Showing posts with label internet censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet censorship. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

YouTube deactivates Press TV's account under orders of the ADL

Press TV reports:

A political commentator says YouTube deactivation of Press TV's official page under pressure from the Israeli-American Anti-Defamation League (ADL) shows the video-sharing site is afraid of people’s awareness.


“Press TV has become essentially the CNN of activists and persons who do not want to be fed a steady diet of execrable hasbara of CIA lies and half truths,” Randy Short, member of the Black Autonomy Network Community Organization, told Press TV in an interview.
“As a result they want to shut off the one source of very good news that people can get in places like the United States, Great Britain and South Africa,” he added.
He emphasized that Press TV represents a “golden opportunity for freedom of speech” and called for more aggressive programming because “if they really wanted to shake things up, opportunities present themselves all the time.”
“So in reality, they have not even begun to see how Press TV can challenge censorship and wake people up until even those who make the programming realize that they've got to go to the full limit to bring down this condemned house of Islamophobia, racism, imperialism and intolerance that dominate in the media that serves the purposes of the empire,” Short added.  “People essentially in America are in particular brain dead,” the commentator stated.
YouTube has deactivated Press TV's new account after the ADL ordered it to terminate the Iranian channel's live broadcast.

"On August 20, YouTube's parent company Google deactivated Press TV's new account weeks after disabling the channel's official page," said Press TV Newsroom Director Hamid Reza Emadi.

Since January 2012, Press TV has come under mounting pressure from European governments and satellite companies, which have taken the alternative channel off the air across the European Union.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Russia is considering shutting down YouTube

According to the very official Rossiiskaia Gazeta quoting the Russian Minister of Communications the Kremlin is seriously considering shutting down YouTube.  They could do that under a new law called "On the defense of children against information which can damage their health or development".  Furthermore, the Russian agency in charge of communications has already demanded that Internet service providers block the streaming of "Innocence of Muslims" on the grounds that it is "extremist" and "similar to child pornography".

This makes sense.  Russia is clearly siding with the Islamic world here, not only in its capacity as a nation with a strong Muslim minority, but also as a country which has as a policy to defend Russia's "historical religions".

I can imagine the outrage this will cause in the Anglosphere: the anti-Putin hysteria will now reach a new height, no doubt.

The Saker

Friday, January 20, 2012

Uncle Sam shuts down Megaupload - 'Anonymous' retaliates

Slashdot reports:

"Federal prosecutors in Virginia have shut down notorious file-sharing site Megaupload.com and charged the service's founder with violating piracy laws. The Associated Press broke the story on Thursday, reporting that the indictment accuses Megaupload.com's owner with costing copyright holders including record labels and movie studios more than $500 million in lost revenue."*  "Shortly after a federal raid today brought down the file sharing service Megaupload, hackers aligned with the online collective Anonymous have shut down sites for the Department of Justice, Universal Music Group and the RIAA. 'It was in retaliation for Megaupload, as was the concurrent attack on Justice.org,' Anonymous operative Barrett Brown tells RT on Thursday afternoon."*






  1. Twitter - @AnonymousWiki
  2. January 19th, 2012
  3. Popular file-sharing website megaupload.com gets shutdown by U.S Justice - FBI and charged its founder with violating piracy laws. Four Megaupload members were also arrested. The FBI released a press release on its website which you can view here:
  4. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/justice-department-charges-leaders-of-megaupload-with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement
  5. We Anonymous are launching our largest attack ever on government and music industry sites. Lulz. The FBI didn't think they would get away with this did they? They should have expected us.
  6. #OpMegaupload
  7. The following sites were taken down in response to the FBI shutting down megaupload.com
  8. :) TANGO DOWN
  9. justice.gov
  10. universalmusic.com
  11. riaa.org
  12. mpaa.org
  13. copyright.gov
  14. hadopi.fr
  15. wmg.com
  16. usdoj.gov
  17. bmi.com
  18. fbi.gov


Megaupload Song (Temporarily) Banned on YouTube:

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

How Zionists try to manipulate the Internet


Israel's Internet intifada

Online political activism has hitched its battlewagon to the stars of social networking, leading to warfare over Israel’s legitimacy on sites like Facebook and MySpace.

By Benjamin L. Hartman

The struggle for the Holy Land may be the world’s most ancient conflict. But in one respect, at least, the weapons and the battleground could not be more cutting-edge.

