Posts Tagged ‘censorship’

Some facts of elections in Iran

Sunday, January 20th, 2013
Share

Iran citizens recently faced extensive disruption of web activity , it was concerned with particularly access to the Internet, a week after the social networking were blocked appeared some concerns about state censorship of parliamentary elections.

Internet blockade affected common form of secure connection that encrypts international websites of Iranian republic making dependable of the Secure Layer protocol, this protocol displays http addresses.

“Emails, proxies, secure channels usually start with https that are not available”- then informs Tehran-based expert declining to be identified.

“Cases touching upon these websites are worse than later, the VPNs do not work at all.”

Most of the Iranians apply private network, VPN and software getting around the government web filter aiming at prevention for getting access to wide range of websites together with foreign news social networks and sites rather similar to Facebook.
Last week millions of Iranian citizens suffered dangerous disruption in mail accessing and networking websites touching governmental activity.

Iranians grapple increasing obstacles that uses Internet for opposition supporters, that in its turn organize protests.

Government denies any frauds in the vote igniting large scale street demonstrations crushing security services after eight months.

Iran prepares to organize parliamentary elections on March 2.

Iran have passed the parliamentary elections on the 2nd of March, the previous elections has been hold in 2009, the results of March elections are now being regarded.

Share

Different approaches towards web censorship in UK, USA and China

Sunday, January 13th, 2013
Share

During the recent conference that took place in London British Foreign Secretary, William Hague declared that statements about cyberspace and web functioning can lead to a sustainable and equitable growth of giving access to knowledge and exchange of ideas about investment and nurtures possibilities for taking part in economic and social activities for margins. All this creates significant challenges that could define some benefits and pose serious threat.

According to the statements of secretary Hague tackling threats should improve security that will come at the expense of some fundamental human rights.

Secretary Hague being a chair for the conference declared a belief that at the end of the conference cyber security should be improved by the expense of human rights.

British foreign minister added that some governments are in the long term efforts to resist free flow of information.

The main purpose of the London conference devoted to cyberspace was connected with launching more confused and inclusive dialogue concerning with two aspects: key cyberspace actors, civil society and industry.UKforeign office hosted this information and further away this information was represented by 60 countries.

Among persons attending facebook one can find policy director Allan Richard, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, European commissionerKroes,USVice President Joseph Biden.

Vice president Joe Biden echoed Hague’s sentiments announcing that citizens’ on-line actions as it has been suggested should not be done at all.

Chinawas represented at the conference as one of the countries that do not actively participate in the open sessions.

China’s Consulate inEdinburghseemed to have different points of view on its participation in this conference.

Chinese delegation composing Ministry of foreign affairs, State Council of information office and some other departments took part at the conference.Chinaexpressed a hope that theLondonconference and its former discussions on some related topics at forums will be a rather useful supplement for the international process of discussing some international rules concerning the cyberspace within the UN.

But according to Financial times (London) a secretary Hague or vice president Biden seem to not like this.

FT reported that following three day political schooling session CEOs of 39 Chinese Internet, computer groups, telecom apparently pledged that Chinese government will exert tighter censoring over the 500 million web users of the web inChina.

The Ceos has likely reached agreement for self-control, restrain and strict discipline strengthening. All this contains the tendency of spreading some web rumors, illegal, harmful information, self-control.

So while secretary Hague and vice president Biden may believe that countries are trying their efforts in controlling free information flow over the web. Chinese government, ceos of its major IT companies do not let some beliefs interfering with some attempts for proving.

The FT also says that the group plans for future political schooling sessions to reinforce their commitment to their objectives.

Share

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

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012
Share

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.

Source: http://www.monash.edu.au/news/show/the-right-to-be-forgotten-is-not-censorship

Share

Filibuster Censorship: Ron Wyden About Censorship Opponents’ Names

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011
Share
Use SmartHide to Avoid Internet Censorship
www.smarthide.com
Surf any sites being anywhere, watch video and use social sites on your Mac, Android or PC

Ron Wyden announces names of opponents from senate while considering PROTECT IP act. One of the tasks was reading out name and ask senators to choose by visiting stopcensorship.org.

Two act one of them is concerned on-line piracy and the other is PROTECT IP would destroy much of what has been build up concerning the net. All this gives the chance for some corporations and governments to block American access for some sites. Corporations and government provide some new power and block the access to some websites that are accused of copyright thefting , since then sites like you tube pass to new lengths of police contribution and settle people in prison.

The filibuster affords the senator some opportunities for standing up for some believes and few things that every American has a voice and some opportunity to pass away.

Filibuster is perspective that looks like it is leadership that calls in order to choose before Christmas break . Protect IP that passes senate judiciary and understanding and makes it so that we gain some victory through a jobs bills.

There is a hope that the colleagues in congress will realize that a free and open web is something that as Americans should celebrate and do not allow special interests to quash.

Some hope the colleagues in Congress realize a free and open web is no less no more but something that Americans can celebrate and mark some special interests.

There is also a hope that some colleagues of the Congress can see that it is possible to realize open and free web.

There is a hope that colleagues will realize PIPA or SOPA are wrong for protecting intellectual property in view of the price that is too high.

