WebProNews

Tag: censorship

  • China Begins Censoring Weibo Microblogging Service

    Weibo is China’s version of Twitter, and the microblogging service shares much in common with its Western counterpart. Weibo users anonymously report news and have been known to discuss topics often forbidden on the Chinese web. They even spread false death rumors the way Twitter does. The Chinese Communist Party sees unabridged, anonymous speech, especially when it’s about political corruption, as dangerous to the country’s social order, and censors have tried various ways to implement blocks and filters on Weibo.

    Sina, the company behind Weibo, implemented “user contracts” earlier this month to try and suppress the rampant political speech and debate going on between its 200 million users. This week, The New York Times is reporting that Sina will now be grading Weibo members on their behavior, using a points system to keep track.

    Users will start out with 80 points, and points can be deducted for disruptive posts. How many points will be deducted for a violation, or what topics and posts could be point-deduction-worthy were not revealed. Presumably, this is intentional, since having no official ruleset for the points means they can be used as an excuse to simply censor users. What is known is that when users hit 60 points they will be issued a warning. Zero points means an account ban. Users can restore their 80-point standing by having no violations for 20 months. Also, Reuters reports that extra points can be earned by users if they give up their anonymity by validating their real-life identity.

    Of course, censorship has never stopped the internet, especially Twitter, from talking. Much the same as French tweeters who were banned from discussing early exit poll results from their country’s presidential elections, Weibo users have been using code words to discuss sensitive political topics.

    (via The New York Times)

  • Twitter Blocked By Pakistan’s Government Due To ‘Blasphemous Content’

    Social media has already proven that it’s one of the greatest bastions of free speech on the Internet. A lot of governments that don’t protect free speech hate social media because it’s so open. Countries like China block Twitter and Facebook because it allows people to be critical of the government. Pakistan has joined the ranks of countries that block social media.

    Reuters reports that Pakistan has now blocked access to Twitter starting today. The country’s Telecommunication Authority, Mohammed Yaseen, confirmed the block saying that people post “blasphemous content” to the micro-blogging site. He also said that the country has been in discussion with Twitter for some time now on trying to rid the site of blasphemous content.

    It seems strange that the entire country has lost access when Twitter already provides tools for countries to censor select Tweets. It makes it seem like the “blasphemous content” that Pakistan wanted to block wasn’t really blasphemous. Pakistan isn’t saying anything beyond what they told Reuters. What makes it even more strange that the country’s ISPs have been told to block Twitter, but were given no reason as well.

    This isn’t the first time that Pakistan has dabbled in trying to censor the Internet. The country blocked access to YouTube back in 2008 for the same reason – blasphemous content. The country has also recently taken up the idea of trying to create a country-wide firewall similar to China that would block access to sites that the government deems offensive. After numerous companies publicly refused to help Pakistan, the country seemed to have given up its hopes to censor the Internet.

    All of that back story makes this latest block all the more confusing. The country told Reuters that they would unblock Twitter after they had resolved problems with blasphemous content. Who knows when that will happen though? I’m sure Twitter wants to get access back up in Pakistan, but they also have to work out what is really blasphemous and what’s not. Blocking joke and criticism about Mohammed is understandable, but Twitter should make sure that Pakistan is not trying to block political dissent as well.

  • Apple Stops Censoring “Jailbreak” From iTunes And The App Store

    Yesterday we brought you news that Apple had suddenly begun censoring the word “jailbreak” in its various stores. Visitors to the App Store or the iTunes Store who searched for “jailbreak” saw it replaced with “j*******k.” That, as you may know, is the kind of treatment Apple usually reserves for the kinds of words you don’t want your kids saying (one of my favorite examples is the song “Kiss Me, I’m Sh*tfaced,” by Dropkick Murphys).

    Thanks to a 2010 ruling by the U.S. Copyright Office that jailbreaking doesn’t violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Apple is legally required to tolerate the practice. That does not, of course, mean that they have to like it. In fact, most major updates to the iOS platform close the weaknesses used to create a new jailbreak. This, however, marks the first time that Apple has ever actually taken any sort of action against the word “jailbreak,” and most agreed that it was a pretty silly move.

    Apparently somebody at Apple agreed, because “jailbreak” is once again off the naughty words list, because it’s no longer getting the asterisk treatment. Fans of Thin Lizzy will, I’m sure, be glad to know that their band’s album title is once again intact:

    Jailbreak Censorship

    Apple has kept quiet on why, exactly, the word was censored in the first place. Given the sheer ridiculousness of the whole thing, my money is on it being some sort of mistake, or a gag by somebody at Apple that accidentally made it out into the wild.

  • #OpIndia Is Anonymous’ New Campaign Against Internet Censorship

    Anonymous is kind of like a global Batman that uses a computer instead of batarangs to fight what they perceive as injustice. They have started up operations in various countries like China, but their newest campaign is pretty ambitious – #OpIndia.

    As the name implies, Anonymous is now attacking the Indian government. Why? They feel that the government is squashing its citizens’ rights to a free Internet. The Indian government has already blocked access to sites like The Pirate Bay and Vimeo.

    The main source of information for this operation comes from @opindia_revenge. The Twitter handle has been tweeting the various Web sites that Anonymous has been taking down since May 10. Here’s the rally cry announcement of the first operation:

    Operation indiaTarget : Department of telecomReason: blocking file sharing sites in India
    6 days ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    It’s made obvious over the next few days that the Indian government is pretty much just ignoring the sites being taken down. The person running the Twitter account obviously wants their actions to show up on national news, but it seems that the national Indian media isn’t picking up on it either.

