The ITU–a agency of the UN–seeks to regulate the internet The International Telecommunications Union (aka the ITU) a agency of the UN,is convening a meeting this December to seek to persuade its member states to vastly extend its powers over the internet. The measure is largely supported by China & Russia & opposed by the Obama administration,Google & many pro-Internet Freedom groups. Background is in the links below. I urge readers to call their Representatives & urge them to oppose this effort. Take Action – Google https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/ Robert McDowell: The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom – WSJ.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.html U.N. could tax U.S.-based Web sites, leaked docs show | Security & Privacy – CNET News http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u.s.-based-web-sites-leaked-docs-show/ BBC News – European Parliament warns against UN internet control http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20445637 BBC News – Google attacks UN’s internet treaty conference http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20429625 UN must lead Internet regulation effort, says ITU head | The Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/08/un-must-lead-internet-regulation-effort-says-itu-head/
Tag Archives: Censorship
What appeasement has wrought: Egyptian PM Mursi demands censorship at UN, Pakistani minister calls for murder of ”Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker
Washington Post Pakistani mi
nister offers bounty for murder of ” Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker, calls on Al-qaeda to commit the murder. http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistan-disowns-ministers-offer-of-100000-bounty-on-anti-islam-film-maker/2012/09/24/bcdab730-060a-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html Egyptian President Demands Criminalization of Anti-Islamic Speech At United Nations « JONATHAN TURLEY http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/24/egyptian-president-demands-criminalization-of-anti-islamic-speech-at-united-nations/ Some time ago Dr.Leonard Peikoff called for responding to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie by declaring war on Tehran. I thought that he was overreacting then. I no longer think he was overreacting.
RRD:When the “Arab Spring” began, I & several others who support freedom in the Middle-East warned that a rush to elections would prove disastrous since only the Muslim Brotherhood was prepared to win said elections (fn1).I also pointed to actual polling taken of the Egyptians by the Pew Center showing that a large majority of those polled supported the stoning of adulterers,the killing of apostates & other harsh punishments derived from Sharia law (fn2).
We were either ignored,or mocked, or attacked as ”racists”(even though there is ample precedent for failed revolutions in the West ,such as the French Revolution).
We were told that the revolution was not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood(which was true),and that the Muslim Brotherhood would not gain power(obviously not true).
When it became apparent that the Muslim Brotherhood would win elections(and even before then, in some cases) we were told of a new phobia,invented by the Muslim Brotherhood and their apologists and useful idiots in the West:Ikhwanophobia;meaning a supposedly unreasonable fear of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Oddly these same people never speak of KKKophobia, or BNPophobia,or FPOophobia, or Jobbikophobia, or FrontNationalophobia, or GoldenDawnophobia (fn3)., but then perhaps those hit too close to home,unlike the Muslim Brotherhood,whom we are never supposed to “demonize” by applying the same standards to them as we do to ourselves.
After the Muslim Brotherhood won the elecions they were not supposed to win,we were then told that we had nothing to fear since the Egyptian Military would act as a check on them.
Well now “striking another blow for freedom” Morsi has replaced the Generals in charge of the military.He was handed a justification for this, by the alleged ineptitude displayed by Military in the Sinai debacle.He is also taking over the government run newspapers and persecuting his critics:
Rubin Reports » Egypt: There Goes the Army; There Goes the Free Media; There Goes Egypt
…”Muslim Brotherhood President al-Mursi has just removed the two commanding generals of the Egyptian military. Does he have a right to do this? Who knows?There’s no constitution. That means all we were told about not having to worry because the generals would restrain the Brotherhood was false. Moreover, the idea that the army, and hence the government, may fear to act lest they lose U.S. aid will also be false. There is no parliament at present He is now the democratically elected dictator of Egypt. True, he picked another career officer but he has now put forward the principle: he decides who runs the army. The generals can still advise Mursi. He can choose to listen to them or not. But there is no more dual power in Egypt but only one leader. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces which has run Egypt since February 2011 is gone. Only Mursi remains and Egypt is now at his mercy.
Behind the scenes note: Would Mursi dared have done this if he thought Obama would come down on him like a ton of bricks? Would the army give up if they thought America was behind it? No on both counts.
This is a coup. Mursi is bound by no constitution. He can do as he pleases unless someone is going to stop him. And the only candidate–the military–is fading fast, far faster than even we pessimists would have predicted.
Muslim Brotherhood President al-Mursi has also just named the editors of the top Egyptian newspaper and other media outlets. They are state-owned, you know, and there are a half-dozen good little independent newspapers.
