pirate Party, a political movement dedicated to Internet freedoms, called via twitter to organize 'Stop ACTA' manifestations in several German cities on Saturday, 11 February.

Second thoughts

In Romania, a country rocked by anti-government protests for three weeks, the government appeared to regret the fact that it had given instructions to its ambassador in Tokyo to sign the ACTA treaty.

Prime Minister Emil Boc said on Saturday that for the moment, he did not had any information on the circumstances in which Romania had adopted the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the Romania TV Realitatea informs. Victor Ponta, leader of the biggest opposition party PSD, asked the government to publicly explain why it had signed ACTA on behalf of Romania without a prior public debate. Ponta wrote in his Facebook account that when it goes to power, the opposition coalition USL would suspend the enforcement of the ACTA until a dialogue with the civil society takes place.

The Anonymous nebula addressed messages to Romanians, warning that ACTA would limit the freedom of expression and would be a first step towards "dictatorship on the internet".

In Bulgaria too, the opposition, both from centre-left and centre-right, took firm positions against ACTA, while a wave of protests against the deal is mushrooming in social media.  Faced with the situation, the minister of economy Traicho Traykov said that his country had signed the treaty with "disappearing ink". He admitted that the country had instructed its ambassador to sign the deal, but was quick to add that without ratification by Parliament "it's like there is no signature".

"I commit that there will be debates, round tables on the issue," Traykov said.

Petition reaches 1 million signatures

In the meantime, it was announced that an online petition, launched on Avaz.org website, has reached over 1.400.000 million signatures. The petition appeared  on 25 January, just one day before the 22 EU countries signed ACTA in Tokyo.

The petition, which will be delivered to legislators in Brussels, reiterated protesters' claims that Acta would grant corporations and governments the ability to censor the internet.

Positions: 

Asked by EurActiv for the latest update on the situation, the European Commission said on 1 February that after 22 member states signed in Tokyo last week, the EU executive had indications that remaining five countries were going to sign, but still had to complete internal decision making procedures.

The next steps are more debate in the coming weeks and months, and then a plenary vote in the European Parliament sometimes in June, a spokesperson said.

ACTA has never been a secret process, it has been known since December 2007 that an agreement was sought, the spokesperson insisted. He explained that the EU has pushed through the process so that NGOs, academics, interested parties would debrief society on the negotiations.

ACTA needs both the national ratification and the EP Parliament's consent. At EU level, the debate moves to parliament. If stakeholders think that they haven't had a direct voice, their chance to have a say is through that parliamentary debate, he concluded.

The European Parliament’s rapporteur for ACTA resigned Friday in protest after the 22 members signed ACTA on 26 January.

He said he had witnessed "never-before-seen manoeuvres" by officials preparing the treaty.

"I condemn the whole process which led to the signature of this agreement: no consultation of the civil society, lack of transparency since the beginning of negotiations, repeated delays of the signature of the text without any explanation given, reject of Parliament's recommendations as given in several resolutions of our assembly, Arif stated"

The French MEP Kaded Arif (S&D) who resigned his position of European Parliament rapporteur on ACTA said it "goes too far" by potentially cutting access to lifesaving generic drugs and restricting internet freedom.

In a recent exclusive interview with the Guardian, Arif said that despite talks over the agreement having begun in 2007, "the European parliament, which represents the rights of the people, had no access to this mandate, neither had it information of the position defended by the commission or the demands of the other parties to the agreement".

Arif said that ACTA threatens online freedom, access to the use of generic versions of drugs for treating illnesses, and could potentially mean that someone crossing a border who has a single song or film on their computer could face criminal charges.

Arturo di Corinto, Italian researcher at La Sapienza University and a contributor at La Repubblica, told EurActiv Italy that ACTA can become a deterrent and a tool for self-censorship against those who believe in freedom of culture, research, cooperation and communication.

In fact, ACTA gives the opportunity to those holding intellectual property rights to intervene directly on third parties violating these rights without going through the courts, thus forcing internet providers and associations to cooperate, Di Corinto said.

The Italian researcher said further: "The anti-counterfeiting agreement does more harm than the harm it is supposed to repair. It is actually an agreement sought by the music, film and TV industry, and the pharmaceutical business. The fact that this agreement should apply to third countries that have ratified it can lead to enforcement problems and can hamper competitiveness. ACTA will allow powerful forces to act without transparency by also putting their own interest ahead of people’s freedom, failing to respect constitutional criteria, such us the simple possibility to report a crime the judicial authorities. The ACTA debate dates back to 2007 and a broad coalition has been fighting against the agreement for 5 years now. The worldwide protests, online and offline, reveal that many citizens do not accept ACTA. "

Ivan Dikov writes in an op-ed with the Bulgarian news website Novinite that Bulgaria is a country much poorer than the remaining ACTA signatories and could not in fact assume the same responsibilities.

Torrent sites such as Zamunda and Arena are the most popular websites in Bulgaria. The reason for that is not just the enormous amount of music, films, software, and booksthat they make available to anybody for free. The sites are not accessible from outside the country.

These torrent sites are technically in violation of all sorts of copyright violations but what they offer has no alternative for the people in Bulgaria for the time being given the country's social and economic development, Dikov argues.

http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/acta-activates-european-civil-society-news-510533

Anonymous eyes Europe over 'censorship' measure

Hacktivist group Anonymous are now targeting European websites over a controversial measure that critics said may curtail freedom of expression.

 

Anonymous is setting its sights on the European Parliament and supporters of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), tech site CNET reported.

 

"Critics say ACTA is even worse than SOPA in that it allows for closed door negotiations and can't be repealed. The European Parliament is due to vote on ACTA in June," it said.

 

During the weekend, CNET reported Copyrightalliance.org was inaccessible supposedly after an attack by Anonymous for its pro-ACTA stance.

 

But the site (www.copyrightalliance.org) was accessible and appeared normal as of February 1.

 

On the other hand, CNET cited a source familiar with Anonymous' plans who said hackers were poking at the sites of the European Parliament and governments in the EU.

 

It said they planned to dig up information on officials that could be released publicly.

 

Anonymous has been involved in operations against supposed antipiracy efforts that may quash rights to freedom of expression on the Internet.

 

The group joined protests against Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The protests, which included blackouts by tech sites, prompted US lawmakers to suspend proceedings on the measure.

 

But the takedown by the US government of popular file-hosting site MegaUpload and its operators prompted Anonymous to stage distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on sites like those of the Justice Department, the FBI, Universal Music, the Motion Picture Association of America.

 

Following the signing by 22 European Union member states of ACTA, the European Parliament's independent monitor for ACTA, Kader Arif of France, resigned.

 

In Poland, members of Parliament held paper Guy Fawkes masks, the symbol used by Anonymous, in front of their faces to protest ACTA, while Polish citizens demonstrated in the street against ACTA.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/246507/scitech/technology/anonymous-eyes-europe-over-censorship-measure

Students should sacrifice free music for Internet freedom

By Zach Hicks

With the recent suspension of the proposed SOPA bill by Congress, many students and young people are emitting a sigh of relief. Yet this doesn’t mean we are safe from an intense governmental censorship of what we see on the Internet.

As young people, we expect our Internet surfing to be untainted by any government regulation. If we still want these rights to be ours, it’s essential to examine why the government is trying to put such a law into effect.

The music industry has suffered a hit since the emergence of the Internet. According to www.riaa.com, the official website for the Recording Industry Association of America, from 2004 through 2009, approximately 30 billion songs were downloaded from file-sharing networks. The same site reports that since the emergence of Napster in 1999, music sales in the United States have dropped 47 percent.

The idea of SOPA being enacted is a legitimate scare for us all, but when criticizing the idea of anti-piracy legislation, are we a part of the problem or the solution? While you may not be the cause of the problem, there’s a good chance you have a handful of friends who are. We all know somebody who pirates music or downloads content illegally. It’s imperative that we as young people start the movement that puts an end to piracy.

While SOPA is on Congress’ backburner for now, it will more than likely return to the floor on Capitol Hill. The bill is designed to censor much more than torrents and file-sharing websites. Refraining from illegally downloading music is a good first step in ensuring we do our part to avoid a colossal governmental censorship of the epitome of free speech called the Internet.