    TANGO STILL DOWNCorrupt government still unaware of attack on http://t.co/8Li3g8PV #Anonymous @shivendravats
    4 days ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    It wasn’t until the today, however, that they started to get the results that they wanted. They began taking down the major government Web sites that could stand up to a smaller DDoS attack. The Web sites taken down now include the Supreme Court, Department of Telecom and the All Indian Congress. Here’s a sampling of the attacks just from the past few hours.

    http://t.co/JfAIcrDJ has been added to #TANGODOWN list.#opindia on #RAMPAGE!We wont let government function
    7 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    http://t.co/wbqPtrzCCourts must know #internet belongs to us!FUCKING STOP #CENSORING IT!!We will take down more government websites now
    7 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    We will become a #PAIN in the #ASS for the government until they stop #censoring our #INTERNETIT BELONGS TO US!
    4 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    It seems that many people in India are new to this DDoS thing. The account has just recently started answering questions about DDoS attacks and what they are. It seems that a few people are worried that these kind of attacks permanently damage a Web site. They even let a Web site come back up to prove that they aren’t doing any lasting damage.

    Look http://t.co/wbqPtrzC is back up!For ffs, We ain’t permanently damaging the sites. You get it now?
    3 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Their latest target has been Copyright Labs which is an anti-piracy company in India. They offer tools that allow movie distributors to prevent the sharing of Bollywood films over torrents and file-sharing services like Rapidshare.

    Anonymous #India– Tango down: http://t.co/sWKE95Fh | Reason: for promoting #Censorship & lobbying / bribing the politicians to pass the bill
    39 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    The last update from OpIndia was from 11 minutes ago. It seems that they’re still taking down Web sites and alerting the local Indian media of their attacks. They claim to be getting more support from the Indian citizens on their side. Their follower count is only at 437 though, so I don’t know how popular they really are.

    The recent censorship of The Pirate Bay has not been India’s first foray into the world of Web censorship. We reported back in March that Google and Facebook were set to stand trial in India over their failing to remove offensive religious content off of their networks. The trial has been continuously pushed back with the latest court date now set for August 7.

    Anonymous hasn’t mentioned this in their campaign against the country, but I think that The Pirate Bay might be more important to them since that’s already blocked. Considering how slow the Google and Facebook trial is moving, they may not even go to court. You got to keep your priorities straight, right?

    We’ll continue to follow #OpIndia like all other Anonymous operations and update you if anything big happens. For now, they seem to be more or less in a loop of taking down the same few Web sites over and over again.

    [h/t: The Next Web]

  • Matt Cutts Is Bummed Out by Iran’s Censorship

    The saga of Iran’s affront on an open internet acquired another chapter today as the government’s telecommunications ministry has prohibited telephone operators, insurance firms, and local banks from using foreign-hosted email services to communicate with clients. In effect, this bans email clients like Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail – basically any email account with a domain that doesn’t end in .ir.

    One Google luminary expressed his disappointment in the Iranian government: Google webspam master Matt Cutts.

    Saddened to see Iran regulating what email addresses people can use: http://t.co/27pZEwsG 11 hours ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    For Iran’s government, slapping these kinds of muzzles on the beak of the internet is just business as usual. This year alone, authorities have blocked websites (including Gmail and YouTube), the internet, and, in a small act of comedic justice, even its own supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Still, that’s not to say that it’s an event unworthy of disapproval.

    According to AFP, entities involved with the Iranian government are required to use email addresses ending with gov.ir to conduct business while universities need to use emails with the domain ac.ir. To be fair, though, this is far from being the worst example of Iran’s communication restrictions with the internet. More, isn’t it fairly common for businesses or universities to restrict what email clients an employee can use in order to conduct business correspondence? Regardless of who you are or where you are, you probably shouldn’t be using your personal Gmail or Yahoo email account to relate state secrets or even state not-so-secrets.

    This restriction of foreign-based email providers for certain businesses and governments only looks bad in the context of Iran’s history of censorship and throttling of communication mediums but it’s hardly an egregious decision. Were this, say, Sweden who mandated that some businesses and governments needed to use state-sponsored emails in order to interact with clients, it would hardly be news-worthy.

  • Mozilla Slams Apple’s “Walled-Garden” Philosophy

    Apple is undoubtedly good at what they do. They create products that appeal to a large audience and many people have said that products like the iPad make it easier for people to interact with technology. Mozilla says bollocks to all of that in a recent interview.

    Speaking to TechRadar, the company that Firefox built says that Apple is turning everybody into consumers, instead of creators. The company has long been a strong proponent of the open Web and they feel that the app culture Apple created threatens that openness. They say that the Web was created so that people don’t have to “install and uninstall applications for every single task.”

    They feel that the Web and working with it are tools of education. It’s the kind of philosophy that the open source movement holds. If you don’t like it, find out how it works and fix it. The control Apple has over iTunes prevents that kind of education and creativity. Tristan Nitot, former president of Mozilla Europe, sums up his fears quite nicely:

    “I am a web citizen and when I see that somebody in California can decide what I am allowed to install on a device that I paid for with my own money, that he will impose his own values that are not from my culture and are different from my context it seems very scary to me.”

    It all comes down to the Web being an uncensored community of passionate people sharing their works with the world. Mozilla feels that letting a company’s moral guidelines decide what content can and can not be viewed is tantamount to censorship.

