Information Policy

ACTA Protest Guide: Rally Details From Around the World

Protests are spreading across the globe, as outrage grows over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty in the wake of the SOPA bill being shelved last week by the U.S. Congress. Find all the details about these protest events below.

From ACTA to SOPA to the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act, Internet freedom is under assault from all angles, and the world's Internet freedom advocates continue their efforts to stop what they describe as a creeping encroachment on Internet privacy and constitutional rights.

Now that the furor over the Stop Online Piracy Act has died down following a major Internet blackout last week that led U.S. lawmakers to pull the controversial bill, the focus has shifted to stopping ACTA in its tracks. But the treaty is going to be much harder to stop than SOPA, and its effects are farther-reaching than any American legislation.

Groups throughout the world have set up a range of protest events aimed at keeping ACTA from becoming the way of the world.

A number of countries -- including the United States -- have already signed the treaty, and the EU and 22 of its 27 member states signed it Thursday in the face of major protests, led by the hacktivist collective known as Anonymous.

A proposed agreement that would create an international framework and set of standards for enforcing intellectual property rights, ACTA would create a voluntary legal regime that would allow for copyright and intellectual property cases to be adjudicated across national lines without having to contend with individual nations' conflicting laws.

And, since the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed the treaty in October 2011, and Mexico and Switzerland declined to sign but indicated that they plan to do so in the future, the momentum is in favor of ACTA supporters.

There is still time to fight against the treaty, which would restrict the ability of Web sites to engage in open discourse by placing draconian copyright and intellectual property restrictions in place throughout the world. There is a petition at WhiteHouse.gov with more than 30,000 signatures currently on file with the Obama administration, calling on it to "end ACTA and protect our right to Internet privacy," and advocacy groups from around the world are mobilizing to stop the treaty from being fully ratified this summer. For more information about how to stop ACTA, visit this comprehensive site.

If you would rather ramp up your efforts to protest the bill by taking to the streets, consult the below list of worldwide protest events, provided in a Friday Tweet by @YourAnonNews:

FRANCE, Orléans, Jan 28th, 2PM, Place du Martroi,https://www.facebook.com/events/196169083815498/
FRANCE, Paris, Jan 28th, 2PM, place de la bastille, https://www.facebook.com/events/351789298165521,
FRANCE, Bordeaux, January 28th, 2:00pm, https://www.facebook.com/events/231155533629947/
FRANCE, Lyon, January 28th, 2:00pm, https://www.facebook.com/events/214543538637013/
FRANCE All france from Anonymous Francophone FB page !
Angers : https://www.facebook.com/events/287764824614952
Annecy : https://www.facebook.com/events/330912470272865/
Annemasse: https://www.facebook.com/events/348173395194159/
Auxerre : https://www.facebook.com/events/334639596566874/
Avignon : https://www.facebook.com/events/222248271195618/
Besançon : https://www.facebook.com/events/350055058338859/
Bordeaux : https://www.facebook.com/events/231155533629947/
Bourges : https://www.facebook.com/events/352007704812371/
Brest : https://www.facebook.com/events/316783001694510/
Caen : https://www.facebook.com/events/367048943308835/
Centre : https://www.facebook.com/events/196169083815498/
Chalon : https://www.facebook.com/events/365757036784795/
Chambery : https://www.facebook.com/events/133986876719736/
Grenoble : https://www.facebook.com/events/278231938903223/
Ile de la Réunion: https://www.facebook.com/events/174921109278425/
Le Mans : https://www.facebook.com/events/331483616885366/
Lille : https://www.facebook.com/events/302943896423611/
Limoges : https://www.facebook.com/events/135376489913868/
Lorient : https://www.facebook.com/events/331853836855500/
Lyon : https://www.facebook.com/events/214543538637013/
Marseille : https://www.facebook.com/events/193923677372285/
Metz : https://www.facebook.com/events/256838954387558/
Montauban : https://www.facebook.com/events/359252677435719/
Montpellier: https://www.facebook.com/events/232011503547892/?context=create
Nancy : https://www.facebook.com/events/256604511074939/
Nantes : https://www.facebook.com/events/224971834252356/
Nice : https://www.facebook.com/events/213126875444670
Nîmes : https://www.facebook.com/events/283720411691171/
Paris : https://www.facebook.com/events/351789298165521
Perpignan : https://www.facebook.com/events/331509563547221
Poitiers : https://www.facebook.com/events/236895849719632/
Quimper: https://www.facebook.com/events/310646308973202/
Reims : https://www.facebook.com/events/172682926170967/
Rennes : https://www.facebook.com/events/254072557998714/
Strasbourg : https://www.facebook.com/events/341992745818985/
Toulon : https://www.facebook.com/events/345539455464665/
Toulouse : https://www.facebook.com/events/349931021686076/
Tours : https://www.facebook.com/events/301695123209585/
Valence : https://www.facebook.com/events/282605105127891/
https://www.facebook.com/events/243239842417618/?context=create

Poland-based protests can be found at this link: http://pastebin.com/q1BhEbmzeE
Czech Republic-based protests can be found at this link: http://pastebin.com/DdAsYEtvj
BELGIUM, Brussels, January 28th 4:30 PM, https://www.facebook.com/events/260087024061630/
IRELAND, Dublin, February 4th, 1.00 PM, https://www.facebook.com/events/284626631593223/

IRELAND, The march from Spire to the Dáil, January 28th, 1PM, https://www.facebook.com/events/168063729963049/
All France https://www.facebook.com/events/317777628260945/
CZECH REPUBLIC, Prague, February 2nd, 2.00 PM, http://sm3.blog.cz/1201/piratsky-protest-proti-acta-ctvrtek-2-unora
SWEDEN, Stockholm, February 4th, 12 PM, https://www.facebook.com/events/332489143440319/
SWEDEN, Helsingborg, February 11th, https://www.facebook.com/events/239284842817072/
SWEDEN, Göteborg, February 25th, https://www.facebook.com/events/243895365687129/
POLAND, ACTA signed but still fighting :) protest in GDAŃSK January 31st, 6pm http://www.facebook.com/events/308132032565777/,
PORTUGAL, NO TO ACTA, protest online TA, protest online http://www.facebook.com/events/176371262470010/
Malta, Valletta, 15th February 5PMhttp://www.facebook.com/events/372841852732565/
SLOVENIA, Ljubljana, Kongresni trg, Feb. 4th, noonhttps://www.facebook.com/events/242732285801564/
SWITZERLAND: http://piratenpad.de/p/pet_stop_ACTA_ch

Source:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/288930/20120127/acta-protest-rally-world.htm

Twitter’s censorship is a gray box of shame, but not for Twitter

Twitter’s announcement this week that it was going to enable country-specific censorship of posts is arousing fury around the Internet. Commentators, activists, protesters and netizens have said it’s “very bad news” and claim to be “#outraged”. Bianca Jagger, for one, asked how to go about boycotting Twitter, on Twitter, according to the New York Times. (Step one might be… well, never mind.) The critics have settled on #TwitterBlackout: all day on Saturday the 28th, they promised to not tweet, as a show of protest and solidarity with those who might be censored.

Continue reading "Twitter’s censorship is a gray box of shame, but not for Twitter" »

By Mike Flacy

While political leaders continue to propose new bills that refine Internet freedom and privacy, one social, Internet organization plans to use political action committees to influence popular public opinion.

by Matthew Vella

Facebook users are calling for a protest next Friday, 3 February in Valletta, against the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which the Maltese government signed this week as part of 22-state EU bloc.

The international agreement, devised by the United States and Japan and negotiated in secret with major industries, seeks to create an unelected international body to enforce intellectual property rights: most controversially by forcing internet service providers to police online content and impose criminal sanctions on copyright infringers.

The microblogging site Twitter says it has introduced new technology so it can censor messages, or tweets, on a country-by-country basis.

Any tweet that breaks a law in one country, can be taken down there by the company, but it can still be seen elsewhere.

Twitter views the censorship tool as a way to ensure tweets remain available to as many people as possible. Previously, when Twitter blocked a message, it would remove that tweet entirely, and could not be seen anywhere in the world.
 
The company says its new policy will enable it to expand globally and abide by certain countries' internet laws.
 
Twitter will post a censorship notice whenever a tweet is removed. It also plans to share the removal requests it receives from governments, companies and individuals at a specific website.

But many critics say that the latest censorship move by Twitter will have serious implications on the company's commitment to the freedom of speech. They accuse the company of just working to broaden its users to make more money.

But what does the new tool really mean for Twitter and its users? And is the self-censorship the beginning of the end to freedom of expression on the internet?

Inside Story, with presenter James Bays, is joined by our guests: Wael Abbas, an Egyptian blogger and political activist; Danvers Baillieu, a co-founder of Bootlaw, a service providing legal advice to technology, internet and digital professionals, and he is also a senior associate specialising in representing technology companies at international law firm Pinsent Masons; and Tom Royal, a deputy editor for the Computer Active Magazine.

"I know that some of the people working for Twitter were activists, and they know that activists have to break laws, even in England and the United States. If we look at countries like Egypt, like Syria, like Yemen, of course all our tweets are breaking the law. And that's what activists do, they break the law because they want to make changes to these unjust laws. and they have the right to do that, and if you prevent them from this right then you are attacking human rights itself."

Wael Abbas, Egyptian blogger

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/01/2012128131255440278.html

By Rady Ananda

On Jan. 26, the European Union and 22 member states signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Japan?s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced. They have now joined the US and seven other nations that signed the treaty last October.

This signing ceremony merely formalized the EU?s adoption of ACTA last month, during a completely unrelated meeting on agriculture and fisheries, reports TechDirt.

Though initiated by the US, Japan is the official depository of the treaty.

Removal of the Three Strikes clause, in which users accused of three counts of piracy would be barred from the Internet, paved the way for the EU to adopt ACTA last month.

Related to ACTA, a chapter in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) ?would have state signatories adopt even more restrictive copyright measures than ACTA,? reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Both ACTA and TPP were developed without public input and outside international trade groups, like the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Leaked cables published by Wikileaks in 2009 exposed early drafts of ACTA, resulting in a firestorm of controversy. Those cables, coupled with later releases, showed that ACTA negotiations began in 2006 and were controversial even to participating states. An historical summary of the treaty?s progress through December can be found here.

ACTA Violates Magna Carta and US Constitution

Like PIPA and SOPA, two domestic internet censorship bills that prompted major websites to blacken their name or website in a Jan. 18th protest, ACTA allows accusers of copyright infringement to bypass judicial review. Lack of ?due process? makes these bills and ACTA unconstitutional and violates the Magna Carta, a charter signed in 1215 on which most Western law is based, including the US Constitution. It is often cited as the most important legal document in the history of democracy.

(The USA PATRIOT Acts, Obama?s assassination program, and the National Defense Authorization Act that allows indefinite detention are among many recent laws passed in the US which directly breach the Magna Carta.)

?The Constitution states only one command twice,? explains Peter Strauss of Cornell University Law School, further elaborating:

?The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be ?deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.? The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (?legality?) and provide fair procedures.?

Not only due process, but US adoption of ACTA also violates Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the president ?shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.?

The Senate never voted on ACTA.

During the Jan. 18 internet blackout, Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced OPEN, (H.R. 3782, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act). Heather Callaghan points out that even though OPEN targets foreign-based websites,

?[T]he bill?s wording is wide open to pursue American sites. Just one example: when describing an infringing site, it starts with those ?that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name,? but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that ?conducts business directed to residents of the United States.??

As this slew of internet censorship bills and treaties make their way into law, ?the United States fell 27 places on the Reporters Without Borders tenth annual Press Freedom Index of 2011 to 47th overall,? reports Activist Post.

Today?s signatories included the EU, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Last October, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States signed ACTA.

Though involved in early ACTA negotiations, Switzerland and Mexico have not yet ratified it. However, ?Since the agreement remains open to signature until May 2013, it is possible that other states may make a move to join it as well,? said Maira Sutton of EFF.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2012/01/27/eu-signs-acta-global-internet-censorship

The Internet proved the only true form of free communication during the Arab Spring and yet the West has come to take the freedom it confers for granted, Google boss Eric Schmidt said Friday.

In a stout defense of Internet freedoms at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Schmidt also said that rather than be seen as contributing to job losses, the web was a great opportunity for businesses to grow.

Schmidt told delegates he had just returned from a visit to Libya after the revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi, a trip which had underlined the value of the Internet in societies where phones are tapped and media is state-run.

"The thing I learnt most about the Arab Spring is that we take the Internet for granted here," said Schmidt, Google's executive chairman.

"When you live in country where censorship is the norm ... the Internet is your only communications mechanism."

The role of the Internet in the Arab Spring was memorably illustrated by Wael Ghonim, Google's head of marketing for the Middle East and North Africa, who administered the Facebook page that helped spark Egypt's revolution.

Schmidt said an uncensored Internet could ensure the new generation of Arab leaders does not repeat the same pattern of corruption of the old regimes.

He proposed it becomes mandatory for politicians running for office to disclose their assets on the Internet.

Schmidt, whose own firm employs some 30,000 people, also said the Internet should not be blamed for problems in the labor market, arguing that: "It's important not to fear technological innovation and revolution."

He said that governments had to address what he called "a huge labor shortage for highly educated people" in manufacturing.

"There are plenty of countries, (the) United States and other countries that I have visited, that are very short of skilled people," he said.

He said the web worked to the benefit of small business as "there's no better tool" to find customers, adding: "A reasonable expectation is that the access to the Internet will produce a very large number of smaller companies."

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/28164-google-boss-says-west-takes-internet-freedom-for-granted

Estonia has reached the level of Finland in the number of registered internet domains it has relative to its population.

Both countries currently have 50 national domains registered per 1,000 inhabitants.

In 2011, Estonia's dot-ee domain saturation passed those of Latvia and Lithuania, where the figure for each currently stands at 43.

Because of the nation's increasing domain registration activity, the Internet Foundation will lower the price of registering a dot-ee domain by 6.5 percent to 17 euros, effective May 1.

"We should definitely make an effort to make a dot-ee domain owned by every person in Estonia actively using their e-mail and the internet," Marek-Andres Kauts, head of the foundation.

http://news.err.ee/fe76f0c9-e678-4722-bbe1-a42796312d18

Deutsche Telekom's (XETRA: DTE.DE) wholesale unit, International Carrier Sales & Solutions (ICSS), has struck a pact with Latvian wireline provider Lattlecom to jointly build a new multi-country fiber network.

