Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

What direction is America heading? An area to post about current events in our nation and the politics that go with it.

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby KC » 17 Nov 2010, Wed 8:04 pm

A bill giving the government the power to shut down Web sites that host materials that infringe copyright is making its way quietly through the lame-duck session of Congress, raising the ire of free-speech groups and prompting a group of academics to lobby against the effort.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in Congress this fall by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would grant the federal government the power to block access to any Web domain that is found to host copyrighted material without permission.

Critics say the bill is both a giveaway to the movie and recording industries and a step towards widespread and unaccountable censorship of the Internet.

Opponents note that the powers given the government under the bill are very broad. Because the bill targets domain names and not specific materials, an entire Web site can be shut down. So for example, if the US determines that there are copyright-infringing materials on YouTube, it could theoretically block access to all of YouTube, whether or not particular material being accessed infringes copyright.

Activist group DemandProgress, which is running a petition against the bill, argues the powers in the bill could be used for political purposes. If the whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks is found to be hosting copyrighted material, for instance, access to WikiLeaks could be blocked for all US Internet users.

Though the bill was delayed in September after an outcry from activist groups, it now appears to be back and potentially poised for quick passage in the lame-duck session of Congress, reports DemandProgress.

A group of academics, led by Temple University law professor David Post, have signed a petition opposing COICA.

"The Act, if enacted into law, would fundamentally alter U.S. policy towards Internet speech, and would set a dangerous precedent with potentially serious consequences for free expression and global Internet freedom," Post wrote in the petition letter (PDF).

The bill is "awful on many fronts," he wrote at Volokh Conspiracy. "It would allow a court to effectively shut down a site operated out of Brazil, or France, without any adversary hearing ... or any reasoned determination that the site actually is engaged in unlawful activity."

"Even more significant and more troubling, the Act represents a retreat from the United States’ historical position as a bulwark and beacon against censorship and other threats to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and the free exchange of information and ideas around the globe."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a list of Web sites it believes are at highest risk of being shut down under the proposed law. Included in the list are file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Mediafire, music mash-up sites like SoundCloud and MashupTown, as well as "sites that discuss and advocate for P2P technology or for piracy," such as pirate-party.us and P2PNet.

A TOOL FOR POLITICAL CENSORSHIP?

Free speech advocates argue that Internet censorship laws are inevitably used for purposes other than the ones claimed by lawmakers.

For instance, Australia in recent years set up a "firewall" around its Internet, with the intention of blacklisting child pornography Web sites. But a list of the blocked sites, leaked to Wikileaks, showed that the Australian government was censoring more than porn: The blacklist contained religious and political Web sites.

According to the Melbourne Age:

But about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

"It seems to me as if just about anything can potentially get on the list," [University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn] Landfelt said.

As predicted by some critics, the "great Aussie firewall" ended up blocking access to parts of WikiLeaks.
http://www.policecrimes.com

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government."
User avatar
KC
Assistant Moderator
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 05 Mar 2007, Mon 11:12 pm

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby pradap » 29 Nov 2010, Mon 1:18 am

The standoff between the senator and the nation's largest video-sharing site aroused arguments that have become commonplace since Sept. 11, 2001: It pitted civil rights -- in this case, free speech -- against demands to crack down on terrorism.In May, Lieberman issued a bipartisan report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs staff that described how al-Qaeda created and managed its online media.Later that month, Lieberman wrote a letter to officials at Google [which owns YouTube] demanding that the company "immediately remove content produced by Islamic terrorist organizations from YouTube. This should be a straightforward task since so many of the Islamist terrorist organizations brand their material with logos or icons."
_____________________________________________________________________________________
South india tourism | South india tour |South india tour packages
pradap
Newly Registered User
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, Mon 1:13 am

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby lewis1946 » 29 Nov 2010, Mon 12:39 pm

So, true as I was told to remove the following or be arrested again; Part#1: November 22, 2010-Part #1 of a three part video of Bentonville sheriff officer refusing to take no for an answer. This all takes place on private property, and this bad cop even starts off with name calling no matter how many times I tell him I have nothing to say. This starts from my home all the way into the booking room of the Bentonville Sheriff's office booking area. How did I do this? That doesn't matter, what matters is your rights you no longer have with bad cops running a muck!