This is the realm of the “virtual intifada,” digital combat played out in cyberspace by intensely partisan pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli activists-cum-hackers, or in the vernacular of the Information Age, “hacktivists.” One incarnation of this online political activism has hitched its battlewagon to the stars of social networking, taking advantage of the runaway popularity of sites like Facebook and MySpace.

At the forefront of pro-Israel hacktivists are the shock troops organized as the Jewish Internet Defense Force, a group best known for its activities against anti-Israel groups on Facebook, the social networking colossus whose members may establish and join network groups based on a wide variety of interests. The JIDF made headlines in August by executing a takeover of a popular anti-Zionist Facebook group called “Israel is not a country! Please Facebook delete it.”

The JIDF ‏(www.thejidf.org‏) describes itself as a “collective of activists and a non-violent protest group with over 5,000 members and supporters, which seeks in its own way to counter anti-Semitic content [that] promotes terrorism online in places including ‏(but not limited to‏) Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Google Earth.”

Apart from its Facebook operations, which the JIDF calls only a small percentage of its activities, the group publishes online “guides” detailing how users can identify sites that promote hateful content. JIDF members also edit content on Wikipedia entries and monitor YouTube and Google Earth.

JIDF’s measures include reporting Wikipedia editors it claims are anti-Israel, and taking action against entries seen as including one-sided or false accounts of the history of Israel and the Mideast conflict. On Google Earth, it has taken steps to remove photos showing Palestinian villages listed as having been destroyed during the foundation of the State of Israel. It has also waged a campaign against the listing of Palestine as a country.

The online confrontation was first reported at the very outset of the second Palestinian intifada in September 2000, when Israeli and Palestinian hackers began targeting each others’ Web sites. Using an ever-evolving arsenal of e-weaponry, including spam, hacktivists paralyzed the servers of targeted sites and overloaded capacity. Stricken sites slowed to a crawl or crashed altogether.

Early on, anti-Israel hackers landed blows against the Web sites of the Foreign Ministry, the Israel Defense Forces and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbying group. AIPAC’s site was compromised in November 2000 by a Pakistani hacker who published the personal details and credit card numbers of hundreds of AIPAC supporters.  Pro-Israel hackers returned fire, striking a number of anti-Israel sites, including two sites run by Hezbollah, whose servers crashed after they were overloaded by millions of hits. Sites run by Hamas met a similar fate.

The JIDF grew out of this battleground. Beginning in 2000 as a small circle of Jewish Internet users exchanging emails on how to counter what they termed the “propaganda machine” of anti-Israel organizations, the JIDF later began making lists of Facebook groups posting material such as praise for attacks on Israeli civilians and content the JIDF viewed as anti-Semitic. JIDF then forwarded the lists to Facebook administrators. In some cases, the JIDF complaints prodded Facebook to take action. For the most part, however, Facebook’s response was less clear-cut,

According to David, a leading JIDF member who asked that his last name to be withheld, citing repeated death threats he and other group members have received by email since their actions became public. He says Facebook either did nothing or took months to police or remove groups the JIDF reported, allowing the material to circulate online in the meantime.

When efforts to lobby Facebook to remove the groups failed, the JIDF escalated, moving to intercept Facebook groups and make them impossible to access. The turning point, David said, came with the founding of a range of Facebook groups praising the terrorist who killed eight students in a shooting attack at Jerusalem’s Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in March.

“The use of Facebook to blatantly praise acts of terrorism demanded an equally blatant response,” David says. Many of these groups, including “R.I.P. ALA’A ABU DHAIM,” founded in honor of the Mercaz Harav terrorist, have been targeted or removed by the JIDF. Many others remain, however, due mainly to the ease with which Facebook users can set up groups and the speed with which they attract new members.

Facebook groups often expand exponentially, and at the speed of the push of a button. Individual members may have hundreds or even thousands of “Facebook friends,” the term used for personal contacts registered by individual users as part of their network or networks.  The JIDF has targeted dozens of groups for removal, some with only a few dozen members, others with several thousand. JIDF activists employ a number of methods to strike at targeted groups. In some cases, they have deleted the groups’ users and redirected anyone who clicks on the group’s link to the Facebook login page instead of the group profile − effectively removing the groups from Facebook.

A link on the JIDF site shows a screenshot from an Arabic-language group on Facebook that JIDF says was promoting Hezbollah propaganda and had attracted more than 118,000 members on Facebook before the JIDF began a wholesale deletion of the group’s members.  In some instances, the JIDF has changed the names of the members of certain groups, altering traditionally Muslim names to “Mossad collaborator” or other terms, while also changing the homepage picture of the “Israel is not a country” group, among others, to an image of an Israel Air Force F-16 charging head-on towards the camera, before a backdrop of a billowing Israeli flag.