Designed to support the growing Internet traffic demands between Western Europe, and particularly Russia and the Baltic States, the new Baltic Telecommunications Highway network will support transmission speeds up to 10 Gbps and low latency.

"The Baltic states as well as Russia have witnessed a substantial surge in demand for network connectivity, and through the Baltic Highway we will jointly provide enhanced connectivity for the region," said Holger Magnussen, senior vice-president of Deutsche Telekom International Carrier Sales & Solutions.

Outside of their own home countries, Deutsche Telekom ICSS and Lattlecom will build complementary network facilities in both Poland and Lithuania.

Upon completion, Juris Gulbis, Lattelecom's Management Board chairman and CEO, said that the Baltic Telecommunications Highway will give "Russian and other neighboring state telecommunications operators with the geographically shortest route for data flow to Europe and the rest of the world."

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/deutsche-telekom-lattlecom-create-route-linking-russia-western-europe/2012-01-25

It’s not often you hear free-speech advocates praising a censorship policy—but that’s what happened on Thursday, after Twitter announced a new policy of withholding content both on a tweet-by-tweet and a country-by-country basis.

“Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country—while keeping it available in the rest of the world,” the company said in a blog post on Thursday.

Zeynep Tufekci, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, points out correctly that the new policy increases the amount of content available. “Previously when Twitter would take down content when forced to do so by a court order, it would disappear globally,” she writes in the technosociology blog. “This is a great improvement.”

Jillian York, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that Twitter was promising to provide greater transparency than peers like Facebook. Not only will Twitter notify users that a request has been made to remove content they published on Twitter, it will also show an alert box to people in the country where the content is blocked. Furthermore, it will report the action to Chilling Effects, which maintains a searchable database of Cease and Desist notices sent to Internet Users and providers.

“Alas, Twitter is not above the law,” York writes. “Just about every company hosting user-generated content has, at one point or another, gotten an order or a government request to take down content…I believe the company is doing the best in a tough situation.”

But Twitter users weren’t as understanding. @Anon_Central, which claims affiliation with the Anonymous network of hackers, joined others in calling for a #TwitterBlackout on Saturday.  By 5 p.m. on Friday, Google had counted 1.5 million references to the hashtag and more than 1,000 news stories and posts.

Earnest efforts to discuss the reality of Internet censorship were overwhelmed. “Twitter’s not censoring you, your government is,” noted Hannah Hart, host of popular Youtube show “My Drunk Kitchen,” in a retweet of The Next Web.

Yet the fact remained that in a clumsy, inarticulate way, Twitter was taking a stand.

Since 1995, there have been at least 606 unique incidents involving 99 countries that disconnected their digital networks, either by shutting down the Internet exchange points or by blocking specific kinds of traffic–like  Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.

This kind of censorship is often referred to as “the dictator’s dilemma,” but democracies have imposed Internet shutdowns nearly as often as their non-democratic counterparts. According to a paper published in October by the Brookings Institution, of the total incidents of Internet censorship 52 percent occurred under authoritarian regimes, 39 percent under democracies, 6 percent under emerging democracies, and 3 percent in fragile states.

“Over time, the number of incidents involving state interference with Internet infrastructure has increased dramatically,” the Brookings researchers wrote.

The most common reasons for shutting down or restricting Internet access? To protect political authority or preserve the public good.In Germany the public good included blocking access to sex-related information. In Pakistan, access to Facebook, YouTube and other sites was cut off in response to a “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” publicized on Facebook.

Yet, the extraordinary events of the last few years suggest that censorship can backfire. Moves by Tunisia to ban YouTube and DailyMotion in 2007 and Facebook in 2008 prompted international protests. Efforts by Iran to filter content critical of the government and to block sites such as YouTube and Flickr appeared to stoke dissent, culminating in millions of Iranians protesting the 2009 elections.

But perhaps the most telling example comes from Cairo. A year ago today, former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak ordered the Internet shut down. He was ousted less than two weeks later.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/01/27/twitter-and-the-dictators-dilemma/

WASHINGTON: US today said it will wait and watch how micro-blogging site Twitter implements its censorship policy.

"It will wait and watch how Twitter implements its policy with regard to censorship, which was announced by the micro blogging social networking site a day earlier", the State Department said.

"We are strongly committed to protecting fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, association online", State Department spokesperson Victoria Nualand said.

"As the Secretary (of State) said in her Internet freedom speech, the choices that private companies make have an impact on how information flows or doesn't flow on the Internet and mobile networks."

"They also have an impact on what governments can and can't do and on people," she said.

She said smart companies need to develop broad principles that guide their actions.

"I think in the Twitter case, what we see here is a company making very clear what its policies are going to be in these circumstances where the choice is operate not at all or operate in a constrained way," Nuland said.

"So from that perspective, being honest about what you're up to is in keeping with these standards.

"But until we see how they are implemented and how it influences content, we obviously can't evaluate whether this is, you know, a good thing or not for Internet freedom," she said.

Nuland said there are a number of examples of companies that are not as up-front about what they do.

"And, you know, at least this way, Twitter users can know what is up. But again, until we see how this is implemented, I don't think we're in a position to evaluate," she said.

Twitter, she pointed out, has stated publicly that it is committed to abiding by fundamental freedoms of expression and association and assembly, and to being transparent.

The United States, she asserted, would only set out broader principles, and not dictate to companies.

"We're not going to dictate to companies. We're setting out the general principles."

There are many companies out there that make these decisions without being transparent, either to their users or to the world, she said.

Twitter's been up-front about what they're doing. I think we have to see how it works," Nuland said.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/will-watch-how-twitter-implements-censorship-policy-us/articleshow/11658413.cms

Sarah Barmak

“It’s no longer OK to NOT know how the internet works,” read the slogans on a sea of white signs hoisted by protesters at a New York rally last week.

They were denouncing the U.S. anti-piracy laws known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), both of which had their support yanked thanks to the backlash.

Then came the negative reaction to this week’s news that Google will be sharing user information across all its platforms — Gmail, Google+, search and YouTube.

We are experiencing a peak moment of outrage, it seems, against policies that seek to restrict or monitor what people do online.

Journalist and activist Rebecca MacKinnon has been warning for years that the freedom and privacy of ordinary people is under attack online, and she warns the fight isn’t over. Despite their pioneering image, she says, tech companies tend to be more hostile to human rights commitments than traditional bricks-and-mortar firms.

MacKinnon spoke to the Star about her new book, Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom, due out this week. It’s a powerful call to the online community to stand up for our rights before they are legislated, engineered or sold away for good.

Q: The entertainment industry has pledged to press for a new version of SOPA and PIPA. Are opponents celebrating the laws’ demise too soon?

A: Definitely. This is a marathon, not a sprint. The people who want laws passed that are along the lines of SOPA and PIPA, they’ve been at this for a very long time. There is also this Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that the U.S. spent several years negotiating in secret with a number of countries, trading partners, and is now trying to get a lot of those countries to sign, and there are aspects of that agreement that are similar to some of the things in SOPA and PIPA, (like placing) the responsibility on the ISPs to prevent infringement by their users, that are of concern to civil liberties groups. In France you have HADOPI, the three-strikes law that would cut off people’s Internet access after three instances of being found to have committed file sharing.

For the broader public, the SOPA and PIPA protest was the first time that a lot of average Internet users got involved and got political on an Internet regulation issue. The question is, can the grassroots remain motivated and mobilized for the long run after this one very dramatic and important victory? That’s not clear. It’s not clear how that enthusiasm and passion is going to be harnessed for the marathon. Because this is not over.

Some feel Google’s latest move further chips away at users’ privacy without a way for them to opt out. Some privacy advocates have gone so far as to say people should log out of Gmail when they’re not using it to prevent Google from tracking their ad preferences. Others claim those who are worried are paranoid and simply don’t understand how online services work, which may be fair. Is the crux of the problem just this — that our gadgets, email, and social networks are so far over the heads of 99 per cent of the customers who rely on them, that no one knows when to be worried?

Companies have a serious responsibility to do more to help people understand these technologies. In our society we are so dependent on these technologies for every aspect of our lives — not only our personal lives, but our jobs and our political lives, our relationships with different groups of people. There are many people who may have a personal life they don’t want their employer to know about, or political views they don’t want their family to know about, or reading habits they don’t want their abusive spouse to know about. People have good reasons why they need to be empowered to understand and have sufficient control over their digital selves.

Frankly, I would like to see all these companies not only creating little tutorials online, but it would be very helpful if they went into schools with some curricula, you know, or worked with teachers on how to use Google safely, how to use Facebook safely. In some cases some companies are starting to do that kind of thing. It’s important that just as we’re socialized at an early age, how to walk around a city safely and what to do and what not to do, we need to be socialized about how to navigate the Internet safely. The companies as the private sovereigns of these digital spaces have an obligation to help us learn to navigate that, just as the government of a city has to make the city understandable so that we can exist in it safely, and also to be responsive to our concerns.

What can the average, non-technological user do to demand change?

I think Google is making some efforts. They could certainly do more. There are some groups of Google users who have started to use Google’s own social network, Google+, to communicate with Google management about their unhappiness with Google+’s identity policies. People raised enough of an outcry that management actually went and changed their policies somewhat and claimed that they’re working to change them further. It’s one example of, rather than just sitting there and saying, ‘Well this company’s evil, the government should do something about it,’ that we also as customers and users have power to take our issues to the companies directly and we probably haven’t been exercising that power as much as we should.

You could create user associations within Google and organize, go and meet with Google management on various issues of concern. I don’t think we’ve seen a really organized example of it yet, but I think we’re going to start to see that sort of thing happening. A company that’s enlightened ought to welcome that kind of thing because it builds their trust with their customer and user base.

You worked for 12 years as a reporter in Asia, rising to the position of bureau chief for CNN in Beijing and Tokyo. In 2004, you left CNN for a five-month fellowship at Harvard to study the emerging issues of blogging and censorship — and never went back. What spurred you to become an independent journalist?

I had become increasingly fascinated in the few years before in the rise of blogs around the world, the phenomenon of citizen media. I thought this was really fascinating, particularly at a time when I was growing increasingly frustrated with my own organization and I was being told things by management, like, my expertise was getting in the way. And could I please cover the region more like a tourist.

So the idea that, okay, well if foreign correspondents, if professional news organizations actually in many cases aren’t doing such a great job of covering the world, then it’s even more important that citizens should have the power to report on their countries directly to the rest of the world. So I thought that was kind of cool.

These issues tend to be reported in a very compartmentalized way. So we’ll talk about censorship in China, like “Oh, all those poor Chinese people are dealing with censorship, we need to help free them,” or Facebook and the Arab Spring, and we’ll talk about our fights over copyright and surveillance in the U.S., and not really talk about how all these things are interconnected. So this book is in some ways a long-form essay about just how to explain these concerns, and a little bit about what people might be able to do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/1122845--freedom-privacy-of-ordinary-people-under-attack-online-activist-rebecca-mackinnon-warns

The US operating subsidiary of KDDI Corp, KDDI America, has inked a deal with Russian national operator Rostelecom to launch a low-latency 10Gbps wavelength service between Japan and Europe. According to TeleGeography’s GlobalComms Database, in May 2011 KDDI Corp entered into a partnership agreement with Rostelecom to strengthen communications connectivity on a network link between Japan and Russia by improving the Russia-Japan Cable Network (RJCN) and Transit Europe-Asia (TEA) links. The Japanese firm contributed USD12 million of the total cost of USD60 million, at which date the upgrade was scheduled for completion at the start of this year. As a result of the planned improvements the pair have quadrupled connection speeds and enabled leased line services with data transmission rates of up to 10Gbps. KDDI and Rostelecom forecast that data volumes between their respective countries will grow by 200%-400% by 2014.

http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/01/17/telcos-launch-low-latency-10gbps-wavelength-service-between-japan-and-europe/

Internet freedom activists in Poland are set to hold more demonstrations later today.

They are angry about their government signing an international treaty to enforce intellectual property rights on the web.

Similar protests were held yesterday following the decision by ministers to back the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Poland’s signing of the treaty, known as ACTA, still needs parliamentary approval.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said: “I don’t think that these international treaties can be greeted with delight by those who have become used to certain internet practices, which aren’t legal under Polish law.”

Activist group Anonymous responded to the move by hacking Polish government websites.

It says the treaty amounts to censorship.

ACTA also needs the approval of the European Parliament and all EU member states before it can come into force across the 27-member bloc.

http://www.euronews.net/2012/01/27/poland-braced-for-more-internet-freedom-protests/

by Rajat Haldar

Until now, Twitter’s not had the ability to censor certain tweets or accounts, to prevent them from being seen — if legally required — by users in particular countries. That’s now changed, though Twitter stresses that it hasn’t yet used this new ability and that should it have to, anything withheld

will be disclosed.

Twitter has shared the news on its blog, saying:

"As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.

Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it up in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why."

These types of censorship demands have long been placed against search engines like Google or anyone who hosts content (such as through Google’s Blogger). Twitter is preparing for potential demands in the way that Google already does, by alerting its users to when content has been withheld and providing information about why, though the Chilling Effects site.

On the surface that sounds scary. "Reactively withhold content," reads like censorship. But, it's (mostly) a good development.

This announcement from Twitter reads like an invitation to censors. On the face of it, this is nothing new – Google does much the same. For example, in India, Google shows a different version of the map on Google Maps in line with the Indian governments policy, and also censors content and search results accordingly. Twitter, until now, had a single global policy and approach, which meant that if you were following certain users and tweets, they would have been accessible to everyone across the world. This meant that if Twitter was in violation of the local laws in a particular country, it could have been sued or blocked, and the company would not have been allowed to conduct business in the country, without risking legal or government intervention.

The Not so Scary

Twitter's already censoring tweets. Both in the U.S. and globally. Twitter's basically taking its U.S. policy and applying it to other countries individually. As of now, Twitter, like Google, follows the Digital Millennium Copyright act. And that won't change, as Marketing Land's Danny Sullivan explains. "That will continue to be the case going forward, and any request made under US laws to remove content will continue to pull that content from Twitter worldwide," he writes. But now, it can respond to, for example, Germany's request to take down pro-Nazi tweets, without removing the tweet from the rest of the world, as policy allowed until today. The new policy will actually limit the censorship, rather than spread it, taking it from a global blackout, to a country specific one.