    Apple’s walled garden approach has been seen as a threat to the openness of the Web by many critics. Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin spoke out against Apple saying that their philosophy led to less innovation. Even though he later had to explain himself as Google has been accused of using some of the same tactics that Apple uses.

    It all comes down to the differing philosophies of the two companies. Apple wants absolute control over its platform because control leads to order. Mozilla chose the Web as its platform and the Web, as TechRadar points out, is pretty chaotic. People like order so they flock to Apple’s devices for that feeling of safety.

    This all leads to the question of what we are willing to sacrifice for at least a sense of order. The Web is a scary place. It’s full of viruses, hackers and all kinds of dangerous things. Apple’s ecosystem is a safe, welcoming place that is mostly free of such dangers. If you ask me, I prefer the chaos of the Web. Sure, I’m putting myself at risk but there’s a wonder of discovery to the Web that you just can’t find in apps.

    Where do you stand? Do you prefer the relative calm of these “walled gardens,” or do you prefer the rip roaring seas of the open Web? I don’t think you’re any less of a person for choosing one or the other, but that chaotic sea we know as the Web is definitely something worth protecting.

  • Sina Weibo, China’s Twitter, Attempts to Censor Its Users

    Sina Weibo, the micro-blogging Chinese equivalent of Twitter, is preparing to issue new rules which dictate what its users can and cannot post to the site. Under what they’re calling a “user contract”, Sina Weibo will restrict individuals from posting content “that spreads rumors, disrupts social order, or destroys social stability.” The agreement also states that users cannot employ “oblique expressions” in order to get around these new regulations.

    Failure to comply with the rules may result in deleted posts or, in extreme instances, the disabling of the user’s account. Offending content has also been described as anything that dishonors the nation or supports illicit behavior. In short, if you make China look bad in any way, shape, or form, there is a very strong possibility that you will no longer have access to Sina Weibo. Presently, the site sports nearly 200 million users. That’s a lot of people to keep an eye on.

    The rise in concern over what people are posting comes straight from Beijing. Back in April, China’s Internet regular forced the site to close its comments section over what they described as “rumor mongering”.

    In order to keep track of who the troublemakers are and how much questionable content they’re posting to the site, Sina Weibo will utilize a point system to track offending activity. Each time you break a rule, points will be deduced from your total. Once you reach a certain level, you will no longer have access to your account.

    “It’s unclear how it will be implemented. If they do want to kiss up to Beijing, they could target posts related to internal politics,” Doug Young, a Chinese media expert from Fudan University in Shanghai, explained to CNN.

    Over the past few years, Chinese authorities have effectively shut down 16 websites that they feel are responsible for spreading rumors against the country. During this period, six people have been detained for allegedly spreading such falsehoods across the Internet.

  • Iran Filter Backfires, Blocks Khamenei’s Fatwa on Antifiltering

    The Irani government’s aggressive mission to censor internet access within the country took a turn toward irony yesterday when it filtered out a message from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The censored message? Khamenei’s fatwa against the use of antifiltering tools in Iran.

    Radio Free Europe reports that Khamenei’s fatwa was blocked from Iranian websites a mere 30 hours after it was published. Apparently even using the word “antifiltering” is sensitive enough to trigger Iran’s automated censoring system.

    The irony of the whole situation spools together even more, though, because a member from a news agency wrote to Khamenei’s office stating that some professionals, such as journalists, may need to use antifiltering tools in order to visit blocked websites that need to be viewed. Mehr asked what the religious decree would be in that specific case, to which Khamenei replied, “In general, the use of antifiltering software is subject to the laws and regulations of the Islamic republic, and it is not permissible to violate the law.”

    Merely mentioning the religious ruling on antifiltering filtered out Khamenei’s statement. In order for Mehr or anybody else to actually read Khameni’s statement on antifiltering tools, as RFE points out, the Ayatollah’s followers would have to use antifiltering software to access it.

    Amazing.

    Iran’s spent the better part of the past year (and more) muzzling access to a free internet, going so far as to build its own national internet that will include only government-approved content. Now, the authorities’ vigorous effort to censor and control the dissemination of information in the country appears to be cannibalizing the government.

    [Via Ars Technica.]

  • Facebook Dislikes It When You’re Not Making Positive Contributions

    It’s no secret that Facebook is probably never going to implement a Dislike button despite the fact that people have been clamoring for one for years. The very premise is against Facebook’s general modus operandi of seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses. If you use Facebook, then only your positive interactions will be reinforced and your negative ones, well… actually, Facebook could be saying no to negativity and blocking any comments it thinks falls into that category..

    AllFacebook has been following the story of Robert Scoble, a startup liaison at Rackspace and tech blogger, who had left a Facebook comment on someone’s post about “tech blog drama.” Scroble’s full comment on the thread is below (he shared it on his Google+ account).

    I’m so glad I didn’t start a media business. It’s actually really tough to get new and interesting stories and to avoid falling into drama. People forget that Techcrunch was built step-by-step as a new publishing form was taking shape. PandoDaily doesn’t have that advantage and, is, indeed, facing competition from social networks that is quite good indeed.

    I no longer visit blogs. I watch Twitter, Google+, and Facebook, along with Hacker News, Techmeme, Quora. These are the new news sources.

    Plus, Pando Daily actually doesn’t have enough capital to compete head on with, say, D: All Things Digital or The Verge, both of which are expanding quickly and have ecosystems behind them.