This raises a different question entirely: is it the government’s job to intervene in such an extreme way to censor the content we as citizens of a free world digest?

It all comes back to us being the solution or the problem. When a new piece of legislation arrives on the desks of lawmakers who will censor our online content, let’s make sure we can all say truthfully we followed the current laws to the best of our ability.

Those whose brows crinkle at the concept of SOPA, but commit piracy, are simply ruining it for the rest of us who follow the rules. It’s important to note that SOPA and anti-piracy laws cover a much wider scope than piracy in the music industry and any other kind of piracy committed by young people.

Let’s be the generation that takes strides towards ensuring that our Internet will be unscathed by the hands of bureaucrats and Big Brother. While our efforts might still fail, we must do all we can to prevent anything similar to SOPA being passed.

http://royalpurplenews.com/?p=5521

Acta goes too far, says MEP

The French MEP who resigned his position in charge of negotiating the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta) has said it "goes too far" by potentially cutting access to lifesaving generic drugs and restricting internet freedom.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Kader Arif – a member of the European parliament's international trade group, who was the lead negotiator over Acta – said that despite talks over the agreement having begun in 2007, "the European parliament, which represents the rights of the people, had no access to this mandate, neither had it information of the position defended by the commission or the demands of the other parties to the agreement".

Arif resigned in protest on 26 January as the EU signed the treaty, saying that he wished to "denounce in the strongest manner the process that led to the signing of this agreement: no association of civil society [and] lack of transparency from the beginning".

He said that it now threatens online freedom, access to the use of generic versions of drugs for treating illnesses, and could potentially mean that someone crossing a border who has a single song or film on their computer could face criminal charges.

Asked what he thought European citizens should do, Mr Arif said: "Showing that there is interest and concern about this agreement is the best way of creating a real public debate, which was never possible until now because of the lack of transparency on this dossier. Especially if the timeframe is short, raising awareness of members of parliament will be crucial. And because Acta is a mixed agreement, it will have to be ratified both by the European parliament and by every member state of the union, so there is also an opportunity to organise debates at the national level."

He says that it is now impossible to renegotiate the agreement because the 11 key parties to it concluded their discussions on 1 October 2011: "the European commission negotiated it on behalf of the EU, on the basis of a mandate given by the member states in 2007."

That means, he says, that "at this stage one can only accept or reject the agreement – no change of the text is possible. If the right wing of the European parliament had not imposed such a tight calendar, the members of the European parliament could have drafted an interim report, which would have put conditionalities to the ratification of the agreement, by giving recommendations to the commission and member states on how to implement it. But this is no longer a feasible option."

"The title of this agreement is misleading, because it's not only about counterfeiting, it's about the violation of intellectual property rights," he told the Guardian. "There is a major difference between these two concepts."

Acta has triggered public protests in a number of European and other countries, as well as online attacks by the hacking collective Anonymous. The US, EU member states, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and a number of other countries have signed it, although none has yet ratified it in national legislation.

The agreement would create an international framework and set of standards for a voluntary legal regime to enforce intellectual property rights across national boundaries.

Arif said one example illustrates this difference particularly well – the case of generic medicines. "Generic medicines are not counterfeited medicines; they are not the fake version of a drug; they are a generic version of a drug, produced either because the patent on the original drug has expired, or because a country has to put in place public health policies," he said.

A number of countries such as India and African nations have sought to use generic versions of drugs for infections such as HIV, which has often been resisted by pharmaceutical companies. Under Acta, Arif fears such countries would not have the same freedom to determine their own actions.

"There are international agreements, such as the Trips agreement, which foresees this last possibility," he said. "They're particularly important for developing countries which cannot afford to pay for patented HIV drugs, for example.

"The problem with Acta is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure."

He thinks that is a key flaw: "Acta also limits the flexibilities listed in the Trips agreements to support developing countries in need of generic drugs. When the question of finding the right equilibrium between protection of intellectual property rights and protection of final users is so crucial, Acta appears to be very unbalanced in favour of patent holders. This is one of the major problems with the agreement."

Internet freedoms could also be under threat if Acta is ratified in its present form, he says. "The chapter on internet is particularly worrying as some experts consider it reintroduces the concept of liability of internet providers, which is clearly excluded in the European legislation." That could make ISPs, who provide internet access, liable for users' illicit file-sharing.

Arif also expressed concern that there could be more intrusive checks at borders to fight counterfeiting.

"I see a great risk concerning checks at borders, and the agreement foresees criminal sanctions against people using counterfeited products as a commercial activity," he said.

"This is relevant for the trade of fake shoes or bags for example, but what about data downloaded from the internet? If a customs officer considers that you may set up a commercial activity just by having one movie or one song on your computer, which is true in theory, you could face criminal sanctions.

"I don't want people to have their laptops or MP3 players searched at borders, there needs to be a clearer distinction between normal citizens and counterfeiters which trade fake products as a commercial activity. Acta goes too far."

The text of the finalised treaty (PDF) has now been made public, and the European commission has begun to try to explain how Acta would work. It has also published a document called 10 Myths about Acta, asserting that the public was informed "since the launch of the negotiations"; that it is drafted "in very flexible terms" and that "safeguards and exceptions under EU law or under the Trips agreement remain fully preserved".

It also insists that "Acta is about tackling large-scale illegal activity … there is a provision on Acta specifically exempting travellers from checks if the infringing goods are of a non-commercial nature and not part of large-scale trafficking".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/01/acta-goes-too-far-kader-arif?newsfeed=true

A cleaner Internet – or a censored Internet?

Alex Zaharov-Reutt

A news report says Kevin Bermeister, of Kazaa fame, thinks major network equipment providers could easily use a “global file registry filter” to “reduce piracy” – but surely censorship could easily rear its even uglier head?

It seems ironic that Kevin Bermeister, who was involved in the paradise of file sharing that was Kazaa, only to later turn anti-pirate, is advocating for a “cleaner” Internet.

Mr Bermeister’s thoughts appear in a self-penned Huffington Post article, which talks about the fight against SOPA and the surprise takedown of the “alleged $175 million worldwide Internet piracy operation, Megaupload.”

Amongst a range of thoughts, Mr Bermeister says: “In 2012, the rapidly shifting technology at the forefront of the piracy battle now has the capacity to offer an automated global file registry filter -- which would reduce piracy to a very small problem using equipment that already exists from vendors like Cisco, Juniper, Hauwei and others -- and which enables ISPs to divert customers who are seeking to view or download illegal or pirated content to a legal source without breaching their privacy.”

Later, he notes that: “With a customer-sanctioned, ISP-based copyright filter that can also be used to stop child pornography, viruses and other criminal communications that warrant filtering, ISPs are fast approaching the ability to gain control over the Internet's traffic -- a real and valuable proposition.”

Naturally, it is worth reading the article in full for yourself.

However… the chance that these technologies could be used to filter out dissent, political protest or other law abiding views that ISPs or governments-gone-bad don’t like, and want to squash, are only all too real.

Mr Bermeister, of Kazaa fame… how did you make so much of your “brilliant digital” money, again? And how much of Kazaa's file-sharing technology made it into the now massively popular Skype?

Perhaps in a parallel universe, Mr Bermeister is under the same scrutiny that Megaload’s Kim Dotcom is under.

In this universe, however, Kevin Bermeister is advocating for a system that, on the surface, would “filter out” pirate content, porn and other “nasties”, but what protections are there that this system wouldn’t be used against the Internet citizens of the world?

We’d only have a “promise” the system wouldn’t be abused. After all, the right to free speech only exists in the United States of America – we certainly don’t have that specific right here in Australia, and neither is it available in many parts of the world.

From the stopping of SOPA to the delivery of content control directly via the world’s networking equipment – or at least, in the world that Mr Bermeister imagines.

Is this supposed to be a victory for freedom on the Internet, or yet another way for the Stephen Conroys of the world to extend censorship, embrace Orwellian boots to the face, and extinguish the hard-won freedoms of the last couple of centuries?

http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/fuzzy-logic/52507-a-cleaner-internet--or-a-censored-internet

Reddit makes gross mistakes trying to write bill to replace abusive SOPA, PIPA

Social networking site Reddit.com is going against the most successful habits of successful politicians by actually proposing solutions to proposals Reddit was instrumental in defeating.

