Internet Censorship

But Who Will Protect Us from Our ‘Protector’?

December 16, 2010

LRC Blog - When I used to smoke cigars (during the cigar boom of the late 1990s/early aughts), I always enjoyed the fact that the salesmen I dealt with in the cigar stores that I patronized knew my taste; that way, they could not only make unsolicited suggestions of cigars that I might like, but also dissuade me from cigars that I might have read about in Cigar Aficionado magazine which they knew were not to my taste.

I’m bringing this up to make a point about the latest nonsense being proposed by our “protectors” in government.

The Commerce Department is urging the creation of a consumer “privacy bill of rights” to prevent online etailers from sharing their customers buying preferences with other etailers, etc. in order for the other etailers to advertise their products to potential customers.

First of all, did it ever occur to the morons in government (but I repeat myself) that one of the reasons why most of the big internet sites are “free” is because advertisers are paying those sites to keep them in business? Do the government morons think that Google, Youtube, and Yahoo are charitable organizations???

Secondly, if you aren’t interested in a product being advertised to you, then DON’T BUY IT. (Duh.) [This is the classic “economist” John Kenneth Galbraith ignorance about advertisers "controlling" us. (Perhaps they controlled a schmuck like Galbraith, and he was just presuming that spinelessness enjoys company.)]

Thirdly, if a merchant keeps spamming you, you have the choice TO BLOCK HIM. (Duh, again.)

Government always likes to create a “problem” so that it can come up with a “solution” that ultimately not only controls you more (under the guise of “protection”), but makes more money for the banksters who create and then loan the money for the government to pay for the government to carry out its “solution.”

Of course, the real internet privacy problem is the question I posed in my post title: Who will protect our online privacy from our “protector,” i.e., the government?

On a different—but not dissimilar—issue, did you ever notice that the same people who whine that one of the reasons that they resent the big box stores is because they don’t get the same personal service (not true, by the way, in my own big box store experiences) that they got at the small boutique store that was put out of business by the big box stores are the same people who whine about internet etailers advertising products to them that the etailers believe they might be interested in? (See my opening paragraph.)

UPDATE: William Mauney writes:

“I read your comment with interest. This new bill could in effect destroy most of the business on the internet. I used to work with an ecommerce provider and still work with a company attached to ecommerce (although not directly). Not only will it destroy pay per click campaigns, there is a new brand of companies on the rise focused solely on retargeting. Say I go to your site and look at a pair of shoes. If you are using retargeting software or social media tracking software, you can reach back out to me through ads, banners, or—if I’ve signed up for your newsletter—email campaigns.

If this bill passes it takes money away from Google, it takes money away from numerous smaller players in the retargeting industry, it takes money away from social media tracking, and, in the end, some if not all of them will be forced out of business because retargeting will become illegal. Most of these companies are small companies working on a shoestring budget, most of them aren’t profitable (yet), and most of them have an employee count from 10–50 people. In effect, small businesses.”

---

The real question is, will this generation fight for an online Bill of Rights? The threat will be disguised as a move to protect our privacy or our security. The motivation will be to keep us in our place. The price we will pay will be to accept the risks that come with embracing liberty. - Rusty Cawley, Bill of Rights in Cyberspace, amended, BuzzMachine, December 11, 2010

The Obama administration has called for the creation of a Privacy Policy Office that would help develop an Internet "privacy bill of rights" for U.S. citizens and coordinate privacy issues globally," says Michael Heath via the WSJ. Having the U.S. coordinate privacy issues globally? Can't imagine what would go wrong there. Sorry, no. The U.S. government's idea of protecting our privacy is to make sure that we don't have any privacy in the first place. I'm sure all true privacy advocates will oppose any attempt by the government to pass a so-called "privacy bill of rights." Real privacy doesn't mean getting the government and corporations to promise they won't abuse their power; it means setting things up so that they can't even if/though they want too. In this case as in all others, passing laws is at best a distraction from the real fight. - Miko, 6th Circuit Rediscovers 4th Amendment, Science Blogs, December 17, 2010

Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said the Commerce Department should not run the administration's privacy efforts because its job is promoting the interests of businesses, not consumers. "Instead of real laws protecting consumers, we are offered a vague 'multi-stakeholder' process to help develop 'enforceable codes of conduct,' " he said. "Having the Commerce Department play a role in protecting privacy will enable the data collection foxes to run the consumer privacy henhouse. - Jim Puzzanghera, U.S. proposes online privacy bill of rights, Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2010

Although the report looks like it calls for something to be done, consumer groups aren’t entirely too happy with the revelation, suggesting that it hasn’t gone far enough. But some consumer groups blasted the report for not calling for privacy legislation and being too friendly to industry. The Commerce Department is focused on promoting the interests of industry and business — not consumers. It cannot play the role of an independent, honest broker; consequently it should not be empowered to create a new Privacy Policy Office." - Kit Dodson, We Need an Online Privacy Bill of Rights, Says Obama, Silicon Angle, December 16, 2010

U.S. Government Seeks Internet Censorship Under Guise of Web Privacy 'Bill of Rights'

December 17, 2010

Wall Street Journal - In a reversal of the federal government's hands-off approach to Internet privacy regulation over the past decade, the Obama administration said Americans should have a "privacy bill of rights" to help regulate the commercial collection of consumer data online.