They're going to be transparent about it. Following that scary "reactively withhold" part, Twitter mentions that it has "built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why." When it does choose remove content, Twitter alerts the world via a Twitter feed (of course) @ChillFireHose. Once removed, the doesn't just disappear. Twitter will post the following message, or something like it, in its place.

It's not necessarily permanent. Sometimes Twitter might misidentify a user's country. That can be changed over at the Twitter help center, giving users the ability to override the censorship.

The Scary

Sometimes Twitter might misidentify one's country. Twitter relies on IP addresses to locate tweeters. That's not exactly fool proof, which is why they have that help center we mentioned above. Both Twitter and tweeters could abuse this override tool.

What happens during a revolution? Considering Twitter has had such an large role in the Arab Spring, it's not absurd to ask what might happen if a government declares tweeting illegal during protests. This is a hypothetical concern. "Typically when this happens, Twitter says, it doesn’t get demands to block particular accounts or tweets. Instead, authorities in the affected countries either ignore Twitter (good for freedom of expression) or block it entirely (bad, but also out of Twitter’s control)". Of course, a hypothetical concern could turn into a real one. And then what?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/IndustryTrends/2012-is-turning-out-an-important-year-for-Internet-freedom/SP-Article1-802918.aspx

There is just no use trying to censor the Internet. Even as Twitter tries to backpedal from its position that it is a free-flowing marketplace of ideas, the Internet pushes back with ways to get around any filtering that may occur.

Thursday afternoon, Twitter blogged that it would bend on its open information ethos for countries with different ideas about expression.

Stating that they give themselves "the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why."

This is a strictingly different position than the statement a year ago that stated: “The open exchange of information can have a positive global impact … almost every country in the world agrees that freedom of expression is a human right. Many countries also agree that freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits.”

Many are seeing this change of positioning as financially motivated and could tarnish the Twitter brand, and ultimately create a chilling effect on the communication through the site.

Earlier this month, Twitter also was absent from much of the action in solidarity against SOPA when thousands of sites went black and other ingrates literature and videos about why SOPA would hold the communication and function of the Internet back.

This new option of censoring content based on country wouldn't ban a tweet from all of the Twittervese, but rather would filter what people in a given country could read, likely informing a reader or tweeter that this content is not able to be viewed in 'X' country. 

Likely posted as: “Tweet withheld,” it would read “This tweet from @username has been withheld in: Country.”

While they have not yet used this functionality, the company sees this as a middle-ground for countries that are still outside the Twitter-world, such s China. 

While Twitter was expressing its standing behind this compromise for countries that have different expression rights that the U.S., Internet activist were researching how to bypass this possible roadblock. 

The Next Web is one publication that has offered solutions to this censorship if the functionality is activated, but few people want a work-around, they want to know what is really motivating the company to change its postion on Internet speech.

Before this announcement, Twitter has deleted tweets based on content -- rather than limiting who can see it. Such deletions were most often requested by U.S. government agencies that expressed legal issues with the postings.

How China factors into this

Twitter has been expanding at an ambitious rate and they want to enter more global markets, but countries such as China have refused to host the company unless censoring measures can be made -- currently a Chinese company hosts most of the microblogging in China, called Sina Weibo. 

In November, a study showed just how much Chinese business people like to microblog. China has become a major consumer of online content -- now with well over 485 million Internet users (23% of the people scanning the Web) -- and now it seems that the country that has been slow to integrate social media, has made progress.

A study released by the PR Newswire stated that Chinese companies have adopted more elements of social media, such as microblogs, but they have a ways to go before they catch up to the reliance that U.S. companies have on social networking.

A significant 87% of the more than 1,200 respondents said that they used social media on a daily basis, but the frequency and type differed greatly across the sample.

“As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression,” the blog post said. 

This possible change has all the elements needed for a hot Internet debate about cherry-picking company values. When Twitter entered the Web environment in 2006, the company standpoint was that everyone should have access to their own soapbox and get access to a place where people can listen. 

It wasn't even that long ago that a Chinese woman was jailed for a tweet. November, 2010, Cheng Jianping, a 46-year-old human rights activist in China, was sentenced to one year of re-education in a labor camp. And the tweet wasn't even hers, it was just a re-tweet. And the author of the tweet, Cheng’s fiancé, Hua Chunhui, was not arrested.

While Cheng was charged with disturbing social order, human rights groups contend that she was arrested for her activism and her known support of Liu Xiaobo, the human rights activist, author, and professor who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in early 2009.  Liu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year, much to the Chinese government’s dismay.

The offending tweet originally sent by Hua was a jab at young Chinese nationalists who had gone on a destructive spree, smashing Japanese products in protest over a maritime conflict between China and Japan regarding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.  "Anti-Japanese demonstrations, smashing Japanese products, that was all done years ago by [activist] Guo Quan. It's no new trick. If you really wanted to kick it up a notch, you'd immediately fly to Shanghai to smash the Japanese Expo pavilion."

Twitter shifts its position

Last year, Twitter posted a blog that seemed unwavering in its belief in free speech, "For this to happen, freedom of expression is essential. Some Tweets may facilitate positive change in a repressed country, some make us laugh, some make us think, some downright anger a vast majority of users. We don't always agree with the things people choose to tweet, but we keep the information flowing irrespective of any view we may have about the content."

But now it looks like bringing in revenue and the race to the biggest usership may have tainted this -- or perhaps nievity instigated the brash statements in the past. Whatever the motivation, Twitter users and Internet activists will be voicing their concern over this issue in coming week and month, especially if this results in a ticket of entry to China.

http://vator.tv/news/2012-01-27-twitter-confuses-the-internet-with-censorship-options

Lithuania and many other member-states of the European Union, including Latvia, on Jan. 26 in Tokyo, have joined the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The ACTA is an antipiracy trade agreement designed to protect international intellectual property rights.

The treaty intends to establish an international legal framework for intellectual property protection, including counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, reports LETA/ELTA.

However, references of foreign media as if Estonia was planning to sign the controversial ACTA pact on together with other EU member states are not true, LETA/Postimees Online cites Estonian Foreign Ministry.

Mariann Sudakovfrom foreign ministry press service explained that since ACTA is a pact of mixed responsibility, it has to be signed by the EU and member states separately.

Estonia did not sign the agreement, as a government decision is needed for that. "The Estonian government will only start discussing the agreement. The agreement is open for signing till March 31, 2013," she said.

Japanese foreign affairs ministry reports that all in all 22 member-states of the EU have signed the ACTA. The critics of the treaty say that it restricts the freedom of expression online. Many countries saw protests against the initiative, particularly numerous protests have been held in neighbouring Poland.

On Oct. 1 2011 in Tokyo, the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed the treaty. Japan is the ACTA depositary.

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/30443/

The Czech company Topfun Media plans to effectively become what some have already described as the country’s equivalent of Netflix. In a press conference jointly organised with Samsung and other partners, it announced the launch of a new service named Live Pay-TV, which is available on all Topfun’s platforms – www.topfun.tv, Smart TV and mobile devices running Android and iOS, giving access to TV channels offering film, music, sports, kids programming, documentary and adult content. Topfun Media has also introduced a new service giving access to hundreds of movies from Hollywood Classic Entertainment, SPI International, Bonton and others. At the same time, SPI International took the opportunity to introduce two new channels – FightBox and Erox. Topfun Media, which is backed by the financial group J&T, is the leading operator of online video stores in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Thousands of protesters have taken to Poland's streets over the signing of an international treaty activists say amounts to internet censorship.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk's government signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement in Tokyo on Thursday.

The treaty, known as Acta, aims to establish international standards to enforce intellectual property rights.

But critics say it could curb freedom of expression, and government websites have been hacked in protest.

Later on Thursday, hundreds of people took to the streets of the eastern city of Lublin to express their anger over the treaty.

Several marches had taken place in cities across the nation on Wednesday, says the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw.

Crowds of mostly young people held banners with slogans such as "no to censorship" and "a free internet".

After convening a special government meeting to discuss the issue, Mr Tusk said the government would not be blackmailed by the treaty's opponents.

There would be ample time for public discussion about the treaty before it was ratified by the Polish parliament, he said.

Poland was one of several European Union countries, including Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Greece, to sign the treaty on Thursday but it appeared to be the only place where it caused protest.

The agreement was signed by the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea last year.

Acta shares similarities with America's Stop Online Piracy Act, which US lawmakers set aside last week after Wikipedia and Google blacked out or partially obscured their websites for a day in protest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16735219

By: Corner Brook Western Star

Finding censorship online is like tracking a snowmobile trail groomer. So where are these elusive groomers? They started grooming last week on the snowmobile trails, but no one seems to have seen one. There are tracks in the snow, stories from riders about sightings and interesting mechanical noises coming from the woods. But attempts to actually find one in its natural environment fell short.

However, if you stay on a main trail long enough, you'll see it.

It's a little like censorship on the Internet. Stay on the web long enough and you'll see it coming.

For almost two decades we have spent an increasing amount of time on the Internet, with our lives revolving more and more around it. We have become accustomed to free news, free music, free movies, free social outlets, free books and free everything. Failure to pay for an art form will cause its demise; that was covered a decade ago with the downfall of Napster, the first online music sharing site.

The real frightening thing about the Stop Online Piracy Act is not that we may have to pay for movies again; it's the fact that it could give governments the ability to shut down certain parts of the Internet in times of war or economic strife.

Joe Lieberman, prominent U.S. politician and former vice-presidential candidate, has said China can already disconnect parts of the Internet and "We need to have that here too."

Did you catch that? Our biggest trading partner which cares so much about freedom is interested in a Chinese-style form of Internet censorship.

The Internet has made the world a smaller place, where borders are less and less noticeable. It is so much easier to feel consequences here for what happens on the other side of the planet. It would be a major crime for countries to start falling like dominoes to limit access to information.

Imagine not being able to access your favourite news site when a major natural disaster hits and the rescue services are botched. Or when we're sending soldiers to a foreign country.

China is already experiencing this. It's one of the reasons they have such a disastrous human rights record.

By all means, start paying for music. Keep reporters working and start paying for news too, but let's work to stop any form of Internet censorship that comes from any country. Because Canada could be next.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/internet-censors-pose-a-threat-to-freedom-138108423.html

A new WordPress plugin makes it dead easy to uncensor blocked websites. In just a few clicks people can setup their own proxy site with the popular blogging software. An essential tool for people whose speech is restricted by oppressive regimes, and handy for downloaders in The Netherlands, Italy, Finland and other countries where ISPs are blocking The Pirate Bay. Additionally, the plugin partially defeats the PIPA and SOPA bills in the US.

There’s been a lot of talk about censorship lately. Last week the Internet witnessed the largest protest in its history, against the Internet censorship bills PIPA and SOPA. And earlier this month ISPs in Finland and the Netherlands were ordered to censor The Pirate Bay.

Alongside the millions who protest against these increasing censorship initiatives, there’s also a group of people who come up with ways to route around it. One of these projects is the RePress plugin for WordPress.

The plugin is developed by the hosting company Greenhost and allows everyone with a WordPress blog to start a proxy for sites that are censored elsewhere in the world. As an example, Greenhost have setup a Pirate Bay and Wikileaks proxy.

“By adding this plug-in to your WordPress website it will start functioning as a proxy and uncensor any blocked website you’d like,” Greenhost explains. “The only thing you’ll need is a WordPress website and the ability to install new plug-ins. After that you can maintain a list of websites you’d like to keep open freely available on the web.”

 

Repress Options

One of the main motivations for the plugin’s developers was to provide people in the Netherlands full access to The Pirate Bay when the recent court order is enforced. However, if SOPA or PIPA pass there might also be a need for people in the US to have a tool like this.

“We hope people outside Holland use the plug-in to uncensor piratebay.org, as it is in danger of being blocked in our country after a court-ruling. In the Netherlands we could then uncensor websites for people in oppressive regimes like Iran, Syria or the US after SOPA is passed.”

“[SOPA and PIPA] are said to defend the interests of the Entertainment industry, but will mainly cause grave and undeniable damage to the Open and Free web and all of its users: from the end-consumer to the cutting edge developers and inventors. Our aim is to make this impossible,” the Greenhost team notes.

Although the plugin can’t prevent domain names from being seized, it is indeed a good solution to bypass all of the common blocking measures that are used today.

The RePress initiative is applauded by several politicians, including European Parliament member Marietje Schaake. “This is a fantastic opportunity for human rights activists and a solution for people who face technological censorship and repression,” she told Webwereld.

To those eager to start their own proxy of blocked websites, RePress can be downloaded in the WordPress repository.

http://torrentfreak.com/wordpress-plugin-unblocks-censored-sites-including-the-pirate-bay-120126/

Customer satisfaction with e-government exceeded satisfaction with overall government for the seventh year in a row in 2011, according to a new report from ForeSee research firm.

In addition, another new report from GovDelivery ranked the most popular government information shared online in 2011.

SOPA/PIPA vs lobbying 2.0
Have we seen this January 18 the first victory of the web players web against the major traditional pressure groups accustomed to the corridors of power in Washington? Mobilization of key players against anti-piracy law SOPA and PIPA (what you need to know by CBS news), has created the first digital strike of hundreds of websites, including the English version of Wikipedia or the blogging platform Wordpress. It has been successful since a score of members changed their minds. The debate is not only American, and websites like Reporters Without Borders took part in the digital blackout. As emphasized Philippe Aigrain, founding member of the Quadrature du Net (French website on rights and freedom on Internet), "we must consider these two texts as symptomatic of a general trend of legislators around the world to set up tighter control on the Internet in order to enjoy economic interests at the expense of individual liberties. "

Obama Administration Responds to We the People Petitions on SOPA
The White House used the e-petition website, "We The People" to try to defuse a controversy more and more threatening. The petition against SOPA has earned tens of thousands of signatures and the White House took the pole to its position, explaining that the proposal is not satisfactory, and urging users to take direct action to improve "Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions"

In South Korea, the opposition leader elected head of his party by mobile phone
The year 2012 will be an election year in South Korea with general elections in April and presidential election in December. In the country which was the first in the world in 2002 to elect a President with a lot of supporters on Internet, it will be interesting to study new IT uses. It has also started on 15 January. Former South Korean prime minister Han Myeong-sook was elected chairwoman of the liberal main opposition Democratic United Party for a mandate of two years, with 24.5 percent of the vote from a 800,000-strong electoral college. What makes this election unique is that people has been allowed to cast votes through their mobile phones, a method no other political institution in the world has tried before. The leadership election was based on votes cast by party members, party delegates and ordinary citizens who had voluntarily signed up to cast their ballots. Some 90 percent of them voting by mobile phone. The introduction of mobile voting, unprecedented in a party leadership election, has played a "revolutionary" role in encouraging mass participation. Lee Cheol-hee, vice head of the Institute for Democracy and Policies, called the experiment part of the evolution of Korean party politics. He said political parties, criticized for being insular and isolated from the public, are expanding their turf by reaching down to the grass root.