    Apparently, though, Facebook didn’t much approve of that comment and he was met with the message that you see in the lead image of this article: “This comment seems irrelevant or inappropriate and can’t be posted. To avoid having your comments blocked, please make sure they contribute to the post in a positive way.”

    Oddly enough, after Scoble was denied posting the comment and then mentioned that he was prevented from posting it, another Facebook user and copy-and-pasted it into their comment, which was appears to have been allowed even a mere 14 minutes after Scoble said he wasn’t permitted to post it.

    Later that day, Scoble updated his Google+ post after corresponding with Facebook about the prohibited comment:

    I just talked with Facebook PR about my “comment censorship issue.” They say what actually happened is my comment was classified as spam. He further said that this was a “false positive” because my comment was one that Facebook doesn’t want to block.

    Turns out that my comment was blocked by Facebook’s spam classification filters and that it wasn’t blocked for what the comment said, but rather because of something unique to that message. They are looking more into it and will let me know more later, after they figure out what triggered it. Their thesis is that my comment triggered it for a few reasons:

    1. I’m subscribed to @max.woolf https://www.facebook.com/max.woolf and am not a friend of his in the system. That means that the spam classification system treats comments more strictly than if we were friends.

    2. My comment included three @ links. That probably is what triggered the spam classification system.

    3. There might have been other things about the comment that triggered the spam system.

    The PR official I talked with told me that the spam classification system has tons of algorithms that try to keep you from posting low-value comments, particularly to public accounts (er, people who have turned on subscriptions here on Facebook).

    I actually appreciate that Facebook is trying to do something about comment quality. I had to recently change my privacy settings to only allow friends of friends to comment on my posts because I was getting so many poor comments on my posts (when I did that the poor quality posts instantly stopped).

    The PR person also said that a team is looking into why this message got a false positive, and will be adjusting the algorithms to let messages like these get through the system.

    It’s likely that other commenters were able to copy and paste his comment shortly after he was prohibited because the copied messaged didn’t have the links included.

    On the one hand, I somewhat concur with Scoble that it’s nice that Facebook is trying to prevent people from trolling or spamming. Then again, though, I feel like Facebook should leave it up to users to decide if non-spam comments are worth deleting. It’s really easy for any of us to do: make that ‘x’ appear in the top-right corner of the comment box, click, confirm, poof – it’s gone. Honestly, I want to know which of my Facebook friends are acting like idiots by posting comments I don’t find relevant or even agreeable so that I can then unfriend those people.

    Filtering content so that only the posts made in a “positive way” are accepted is indeed suspicious. I assume the motive for this is to keep me from seeing some idiotic or upsetting comment that could lead me to unfriend people. This pre-emptive comment censoring is not too different from the “unsubscribe” feature wherein both features protect me from being exposed to any interaction that might result in people getting unfriended.

    So is that the rub, to keep people connected despite their differences? Maybe. In the end, Facebook’s attempt to preserve the peace (however artificial) helps keep the number of relationships among Facebook users up – a statistic that Facebook obviously sees as an important selling point.

    It will be interesting to see future reports of how this new content moderation is deployed and whether Facebook will be able to adjust its algorithm so as to make the function accurate. Otherwise, this could be a real headache for several departments at Facebook.

    Anybody out there encountered this yet? Tell us about it if you have.

  • Vimeo, Pirate Bay Blocked in Parts of India

    The trial in India against Google and Facebook for failing to censor allegedly offensive content on their social networks in that country has been again postponed, and now there are reports that video hosting site Vimeo, along with torrent sharing sites like the Pirate Bay have been blocked on a certain Indian ISP. The Department of Telecom in India has blocked Vimeo, particularly though the Reliance Communication ISP:

    vimeo india

    Here are some reactions on Twitter:

    The Pirate Bay, Vimeo blocked in India http://t.co/TbdnGnNw 30 minutes ago via SNS Analytics ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    India Orders Blackout of Vimeo, The Pirate Bay and More http://t.co/7Mm6dJAU #Anonymous 1 day ago via AnonCircle ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    India orders Blackout of Vimeo, The pirate bay and more http://t.co/sgsfaCZ5
    Wondering what else is happening?? 2 days ago via Twitter for iPad ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    WHAT? India has blocked Vimeo? http://t.co/JqRQXsM9 2 days ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Facebook had in the past plainly removed any content deemed to be offensive from its Indian network, though it’s not yet clear what the issue is with Vimeo. Still, any sort of site that hosts user-generated content can run into snags in India, where incendiary comments can quickly turn into a real problem amongst various locales.

    via: TNW

  • The Pirate Bay Is Doing Well In The UK After ISP Block

    We reported Monday on the UK’s absurd attempt to stop copyright infringement by blocking access to The Pirate Bay. Nobody was going to lose any sleep over the matter since tips on how to get around the blocks went up immediately after the court’s ruling. If anybody thinks the tactic is going to slow down piracy, they’re only fooling themselves and The Pirate Bay has the proof to back it up.

    Speaking to TorrentFreak, a Pirate Bay insider said that the news circulating through all the major news networks like BBC and The Guardian equated to free publicity. They said that The Pirate Bay saw 12 million more visitors than usual after the story started to go live. They even suggested that The Pirate Bay should write a “thank you note” to the British Phonographic Industry, the group who instigated the case that ruled the torrent tracking site to be behind “copyright infringement on a massive scale.”

    The Pirate Bay sees this increase in traffic as only a good thing as it will give them time to educate new users how to get around what they see as pitiful efforts by governments to prevent access to their site. Our own Chris Richardson covered the majority of these solutions in his story on Monday. The gist is that users can use free services to change their DNS servers and any censorship is immediately circumvented. There’s also services like Tor and iPredator that help get around such blocks.

    I think we can draw a parallel between The Pirate Bay’s very public ISP block in the UK and MegaUpload’s very public takedown. Both sites were very well known and make up a good chunk of Internet traffic. Both sites are hit with some form of censorship that goes very public across multiple news networks. In the case of MegaUpload, file sharing went down immediately after the takedown. Unfortunately for the copyright industry, it went right back to pre-takedown levels the next day after everybody moved on to another service. I’m pretty sure that The Pirate Bay expects the same thing to happen in the UK. Even if they don’t use The Pirate Bay, they’ll figure out a way to obtain the files they’re after.

    As TorrentFreak points out, not everybody will be prepared to circumvent the block when it goes into effect. There will be some people who hear about The Pirate Bay and then find out later that it has been blocked. Will they search Google for one of many easy solutions or will they just give up and buy the legitimate product? I think it’s too early to tell, but The Pirate Bay will probably still see plenty of action from UK citizens.

    Do you think The Pirate Bay will continue to thrive in the UK? Or will the blockade reduce piracy in the country? Let us know in the comments.

  • China Censors Weibo Amid Rise of Political Rumors

    Rumors of a coup and a scandal linking a top Chinese official to corruption and murder have prompted China’s government to shut down several accounts on the country’s ultra-popular Twitter-like site, Sina Weibo. Authorities are said to have shut down the accounts of users allegedly associated with spreading rumors that a military coup was underway in Beijing last month. Additionally, the government announced that six people involved in the spread of the rumors have been detained.

    According to a statement obtained by the Washington Post, the micro-blogging site said, “Recently, criminal elements have used Sina Weibo to create and spread malicious political rumors online for no reason, producing a terrible effect on society.” The statement continues, reminding all users to abide by the laws and regulations regarding speech on the internet and to report any rumors to the authorities.

    The action stems from political chatter last month on Weibo, which is used by over three million people in China, related to former government official Bo Xilai, who is currently under investigation for possible corruption as well as accusations that he murdered a British businessman. In the days following Bo’s removal from his position, financial journalist Li Delin posted on Weibo that he’d spotted military vehicles and plainclothes police officers occupying the streets of Beijing.

    The combination of the two events – Bo’s removal from office and reports of a military coup underway – sparked a tidal wave of rumors across Weibo. Rumors, as you may or may not know, are not easily tolerated by the Chinese government. Aside from arresting six people associated with concocting the rumors, authorities also scrubbed 210,000 posts from Weibo.

    China’s ruling Communist Party has a notorious reputation for micro-managing the flow of information on the internet and controls every media outlet in the country. Social media sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are blocked from being accessed within the country. Last month, Anonymous attempted to frustrate the government’s vice-like grip over the flow of information by defacing several Chinese government websites and posting in their place instructions for how Chinese citizens can circumvent the nation’s Great Firewall.

  • Iran, Syria Receive New Sanctions for Using Technology Against Protesters

    The White House announced an executive order today that details new sanctions on Iran and Syria due to each country’s use of technology for the cause of human rights abuse. The sanctions include a provision to ban U.S. visas against specific individuals, companies, or other entities who have employed technology in order to perpetuate the abuse of human rights.

    The order, which is effective as of 12:01AM EST on April 23, 2012 (today), describes how the “the governments of Iran and Syria are endeavoring to rapidly upgrade their technological ability to conduct such activities.”

    Cognizant of the vital importance of providing technology that enables the Iranian and Syrian people to freely communicate with each other and the outside world, as well as the preservation, to the extent possible, of global telecommunications supply chains for essential products and services to enable the free flow of information, the measures in this order are designed primarily to address the need to prevent entities located in whole or in part in Iran and Syria from facilitating or committing serious human rights abuses. In order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergencies

    President Obama also included some financial restrictions in the order as a means to communicate a cautionary message to technology companies that do business within the two countries. According to comments from senior administration officials obtained by the Washington Post, today’s order was designed specifically to raise awareness among companies that provide technology to Iran and Syria and how their products might be making it easier for authoritarian governments to keep their boot heels on the necks of the political opposition.

    Technology use in countries such as Syria and Iran has so far been a double-edged sword for protesters. On the one hand, communication technology such as internet access and mobile phones have been vital to organizing the opposition as well as continuing to keep the outside world informed of what is happening in the countries (and even then, we still know so little).

    On the other hand, those same technologies have been employed by the governments in order to quell and suppress the opposition. In addition to the standard spying and communications blackouts, Syria has gone so far as to deploy fake versions of YouTube and Facebook, sites that have been crucial in how activists have maintained communication, in order to infect computers with malware. Additionally, recently leaked emails of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad show how the government has used social media as a way to muzzle the opposition and promote pro-regime propaganda in the outside world.

    Iran has been less subtle – although only slightly – with how it manipulates technology into squashing any opposition forces. Prior to today’s order, President Obama has previously admonished the Iranian government for diminishing the access to reliable online communication. For the past two months, Iran’s government has shut down all access to various popular websites such as Gmail, YouTube, and Google, and some reports indicate that the government may have shut down the entire internet at times. These blackouts typically occur during times of expected political unrest, such as around last month’s elections.

    Iranian authorities have also made no secret about their plans to eventually launch a nationalized internet by early next year. Depending on which government official you want to pay attention to, this nationalized internet could mean that the general internet will be permanently blocked in Iran or that the two internet services would be coexist (although it’s hard to imagine that the general internet would still remain unrestricted given that’s kind of the point of a national internet).

  • Google, Twitter Can’t “Act Like a Policeman,” Says British AG

    The attorney general of England doesn’t believe that Google and Twitter should have to “act like a policeman” when it comes to what users of the websites post and share, according to The Guardian.

    You might recall that last month a cadre of Members of Parliament declared quite the opposite by arguing that the British government should task Google with the incredible responsibility of policing the content of its search results in order to purge material that courts deem to be a violation of privacy. Grieve insists, however, that while websites should still bear the burden of responding to court decisions, they can’t be expected to “act as a policeman on their network.” He also warned that such demands upon social websites could create a slippery slope of sorts because “excessive regulation” of the internet would imperil civil liberties on the web.

    The news must come as a welcome breath of fresh air to Google, which has been embroiled in legal troubles where the content posted to its websites is concerned. On the other side of the Atlantic, a one-considered-finished lawsuit brought by Viacom that focuses on a similar issue has recently been resurrected. In the suite, Viacom claims that Google should be held responsible for the copyrighted content that is illegally shared on YouTube, which is owned by Google. A lower court had previously sided with Google/YouTube, but the judge presiding over Viacom’s appeal swung the momentum in the opposite direction and said, “A reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge of specific infringing activity on its website.”

    With Google basically being a permanent resident in the news where internet legality is concerned, you have to begin to wonder that the company wouldn’t actually know what to do with itself if one day it ever wasn’t being sued by at least somebody.

    Twitter, on the other hand, hasn’t exactly experienced the demands to appear in court that Google has, but it certainly caused a few waves earlier this year when it updated its policies that basically gave itself the powers to electively censor tweets on a regional basis. So far, there hasn’t really been any reports of that policy being enacted but the microblogging site has raised a few eyebrows with how its enforced its rules regarding parody accounts of political officials.

  • Iran Still Planning To Launch A “Clean” Internet

    We’ve been hearing for a while now that Iran’s government plans to shut down the Internet in general and, in its place, launch a national Internet that doesn’t include sites like Google or YouTube. For now, though, those plans seem to have no definite deadline as the Iranian authorities have come out denying that it plans to cut off the Internet by August. However, authorities are still claiming that it plans to launch a “national information network” by March 2013.

    According to a statement released by Communications Minister Reza Taghipour that was released on April 1, speculation that the country planned to shut down Internet access by August is “completely baseless” and “in no way confirmed by the ministry.”

    Despite Taghipour’s claims, the Irani government has made a habit of shutting down popular Internet sites in the past several months. In February, the government began blocking sites like Gmail, YouTube, and Google’s encrypted search prior to the anniversary of the 1979 Iranian revolution. Google confirmed the reports that its sites were blocked in Iran, but further information suggested that the entire Internet had been included in the blockade. Although access to the sites returned, rumors began to spread following this outage that the Irani authorities were blocking the sites because it was testing the possibility of launching its own national Internet.

    More recently, Iran’s government blocked access to the official site for the 2012 Olympics in London and is currently redirecting users to Iran’s official news agencies. Officials claim that the 2012 logo spells out “Zion.”

    At this point, while it would be wildly ambitious to shut out the Internet from the country, such efforts, based on the government’s previous habits, wouldn’t be completely out of the realm of possibility.

    [Via AFP.]

  • Kuwaiti Man’s Tweets Get 7-Year Sentence, $18,000 Fine

    Kuwaiti Man’s Tweets Get 7-Year Sentence, $18,000 Fine

    If you’re a regular Twitter user, you’ve likely come across some inflammatory if not outright insulting tweets in your time. Some may be legitimate, some may be over the line – you may have even sent some of said tweets. However, depending on your culture, be careful how you use your 140 characters because in some regions of the world that could land you a heavy penalty.

    Take one Kuwaiti man’s experience: after being found guilty of insulting Kuwait’s Shi’ite Muslim minority on the micro-blogging site, he’s been sentenced to 7 years and prison and ordered to pay $18,000 in compensation.

    Kuwait’s government hasn’t been shy about doling out punishments to people posting controversial tweets. Last month, a man was arrested for allegedly insulting the Muslim prophet Mohammad on his Twitter account, but he claims that it wasn’t his words and that his account had been hacked. Still, his tweets prompted several protesters to condemn the man and demand that he be executed.

    The man accused of insulting the Shi’ites, Mohammad al-Mulaifi, was arrested in February. He’s been convicted of spreading falsehoods about sectarian divisions in Kuwait, insulting the Shi’ite faith and its scholars, and for damaging Kuwait’s image in the region.

    According to The Next Web, al-Mulaifi has apologized to the Shi’ites and claimed that his words were misunderstood. He defended himself by saying that he didn’t intend to insult Islam or his family, though that defense appears to not have worked out so well for him. In addition to the prison sentence and monetary fine, he’s also been sentenced to hard labor and may even have his Kuwaiti citizenship revoked.

    [Via Yahoo! News.]

  • Iran Blocks Access To London 2012 Olympics Site

    In a move that is not that rare or at all unheard of, the theocratic government in charge of the Republic of Iran has blocked access to the official site for the 2012 Olympics in London, England for all of it’s citizens.

    “The blocking process in Iran is not related to a single specific organisation,” Nima Akbarpour, the presenter of the BBC‘s Click Farsi programme said. “It happens every day – even affecting pro-government sites and blogs. The Iranian government’s Internet Filtering Committee is in charge of the process, but individual judges can also order a web filter to be imposed.”

    Until recently, Iran had stated that due to the logo for the Olympics apparently spelling ‘Zion,'(a Hebrew word used to refer to Israel or Jerusalem) they were not going to participate. In February 2011 the Iranian authorities called for the logo to be withdrawn and the designers “confronted”. However, a follow-up letter later made clear its athletes would still “participate and play gloriously”.

    In the wake of all that has been going on with Iran and their nuclear program, the country has started to further crack down on the internet and how it’s citizens communicate with social media sites such as Twitter.com. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has discussed plans to create a “clean web” within Iran with its own search engine and messaging service.

  • Hasidic Students Use Facebook, Get Slapped With $100 Fine

    Facebook can certainly become a breeding ground for impropriety quicker than you can even spell “impropri–” but those lowbrow kicks usually don’t cost you anything. If you happen to attend an all-girl Hasidic school in a particular Brooklyn neighborhood, though, checking in on the site could land you a fine of one hundred cool ones.

    Beis Rivkah High School in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY, does not approve of the use of Facebook by its female students and, in order to get its disapproval across, fined 33 different students $100 for using the site. But why’s the social networking site so severely frowned upon by the school? According to the New York Daily News, the school’s head administrator and issuer of fines Rabbi Benzion Stock said, “It’s not a modest thing for a Jewish girl — or man or woman or student or father to be on. There is a lack of privacy and dignity.”

    Well, I don’t think anybody could really argue with that – after all, “lack of privacy and dignity” might as well be the motto sewn on the coat of arms for Facebook.

    The school banned the site several years ago and this year went so far as to require every student in the school to sign a formal contract stating that they would not use the site. Stock emphasized the meaning of the contract: “We have an eternal ban. A ban from whenever it started.”

    There is a rainbow at the end of this tear-rained road, though: the $100 will be returned to each penalized student at the end of the school year.

    No word on when the Facebook could be returned, but inferring from Rabbi Stock’s “eternal” measure of the ban, I don’t think eternity has an expiration date. Sorry, kids.

    [Via MSNBC.]

  • China Partially Lifts YouTube Ban – For A Few Minutes, Maybe

    Soon after Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the company’s manufacturing facility in China, the Chinese government appears to have partially lifted the ban on YouTube. Meaning: Tim Cook should visit China more often.

    Actually, China’s authorities peeling back the blockade on YouTube likely had nothing to do with Apple’s CEO. While the Great Firewall has lessened its grip on the online video site, the relaxation of the restrictions are symbolic at best, some government IT official’s mistake at worst.

    The partial lift of the ban allowed internet users within China to access YouTube without the need to use a virtual private network, and they can search videos and read user comments but… they can’t actually watch any of the videos. MIC Gadget, a China-based tech blog, managed to capture a few screenshots of YouTube with the odd restrictions.

    Further, this quasi-unblocking of YouTube might have already expired as several internet users in China are reporting that they cannot access YouTube at all. Instead of still being able to search and see comments on YouTube, users appear to be receiving messages alternating between “The connection has timed out” and “The connection has been reset.” So far, users in Kunshan, Yantai (a Shandong province), Sanya (a Hainan province), Shanghai, and Beijing. Meanwhile, some users in undisclosed areas report that they’re still able to access the site via an HTTPS connection although it’s still the limited non-video version of YouTube.

    This is all very puzzling but, truly, shouldn’t be surprising given the veil of secrecy with which the Chinese government operates behind its fabled Great Firewall. I’d wager that permitting people to only read the comments on YouTube is actually worse than banning the site wholesale. Beyond such a gesture being akin to inviting someone to dinner and then serving them a wicker basket as an entrée, some of those YouTube comments read as if they were written by newly evicted roundworms.

    Perhaps coincidentally, Anonymous defaced several Chinese government websites with instructions on how to bypass the Great Firewall.

    [Via Slashdot.]

  • Despite Ban, Pinterest Still Full Of “Self-Harming” Thinspo Content [UPDATED]

    There’s a lot of stuff on the internet. This might sound obvious, and it is – but just think about how many different ideas are expressed throughout all the little nooks and crannies of the interwebs. It’s inevitable that some stuff out there is going to piss some people off.

    Some of the most recent types of content causing a stir are “pro-ana,” “pro-mia,” and “thinspo” blogs that promote people (admittedly, mostly girls) to stay thin – dangerously thin in the eyes of some. “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels” is the type of advice you might find tagged “thinspo” (short for thinspiration) somewhere online. Plus, you’ll also find images of thin (mostly) women, as they serve as a visual motivator for girls who want to become or stay skinny.

    There are mixed feelings about this sort of thing, as would be expected. Should sites police this type of content? Is it just free speech, like minded people discussing a life choice? Or is is promotion and glorification of harmful activities?

    Earlier this month, super-popular blog platform Tumblr sided with the latter argument. They instituted a policy that disallows users to “post content that actively promotes or glorifies self-harm. This includes content that urges or encourages readers to cut or injure themselves; embrace anorexia, bulimia, or other eating disorders; or commit suicide…”

    Tumblr later clarified that the new policy would only prohibit blogs that were “dedicated to triggering self-harm,” and it wouldn’t affect those that are about discussion of issues like anorexia and bulimia.

    Over the weekend, Pinterest followed suit. On a blog post last Friday, they announced that they had updated their Acceptable Use Policy in order to not allow “pins that explicitly encourage self-harm of self-abuse.”

    The actual new provision to the policy reads that users cannot post content that “creates a risk of harm, loss, physical or mental injury, emotional distress, death, disability, disfigurement, or physical or mental illness to yourself, to any other person, or to any animal.”

    Many have said that Pinterest bowed to the pressure of those that are against “thinspo” content. One of the main critiques that caught fire was a March 19th article on Jezebel called “The Scary, Weird World of Pinterest Thinspo Boards.” That article quoted someone from the National Eating Disorders Association that broke down why Pinterest was such a good place for Thinspo to reside:

    Pinterest is a format that’s attractive to the pro-ana community because it’s both visual and highly interactive; young women (and some men) suffering from an eating disorder or teetering on the brink of disorder crave the unique combination of visibility and anonymity offered by the site. Pinterest users can swap photos of their most enviable shoulder blades in a supportive “community” of like-minded people, but because it’s on the internet they can do it from behind the protection of an anonymous handle.

    So, advocates of sites banning this type of content can rejoice at Pinterest‘s decision, right? Wrong, at least so far. Mashable points out that thinspo pins and board are still alive and well all over Pinterest.

    And it’s true. A quick search for thinspo within Pinterest yields tons of images of thin girls, motivational images with text like “You will regret eating that cookie, you will not regret running that mile” and “unless you puke, faint, or die, keep going.” These aren’t just ramdom pins, as there are also still plenty of boards left devoted to nothing but thinspo – many of them have hundreds of followers.

    I’m truly of mixed mind about this. I completely see the problem with blogs or pinboards dedicated to making sure girls stay thin. Not that thin girls are a problem, mind you, but because in the context of “thinspo” or “pro ana,” the practices that are encouraged to help them get/stay thin are unhealthy. There is a lot of variety on pins tagged thinspo on Pinterest, however. Many of the images, motivational posters, etc. aren’t promoting anorexia or bulimia specifically. Many promote exercise, and although some may be a little extreme, who should tell people that they are exercising too hard (besides maybe a doctor)?

    Not all of the images of girls taged thinspo are too thin either. Of course, this is not a scientific statement and I don’t know the girls’ weight or BMI, but the eye test tells me that many of the girls in the images aren’t unhealthy.

    Some of the images are scary though. And even the images that seems rather innocuous, when put into the context of a thinspo board, become helpers to an unhealthy (read anorexic) lifestyle. And i think that context has as much to do with it than anything.

    What do you think about thinspo content, and sities like Tumblr and Pinterest‘s decision to ban it? Are you concerned that this content still exists on Pinterest, even after they updated their policies? Let us know in the comments.

    UPDATE: We’ve received the following statement from a Pinterest spokesperson:

    Pinterest relies on its community to help identify and flag offensive content. Once offensive content has been reported, Pinterest reviews it on a case-by-case basis and immediately removes any pin that violates the Terms of Service, Acceptable Use Policy or Pin Etiquette.

    Basically, they’ll come down when they’re reported. Last night, I spoke to an avid Pinterest user who said that over the weekend, they’ve personally noticed that the amount of thinspo pins (especially images of thin women) present on the site was far less than last week.

  • British MPs Want Google To Self-Censor Search Results

    A gang of parliament members are currently trying to convince the British government to introduce legislation that would essentially charge Google with the herculean task of censoring search results from containing material that a court deems is a violation of somebody’s privacy. The Members of Parliament, or MPs, basically think Google controls the internet and have therefore published a how-to manual for what Google should do to reel in some search results.

    Part of the MPs thinking stems from this guy, Max Mosley, who, in the grand tradition of Republican primary presidential candidate Rick Santorum, has something of a Google problem. He doesn’t like it and has in fact spent some considerable resources in numerous countries to remove evidence of a private video of his that was leaked to the internet. But really, he and now these MPs think that Google should be the one cleaning up the internet.

    It’s a slippery request the MPs are asking for because binding Google to remove all search results of material deemed to have been shared via someone’s privacy breach would assuredly open up a can of wormy litigation from all fronts.

    Rebuking the criticism of the MPs, Google argued that filtered search results would “threaten the unfettered flow of information online.” More specifically, were Google required to ban search results that were deemed by a court to violate someone’s privacy, how far would the waves caused by that heavy stone ripple across the internet? One would have to assume that, at least in some way, court-mandated search filters would practically neuter Google’s Search Plus Your World, the company’s personalized integration that includes content like Google+ profiles and photos into search results.

    Google already complies with courts whenever pages are deemed unlawful, but this sort of moderation could take censoring Google to wild new frontiers. Can you even conceive of what extensive work would be required to remove a single strand of data from all Google results? I mean, take for example if that Kardashian girl decided she wanted footage of that flour bombing (or other internet things she’s known for…) removed from Google’s search results? Not only would such an arduous task be highly regressive but would it even be possible given how the internet has been designed?

    More, if Google is found to be responsible for filtering and moderating the content found on its search results, we can presume that such a mandate would apply to Google’s sites, like YouTube. A legal precedent asserting that Google is responsible for the content uploaded by users of its sites could also have really punishing ramifications for Google in its legal battle with Viacom.

    And then the internet just all goes to hell from there, really.

    (Via The Guardian.)