Rather than simply continue to crow about the success of a coalition of civil- and digital-rights groups in opposing the Internet-censoring SOPA and PIPA bills, Reddit is now proposing alternative legislation (Reddit video announcement) to address copyright infringement on the web without (the proposers hope) the same dismissal of individual rights that were integral to both the original bills.

The "Free Internet Act," is open-source legislation, debated and hammered into shape by volunteer contributors on Reddit's r/fia sub-forum, standing in as volunteer representatives for the rest of us.

The proposal is partly an effort to treat international copyright infringement as a legitimate issue, but not an excuse to criminalize most consumers and deputize ISPs, site owners, the Dept. of Justice and almost anyone else into service to enforce exaggerated rights of private industry.

http://www.itworld.com/security/246339/reddit-makes-gross-mistakes-trying-write-bill-replace-abusive-sopa-pipa

Digital China Creates Smart Jiangsu through Advanced Technology Developing Information Security Platforms in Jiangsu and Yangzhou

Digital China Holdings Limited (“Digital China” or the “Group”; Stock Code: 00861.HK), China’s largest integrated IT services provider, announced that it has won the bid to develop an information security platform for monitoring the e-government portal and major IT systems of the municipal government in Yangzhou. Previously, the Group successfully helped the Jiangsu provincial government set up a similar platform. These achievements mark a new chapter in its implementation of the Sm@rt City strategy in Jiangsu Province.

E-government is rapidly growing in China, imposing greater threats and risks to information security. As a result, governments of various provinces and cities assign the utmost importance to upgrading their information security systems during the informatization process. The Jiangsu provincial government started to establish the information security platform in 2010 and planned to develop similar platforms in 13 cities within the province. Digital China was commissioned to design and execute the project, through which a monitoring network covering the whole province would be created by linking together the provincial government’s platform with those of municipal governments. With advanced technology and extensive experience in Sm@rt City implementation, Digital China successfully launched the provincial government’s platform in April 2011. This platform protected 271 e-government portals in the province (including the Business Recovery Centre of Jiangsu Province, portals of some major provincial government agencies, portals of Wuxi municipal government and e-government portal of the Nanjing municipal government) from a variety of information security problems including disruption, modification, Trojan viruses, domain theft and the protection of sensitive information. The platform substantially enhances the capabilities of the provincial government to monitor, alert and manage potential security threats that may occur in its e-government portal and major IT systems. The project passed the preliminary test in November 2011. It is currently the largest, most intensive and effective regional security platform for e-government portals in China.

Recently, Digital China won another bid to develop the information security platform for monitoring the e-government portal and major IT systems of the municipal government of Yangzhou. Leveraging its advanced technology, the Group helped the government to develop a comprehensive security management and monitoring system to protect about 200 e-government portals and the government’s major IT systems from security threats before, during and after potential problems occurred. Moreover, the security levels can be temporarily raised when important events occur or during specific periods, thus providing constant security monitoring during client-specified periods.

Mr. Lin Yang, the CEO of Digital China, commented, “The smooth development of the information security platforms in Jiangsu Province and Yangzhou lays a solid foundation for the interaction between both platforms. It establishes a good model for other provincial and municipal governments to follow. We formulated the Sm@rt City strategy in 2010 to drive our business transformation by shifting towards a ‘customer-focused and service-oriented’ approach. This transformation has enabled us to capture opportunities arising from the urbanization and informatization process in China and the results continue to be promising. We have successfully carried out the Sm@rt City strategy throughout the country. To date, we have forged preliminary agreements for strategic cooperation with major cities including Nanjing, Wuhan, Shenzhen and Yangzhou, making us the leading expert in Sm@rt City solution with the highest number of installations.”

http://www.todayir.com/e/ownnews_showdetails.php?itemid=89203

Germany catches up in broadband penetration

Germany has considerably caught up in the share of households using broadband lines to surf the net. Almost four out of five households (78 percent) now use high-speed access to go online, according to German industry association BITKOM. The number of broadband subscriptions has more than quadrupled since 2004 and now amounts to 31 million. This puts Germanyinto rank 6 among European countries. "The government's broadband strategy and network operators' billion euro investments have made it possible for Germany to climb to one of the top positions in broadband usage," BITKOM CEO Bernhard Rohleder said in Berlin. "Also contributing to the increased usage were decreasing prices while bandwidths went up." According to Germany's Federal Network Agency Bundesnetzagentur, the country's telecommunications providers invested more than EUR 93bn between 1998 and 2010 into the expansion and upgrading of their networks. Fast internet lines with a data rate of at least 1 Mbps are now available to more than 99 percent of German households. Through the upgrading of mobile networks with the new LTE standard, the last gaps in the broadband coverage are to be closed. The second step will see the development towards higher speeds being enforced. In 2014, 75 percent of all German households are expected to have access to a data rate of least 50 Mbps.

http://www.ejc.net/media_news/germany_catches_up_in_broadband_penetration/

Improving equity in education: a critical challenge

by Ben Levin Professor

University of Toronto and Canada Research Chair in Education Leadership and Policy

 

Improving equity in student outcomes remains a critical challenge for every country in the OECD.  Even those countries with the lowest levels of inequity must still be concerned with gaps in outcomes that are not related to students’ motivation and capacity, while in other countries the inequities are so large as to pose a fundamental challenge to ongoing security and prosperity.

The new report, Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, provides a cogent analysis and many ideas for addressing these issues.  The report provides a blueprint for any country that wishes to make genuine progress in promoting equity while also improving quality.  These ideas are well grounded in the best available research evidence (though in some cases that evidence is not as strong as one would want, simply due to insufficient research on many important educational issues).

The larger issue is whether countries will have the will and skill to make these changes.  As outlined in my 2008 book, ‘How to Change 5000 Schools’, knowing what to do is important but not enough.  In many cases we already know what to do, but we do not do it.  As a simple example, consider physical exercise and good eating habits.  Everyone knows these are essential to health, yet many people simply do not do them.  How much more difficult to make changes in a large and complex institution like a school system!

There are two aspects to effective implementation of the right changes.  The first is whether the will exists to make the changes.  In many cases the beneficiaries of the status quo will be vocal in opposing anything that they think might diminish the relative advantage of their children.  Less streaming is one good example of this situation, often opposed by parents and teachers who benefit from a streamed system despite the strong evidence that this practice is, overall, a bad one.  There can be very difficult politics around making some of the changes that would actually benefit students.  These conflicts cannot be ignored; they must be faced directly.

Second, and just as important, is whether systems have the capacity to bring real change about.  As the report notes, real improvement requires real changes in classroom practice.  These do not occur through issuing policy statements, developing new curricula, or even through changes in accountability and testing.  Changing people’s daily behavior takes sustained and relentless attention to the way daily work is done.  This attention must extend over time and take into account everything the organization does.  Very few countries have this capacity.  Very few ministries of education have much capacity to lead and support school improvement.  Very few school leaders know how to do this work.

Countries that are serious about greater equity – and greater quality – will need to consider carefully how they can support real and lasting implementation of the necessary changes.  Luckily, the OECD does offer some examples, in its higher performing countries, of the kinds of organizational measures that are needed to achieve these important goals.  We know this can be done; the question is how many countries will make the required effort.

Links:
More information about OECD work on equity in education: www.oecd.org/edu/equity
Executive Summary: Equity and Quality in Education - Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools

 

http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.com/2012/01/improving-equity-in-education-critical.html

ACTA continues where SOPA failed

Underpinnings of dead legislation still alive

As you’ve probably heard by now, SOPA, the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, has been taken off the table after people spoke out about Internet censorship and unruly government interference. However, people are buzzing about a, debatably, more harmful bill that has been underway the entire time, named ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Apparently the bill was fleshed out under private executive orders, meaning it was not available for public view, and only surfaced when sources close to the agreement leaked information onto the Internet.

ACTA is similar to SOPA in that it allows the shutting down of websites but, in certain ways, makes the process of censorship even simpler. One of the most controversial ideas proposed in ACTA is a nonmandatory universal internet identification system, where the user is issued an Internet ID that can be tracked and monitored.