In Canada, Election laws changing to reflect Twitter reality
Faced with new practices, some laws appear increasingly obsolete. This is the case of the law which prohibits to disseminate to the public the result of an election in an electoral district before the close of all polling stations. This is the case of Canada. This rule is "outdated and inapplicable" and will soon disappear. Canada did not actually afford to retain information in a country with no fewer than six time zones. Because when Canadians located west of the country voted, the results are already known on the east. In France, this situation will inevitably resurface during the next presidential election. In a few months, French people - whose millions are on Twitter - will be called to the polls to elect the President of the Republic.

http://www.edemocracy-forum.com/2012/01/lobbying-20.html

SAN FRANCISCO: Twitter announced that it would begin restricting tweets in certain countries, marking a policy shift for the social media platform that helped propel the popular uprisings recently sweeping across the Middle East.

"As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression," Twitter wrote in a blog post published Thursday.

It said even with the possibility of such restrictions, Twitter would not be able to coexist with some countries. "Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there," it said.

Twitter gave as examples of restrictions it might cooperate with "certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content."

A Twitter spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the blog. "Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country while keeping it available in the rest of the world," the Twitter blog said.

Twitter's decision to begin censoring content represents a significant departure from its policy just one year ago, when anti-government protesters in Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries coordinated mass demonstrations through on the social network and, in the process, thrust Twitter's disruptive potential into the global spotlight.

As the revolutions brewed last January, Twitter signaled that it would take a hands-off approach to censoring content in a blog post entitled "The Tweets Must Flow."

"We do not remove Tweets on the basis of their content," the blog post read. "Our position on freedom of expression carries with it a mandate to protect our users' right to speak freely and preserve their ability to contest having their private information revealed."

And last year, Twitter General Counsel Alex Macgillivray declared that the company was "from the free speech wing of the free speech party."

In the interest of transparency, Twitter said Thursday, it has built a mechanism to inform users in the event that a Tweet is being blocked.

Twitter's move comes at a time when internet companies such as Google and Facebook have wrestled with foreign governments over freedom of speech and privacy issues as they expand rapidly overseas.

In 2010 Google relocated its Web search engine to Hong Kong, following a very public spat with the Chinese government over its refusal to bow to Beijing's Web censorship requirements and a hacking episode that Google said it had traced to China.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Twitter-to-restrict-user-content-in-some-countries/articleshow/11647813.cms

Google's "exceptional" mobile advertising and new data has prompted eMarketer to revise its 2012 estimate for mobile advertising spending upward, from $1.8 billion to $2.61 billion. Google has already come to dominate the field, capturing 51.7% of mobile revenue, far ahead of Apple's 6.3% share. The competition is tighter in the area of mobile display, with Google at 24.8%, Apple at 18% and Millennial Media at 17.7%.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-2012-mobile-ad-spend-revised-up-to-2.6-billion-google-fueling-the-machi/

Amid protests against controversial US bills that allegedly threaten freedom of expression online, the hacktivist group Anonymous is starting to target other governments that it believes are attempting to curtail Internet freedom.

 

The hacktivists have started working with digital activists in other countries to respond to such threats, according to a report on Wired.com.

 

Wired.com cited the group's support for protests in Poland against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which will be voted on soon there.

 

The protests included setting up protests via Facebook with Anonymous mounting DDoS attacks on Polish governmental sites. Anonymous also claimed to have hacked into ministerial computers and stolen documents.

 

"The combination of anonymous attacks and Polish outrage has brought the obscure ACTA treaty back into the light and amplified the conversation in Poland about whether ACTA is  good for Poland and the Polish internet. While the Minister of Administration and Digitization Michał Boni has said the signing of ACTA will go forward regardless of any threats from Anonymous or protestations from the Polish people, the treaty must still be ratified by the Polish Parliament to become law," Wired.com said.

 

It added the DDoS against some EU targets appeared to have dropped as physical protests started in the streets.

 

Wired.com cited reports that on Wednesday, protestors by the thousands clogged streets in several Polish cities, chanting and carrying signs protesting the signing of the treaty.

 

"ACTA is a secretive treaty pushed and quite possibly in part penned by the same interests that just saw their plans for SOPA go up in internet flames — the entertainment industry. It’s never been subject to any public scrutiny, but leaked versions of it revealed a requirement for provisions like a three strikes law that could cut people off from the internet and a reversal of DMCA-style safe harbors that have allowed companies like YouTube, Flickr, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and Google to function," Wired.com said.

 

It noted the Obama administration had said the treaty does not require congressional approval in the U.S., and will be implemented with an executive order.

 

“The whole government is basically being bought out in every facet,” said an anon on IRC involved with the anti-ACTA actions.

 

In France, the movement to stop ACTA was joined by more than 1,000 handles in Anonymous IRC servers. DDoS attacks were mounted against French media empire Vivendi.

 

In Brazil, a crackdown on a shanty town called Pinheirinho provoked attacks from Antisec.

 

Brazilian hackers sought help from black-hat anons who claimed to have rooted dozens of boxes in Brazil, looting documents and handing the keys to the Brazilians.

 

“Antisec supported the Brazilians because they asked for help. They consider themselves part of and fans of Lulzsec and Antisec,” one anon told Wired in an online chat.

 

Wired.com said the targets included a website of Organizações Globo, a large Latin American media conglomerate based in Brazil.

 

Threat to net culture?

 

Wired.com quoted Biella Coleman, Professor of Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy in McGill University as saying the phenomenon involves a generation of people whose way of life is "inseparable from the net" see threats to their culture and are willing to fight.

 

“The op was rooted in some core issues that Anonymous and internet enthusiasts care deeply about: free speech, censorship, and intellectual property restrictions,” said Coleman.

 

FTC site defaced

 

The black-hat Antisec wing of Anonymous hacked and defaced OnGuardOnline.gov, a Federal Trade Commission website that distributes computer security information online.

 

Antisec claims to have hundreds of servers rooted, but this one sent a message to so-called “white hats,” the hacker professionals who work for corporations and governments. 

Wired.com said Antisec threatened a "relentless war" against the corporate Internet if SOPA, PIPA and ACTA are passed.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/245823/scitech/technology/after-sopa-anonymous-hackers-out-to-get-world-governments?ref=section_latest

The Washington Times has launched a new digital news site, Times247.com, which will provide a continuously updated blend of news, opinion and analysis from The Times combined with selected content from top news sources to an audience who shares conservative values. The news service will be distributed digitally to millions of opted-in readers and available over the Internet on a 24/7 basis. Users can choose the site’s home page or “The Skinny” section featuring breaking news headlines “without the filler.

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

Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Polish cities Wednesday, some of them hurling stones at police, in protest
at an international copyright treaty criticized as a clampdown on freedom of speech on the internet.

In the city of Kielce around 700 people protested. Some of them threw bottles and stones at police, damaged cars and partially blocked traffic, Polish media reported. Police arrested 24 people. One police officer was taken to hospital for treatment.

In the largest demonstration, in Cracow, 15,000 people took to the streets in a largely peaceful protest.

Demonstrators chanted "Down with censorship" while some had a piece of tape inscribed with "ACTA" glued over their lips.

ACTA is the acronym for the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which Poland was to sign in Tokyo on Thursday.

Opponents of the treaty, which aims to protect international intellectual property rights and fight online piracy, launched a string of attacks on Polish government websites earlier this week, jamming the websites of the Polish parliament, the prime minister’s office and the Ministry of Culture.

http://www.warsawvoice.pl/WVpage/pages/article.php/19614/news

By Stephen Chapman

Summary: Piracy finds its way into just about every legitimate avenue on the Internet. As such, the death of online piracy via shutting down otherwise legitimate sites and services could mean the end of the Internet as we know it.

The death of online piracy: the U.S. government wants it and copyright holders want it, but at what cost? As we’ve seen from SOPA and PIPA, the government would be willing to completely cripple the Internet to see to the death of online piracy; and now, the shuttering of MegaUpload by the U.S. government (as a result of pressure from copyright holders) has caused waves in the file-sharing business; a business that — amongst perfectly legal profits — is rife with HUGE profits that come as a direct result of the sharing of pirated content. Yes, the death of online piracy as we currently know it is going to happen at some point; but to severely cripple (never mind completely obliterate) online piracy would come at the cost of the current freedoms the Internet enjoys — be it from an end-user perspective, a service provider perspective, or both.

You see, I am more fascinated with piracy than most. It’s a topic that has captivated me for many years and the debates sparked on the subject are absolutely riveting when intelligible people opinionate from either side. Plus, my security consulting endeavors and Google hacking escapades have opened my eyes to more avenues of piracy than are readily apparent to most. As such, to effectively end online piracy, I see that FAR more will have to be done than simply shutting down file-sharing sites. I fear that the most significant changes will be brought forth by legislation, and it WILL happen one day if the piracy war continues as it has thus far.

To give you a small and scary sampling of what obliterating online piracy might mean for the Internet, I present the following points for your consideration:

1 - File-sharing site censorship: Put simply, a complete restructuring and lock-down of file-sharing sites would have to occur for them to even exist. And though it could work just fine in theory, it couldn’t work without handing over a certain amount of freedom and convenience. Every file uploaded to a file-sharing site would have to somehow be guaranteed to either not be copyrighted, or the uploader would have to provide credentials which, under certain guidelines/legislation, show that they can share what they’re sharing — most likely with an intended number of receivers who might also have to provide proper access credentials. As it currently stands, it’s FAR too easy to fly in under the radar of current file-sharing sites that try to auto-detect copyrighted files. Gone would be the days of file-name obfuscation and password-protected 7-zip files.

Ultimately, even if file-sharing sites weren’t as locked down as this scenario suggests, it’s quite clear that the DMCA system is broken. Yes, even sites like Rapidshare and Hotfile — who react promptly to DMCA requests — are still slam-PACKED with copyrighted files that are being furiously downloaded this very second by paying members who can afford $10 a month for a super-fast and convenient way to download copious amounts of copyrighted movies, music, games, and more.

2 - Government-mandated deep packet inspection: Though it wouldn’t matter where you downloaded from, deep packet inspection would massively reduce piracy from torrents, P2P, newsgroups, IRC, and everywhere else. Naturally, it would be easy to circumnavigate this type of thing with a combination of file-name obfuscation (changing the name of a file to something unrelated) and password-protected compressed files, but that simply brings us to the next point…

3 - Tiered Internet access and data plans: Do you have a cell phone with a data plan? Imagine if you had to follow a similar plan with your home ISP. Even worse, what if ALL Internet access was bound by a pay-as-you-go plan? That may sound ridiculous, but after some of the generalizations suggested in SOPA and PIPA, it sounds about par for the course! I could also see an Internet restricted by a type of certification process, whereby a Web site must undergo an inspection to be allowed onto the “freely accessible” Internet — a tier that you could access without getting charged. And if a site that was allowed access failed to abide by the rules after being approved, then the site would be removed and the owner (and possibly even the hosting company) would be severely reprimanded. Again, this all may sound ridiculous, but I’m shooting for some worst-case scenario stuff here to spark debate.

4 - Search engine censorship: If you want to see to the death of online piracy, then you must also consider nixing all the paths that lead one to pirated content. Yes, that means Google, Bing, and every other type of search engine would have to be censored and severely crippled so as to not return results leading one to downloadable copyrighted content they don’t intend on paying for. For someone like me who is absolutely in love with search, I can’t imagine a worse fate than this since it would surely mean severely lacking search results on some level.

Does that all sound crazy to you? Some of it does to me, but I have no doubt that all of the above has been brought to the table as a serious consideration by copyright holders and/or the government at some point. The reason I have no doubt about that is primarily due to China. Just have a look at the details of Internet censorship in the People’s Republic of China and marinate on all of that for a bit.

Now, why am I even bothering to write an article about this? What’s the point? Well, my point is to show that an Internet without at least some amount of piracy is an Internet that lacks some portion of the freedom it currently enjoys: the more piracy is obliterated, the more locked-down the Internet will become. Or so that’s how I see it, at least. The fight against piracy is a full-on war in the eyes of copyright holders, and in war, there are always casualties. Unfortunately, I think the casualties would come in the form of Internet freedom.

And now that I have you feeling like the world as you know it is going to end (it is 2012, after all… *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge*), there is a scenario that very well might play out which I would love to see happen: the influential seats of government and big money corporations being turned over to intelligible, competent Internet lovers who can come to reasonable/logical conclusions. I’m talking about people who use Reddit, understand what a meme is, make usage of Google’s advanced search operators, and — most importantly — know when legislation is presented that seeks to censor or threaten the freedom of the Internet. Hopefully, this would happen long before the Internet was stripped of said freedom.

So, am I saying that online piracy is necessary? Well, no, but if the Internet is to remain free, then accepting that piracy is going to *always* happen in *some* part is something that’s going to have to be done by copyright holders who are seeking legislation as an action to prevent it.

To close, I’d like to note that I understand there are PLENTY of loopholes present and counterpoints to be made to much of what I’ve said above, but it would take a novel to accurately portray the entirety of my opinions and observations on this matter. Not only that, but statistically speaking, only a fraction of you have read this far anyway (this article is just shy of 1500 words — a miracle for most to read through these days) — and besides, I want to see what you all think based on what I’ve said thus far. I want to see some REAL discussion happen on this matter. Also, I understand that the Internet is a global network and not all of the points listed above pertain to all governments, but the battle of piracy extends well beyond the borders of the U.S. government, so discussion is relevant on the topic no matter where you’re reading from.

