[attach]
Topic: Sorry, This Post Has Been Censored (Read 84,536 times)
The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.Finally, there's to be some "regulation". That should fix the naysayers.
From the Techdirt post Josef Anvil’s Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week:
… So where does all of this lead? To Glyn Moody’s article about the “We, the Web Kids” manifesto, my FAVORITE post of the week and possibly my favorite post EVER on Techdirt. This one article encapsulates almost everything that is discussed in this forum. Whether the debate is about SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP or TSA or RIAA/MPAA or WIPO or Google or Facebook, we have to accept the fact that we are all far more connected than ever before, some of us are even hyperconnected, and it has changed us. We no longer just accept the opinions of “authority,” we want FACTS, we want data, we want the truth (or close as possible). This article details a fundamental shift in the way people THINK, and it’s not just the “web kids.” Personally, I didn’t grow up with the web, but I’m certainly not so blind as to miss how integrated into my life it is. Before the web, I didn’t talk to people all over the world on a daily basis, now I do. How I consume media is completely different, as I get to choose what, when, how, and why. In other words, the way things are done has CHANGED because of the internet.
This manifesto is a wake up call to politicians and corporations around the world. Your citizens and consumers have changed. They are becoming or have become a part of the digital era. They Skype, Tweet, FB, and IM their ideas, opinions, and comments without giving much thought about the process. They Google everything, they shop on their phones, they record video and post it before the “real news” can, they text while in meetings, they create with Gimp and NVU, they work with OpenOffice, and they consume media thru Netflix, HULU, Spotify, Grooveshark, HuffPo, and YouTube. They want to throw away physical storage and move stuff into the “cloud,” if you let them. They don’t want to hear that consumers shouldn’t dictate the market, because they know how to write reviews and share information. They don’t want to hear about laws being bought, and are willing to speak out and challenge the “old ways.”
(read the rest here.)
I found this: http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/I watched the film with my daughter Lily. We loved it and have had repeat viewings. It seems the film is in a semi-autobiographical meta-context (if that makes sense?) of the film's creator (Nina Paley), but is also an accurate animated version of the epic Indian tale of Ramayana, set to the beautiful 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw.
While reading this: http://mimiandeunice.com/
Mimi and Eunice is hilarious, so I figured I'd download the "Sita Sings the Blues" movie. (Still downloading -- very much looking forward to it, and too impatient to wait, watch, then post!)
But, check this from the site:QuoteYou don't need my permission to copy, share, publish, archive, show, sell, broadcast, or remix Sita Sings the Blues. Conventional wisdom urges me to demand payment for every use of the film, but then how would people without money get to see it? How widely would the film be disseminated if it were limited by permission and fees? Control offers a false sense of security. The only real security I have is trusting you, trusting culture, and trusting freedom.You can read more at both those sites. If you're mildly interested in copyright and all that wonderfulness, check it out.
...that makes me wonder if that Internet censorship is not just a single narrow aspect of a much larger overall strategy of state censorship in the US, driven presumably by commercial interests rather than by genuine state security interests.
Coincidentally, this interesting post from The Centre for the Study of Innovative Freedom:
Copyright is Unconstitutional: Update
As a former tabletop gamer, I keep wanting to come up with an anti-copyright method ruthlessly abusing the "letter" of the corrupt laws and hopefully an equally ticked off judge will approve it.
Something like "If a creative work is copyrighted the moment it comes into being in fixed form, then my web surfing history exists as my click before it becomes your tracking cookie, so therefore you owe me royalties of $150,000 per tracking cookie that you set."
Same idea, "My name was assigned by my parent at birth, so they're the copyright holders, (and gave it to me), so you can't sell my personal info either."
Reporters Without Borders lists the enemies of the internet
These countries are the most oppressive online
By Dave Neal
Mon Mar 12 2012, 16:42
JOURNALIST GROUP Reporters Without Borders has published its list of the countries with the worst attitudes towards the internet and online censorship.