Though the concept is horrifically invasive and reminiscent of some Orwell-type “big brother” situation, I can easily see why lobbyists would push so hard for a measure, as its effectiveness would likely be high.

An invasion of privacy is inevitable, as illegally downloading or purchasing counterfeit merchandise is virtually impossible to monitor otherwise. America has raised the penalty for pirating over and over again, but to no avail. Currently, the chances of being caught pirating material is so low and the consequences so impractical that the fear is not really there.

Rights to privacy make a naturally dense barrier between Internet pirates and authority. Besides, the majority of the blame is expected to rest on the distributor, rather than the arbitrary customer.

Estimates for financial losses resulting directly from pirating are varied and widely speculative. One study by the FBI in 2002 estimated a loss of nearly $200 billion annually due to piracy, but a 32-page report published in 2010 by the Government Accountability Office concluded that, while piracy is still bad, no one can really figure out how bad. Obviously, no one is dying to self-report the total dollar amount of merchandise he or she has pirated over the past year.

Though it’s cute to think that the people’s voice has saved us from the big, bad, anti-counterfeiting legislation, the harsh reality is that a handful of private investors own more capital than all of us teenagers, sitting at home watching illegally downloaded episodes of “How I Met Your Mother,” combined. Money pays the bills. Come on — you know that. Whether it’s called SOPA, PIPA, ACTA or some other tacky acronym, some bill in some form will bring the age of piracy to an end.

In an ideal world, we could just run a PSA featuring sad celebrities asking for money and looking all teary-eyed and everyone would feel really bad and stop stealing movies and music. But that commercial already exists, only with sad dogs and a Sarah McLachlan voice-over, and it still doesn’t work.

In the end, some form of this bill will pass, and, for practical purposes, the bill will be severely intrusive.

http://www.dailygamecock.com/viewpoints/item/3351-acta-continues-where-sopa-failed

Dotcom unlikely focus of web freedom

Kim Dotcom, aka Kim Schmitz, is a most unlikely poster boy for internet freedom. As well as a flamboyant self-promoting style, he has a long history of entrepreneurship verging on the edge of illegality and occasionally crossing over. Yet, his current legal difficulties and that of his website, Megaupload, are the centre of a storm regarding issues of the openness of the internet.

His arrest, the manner of it, the legal issues surrounding it and his status in New Zealand are all generating questions.

There is the grant of permanent residence in 2010, about which Mr Key's government is understandably embarrassed if not so understandably taciturn. Schmitz, who arrived in New Zealand in 2005 paid more than $10 million in government bonds and despite his convictions in Germany in 2000 for insider trading and embezzlement, was granted residence status, thus lending weight to F Scott Fitzgerald's aphorism: "The rich are different from you and me." In more ways than one, it turns out.

While the US government has received co-operation from a number of countries to freeze Dotcom's assets, he is able to afford the highest quality of legal representation.

This is as it should be, given the power of the US government arrayed against him. But don't expect the same legal services if you've just held up the local dairy. Or wandered off with someone else's flat-screen TV.

Acting in co-operation with the FBI, an organisation with a limited brief outside the US and a history of being politicised, the New Zealand police arrested Dotcom at his rented Coatsville mansion, owned by the founder of the "Christmas hamper" layaway business Chrisco. The latter had some interesting adverse publicity of its own last year. Never mind.

Despite the fact that his past criminal history and the present allegations of copyright infringement contain not a hint of danger to persons, Dotcom's arrest involved swat team tactics, including an aerial assault from a helicopter-borne team, fitting for an anti-terrorist operation. It's claimed Dotcom was found in a "panic room" inside his bedroom, in the presence of a sawn-off shotgun.

What isn't clear is the history of that room and whether it was constructed by Dotcom or the mansion's owner. What is clear is that selected details have been published, all to Dotcom's discredit. The actual details of evidence and proffers of proof in the extradition request made by the US government have not been made public. It's not clear that the judge in the case has been given the information as yet.

What is clear is that the shutting down of the website Megaupload, which he founded and which functions as a file-sharing, file storage, and alleged downloading site of copyrighted materials, caused havoc on the internet and ultimately affected the politics of the US.

That shutdown was cited as the precipitant for an internet-based protest that included the voluntary temporary closure of 7000 websites including the well-used Wikipedia. The protest was against the contemplated Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and the companion Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa).

Supporters of these bills, included Rupert Murdoch and some music industry groups, contend they would protect intellect property, particularly against foreign websites. Opponents, including Google, say the proposed legislation inhibits free speech and innovation and is overbroad, allowing the government to shut down a site if only one page contains infringing material. The bills, if enacted, could result in worldwide, unprecedented web censorship.

The protest has been effective. The bills are now in limbo as even the Texas representative who sponsored Sopa has withdrawn his support.

Locally, there's been what anti-terror types call "collateral damage". People who uploaded treasured family photos to the Megaupload may have lost them.

Ironically, Dotcom lost his position as world's number one scorer in the game Modern Warfare: Call of Duty 3. He can't defend his position from behind bars and was recently bumped to No 2.

The irony here is that it takes obsessive dedication to become top scorer in a game which sold 15 million copies worldwide and the difficulty is increased by the number of free download copies Dotcom may have facilitated.

http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/news/dotcom-unlikely-focus-of-web-freedom/1257346/

Google Will Start Country-Specific Censorship for Blogs

Google figured out Twitter‘s trick for avoiding universally censoring content weeks ago, but it managed to go unnoticed — for a while.

That is, until TechDows wrote about Blogger‘s plan for country-specific URLs Tuesday.

At some point “over the coming weeks,” Google’s Blogger will begin redirecting users to country-specific domain names — think Google.fr in France rather than Google.com — to avoid universally removing content that would not be tolerated in specific jurisdictions.

A Blogger support post, “Why does my blog redirect to a country-specific URL?,” last updated Jan. 9, explains that Google is using the method to limit the impact of censored content.

Readers will be redirected to sites with their own country’s domain name when they try to visit blogs recognized as foreign, as determined by their IP addresses.

“Over the coming weeks you might notice that the URL of a blog you’re reading has been redirected to a country-code top level domain, or “ccTLD.” For example, if you’re in Australia and viewing [blogname].blogspot.com, you might be redirected [blogname].blogspot.com.au. A ccTLD, when it appears, corresponds with the country of the reader’s current location.”

If you would like to see a non-affected page, you can direct to google.com/ncr (NCR stands for “no country redirect”), which places a short term cookie that temporarily prevents geographical redirection.

Google says migrating users to local domains will help promote the freedom of expression while allowing the flexibility to abide by local law.

Do you think censoring content by specific countries is a good move for freedom of expression? Let us know what you think of Google and Twitter’s moves.

http://mashable.com/2012/01/31/google-twitter-country-censorship/

Twitter's Clever Censorship Policy

Written by Robert McGarvey

You would think Twitter had singlehandedly pulled the plug on Internet free speech, given the brouhaha in reaction to the company’s recent announcement that it had developed tools that would let it censor tweets on a “granular,” country-by-country basis. That triggered worried teeth-gnashing, reported everywhere from the Los Angeles Times (“Twitter’s new censorship plan stirs global furor”) to ABC News (“Twitterati Protest New Twitter Censorship Policy With Blackout”) to the New York Times (“Censoring of Tweets Sets Off #Outrage”).

But what if the following were true: Twitter had no choice. It just may have cleverly outwitted those who demand more government control of the Internet by enlisting their aid in shining a spotlight on the very content the censors most want to keep in the shadows.

Face this reality. Attempts at Internet censorship are pervasive worldwide. In addition to the usual totalitarian players (China, Russia, and Tunisia, for instance), India is a prime wannabe censor as it aggressively pursues comments it does not like on every Website from Google to Facebook. France and Germany both want to censor pro-Nazi comments on Websites. Even the United Kingdom has made noises about wanting to censor tweets along with Facebook postings when it dislikes the rambunctious politics of the posters.

That noisy government pressure will only ratchet up as ruling-class jitters over social media escalate, and Twitter, realistically, made the response it had to make.