And now, I turn it over to you! Do you even care about piracy or think that it has the power to cripple the Internet? If you do care about the topic of piracy, then what suggestions would you like to offer that you think would make a difference to those seeking to collect from its supposed damages? Get crazy in the comments below!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/seo/the-death-of-online-piracy-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it/4503

Washington, D.C., January 20, 2012—The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Catalina Botero Marino, and the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, today called on the United States to be vigorous in protecting freedom of speech on the Internet. The Special Rapporteurs recalled that legislation regulating the Internet should take into account the special characteristics of the Internet as a unique and transformative tool that enables billions of individuals to exercise their right to freedom of thought and expression as well as a range of other human rights.

 

The Special Rapporteurs have taken particular note of the discussions surrounding two Internet piracy bills currently pending in the United States Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act. While these bills pursue a legitimate objective in seeking to protect intellectual property rights, serious concerns have been raised regarding their impact on freedom of expression. In particular, versions of the draft legislation have the potential to silence a good deal of entirely lawful speech, for example by creating an extrajudicial ‘notice-and-termination’ procedure, by requiring websites to police their user-generated content for copyright infringement, and by allowing for an entire website to be targeted if even a small portion of its content is deemed to infringe. The Special Rapporteurs note with satisfaction that in recent days, certain Congressional leaders stated their intention to suspend debate on SOPA in order to pursue further discussion and consensus, while the Obama Administration announced that it “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

In June 2011, the UN and IACHR Special Rapporteurs joined with their fellow special mandate holders from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to issue a Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. This Joint Declaration states that while freedom of expression, including on the Internet, is not absolute, tailored approaches must be developed that respond to illegal content while recognizing the Internet’s unique characteristics and its ability to deliver positive freedom of expression outcomes. The Declaration states that intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content, and stresses the need to protect them from liability unless they specifically intervene in content or disobey a court order to remove such content. The Declaration further states that jurisdiction in legal cases relating to Internet content should be restricted to States to which those cases have a real and substantial connection.

In addition, all restrictions on freedom of expression, including those that affect speech on the Internet, should be clearly and precisely established by law, proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, and based on a judicial determination in adversarial proceedings. In this regard, legislation regulating the Internet should not contain vague and sweeping definitions or disproportionately affect legitimate websites and services.

The UN and IACHR Special Rapporteurs call on the United States to uphold international free speech norms, including those reflected in the aforementioned Joint Declaration, which seeks to promote universal access to the Internet while preserving its role as a revolutionary medium for participatory information sharing and collaboration in the creation of content. In considering both domestic legislation and international treaties such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, States should recall that while freedom of expression may be limited in the pursuit of legitimate objectives such as the prevention of crime or the protection of the rights of others, such limitations should be narrowly tailored and interfere to the least extent possible with the right to freedom of expression. Any measure that affects speech on the Internet should be specifically designed to preserve the Internet’s unique capacity to promote freedom of expression by facilitating the free exchange of information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively regardless of frontiers.

Source and Picture: UN, Frank La Rue

http://guatemala-times.com/news/world/2878-un-free-speech-on-the-internet.html

Can online activists eliminate politicians that don't understand the Internet?

By Mike Flacy

While political leaders continue to propose new bills that refine Internet freedom and privacy, one social, Internet organization plans to use political action committees to influence popular public opinion.

Malta: Call for protest against government’s ACTA support

by Matthew Vella

Facebook users are calling for a protest next Friday, 3 February in Valletta, against the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which the Maltese government signed this week as part of 22-state EU bloc.

The international agreement, devised by the United States and Japan and negotiated in secret with major industries, seeks to create an unelected international body to enforce intellectual property rights: most controversially by forcing internet service providers to police online content and impose criminal sanctions on copyright infringers.

The impact of Twitter's censorship plan

The microblogging site Twitter says it has introduced new technology so it can censor messages, or tweets, on a country-by-country basis.

Any tweet that breaks a law in one country, can be taken down there by the company, but it can still be seen elsewhere.

Twitter views the censorship tool as a way to ensure tweets remain available to as many people as possible. Previously, when Twitter blocked a message, it would remove that tweet entirely, and could not be seen anywhere in the world.
 
The company says its new policy will enable it to expand globally and abide by certain countries' internet laws.
 
Twitter will post a censorship notice whenever a tweet is removed. It also plans to share the removal requests it receives from governments, companies and individuals at a specific website.

But many critics say that the latest censorship move by Twitter will have serious implications on the company's commitment to the freedom of speech. They accuse the company of just working to broaden its users to make more money.

But what does the new tool really mean for Twitter and its users? And is the self-censorship the beginning of the end to freedom of expression on the internet?

Inside Story, with presenter James Bays, is joined by our guests: Wael Abbas, an Egyptian blogger and political activist; Danvers Baillieu, a co-founder of Bootlaw, a service providing legal advice to technology, internet and digital professionals, and he is also a senior associate specialising in representing technology companies at international law firm Pinsent Masons; and Tom Royal, a deputy editor for the Computer Active Magazine.

"I know that some of the people working for Twitter were activists, and they know that activists have to break laws, even in England and the United States. If we look at countries like Egypt, like Syria, like Yemen, of course all our tweets are breaking the law. And that's what activists do, they break the law because they want to make changes to these unjust laws. and they have the right to do that, and if you prevent them from this right then you are attacking human rights itself."

Wael Abbas, Egyptian blogger

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/01/2012128131255440278.html

EU signs ACTA, global internet censorship treaty

By Rady Ananda

On Jan. 26, the European Union and 22 member states signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Japan?s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced. They have now joined the US and seven other nations that signed the treaty last October.

This signing ceremony merely formalized the EU?s adoption of ACTA last month, during a completely unrelated meeting on agriculture and fisheries, reports TechDirt.

Though initiated by the US, Japan is the official depository of the treaty.

Removal of the Three Strikes clause, in which users accused of three counts of piracy would be barred from the Internet, paved the way for the EU to adopt ACTA last month.

Related to ACTA, a chapter in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) ?would have state signatories adopt even more restrictive copyright measures than ACTA,? reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Both ACTA and TPP were developed without public input and outside international trade groups, like the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Leaked cables published by Wikileaks in 2009 exposed early drafts of ACTA, resulting in a firestorm of controversy. Those cables, coupled with later releases, showed that ACTA negotiations began in 2006 and were controversial even to participating states. An historical summary of the treaty?s progress through December can be found here.

ACTA Violates Magna Carta and US Constitution

Like PIPA and SOPA, two domestic internet censorship bills that prompted major websites to blacken their name or website in a Jan. 18th protest, ACTA allows accusers of copyright infringement to bypass judicial review. Lack of ?due process? makes these bills and ACTA unconstitutional and violates the Magna Carta, a charter signed in 1215 on which most Western law is based, including the US Constitution. It is often cited as the most important legal document in the history of democracy.

(The USA PATRIOT Acts, Obama?s assassination program, and the National Defense Authorization Act that allows indefinite detention are among many recent laws passed in the US which directly breach the Magna Carta.)

?The Constitution states only one command twice,? explains Peter Strauss of Cornell University Law School, further elaborating:

?The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be ?deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.? The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (?legality?) and provide fair procedures.?

Not only due process, but US adoption of ACTA also violates Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the president ?shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.?

The Senate never voted on ACTA.

During the Jan. 18 internet blackout, Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced OPEN, (H.R. 3782, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act). Heather Callaghan points out that even though OPEN targets foreign-based websites,

?[T]he bill?s wording is wide open to pursue American sites. Just one example: when describing an infringing site, it starts with those ?that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name,? but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that ?conducts business directed to residents of the United States.??

As this slew of internet censorship bills and treaties make their way into law, ?the United States fell 27 places on the Reporters Without Borders tenth annual Press Freedom Index of 2011 to 47th overall,? reports Activist Post.

Today?s signatories included the EU, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Last October, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States signed ACTA.

Though involved in early ACTA negotiations, Switzerland and Mexico have not yet ratified it. However, ?Since the agreement remains open to signature until May 2013, it is possible that other states may make a move to join it as well,? said Maira Sutton of EFF.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2012/01/27/eu-signs-acta-global-internet-censorship

Google boss Says West Takes Internet Freedom for Granted

The Internet proved the only true form of free communication during the Arab Spring and yet the West has come to take the freedom it confers for granted, Google boss Eric Schmidt said Friday.

In a stout defense of Internet freedoms at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Schmidt also said that rather than be seen as contributing to job losses, the web was a great opportunity for businesses to grow.

Schmidt told delegates he had just returned from a visit to Libya after the revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi, a trip which had underlined the value of the Internet in societies where phones are tapped and media is state-run.

"The thing I learnt most about the Arab Spring is that we take the Internet for granted here," said Schmidt, Google's executive chairman.

"When you live in country where censorship is the norm ... the Internet is your only communications mechanism."

The role of the Internet in the Arab Spring was memorably illustrated by Wael Ghonim, Google's head of marketing for the Middle East and North Africa, who administered the Facebook page that helped spark Egypt's revolution.

Schmidt said an uncensored Internet could ensure the new generation of Arab leaders does not repeat the same pattern of corruption of the old regimes.

He proposed it becomes mandatory for politicians running for office to disclose their assets on the Internet.

Schmidt, whose own firm employs some 30,000 people, also said the Internet should not be blamed for problems in the labor market, arguing that: "It's important not to fear technological innovation and revolution."

He said that governments had to address what he called "a huge labor shortage for highly educated people" in manufacturing.

"There are plenty of countries, (the) United States and other countries that I have visited, that are very short of skilled people," he said.

He said the web worked to the benefit of small business as "there's no better tool" to find customers, adding: "A reasonable expectation is that the access to the Internet will produce a very large number of smaller companies."

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/28164-google-boss-says-west-takes-internet-freedom-for-granted

Estonia Reaches Finland's Domain Registration Level

Estonia has reached the level of Finland in the number of registered internet domains it has relative to its population.

Both countries currently have 50 national domains registered per 1,000 inhabitants.

In 2011, Estonia's dot-ee domain saturation passed those of Latvia and Lithuania, where the figure for each currently stands at 43.

Because of the nation's increasing domain registration activity, the Internet Foundation will lower the price of registering a dot-ee domain by 6.5 percent to 17 euros, effective May 1.

"We should definitely make an effort to make a dot-ee domain owned by every person in Estonia actively using their e-mail and the internet," Marek-Andres Kauts, head of the foundation.

http://news.err.ee/fe76f0c9-e678-4722-bbe1-a42796312d18

Deutsche Telekom, Lattlecom create route linking Russia, Western Europe Read more: Deutsche Telekom, Lattlecom create route linking Russia, Western Europe

Deutsche Telekom's (XETRA: DTE.DE) wholesale unit, International Carrier Sales & Solutions (ICSS), has struck a pact with Latvian wireline provider Lattlecom to jointly build a new multi-country fiber network.

Designed to support the growing Internet traffic demands between Western Europe, and particularly Russia and the Baltic States, the new Baltic Telecommunications Highway network will support transmission speeds up to 10 Gbps and low latency.

"The Baltic states as well as Russia have witnessed a substantial surge in demand for network connectivity, and through the Baltic Highway we will jointly provide enhanced connectivity for the region," said Holger Magnussen, senior vice-president of Deutsche Telekom International Carrier Sales & Solutions.

Outside of their own home countries, Deutsche Telekom ICSS and Lattlecom will build complementary network facilities in both Poland and Lithuania.

Upon completion, Juris Gulbis, Lattelecom's Management Board chairman and CEO, said that the Baltic Telecommunications Highway will give "Russian and other neighboring state telecommunications operators with the geographically shortest route for data flow to Europe and the rest of the world."

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/deutsche-telekom-lattlecom-create-route-linking-russia-western-europe/2012-01-25

Twitter and the Dictator's Dilemma

It’s not often you hear free-speech advocates praising a censorship policy—but that’s what happened on Thursday, after Twitter announced a new policy of withholding content both on a tweet-by-tweet and a country-by-country basis.

“Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country—while keeping it available in the rest of the world,” the company said in a blog post on Thursday.

Zeynep Tufekci, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, points out correctly that the new policy increases the amount of content available. “Previously when Twitter would take down content when forced to do so by a court order, it would disappear globally,” she writes in the technosociology blog. “This is a great improvement.”

Jillian York, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that Twitter was promising to provide greater transparency than peers like Facebook. Not only will Twitter notify users that a request has been made to remove content they published on Twitter, it will also show an alert box to people in the country where the content is blocked. Furthermore, it will report the action to Chilling Effects, which maintains a searchable database of Cease and Desist notices sent to Internet Users and providers.

“Alas, Twitter is not above the law,” York writes. “Just about every company hosting user-generated content has, at one point or another, gotten an order or a government request to take down content…I believe the company is doing the best in a tough situation.”

But Twitter users weren’t as understanding. @Anon_Central, which claims affiliation with the Anonymous network of hackers, joined others in calling for a #TwitterBlackout on Saturday.  By 5 p.m. on Friday, Google had counted 1.5 million references to the hashtag and more than 1,000 news stories and posts.

Earnest efforts to discuss the reality of Internet censorship were overwhelmed. “Twitter’s not censoring you, your government is,” noted Hannah Hart, host of popular Youtube show “My Drunk Kitchen,” in a retweet of The Next Web.

Yet the fact remained that in a clumsy, inarticulate way, Twitter was taking a stand.

Since 1995, there have been at least 606 unique incidents involving 99 countries that disconnected their digital networks, either by shutting down the Internet exchange points or by blocking specific kinds of traffic–like  Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.

This kind of censorship is often referred to as “the dictator’s dilemma,” but democracies have imposed Internet shutdowns nearly as often as their non-democratic counterparts. According to a paper published in October by the Brookings Institution, of the total incidents of Internet censorship 52 percent occurred under authoritarian regimes, 39 percent under democracies, 6 percent under emerging democracies, and 3 percent in fragile states.

“Over time, the number of incidents involving state interference with Internet infrastructure has increased dramatically,” the Brookings researchers wrote.

The most common reasons for shutting down or restricting Internet access? To protect political authority or preserve the public good.In Germany the public good included blocking access to sex-related information. In Pakistan, access to Facebook, YouTube and other sites was cut off in response to a “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” publicized on Facebook.

Yet, the extraordinary events of the last few years suggest that censorship can backfire. Moves by Tunisia to ban YouTube and DailyMotion in 2007 and Facebook in 2008 prompted international protests. Efforts by Iran to filter content critical of the government and to block sites such as YouTube and Flickr appeared to stoke dissent, culminating in millions of Iranians protesting the 2009 elections.