Part#2:November 22, 2010-Part#2 of the video of Bentonville sheriff officer refusing to take no for an answer. As you can see when I enter this bad cop’s paddy wagon, he continues to want to talk even after a false arrest is made. Doesn’t matter how many times I tell this eleven year veteran that I have nothing to say. He does show concern of a big fat guy in a small space with hand cuff’s so tight that my hands were numb for sometime. But, at sixty-four years of age. It is not right for a bad cop wanting information when I told him I had none. But, continue to view the video’s and let me know what you think.


Part#3;November 22, 2010-Part#3 Ok, this is the final part as wanted to be sure that I could not have any problems. Well no more than I have already! The comments have been for as well against me. But, I have to admit that I was not polite and I could give a very good excuse. I will just say that I have been keeping track all over the USA and the more you read of dirty cops then you say as well as do things you should not. Such as showing a bad attitude to maybe a good cop. Wait! I don't believe anyone should have to continue to speak after you already gave them the reply as well as two people before had already stated the subject this policeman wanted was not there. Many complaints as to maybe went out back window or door. Sorry! as I said one of the outside people had already spoke to this officer and told him who he was looking for was not here. I believe in up holding my liberties and Constitutional rights. If I don't have the right to tell people I have nothing more to say or I ask them to depart my property then how can you say you’re a free person? Sure I agree he showed concern for my comfort on the way to the jail. But, I was more concerned with why I don’t have the liberty not to talk or give more information that had nothing to do with the suspect he was seeking. I am accused of being nasty. Wait here. He called me a jackass. I never called him a thing until he was in his car. I did not be little him in front of people as he did me. Maybe I am wrong! But, if I am sitting on a lawn chair on my property and enjoying my peace and quiet and someone comes upon me and states hey I want this I also want to be addressed as so and so etc. Then I am going to say drop dead and get off my property. No matter who it is. This is a bad cop unless I am shown why I was illegally arrested for not answering questions that I had already stated with Subject is no longer there. Even if I knew where he lived I am not going to disclose that information as I know the facts of the case. Since when do you have to tell or fink or finger someone because someone else wants to talk to them. I know I don’t tell anyone my business unless I want them to know. I never ask anyone to address me in any matter as this crooked cop did. It’s none of my business why people move and I could care less. Same as it’s no one’s business what I do daily! I will agree I was RUDE! Only after I knew he knew the subject was not here. I answered the questions that he wanted and he wanted more than I could even give without of course lying should I have been beaten for any answer as many of you say. Of course I would have come up with a reply of some type, but I have no idea where he went. Also, he is my grandson’s friend and I know he isn’t living with my grandson or his family. But, why must I get other people involved when I know what they want is the subject. I answered and the video states this. My taking of video was out of my hands after all I was handcuffed. Yes, I could have told him he was being video taped, then he would not have shown his true colors. Think about it! I was finger printed, photo taken as well as passed around the world as I am now doing with this bad cop. So, it’s fine for them to get all the information they wish on me and I am not to get none on them? Get real folks this is why so many people now do what I do. We want honest cops not those that want to be able to order you as to call me Officer so an so. Now say it with me. Or go to jail and I’ll teach you. Look at the videos again folks as it is complete now. Advise or complaints e-mail: lewis1946@cox.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEpp31DmB8 First meeting on my property.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuNWfVbcDAc Ride in paddy wagon to keystone station


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_kYkKJ7 ... =geosearch Booking area jail-end of trip.
lewis1946
Newly Registered User
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, Mon 12:17 pm

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 19 Dec 2010, Sun 6:19 pm

UN mulls internet regulation options

WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls.

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.

India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.

However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.

"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.

Debate on the creation of a new inter-governmental body stemmed from a UN Economic and Social Council resolution 2010/2 of 19 July.

The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."

Much debate concerned the meaning of "enhanced cooperation" and whether a new inter-governmental body was required. Participants also debated the roles of existing organisations - such as the Internet Governance Forum, ICANN and the ITU.

The IGF - an organisation that informs the UN but makes no decisions - is running close to the end of a five-year mandate, due to expire at the end of the year.

The likes of ISOC, ICANN and more recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) have recently expressed concerns [PDF] that a working panel to decide on the future of the IGF has been limited to representatives from member-states.

"Australia is a very strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum," the unidentified Australian UN representative said at the New York meeting this week. "That is very much due to the multi-stake-holder approach of the IGF. It is an inclusive process."

Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said that Australian Government welcomed the resolution of the Second Committee of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) to extend the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for a further five years.



http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242051,un ... tions.aspx
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 26 Dec 2010, Sun 5:14 pm

Senator Hutchison moves to block funds for FCC on net neutrality rules

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), ranking member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee filed an amendment to an appropriations bill aimed at preventing the Federal Communications Commission from adopting net neutrality regulation.

Hutchison's amendment, co-signed by John Ensign (R-Nev.) and six other Republican lawmakers, would "prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards."

An FCC spokeswoman declined comment on the amendment.

The legislation comes from an emboldened Republican party that has taken the majority in House. They have promised to repeal regulations such as open-Internet rules that they say would harm the communications industry's growth and ability to create jobs.

The FCC's five commissioners are deliberating draft rules proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking access to Web sites or favoring the access to some content over others.

Hutchison's ammendment is to a bill for military and veterans construction projects.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postte ... eheadlines
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 26 Dec 2010, Sun 5:15 pm

Franken: Under FCC’s ‘neutrality’ rules, ‘the Internet as we know it would cease to exist’

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was expected this week to vote on a set of so-called "Net Neutrality" rules that some Democrats believed would fulfill a key Obama campaign promise to ensure all Internet traffic is treated equally.

Instead, rules authored by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski would allow for a greater fractioning of the Internet and data rationing on mobile and wired networks, according to analysis of the policies. Major network stakeholders like Verizon and AT&T would be able to sell bandwidth in capped tiers, with overage charges for users who download too much information, and certain types of data traffic like peer-to-peer file transfers could be banned altogether.

If they pass and telecoms are allowed to move forward with their plans, "the Internet as we know it would cease to exist," Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) concluded in an editorial published by Huffington Post.

"That's why Tuesday is such an important day," he continued. "The FCC will be meeting to discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members understand that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply unacceptable."

Franken added that Genachowski "has been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their public endorsement" of a bill that would actually "destroy" the principle of "Net Neutrality."

He also called "troubling" the fact that President Obama and Genachowski have campaigned "convincingly" for "Net Neutrality," yet now appear poised to deal its death blow.

"Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited only to Comcast's Video On Demand service," Franken continued. "Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favorite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we know it would cease to exist."

In a recent speech, Genachowski specified that the FCC's rules would permit ISPs to charge heavy bandwidth users even more, creating a tiered pricing structure. ISPs would also be able to charge fees to businesses serving large quantities of data.

The announcement was a victory for Comcast, the nation's largest cable Internet provider, which recently forced a bandwidth toll upon Netflix partner Level 3. The company called Comcast's move "extortion," but agreed to their conditions to prevent any service interruptions.

Comcast insisted the move had nothing to do with Net neutrality.

Tiered pricing structures are already in place for many communications providers like AT&T and Cricket, which offer wireless broadband services. Verizon said it would implement similar pricing structures in the coming months.

The FCC's rules would permit the practice on wired networks as well. Both Comcast and Time Warner, two of America's largest wired broadband providers, have already experimented with the practice.

On wired Internet, which is expected to dramatically decrease in relevance in the coming years as fourth-generation wireless networks proliferate, a "public Internet" would be protected from bandwidth throttling. Companies, however, would be permitted to experiment with establishing super-tiers for preferred traffic, but must justify why individual services should be separated from the public Internet.

The FCC would additionally require broadband providers to disclose their network management practices.

"That's why net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of our time," Sen. Franken concluded. "And that's why, this Tuesday, when the FCC meets to discuss this badly flawed proposal, I'll be watching. If they approve it as is, I'll be outraged. And you should be, too."


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/the- ... en-argues/
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 26 Dec 2010, Sun 5:18 pm

Al Franken is such a fag and a liar! Someone sucked his cock and he changed his mind on the tax bill for the "wealthy." Go fuck yourself Al and choke to death on a big cock.
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 04 Feb 2011, Fri 4:36 pm

Mandatory data retention 'raises serious privacy and free speech concerns'

WASHINGTON — The US Justice Department wants Internet service providers and cell phone companies to be required to hold on to records for longer to help with criminal prosecutions.

"Data retention is fundamental to the department's work in investigating and prosecuting almost every type of crime," US deputy assistant attorney general Jason Weinstein told a congressional subcommittee on Tuesday.