But one of them, al-Destour (ironically meaning “The Constitution”), has just had a full issue seized on charges of “fueling sedition” and “harming the president through phrases and wording punishable by law.” We know this through a report in the Middle East News Agency, the state-owned monopoly.
And what was the inflammatory report? That the Brotherhood was going to seize power and that liberals and the army should join together to stop the country from being turned into an Islamist regime.”…
….”Other columnists are charging that the Brotherhood is trying to turn their newspapers into reliable house organs rather than let them be free.”…
This is what the “Arab Spring” has wrought:
A anti-semitic,misogynistic,anti-Christian,anti-gay ,anti-Liberty band of reactionary Neo-Medievalist Islamists,has taken over
a former quasi-pan-arabist dictatorship,(which our tax dollars have armed and equipped with M1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets since the Camp David Accords.)
Women,”Apostates”,& Coptic Christians & Gays,all get tossed under the bus,along with the Camp David Accords(sooner or later).
A brief comment on my stance on the January 25th revolution:Political Islam is not the answer. | Glory to man in the highest
Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Global Attitudes Project
The far right is on the march again: the rise of Fascism in Austria | Mail Online
Meet Europe’s New Fascists, Hungary’s Far-Right Jobbik Party – Tablet Magazine
Marine Le Pen’s 17.9% is not a breakthrough for the far right | World news | guardian.co.uk
Far right on rise in Europe
Rise of neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party leads to spate of immigrant attacks in Greece – Telegraph
DOJ official Tom Perez, his meetings with Islamists & his refusal to explicitly denounce blasphemy laws
DoJ official refuses to denounce demands for Saudi-style blasphemy law | The Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/doj-official-refuses-to-denounce-demands-for-saudi-style-blasphemy-law/ RRD:According to the Daily Caller Tom Perez a DOJ official refused to denounce blasphemy laws.This took place at hearings convened because of a Daily Caller article published in October of 2011 ,on a meeting Perez had with members of the Islamist group ISNA (a unindicted conspirator in the Holy Land case) most notably Mohamed Magid,along with others. (To my knowledge Magid himself was not named in the case) …”At the end of the public meeting, Perez called more meetings with the Islamists, even though he had watched while Magid called for legal punishment of people who criticize Islamic texts that call for violence against non -Muslims and for the subordination of women to men.”… …”During the meeting, Perez also complimented the Islamists for lobbying against airline security measures. Perez also listened while another Islamist called for the Justice Department to redefine religious free speech as illegal discrimination. The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female Egyptian -American lawyer who spoke at the event. “I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who spoke for the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding, a Michigan -based advocacy group. “We must continue to have the open and honest and critical dialogue that you saw in the robust debate,” Perez said just a few minutes after Aziz made her demand for Saudi-style blasphemy laws.”….
Lars Hedegaard charged with ”crime” of saying sexual abuse is a serious problem among Muslims #womensrights #tcot #freedomofspeech
PJ Media » Round Three in the Trial of Lars Hedegaard
…..”In a defamation case in the United States, the truth of the statement at issue is a defense to the cause of action. Not so for prosecutions under Article 266(b); truth is not an available defense. In his first two trials, Hedegaard was not allowed to offer any evidence that what he said was actually true (though he was permitted to reference it in his closing remarks), nor will he be allowed to offer such evidence at the Supreme Court. According to Hedegaard:
I should have the right to prove my case. I could have called witnesses. I could have quoted holy books and statements, and I could have referred to facts. But you cannot do that in a court of law in Denmark if you are accused under this infamous Article 266(b). Whether or not what you are saying is true is immaterial. If somebody feels offended or if the prosecutor thinks that somebody has a reason to feel offended, whether or not you speak the truth has no bearing on the case. That is what is surprising about Danish jurisprudence.
Though evidence of the truth of the statements is no defense, that did not stop the prosecutor in the Superior Court trial from raising the issue himself. According to Hedegaard, “Of course I wasn’t asked about evidence in favor of my contention that sexual assaults are prevalent or a big problem in Muslim culture.” He went on to say, “But the prosecutor took the liberty of referring to the content of what I had said and said you can’t even prove that. Which of course was quite true — I couldn’t prove it because I wasn’t allowed to prove any of it.” But beyond Hedegaard, who is being prosecuted for daring to raise the issues, who are the real victims of our not being able to have an open and honest discussion about sexual violence in any community ?”….