But perhaps the most telling example comes from Cairo. A year ago today, former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak ordered the Internet shut down. He was ousted less than two weeks later.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/01/27/twitter-and-the-dictators-dilemma/

Will watch how Twitter implements censorship policy: US

WASHINGTON: US today said it will wait and watch how micro-blogging site Twitter implements its censorship policy.

"It will wait and watch how Twitter implements its policy with regard to censorship, which was announced by the micro blogging social networking site a day earlier", the State Department said.

"We are strongly committed to protecting fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, association online", State Department spokesperson Victoria Nualand said.

"As the Secretary (of State) said in her Internet freedom speech, the choices that private companies make have an impact on how information flows or doesn't flow on the Internet and mobile networks."

"They also have an impact on what governments can and can't do and on people," she said.

She said smart companies need to develop broad principles that guide their actions.

"I think in the Twitter case, what we see here is a company making very clear what its policies are going to be in these circumstances where the choice is operate not at all or operate in a constrained way," Nuland said.

"So from that perspective, being honest about what you're up to is in keeping with these standards.

"But until we see how they are implemented and how it influences content, we obviously can't evaluate whether this is, you know, a good thing or not for Internet freedom," she said.

Nuland said there are a number of examples of companies that are not as up-front about what they do.

"And, you know, at least this way, Twitter users can know what is up. But again, until we see how this is implemented, I don't think we're in a position to evaluate," she said.

Twitter, she pointed out, has stated publicly that it is committed to abiding by fundamental freedoms of expression and association and assembly, and to being transparent.

The United States, she asserted, would only set out broader principles, and not dictate to companies.

"We're not going to dictate to companies. We're setting out the general principles."

There are many companies out there that make these decisions without being transparent, either to their users or to the world, she said.

Twitter's been up-front about what they're doing. I think we have to see how it works," Nuland said.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/will-watch-how-twitter-implements-censorship-policy-us/articleshow/11658413.cms

Freedom, privacy of ordinary people under attack online, activist Rebecca MacKinnon warns

Sarah Barmak

“It’s no longer OK to NOT know how the internet works,” read the slogans on a sea of white signs hoisted by protesters at a New York rally last week.

They were denouncing the U.S. anti-piracy laws known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), both of which had their support yanked thanks to the backlash.

Then came the negative reaction to this week’s news that Google will be sharing user information across all its platforms — Gmail, Google+, search and YouTube.

We are experiencing a peak moment of outrage, it seems, against policies that seek to restrict or monitor what people do online.

Journalist and activist Rebecca MacKinnon has been warning for years that the freedom and privacy of ordinary people is under attack online, and she warns the fight isn’t over. Despite their pioneering image, she says, tech companies tend to be more hostile to human rights commitments than traditional bricks-and-mortar firms.

MacKinnon spoke to the Star about her new book, Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom, due out this week. It’s a powerful call to the online community to stand up for our rights before they are legislated, engineered or sold away for good.

Q: The entertainment industry has pledged to press for a new version of SOPA and PIPA. Are opponents celebrating the laws’ demise too soon?

A: Definitely. This is a marathon, not a sprint. The people who want laws passed that are along the lines of SOPA and PIPA, they’ve been at this for a very long time. There is also this Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that the U.S. spent several years negotiating in secret with a number of countries, trading partners, and is now trying to get a lot of those countries to sign, and there are aspects of that agreement that are similar to some of the things in SOPA and PIPA, (like placing) the responsibility on the ISPs to prevent infringement by their users, that are of concern to civil liberties groups. In France you have HADOPI, the three-strikes law that would cut off people’s Internet access after three instances of being found to have committed file sharing.

For the broader public, the SOPA and PIPA protest was the first time that a lot of average Internet users got involved and got political on an Internet regulation issue. The question is, can the grassroots remain motivated and mobilized for the long run after this one very dramatic and important victory? That’s not clear. It’s not clear how that enthusiasm and passion is going to be harnessed for the marathon. Because this is not over.

Some feel Google’s latest move further chips away at users’ privacy without a way for them to opt out. Some privacy advocates have gone so far as to say people should log out of Gmail when they’re not using it to prevent Google from tracking their ad preferences. Others claim those who are worried are paranoid and simply don’t understand how online services work, which may be fair. Is the crux of the problem just this — that our gadgets, email, and social networks are so far over the heads of 99 per cent of the customers who rely on them, that no one knows when to be worried?

Companies have a serious responsibility to do more to help people understand these technologies. In our society we are so dependent on these technologies for every aspect of our lives — not only our personal lives, but our jobs and our political lives, our relationships with different groups of people. There are many people who may have a personal life they don’t want their employer to know about, or political views they don’t want their family to know about, or reading habits they don’t want their abusive spouse to know about. People have good reasons why they need to be empowered to understand and have sufficient control over their digital selves.

Frankly, I would like to see all these companies not only creating little tutorials online, but it would be very helpful if they went into schools with some curricula, you know, or worked with teachers on how to use Google safely, how to use Facebook safely. In some cases some companies are starting to do that kind of thing. It’s important that just as we’re socialized at an early age, how to walk around a city safely and what to do and what not to do, we need to be socialized about how to navigate the Internet safely. The companies as the private sovereigns of these digital spaces have an obligation to help us learn to navigate that, just as the government of a city has to make the city understandable so that we can exist in it safely, and also to be responsive to our concerns.

What can the average, non-technological user do to demand change?

I think Google is making some efforts. They could certainly do more. There are some groups of Google users who have started to use Google’s own social network, Google+, to communicate with Google management about their unhappiness with Google+’s identity policies. People raised enough of an outcry that management actually went and changed their policies somewhat and claimed that they’re working to change them further. It’s one example of, rather than just sitting there and saying, ‘Well this company’s evil, the government should do something about it,’ that we also as customers and users have power to take our issues to the companies directly and we probably haven’t been exercising that power as much as we should.

You could create user associations within Google and organize, go and meet with Google management on various issues of concern. I don’t think we’ve seen a really organized example of it yet, but I think we’re going to start to see that sort of thing happening. A company that’s enlightened ought to welcome that kind of thing because it builds their trust with their customer and user base.

You worked for 12 years as a reporter in Asia, rising to the position of bureau chief for CNN in Beijing and Tokyo. In 2004, you left CNN for a five-month fellowship at Harvard to study the emerging issues of blogging and censorship — and never went back. What spurred you to become an independent journalist?

I had become increasingly fascinated in the few years before in the rise of blogs around the world, the phenomenon of citizen media. I thought this was really fascinating, particularly at a time when I was growing increasingly frustrated with my own organization and I was being told things by management, like, my expertise was getting in the way. And could I please cover the region more like a tourist.

So the idea that, okay, well if foreign correspondents, if professional news organizations actually in many cases aren’t doing such a great job of covering the world, then it’s even more important that citizens should have the power to report on their countries directly to the rest of the world. So I thought that was kind of cool.

These issues tend to be reported in a very compartmentalized way. So we’ll talk about censorship in China, like “Oh, all those poor Chinese people are dealing with censorship, we need to help free them,” or Facebook and the Arab Spring, and we’ll talk about our fights over copyright and surveillance in the U.S., and not really talk about how all these things are interconnected. So this book is in some ways a long-form essay about just how to explain these concerns, and a little bit about what people might be able to do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/1122845--freedom-privacy-of-ordinary-people-under-attack-online-activist-rebecca-mackinnon-warns

Telcos launch low-latency 10Gbps wavelength service between Japan and Europe

The US operating subsidiary of KDDI Corp, KDDI America, has inked a deal with Russian national operator Rostelecom to launch a low-latency 10Gbps wavelength service between Japan and Europe. According to TeleGeography’s GlobalComms Database, in May 2011 KDDI Corp entered into a partnership agreement with Rostelecom to strengthen communications connectivity on a network link between Japan and Russia by improving the Russia-Japan Cable Network (RJCN) and Transit Europe-Asia (TEA) links. The Japanese firm contributed USD12 million of the total cost of USD60 million, at which date the upgrade was scheduled for completion at the start of this year. As a result of the planned improvements the pair have quadrupled connection speeds and enabled leased line services with data transmission rates of up to 10Gbps. KDDI and Rostelecom forecast that data volumes between their respective countries will grow by 200%-400% by 2014.

http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/01/17/telcos-launch-low-latency-10gbps-wavelength-service-between-japan-and-europe/

Poland braced for more Internet freedom protests

Internet freedom activists in Poland are set to hold more demonstrations later today.

They are angry about their government signing an international treaty to enforce intellectual property rights on the web.

Similar protests were held yesterday following the decision by ministers to back the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Poland’s signing of the treaty, known as ACTA, still needs parliamentary approval.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said: “I don’t think that these international treaties can be greeted with delight by those who have become used to certain internet practices, which aren’t legal under Polish law.”

Activist group Anonymous responded to the move by hacking Polish government websites.

It says the treaty amounts to censorship.

ACTA also needs the approval of the European Parliament and all EU member states before it can come into force across the 27-member bloc.

http://www.euronews.net/2012/01/27/poland-braced-for-more-internet-freedom-protests/

2012 is turning out an important year for Internet freedom

by Rajat Haldar

Until now, Twitter’s not had the ability to censor certain tweets or accounts, to prevent them from being seen — if legally required — by users in particular countries. That’s now changed, though Twitter stresses that it hasn’t yet used this new ability and that should it have to, anything withheld

will be disclosed.

Twitter has shared the news on its blog, saying:

"As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.

Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it up in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why."

These types of censorship demands have long been placed against search engines like Google or anyone who hosts content (such as through Google’s Blogger). Twitter is preparing for potential demands in the way that Google already does, by alerting its users to when content has been withheld and providing information about why, though the Chilling Effects site.

On the surface that sounds scary. "Reactively withhold content," reads like censorship. But, it's (mostly) a good development.

This announcement from Twitter reads like an invitation to censors. On the face of it, this is nothing new – Google does much the same. For example, in India, Google shows a different version of the map on Google Maps in line with the Indian governments policy, and also censors content and search results accordingly. Twitter, until now, had a single global policy and approach, which meant that if you were following certain users and tweets, they would have been accessible to everyone across the world. This meant that if Twitter was in violation of the local laws in a particular country, it could have been sued or blocked, and the company would not have been allowed to conduct business in the country, without risking legal or government intervention.

The Not so Scary

Twitter's already censoring tweets. Both in the U.S. and globally. Twitter's basically taking its U.S. policy and applying it to other countries individually. As of now, Twitter, like Google, follows the Digital Millennium Copyright act. And that won't change, as Marketing Land's Danny Sullivan explains. "That will continue to be the case going forward, and any request made under US laws to remove content will continue to pull that content from Twitter worldwide," he writes. But now, it can respond to, for example, Germany's request to take down pro-Nazi tweets, without removing the tweet from the rest of the world, as policy allowed until today. The new policy will actually limit the censorship, rather than spread it, taking it from a global blackout, to a country specific one.

They're going to be transparent about it. Following that scary "reactively withhold" part, Twitter mentions that it has "built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why." When it does choose remove content, Twitter alerts the world via a Twitter feed (of course) @ChillFireHose. Once removed, the doesn't just disappear. Twitter will post the following message, or something like it, in its place.

It's not necessarily permanent. Sometimes Twitter might misidentify a user's country. That can be changed over at the Twitter help center, giving users the ability to override the censorship.

The Scary

Sometimes Twitter might misidentify one's country. Twitter relies on IP addresses to locate tweeters. That's not exactly fool proof, which is why they have that help center we mentioned above. Both Twitter and tweeters could abuse this override tool.

What happens during a revolution? Considering Twitter has had such an large role in the Arab Spring, it's not absurd to ask what might happen if a government declares tweeting illegal during protests. This is a hypothetical concern. "Typically when this happens, Twitter says, it doesn’t get demands to block particular accounts or tweets. Instead, authorities in the affected countries either ignore Twitter (good for freedom of expression) or block it entirely (bad, but also out of Twitter’s control)". Of course, a hypothetical concern could turn into a real one. And then what?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/IndustryTrends/2012-is-turning-out-an-important-year-for-Internet-freedom/SP-Article1-802918.aspx

Twitter confuses the Internet with censorship options

There is just no use trying to censor the Internet. Even as Twitter tries to backpedal from its position that it is a free-flowing marketplace of ideas, the Internet pushes back with ways to get around any filtering that may occur.

Thursday afternoon, Twitter blogged that it would bend on its open information ethos for countries with different ideas about expression.

Stating that they give themselves "the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why."

This is a strictingly different position than the statement a year ago that stated: “The open exchange of information can have a positive global impact … almost every country in the world agrees that freedom of expression is a human right. Many countries also agree that freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits.”

Many are seeing this change of positioning as financially motivated and could tarnish the Twitter brand, and ultimately create a chilling effect on the communication through the site.

Earlier this month, Twitter also was absent from much of the action in solidarity against SOPA when thousands of sites went black and other ingrates literature and videos about why SOPA would hold the communication and function of the Internet back.

This new option of censoring content based on country wouldn't ban a tweet from all of the Twittervese, but rather would filter what people in a given country could read, likely informing a reader or tweeter that this content is not able to be viewed in 'X' country. 

Likely posted as: “Tweet withheld,” it would read “This tweet from @username has been withheld in: Country.”

While they have not yet used this functionality, the company sees this as a middle-ground for countries that are still outside the Twitter-world, such s China. 

While Twitter was expressing its standing behind this compromise for countries that have different expression rights that the U.S., Internet activist were researching how to bypass this possible roadblock. 

The Next Web is one publication that has offered solutions to this censorship if the functionality is activated, but few people want a work-around, they want to know what is really motivating the company to change its postion on Internet speech.

Before this announcement, Twitter has deleted tweets based on content -- rather than limiting who can see it. Such deletions were most often requested by U.S. government agencies that expressed legal issues with the postings.

How China factors into this

Twitter has been expanding at an ambitious rate and they want to enter more global markets, but countries such as China have refused to host the company unless censoring measures can be made -- currently a Chinese company hosts most of the microblogging in China, called Sina Weibo. 

In November, a study showed just how much Chinese business people like to microblog. China has become a major consumer of online content -- now with well over 485 million Internet users (23% of the people scanning the Web) -- and now it seems that the country that has been slow to integrate social media, has made progress.