A couple of new countries have joined the list for this year, so if there is a dinner for the worst nations, then whoever organises that needs to add Bahrain and Belarus to a seating arrangement that already includes Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
These countries have "enemy of the internet" status, while some other less obvious destinations, including France and Australia, can be found lurking just below them in the "under surveillance" category because of their attitudes toward web filtering and blocking.
All of the countries have placed a boot on internet freedom, according to the report, and Bahrain, which is fresh to its lofty "enemy" status, won its high ranking for its "effective news blackout based on a remarkable array of repressive measures".
Bahrain harasses bloggers and detains them for dissension, it added, while Belarus has shut off the internet during protests and blocks a long list of web sites from its users.
The United Kingdom also makes an appearance, and the report's authors are concerned about the reaction to the riots of this year and any likely technical changes as a result.
"The United Kingdom, whose Digital Rights Bill aimed at protecting copyright has been singled out by U.N. Commissioner La Rue, went through a difficult period during the riots last August," it says.
"In a worrying development, the Canadian company Research In Motion, manufacturers of the Blackberry, made the personal details of some users available to the police without a prior court order."
Surveillance is stronger than ever before, goes deeper and is more effective, says the report, and there are few countries where it does not raise its head.
Where there is oppression, there is also activism, says the report, and hacktivist groups like Anonymous are said to be helping out activists in countries when and where assistance is needed.
"In order to combat increasingly competent censors, self-styled 'hacktivists' have been giving technical assistance to vulnerable netizens to help them share information in the face of pervasive censorship," it adds.
"Last year also saw the development of tools to bypass censorship and blocking of Web access, such as 'Internet in a suitcase' and FreedomBox. Cyber freedom activists are working flat-out to respond to increasingly effective censorship tools."
µ
Google is increasingly...Thanks for all those links.
Secretary Clinton Announces State Department Use of ChromeOf course the US State Department gave their approval to the use of Chrome. Why wouldn't they?
Looks like quite an impressive "Win" for Google here.
The post avoids the usual cliché of "excited", but unfortunately replaced it with another adjective - "enthusiastic". This is presumably a mistake - should have been "enthused", the back formation from the noun "enthusiasm".QuoteWe’re enthusiastic to be leading the charge to bring an enhanced web browsing experience to State employees executing the critical U.S. diplomatic mission around the world!
Here's one where Google HAS restricted a video that is nothing more than a ridiculous parody of the TSA:
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DMFEBsNdiYbM
Hover your mouse over that link to check it. Now, here's the "real" URL. Click it and watch it change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEBsNdiYbM
Here's one where Google HAS restricted a video that is nothing more than a ridiculous parody of the TSA:
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DMFEBsNdiYbM
Hover your mouse over that link to check it. Now, here's the "real" URL. Click it and watch it change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEBsNdiYbM
I think it may be a stretch to say that this is part of some larger policy to restrict anti-government posts - all that's happening here is that YouTube/Google are making you sign in and verify/claim that you're over 18 to view it. While there's nothing pornographic in the video, I think it's within reason for YouTube/Google to claim it may have material inappropriate for children. One could maybe view this as censorship, but I don't think there's reason to claim that it's politically motivated.
And the "changing URL" is just a redirect if you aren't logged in/'age verified'. The same way I'd be redirected to a login page here if I tried to reply in the forum without being logged in.
Came across this interesting post on what apparently looked like Google censorship of legitimate political opinion/speech - dated June 2004:
Google's Gag Order: An Internet Giant Threatens Free Speech
- July 4, 2012 - By Chris Hoffman
We’ve been hearing a lot about website-blocking recently, particularly with anti-piracy organizations forcing Internet service providers to block access to The Pirate Bay in the UK and elsewhere. However, when UK Internet service provider BT blocked The Pirate Bay, the block was only in effect for a few minutes before The Pirate Bay bypassed it.