“Twitter is probably trying to prevent the same kind of probes that Google and Facebook have been facing by a variety of governments internationally,” said Darren Hayes, a professor at Pace University. “Social media companies are being forced more and more to comply with local legislation and are facing greater censorship. Twitter is being proactive.”

But, maybe, too, Twitter is luring the censors into an Internet game of three-card monte, where the dictators are the dupes.

William J. Ward, a professor of social media at Syracuse University, elaborated:

Unfortunately, if Twitter wants to do business internationally, they have to abide by national laws to enter these countries. These compromises, although regrettable, give Twitter a foot in the door that may possibly open opportunities for more free and open communication in the future, not less.
Although not ideal, the compromise by Twitter gives the leaders of these countries an opportunity to save face. In reality, although the tweets may be censored in a specific country, the communications will still be going out globally, and will likely find their way back in through other channels, albeit delayed.

Tune into reality. Twitter, in its blog, says it will not enforce prior restraint -- that is, it will zap a tweet only after proper notification by a government agency.

Here is the language from Twitter’s blog:

Q: Do you filter out certain Tweets before they appear on Twitter?
A: No. Our users now send a billion Tweets every four days -- filtering is neither desirable nor realistic. With this new feature, we are going to be reactive only: that is, we will withhold specific content only when required to do so in response to what we believe to be a valid and applicable legal request.
As we do today, we will evaluate each request before taking any action. Any content we do withhold in response to such a request is clearly identified to users in that country as being withheld. And we are now able to make that content available to users in the rest of the world.

It adds up to Twitter flagging content deemed offensive by certain governments and then keeping it in the streams of the rest of the world, pretty much guaranteeing huge spikes in readership. Don’t you want to read what is banned in Delhi or Dubai?

Now about all we need is a clever coder group to cobble together a “Censored on Twitter” bot that collects and streams globally, including to countries where the original tweets are banned.

http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=852&doc_id=238541

Chris Dziadul Reports: On line and on demand

Online VOD services are becoming an increasingly familiar feature of the TV landscape in Central and Eastern Europe.

However, it is probably too early to talk about them being a big success in all but a handful of markets.

Take Voyo, which was launched by Central European Media Enterprises (CME) in the Czech Republic at the beginning of last year and subsequently rolled out in the five other countries in the region the company operates in. Having introduced a monthly fee of €7.38 in December for which viewers are given access to everything in its library, the Czech service has set the ambitious target – by its own admission – of 100,000 paying subscribers by the end of this year.

While this may be achievable in the Czech Republic, Voyo’s sister services are likely to have more modest goals in terms of subscriber numbers. In any case, the Czech Republic is probably a lucrative market for online VOD, with Topfun Media, which is backed by the financial group J&T, expected to launch what has been described as a “Czech Netflix” later this year.

Poland, too, is a hive of activity thanks in no small part to the success of such on demand services as ipla, which is operated by Redefine, backed by Polsat founder and owner Zygmunt Solorz; and OnetVOD (vod.onet.pl) and the recently-launched tvnplayer.pl, both of which are linked to the national commercial broadcaster TVN. Others include a service, known as Telewizja Osobista (‘Personal Television’), launched late last year and operated by the alternative telco Netia.

Meanwhile in Russia an online VOD service named Yota Play, operated by Yota and the WiMax provider Scartel, made its debut last summer. Offering content on a pay-per-view basis, it joined a growing market already served by such companies as the leading mobile (and pay-TV) operator MTS.

Alongside these developments in the region have come the appearances of such services as HBO Go, with the streaming operation having made its regional debut in Poland in partnership with the cable operator Inea in late 2010 and then subsequently introduced in several other countries last year.

It is also interesting to note that research published by Gemius last September found online VOD services to be nine times more popular in Hungary than in Denmark.

These are certainly exciting times for the delivery of on demand content over the internet in CEE, with more interesting developments likely in the near future.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/01/19/chris-dziadul-reports-on-line-and-on-demand/

Pirate Party to sue FBI for closing Megaupload file-sharing site

The Pirate Party is planning to launch legal proceedings against the FBI in retaliation for shutting down Megaupload, a popular file-sharing site that has been accused of being a haven for pirated content. Megaupload was closed by the US Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation on 19 January and no content has been accessible since. A statement on Pirata.ca claims that closure of Megaupload has impeded the access to millions of archives of non-infringing content, and accuses the FBI of violating Articles 197 and 198 of the Spanish Penal Code by misappropriating personal data. "The widespread damage caused by the sudden closure of Megaupload is unjustified and completely disproportionate to the aim intended," the statement said. "For this reason Pirates of Catalonia, in collaboration with Pirate Parties International and other Pirate Parties (including the Pirate Party of the UK), have begun investigating these potential breaches of law and will facilitate submission of complaints against the US authorities in as many countries as possible, to ensure a positive and just result." The web site allows users to add their support to the complaint by providing their details, including what type of membership they had to Megaupload.

http://www.ejc.net/media_news/pirate_party_to_sue_fbi_for_closing_megaupload_file-sharing_site/

Microsoft and Adobe named in takedown of ex.ua, Ukraine’s version of Megaupload

Those wanting access to illegal downloads in the Ukraine today are being met with a harsh reality. The largest file sharing site in the country, ex.ua, has been closed after what is being reported as a six-month investigation into piracy allegations.

According to The BBC (via Google Translate), ex.ua accounted for as much as 25% of all Ukrainian domestic Internet traffic at any given moment. To put that into comparison, Netflix in the United States accounts for up to 32% of all North American bandwidth, so this file sharing site wasn’t far behind.

Ukranian news site Watcher reports that the Ministry of Internal Affiars states “the police closed ex.ua under criminal investigation under part 2 of article 176 of the criminal proceedings”. The article in question covers violation of copyright and related rights.

The investigation, according to the Ministry, lasted six months and “was initiated by international companies” including Adobe Systems, Microsoft and Graphisoft. Allegations from the companies stated that products had been distributed illegally through the site for “a long time”.

In all it’s being reported that 100 servers were confiscated, carrying among them 600 terabytes of data. At present, 16 people are facing charges in the investigation, which could lead to a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.

The case is similar to the recent takedown of Megaupload, which the US Department of Justice said is “among the largest criminal copyright cases ever”. Though interestingly, the charges are vastly different. Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom faces up to 50 years in prison for his role with the company; a stark contrast which makes the potential 5-year sentence look paltry by comparison.

Interestingly, the Ukraine was not one of the 22 European Union member states that signed the controversial ACTA treaty. One can only imagine the consequences if it had been.

http://thenextweb.com/eu/2012/01/31/microsoft-and-adobe-named-in-takedown-of-ex-ua-ukraines-version-of-megaupload/

Dubai eGovernment signs MoU with EIDA

By Georgina Enzer

Dubai eGovernment has signed an MoU with the Emirates Identity Authority (EIDA). Under the terms of the agreement, Dubai eGovernment will introduce central applications that will integrate EIDA online identity applications with the Population Register and link EIDA to all other Dubai.

 

EIDA will provide the necessary technological applications to read the data stored in Emirates ID cards, as well as the infrastructure for the digital identity applications and unified identity management in order to verify the identity of clients.

 

EIDA also plans to partner with Dubai eGovernment to develop the concept and general framework for the digital ID project at the Dubai Government level.

 

"The signing of this agreement is in line with our commitment to actively contribute to the objectives of government integration and the electronic transformation of government systems across Dubai. These aim to realise the vision and directives of HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai. We support the digital identity project in view of its positive impact on Dubai's electronic transformation. We are committed, in the framework of our partnership with EIDA, to implement a series of relevant initiatives and joint ventures, including integrating infrastructure for the verification of the identity card and handling this system," said Ahmed Bin Humaidan, director general of Dubai eGovernment.

The agreement was signed by Bin Humaidan, and Dr Ali Mohamed Al Khouri, Emirates ID Director General, at the Dubai eGovernment headquarters at HH Dubai Ruler's Court.

 

"This strategic partnership reflects our belief in the use of advanced technologies in improving government performance, considering that the population register and ID card project is part of the UAE's strategy to become one of the five best governments in the world," said Al Khouri.

