Governments not widely blamed for censorship are increasingly asking Google to remove political content from its services, the company said as it released its bi-annual transparency report.
The IT giant has been publishing data on how and why they have been asked by copyright holders and governmental agencies to remove user content since 2010. On Monday it released a new chunk of info on governments’ requests made from July to December 2011.
“This is the fifth data set that we’ve released. And just like every other time before, we’ve been asked to take down political speech. It’s alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect – Western democracies not typically associated with censorship,” Google Senior Policy Analyst Dorothy Chou said in the company’s blog.
For instance, the Spanish Data Protection Authority wanted Google to remove 270 search results that linked to blogs and sites referencing individuals and public figures as well as three blogs and three YouTube videos. Google did not comply.
Canada’s passport office asked Google to remove a YouTube video of a Canadian citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. Google did not comply.
The Polish Agency for Enterprise Development requested removal of a search result that criticized the agency, as well as eight more that linked to it. Google rejected the request.
A local US law enforcement agency wanted Google to take down 1,400 YouTube videos for alleged harassment. The company refused. A separate request from another agency asked to remove five user accounts over alleged harassment and threats. Google terminated four of them, removing approximately 300 videos, but left the remaining account intact.
Also in the US, a court ordered Google to remove 218 search results that linked to allegedly defamatory websites. The company removed a quarter of the cited results.
Pakistan wanted Google to remove videos satirizing the national military, which the company did not do.
Turkish authorities had Google restrict access to videos about the founder of modern Turkey Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Insulting him is a crime in the country. Similarly, in Thailand Google had to block local users from viewing more than a hundred videos allegedly insulting the monarchy.
Bolivia, Jordan, the Czech Republic and Ukraine were noted in the report for asking Google to remove content for the first time.
The total number of governmental requests Google received jumped by 103 per cent over the six months, the company said. It complied with an average of 65 per cent of court orders, as opposed to 47 per cent of less formal requests.
Source; www.RT.com
Showing posts with label SOPA/ACTA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOPA/ACTA. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
'Twitter gaat tweets censureren / Twitter is going to censor tweets'
Microblognetwerk Twitter is in steeds meer landen actief is, ook in landen waar anders tegen de vrijheid van meningsuiting wordt aangekeken. Om in deze landen geaccepteerd te worden heeft Twitter besloten tweets te blokkeren in landen waar deze in strijd zijn met de wet.
“Nu we internationaal blijven groeien, komen we ook in landen die anders denken over de vrijheid van expressie. Sommigen verschillen zo van onze ideeën dat we daar geen bestaansrecht hebben. Anderen zijn gelijk aan onze ideeën maar verbieden bepaalde typen informatie om historische of culturele redenen, zo verbieden Frankrijk en Duitsland pro-Nazi content”, zo leg Twitter uit op de bedrijfs-blog.
Tot voor kort moest Twitter als het een verwijderingsverzoek kreeg van een bepaald land, de betreffende tweet uit het wereldwijde netwerk verwijderen. Het microblognetwerk is nu in staat een tweet selectief te blokkeren, zodat alleen gebruikers in een bepaald land deze niet te zien krijgen.
Twitter schrijft in de blog een manier te hebben gevonden om heel open aan gebruikers te communiceren dat content wordt geblokkeerd en wat de reden daarvan is.
De stap van Twitter wordt door voorvechters van de vrijheid van meningsuiting gemengd ontvangen. Critici wijzen er op dat Twitter de technologie alleen ontwikkeld heeft om zich te kunnen vestigen in landen die censuur toepassen en menen dat de vrijheid van meningsuiting in het geding komt. Anderen zijn genuanceerder. “De vraag is: Wat is het beste voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting?”, vraagt Cynthia Wong van het Center for Technology & Democracy zich af. “Als Twitter geheel geblokkeerd wordt in bepaalde landen, is dat echt beter? Het lijkt erop dat Twitter een goede stap heeft genomen door te kijken hoe ze de schade aan de rechten van de mens kunnen beperken door te voldoen aan lokale wetgeving.”
Bron; Telegraaf.nl
ENGLISH:
Microblog Network Twitter is active in more countries, including in countries which have a different view on freedom of expression. To be accepted in these countries Twitter has decided to block tweets in countries where they conflict with the law.
