Archive for February, 2012

Do You Believe the “right to be forgotten” is Not Censorship?

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

David Lindsay – Most of us leave in some kind digital trail ever growing that includes both information we publish about ourselves – for example facebook postings – information published about us while the ability for sharing personal information that can enhance our lives from the dark side. Photos being emarassed can later be used against us for very very various purposes, such as the employment context.

Our personal lives can become more visible, it may be that attitudes will adjust so we become more and more tolerant and forgive personal lapses or foibles. One of the paradoxes of the digital age is that our lives become more and more transparent, attitudes seem to have become intolerant and less forgiving. In what we call attention economy is not only public figures but ordinary are subject to more scrutiny than ever.

Current default settings of the internet maximize openness and access. Once the information has been published than it becomes easily accessed especially via search engines. Yet people’s interest and operation of search algorithms means that the most accessible information about us is often the most embarrassing or hurtful.

Search ability, accessibility and permanence clearly benefit the business interests of some of the world’s largest companies. The business in Facebook or Google are in present time are based on commerce information. It is hardly surprising that it is notoriously very difficult to delete your Facebook account.

The European union is proposing introduces new laws for updating privacy for taking into account changes in technology, including the growth of social communities and social networks. The proposed laws include a right to be forgotten , it means the right of a users to ensure some of that information held about them to be erased. The proposal has generated a lot of commentary much of it is alarmist and overwrought.

There are two main criticisms of the proposed right: that it would result in unjustifiable censorship and that it is unworkable. These claims are based on a misreading of the European proposal, as well as a simplistic understanding of privacy and freedom of expression.

The proposed European law is a modest attempt for restoring some balance in favour of individuals able to control their data. The proposed right for deleting data is indeed higly qualified. The right that only arises certain conditions is satisfied such as that the data is no longer needed where the data is collected or processed with a person’s consent that is later withdrawn.

The proposed right is also subject to important exceptions. For example, it does not apply where it would conflict with the freedom of expression of journalists, or with freedom of artistic or literary expression. Claims that the proposal will stifle the press are therefore untrue – there is an express exception for journalists. There is also an exception for individuals engaged in purely personal or household activities.

The proposed right is some kind of subject that is too important for exceptions. For example it does not apply the conflict with the freedom of expression of journalists or with freedom of artistic or literary expression. The proposals will stifle the press therefore untrue- there is an express exception for journalists.

A couple of points should be made in response for claiming that the proposed right is a form of censorship. Privacy is not necessarily the opposite of freedom expression. If people feel they are assured they have some control over their information they are more likely to share it. On the other hand if people are aware they say and do online will be accessible for all time they may be more likely to self – censor. The negative consequences of the current internet changes that easily promote culture of conformity.

Secondly some steps indeed organized are being taken by people to manage the digital trails. Especially in the united states we have seen the emergence of reputation services which in return for a fee offer sanitize the internet of embarrassing or harmful information. Such services can have some great success. While approaching to websites we often simply take down information. It raises the spectre of private censorship. Why should people pay to protect their information.

Those who oppose the right to be forgotten are correct when they say getting the balance between privacy or freedom of expression. However people are often unaware of the consequences of the information provided to them. It this is preferable for this to be done in a law which incorporates appropriate checks and balances rather then being left to the vagaries of the unregulated market.

Arguments that a right for deleting information on the web is unworkable, it is true and due to the information, it is impossible or difficult to ensure the information can be erased. It is true that regulating the webspace is a real challenge, and it is important that laws do not infringe freedoms.

Like many laws the proposed “right to be forgotten” can be seen as an overall. The most it can do is restoring control to individuals, and providing check on some of harmful practices. Judicious laws are needed to protect individual rights, to ensure the effective operation of markets. It is more productive for debates to focus on the kind of laws and regulation that are desirable, rather than to resort to utopian fantasies of the internet as a regulation-free zone.

We grapple the challenges of technological change, public debate about the rules of regulating. People can disagree, our understanding of these issues is not helped by hostility to regulation, by alarmist and claims. Australia could do worse than to consider following the European example.



Censorship in China – Video From AlJazeeraEnglish

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

This video news describes the current issues in China with Internet censorship.