 

 Al Khouri added that the agreement would be beneficial in implementing the strategic objectives of government entities and unifying their efforts at upgrading customer service.

http://www.itp.net/587804-dubai-egovernment-signs-mou-with-eida

Consumers in the middle of battle over Internet privacy

For the past two years, each company has experimented with different ways to divine more and more about how people live their lives on the Internet, without sparking a revolt.

But the plans the rivals announced this week, which critics say could dramatically rev up their respective abilities to gather intelligence on individual Internet users, seem to have struck a chord.

An informal and unscientific survey of Web users by USA Today found a majority speaking out against the new business practices announced by Google and Facebook.

"It's dangerous for two companies to have so much personal data, regardless of whether the specific threats of that data consolidation are immediately clear," said Sarah Downey, a privacy analyst at software maker Abine.

Compelled to tap what many experts predict will be the next big Internet mother lode - online advertising - Google and Facebook laid down very big bets, during a week when European regulators are hashing out strict new rules that could prevent much of what the tech giants seek to do.

Google signaled its intent to begin correlating data about its users' activities across all of its most popular services and across multiple devices. The goal: to deliver those richer behavior profiles to advertisers.

Likewise, Facebook announced it will soon make Timeline - the new, glitzier user interface for its service - mandatory.

Timeline is designed to chronologically assemble, automatically display and make globally accessible the preferences, acquaintances and activities for most of Facebook's 800 million members.

 Google and Facebook have repeatedly insisted that the changes are intended strictly to improve users' experiences.

"Facebook works the way it always has," spokeswoman Meredith Chin said. "There is no new information on Facebook as a result of Timeline, and no privacy settings have been changed with the introduction of it. It's simply an updated version of the profile."

But the changes have stirred anger from many consumers. Some, such as Joyce Norman, a writing consultant from Birmingham, Ala., are considering ways to limit their exposure to Google's and Facebook's new business practices. "Mine is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness," Norman said.

Benjammin Gaultney of Montague, Mich., sees it differently, looking forward to the possibility of more appropriate ads coming to his screen. "You have to deal with ads all over the Internet either way," he wrote on USA Today's Facebook page. "Advertisers could at least try to sell me something I'm actually interested in rather than life insurance."

Meanwhile, a high-stakes lobbying effort is unfolding in Washington aimed at shaping policies favorable to U.S. tech companies and blunting any potential move to follow Europe's more conservative proposals to limiting online tracking by companies.

The tech giants sharply increased their lobbying spending last year. Google spent $9.7 million in lobbying in 2011, up from $5.2 million in 2010, says the Center for Responsive Politics. Facebook spent $1.4 million in 2011 vs. $351,000 in 2010.

The driver: advertising revenue. The global online advertising market is expected to swell to $132 billion by 2015, up from $80 billion this year, according to eMarketer. Google and Facebook are putting their abilities to index individuals' online activity and behaviors into high gear to tap into this market, analysts say.

"If they can make the ads more relevant, the logic goes, they can increase the number of advertisers and the price they can charge per click (on each ad)," said Alex Daley, chief investment strategist at Casey Research. "Because the click will be from more qualified leads - customers who are more interested in the product - they can grow the revenue base."

But security analysts, privacy advocates and technologists say consumers probably should be very concerned. While making richer behavioral data more readily available to advertisers, Google's new data-correlating practices and Facebook's new Timeline and Open Graph, a more powerful way to express preferences on third-party websites, also tend to aid and abet more unsavory uses.

Richer personal details are very beneficial to identity thieves and cyberspies, as well as to parties motivated to use such data unfairly against consumers, such as insurance companies, prospective employers, political campaigners and, lately, hacktivists, security analysts say.

"What these unilateral decisions by Google and Facebook demonstrate is a complete disregard for their users' interests and concerns," said John Simpson, spokesman for Consumer Watchdog. "It's an uncommonly arrogant approach not usually seen in business, where these companies believe they can do whatever they want with our data, whenever and however they want to do it."

Google has a long history of running into privacy problems.

Its Gmail raised hackles early on when the search giant decided to mingle advertising alongside users' email. The move initially concerned people because the ads' relevancy was linked to e-mails inside users' accounts. For example, if a person was writing about buying a car, ads for cars could appear alongside that individual's email. To many, that felt like a privacy intrusion.

The search giant maintains that such contextual ads, where advertisers can bid on keywords that relate to a users' content, don't reveal personal identities. Gmail users can turn some of the ads off, but adjusting the feature requires some work.

Much of this type of product development is the result of Google taking a very engineer-focused approach to mining data rather than serving consumer interests, say industry experts. Google engineers want to play with technology first, but they think about how the product plays with consumers and privacy second, said IDC analyst Karsten Weide.

When Google tried to build its Buzz social network in 2010 from Gmail contacts, it ran into privacy problems. It began publicizing users' contacts without asking. The Federal Trade Commission last year charged Google with "deceptive privacy practices" in the handling of Buzz.

Google "did not respect" consumers' expectations of privacy, said Helen Nissenbaum, a professor of media, culture and communication at New York University. "They (Google) seem to be doing the same thing here" with the privacy update.

Under terms of the FTC consent order, Google agreed to a 20-year independent review of its privacy practices.

But the changes announced Tuesday may again set it on a collision course with the FTC.

"We do believe the proposed changes - they have not yet been adopted - violate the FTC consent order," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. Those changes could subject Google to monetary damages under Google's agreement with the FTC, Rotenberg said.

But Rachel Whetstone, Google's senior vice president for public policy and communications, said the company would not have proposed privacy updates that run afoul of the FTC settlement.

"We try to be transparent about the data we collect and give meaningful controls about how data is used," Whetstone said.

There are also concerns about Google's recent move to roll activities on its Google+ social network into users' search results. The opt-in integration of those two Google products mingles profiles, photos and posts of people a user follows on Google+ into the user's search results if they choose.

Whetstone said it doesn't raise privacy issues because the information is viewed only by the user.

Facebook has had its own issues, most recently in November when the FTC announced a broad settlement that requires the company to respect the privacy wishes of its users and subjects it to audits for the next 20 years.

The order, which claimed Facebook engaged in "unfair and deceptive" practices in December 2009, stems largely from the way Facebook handled information its users deemed to be private information.

On Tuesday it announced that Timeline will become the default user interface for all members over the next few weeks.

Combined with the addition last week of some 60 apps specifically written for Timeline, consumers can provide a detailed account, often in real time, of the music they listen to, what they eat, where they shop - even where they jog.

The deeper personal data of Timeline - which Facebook users willfully share - are potentially online advertising gold for marketers and advertisers. This is especially crucial, analysts say, as Facebook steamrolls toward an initial public stock offering this year.

The company is under pressure to increase sales and profits to meet the lofty expectations of shareholders, and online advertising is the most logical place to do that. Facebook gleaned 89 percent of its estimated $4.3 billion in revenue last year, or about $3.8 billion, from online ads, according to eMarketer.

"If Facebook has richer behavioral targeting data than Google, then it has an edge up in relevance," said Casey Research's Daley. "And an edge up in relevance is an edge up in revenue."

Some Wall Streeters believe the changes made by Google and Facebook will have only an "incremental" effect on the battle between the two giants in going after online advertising dollars.

Both companies continue to be dominant in their markets, which "tend to be winner-takes-all markets," said Ryan Jacob of the Jacob Internet Fund. Google continues to hold strength in online search and is a strong player in online video with YouTube and in mobile with its Android operating system, he said.

But "Google has a long way to go before it can be considered a credible competitor to Facebook," he said.

Google's moves, if anything, are "somewhat defensive," he said. "For (Google) to maintain their position in search, it's important for them to be players in other areas."

Channing Smith of money management firm Capital Advisors, which owns shares of Google, is more optimistic. "If it continues to put up numbers for Google+, it can be a competitor to Facebook," he said.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has already been pressing Facebook to explain its tracking systems, said on Wednesday that he would ask the FTC to take a close look at Google's new privacy policies.

"Google's privacy policy changes mean consumers can't say no to sharing their personal information across Google's websites," Markey said. "Consumers, not Google, should be able to make these decisions."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-consumers-middle-internet-privacy.html

More Blows To Internet Freedom In Iran

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently spoke of the urge by some governments to control every “voice or public sphere”:

“They want to control what gets printed in newspapers, who gets into universities, what companies get oil contracts, what churches and NGOs get registered, where citizens can gather – so, why not the internet?”