Vint Cerf one of the ”fathers of the internet” explains why he believes that #SOPA will damage the internet infrastructure #stopsopa #tcot #tlot #p2 #teaparty
Vint Cerf: SOPA means ‘unprecedented censorship’ of the Web | Privacy Inc. – CNET
“By way of background, I am a Vice President and the Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. I also serve as a Fellow of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and I am a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
I have held positions at MCI, the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Stanford University, UCLA and IBM. Until 2007 I served as chairman of the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and I was the founding president of the Internet Society.
As one of the “fathers of the Internet” and as a computer scientist I care deeply about issues relating to the Internet’s infrastructure. In that spirit I wish to join the Internet and cybersecurity experts who have already expressed concern about the original version of SOPA’s DNS provisions. Former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker, Sandia National Laboratories, small businesses such as OpenDNS, inter-industry groups such as the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG), five leading DNS engineers (Steve Crocker, David Dagon, Dan Kaminsky, Danny McPherson, and Paul Vixie), and dozens of individual security experts have detailed these concerns in previous letters.
Unfortunately, the amendments to SOPA do not resolve the fundamental flaws in this legislation; the bill will still undermine cybersecurity including the robust implementation of DNS Security Extensions, known more commonly as DNSSEC.
Section 102(e)(2)(i) continues to require service providers to block access to sites. While that provision no longer mandates DNS blocking in order to accomplish that goal, it still permits falsifying IP addresses in response to domain name resolution requests. Any response that provides a false IP address triggers potential damage to the intent of DNSSEC.
If these changes were meant to dispel the concerns of the security community, then they fall far short of the mark. The Section 102(e)(2)(ii) “safe harbor” effectively singles out the manipulation of DNS as the preferred mechanism for blocking access to sites. A key presumption in the Internet design and architecture is the global consistency of DNS lookup responses.
I continue to have concerns regarding the efficacy and wisdom of this legislation. First, attempts to manipulate DNS will reduce the utility of DNS as our chief mechanism for locating sites, and encourage abusers to adopt alternative mechanisms, such as IP address lists. Second, clients of the infringing content can readily change their DNS settings to utilize offshore DNS resolvers. Third, sites dedicated to infringement have many options for evading these measures, such as registering multiple domain names with offshore registries in order to stay ahead of court orders. Fourth, falsifying responses to domain name resolution requests will compromise the “downgrade resistance” of next-generation improvements to DNSSEC, because systems that do not receive a signed answer from a resolver will fall back to accepting unsigned responses to resolve a domain name.
Thus, even with the proposed manager’s amendment, SOPA’s site-blocking provisions remain problematic. They would undermine the architecture of the Internet and obstruct the 15 year effort by the public and private sectors to improve cybersecurity through implementation of DNSSEC, a critical set of extensions designed to address security vulnerabilities in the DNS.
This collateral damage of SOPA would be particularly regrettable because site blocking or redirection mechanisms are unlikely to make a significant dent in the availability of infringing material and counterfeits online, given that DNS manipulation can be defeated by simply choosing an offshore DNS resolution provider, maintaining one’s own local DNS cache or using direct IP address references.
The search engine remedy also suffers from the fact that it will not be effective in preventing users’ access to illegal, offshore websites. A congressional “tech mandate” on search engines to delete a domain name from search results does not result in the website disappearing. Users can and do today find their way to these websites largely without the help of search engines. Relative to the questionable efficacy of this proposed remedy, requiring search engines to delete a domain name begins a worldwide arms race of unprecedented “censorship” of the Web.
Rather than continuing to promote ineffective and harmful “technical” solutions as those found in the managers’ amendment to SOPA, I urge Congress to pursue a more tailored, effective approach, such as the “follow-the-money” tactic. Such an approach would cut off funding mechanisms to rogue foreign sites by withholding their ability to generate advertising revenue and their ability to have payments processed.”
