Internet Censorship

UK House of Lords Follow China and Australia, Propose Internet Censorship Bill

December 16, 2009

Infowars.com - As China, Iran, and Australia initiate draconian efforts to shut down the internet as an alternative news source, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom is mulling a similar attempt to block dissenting voices. The so-called Digital Economy Bill, essentially ignored by the media, would allow the Secretary of State to “a technical obligation on internet service providers” at the whim of the government.

Francis Davey, who offers legal advice to technology and media firms in computer and internet law, notes on his blog that a provision under consideration by the House of Lords — specifically clause 11 of the proposed legislation — would provide the means to block “undesirable” web pages such as WikiLeaks and other whistle-blower sites. The clause would also allow the government to block peer-to-peer networks.

The previous clause defines “technical obligation” as follows: A “technical obligation,” in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service. A “technical measure” is a measure that — (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

“As you can see blocking wikileaks is simply a matter of applying a technical measure against all subscribers of any ISP,” writes Davey. “Surely something must limit this power you ask? It seems not.”

A few of the Lords, however, believe this sort of obtrusive government intervention is “overly permissive” and they have proposed language modifying the bill.

The Digital Economy Bill is under consideration at the same time Australia is implementing a wide-ranging internet filter.

“Under the Chinese-style system, Internet service providers (ISPs) in the country would be legally obliged to filter out banned material,” reports Fox News.

Australian communication minister Stephen Conroy said the government would be the final arbiter on what sites would be blacklisted under “refused classification.”

On December 16, it was reported by the Financial Times that China has imposed additional restrictions on the internet. People registering a domain name in China will have to present a company seal and a business license, the China Internet Network Information Center, a government-backed body, said in a statement on Monday.

“Officials said the measure was part of a campaign to rein in pornographic content, but bloggers and internet activists interpreted it as a broader attempt to enforce internet censorship more heavily,” writes Kathrin Hille.

On December 6, China indicted dissident Liu Xiaobo for subversion of state power for posting essays on his blog about human rights and calls for democratic reform in the country. Liu Xiaobo faces 15 years in prison.

The European Union, Finland, Denmark, Germany and other countries in Europe have proposed blocking or limiting access to the internet. The European Union’s Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini called last September for ISPs to block access to sites hosting information about bomb-making, and the UK’s former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said in January that she wanted action taken against sites that encouraged terrorism, including social networking sites, according IT World.

A free and open internet is enemy number one for government around the world. Alternative news sites such as Infowars and Prison Planet stand in the way of implementing world government currently being formulated in Copenhagen and the New World Order’s control grid.

WikiLeaks and Cryptome have leaked numerous documents revealing government corruption and malfeasance. In early 2008, WikiLeaks was forcibly censored at ex-parte and its name deleted from a Californian domain registrar after the transparency website posted a document detailing a money laundering case in the Cayman Islands.

Earlier this month Cryptome received a takedown order under the DMCA (an international copyright treaty) after the site posted 17-page guide describing Yahoo’s data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it provides law enforcement.

Australian Government to Introduce Controversial Internet Filter

December 14, 2009

Associated Press - Australia plans to introduce an Internet filtering system to block obscene and crime-linked Web sites despite concerns it will curtail freedoms and won't completely work.

Adopting a mandatory screening system would make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among the world's democracies. Authoritarian regimes commonly impose controls. China drew international criticism earlier this year with plans to install filtering software on all PCs sold in the country.

The government said Tuesday it will introduce legislation next year for the filter system to help protect Australians, especially children, from harmful material on the Internet. Critics say it will not prevent determined users from sharing such content, and could lead to unwarranted censorship by overzealous officials.

Communication Minister Stephen Conroy said the government would be transparent in compiling its blacklist of Web sites, but did not give details.

Conroy said the Australian filter was among a number of new measures aimed at strengthening online protection for families. It aims to block material such as child pornography, bestiality, rape and other sexual violence, along with detailed instructions about committing crimes or using illicit drugs.

Such material is already banned from publication on Australian sites, but the government currently has no control over it being accessed on servers overseas.

Conroy conceded it may not be completely successful.

"The government has always maintained there is no silver bullet solution to cyber-safety," he said in a statement. But, "it is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material."

Critics say illegal material such as child pornography is often traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, which would not be covered by the filter.

"The government knows this plan will not help Australian kids, nor will it aid in the policing of prohibited material," said Colin Jacobs, vice chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, a nonprofit group that seeks to promote online freedoms.

"Given the problems in maintaining a secret blacklist and deciding what goes on it, we're at a loss to explain the minister's enthusiasm for this proposal," Jacobs said in an online posting.

The group is concerned the blacklist of sites to be blocked by the filter and the reasons for doing so would be kept secret, opening the possibility that legitimate sites might be censored.

Conroy's announcement coincided with the release of a report on a monthslong trial that found Internet service providers were able to block a list of more than 1,300 sites selected by the government without significantly hampering download speeds...

Jacobs said smaller Internet service providers would likely struggle to pay the costs of imposing the new filters. Conroy said the government would help providers implement the filters, without going into details.

The filter would not likely not be in place before early in 2011.

Countries such as Egypt and Iran impose strict Internet controls, and bloggers have been imprisoned. China has a pervasive filtering system.

Controls in democracies that value free speech are less strict, though Internet providers have at times blocked or taken down content deemed to be offensive.

Canada, Sweden and Britain have filters, but they are voluntary. In the United States, Pennsylvania briefly imposed requirements for service providers to block child pornography sites, but a federal court struck down the law because the filters also blocked legitimate sites.

Stealth Treaty Seeks Strict Controls Over Internet

December 2, 2009

On the Commons - A sweeping international treaty to regulate how knowledge and creativity may flow on the Internet is now being negotiated. Haven’t heard of it? Funny thing, that’s exactly what the backers of the treaty want. The film, music, publishing and information industries don’t want a public debate about the issues or an open debate in Congress. So they have been working hand-in-glove with the U.S. Trade Representative to move U.S. policymaking offshore and throw a dark cloak of secrecy around everything. The next stop: draconian penalties for anyone who is accused of violating copyright law.

Details about the treaty are murky. But the latest draft, according to a leak summarized on the Boing Boing website, would require:

That Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused — again, without evidence or trial — of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the U.S. and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM [Digital Rights Management systems], even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM).

Who would have guessed that such nasty stuff was embedded in a treaty called the “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)”? That title was presumably meant to reassure people that it’s a non-controversial measure. But fighting counterfeits seems to be just the cover story. The real goal is to win a backdoor expansion of copyright law, much stronger enforcement powers and greater corporate control of the Internet — all without having to go through that pesky process known as democracy.

If the first subterfuge was the misleading title, the second subterfuge was to call ACTA a “trade agreement” rather than a multilateral intellectual property treaty. A trade agreement can be implemented by the Executive Branch on its own, and does not require congressional approval. An intellectual property treaty would require a congressional vote...

Beyond the misleading title and backdoor legal maneuvers is Very Deep Secrecy. Or more accurately, selective Very Deep Secrecy. Key Washington insiders and corporate players have been granted full access to the draft treaty — but we the little people have been excluded. Wanna read the draft? You can’t. The official rationale is that such disclosures would jeopardize national security. Seriously...