The Iranian regime’s continuing crackdown on internet freedom shows it is just such a government.

Authorities have announced new rules for internet cafes. Owners must require patrons to register their personal information, which will be kept on file for six months, and security cameras must be installed.

Not content with blocking millions of websites, authorities are going forward with plans to withdraw from the world-wide web and create a filtered, national internet.

The repression of bloggers and other web users continues.  On January 17th, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for web programmer Saeed Malekpour, who was convicted of “insulting and desecrating Islam,” after what observers say was a grossly unfair trial.  Blogger Vahid Asghari and website administrator Ahmad Reza Hashempour are also on death row after similarly flawed proceedings.

In the month of January alone, Simin Nematollahi, a contributor to a pro-Sufi website, was arrested at her Tehran home; Mohammad Soleimaninya, translator and head of u24, a social networking website for Iranian professionals, was arrested after being summoned before a revolutionary tribunal in Karaj; bloggers and journalists Marzieh Rasouli and Parastoo Dokouhaki were arrested by security forces at their homes in Tehran.

Secretary of State Clinton says “the right to express one’s views, practice one’s faith, peacefully assemble with others to pursue political or social change – these are all rights to which all human beings are entitled, whether they choose to exercise them in a city square or an internet chat room.”

Iranian authorities must face the condemnation of the global community not only for their violations of the rights of their citizens in the material world, but for the attempts to abrogate them in cyber space, as well.

http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/More-Blows-To-Internet-Freedom-In-Iran--138357759.html

Facebook could set record with IPO

Facebook could raise as much as $10 billion with an initial public offering of its stock, according to sources, who say a filing could be announced as early as Wednesday. The IPO -- which is expected to occur between April and June -- would be the largest ever by an Internet company and would value the company at as much as $100 billion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577187062821038498.html

Twitter CEO: We’re Not Censoring the Internet

Twitter CEO Dick Costolo took the stage at AllThingsD‘s media conference in Laguna Nigel, CA, Monday evening to defend the company’s new censorship policies.

Twitter announced last week that it would begin censoring tweets in certain countries to comply with local laws. The move sparked outrage among many users, who gathered under the hashtag #TwitterBlackout and pledged to boycott the service on January 28.

But as Costolo argued on stage — and my colleague Josh Catone pointed out last week — Twitter’s new policies allow for greater freedom of speech on the platform. Previously, when a government demanded that Twitter remove a tweet or block a user, access to that content would be blocked from the entire world. Now, Twitter can hide the tweet or user from that individual country, but allow the rest of the world to see it.

“There’s been no change in our stance or attitude or policy with respect to content on Twitter,” Costolo said. “What we announced is a greater capability we now have. Now, when we are issued a valid legal order in a country in which we operate, such as a DMCA takedown notice, we are able to leave the content up for as many people around the world as possible, while still operating within the local law. You can’t operate in these countries and choose the laws you want to abide by.”

“Is there a way you could work outside the law? Say ‘Iran, we’re not going to censor?’” Kafka suggested.

“We don’t proactively go do anything,” said Costolo. “This is purely a reactive capability to what we determine to be a valid and applicable legal order in a country in which we operate. We’re fully blocked in Iran and China. And I don’t see the current environment in either country being one in which we could go and operate anytime soon.”

“We want to run Twitter as transparently as possible,” Costolo added. This is the actual thoughtful and honest approach to doing this.”

http://mashable.com/2012/01/30/twitter-not-censoring-dick-costolo/

'Consent' Asks: Who Owns The Internet?

While the Internet may aid the spread of democracy, democracy doesn't necessarily mean a free and open Internet. In her new book Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom, Rebecca MacKinnon, senior fellow at the New America Foundation and co-founder of Global Voices, a citizen media network, investigates the corrosion of civil liberties by the governments and corporations that control the digital world.

"The critical question is: How do we ensure that the Internet develops in a way that is compatible with democracy?" MacKinnon tells Morning Edition's Renee Montagne.

Despite the recent uprisings in the Middle East, MacKinnon points out, those countries have a long way to go to achieve the openness required of a democratic society. For instance, although the Egyptian government stopped censoring the Internet after Mubarak stepped down, activists still assume all their electronic communications are being monitored.

"People feel that they have to be very careful about what they're saying online and assume the military government might do something with it," says MacKinnon.

In Tunisia, the democratically elected government has actually reinstated censorship of the Internet. The censorship is not as broad as before, but sites that are considered pornographic or inflammatory are still restricted. Citizens have protested, but conservatives in parliament maintain that public morals must be enforced.

"There's a huge debate going on about ... what is the appropriate role of censorship and also surveillance [in a democratic society]," MacKinnon says.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/30/145926123/strange-bedfellows-democracy-and-the-internet

Facebook set to file for flotation

Facebook could fire the starting gun on the biggest-ever technology company flotation by filing papers for an initial public offering as early as next week. Morgan Stanley is close to being picked as the lead underwriter for the social networking firm's stock market listing, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The company is understood to be looking at a valuation of between USD 75bn and USD 100bn. Facebook is expected to offer a 10 percent stake, raising up to USD 10bn in an exercise which could also make millions in fees for banks and other advisers. The appointment of Morgan Stanley as lead book-runner would be a blow to Goldman Sachs, which was seen as the frontrunner after arranging a USD 1.5bn private offering of Facebook shares in January last year. The float would dwarf Google's 2004 listing, which is still the largest American internet stock market float. The search engine giant raised USD 1.9bn, based on a valuation for the entire company of USD 23bn. Expectations of an imminent filing with the US securities and exchange commission, the precursor to any public offering, have been high since Wednesday, when Facebook suspended trading of its shares on the private secondary market.

http://www.ejc.net/media_news/facebook_set_to_file_for_flotation/

Social media: A new role in politics

• Bill Miston

GREEN BAY - Do you "like" a certain politician on Facebook?

Or perhaps following their tweets on Twitter is more your style.

Every day, world-wide, more than 400 million people log onto Facebook, more than 3 billion YouTube videos are watched, and more than 140 million tweets are sent.

So to stay tuned in to their constituents, politicians on every level – from the country’s executive branch to state politicians – are taking advantage of social media to get their messages out.

"The social media is just a new tool for marketing and the people who master it will probably be fairly successful in the elections," said University of Wisconsin Green Bay communications professor Phil Clampitt.

Clampitt says social media may never replace traditional communication, like TV ads.

But, he says the cross-promotion between traditional media and social media allows a politician to connect with voters on previously un-seen levels, with almost immediate feedback.

However, execution isn't always easy.

"The part is people taking web page content and just popping it into social media and expecting it to work,” said Clampitt. “It doesn't do it."

Say you want to get information about a politician, but have trouble navigating the various layouts of different websites. Communication strategists say social media is making what once was a tedious task, a lot easier.

"Social media is built for politics,” said Mark Graul with Arena Strategy Group in Green Bay. “It builds for allowing you to get information out."

Graul, a public affairs consultant and former campaign strategist, says social media provides an inexpensive way for politicians and campaigns to drive home messages on what are now commonly recognized platforms, like Facebook.

"It used to be (politicians would get) a website and put up (their) content, maybe update that website, if (the campaign was) good, maybe once a day,” said Graul. “But now, people are expecting multiple updates, throughout the day."

Graul says traditional sites now push constituents to "like" their Facebook pages and re-tweet their messages, driving their social media sites and user interaction.

And he says those interactions could lead to favorable outcomes, come election time.

But make a mistake on the campaign trail could mean the blunder then goes viral, in a bad way.

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/green_bay/social-media-a-new-role-in-politics

Law Firm Helping Companies Manage Social Media Risk

In an historic first in Australia, a law firm (BlandsLaw)has developed a suite of social media policy products, designed to assist companies and suppliers manage their social media risk. As BlandsLaw has extensive expertise in workplace and commercial law and is an active user of social media, they are well placed to advise companies on the many aspects of social media.

 

"I would call us a 'social' law firm" says General Manager, Vivienne Storey. "Meaning that social media is integrated into the way we do business, not just used as an add on or marketing afterthought."