"Some records are kept for weeks or months; others are stored very briefly before being purged," Weinstein said in remarks prepared for delivery to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

He said Internet records are often "the only available evidence that allows us to investigate who committed crimes on the Internet."

Internet and phone records can be "crucial evidence" in a wide array of cases, including child exploitation, violent crime, fraud, terrorism, public corruption, drug trafficking, online piracy and computer hacking, Weinstein said, but only if the data still exists when law enforcement needs it.

"In some ways, the problem of investigations being stymied by a lack of data retention is growing worse," he told lawmakers.

Weinstein noted inconsistencies in data retention, with one mid-sized cell phone company not keeping records, a cable Internet provider not tracking the Internet protocol addresses it assigns to customers and another only keeping them for seven days.

Law enforcement is hampered by a "legal regime that does not require providers to retain non-content data for any period of time" while investigators must request records on a case-by-case basis through the courts, he said.

"The investigator must realize he needs the records before the provider deletes them, but providers are free to delete records after a short period of time, or to destroy them immediately," Weinstein added.

The justice official said greater data retention requirements raise legitimate privacy concerns but "any privacy concerns about data retention should be balanced against the needs of law enforcement to keep the public safe."

John Morris, general counsel at the non-profit Center for Democracy & Technology, said mandatory data retention "raises serious privacy and free speech concerns."

"A key to protecting privacy is to minimize the amount of data collected and held by ISPs and online companies in the first place," he said.

"Mandatory data retention laws would require companies to maintain large databases of subscribers' personal information, which would be vulnerable to hackers, accidental disclosure, and government or other third party access."

Kate Dean, executive director of the Internet Service Provider Association, said broad mandatory data retention requirements would be "fraught with legal, technical and practical challenges."

Dean said they would require "an entire industry to retain billions of discrete electronic records due to the possibility that a tiny percentage of them might contain evidence related to a crime."

"We think that it is important to weigh that potential value against the impact on the millions of innocent Internet users' privacy," she said.
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Secret Plan To Kill Internet By 2012 Censorship

Postby WaTcHeR » 25 Mar 2011, Fri 8:21 pm

AT&T’s pending acquisition of T-Mobile USA has the tech world buzzing with various pros and cons of what this merging would mean for the consumer. Among the pros are the possibility of having a single mobile standard (4G LTE) and a market where phones aren’t restricted to a single carrier. The cons include having less choice between carriers and rate plans, millions of customers suddenly being subject to a more restricted terms of service, and the loss of what T-Mobile customers considered to be a much better overall customer experience.

What’s more troubling, are recent announcements by AT&T to begin capping the monthly usage and impose overage fees on their DSL and U-Verse customers. These customers were originally given a promise of unlimited usage by AT&T only to find an essential mode of communication is now restricted. In a sense, AT&T is forcing their customers to buy in to their cable and phone service to defer the bandwidth used by their online competitors, Skype, Hulu, Netflix, and others.

If you’ve spent time searching for an apartment in the U.S. over the past few years, you may have noticed complexes are beginning to sign contracts with service providers like AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, and others that forbid their tenants from switching to any other provider than the one they’re under contract with. This deal is offered to landlords in exchange for either what amounts to a kickback or a mock coupon giving their tenants a small discount on service costs. In a sense, you’re subject to your carrier’s restrictive terms and conditions as long as you’re under lease. With some of these contracts, tenants are forced as part of the lease to purchase and maintain a cable and/or Internet service with the carrier. For many in small towns and rural communities where WiMax and other options are impossible, this means you are all but forced to use a carrier’s service, especially when a certain complex is all you can afford.

With phone, cable, and web services provided by only a handful select single corporations, more and more Americans are essentially at the mercy of an elite few. AT&T has been in hot water before with privacy advocates, in particular their sharing of private information with the NSA. (Hepting v. AT&T)

This trend to restrict services is even more concerning when coupled with Google and other search engines moves to limit search ranking for news aggregates and other sites they deem to be a “content farm”. This determination is based on the “quality” of a site’s content as determined by the search engine.

Bandwidth is becoming cheaper to the provider, and more expensive for the consumer. This is a complete reverse from what we should expect from any technology-driven industry. In a market where choices are quickly becoming fewer and restrictions on our communication continue to become tighter, it’s becoming clear that communication is becoming both more restricted and more expensive.
"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
User avatar
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Previous

Return to Government and Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests