WebProNews

Tag: censorship

  • Two Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block Web Sites

    Two Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block Web Sites

    Dutch ISPs are fighting the good fight for net freedom by keeping access to Web sites like the The Pirate Bay open.

    Torrent Freak is reporting that two large ISPs in the Netherlands, T-Mobile and KPN, are refusing to block access to The Pirate Bay after the Hollywood supported anti-piracy group BREIN demanded they restrict access. The ISPs said that blocking Web sites is a threat to the open Internet.

    As you may or may not be aware, the Court of the Hague ruled that Ziggo and XS4ALL, the two largest ISPs in the Netherlands, have to block access to The Pirate Bay.

    After the ruling, XS4ALL was quoted as saying they were disappointed that fundamental rights had been traded for “commercial interests.”

    BREIN brought the case against those two ISPs, but they weren’t finished yet. They issued requests to other ISPs in the country to block access to the torrent site.

    KPN and T-Mobile both made statements saying that they would not be honoring BREIN’s request. Torrent Freak says that this means millions of Internet users in the Netherlands can still access The Pirate Bay without the use of proxies.

    They both spoke out against censorship and said that they would only block access following a court order. They told Hollywood that innovation is a better way to deal with piracy than straight out censorship.

    KPN said that they don’t believe a blockade is the right solution, but “robust, attractive business models that are easy to use and offer a fair deal to both producers and consumers of content.”

    T-Mobile made a similar statement saying that they will only respond to a court ruling, and not the demands from a “private party such as BREIN.”

    BREIN is expected to bring the two ISPs to court over their refusal to block access to the site.

    It makes you wonder if these anti-piracy groups even get that what they’re doing has no effect. We’ve seen it time and time again. You censor a Web site and users get around it with little to no effort.

    You would think that Hollywood would finally learn to innovate and remain competitive instead of just suing everything that remotely threatens their business model from the 20th century.

  • Twitter: Thailand First To Endorse Censorship Policy

    Twitter: Thailand First To Endorse Censorship Policy

    It looks like a country is already welcoming Twitter’s new censorship policy with open arms.

    Thailand was the first country to announce that they would be taking advantage of Twitter’s new policy to police tweets that would be offensive or break the law in their country. The Washington Post is reporting that the country’s technology minister, Anudith Nakornthap, said the new policy was a “constructive” development.

    Nakornthap said it was good that Twitter is cooperating with governments to make sure basic rights are not violated through social media.

    What basic rights are being protected? Thailand has already blocked over a thousand websites that contain anti-monarchy content since December. We can only assume that they will be doing the same with tweets.

    It’s only a matter of time before more countries jump on board the censorship wagon. Good thing Twitter already has a work around to remove that pesky censorship.

  • Is Twitter Censorship Being Pushed By A Saudi Prince?

    Is Twitter Censorship Being Pushed By A Saudi Prince?

    Did a Saudi Prince’s investment in Twitter have anything to do with the recent Twitter censorship announcement? Most of Twitter’s users seems to think so.

    As we reported back in December, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal purchased a stake in Twitter at $300 million. At the time, the purchase was described by Talal as being “a suitable opportunity to invest in promising, high-growth businesses with global impact.”

    Talal owns Kingdom Holdings Company. The company owns stakes in Apple, Time Warner, Citigroup, Pepsi, General Motors, Walt Disney and News Corp. Twitter was the first social media giant that Talal saw fit to invest in.

    There was already some speculation back in December that the move was an act of self-preservation with one analyst saying that he was using the Twitter investment to prevent any further revolutions in the region.

    Twitter users have latched onto the news and are squarely pointing the blame at Talal as the reason behind the recent change in Twitter’s policy.

    Thinking out aloud: has #TwitterCensored got anything to do with Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal investing $300m into twitter a few weeks ago 11 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

    ‘Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has made a $300 million investment in Twitter’. Do try to join the dots people. 5 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    You’d be niave to not see a connection between Twitter’s geo-specific censorship & Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal $300 million investment in Dec.6 hours ago via web | powered by @socialditto

    Was #TwitterCensored‏ the idea of alwaleed bin talal after his 300mil infusion??? 7 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    #Twitter plans to censor Tweets from “Certain Countries”. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has invested $300mil on Twitter.. #Justsaying 8 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Did Twitter decide to apply localized censorship due to pressure from Prince Talal? We’ll most likely never know.

    Do you think Talal’s investment in Twitter led to their new policy? Or is this all just one big conspiracy theory? Tell us in the comments.

  • Twitter Should Embrace Openness, Not Censorship

    Twitter Should Embrace Openness, Not Censorship

    As we reported and as you all are most likely aware of by now, Twitter will begin censoring tweets.

    The idea of censoring tweets does raise a few concerns, especially among those who used it in revolutionary protests last year in the Middle East. It’s still being used by different factions within activist and protest groups to spread the word on events and actions taking place.

    I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but just take a look at @YourAnonNews. They are tweeting announcements of protests, where to meet up, the time they are taking place, etc. The problem arises if and when a country asks Twitter to remove these tweets to throw protest movements into disarray.

    Heck, a major reason the ACTA protests in Europe are being successful is because of Twitter’s influence. Multiple Twitter accounts are coordinating their efforts to create protests today in Warsaw, Poland; Brussels, Belgium and other cities across Europe.

    protest today Friday 27th in Warsaw, starts at 5 p.m. #AntiActa 4 hours ago via Twitter for Android · powered by @socialditto

    #AntiACTA protest tomorrow Saturday 28th in Brussels http://t.co/0sIsKEmi #Anonymous 4 hours ago via Twitter for Android · powered by @socialditto

    The story we ran today on Polish politicians wearing Guy Fawkes masks was retweeted over and over again giving solidarity and hope to the protesters. Under Twitter’s new censorship guidelines, it could all swept under the rug.

    Speaking to WebProNews, Anonymous Sweden said that they can absolutely see European governments blocking access to protestor tweets to stifle the movements against ACTA.

    The move comes at a time where Twitter wants to expand internationally and with these new tools may be able to convince China to let them in. The need to selectively censor tweets after seeing this is pretty obvious. It would expand their business and allow them to grow far more rapidly.

    One must wonder, however, if Twitter is putting their own interests ahead of the “positive global impact” that they themselves see Twitter having.

    The reaction to Twitter’s announcement was pretty strong, but expected. Of course, the Internet took off right away to get #TwitterCensored trending to make a statement to the social media giant that it wouldn’t stand for it.

    #TwitterCensored needs to know that when internet was cut off in Egypt, more people decided to go on the street and protest. 8 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    We only came to Twitter in order to speak freely to everyone. If we can’t, there’s no reason for us to stay. #TwitterCensored 8 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Prediction: Censoring Twitter won’t preempt revolutions, it will accelerate revolutions. Show your true faces, tyrants. #TwitterCensored 10 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Dear @Twitter, You’re going to censor your own site and assist with oppression around the globe? #TwitterCensored #BloodOnHands 17 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Most using the hashtag #TwitterCensored are unsurprisingly from Arab nations who used the social networking tool to organize protests last year.

    On top of that, Twitter users are also using the hashtag #TwitterBlackout to pledge their support to a campaign centered around not tweeting Saturday, January 28.

    #TwitterBlackout – I WILL NOT TWEET on Saturday Jan 28th for the whole day. #TwitterCensored #j28 — lets roll! #RT #Share to support 11 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Right now, the only tweets being reported are DMCA takedown notices. You can view the reported tweets at Chilling Effects.

    In Twitter’s defense, it’s encouraging that they are making this whole process as transparent as they possibly can. They do say, however, that they have no obligation to tell users that a tweet was taken down if they are “legally prohibited from doing so.”

    It’s also encouraging that they are moving with the selective country censorship instead of a global take down of offending tweets. This makes the process easier to get around in a loophole as we’ve previously reported on.

    At the end of the day, it’s just discouraging to see Twitter enact a policy like this. They claim that their value as a company is to “defend and respect each user’s voice.” If they did respect their voices, there wouldn’t be a policy like this in the first place. There’s a reason why people are upset and it’s aimed squarely at what they perceive as a violation of their freedom of speech.

    Twitter obviously doesn’t seem think so. Their blog post makes it seem as if they are only going to censor tweets that are offensive as hate speech or infringe copyright. Even if you don’t agree with it, hate speech is protected under some governments. The Internet, despite numerous attempts by governments to exert their power over it, is still very much a free forum for people to discuss their ideals, even nasty ideals that the majority doesn’t agree with it.

    The “marketplace of ideas” is a concept that should be familiar to law students as it was used in Justice Holmes’ dissent in Abrams vs. United States. The idea is that the genuinely good ideas and speech will become favorable while offensive and infringing speech will die.

    Twitter would be wise to take that into account with their new policy. Instead of trying to police all the users on their service, let what comes natural take place. Sure, there will be infringing and offensive tweets, but they mostly never trend. If you look at any trending page on most days, you’ll see ideas being shared between users that can enrich their lives and alert them to topics that are important to society as a whole.

    Even if Twitter’s censorship amounts to nothing more than censoring offensive images in countries where they are banned, it still sets a disturbing precedent that would give more credence to other services’ efforts to stifle free speech.

    Even if Twitter moves ahead with its plans and it turns out to be the worst case scenario, the Internet would still be a place of free expression. As John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, “The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”

    Do you see any concern in Twitter censoring tweets by country? Or is this just the concern of worst case scenario theorists? Let us know in the comments.

  • More Voters Worry About Censorship Than Piracy

    In the midst of the ongoing controversy surrounding SOPA and PIPA, it may be wise to take a step back and see what the average voter thinks about issues like piracy and internet censorship. That’s exactly what Rasmussen Reports has done recently, and the results of their study are interesting.

    Over two-thirds of likely U.S. voters (67%) responded that they viewed the downloading of content without paying for it as theft. Fifteen percent weren’t sure, and 18% said it was not. In that case, a law designed to curb online piracy should be a good thing, right? Not so, according to the survey. While most agree that piracy is theft, even more respondents – 71% – answered that they felt that internet censorship was a greater threat than piracy.

    This survey suggests that voters agree with what SOPA’s opponents have been saying all along: piracy is bad, and something should be done about it, but neither SOPA nor PIPA is the something that should be done. A good anti-piracy solution is necessary, but censoring the internet is not the way to go about it.

  • Censored Twitter? No Worries, There’s A Workaround

    Censored Twitter? No Worries, There’s A Workaround

    Are you worried about Twitter’s news that they are going to begin censoring tweets in certain countries? Worry not as there is an easy workaround.

    Twitter posted a handy FAQ about their new “country withheld content” guidelines. In it, it lays out what the format of censored tweets and accounts will look like. The policy seems to affect countries that have rules about offensive content like the example of pro-Nazi tweets in Germany. Even in those cases, Twitter will inform users that the tweet has been censored instead of removing it with no explanation.

    twittercensor

    The final part of the FAQ is where things get interesting. In the section titled, “How do you know where I am? What is Twitter has misidentified my country?,” they say that your IP address is what determines your country. You can, however, change your country if Twitter gets it wrong.

    The Next Web is reporting that changing the country in your account settings to a “free” country like the U.S. or U.K. will bypass the censorship tool. Users were able to select worldwide to bypass the the censoring, but it reverts back to your IP selected country when chosen now.

    twitteruk

    As you can see here, I have changed my country to the U.K. and Twitter does not change my country back to the U.S. even though it did when I tried changing it to Worldwide.

    It remains to be seen if Twitter will change this loophole. The Next Web speculates that Twitter is well aware of this loophole, but is letting it slide to allow Twitter to remain the tool of change in many countries where it was used in revolutions last year.

  • Twitter May Selectively Censor Local Tweets Yet Permit Them Globally

    Shortly after the start of the January 25 protests in Egypt last year, a movement where activists removed their sitting president and arguable lit the fuse for the Arab Spring that would burn throughout 2011, Twitter made an announcement:

    The open exchange of information can have a positive global impact. This is both a practical and ethical belief. On a practical level, we simply cannot review all one hundred million-plus Tweets created and subsequently delivered every day. From an ethical perspective, almost every country in the world agrees that freedom of expression is a human right. Many countries also agree that freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits.

    Our position on freedom of expression carries with it a mandate to protect our users’ right to speak freely and preserve their ability to contest having their private information revealed.

    It was well-placed statement given that many news sources speculated on how Twitter’s service facilitated the Egyptian (and subsequent) protests; opportunistic, even, as Twitter wrapped itself in the banner of Free Speech and cried, “Sally forth, citizens of the world. Get your freedom on!”

    Twitter stated earlier this week that they were branching into services for other languages such as Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew. On a date that is so significant for so many in the Middle East, it was hard not to conceptualize the timing of the announcement as a self-acknowledging wink at Twitter’s role, however major or minor, in the organization of protesters over the past year.

    In a post on their official blog today, Twitter acknowledged that as they continue to move into culturally different regions of the world, some of what they can permit to be said through their service will be challenged by conflicting mores and tenets of freedom of expression. Given that, Twitter said today:

    Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.

    We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld.

    So, if I’m understanding this correctly: someone in Egypt tweets something that violates a cultural or political restriction on free speech, so Twitter receives a request to remove it. Twitter now has self-applied the power to selectively remove the Tweet from view within Egypt, yet the rest of the world will still be able to read the tweet?

    I really hope that’s what Twitter means by this news. Please let this be what this means, Twitter.

    So what do you think about Twitter’s new elective powers for selectively censoring tweets where they violate freedom of expression laws but still make them available outside of that country? Anybody have any thoughts on what kind of implications people could see as a result of this new policy? Comment below with your thoughts.

  • SOPA Blackout: TorrentFreak ******s Its ******* In Protest

    TorrentFreak is joining the, well, torrent of websites that are blacking out in protest of SOPA today. While some, like Wikipedia and Reddit, are blacking out completely, many are showing their support in other ways. TorrentFreak, a site that specializes in new from the world of filesharing, shows users a blacked out site with a dialogue box asking them to help save the internet. Users who agree to save the internet are taken to a site that helps them send a letter to their Congressional representatives. Those who click “Meh” are taken on to TorrentFreak’s uncensored site, where they are greeted by a flashing yellow and pink banner encouraging them to stop censorship. Clicking the banner takes them to the same contact page.

    TorrentFreak's Stop Censorship Banner

    While TorrentFreak could easily be accused of preaching to the choir with its protest, the inclusion of an option to contact users’ Senators and Representatives is perhaps the cleverest part. It provides a direct link for those who might not otherwise get involved in the political process to express their opposition to the legislation with nothing more than a few keystrokes and a couple clicks of their mouse.

  • Facebook, Google Challenge India Prosecution

    Late last week we brought you news that the government of India had sanctioned prosecution of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others for their refusal to remove objectionable content from search and social networking sites. The High Court of India refused requests from the companies to stay the proceedings, and threatened that the sites could be blocked in India just as they are blocked in China if they refuse to remove content the government sees as offensive.

    In response to a complaint by a journalist, Vinay Rai, the court ordered the sites to remove all anti-religious and anti-social content. The court set a deadline of February 6th. Representatives of Facebook and Google in India have repeatedly insisted that the kind of censorship the government is asking for is simply not possible, considering the vast amounts of content on the companies’ sites.

    Requests for comment sent to Facebook and Google have not yet received responses. Google’s press office appears to be closed for the national holiday.

    [Source: Hindustan Times]

  • India Pursues Prosecution of Facebook, Microsoft, and Google

    The Indian government has initiated legal proceedings against a number of search, social networking, and technology companies. The government found sufficient cause to pursue prosecution of the companies for refusing to regulate offensive content. Ten of the 21 companies are based outside India. These include Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, and YouTube. The companies are required to present themselves to the court at a hearing on March 13th.

    The government of India made worldwide news early last month when it was revealed that Kapil Sibal, India’s minister of telecommunications, was planning to meet with representatives from several tech and social media companies in order to request that they pre-screen and censor “offensive” content from their sites. Facebook and Google, which were among the companies asked to censor their content, responded that they would enforce their terms of service and abide by the law, but no more. Meanwhile, in response to the storm of criticism generated around the world by news of his office’s meetings, Sibal denied that his office had requested censorship of political content. He insisted that the only content he wanted removed was that which would be offensive to the religious sensibilities of the Indian people.

    [Source: IBN Live]

  • [Exclusive] Google: Our position on China remains unchanged

    A Google spokesperson tells WebProNews, “Our position on China remains unchanged.”

    That’s just in case there was any confusion from the Wall Street Journal report “Google Softens Tone on China”.

    It’s hard to believe it’s been two years since Google threatened to pull out of China, before ultimately redirecting Google.cn to its Hong Kong site. Google assures us the redirect will remain in place.

    It’s not as if Google has completely abandoned China. The company reportedly has over 500 employees there (though it was closer to 700 before Google pulled search out). According to the Wall Street Journal now, however, Google is looking to ramp up its presence in the country, focusing on products that don’t bring censorship from the Chinese government – especially Android. The report says Google is hiring more engineers, salespeople and product managers in the country.

    The publication interviewed Google’s top exec in Asia, Daniel Alegre, who reportedly says one of the company’s goals is to introduce the Android Market to the Chinese market, in addition to beefing up its product search service.

    Google has been pretty up front about the need to remain in China since pulling the search engine out of the country. Alan Eustace, Google’s SVP of Engineering Research called China the “heart” of the future of the Internet in late 2010.

    It does appear that Google considers China to be an incredibly important market, and the search censorship issue is an unfortunate obstacle, particularly as Google integrates its products with one another. The more Google expands in China, the greater this problem could become.

  • Reddit Black Out On 01/18 To Protest PIPA / SOPA

    Reddit Black Out On 01/18 To Protest PIPA / SOPA

    Reddit announced that it will be blacking out its site for 12 hours on 01-18 from 8AM – 8PM EST.

    The Reddit Team says in a blog post:

    Instead of the normal glorious, user-curated chaos of reddit, we will be displaying a simple message about how the PIPA/SOPA legislation would shut down sites like reddit, link to resources to learn more, and suggest ways to take action. We will showcase the live video stream of the House hearing where Internet entrepreneurs and technical experts (including reddit co-founder Alexis “kn0thing” Ohanian) will be testifying. We will also spotlight community initiatives like meetups to visit Congressional offices, campaigns to contact companies supporting PIPA/SOPA, and other tactics.

    We’re as addicted to reddit as the rest of you. Many of you stand with us against PIPA/SOPA, but we know support for a blackout isn’t unanimous. We’re not taking this action lightly. We wouldn’t do this if we didn’t believe this legislation and the forces behind it were a serious threat to reddit and the Internet as we know it. Blacking out reddit is a hard choice, but we feel focusing on a day of action is the best way we can amplify the voice of the community.

    We reported earlier on Ohanian’s testimony. He will be joined by:

    Stewart Baker Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

    Brad Burnham: Partner, Union Square Ventures

    Daniel Kaminsky: Security Researcher and Fortune 500 Advisor

    Mr. Michael Macleod-Ball: Chief of Staff/First Amendment Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union

    Lanham Napier Chief Executive Officer, Rackspace Hosting

    Dr. Leonard Napolitano: Director, Center for Computer Sciences & Information Technology Sandia National Laboratories

    Wikipedia is also considering a blackout.

  • No More World Wide Web in Iran?

    Iran may be in the process of switching off the Internet as we know it and switching over to an nationwide “intranet” that is controlled and approved by their cleric-run government.

    Farnaz Fassihi reported in the WallStreet Journal today that Tehran is tightening its control on the citizenry by requiring that Internet cafe owners install surveillance cameras within fifteen days. They will also be required to “start collecting detailed personal information on customers and document users’ online footprints.”

    Fassihi reports:

    “The new rules on cybercafes, issued by the Cyber Police and published Wednesday in several Iranian newspapers, require customers at the cafes to provide their name, father’s name, address, telephone and national identification numbers before logging on. The venues must install security cameras that will let the government match users to the computer they used. They also must log each user’s browsing history, including the IP addresses of every Internet page visited. This data, along with the video images, must be saved for six months and provided to the Cyber Police on demand, according to the regulation.”

    Internet users in Iran have reported unusual activities this week, including blocked sites, barriers to accessing social-networking services, and generally slow service connections.

    The general feeling is that Iran has been readying a conversion to there “halal” (religiously approved) Internet service that will “insulate its citizens from Western ideology and un-Islamic culture, and eventually replace the Internet” entirely.

    Iran has long been a place of controversy, silencing dissenters and rigging elections. In 2009, Tehran launched the Cyber Police – the sort of thing that only appears in sci-fi thriller films in the Western world. It is a task force from various security arms of the Tehran government that has trained a quarter of a million agents.

    In other words, Iran has it’s own Department of Homeland Security with its sights set on the Internet. But, they’ve enlisted the support of regular citizens, for pay.

    The government is reportedly paying people $7/hour to post positive comments online about the government and to flame those who post negative comments. Some 2,000 bloggers have been trained as Cyber Army staff.

  • U.S. Gov’t Wants To Censor Twitter

    U.S. Gov’t Wants To Censor Twitter

    EFF published an article earlier today detailing the U.S. government’s growing demand that Twitter shut down accounts that are affiliated with alleged terrorists. Citing several recent incidences in which government officials have pressured Twitter to censor tweets and accounts, EFF applauds Twitter’s resistance to comply with the demands:

    Twitter is right to resist. If the U.S. were to pressure Twitter to censor tweets by organizations it opposes, even those on the terrorist lists, it would join the ranks of countries like India, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Syria, Uzbekistan, all of which have censored online speech in the name of “national security.” And it would be even worse if Twitter were to undertake its own censorship regime, which would have to be based upon its own investigations or relying on the investigations of others that certain account holders were, in fact, terrorists.

    The government has been fairly presumptuous about the reach of their authority when it comes the issue of censoring Twitter accounts (and the Internet in general, really) they think pose a danger to national security. An article published last month in The New York Times reported that government officials audaciously believe that “they may have the legal authority to demand that Twitter close” accounts they deem to be associated with suspected terrorists.

    EFF goes on in the article to recount multiple examples of the U.S. government’s attempt to cajole Twitter into removing the “terrorist” tweets and accounts. As if the imminent domain complexities weren’t bad enough when exercised in the physical world but now the government is apparently trying to flex those muscles over here in cyberspace. EFF sums up the fixation of government officials on alleged terrorists’ Twitter accounts by expressing their hope that “the U.S. government has better things to do than to upend Constitutional law and proceed with unprecedented censorship over a Twitter account that gets into Internet flame wars and professes a love for caramel macchiatos” (one of the Twitter accounts the U.S. government has singled out contains posts about the wonders of the delicious coffee beverage).

    This reminds me of that fad in the 19th century when, if ever a newspaper published some unflattering or damning information about a group, it was de rigueur for the defamed parties to go smash up the printing press that produced the newspaper. The act of political vandalism didn’t work then – obviously, or else we wouldn’t still know about it – and it won’t work with the printing press’s journalistic descendent, the Internet. Society’s utterly clueless commitment to repeat history never ceases to astound.

  • [Exclusive] Can Hackers Create a SOPA-Proof Internet?

    [Exclusive] Can Hackers Create a SOPA-Proof Internet?

    What’s the shortest distance between two points? If you said a straight line, then you just earned a self-high five.

    We here at WebProNews we have already given you a guide on how to navigate the post-SOPA Internet, but suppose there was an alternative that would obviate any need to even deal with an Internet burdened with the bureaucratic cangue of the United States government. In other words, what if you could use a different Internet altogether?

    What if there were two Internets? Is freedom of speech and access to information important enough to you that you’d hop aboard a user-created and -controlled Internet? Does SOPA scare you that much? Let us know in the comments below.

    If one is to ever exist, the architects of that straight line to Internet freedom will be Hackerspace Global Grid, a cabal of hackers that have taken up the cause of creating a satellite-based communication network that would be capable of establishing an “uncensorable” Internet. It’s just one of the many goals of their ambitious project to pioneer a global grass-roots space program. Think of it as an open-source outer space mission.

    It all started in August at the Chaos Community Camp when Nick Farr issued a call to hackers to begin planning to build an Internet that couldn’t be censored by any government, citing the possibility of a SOPA’ed Internet as to why hackers – and everybody, really – should have an Internet unencumbered by censorship. HGG responded with the proposal of creating a satellite-based network capable of “defense against terrestrial censorship of the Internet.”

    While HGG states that an alternate Internet incapable of being censored is one possible utilization of such an ambitious project, it’s just one of the many uses from a distributed satellite ground-station network. Essentially, it’s a communication network that puts an emphasis on an open-source community of technology development. While there are numerous goals with undertaking this satellite-for-hackers project, the first goal of Farr’s is to establish a resistance against Internet censorship. “The first goal is an uncensorable Internet in Space,” Farr told BBC. “Let’s take the Internet out of the control of terrestrial entities.”

    So how will this ambitious goal of hacking outer space pan out? Two members of the HGG team, hadez and Andreas Hornig, spoke with WebProNews about how this mission developed and where it will go. As mentioned above, this call to arms is “a direct answer to Nick Farr, Lars Weiler, and Jens Ohlig’s call for a ‘Hacker Space Program,” said hadez.

    Hornig, who is actually more of an engineer than card-carrying hacker, adds, “Members of our two groups, shackspace and Constellation (me), came together and joined efforts. For my side I had an idea about a distributed ground-station network for my group and my university. I asked in HAM radio boards for help and a shackspace member found me and invited me to the shackspace, because I’m in their proximity. Because both groups share a lot of goals and we knew the project’s tasks are very challenging, we joined forces and combined our objectives and technical goals.”

    And speaking of that collaborative effort required to succeed on far-reaching projects, some readers out there might be wondering how on earth (oh, the pun) can a group of private individuals possibly hope to finance a mission to essentially colonize space? Hornig and hadez welcome any contributions to HGG’s cause since, as you can imagine, this is going to eventually tally up a pricey bill. “We’re open for any support because this project is ambitious,” Hornig said. hadez estimates that the group is “still below 500 EUR in total at this point largely thanks to the fact that there’s a lot of infrastructure present at thelocal hackerspace ‘shackspace’ in Stuttgart, Germany which we can use.” While that’s a good start, the pair admits, “There will be a point where a more significant investment will have to be made, especially once we’re going to build more than a few initial ground stations. We have not yet made any decision whether to ask for funding or who to ask.”

    Both members of HGG are adamant about maintaining the focus of the project on keeping the system open to both users and contributors while not compromising the goal with monetary contributions. hadez explains, “The core objective is building a fully open system (hardware, software, documentation) and keeping it that way. Funding which does not interfere with this goal and leaves us the same freedom we have currently would be a possibility.” Hornig emphasized the importance of the open-source aspect, saying, “We will rely on volunteers all over the world forming our global sensor and station grid (via Constellation) and higher costs for the hardware will result in less volunteers.”

    Everybody got this? Not only will everybody have Internet freedom but it’s going to be coming from space. It’s like a Choose Your Own Adventure, Future Edition. But before everybody gets ahead of themselves there, lets make sure everybody’s on the same page: this communication system isn’t going to support the bandwidth you’d need to stream the final season of Arrested Development in HD. The FAQ from HGG explains:

    If you’re in desperate need to communicate you do not care about watching videos on YouTube nor do you want to download the latest album of your favorite band to have the perfect soundtrack for whatever the hell you’re doing. You want to get a message out and receive updates. You want to inform and stay informed yourself. A first step will be providing bare-minimum communication infrastructure for that moment of feaco-rotary intersection that will hopefully never happen. But it did happen, several times during 2011 alone in several places. It will happen again.

    Think twitter updates, not video streaming.

    While the Internet capability is one of HGG’s many goals, Hornig points out that their broader mission is to create a “fusion” between science and society. “The sensor grid allows us to do research in various fields and communication could also be possible as a side effect,” he said. “Especially in aerospace a lot of people think, ‘What is it good for?’ and they forget that they use space technology all the time, like satellite navigation in their cars and cell-phones, weather forecasts and HD-channels via satellite-TV. But they just use it, they are not an essential part. In HGG they can be part and, even more important, they are relevant for the system in general.”

    At any rate, HGG doesn’t want to rule out “high-bandwidth links and geo-stationary community controlled satellites” in the future, but for now this would be an incredible gift to society. And before any of you start feeling deflated about this limitation: stop. Allay any of your first-world disappointments because this is a bigger deal than some people may appreciate. Recall when Egypt’s government “turned off” the Internet last January or when Syria tried to suppress users of iPhones or even China’s Great Firewall – all of these obstacles could potentially be circumvented by HGG’s project. And even here in the United States where a Congressional gerontocracy would limit the expression of speech and access to information via SOPA or PIPA, how far behind is the spectre of a total shutdown of the Internet?

    That possibility is a big If (hopefully), but if it becomes a real possibility, people like HGG will be your new best friends.

    So, do you think it’ll work? I know it sounds like The Future, but can individual hackers and scientists work together to really create a sustainable communication network that would support an alternate Internet? How do you think private industries would respond to such a bold endeavor? Let us know in the comments below

  • MySpace Tom: Google Doesn’t Want Google+ To Become A Cesspool Like MySpace

    Tom Anderson, the guy who was everybody’s friend on MySpace (by default), has weighed in on the whole Google censoring profile photos discussion. He’s never had any trouble with his iconic profile pic.

    Said discussion began this week when tech writer MG Siegler put up a blog post discussing Google deleting his photo (of himself flipping off the camera). We wrote about this, talking about the broader reasoning for Google doing this, which is search.).

    Anderson, with his experience at MySpace has a perspective about the whole thing that those of us who have not worked for popular social networking services just don’t have, and he clearly thinks Google+ is succeeding where MySpace failed. Here’s an excerpt from his post (where he calls MySpace a cesspool):

    All Google+ has done here is execute on its stated plan: removing offensive photos. This is Facebook’s plan, Twitter’s plan and MySpace’s before it. When you’re processing hundreds of thousands of photos a day (and in Facebook’s case, millions a day), it’s not easy to spot such material (even with algorithms). It’s not that Google+ has decided to do things differently, it’s just that they’re ahead of the game and doing things better. (As they are also doing with their spam detection and removal algorithms. I don’t know what you’re seeing, but they catch and hide 95% of the spam comments that appear on my posts.)

    In any case, I would respectfully submit that we, the users of Google+ (and Facebook or Twitter) don’t need to see you flipping us off, nor do we need to see you naked, or displaying something else generally considered offensive. When a social network let’s that stuff slide, it turns into a cesspool that no one wants to visit… sorta like MySpace was.

    It was very difficult @ MySpace to keep up with the “offensive” photos, and we had decent technology and many warm bodies on the case. (In fact, I’d guess the average person would be shocked how much time and resources we had to put into trying to stop that.) Your suggestion that you should get “warned” is too time-consuming. You want someone to check up on you and make sure you complied with the warning? The limited resources Google could use for something like that would be better spent giving human interaction to questions on how to use the service, technical troubles, etc. Things that seem simple are not as soon as you have 10s of millions of users.

    And Google+’s user base is growing rapidly if reports and estimates are to be believed. In fact, Google says some upcoming announcements about user growth will shock people.

    By the way, I’m glad to see Tom still capitalizing the S in MySpace.

  • China’s Great Firewall Begets Alternate Facebook, Twitter

    What’s a global superpower without a little home-grown social media sprinkled in the mix? In the United States and Western Europe, services like Facebook and Twitter are as common in household nomenclature as toilet paper and driveways. As China continues to increase its influence on the global stage, it has seen a boom in social media use with odd alternate reality versions of services like Facebook and Twitter. Anyone reading this article is likely familiar with the following homepage:

    and so even though you probably can’t read the content on this next site you’ll at least recognize it for what it probably is:

    The second picture is from the website Renren, China’s equivalent to Facebook. It’s funny how even the user interface are somewhat literal mirrors of each other. Again, in another crude study, here is a site you probably have heard of:

    and then the Chinese counterpart, Weibo:

    It’s as if one of those comic book-style stories of a parallel world (limited to the social media world, in this case) splintered off of the one we know and grew alongside of ours in its own distinct yet familiar direction. So why might China have developed their own national equivalents of popular social media sites when Facebook and Twitter are available and already offer their sites in Chinese? In a word: censorship.

    China is notorious for micro-managing the content on social media sites so, instead of butted heads with the likes of Facebooks and Twitters, it makes sense to simply block those sites altogether and launch a indigenous version like Renren and Weibo. All of this is a part of the ominously sounding Golden Shield Project, or more commonly, The Great Firewall, that the Chinese government has implemented in order to control the flow of information among social media sites. The Diplomat describes a little about how it works:

    These services are then required to have automated or manual monitoring and censorship mechanisms in place to quickly identify and delete user-generated postings or disable accounts that run afoul of the Communist Party’s ever-changing censorship red lines. It’s a daily reality for Chinese bloggers, academics, activists, and even ordinary users to discover a posting deleted, their account locked, or their “friends” unable to view what they have just shared.

    But in the same way this microblogging service can enable commerce, entertainment and personal communication, it’s also increasingly used to share information and commentary unwelcome to the ruling Communist Party. To keep pace, Sina Weibo reportedly employs some 700 people to perform around the clock monitoring of millions of tweets.

    700 people just to monitor the tweets! People write such insipid things on Twitter that I my eyeballs would probably try to climb out of my skull if I had to read all of them in order to purge a some comments that didn’t flatter the government. China’s own citizens are often in the dark about major political events happening in their own country, such as “the muzzled Wukan revolt, the democratic ambitions of the Arab Spring protestors are absent” while “Liu Xiaobo’s 2010 Nobel Peace Prize is hidden from view, and the U.S. Embassy in Beijing’s efforts to discuss Hillary Clinton’s speech with Chinese microbloggers are deleted.”

    While there may be much to complain about in the western world, it is refreshing to be reminded that we can at least lambaste our political figures without having the digital duct tape slapped across our face. That would really diminish the good times enjoyed while following the #tweetthepress trends on Twitter whenever there is a political debate among presidential candidates.

  • Scribd Previews Your Internet After SOPA

    Scribd Previews Your Internet After SOPA

    You have presumably heard that SOPA has drawn the ire of everybody. Really, it’s everybody. Everybody. More everybody. And, finally, everybody.

    The latest company to join the anti-SOPA movement is Scribd, the web’s largest publishing and reading site that claims tens of millions of available documents. If you went to their site yesterday to peruse a document, you would’ve found that the words literally began to vanish from the page as you read. Once the document was SOPA’ed and thus unreadable, visitors were presented with the following message:

    And there you have it: the future of the Internet in the SOPA era.

    The self-censoring act was a pretty poignant example of what people can expect the Internet to become if SOPA should become a reality. Michelle Laird, Director of Communications with Scribd, provided WebProNews with the press release that explained Scribd’s reasoning behind the demonstration:

    Today, users of Scribd must watch as the words they read are being taken away, as Scribd demonstrates to its millions of users what the SOPA & Protect IP Act (PIPA) would do every day if they pass.

    “With this legislation in place, entire domains like Scribd could simply vanish from the web,” said Jared Friedman, CTO & co-founder, Scribd. “That’s why we’re showing our users just what SOPA and PIPA could do to Scribd and other sites. These bills aren’t just dry acronyms; they’re a direct attack on the underpinnings of the web.”

    To demonstrate what could happen if either bill passes in Congress readers visiting Scribd will see documents vanish word for word right before their eyes. A light box will appear to alert users to what’s going on, provide a call to action and links to more information including a collection of SOPA-related documents uploaded to Scribd like the Tribe Legis memo read over 125K times. In all, over a billion pages and nearly half a trillion words could disappear.

    Scribd, the world’s largest publishing and reading site with tens of millions of documents, is joining other technology giants like Google and Mozilla in opposing this legislation. Together, these companies, along with hundreds of thousands of people and tech visionaries like Vint Cerf, popularly known as one of the “fathers of the Internet”, have vigorously stated their opposition to SOPA and PIPA.

    Laird says that no further acts of protest were currently planned although this should adequately illuminate what users of the Internet (i.e., anybody) can look forward to in the age of SOPA.

  • Fight SOPA Censorship with Censorship!

    Fight SOPA Censorship with Censorship!

    It’s clear the SOPA/PIPA hubbub has been a polarizing issue, one that stretches far beyond mere web chatter. Big name industry giants have thrown their hats into the ring very loudly and very clearly on both sides of the coin. It’s as if a minor war for Internet control has broken out, and it’s largely being ignored by the television media.

    Yes, the web is all over the story, but there still-primary vehicle for content delivery in the United States — the television — and the media entities that take full advantage of TV’s reach don’t cover this incredibly important issue with nowhere near the zeal they have for the #Occupy movement. Of course, politicians and lawyers going back and forth about the benefits/negatives of SOPA/PIPA doesn’t photograph near as well as 20-somethings getting pepper sprayed on Time Squares does.

    No, the battleground for this fight is the Internet, and one of the largest pieces of ordinance for those opposed to these protection acts, well, those of us without the pull of a Google or a Viacom, is through contacting of local government officials. In fact, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has been one of opponents of these protection acts, and has made liberal use of the Internet to get his message across, including the introduction of the OPEN Act, an alternative to SOPA/PIPA crafted by Senator Wyden and Darrell Issa, House Representative from California.

    Furthermore, Senator Wyden has also dabbled in the viral aspects of the web with his YouTube video discussing his intentions for his filibuster, which includes reading names from the Stop Censorship online petition.


    Another method, however, is the using actual censorship to show just how potentially damaging the acts — especially in their current form — can be.

    Over at the Stop American Censorship movement, they have a tool that can blur out selected text from web documents, and the only way to remove the black bars covering the text is to click an uncensor button that navigates the user to a page that allows them to contact their state representative.

    An example of it in action:

    I’ve censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet–a bill that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: http://americancensorship.org/posts/6069/uncensor

    ████ is ████ █████████ █████████████ how ██████████ ████████ █████. The █████████ ████████ in the ████/████ ██████ of ███████████ ████ ██████████ in ████ ████ ████ ███████ ████████ the █████ to ██████ ██████, ████ ████ the ███████████ of ████████████. ████ ████ not █████████ the ██████████ on █████ the web was ███████ on, and ███████ of ████, it’s ████ to ██████████ the ██████████ ████████ by ██████, ████████, ██████, and ███████, to ████ a few.

    Uncensor This

    The actual text, for those who don’t want to click over:

    This is test paragraph demonstrating how censorship actually works. The haphazard approach in the SOPA/PIPA pieces of legislation have provisions in them that give certain entities the power to censor others, with only the implication of infringement. This does not represent the principles on which the web was founded on, and because of that, it’s easy to understand the opposition provided by Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter, to name a few.

    Lead image courtesy.

  • Wikipedia Considering Blackout to Oppose SOPA

    While some members of the entertainment industry believe that without the help of SOPA, the future of content distribution is in doubt, other members of the tech industry have a different perspective. In fact, a number of tech giants are taking the exact opposite approach of their entertainment industry counterparts. That is, while they don’t support the idea of piracy, they do not approve of how SOPA goes about policing the web’s content.

    Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is considering a site-wide “blank out” of Wikipedia’s pages. Is this approach too extreme or is Wales correct in his anti-SOPA stance. Thoughts? Reactions? Share them in the comments.

    Consider NBC Universal’s approach, one that includes an edict of support SOPA or we’ll have serious issues distributing content from those who don’t. That’s right, NBC threatened their content suppliers with a “support SOPA or else” threat, representing a position that’s similar to blackmail. Apparently that’s business as usual in the corporate world, but there is hope. As indicated, not every tech industry giant is falling in step with SOPA/PIPA, including such big names like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo, companies that are diametrically opposed to how SOPA works.

    Now, you can add Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales to the anti-SOPA pile. Wales and Wikipedia are so against the ideas set forth by SOPA — mainly, the censorship aspect — they are considering blacking Wikipedia out as a method of protest; and when I say “blacking out,” I mean turning all of the Wikipedia pages blank, as in, no content, in an effort to show just how how much Wikipedia opposes the idea of censorship.

    To facilitate his idea, Wales posted a suggestion on his User Talk Wikipedia page, and it, in no uncertain terms, lays out Wales’ position. His statement is below in blockquote form, and he invites other Wikipedia members and users to respond to his makeshift poll:

    A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of “Stop Online Piracy Act’ is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track.

    I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case.

    There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it’s of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia.

    Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales… 07:42, 10 December 2011‎

    While a great deal of the responses are of the “Support” or “Firmly Support,” there are a number who of users who are opposed to the way Wikipedia is planning on protesting SOPA; although, many who opposed Wales’ postion did so because they don’t want Wikipedia getting involved in political issues.

    An example:

    Oppose, really bad idea. Blanking the site for a political purpose, even one that helps Wiki, is using power over content for advocacy. It’s in the same class as deleting an article that might help a candidate or cause some subset of us don’t like. Yes, not as egrigious…but in the same class. (And there will be some subset of Wikipedians that support SOPA. Heck, I hear they even let Republicans edit this site, occasionally.)

    Regarding the blanking of Wikipedia pages, some on Twitter are thinking of the all the students out there who will suffer without it:

    Students sobbing? MT @boraz: RT @jayrosen_nyu: What do you think? Wikipedia to blank pges to protest SOPA http://t.co/IGhUKhHj 38 minutes ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto

    You’ll also find those who agree with Wales’ approach:

    Not a huge fan of Jimmy Wales founder of Wikipedia, but Im glad he is taking a stance on government internet regulation
    http://t.co/PRj1k0Qa 1 hour ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Here’s an interesting query about SOPA, courtesy of Google’s Matt Cutts: Does it violate the First Amendment? According to a Harvard law professor, yes. Yes it does:

    Some dude says SOPA violates First Amendment: http://t.co/eJ0gc5ns P.S. He’s a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard. 11 hours ago via Tweet Button · powered by @socialditto

    The link in Cutts’ tweet goes to a 23-page document that discusses the concept. An example of the document’s position:

    These concessions go to the heart of the constitutional defect evident on the face of SOPA. Although the problems of online copyright and trademark infringement are genuine,SOPA is an extreme measure that is not narrowly tailored to governmental interests. It is a blunderbuss rather than a properly limited response, and its stiff penalties would significantly endanger legitimate websites and services. Its constitutional defects are not marginal ones that could readily be trimmed in the process of applying and enforcing it in particular cases. Rather,its very existence would dramatically chill protected speech by undermining the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. It should not be enacted by Congress.

    With that in mind, should Wikipedia blank its pages in protest of SOPA or should they just let the chips fall where they may? Is fighting censorship with censorship really the way to go? Is that too extreme of an approach from Wikipedia or are more protests like this needed?

    If Wales’ approach isn’t ideal, what, if anything, should the Wikipedia protest consist of? Let us know what you think in the comments.

  • EU Wants to Give Human Rights Groups Anti-Censorship Tools

    The European Commission announced today that it was launching the No Disconnect Strategy. The project aims to ensure the rights and freedoms of those who live in countries where the flow of information is stifled by protecting the use of information and communication technology from government censorship.

    There are four primary goals for the project, which is being headed by Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, former German Federal Minister of Defense, and of Economics and Technology. The first goal is to develop and provide technological tools to protect both the privacy and the security of those who live under authoritarian regimes. The second goal is to educate activists about both the opportunities and the risks associated with their use of information and communication technology, especially in terms of making best use of social networks and blogs while making them aware of the risks of surveillance. The third goal is to monitor the level of surveillance and censorship and to gain good intelligence about what is going on in a particular country. The fourth goal is to ensure cooperation and communication among interested parties in order to foster mulitilateral action to protect human rights.

    The project stems from a growing awareness of the importance of the internet in general and of social media in particular for the flow of information and for freedom of expression. This awareness, as well as the tendency of oppressive regimes to stifle the flow of information and expression, led a growing concern in the EU that the freedoms fostered by free access to the internet be maintained.

    The press release emphasizes that the project’s task of helping citizens bypass the censorship and surveillance methods employed by oppressive governments relies heavily on the availability of appropriate software tools – including desktop/laptop and smartphone software – to circumvent such methods. However there is no mention what, if any, pre-existing software tools it intends to incorporate into the project. Likewise, there is no mention of which countries the Commission specifically has in mind when it refers to authoritarian regimes. The press release does cite the recent Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt and elsewhere as an example of the kind of situation that has prompted the Commission’s concern.