A study released by the PR Newswire stated that Chinese companies have adopted more elements of social media, such as microblogs, but they have a ways to go before they catch up to the reliance that U.S. companies have on social networking.

A significant 87% of the more than 1,200 respondents said that they used social media on a daily basis, but the frequency and type differed greatly across the sample.

“As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression,” the blog post said. 

This possible change has all the elements needed for a hot Internet debate about cherry-picking company values. When Twitter entered the Web environment in 2006, the company standpoint was that everyone should have access to their own soapbox and get access to a place where people can listen. 

It wasn't even that long ago that a Chinese woman was jailed for a tweet. November, 2010, Cheng Jianping, a 46-year-old human rights activist in China, was sentenced to one year of re-education in a labor camp. And the tweet wasn't even hers, it was just a re-tweet. And the author of the tweet, Cheng’s fiancé, Hua Chunhui, was not arrested.

While Cheng was charged with disturbing social order, human rights groups contend that she was arrested for her activism and her known support of Liu Xiaobo, the human rights activist, author, and professor who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in early 2009.  Liu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year, much to the Chinese government’s dismay.

The offending tweet originally sent by Hua was a jab at young Chinese nationalists who had gone on a destructive spree, smashing Japanese products in protest over a maritime conflict between China and Japan regarding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.  "Anti-Japanese demonstrations, smashing Japanese products, that was all done years ago by [activist] Guo Quan. It's no new trick. If you really wanted to kick it up a notch, you'd immediately fly to Shanghai to smash the Japanese Expo pavilion."

Twitter shifts its position

Last year, Twitter posted a blog that seemed unwavering in its belief in free speech, "For this to happen, freedom of expression is essential. Some Tweets may facilitate positive change in a repressed country, some make us laugh, some make us think, some downright anger a vast majority of users. We don't always agree with the things people choose to tweet, but we keep the information flowing irrespective of any view we may have about the content."

But now it looks like bringing in revenue and the race to the biggest usership may have tainted this -- or perhaps nievity instigated the brash statements in the past. Whatever the motivation, Twitter users and Internet activists will be voicing their concern over this issue in coming week and month, especially if this results in a ticket of entry to China.

http://vator.tv/news/2012-01-27-twitter-confuses-the-internet-with-censorship-options

Latvia and Lithuania join ACTA; Estonia waits on government decision

Lithuania and many other member-states of the European Union, including Latvia, on Jan. 26 in Tokyo, have joined the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The ACTA is an antipiracy trade agreement designed to protect international intellectual property rights.

The treaty intends to establish an international legal framework for intellectual property protection, including counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, reports LETA/ELTA.

However, references of foreign media as if Estonia was planning to sign the controversial ACTA pact on together with other EU member states are not true, LETA/Postimees Online cites Estonian Foreign Ministry.

Mariann Sudakovfrom foreign ministry press service explained that since ACTA is a pact of mixed responsibility, it has to be signed by the EU and member states separately.

Estonia did not sign the agreement, as a government decision is needed for that. "The Estonian government will only start discussing the agreement. The agreement is open for signing till March 31, 2013," she said.

Japanese foreign affairs ministry reports that all in all 22 member-states of the EU have signed the ACTA. The critics of the treaty say that it restricts the freedom of expression online. Many countries saw protests against the initiative, particularly numerous protests have been held in neighbouring Poland.

On Oct. 1 2011 in Tokyo, the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed the treaty. Japan is the ACTA depositary.

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/30443/

Czech Netflix in the making

The Czech company Topfun Media plans to effectively become what some have already described as the country’s equivalent of Netflix. In a press conference jointly organised with Samsung and other partners, it announced the launch of a new service named Live Pay-TV, which is available on all Topfun’s platforms – www.topfun.tv, Smart TV and mobile devices running Android and iOS, giving access to TV channels offering film, music, sports, kids programming, documentary and adult content. Topfun Media has also introduced a new service giving access to hundreds of movies from Hollywood Classic Entertainment, SPI International, Bonton and others. At the same time, SPI International took the opportunity to introduce two new channels – FightBox and Erox. Topfun Media, which is backed by the financial group J&T, is the leading operator of online video stores in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Thousands march in Poland over Acta internet treaty

Thousands of protesters have taken to Poland's streets over the signing of an international treaty activists say amounts to internet censorship.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk's government signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement in Tokyo on Thursday.

The treaty, known as Acta, aims to establish international standards to enforce intellectual property rights.

But critics say it could curb freedom of expression, and government websites have been hacked in protest.

Later on Thursday, hundreds of people took to the streets of the eastern city of Lublin to express their anger over the treaty.

Several marches had taken place in cities across the nation on Wednesday, says the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw.

Crowds of mostly young people held banners with slogans such as "no to censorship" and "a free internet".

After convening a special government meeting to discuss the issue, Mr Tusk said the government would not be blackmailed by the treaty's opponents.

There would be ample time for public discussion about the treaty before it was ratified by the Polish parliament, he said.

Poland was one of several European Union countries, including Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Greece, to sign the treaty on Thursday but it appeared to be the only place where it caused protest.

The agreement was signed by the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea last year.

Acta shares similarities with America's Stop Online Piracy Act, which US lawmakers set aside last week after Wikipedia and Google blacked out or partially obscured their websites for a day in protest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16735219

Internet censors pose a threat to freedom

By: Corner Brook Western Star

Finding censorship online is like tracking a snowmobile trail groomer. So where are these elusive groomers? They started grooming last week on the snowmobile trails, but no one seems to have seen one. There are tracks in the snow, stories from riders about sightings and interesting mechanical noises coming from the woods. But attempts to actually find one in its natural environment fell short.

However, if you stay on a main trail long enough, you'll see it.

It's a little like censorship on the Internet. Stay on the web long enough and you'll see it coming.

For almost two decades we have spent an increasing amount of time on the Internet, with our lives revolving more and more around it. We have become accustomed to free news, free music, free movies, free social outlets, free books and free everything. Failure to pay for an art form will cause its demise; that was covered a decade ago with the downfall of Napster, the first online music sharing site.

The real frightening thing about the Stop Online Piracy Act is not that we may have to pay for movies again; it's the fact that it could give governments the ability to shut down certain parts of the Internet in times of war or economic strife.

Joe Lieberman, prominent U.S. politician and former vice-presidential candidate, has said China can already disconnect parts of the Internet and "We need to have that here too."

Did you catch that? Our biggest trading partner which cares so much about freedom is interested in a Chinese-style form of Internet censorship.

The Internet has made the world a smaller place, where borders are less and less noticeable. It is so much easier to feel consequences here for what happens on the other side of the planet. It would be a major crime for countries to start falling like dominoes to limit access to information.

Imagine not being able to access your favourite news site when a major natural disaster hits and the rescue services are botched. Or when we're sending soldiers to a foreign country.

China is already experiencing this. It's one of the reasons they have such a disastrous human rights record.

By all means, start paying for music. Keep reporters working and start paying for news too, but let's work to stop any form of Internet censorship that comes from any country. Because Canada could be next.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/internet-censors-pose-a-threat-to-freedom-138108423.html

WordPress Plugin Unblocks Censored Sites, Including The Pirate Bay

A new WordPress plugin makes it dead easy to uncensor blocked websites. In just a few clicks people can setup their own proxy site with the popular blogging software. An essential tool for people whose speech is restricted by oppressive regimes, and handy for downloaders in The Netherlands, Italy, Finland and other countries where ISPs are blocking The Pirate Bay. Additionally, the plugin partially defeats the PIPA and SOPA bills in the US.

There’s been a lot of talk about censorship lately. Last week the Internet witnessed the largest protest in its history, against the Internet censorship bills PIPA and SOPA. And earlier this month ISPs in Finland and the Netherlands were ordered to censor The Pirate Bay.

Alongside the millions who protest against these increasing censorship initiatives, there’s also a group of people who come up with ways to route around it. One of these projects is the RePress plugin for WordPress.

The plugin is developed by the hosting company Greenhost and allows everyone with a WordPress blog to start a proxy for sites that are censored elsewhere in the world. As an example, Greenhost have setup a Pirate Bay and Wikileaks proxy.

“By adding this plug-in to your WordPress website it will start functioning as a proxy and uncensor any blocked website you’d like,” Greenhost explains. “The only thing you’ll need is a WordPress website and the ability to install new plug-ins. After that you can maintain a list of websites you’d like to keep open freely available on the web.”

 

Repress Options

One of the main motivations for the plugin’s developers was to provide people in the Netherlands full access to The Pirate Bay when the recent court order is enforced. However, if SOPA or PIPA pass there might also be a need for people in the US to have a tool like this.

“We hope people outside Holland use the plug-in to uncensor piratebay.org, as it is in danger of being blocked in our country after a court-ruling. In the Netherlands we could then uncensor websites for people in oppressive regimes like Iran, Syria or the US after SOPA is passed.”

“[SOPA and PIPA] are said to defend the interests of the Entertainment industry, but will mainly cause grave and undeniable damage to the Open and Free web and all of its users: from the end-consumer to the cutting edge developers and inventors. Our aim is to make this impossible,” the Greenhost team notes.

Although the plugin can’t prevent domain names from being seized, it is indeed a good solution to bypass all of the common blocking measures that are used today.

The RePress initiative is applauded by several politicians, including European Parliament member Marietje Schaake. “This is a fantastic opportunity for human rights activists and a solution for people who face technological censorship and repression,” she told Webwereld.

To those eager to start their own proxy of blocked websites, RePress can be downloaded in the WordPress repository.

http://torrentfreak.com/wordpress-plugin-unblocks-censored-sites-including-the-pirate-bay-120126/

E-gov satisfaction at high levels, report says

Customer satisfaction with e-government exceeded satisfaction with overall government for the seventh year in a row in 2011, according to a new report from ForeSee research firm.

In addition, another new report from GovDelivery ranked the most popular government information shared online in 2011.

A week in e-Democracy: SOPA/PIPA vs lobbying 2.0

SOPA/PIPA vs lobbying 2.0
Have we seen this January 18 the first victory of the web players web against the major traditional pressure groups accustomed to the corridors of power in Washington? Mobilization of key players against anti-piracy law SOPA and PIPA (what you need to know by CBS news), has created the first digital strike of hundreds of websites, including the English version of Wikipedia or the blogging platform Wordpress. It has been successful since a score of members changed their minds. The debate is not only American, and websites like Reporters Without Borders took part in the digital blackout. As emphasized Philippe Aigrain, founding member of the Quadrature du Net (French website on rights and freedom on Internet), "we must consider these two texts as symptomatic of a general trend of legislators around the world to set up tighter control on the Internet in order to enjoy economic interests at the expense of individual liberties. "

Obama Administration Responds to We the People Petitions on SOPA
The White House used the e-petition website, "We The People" to try to defuse a controversy more and more threatening. The petition against SOPA has earned tens of thousands of signatures and the White House took the pole to its position, explaining that the proposal is not satisfactory, and urging users to take direct action to improve "Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions"

In South Korea, the opposition leader elected head of his party by mobile phone
The year 2012 will be an election year in South Korea with general elections in April and presidential election in December. In the country which was the first in the world in 2002 to elect a President with a lot of supporters on Internet, it will be interesting to study new IT uses. It has also started on 15 January. Former South Korean prime minister Han Myeong-sook was elected chairwoman of the liberal main opposition Democratic United Party for a mandate of two years, with 24.5 percent of the vote from a 800,000-strong electoral college. What makes this election unique is that people has been allowed to cast votes through their mobile phones, a method no other political institution in the world has tried before. The leadership election was based on votes cast by party members, party delegates and ordinary citizens who had voluntarily signed up to cast their ballots. Some 90 percent of them voting by mobile phone. The introduction of mobile voting, unprecedented in a party leadership election, has played a "revolutionary" role in encouraging mass participation. Lee Cheol-hee, vice head of the Institute for Democracy and Policies, called the experiment part of the evolution of Korean party politics. He said political parties, criticized for being insular and isolated from the public, are expanding their turf by reaching down to the grass root.

In Canada, Election laws changing to reflect Twitter reality
Faced with new practices, some laws appear increasingly obsolete. This is the case of the law which prohibits to disseminate to the public the result of an election in an electoral district before the close of all polling stations. This is the case of Canada. This rule is "outdated and inapplicable" and will soon disappear. Canada did not actually afford to retain information in a country with no fewer than six time zones. Because when Canadians located west of the country voted, the results are already known on the east. In France, this situation will inevitably resurface during the next presidential election. In a few months, French people - whose millions are on Twitter - will be called to the polls to elect the President of the Republic.

http://www.edemocracy-forum.com/2012/01/lobbying-20.html

Twitter to restrict user content in some countries

SAN FRANCISCO: Twitter announced that it would begin restricting tweets in certain countries, marking a policy shift for the social media platform that helped propel the popular uprisings recently sweeping across the Middle East.

"As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression," Twitter wrote in a blog post published Thursday.

It said even with the possibility of such restrictions, Twitter would not be able to coexist with some countries. "Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there," it said.

Twitter gave as examples of restrictions it might cooperate with "certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content."

A Twitter spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the blog. "Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country while keeping it available in the rest of the world," the Twitter blog said.

Twitter's decision to begin censoring content represents a significant departure from its policy just one year ago, when anti-government protesters in Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries coordinated mass demonstrations through on the social network and, in the process, thrust Twitter's disruptive potential into the global spotlight.

As the revolutions brewed last January, Twitter signaled that it would take a hands-off approach to censoring content in a blog post entitled "The Tweets Must Flow."

"We do not remove Tweets on the basis of their content," the blog post read. "Our position on freedom of expression carries with it a mandate to protect our users' right to speak freely and preserve their ability to contest having their private information revealed."

And last year, Twitter General Counsel Alex Macgillivray declared that the company was "from the free speech wing of the free speech party."

In the interest of transparency, Twitter said Thursday, it has built a mechanism to inform users in the event that a Tweet is being blocked.

Twitter's move comes at a time when internet companies such as Google and Facebook have wrestled with foreign governments over freedom of speech and privacy issues as they expand rapidly overseas.