….”Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued the following statement in response to
Chairman Leahy’s announcement that the DNS provision of the Protect IP Act may be modified:
“It is welcome news that proponents of PIPA are finally
accepting that it contains major flaws. Unfortunately, this
announcement to study the DNS provision does not eliminate the clearly identified threat to net security contained within this bill. Beyond the DNS provisions, the
bill still establishes a censorship regime that threatens
speech, innovation, and the future of the American economy. I remain firm in my intent to block consideration of the PIPA bill until these issues are addressed and I am
committed to doing all I can to ensure that whatever legislative course is taken, that it is fully transparent, fully understood and fully considered by all those who value the Internet. ”…
RRD:There is a bill in Congress that threatens the functioning of the internet,and,potentially,your free speech rights. It is a bill that has been drafted and redrafted in different versions with different names:COICA,(the Combating Online Infringements & Counterfeits act),PIPA(the Protect Intellectual Property Act) aka the Protect IP Act,The E-Parasite Act,& SOPA(the Stop Online Piracy Act). Under whatever name all the variants share two things in common: 1.They are intended to stop online piracy of intellectual property. 2.They go to far and give the government broad powers to take down legitimate,non-infringing content.And those powers could be abused to suppress free,speech. The history of the legislation is convoluted.Rather than rehashing it, in detail I will give you a brief overview & then point you to the links which support my assertions. 1.The bill permits content and blogs to be taken down without adequate legal safeguards to protect the innocent.(See “legal problems with the bill” below) 2.The bill will have the unintended side effect of “breaking” the internet by its requirement to block certain DNS addresses(the technical details are spelled out in the letter of the internet engineers linked to below). RRD:The technical problems with the law. An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the Senate Judiciary Committee | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter Tim Berners-Lee Comes Out Against COICA Censorship Bill; Shouldn’t You? | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100927/10290611182/tim-berners-lee-comes-out-against-coica-censorship-bill-shouldn-t-you.shtml RRD:Argues that Protect IP could outlaw TOR (The Onion Router),a service used by political dissidents to protect themselves from their dictatorships. PROTECT-IP Act Becomes E-PARASITE (And Gets Much Worse) – HotHardware http://hothardware.com/m/News/PROTECTIP-Act-Becomes-EPARASITE-And-Gets-Much-Worse/Default.aspx RRD:The legal problems with the law: The Volokh Conspiracy » Once Again, the Copyright/Trademark Tail Tries to Wag the Internet Dog http://volokh.com/2010/11/13/once-again-the-copyrighttrademark-tail-tries-to-wag-the-internet-dog/ The PDF of Law Professors arguing COICA(the original bill)was unconstitutional,referred to above.Though the name has changed,the bill presents the same problems. http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/LawProfCOICA.pdf OTHER LINKS: Sequel To COICA Bill, The PROTECT IP Act, May Be Even Worse – TechCrunch http://m.techcrunch.com/2011/05/10/sequel-to-coica-bill-the-protect-ip-act-is-even-worse/ Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/13285714230/son-coica-protect-ip-act-will-allow-broad-censorship-powers-including-copyright-holders.shtml Disastrous IP Legislation Is Back – And It’s Worse than Ever | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever What Congress Can Learn from the Recent ICE Seizures | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-congress-can-learn-recent-ice-seizures New Letter From Artists & Content Creators Against PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE Act | PHP Hosts http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/10/new-letter-from-artists-content-creators-against-protect-ipe-parasite-act/ Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn’t Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/11305113129/ron-wyden-speaks-out-against-coica-we-shouldnt-toss-out-first-amendment-just-to-go-after-few-bad-actors.shtml
RRD:The author below argues that TOR could be outlawed under the E-Parasite bill.The E-Parasite bill is the U.S. House’s even more draconian version of the Senate’s PIPA,(The Protect Ip act).TOR(The Onion Router) is a free web service used by political dissidents throughout the globe,Iran,China etc. to bypass their Dictatorship’s control of the Internet.Frankly I’m not sure that the bill goes that far;but if it does,& those lobbying for,& supporting the E-Parasite bill know that it does,then they have gone beyond “just” defacto censorship,& indifference to individual rights,to enabling murderous tyrannies.For the record,unlike some individuals,I do wholeheartedly support the rights of copyright holders.I also support the right of children not to be sexually molested,yet I would not support a anti-pedophile bill that required that all Americans submit their DNA to the state,or one that permitted house-to-house searches.That something should be illegal does not mean that anything proposed to stop the unlawful act should automatically be approved.The sin of the Copyright Lobby is not that they seek to protect their rights,but that they seek to protect their rights without any regard to the rights of others. PROTECT-IP Act Becomes E-PARASITE (And Gets Much Worse) – HotHardware http://hothardware.com/m/News/PROTECTIP-Act-Becomes-EPARASITE-And-Gets-Much-Worse/Default.aspx istorically, the movie and music industries have railed against inventions like radio, the ability to record musical performances, home video, movie rentals, and MP3 players. Onetime MPAA president Jack Valenti famously predicted that VCR’s would utterly destroy the movie industry if viewers were allowed to tape TV broadcasts. The new law would also allow the Attorney General to take legal action against anyone who provides services or creates a product designed to bypass such blocks—the anonymous browsing service Tor would almost certainly be illegal, as would nearly any software product that includes DVD ripping. The House version o