http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/22/chinathemedia.marketingandpr
« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/22/chinathemedia.marketingandpr
2008.09.26 in Cybercrime | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
http://www.domainpulse.com/2008/09/21/100000-sg-domain-names-registered/
2008.09.26 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article4776357.ece
2008.09.26 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24396122-5013044,00.html
2008.09.26 in Privacy/Security | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
http://www.ejc.net/media_news/yahoo_to_transform_web_ads_with_new_system/
2008.09.26 in Netbiz | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
The Commission's 2008 Report on the Scope of the Universal Service in Telecoms: Frequently Asked Questions:
2008.09.26 in Infrastructure | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
The fund will be a welcome boost to the telecoms sector in Bihar, where telecoms infrastructure is poorly developed and penetration is currently around 8%. IFC director for global information and communication technologies, Mohsen A. Khalil, has expressed his optimism that the loan to Idea will help to boost mobile penetration in Bihar to over 20% by 2012. Underserved rural areas represent the biggest growth opportunities in India, where there are currently a dozen operators. Idea has licences to operate in all 22 service areas in India, with commercial operations in 12 of those areas and Bihar in line for imminent service launch.
2008.09.26 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
On August 28, 2008, all twenty-one Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country were ordered to block the Website of Malaysia Today, the country’s leading blog. Notices were sent out by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia (“SKMM”)) in accordance with Section 263 of Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Act. The SKMM justified its actions on the grounds that comments posted on the blog were “insensitive, bordering on incitement”.
Malaysia's leading political blog, Malaysia Today, was blocked by local ISPs on August 28, 2008 in what was widely seen as a government crackdown on Internet Websites that were credited with contributing to government losses in the general election. The editor of Malaysia Today said that blocking access to his portal was a breach of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC). MSC Malaysia's 10-Point Bill of Guarantees, includes a guarantee by the Malaysian government to “ensure no Internet censorship” as part of its commitment to ensuring the success of MSC status companies.
The editor of Malaysia Today is the country’s first online journalist to be charged under the 1948 Sedition Act. This charge stemmed from a posting on Malaysia Today, on May 6, 2008, that linked a senior government official to the murder of a young woman. The editor faces a possible three-year sentence for violating a Sedition Act provision that outlaws inciting “hatred, doubt or contempt” for any government leader or member.
Bloggers note that the SKMM action against Malaysia Today violates the government’s promises not to censor the Internet, except for pornographic Websites. The policy was introduced in the 1990s to encourage foreign investment in the Multimedia Super Corridor, near Kuala Lumpur. However, the Home Minister countered these claims, saying that the everyone was subject to the law, “even Websites and blogs”, and that the Malaysian government did not intend to curtail people’s freedom or right to express themselves, but “when they publish things that are libelous, slanderous or defamatory, it is natural for SKMM to act”.
What is the reason, according to bloggers, for the blocking of the Website? The mainstream media in Malaysia is either controlled by the ruling party or is closely linked to the ruling party; as a response, some of Malaysia’s most popular Websites and blogs contain commentaries which are fiercely anti-government. Malaysian bloggers present themselves as an alternative to the mainstream media and, indeed, in the last general election, a prominent anti-government blogger was elected to Parliament as a member of the opposition. In fact, the Prime Minister himself recently admitted that the government had underestimated the influence of the Internet in the March general election.
Is the blocking of ‘Malaysia Today’ the only instance of Cybercensorship in Malaysia? The Associated Press recently reported that a group of fifty bloggers in Malaysia had formed an alliance to protect bloggers from government intervention. The group was apparently formed after two of them were sued by a newspaper with close government ties. The group accused the government of trying to silence criticism.
Is the blocked Website accessible through an alternative address?
Yes, the blocked Website and the article that triggered the government’s fierce reaction are freely accessible from an alternative address even within Malaysia.
2008.09.24 in E-Activism | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
The Act’s purpose is to protect personal data from illegal interference, to regulate the rights and responsibilities of those who process personal data, and to specify the conditions under which personal data may be transferred to third countries. Article 44 of Chapter VII of the Act specifies various offenses and related penalties that may be levied upon violators of the Act. Specifically, Article 44(1) states that any person who (a) is in an employment relationship with the controller or carries out activities for the controller on the basis of an agreement, or (b) who comes into contact with personal data in the controller’s possession during the fulfillment of the duties and responsibilities imposed upon him by a particular Act, commits an offense if he breaches the obligation to maintain confidentiality, and may be liable for a fine of up to CZK 100,000.
Article 44(2) of the Act states that any person who is in the position of a controller and who fails to specify the purpose, sources or the manner of processing of personal data that is under his or her control, and
• processes personal data inaccurately or in a manner that does not correspond to the specified purpose for which the data is provided, or
• unnecessarily preserves personal data for a longer-than-needed period,
• processes the data without the consent of the data subject (except the cases provided by law),
• fails to provide the data subject with the information required to be provided under the Act, or refuses to provide relevant information requested by the data subject,
• fails to adopt the measures for ensuring security of personal data processing, or
• fails to fulfill the notification obligations pursuant to the Act,
may be liable for a fine of up to CZK 1,000,000.
Article 44(3) of the Act states that any controller who commits an offense in the course of processing personal data that jeopardizes a substantial number of persons by unauthorized access to personal information or fails to fulfill responsibilities related to the processing of sensitive data may be liable for a fine of up to CZK 5,000,000. Notwithstanding, under certain circumstances, a controller will not be liable for breaches of the Act, in particular, where the controller made an honest effort to protect personal information.
What are the primary duties of parties who collect data?
When collecting personal data, the collecting person or entity must inform the person whose data is collected of the extent to which his or her data is processed and the purpose for which the personal data will be processed. The collecting entity must also specify who and in what manner will process the personal data, and explain to whom such personal data may be disclosed, unless the person is already aware of this information. The controller is likewise responsible for notifying the person about his right of access to personal data and the right to have his personal data amended for accuracy.
Article 38 of the Act states that the controller must inform the person whose data is collected of the initiation of any inspection of data related to that person. In addition, the Act provides that data collectors must adhere to a series of standards aimed at respecting the rights and lawfully protected interests of controlled persons. Specifically, the Act provides that data processors must:
• identify themselves to the owner of the data by means of an identification document,
• return the seized documents along with any copies of computer-readable media to the owner of the data as soon as the reasons for their seizure cease to exist,
• properly protect the seized documents against loss, demolition, misuse or damage,
• prepare a report on the results of inspection, and
• maintain confidentiality of facts found during the inspection and not to misuse the knowledge of these facts.
Does the obligation of confidentiality established under the Act apply to unidentified and general information?
Article 38 also states that “[t]he obligation to maintain confidentiality shall not prejudice the notification obligation pursuant to special Acts… [and] shall survive the termination of the labor relationship with the Office… [and] [t]he President of the Office may release the controlling person from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.” However, the obligation to maintain confidentiality does not apply in cases of unidentified and generalized information.
Under what circumstances will a controller be exempt from liability due to breaches of the Act?
Article 46 of the Act provides a number of exemptions under which the legal or natural person will not be held liable for an administrative offense pertaining to a breach of obligations respecting personal data processing.
Pursuant to this Article, if a legal or a natural person proves that he or she had taken all the necessary efforts to prevent the breach of a legal obligation, that individual will be exempt from liability. Further, when imposing a fine due to a breach of any provisions of the Act, the seriousness, method, time period and consequences of the unlawful behavior and the situation under which the offense has been committed are all taken into consideration. Finally, a person will not be held liable for a breach under the Act if the administrative body has not initiated the proceedings against that person within one year from the day that it learned of the breach, but not later than three years from the date on which the offense was committed.
2008.09.24 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
2008.09.24 in Content, Media | Permalink | TrackBack (0)