The JIDF says it has removed more than 100 of what it calls anti-Semitic groups that promote genocide and anti-Israel propaganda on the Web, including those for Hamas fans and Holocaust deniers and a Facebook group called “We Will Kill All Israelis Abroad.”

Many of these groups make an effort to state that they differentiate between Zionists and Jews, and are insist they are not practicing anti-Semitism. At the same time, the targeted groups tend to present a wholly one-sided view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often accompanied by sensationalist, blood-drenched videos and photographs of Palestinians the sites say were wounded by the IDF. Others targeted by the JIDF, including Holocaust denial and Hitler-appreciation groups, make no effort to conceal explicitly anti-Semitic views.

The JIDF notes that some of the groups, especially “Israel is not a country,” have also been described as anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League.

But the JIDF, which has recently been the subject of an Internet campaign accusing it of being a Mossad proxy, is careful to specify that it does not “hack” accounts, nor break binary codes or steal passwords. Though David declined to reveal what methods the group uses, he said that it does not practice any illegal activity, and prefers the terms “seize control,” “take over” or “infiltrate” to “hack.”

In August, the JIDF’s success in removing targeted sites suffered a high-profile setback with the restoration of one of its primary targets, the “Israel is not a country” group.

Amine Ez-Zaoui, a Moroccan in his 20s who is a member of “Israel is not a country,” told Haaretz that after the group was attacked by the JIDF, he founded a group that petitioned Facebook to restore it to “alert the administrators of Facebook and all Arab and Muslim friends to the crime against freedom of expression committed by this group of Zionist hackers.”

Ez-Zaui says the group enjoys a broad level of support. After it sent a wave of e-mails to Facebook administrators requesting that the group be restored, “Israel is not a country” returned August 1, in what Ez-Zaoui refers to as “the first victory against the JIDF.” There are now several offshoots of the original group, including “Israel is not a country!” ‏(with 7,816 members, as of early this month‏) and “’Israel’ is not a country!... ...Delist it from Facebook as a country!” ‏(with 2,888 members‏).

While the newly restored version of the original group has fewer members than the original, it still includes most of the same content, including long essays on the differences between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, videos and articles on the “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” it says Israel commits against Palestinians, and links to dozens of anti-Israel Web sites.

Another prominent member of the group said that while his personal Facebook account hasn’t been targeted by the JIDF, he knew of several people whose accounts had been hacked, including one friend whose Facebook account had been deleted four times. He attributes the hacking to the JIDF. In emails to Haaretz, he maintains that his group never censors responses or posts from users that are pro-Israel, illustrating, he says, that the JIDF practices censorship, as opposed to many of the groups on Facebook that it targets.

The Anti-Defamation League, which has an Internet department monitoring anti-Semitism online and has been recognized for its actions to fight “cyber bullying,” told Haaretz that it does not condone any form of hacking or vigilante action online. The ADL says its policy is to “put a spotlight” on hate sites, notifying hosts and servers that these groups are violating the sites’ terms of usage and pushing them to respond to those actions in a civil, legal way.

Calling social networking sites “the next frontier in online hate,” ADL civil rights director Deborah Lauter says via email that while the ADL does not advocate censorship, it has “reached out to Web site owners and Internet Service Providers ‏(ISPs‏), asking them to review the content of Web sites in relation to their policies” to remove or block those users whose content they have uploaded violates the site’s rules.

“The larger, more popular social networking Web sites are generally responsive in this regard,” the ADL says, though the sheer number of users of social networking sites makes it impossible to completely eradicate the problem.

MySpace, for example, has a large, dedicated staff solely devoted to this issue. And we know they are effective, by the great many complaints voiced by racists and anti-Semites who have discovered that the offensive content ‏(such as material that advocates racist or anti-Semitic views, Holocaust denial, or calls for violence against minority groups‏) they uploaded was deleted,” says Lauter. “Some extremists have been so frustrated that they have gone on to set up their own white supremacist social networking sites.”

Perhaps those sites will turn out to be the venue for the next phase of the Internet intifada. Online warriors, take note.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Internet censorship in full swing in the USA (again)

First we had "Evil Joe" Lieberman with his "Internet kill switch" and now they are at it again, this time with a "Protect IP Act".  The thugs in Congress are always up to no good, usually some crafty way of making the rich richer, the poor poorer, to further reduce any civil liberty left and, last but not least, to do whatever the hell the Israel lobby demands from them.  Censoring the Internet is a particularly "good" idea, from their point of view, as it would contribute to making US millionaires and billionaires richer, and it would also provide a terrific way of cracking down on anti-Israel, anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian (i.e. "terrorist) websites.