How exactly do supposedly blocked websites like The Pirate Bay remain accessible to so many people, in spite of all the efforts to block them? The answer lies in the way the Internet works.- How Websites Are Blocked
When you load a website – say, by going to thepiratebay.org – your computer contacts its domain name system (DNS) server and locates the numerical IP address associated with that website. The DNS server responds with the website’s IP address and your computer contacts the IP address. Domain names like thepiratebay.org and makeuseof.com are human-readable shortcuts that DNS servers translate to numerical IP addresses.
Blocking can cut off access at the DNS level or block access to the website’s IP address itself. Your Internet service provider runs your default DNS servers, so it can modify them and point thepiratebay.org or another domain name to a “Blocked” page.
There are several ways around this – you can switch your DNS server to an alternative DNS server that isn’t run by your Internet service provider (ISP), such as Google DNS or OpenDNS. You could also visit the website’s IP address directly – for example, 194.71.107.80 is one of The Pirate Bay’s IP addresses, so you can access The Pirate Bay by plugging this number into your web browser’s address bar.
Blocking can also cut off access at the server level. To prevent people from using the above methods to get around the blocks, ISPs can block access to specific IP addresses, preventing their users from communicating with the IP addresses entirely.- How Websites Bypass Blocks
If only DNS blocking is occurring, websites can tell their users to switch DNS servers or access specific IP addresses directly. Even if specific IP addresses have been blocked, a website can quickly add a new IP address that point to the website.
For example, after The Pirate Bay’s IP addresses were blocked, The Pirate Bay immediately added several new IP addresses that pointed to their website. While users could no longer access thepiratebay.org or 194.71.107.80, The Pirate Bay was now also available at 194.71.107.82.
A Pirate Bay representative told Torrent Freak that “they can continue adding new addresses for years to come.” It’s like whack-a-mole – when an ISP blocks an address, a new one immediately springs up.- Legal System Slowness
Compounding the problem for those who would block websites is the way the legal system works. The blockers often require court orders to block specific domains and IP addresses. Some of these court orders may allow the blockers – anti-piracy groups in the case of The Pirate Bay – to add new IP addresses to the block on short notice, while some do not. As some ISPs in the Netherlands responded when Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN told them to block The Pirate Bay’s new IP addresses – “we will do not comply without a court order”.
Even if all court orders allowed anti-piracy groups to block new IP addresses without going through the legal system again, court orders would have to be obtained in a variety of countries against a large amount of ISPs. On the other hand, The Pirate Bay can add a new IP address accessible to the entire world and circumvent the block in a few seconds.- Other Ways to Bypass Blocks
The Pirate Bay doesn’t even need to bypass the blocks itself. Pirate Bay users have a variety of ways to bypass the block, including accessing The Pirate Bay through proxies or virtual private networks (VPNs), which “tunnel” the traffic to another ISP. From The Pirate Bay’s perspective, the user is accessing their website from another country without website blocking. The tunnel then passes the traffic in encrypted form back to the user – as the traffic is encrypted and the user isn’t communicating directly with The Pirate Bay, their ISP has no way of blocking this traffic.
In fact, The Pirate Party UK hosts a proxy that UK residents can use to access The Pirate Bay on ISPs where it’s been blocked. Tor, designed for accessing websites anonymously and circumventing government censorship of the web, can also be used.- The Streisand Effect
Word spreads about new ISP addresses and other ways to bypass blocks extremely quickly. When a website as big as The Pirate Bay is blocked, news stories spring up and alert users to the block and ways of getting around it. The block may actually increase traffic going to the blocked website as a result of the increased media attention and exposure.
This phenomena is known as the Streisand effect — named after Barbara Streisand, who, in 2003, attempted to remove photos of her house from the Internet. In response, news coverage about the incident resulted in a larger number of people seeing the photos. Similarly, people reading news stories about blocks of a website like The Pirate Bay may wonder what all the fuss is about and check the website out for themselves. News of the block actually increased traffic to The Pirate Bay.
Have you ever had to get around a block to access a blocked website? Do you have any other questions about how websites are blocked? Let us know in the comments!
Original address: https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=29583.0