The Obama administration has called for the creation of a Privacy Policy Office that would help develop an Internet "privacy bill of rights" for U.S citizens and coordinate privacy issues globally. Julia Angwin discusses on Digits.

The administration also proposed the creation of a Privacy Policy Office that would coordinate online privacy issues in the U.S. and abroad.

The proposals, contained in an 88-page report released by the Commerce Department Thursday, reflect a rapid re-evaluation of online privacy in recent months as an area ripe for potential abuse with the emergence of an industry of data-gatherers who collect and sell personal details about people for marketing purposes.

Among the suggestions in the report: Companies should ask people for permission to use their data for a purpose other than for which it was collected, and submit to privacy audits.

The proposals mark a turning point for federal Internet policy. Until now, Congress and executive branch agencies have largely left the commercial Internet to regulate itself, out of a concern that a heavy government hand would stifle innovation in a booming area of the economy.

But growing concerns about the practice are prompting a re-evaluation in Washington of the government's role. Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report calling for the development of a "do not track" system that would enable people to avoid having their actions monitored online.

The use of personal information has increased so much that privacy laws may now be needed to restore consumer trust in the medium, the Commerce report says. The U.S. has no comprehensive federal privacy law; current law covers the use of certain types of data but not others.

"Self-regulation without stronger enforcement is not enough," said U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. "People want to know that their information is going to be safe."

The Commerce Department said it has sufficient authority to implement some of its recommendations, such as the creation of the privacy office, which is under way. As for other moves, Mr. Locke stopped short of calling for specific legislation, but he said the report provides a "road map" for lawmakers who are likely to debate privacy legislation next year. The report is preliminary and will be completed next year.

It's unclear how strict a bill Congress would entertain. Sen. John Kerry, (D., Mass.), said he plans to incorporate the recommendations into legislation he is crafting for the next Congress.

Any bill would have to clear the Republican-controlled House. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.), who worked on a draft privacy bill this year, said he agreed with the Commerce Department's goals but cautioned the administration against usurping Congressional power.

"I welcome the input from the FTC and the Department of Commerce, but Congress is the most appropriate venue for online privacy," he said.

Big technology companies Microsoft Corp., Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. applauded the report. But others were cautious: Facebook Inc. said it was reviewing the report. The Interactive Advertising Bureau, the online ad industry trade group, opposed the FTC's do-not-track proposal, but called the Commerce report an "important step" in balancing privacy issues with economic needs.

Privacy advocates praised the report.

"The report lays out a creative and flexible approach," said Justin Brookman, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology's Privacy Project. "Now it's time for Congress to step up and pass the legislation."

Mr. Locke said that for now, the administration will use a newly created privacy policy office as a "bully pulpit" to start promoting stronger online privacy policies at U.S. companies.

The Commerce Department will encourage industry to adopt the privacy bill of rights, he said, but the rules will only be enforceable if legislation is passed. Another option would be for industry to agree to participate in voluntary codes of conduct. The Federal Trade Commission could then use its authority to police "deceptive" behavior by cracking down on companies that don't comply with the voluntary codes. However, Mr. Locke said legislation would be required to force companies to participate in those codes of conduct.

"We feel a sense of urgency to get going quickly," said Daniel Weitzner, associate administrator for policy at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

The privacy office would also represent the U.S. in discussions with European and Asian privacy officials about ways to set some minimum global privacy standards. Mr. Weitzner added that the U.S. will "decidedly not" adopt Europe's stringent data protection laws.

"This report gives self-regulation its last chance to show any possible progress," says Jules Polonetsky, director of the Future of Privacy Forum, an industry-sponsored think tank.

The report does recommend some specific changes in the law. It calls for the development of a national data-breach law that would make it easier for companies to navigate the current patchwork of state data-breach laws. It also calls for re-examining the existing wiretapping law—written in 1986—to consider restricting more types of data from government access.

Freedom of the Internet is Under a Vicious Attack; WikiLeaks is Being Used to Justify "Patriot Act" for the Internet

December 14, 2010

Soda Head - As journalists, activists, artists, scholars and citizens, we condemn the array of threats and attacks on the journalist organization WikiLeaks. After the website's decision, in collaboration with several international media organizations, to publish hundreds of classified State Department diplomatic cables, many pundits, commentators and prominent U.S. politicians have called for harsh actions to be taken to shut down WikiLeaks' operations.