Share

China’s Internet Censorship Today

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011
Share

Internet today is of high importance. It unites a lot of goal, the person who connects to it, in its functioning. It depends on person’s aims: for many Internet is some kind of entertainment or source of information, on a larger scale it plays a great role of development of all countries of the whole world. It allows people to communicate in fast way with people who are placed far away from us. The goals of communication can vary greatly especially if we take into consideration aspects of trade and commerce. It has changed greatly since that.

World markets are linked virtually, every business men or company or any people that are interested in staying stable from what is happening. One can get almost data linked with the world getting out of the house.

The Internet also helped some people interested in web commerce or international trading huge profits. The web space has made it easy for some users to check some transactions that take place on-line. We can do all on-line operations with money and send some payments on-line. Users can do all that by means of mobile phone or PDA’s.

The Internet has delivered some blows on business, we hear in the new about systems of giant corporations that are hacked or infiltrated by viruses, causing them to avoid some financial troubles. These are important data about particular company and the customers. This hacking and virus infiltrations that happen frequently.

In China that is a communist country there are strict about the Internet technologies implemented an Internet censorship. Any misuse of Internet for personal goals can be prevented. The government that is made by new laws to the censorship using web in China , it includes government offices, corporations as well as independent business in country.

Internet censor frames has helped In neutralizing web crimes especially in export/ import business, it greatly affected the national and international trade. China is now developing country, companies need to have some branches and connections to other.

Local businesses use Internet as a medium running their business. China censorship is isolated Many people give outrageous protests because of the Internet censorship in China, the government covers these up, they put up jail journalist accusing them. Protest blogs and forums are deleted.

China government is keeping close look to the Internet for building themselves a reputation trading in country, safe and profitable. Anyway, for those who want to be out of this, we are suggesting to use SmartHide to erase any kind of Internet censorship now and forever.

Share

Censorship and People’s Opinion Towards It

Monday, November 14th, 2011
Share
Censorship and People’s Opinion Towards It

Censorship and People’s Opinion Towards It

We see the first half of this year is notoriously known for its strikes in the Middle East, Arab dictators left their positions as far as there were no more patience to suffer from the tyranny. Internet has suffered much from this waves of violation too. We can trace it by shutting down social networks and some Internet services, some Arabians tyrants put much effort in order stay at a power but most of them had little success.

It was made so that in order to organize culturally thrown off nation.

Wael Ghonim is a well-known web activist revered across Egypt, he was greatly involved in to the revolution directed against Mubarak regime.

All the region rise up against the dictators, social networking bound them together as a strong force driving the revolution.

The Internet has changed greatly and profoundly the situation so that this impact is obvious enough.

The second half of this year made some progress in upheaval, most of this are now forming new governments and take some lessons in order to balance the situation entirely and change some democratic visions and principles concerned with particular customs and cultures no matter how scattered they are.

So we see the government did no attempts to influence the movement. Such movements greatly depend on the social media actions of peaceful protesters.

Social networking made everything to gather activists all over the world for unification and active steps.

But many nations did not receive such actions.

China has took many steps to be defensed from Internet searches for example from Twitter-like sites. But there are plenty ways if avoiding Internet censorship.

India too took some steps in order to get the protection against pornography and its effectiveness.

Indian censorship is likely to increase successful steps in Occupy movements, activists in the sphere of computer experts usually fight it back.

America is free of censorship restrictions many users find the e-mails which are not sent in case they include some forbidden links.

All these cases show the essence of censorship itself. It is impossible to block all the information. Even restricted China digital space manage protests, every attempt ends up by embarrassing these censoring.

Yahoo has lost many users, some protests in India has expanded greatly despite of the censorship.

Those who have much power can try everything they want to stop the progress, their actions nevertheless will lead only to discontent or some angry if all these attempts will become effective we may change all we need to be changed.

Share

Censorship Across the World. New Google Report

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011
Share

 

Google now is taking some steps in technological world. According to recent release of ”transparency report” considering detailed use of Google world citizens get nice opportunity in learning much more about the leaders and their place in on-line universe. The report analyzes government actions concerning the content whether it should be removed or not. Among the top countries in content removal requests the first place occupy Brazil and Germany. They prefer to remove the great number of items. Top of the countries for web censorship consists of the following countries: China, Cuba, Myanmar, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Turkmenistan.

After the Us has requested the user data Google complied with 93% of the requests. They informed of police brutality, these instances were refused in removing. On the whole Google’s actions in modern society are called to be revolutionary. Government requests for the information and proved data for American citizens and really reveals much activity not spoken.

According to Richard Warner’s investigations who is law professor at IIT Chicago – Kent College of law Internet has become a space of free expression and somewhat economic growth, it has a lack of ability in discriminating some types of data

Behavior in the web is too hard to be tracked, it can be difficult to be tracked for governmental representatives.

Warner noted that Google is more focused on collecting data than on anything else.

But this report does not lie upon the private data collection. Professor Paul Booth thinks it to be totally subjective because of different cultural values. Perspectives of regarding privacy are less versatile especially in USA. They say more comfort can be found in the conditions of some restrictions and strict censorship and protection but still it is very difficult to find the line between them.

Booth believes the available information is increasing changing society’s view on censorship, he also supports transparency, questions the power of the information in the hands of big corporation.

Information control gives some worries, it makes Google turn evil, all these information can be controlled.

Only if the government revisits and updates legislation for considering some new technologies something can become definite.

The ultimate goal of this debate should create “real citizen protection”.

Share