What AIPAC's minions in Congress do simply not understand is that the technology needed to defeat all their plans is already out there.  For example, take a look at the following information about the FreedomBox:


or watch these two videos of Eben Moglen speaking on the topic "Freedom in the Cloud"


"Evil Joe" and his cohorts will fight freedom everywhere, on the Internet and in the real world, but at least on the Internet they are clearly out-gunned by the new technologies (software and hardware) which already exist and which shall be deployed in the near future.

This, at least, is a battle we already know we will win.

The Saker

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Copyright or Censorship?



It is my contention that spurious accusations of copyright infringement can be used to suppress videos that are not liked, in certain circles, and that YouTube's reporting procedure favours the accuser over the accused, who is not even given the minimum amount of information necessary to be able to challenge any claim, let alone a false one.

Anthony Lawson

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Predictably, YouTube censors Alan Lawson's video on the 'Holocaust', hate speech and 'stupid' Germans

Dear Sirs,

Re:  Spurious Copyright Claim
YouTube Account:  http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911

I have just received the following notice:

We have disabled the following material as a result of a third-party notification from James Allan Khan claiming that this material is infringing:

Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?

I think that this is a spurious action; an attempt to infringe my right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

While making the video in question I was careful to ensure that any material noted as being the subject of a copyright notice was not used.  Furthermore, I have been unable to find any reference to a person named James Allan Khan on the Internet, using Google's search engine.

As with all of my videos, this one was made for educational purposes; I will not derive any financial benefit from uploading it, and I sincerely think that the material I've used is in the public interest and, therefore, comes under the protection of Fair Use in the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code) as follows:

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
    2. The nature of the copyrighted work
    3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

If the accuser, James Allan Khan can demonstrate otherwise, I will remove the material in question and re-upload the edited video.  If not, I think that it is incumbent on the owners of YouTube to try and prevent Mr. Kahn and others like him from stifling a free exchange of ideas on its otherwise excellent website.

One of the main issues I have with being accused of a copyright infringement, and having one of my videos suspended, more accurately suppressed, is that my accuser was not, apparently, required to make any specific charge as to what image or images or quoted text he has based his claim on (the only musical content in the video is my own work: a single chord).

Accusers should be bound to give YouTube's legal department a reasonable amount of detail regarding the alleged infringement—at the very least the item that has been allegedly infringed—and this should be passed on to the alleged culprit, who should be given a reasonable amount of time to dispute such a claim, before any action is taken.

Shortly, I will be uploading a video regarding this notice, giving others the benefit of what I have learned from what I think is a spurious attack on my right to freedom of expression as well as my time in having to respond to what I regard as a nuisance accusation.

Sincerely,

Anthony Lawson

-------
Addendum by The Saker

Here is the "offending" video:




If Blogger also removes this video, I will make it available for download from Rapidshare, Megaupload, Mediafire, The Pirate Bay, Demonoid, Torrent411, Rutor, Rutracker, OneBigTorrent, Wawa-Mania, Quebec-team, TorrentSpain and whatever number of file hosting sites needed to keep it available to those who care about the truth.

The Saker

Saturday, December 4, 2010

U.S. Government Seizes 82 Websites: A Glimpse at the Draconian Future of Copyright Enforcement?

A Legal Analysis by Corynne McSherry for the Electronic Freedom Foundation

Over the past few days, the U.S. Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and nine U.S. Attorneys’ Offices seized 82 domain names of websites they claim were engaged in the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and illegal copyrighted works.

Setting aside the due process concerns inherent in seizing any website without notice or appropriate recourse for the owner, it appears that the "raid" has swept up several sites that are hardly in the business of willful copyright infringement. For example, the the list of targets included OnSmash.com and RapGodfathers.com. Both sites are dedicated to promoting rap and hiphop, showcasing new artists and helping fans connect and share information about the music they love. According to the owners, they regularly and expeditiously process copyright infringement notices and take down links as appropriate. Indeed, OnSmash says the labels themselves are often the source of the links OnSmash makes available. In other words, they try to play by the rules. Moreover, the sites are not simply collections of links; rather, they provide a wide array of information and forums for speech, all of which was rendered inaccessible by the seizure.