Protests in Manchester Devoted to Web Censorship Rules

Monday, February 20th, 2012

Great number of demonstrations have been performed in Manchester against the mistrusted Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Dozens of activists from Anonymous, Occupy Manchester and some other groups turned up at Piccadily Gardens, the others from their legions made active protests which took place in front of the Dianetics Centre. There were many anti – ACTA events, others made active demonstrations all over the world. For example in London one may see 200 protestors.

ACTA is being regarded by the opponnents as some kind of measure that is designed to allow film studios company consortia trying to gain control of the internet that is being taken as a
form really find impossible to be capitalized on.

Supporters of this type of web censorship declarations do claim there is too much copyright infringement that is going on. Countless goverments are pressured by the American for signing the agreement – though Germany, Poland, Slovenia, many others realize legislation’s that are
wider implications of web censorship and freedom of speech.


Twitter and Censorship Frames

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Twitter is being regarded as a tool of free expression in Arab spring events, it was facing censorship charges after announcing it can block tweets on country – by – country basis, it is legaly required . San Francisco Twitter Gave a stress the move in no way compromised some commitments to free speech, on the whole the backlash was immediate, critics were taking a country service by the thousands.

Activistin the sphere of democracy and blogger who tweets using the handle @sandmonkey. “Is it comfortable to say that Twitter is selling out?” “Yet another low for free speech,” – declared Jannis Leidel, or @jezdez. Twitter users caused a boycott of the service punctuating the tweets. Others questioned if Twitter’s move was referred to a $3 million investments in December by millionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, citizen of Saudi Arabia.

Olivier Basille, director of Paris – based reporters without borders (RSF) expressed “deep concern” in a letter to Jack Dorsey who is executive chairman and at the same time co-founder of Twitter, it has over 100 million of active users. “Finally choosing to align itself with the censors, Twitter deprives cyber dissidents in repressive countries of crucial tool for organization and information,” he questioned. Basille asked whether Twitter’s actions were motivated by desire to enter China, the service there is currently blocked. “Is it possible that one day there will be a sanitized Chinese version of Twitter that has been rid of any reference to the Chinese Nobel peace laureate Liu Xiaobo?” – he questioned.

In twitter blog were found some posts declared as an ability for posting the blogs by different countries. Twitter is pledged to be transparent, post details are being posted as a details posted by any content removal to “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”.

In its blog post, Twitter said the ability to block tweets by specific country would allow the rest of the world to continue to see them. Twitter pledg, a publiced to be transparent and said it would post details of any removal of content to, a public datab Twitterase of takedown requests. “As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression,” Twitter said. Twitter said.

Twitter bloggers pointed out some technologies giving itself the chance to block the content for different reasons, it was failing with practices followed by other Web giants such as Facebook or Google, Ebay. Chief director of Danny Sullivan stated “these types of censorship demands have long been placed against search engines like Google or anyone who hosts content. “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”.

Twitter has been removing its content to comply with copyright complaints, declared Sullivan. “What’s new is that eventually, Twitter may expand to having staff based in other countries,” he stated “ It makes the company liable to legal actions in those countries, it needs a way to comply with those legal demands. It makes the company more or so. “Overall, there doesn’t seem to be a particular reason to hit the panic button here. It makes the company more than it has been expected.

Twitter’s the newest policy that is purposekky designed to allow Twitter existing as a platform possible of making it as hard as possible for governments for censoring content. “the internet is not just virtual space or cyber planet which has been floated among all jurisdictions for a long time. The plan of publicizing where the tweets were blocked is some kind of level of transparency, it should be the model for most web companies, it is some kind of powerful tool for free speech.


Sending Money Anonymously Online

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Sending money is honor and humility I it is done anonymously, in case of charity. Anonymous payment means you are doing everything from the bottom of your heart and with a great desire to help people. Donating anonymously is beneficial too especially in preventing address and name from being placed in mailing lists. It is possible to choose sending on-line donation for an individual, for example one who is loved and is in need or someone needs the help.

Do establish anonymous email account. It can be necessary to sign up for web accounts and some services sending the payment on someone’s behalf. It can be done with the help of key combinations: “John Smith” or simply “anonymous donor”

Some other web systems can be used in online money transfers : or choose a location in the replacement of the recipient and acquire a credit card for processing a transactions. Send anonymous email for the recipient with the money password and some instructions where the retrieve can be realized. Point out the reason of the sending the finance and regard your personality as “anonymous concerned party” so that the person can be urged that this is not the same type of scam.