"As we continue to grow internationally, we also come in countries that think differently about freedom of expression. Some are so different from our ideas that we have no right to exist. Others are similar to our ideas but prohibit certain types of information for historical or cultural reasons, as France and Germany, banning pro-Nazi content", so put Twitter on the company blog.
Until recently when Twitter had received a request from a particular country, Twitter had to remove the tweet from the worldwide network. The microblogging network is now capable of selectively blocking a tweet, so that only users in a particular country does not see it.
Twitter writes in the blog that a way was found to be very open to users to communicate that content is blocked and what the reason is.
The step of Twitter was received by mixed feelings from by advocates of freedom of speech. Critics point out that Twitter has only developed the technology for them to settle in countries with censorship and believe that freedom of expression is at stake. Others are more nuanced. "The question is: What is best for the freedom of speech?" Asks Cynthia Wong of the Center for Democracy & Technology herself. "When Twitter is completely blocked in some countries, is that really better? It seems that Twitter has taken a good step by seeing how the damage to the human rights may limit comply with local laws. "
------
Well i think Twitter is just acting on behalf of SOPA/ACTA, and this is another step towards complete censorship of the internet.. it's all in the timing..
Leave thoughts as comments..
“Nu we internationaal blijven groeien, komen we ook in landen die anders denken over de vrijheid van expressie. Sommigen verschillen zo van onze ideeën dat we daar geen bestaansrecht hebben. Anderen zijn gelijk aan onze ideeën maar verbieden bepaalde typen informatie om historische of culturele redenen, zo verbieden Frankrijk en Duitsland pro-Nazi content”, zo leg Twitter uit op de bedrijfs-blog.
Tot voor kort moest Twitter als het een verwijderingsverzoek kreeg van een bepaald land, de betreffende tweet uit het wereldwijde netwerk verwijderen. Het microblognetwerk is nu in staat een tweet selectief te blokkeren, zodat alleen gebruikers in een bepaald land deze niet te zien krijgen.
Twitter schrijft in de blog een manier te hebben gevonden om heel open aan gebruikers te communiceren dat content wordt geblokkeerd en wat de reden daarvan is.
De stap van Twitter wordt door voorvechters van de vrijheid van meningsuiting gemengd ontvangen. Critici wijzen er op dat Twitter de technologie alleen ontwikkeld heeft om zich te kunnen vestigen in landen die censuur toepassen en menen dat de vrijheid van meningsuiting in het geding komt. Anderen zijn genuanceerder. “De vraag is: Wat is het beste voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting?”, vraagt Cynthia Wong van het Center for Technology & Democracy zich af. “Als Twitter geheel geblokkeerd wordt in bepaalde landen, is dat echt beter? Het lijkt erop dat Twitter een goede stap heeft genomen door te kijken hoe ze de schade aan de rechten van de mens kunnen beperken door te voldoen aan lokale wetgeving.”
Bron; Telegraaf.nl
ENGLISH:
Microblog Network Twitter is active in more countries, including in countries which have a different view on freedom of expression. To be accepted in these countries Twitter has decided to block tweets in countries where they conflict with the law.
"As we continue to grow internationally, we also come in countries that think differently about freedom of expression. Some are so different from our ideas that we have no right to exist. Others are similar to our ideas but prohibit certain types of information for historical or cultural reasons, as France and Germany, banning pro-Nazi content", so put Twitter on the company blog.
Until recently when Twitter had received a request from a particular country, Twitter had to remove the tweet from the worldwide network. The microblogging network is now capable of selectively blocking a tweet, so that only users in a particular country does not see it.
Twitter writes in the blog that a way was found to be very open to users to communicate that content is blocked and what the reason is.
The step of Twitter was received by mixed feelings from by advocates of freedom of speech. Critics point out that Twitter has only developed the technology for them to settle in countries with censorship and believe that freedom of expression is at stake. Others are more nuanced. "The question is: What is best for the freedom of speech?" Asks Cynthia Wong of the Center for Democracy & Technology herself. "When Twitter is completely blocked in some countries, is that really better? It seems that Twitter has taken a good step by seeing how the damage to the human rights may limit comply with local laws. "
------
Well i think Twitter is just acting on behalf of SOPA/ACTA, and this is another step towards complete censorship of the internet.. it's all in the timing..
Leave thoughts as comments..
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Groenlinks: FBI Censureert
DEN HAAG - GroenLinks wil van minister Uri Rosenthal (Buitenlandse Zaken) en minister Ivo Opstelten (Veiligheid) weten wat zij vinden van het offline halen deze week van Megaupload.com en de arrestatie van een Nederlander daarbij.
Via Megaupload konden internetters computerbestanden delen. „GroenLinks ziet dat door deze FBI-gecoördineerde actie journalisten, bloggers en vele miljoenen internetgebruikers worden gecensureerd”, aldus een woordvoerster van GroenLinks vrijdag. Kamerlid Arjan El Fassed: Facties als deze brengen vrijheid en openheid van het internet enorme schade toe.”
Volgens de FBI en justitie zijn de in totaal zeven aangeklaagden „verantwoordelijk voor massale, wereldwijde online piraterij van verschillende soorten werk waar copyright op rust, onder meer via Megaupload.com en andere gerelateerde sites”. Er is door het aanbieden van films, televisieprogramma's en andere content voor meer dan 500 miljoen dollar (385 miljoen euro) schade aangericht, aldus de Amerikaanse justitie. Daarnaast zouden de mensen achter de site 175 miljoen dollar (135 miljoen euro) hebben verdiend.
Bron: Telegraaf.nl
Via Megaupload konden internetters computerbestanden delen. „GroenLinks ziet dat door deze FBI-gecoördineerde actie journalisten, bloggers en vele miljoenen internetgebruikers worden gecensureerd”, aldus een woordvoerster van GroenLinks vrijdag. Kamerlid Arjan El Fassed: Facties als deze brengen vrijheid en openheid van het internet enorme schade toe.”
Volgens de FBI en justitie zijn de in totaal zeven aangeklaagden „verantwoordelijk voor massale, wereldwijde online piraterij van verschillende soorten werk waar copyright op rust, onder meer via Megaupload.com en andere gerelateerde sites”. Er is door het aanbieden van films, televisieprogramma's en andere content voor meer dan 500 miljoen dollar (385 miljoen euro) schade aangericht, aldus de Amerikaanse justitie. Daarnaast zouden de mensen achter de site 175 miljoen dollar (135 miljoen euro) hebben verdiend.
Bron: Telegraaf.nl
Monday, January 23, 2012
SOPA pulled, now meet ACTA
From Wikipedia;
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.[1] It would establish an international legal framework for countries to join voluntarily,[2] and would create a governing body outside international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.[1][3] Negotiating countries have described it as a response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."[2] The scope of ACTA includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet.[4] Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) oppose ACTA,[5] stating that civil society groups and developing countries were excluded from discussion during ACTA's development in an example of policy laundering.[6]
Opponents have argued that the treaty will restrict fundamental civil and digital rights, including the freedom of expression and communication privacy.[7] "The bulk of the WTO's 153 members" have raised concerns that treaty could distort trade and goes beyond the existing Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.[8] Opponents also criticize ACTA's removal of "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers" in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions.[9] According to an analysis by the Free Software Foundation, ACTA would require that existing ISPs no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media, and DRM protected media would not be legally playable with free software.[10]
Canada, the European Union and Switzerland joined the preliminary talks throughout 2006 and 2007. Official negotiations began in June 2008, with Australia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Singapore joining the talks. The negotiations were classified as secret in the US on the grounds of "damage to the national security".[citation needed] Apart from the participating governments, an advisory committee of large US-based multinational corporations was consulted on the content of the draft treaty,[11] including the International Intellectual Property Alliance,[12] (which includes the Business Software Alliance, Motion Picture Association of America, and Recording Industry Association of America)[13] and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.[14] The treaty calls for the creation of an "ACTA committee" to make amendments, for which public or judicial review are not required. Industry representatives may have "consultatory input" to amendments.[15] A 2009 Freedom of Information request showed that the following companies also received copies of the draft under a nondisclosure agreement: Google, eBay, Intel, Dell, News Corporation, Sony Pictures, Time Warner, and Verizon.[16]
After a series of draft text leaks in 2008, 2009 and 2010, the negotiating parties published an official version of the then current draft on 20 April 2010.[17] In June 2010, a conference at the Washington College of Law with "over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents"[18] concluded "that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators." A group of 75+ law professors signed a letter to President Obama demanding that ACTA be halted and changed.[19]
The final text was released on 15 November 2010,[20] with English, French, and Spanish published on April 15, 2011.[21] A signing ceremony was held on 1 October 2011 in Tokyo, with the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signing the treaty. The European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended but did not sign, professing support and saying they will do so in the future.[22][23] Article 39 of ACTA states countries can sign the treaty until 31 March 2013. European Parliament reportedly has the final decision over whether the treaty is dismissed or enacted.[24]
Poland announced on January 19 that it will sign the treaty on January 26, 2012.[25] According to Polskie Radio, Polish Wikipedia is considering a blackout to protest the signing, similar to the English Wikipedia blackout that had occurred to raise awareness about the Stop Online Piracy Act on January 18.[26] A number of Polish government websites, including that of the President and Polish Parliament, were shut down by denial of service attacks that started January 21, akin to protests against SOPA and PIPA that had happened two days previous.[27][28]"
Read more on this on Wikipedia
A CALL FOR FREEDOM;
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.[1] It would establish an international legal framework for countries to join voluntarily,[2] and would create a governing body outside international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.[1][3] Negotiating countries have described it as a response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."[2] The scope of ACTA includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet.[4] Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) oppose ACTA,[5] stating that civil society groups and developing countries were excluded from discussion during ACTA's development in an example of policy laundering.[6]
Opponents have argued that the treaty will restrict fundamental civil and digital rights, including the freedom of expression and communication privacy.[7] "The bulk of the WTO's 153 members" have raised concerns that treaty could distort trade and goes beyond the existing Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.[8] Opponents also criticize ACTA's removal of "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers" in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions.[9] According to an analysis by the Free Software Foundation, ACTA would require that existing ISPs no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media, and DRM protected media would not be legally playable with free software.[10]
Canada, the European Union and Switzerland joined the preliminary talks throughout 2006 and 2007. Official negotiations began in June 2008, with Australia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Singapore joining the talks. The negotiations were classified as secret in the US on the grounds of "damage to the national security".[citation needed] Apart from the participating governments, an advisory committee of large US-based multinational corporations was consulted on the content of the draft treaty,[11] including the International Intellectual Property Alliance,[12] (which includes the Business Software Alliance, Motion Picture Association of America, and Recording Industry Association of America)[13] and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.[14] The treaty calls for the creation of an "ACTA committee" to make amendments, for which public or judicial review are not required. Industry representatives may have "consultatory input" to amendments.[15] A 2009 Freedom of Information request showed that the following companies also received copies of the draft under a nondisclosure agreement: Google, eBay, Intel, Dell, News Corporation, Sony Pictures, Time Warner, and Verizon.[16]
After a series of draft text leaks in 2008, 2009 and 2010, the negotiating parties published an official version of the then current draft on 20 April 2010.[17] In June 2010, a conference at the Washington College of Law with "over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents"[18] concluded "that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators." A group of 75+ law professors signed a letter to President Obama demanding that ACTA be halted and changed.[19]
The final text was released on 15 November 2010,[20] with English, French, and Spanish published on April 15, 2011.[21] A signing ceremony was held on 1 October 2011 in Tokyo, with the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signing the treaty. The European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended but did not sign, professing support and saying they will do so in the future.[22][23] Article 39 of ACTA states countries can sign the treaty until 31 March 2013. European Parliament reportedly has the final decision over whether the treaty is dismissed or enacted.[24]
Poland announced on January 19 that it will sign the treaty on January 26, 2012.[25] According to Polskie Radio, Polish Wikipedia is considering a blackout to protest the signing, similar to the English Wikipedia blackout that had occurred to raise awareness about the Stop Online Piracy Act on January 18.[26] A number of Polish government websites, including that of the President and Polish Parliament, were shut down by denial of service attacks that started January 21, akin to protests against SOPA and PIPA that had happened two days previous.[27][28]"
Read more on this on Wikipedia
A CALL FOR FREEDOM;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)