This type of seizure is not unprecedented, but we haven’t seen it happen on such a broad scale before. This kind of mass action raises at least three concerns:

First, these seizures may be just a short preview of the kind of overreaching enforcement we’ll see if the Congress passes the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).
That bill, which was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov 18, gives the government dramatic new copyright enforcement powers, in particular the ability to make entire websites disappear from the Internet if infringement, or even links to infringement, are deemed to be "central" to the purpose of the site. Rather than just targeting files that actually infringe copyright law, COICA’s "nuclear-option" design has the government blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system — a reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech. As we’ve noted, one of the most pernicious effects of COICA is likely to be just what we’ve seen here: the takedown of legitimate speech.

Second, the seizures also show why this kind of enforcement doesn’t work; seized sites were available at other domain names within hours. If the United States government increases interference in critical DNS infrastructure to police alleged copyright infringement, it is very likely that a large percentage of the Internet will shift to alternative DNS mechanisms that are located outside the US. This will cause numerous problems — including new network security issues, as a large percentage of the population moves to encrypted offshore DNS to escape the censoring effects of the procedures outlined in COICA. Presumably the DOJ and the DHS should be committed to improving network security — not undermining it.

Third, it’s hard to believe that this kind of action is the best use of the Department of Homeland Security’s resources. What investigations didn’t occur while the DHS spent its time and energy pursuing the agenda of large media companies? Moreover, it’s highly unlikely that this publicity stunt will really help creators get compensated. The best way to help artists of every stripe get compensated for their work is to make sure that there is a thriving marketplace of innovative digital businesses to pay them — business like OnSmash, which is committed to promoting new and unheralded artists.

We hope the legislators considering COICA will take a hard look at these issues before they vote. In the meantime, government officials should take an equally hard look at their enforcement priorities before they spend more of our tax dollars chasing websites.


Related Issues: No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign, The COICA Internet Censorship and Copyright Bill

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Predictably, Google begins to collaborate with MPAA, RIAA & Co.

There we go, Google uses it power to police the Internet on behalf of the US MAFIAA.

How Lieberman Got Amazon To Drop Wikileaks


Early this week, after hacker attacks on its site, Wikileaks moved its operation, including all those diplomatic cables, to the greener pastures of Amazon.com's cloud servers. But today, it was down again and mid-afternoon we found out the reason: Amazon had axed Wikileaks from its servers.

The announcement came from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman said in a statement that Amazon's "decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material."

Committee staff had seen news reports yesterday that Wikileaks was being hosted on Amazon's servers, a committee spokeswoman told TPM. The service, we should note, is self-serve; as with services like YouTube, the company does not screen or pre-approve the content posted on its servers.

Staffers then, according to the spokeswoman, Leslie Phillips, called Amazon to ask about it, and left questions with a press secretary including, "Are there plans to take the site down?"

Amazon called them back this morning to say they had kicked Wikileaks off, Phillips said. Amazon said the site had violated unspecified terms of use.

Amazon has not responded to requests for comment. Its terms of acceptable use include a ban on illegal activities (it's not yet clear whether Wikileaks has broken any laws) and content "that may be harmful to our users, operations, or reputation." It also prohibits using Amazon's servers "to violate the security or integrity of any network, computer or communications system," although Wikileaks obviously obtained the cables long before hopping on Amazon's servers.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet freedom of speech by defending court cases, said the axing certainly doesn't violate the First Amendment. But it is, according to senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston, "disappointing."

"This certainly implicates First Amendment rights to the extent that web hosts may, based on direct or informal pressure, limit the materials the American public has a First Amendment right to access," Bankston told TPM.

Wikileaks is reportedly back on servers based in Sweden. Lieberman, in his statement today, called on "any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."

Phillips said Lieberman has no plans to reach out to other web-hosting services that may host Wikileaks, and has not contacted the Swedish government to discuss servers in its country.

"Sen. Lieberman hopes that the Amazon case will send the message to other companies that might host Wikileaks that it would be irresponsible to host the site," she said.

Alex Sciuto contributed reporting.
-------
Comment: This is what I wrote about Lieberman last June, and it still applies today: Joe Lieberman. "Evil Joe". Lieberman has this almost satanic ability to radiate evil and to always, always, be right in the middle of most, if not all, the really ugly and evil plans the Empire is cooking up for the rest of us. In the same vein as Kissinger, Perle or Dershowitz, Lieberman is a living caricature of the "evil Jew" of the Nazi propaganda. Why is that? Why do these guys go out of their way to match the most extreme anti-Jewish stereotypes? I just don't get it...

The Saker