Establish a premier PayPal or business account. The first type of account allows you to register with a fictitious name or nickname (though your full name is preferred). Add your anonymous email account to the list of email addresses attached to the account. You can then send money to the recipient’s email address from the anonymous address.

Visit JustGive to send donation on-line anonymously. Realize your payments and the check the option for withholding your name and contacting charity information . and are two major sites that support charities too. Give the opinion towards donating with a login or nickname or anonymously.

Also you can use SmartHide to make anonymous email and send your messages without any fear. Also you can use free online proxy or request for full version for several days.


Internet Censorship and Human Rights

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Vinton Gray “Vint” Cerf, the famous computer scientist regarded as one of the “Fathers of the Internet,” has provided article in the New York Times declaring the idea that the Internet must be a human right. While Cerf understands the power of the Internet, makes arguments from a mechanical perspective and fails to perceive the Internet in any fashion.

He breaks the article into two sections making the point. Firstly, he argues that the Internet cannot be considered as a human right. Cerf makes a solid point in the first portion of the piece. Technology cannot be considered as a human right. Cerf illustrates the point that one point in time, if you didn’t have a horse, it was hard to earn a living. Cerf is correct in this regard. Human rights, often thought of as natural rights, that are fundamental to our existence, like access to food and water.

The second point made by Cerf is valid too. In the second portion of the article, the author argues the Internet is not a civil right. Civil rights, that ensure our personal liberty, are vast and or expanding the information technology expands the difficulty of civic discourse. Nothing makes this clearer than the challenges provided to civil rights bills such as the Stop Online Privacy Act and National Defense Authorization Act.

The Internet gives freedom of speech, traded, shared and expounded. The Internet should be considered a civil right, it allows citizens the right for free speech, presenting a foundational civil right.

Cerf is right in dividing rights into human and civil rights, he is wrong in arguing that the web is not a civil right.



Users and Hackers Ponder Over the Notions of Censoring and Surveying the Internet

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

Among corporations who expand international membership Telecomix is leading

Once upon a time in summer protests in Arabian countries and government crackdowns led to the loss of thousand people , strange events happened in Syria web space too. Instead of main searching machines such as Google and facebook Arabic users have found strange Arabic script.

Then the webpage screened switched to a white colour gave some instructions on using free encryption, anonymity software like Tor, true crypt which evade censorship. The text placed above was round there also were some mysterious symbols hovering around pyramid decorated by lightning bolts. There were placed symbols like Telecomix and the moto: “We come in peace”.

Telecomix is a team of international hackers who scan the Syrian webspace in a massive sweep together with 700 000 target connections, they have its members in Germany, France, U.S. what they do is compromising cisco systems network switches finding other devices passwords

Hackers also post their findings in a document. American member of the group uses handle Punkbo that is built by the Sunnyvale. The Syrian machine’s logs showed web activity of thousands users. On the whole he had discovered American technology that uses a brutal dictatorship spy on its citizens.

In order to understand the exact actions of Syria one should track source that providing the technology. The company did not respond to Forbes requests for being interviewed. The industry faces new questions about tech issues for how their products are deployed.

Telecomix observes that blue coat discovery as a point in the group mission. Fighting for free speech including any Western tech firm aiding the wrong side. The only solution is to hack a few boxes , it is the motivation driving hackers deeper in the networks.

Hackers of Telecomix break into great number of Syrian home routers and set them to show users warning web page about wrong actions of surveillance.

Telecomix break Syrian law. Some traditional appreciate their work. Active hacking networks is some kind of a game for Telecomix. Unlike hacker’s group it began with opposing the European Union, industry influenced laws would cut web access for copyright files.

With juvenile pranks , Telecomix was born political. This group is created at a conference in 2009.

The hackers published the phone numbers of members of EU parliament convincing the copyright Swedish site that posted a link on homepage. At the time the site got high level of attendance.

There exist some kind of a humour, the group is serious about its work, uprisings of the Arab spring have brought its goals into the sharper focus. Few days of protests in Egypt Hosni Mubarak led to the shutting down the web access in this countries.

A fateful fluke of stumbling onto the Blue Coat led to the Telecomix scanning of the Syrian web space.

There were disputes devoted to ethical and unethical use of products is simply to distinguish.

Documents published by WikiLeaks show 160 firms advertising surveillance gear. British firm Gamma International brags can spy users of Gmail, iTunes, Skype.