Major corporations like Amazon.com, PayPal, MasterCard and Visa have acted to disrupt the group's ability to publish. U.S. legal authorities and others have repeatedly suggested, without providing any evidence, that WikiLeaks' posting of government secrets is a form of criminal behavior--or that at the very least, such activity should be made illegal.

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed (11/29/10), "we will move to close those gaps."

Throughout this episode, journalists and prominent media outlets have largely refrained from defending WikiLeaks' rights to publish material of considerable news value and obvious public interest. It appears that these media organizations are hesitant to stand up for this particular media outlet's free speech rights because they find the supposed political motivations behind WikiLeaks' revelations objectionable.

But the test for one's commitment to freedom of the press is not whether one agrees with what a media outlet publishes or the manner in which it is published. WikiLeaks is certainly not beyond criticism. But the overarching consideration should be the freedom to publish in a democratic society--including the freedom to publish material that a particular government would prefer be kept secret. When government officials and media outlets declare that attacks on a particular media organization are justified, it sends an unmistakably chilling message about the rights of anyone to publish material that might rattle or offend established powers.

We hereby stand in support of the WikiLeaks media organization, and condemn the attacks on their freedom as an attack on journalistic freedoms for all.

WikiLeaks Being Used to Justify "Patriot Act" Legislation for Internet

December 7, 2010

Activist Post - Senator Mitch McConnell called Assange a "high-tech terrorist" on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday and said, "if it‘s found that Assange hasn’t violated the law, then the law should be changed."

Over the weekend, an insightful article by Zen Gardner exposed how WikiLeaks resembles an establishment creation. The article correctly pointed out that the WikiLeaks storyline was conforming nicely to the elite's problem-reaction-solution method, with the solution of more tyranny for our safety.

WikiLeaks is being used to bring in the agenda on so many levels, but most importantly by setting the precedent of shutting down websites for politically "dangerous" content. Gardner writes:

After all, if information is now the enemy, we must carefully police any and every aspect of this dangerous medium -- all for the safety and protection of 'we the people.'

Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the 'approved' list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get 'on the net.' No biggie. Thanks Julian -- job well done.

First, let's be clear, the 250,000 pages of cables amounted to some geopolitical Jerry Springer he-said-she-said nonsense to make countries look petty and stupid. They revealed nothing new that wasn't already known or well suspected. The information simply stoked existing flames by airing geopolitical dirty laundry, nothing more -- no secret weapons, no major arms deals, no tactical locations of troops, and no revealing the ID of secret agents, etc.

Yet, the government has used its corporate muscle to illegally limit access to WikiLeaks. It was recently revealed that Amazon, the server host for WikiLeaks, caved to political pressure to drop the website. Then, in dictatorial fashion, PayPal removed its service for donations to WikiLeaks, and now their bank account has been frozen. And all this comes a week after the shutdown of 80-plus websites for "copyright infringement," apparently in preparation for passing the "Blacklist" bill.

Now, Gardner's weekend speculation and McConnell's call for action has turned into political reality. The Hill reports today that Senators unveil anti-WikiLeaks legislation, which seems to be a sort-of "Patriot Act" for the Internet. It's astonishing how fast these guys can write legislation when major events occur. And again, it's tyranny-saurus rex, Joe Lieberman, leading the charge with scandal-ridden Ensign (R-Nev.) and empty-suit Scott Brown (R-Mass.). Ensign was quoted:

WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.

That, we agree with. Yet, therein lies the concern for establishing new Internet rules of what can and can't be discussed, and who qualifies as a "journalist." Look, Assange is clearly either a kinda-smart "useful idiot" or a brilliant insider to the elite. He is certainly not a genuine whistleblower. Admittedly, though, for those of us who hoped he was the real thing, the elite have used some savvy tactics to boost WikiLeaks' rogue credibility in order to confuse us.

The White House has sent down a warning to government agencies to restrict employee access to WikiLeaks in order to make Assange and crew appear dangerously off limits. Apparently, this warning has already trickled down to "potential" government employees as well. It was revealed that the State Department warned Columbia University students who may apply for a Federal job:

DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter.

In other words, the Thought Police are out in full force telling job-hungry students to not apply if they discuss current events if authorities label those events dangerous or harmful to America. Soon, they'll most likely publicly fire a mid-level employee who went over the line to prove how serious they are. After all, they desperately need to keep the slaves on the plantation.

Furthermore, an Interpol arrest warrant has been issued for Julian Assange for shady rape charges, making him an internationally "wanted" man.