In 2010 Google relocated its Web search engine to Hong Kong, following a very public spat with the Chinese government over its refusal to bow to Beijing's Web censorship requirements and a hacking episode that Google said it had traced to China.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Twitter-to-restrict-user-content-in-some-countries/articleshow/11647813.cms

Google performance drives mobile estimate to $2.6 billion

Google's "exceptional" mobile advertising and new data has prompted eMarketer to revise its 2012 estimate for mobile advertising spending upward, from $1.8 billion to $2.61 billion. Google has already come to dominate the field, capturing 51.7% of mobile revenue, far ahead of Apple's 6.3% share. The competition is tighter in the area of mobile display, with Google at 24.8%, Apple at 18% and Millennial Media at 17.7%.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-2012-mobile-ad-spend-revised-up-to-2.6-billion-google-fueling-the-machi/

After SOPA, Anonymous hackers out to get world governments

Amid protests against controversial US bills that allegedly threaten freedom of expression online, the hacktivist group Anonymous is starting to target other governments that it believes are attempting to curtail Internet freedom.

 

The hacktivists have started working with digital activists in other countries to respond to such threats, according to a report on Wired.com.

 

Wired.com cited the group's support for protests in Poland against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which will be voted on soon there.

 

The protests included setting up protests via Facebook with Anonymous mounting DDoS attacks on Polish governmental sites. Anonymous also claimed to have hacked into ministerial computers and stolen documents.

 

"The combination of anonymous attacks and Polish outrage has brought the obscure ACTA treaty back into the light and amplified the conversation in Poland about whether ACTA is  good for Poland and the Polish internet. While the Minister of Administration and Digitization Michał Boni has said the signing of ACTA will go forward regardless of any threats from Anonymous or protestations from the Polish people, the treaty must still be ratified by the Polish Parliament to become law," Wired.com said.

 

It added the DDoS against some EU targets appeared to have dropped as physical protests started in the streets.

 

Wired.com cited reports that on Wednesday, protestors by the thousands clogged streets in several Polish cities, chanting and carrying signs protesting the signing of the treaty.

 

"ACTA is a secretive treaty pushed and quite possibly in part penned by the same interests that just saw their plans for SOPA go up in internet flames — the entertainment industry. It’s never been subject to any public scrutiny, but leaked versions of it revealed a requirement for provisions like a three strikes law that could cut people off from the internet and a reversal of DMCA-style safe harbors that have allowed companies like YouTube, Flickr, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and Google to function," Wired.com said.

 

It noted the Obama administration had said the treaty does not require congressional approval in the U.S., and will be implemented with an executive order.

 

“The whole government is basically being bought out in every facet,” said an anon on IRC involved with the anti-ACTA actions.

 

In France, the movement to stop ACTA was joined by more than 1,000 handles in Anonymous IRC servers. DDoS attacks were mounted against French media empire Vivendi.

 

In Brazil, a crackdown on a shanty town called Pinheirinho provoked attacks from Antisec.

 

Brazilian hackers sought help from black-hat anons who claimed to have rooted dozens of boxes in Brazil, looting documents and handing the keys to the Brazilians.

 

“Antisec supported the Brazilians because they asked for help. They consider themselves part of and fans of Lulzsec and Antisec,” one anon told Wired in an online chat.

 

Wired.com said the targets included a website of Organizações Globo, a large Latin American media conglomerate based in Brazil.

 

Threat to net culture?

 

Wired.com quoted Biella Coleman, Professor of Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy in McGill University as saying the phenomenon involves a generation of people whose way of life is "inseparable from the net" see threats to their culture and are willing to fight.

 

“The op was rooted in some core issues that Anonymous and internet enthusiasts care deeply about: free speech, censorship, and intellectual property restrictions,” said Coleman.

 

FTC site defaced

 

The black-hat Antisec wing of Anonymous hacked and defaced OnGuardOnline.gov, a Federal Trade Commission website that distributes computer security information online.

 

Antisec claims to have hundreds of servers rooted, but this one sent a message to so-called “white hats,” the hacker professionals who work for corporations and governments. 

Wired.com said Antisec threatened a "relentless war" against the corporate Internet if SOPA, PIPA and ACTA are passed.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/245823/scitech/technology/after-sopa-anonymous-hackers-out-to-get-world-governments?ref=section_latest

Washington Times launches news aggregator

The Washington Times has launched a new digital news site, Times247.com, which will provide a continuously updated blend of news, opinion and analysis from The Times combined with selected content from top news sources to an audience who shares conservative values. The news service will be distributed digitally to millions of opted-in readers and available over the Internet on a 24/7 basis. Users can choose the site’s home page or “The Skinny” section featuring breaking news headlines “without the filler.

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

Poland: Thousands take to streets in protests at internet censorship

Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Polish cities Wednesday, some of them hurling stones at police, in protest
at an international copyright treaty criticized as a clampdown on freedom of speech on the internet.

In the city of Kielce around 700 people protested. Some of them threw bottles and stones at police, damaged cars and partially blocked traffic, Polish media reported. Police arrested 24 people. One police officer was taken to hospital for treatment.

In the largest demonstration, in Cracow, 15,000 people took to the streets in a largely peaceful protest.

Demonstrators chanted "Down with censorship" while some had a piece of tape inscribed with "ACTA" glued over their lips.

ACTA is the acronym for the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which Poland was to sign in Tokyo on Thursday.

Opponents of the treaty, which aims to protect international intellectual property rights and fight online piracy, launched a string of attacks on Polish government websites earlier this week, jamming the websites of the Polish parliament, the prime minister’s office and the Ministry of Culture.

http://www.warsawvoice.pl/WVpage/pages/article.php/19614/news

The death of online piracy: the end of the Internet as we know it

By Stephen Chapman

Summary: Piracy finds its way into just about every legitimate avenue on the Internet. As such, the death of online piracy via shutting down otherwise legitimate sites and services could mean the end of the Internet as we know it.

The death of online piracy: the U.S. government wants it and copyright holders want it, but at what cost? As we’ve seen from SOPA and PIPA, the government would be willing to completely cripple the Internet to see to the death of online piracy; and now, the shuttering of MegaUpload by the U.S. government (as a result of pressure from copyright holders) has caused waves in the file-sharing business; a business that — amongst perfectly legal profits — is rife with HUGE profits that come as a direct result of the sharing of pirated content. Yes, the death of online piracy as we currently know it is going to happen at some point; but to severely cripple (never mind completely obliterate) online piracy would come at the cost of the current freedoms the Internet enjoys — be it from an end-user perspective, a service provider perspective, or both.

You see, I am more fascinated with piracy than most. It’s a topic that has captivated me for many years and the debates sparked on the subject are absolutely riveting when intelligible people opinionate from either side. Plus, my security consulting endeavors and Google hacking escapades have opened my eyes to more avenues of piracy than are readily apparent to most. As such, to effectively end online piracy, I see that FAR more will have to be done than simply shutting down file-sharing sites. I fear that the most significant changes will be brought forth by legislation, and it WILL happen one day if the piracy war continues as it has thus far.

To give you a small and scary sampling of what obliterating online piracy might mean for the Internet, I present the following points for your consideration:

1 - File-sharing site censorship: Put simply, a complete restructuring and lock-down of file-sharing sites would have to occur for them to even exist. And though it could work just fine in theory, it couldn’t work without handing over a certain amount of freedom and convenience. Every file uploaded to a file-sharing site would have to somehow be guaranteed to either not be copyrighted, or the uploader would have to provide credentials which, under certain guidelines/legislation, show that they can share what they’re sharing — most likely with an intended number of receivers who might also have to provide proper access credentials. As it currently stands, it’s FAR too easy to fly in under the radar of current file-sharing sites that try to auto-detect copyrighted files. Gone would be the days of file-name obfuscation and password-protected 7-zip files.

Ultimately, even if file-sharing sites weren’t as locked down as this scenario suggests, it’s quite clear that the DMCA system is broken. Yes, even sites like Rapidshare and Hotfile — who react promptly to DMCA requests — are still slam-PACKED with copyrighted files that are being furiously downloaded this very second by paying members who can afford $10 a month for a super-fast and convenient way to download copious amounts of copyrighted movies, music, games, and more.

2 - Government-mandated deep packet inspection: Though it wouldn’t matter where you downloaded from, deep packet inspection would massively reduce piracy from torrents, P2P, newsgroups, IRC, and everywhere else. Naturally, it would be easy to circumnavigate this type of thing with a combination of file-name obfuscation (changing the name of a file to something unrelated) and password-protected compressed files, but that simply brings us to the next point…

3 - Tiered Internet access and data plans: Do you have a cell phone with a data plan? Imagine if you had to follow a similar plan with your home ISP. Even worse, what if ALL Internet access was bound by a pay-as-you-go plan? That may sound ridiculous, but after some of the generalizations suggested in SOPA and PIPA, it sounds about par for the course! I could also see an Internet restricted by a type of certification process, whereby a Web site must undergo an inspection to be allowed onto the “freely accessible” Internet — a tier that you could access without getting charged. And if a site that was allowed access failed to abide by the rules after being approved, then the site would be removed and the owner (and possibly even the hosting company) would be severely reprimanded. Again, this all may sound ridiculous, but I’m shooting for some worst-case scenario stuff here to spark debate.

4 - Search engine censorship: If you want to see to the death of online piracy, then you must also consider nixing all the paths that lead one to pirated content. Yes, that means Google, Bing, and every other type of search engine would have to be censored and severely crippled so as to not return results leading one to downloadable copyrighted content they don’t intend on paying for. For someone like me who is absolutely in love with search, I can’t imagine a worse fate than this since it would surely mean severely lacking search results on some level.

Does that all sound crazy to you? Some of it does to me, but I have no doubt that all of the above has been brought to the table as a serious consideration by copyright holders and/or the government at some point. The reason I have no doubt about that is primarily due to China. Just have a look at the details of Internet censorship in the People’s Republic of China and marinate on all of that for a bit.

Now, why am I even bothering to write an article about this? What’s the point? Well, my point is to show that an Internet without at least some amount of piracy is an Internet that lacks some portion of the freedom it currently enjoys: the more piracy is obliterated, the more locked-down the Internet will become. Or so that’s how I see it, at least. The fight against piracy is a full-on war in the eyes of copyright holders, and in war, there are always casualties. Unfortunately, I think the casualties would come in the form of Internet freedom.

And now that I have you feeling like the world as you know it is going to end (it is 2012, after all… *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge*), there is a scenario that very well might play out which I would love to see happen: the influential seats of government and big money corporations being turned over to intelligible, competent Internet lovers who can come to reasonable/logical conclusions. I’m talking about people who use Reddit, understand what a meme is, make usage of Google’s advanced search operators, and — most importantly — know when legislation is presented that seeks to censor or threaten the freedom of the Internet. Hopefully, this would happen long before the Internet was stripped of said freedom.

So, am I saying that online piracy is necessary? Well, no, but if the Internet is to remain free, then accepting that piracy is going to *always* happen in *some* part is something that’s going to have to be done by copyright holders who are seeking legislation as an action to prevent it.

To close, I’d like to note that I understand there are PLENTY of loopholes present and counterpoints to be made to much of what I’ve said above, but it would take a novel to accurately portray the entirety of my opinions and observations on this matter. Not only that, but statistically speaking, only a fraction of you have read this far anyway (this article is just shy of 1500 words — a miracle for most to read through these days) — and besides, I want to see what you all think based on what I’ve said thus far. I want to see some REAL discussion happen on this matter. Also, I understand that the Internet is a global network and not all of the points listed above pertain to all governments, but the battle of piracy extends well beyond the borders of the U.S. government, so discussion is relevant on the topic no matter where you’re reading from.

And now, I turn it over to you! Do you even care about piracy or think that it has the power to cripple the Internet? If you do care about the topic of piracy, then what suggestions would you like to offer that you think would make a difference to those seeking to collect from its supposed damages? Get crazy in the comments below!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/seo/the-death-of-online-piracy-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it/4503

UN: Free Speech on the Internet

Washington, D.C., January 20, 2012—The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Catalina Botero Marino, and the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, today called on the United States to be vigorous in protecting freedom of speech on the Internet. The Special Rapporteurs recalled that legislation regulating the Internet should take into account the special characteristics of the Internet as a unique and transformative tool that enables billions of individuals to exercise their right to freedom of thought and expression as well as a range of other human rights.

 

The Special Rapporteurs have taken particular note of the discussions surrounding two Internet piracy bills currently pending in the United States Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act. While these bills pursue a legitimate objective in seeking to protect intellectual property rights, serious concerns have been raised regarding their impact on freedom of expression. In particular, versions of the draft legislation have the potential to silence a good deal of entirely lawful speech, for example by creating an extrajudicial ‘notice-and-termination’ procedure, by requiring websites to police their user-generated content for copyright infringement, and by allowing for an entire website to be targeted if even a small portion of its content is deemed to infringe. The Special Rapporteurs note with satisfaction that in recent days, certain Congressional leaders stated their intention to suspend debate on SOPA in order to pursue further discussion and consensus, while the Obama Administration announced that it “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

In June 2011, the UN and IACHR Special Rapporteurs joined with their fellow special mandate holders from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to issue a Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. This Joint Declaration states that while freedom of expression, including on the Internet, is not absolute, tailored approaches must be developed that respond to illegal content while recognizing the Internet’s unique characteristics and its ability to deliver positive freedom of expression outcomes. The Declaration states that intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content, and stresses the need to protect them from liability unless they specifically intervene in content or disobey a court order to remove such content. The Declaration further states that jurisdiction in legal cases relating to Internet content should be restricted to States to which those cases have a real and substantial connection.

In addition, all restrictions on freedom of expression, including those that affect speech on the Internet, should be clearly and precisely established by law, proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, and based on a judicial determination in adversarial proceedings. In this regard, legislation regulating the Internet should not contain vague and sweeping definitions or disproportionately affect legitimate websites and services.

The UN and IACHR Special Rapporteurs call on the United States to uphold international free speech norms, including those reflected in the aforementioned Joint Declaration, which seeks to promote universal access to the Internet while preserving its role as a revolutionary medium for participatory information sharing and collaboration in the creation of content. In considering both domestic legislation and international treaties such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, States should recall that while freedom of expression may be limited in the pursuit of legitimate objectives such as the prevention of crime or the protection of the rights of others, such limitations should be narrowly tailored and interfere to the least extent possible with the right to freedom of expression. Any measure that affects speech on the Internet should be specifically designed to preserve the Internet’s unique capacity to promote freedom of expression by facilitating the free exchange of information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively regardless of frontiers.

Source and Picture: UN, Frank La Rue

http://guatemala-times.com/news/world/2878-un-free-speech-on-the-internet.html