 

Australians are among the most avid consumers of social media worldwide with nearly 11 million users on Facebook as of December 2011(socialmedianews.com.au). And it's not just about sharing photos and status updates with friends. Businesses are increasingly using social media to engage with customers. LinkedIn Australia, the professional social networking site, now has over two million members.

 

With an increasing number of cases relating to social media in the courts, this suite of social media policy products is a timely resource for employers. Implementing a social media policy helps ensure employers are across the potential risks faced with the increasing use of social media in the workplace.

 

Postings on Facebook and the general use of social networking sites by individuals to display their displeasure with employers, employees and coworkers are becoming common. Nearly every business is affected by it. Even a business that doesn’t make use of social media for recruiting or branding purposes can be affected by what others post about it, including their own employees. And unless employees have clear guidance to tell them what type of social media posting is acceptable and what is not, they may think they have free reign to post whatever they want, including information about the company.

 

Some of the risks companies face include:

 

Leaking of confidential information (often inadvertently)

Bringing the company into disrepute

Potential unfair dismissal claims

Public airings of employee grievances

Ambiguity regarding ownership of social media accounts

Adverse impact on brand reputation

 

The recent case where Fair Work Australia found against Linfox for an unfair dismissal case, where an employee was making disparaging remarks about his employer on Facebook, further highlights the need to have a well thought out social media policy that employees are trained on. Policies should be comprehensive and tailored to the work place in order to be relied upon in a court case. "Additionally, a strategically executed social media policy can be an invaluable training resource to ensure employees understand the social media medium and it's inherent risks", says Vivienne.

 

The social media policy products have been separately branded under the MySocialPolicy identity and more detailed information can be found at http://mysocialpolicy.com.au

http://prwire.com.au/pr/26960/law-firm-helping-companies-manage-social-media-risk

UK signs ACTA as activists urge resistance

The UK and 21 other European Union member states have signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, better known as ACTA.

The countries signed the treaty, which aims to harmonise copyright enforcement across much of the world, in Tokyo on Thursday. However, the signatures of the EU member states and the EU itself will count for nothing unless the European Parliament gives its approval to ACTA in June, and digital activists have urged citizens to lobby their MEPs against voting yes.

World Economic Forum Davos 2012: It would be foolish to restrict Internet , say top corporate honchos

DAVOS: Amid raging controversy over Internet censorship in countries including India, corporate honchos at the World Economic Forum today batted for online freedom saying it would be "foolish" for any government to impose restrictions.

Popular social networking site Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg, during a panel discussion, underscored the need for free and open Internet platform.

"It will be foolish for any government to block these platform," said Unilever CEO and WEF Co-Chair Paul Polman.

According to Sandberg, Internet and the social media have emerged as a major platform for freedom of speech and free exchange of views, providing a great platform to the people.

"There has to be free and open Internet platform, but obviously there has to be safety and security for the users," she said.

Google and Facebook are among 21 companies whose executives have been summoned to appear in person in a lower court in Delhi in March for allegedly hosting obscene and objectionable content.

Sandberg further noted that democratic countries would need to work together on how to keep the Internet free, and still a safe and secure platform.

"Right to privacy is certainly very important. We need to have checks and balances in place on whether and what data the users want to share. We need to get the right regulations, but not those that are not practical or not of any use," she pointed out at the WEF.

On the issue of Internet freedom, Citigroup chief Vikram Pandit said that right to privacy and security of data is certainly very important.

The issues like cyber security need to be taken seriously and we need to do a lot better on these fronts, he noted.

"When we talk about free Internet and restrained Internet, the names like Arab Spring indeed come to the mind and the authoritarian regimes and democratic regimes," Sandberg said.

Participating in the discussion, Mexico-based Cinepolis CEO Alejandro Ramirez said that social media is indeed a powerful tool.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/world-economic-forum-davos-2012-it-would-be-foolish-to-restrict-internet-say-top-corporate-honchos/articleshow/11676293.cms

Twitter Censorship Doesn't Rattle Opposition

By Jonathan Earle

Twitter has announced that it now has the ability to censor content in specific countries, leading critics to fear it may cause increased collusion with governments looking to stop opposition groups — like those behind Russia's recent election fraud protests – from using the site as an organizing tool.

The new capability, announced on Twitter's blog on Thursday, allows the company to censor content on a country-by-country basis, while leaving offending posts visible to users in other countries. Twitter previously was only able to remove content worldwide.

"As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression," the company wrote on its blog post, sparking speculation that it is preparing to launch in China, where it has been banned since June 2009.

The announcement led to a wave of criticism across the Internet, with many human rights defenders denouncing the move as a devil's bargain with repressive governments that would undermine Twitter's commitment to free speech in an effort to open new markets.

They cited a January 2011 blog post in which Twitter wrote: "We keep the information flowing irrespective of any view we may have about the content." The service was seen as instrumental in facilitating the Arab Spring uprisings that toppled three Middle Eastern governments in 2011.

In Russia, activists with the For Honest Elections movement — who have staged the largest anti-Kremlin protests of the Putin era in response to alleged voting fraud in the Dec. 4 State Duma elections — say they rely on the service as key means for communicating and organizing.

"Twitter is extremely important for us," said Alyona Popova, a spokeswoman for the group. Among other things, activists use the service to gauge public opinion and solicit aid for arrested activists, she said.

A spokeswoman for Twitter said the new technological capability did not reflect a change in the company's policy.

"Our announcement is not at all about Twitter censoring tweets, or any kind of policy or philosophical change in how we feel about the importance of free expression," Rachel Bremer, a Twitter representative, wrote in response to a question from The Moscow Times.

Twitter's removing content "will (and always has) only happen in reaction to valid legal process," she wrote.

Some observers in Russia said they didn't blame Twitter for wanting to expand into markets with more repressive censorship laws — something Google and other Internet companies have already done — and that Russian Internet users, even opposition-minded ones, had nothing to fear.

"I don't think it will influence anything," said Ilya Varlamov, a prominent blogger and a co-founder of the League of Voters, a newly formed grassroots group promoting free and fair elections. "Twitter is too fast. By the time the government would get around to blocking content, it would already be too old to matter."

Anton Nosik, a journalist and electronic media entrepreneur, also said there was no reason to panic. "As long as Twitter doesn't have an office in Russia, it's not subject to Russian law."

But others were less optimistic.

"I really regret Twitter's mercantile decision to bow to local dictators," wrote journalist Oleg Kozyrev on his LiveJournal blog.

In an exchange of Twitter messages with The Moscow Times, Kozyrev wrote that Twitter's decision could have negative consequences for the opposition.

"It's easy to censor bloggers and, more importantly, hashtags," he wrote, referring to a feature that allows like-minded users to quickly find each other.

Popova, of For Honest Elections, said she too was worried about the new rule, but she didn't expect a crackdown on Twitter or the Russian Internet anytime soon.

"What we're doing is completely legal. Plus, it's in no one's interest to crack down. The public backlash would be too strong," she said.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/twitter-censorship-doesnt-rattle-opposition/451909.html

Hungary Moving Back Into Telecommunications Sector

By KEVIN J. O'BRIEN

BERLIN — Since Europe deregulated its telecommunications industry in 1998, most E.U. governments have gotten out of the business. Britain unloaded BT, for example, the Netherlands ditched KPN and Spain sold Telefónica.

But Hungary is going in the other direction. The country, an E.U. member already under fire for laws restricting media freedom and the independence of its central bank, is seeking to get back into the mobile phone business as a telecommunications operator.

The Hungarian telecommunications regulator is poised to award a mobile phone operator’s license to a consortium of three state-owned companies in an auction that ends Jan. 31.

The move has angered the three existing telecommunications operators — Magyar Telekom, the former monopoly that is 59 percent owned by Deutsche Telekom; Telenor Hungary, a unit of the Norwegian operator; and Vodafone Hungary. These operators fear the creation of a formidable rival that will upset what has been a relatively stable market.

Representatives for the operators declined to comment publicly, citing the Hungarian government’s ban on public communication before the results are announced. But two people close to the operators with knowledge of their plans said the private carriers were wary of the government’s actions.

More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/technology/hungary-moving-back-into-telecommunications-sector.html