Mediaboss Marketing

Even the most open, democratic governments have sought laws and new forms of surveillance that many see as a new wave of censorship -- and that includes the United States.

The U.S. government asked Google for data on its users more than 31,000 times in 2012 alone, for example. And the government rarely obtained a search warrant first, Google recently revealed; in nearly all cases, the company ended up turning over at least some data.

Some argue that heightened surveillance, restrictions on Internet freedom and even censorship are necessary to protect intellectual property rights, prevent cyberespionage, fight child pornography, and protect national interests such as nuclear power plants from hackers. And here the U.S. is far from alone.

"A number of democratic states have considered or implemented various restrictions in response to the potential legal, economic, and security challenges raised by new media," notes the Freedom House report "Freedom on the Net 2012."

Anxiety over online theft and cyberattacks is not unwarranted. Virtually every major U.S. company and media outlet has been a victim. Google was attacked back in 2009. Facebook, Apple and Microsoft revealed this month that hackers had breeched their defenses. And The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have fought off Chinese hackers for months. Indeed, dozens of countries have their own online hacking groups -- so-called cyber or asymmetrical warfare divisions.

- Freedom House report Freedom on the Net 2012

"It's been going on in China since at least May 2002," said Alan Paller, founder of the SANS Institute, an information security and training firm.

Consequently, lawmakers -- even President Obama in his State of the Union address -- have been motivated to take steps to stem the hacking tide. However, the road to better security could also stifle free speech.

When the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) met in Dubai in December, some 89 member countries including Russia, China, Cuba and Iran, supported a treaty that would give individual governments more control over the Internet's infrastructure.

Sensing a thinly veiled attempt to suppress dissent, 55 countries -- including Canada and the U.S. -- said no.

Go here to see the original:
BIG BROTHER? US Linked to Censorship, Surveillance on Internet

China's new leaders have inherited a rigorous system of censorship. There are few signs of change under the new leadership, although it is becoming increasingly difficult for the state to control information.

For readers, the New Year edition of the weekly magazine Nanfang Zhoumo was more of the same.

The lead article greeted them with the headline "Dreams are our commitment to do what is necessary." It also contained a quote from new Communist Party leader Xi Jinping: "The great revival in China has always been the great dream of the Chinese people."

Chinese newspapers are full of headlines and quotes like these. But editors at Nanfang Zhoumo were surprised when they saw the magazine in print. They had actually submitted another story for publication with a headline that read "The Chinese dream is a constitutional government."

Turning point?

Headlines like that one are hard to find in Chinese publications, if not impossible. The censor had changed it overnight.

But this time, the editorial team wasn't willing to accept the censorship and went on strike in protest.

"Censorship has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years," said Chang Ping, editor of the exile magazine iSun Affairs and a journalist at DW. Chinese authorities give detailed instructions to editors of how and what to report, he notes. With warnings and sanctions, they also try to prevent critical stories from being published. If journalists decide to publish such stories, they risk being fired, together with their editor.

Chang speaks from experience. He was a former editor-in-chief of Nanfang Zhoumo before he had to vacate his position after publishing a report that was critical of authorities.

Chang doesn't think anything will change in Chinese censorship under the new generation of leaders. "There's currently a lot of talk in China and abroad about a 'tipping point,'" he said. Despite this, Chang, is quick to add, there's also no clear evidence of this happening.

Read this article:
The long arm of Chinese censorship

Google Inc. (GOOG) shouldnt have to remove content from its search engine that was lawfully published elsewhere, the company argued in a case at the European Unions top court that will set boundaries between freedom of expression and data-protection rights.

The operator of the worlds largest search engine isnt a data controller, it is a mere intermediary in terms of the data which it indexes, Google lawyer Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz told a panel of 15 judges at the EU Court of Justice hearing today. Direct requests for personal information to be removed from a search engine -- even if it was put online by a newspaper -- would be a fundamental shift of responsibility from the publisher to the search engine and would amount to censorship.

The dispute raises questions about the scope of EU privacy rules when it comes to personal data on the Internet; the rights of search engines to use any online data to remain commercially successful; and who ultimately is in charge of what happens with the data. The Luxembourg-based courts ruling will be binding on courts across the 27-nation bloc.

The case was triggered by about 200 instances of Spains data-protection authority ordering Google to remove information on people. The information in todays case concerned a Spanish man whose house was auctioned off for failing to pay taxes. Newspaper La Vanguardia published the information in 1998 and years later it could still be found via a Google search.

In this case and in many other cases, serious harm is done to individuals, Joaquin Munoz Rodriguez, a lawyer representing the man, told the EU court. The information is tracked and ordered by Google and contains, to a very large extent, personal data.

Google is liable because it allows easy and quick access to information that wasnt easily found online before, he said.

Google faces privacy investigations around the world as it adds services and steps up competition with Facebook Inc. (FB) for users and advertisers. The Mountain View, California-based company created a uniform set of privacy policies last year for more than 60 products, unleashing criticism from regulators and consumer advocates over whether it was properly protecting data.

People shouldnt be prevented from learning that a politician was convicted of taking a bribe, or that a doctor was convicted of malpractice, Google said in a blog post. The substantive question before the court today is whether search engines should be obliged to remove links to valid legal material.

Data protection is currently policed by separate regulators across the EU. The blocs executive body wants to simplify the system so companies deal with only one.

A lawyer for the European Commission, the EUs executive, argued today that Google does control data. That view diverges from an opinion of a group representing the blocs data- protection watchdogs, which said search engines are generally not to be held primarily responsible for content.

See the original post here:
Google Cites Censorship Risk in EU Data Control Lawsuit

Unnecessary Censorship: Swamp People
Glenn and Mitchell get crazy in the swamp. Swamp People: Season 03. Episode 05.

By: Sagara Sanosuke

See more here:
Unnecessary Censorship: Swamp People - Video

Tomorrow in the House of Lords, ministers will try to excise from the Defamation Bill wrecking amendments inserted by peers who are determined to impose on newspapers a draconian version of Lord Justice Levesons proposals for press regulation. If they fail to expunge the amendments, the revised Bill will create in the UK a version of prior restraint censorship before publication that has not existed in this country for 300 years and that is explicitly outlawed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Not satisfied with prior-restraint alone, the wreckers also wish to punish newspapers that do not submit to state-sanctioned regulation by obliging them to pay exemplary damages if defeated in actions for libel or invasion of privacy. Like Sir Brian Leveson, they attach too little weight to the possibility that this might breach Article 10 of the ECHR.

Such restrictions of liberty might please victims of tabloid misbehaviour, such as Max Mosley and Hugh Grant, but it would give the Government no choice but to kill the Bill. This would be regrettable, because it is valuable. Its originator, Lord Lester, an eminent human-rights lawyer, describes it as a charter not for the press but for the public. In fact it is valuable to both groups, which is why it has the support of newspapers and campaigners who wish to open the libel courts to less affluent litigants.

Supporters of the contested clauses claim noble purpose. But, by attempting to hijack Lord Lesters work as a vehicle for state-sanctioned regulation, they have shown that, for them, ends justify means. Their actions reveal something more significant, too. Throughout the phone-hacking scandal, the Leveson Inquiry and the controversy spawned by the Leveson Report, supporters of state-sanctioned newspaper regulation have promoted the idea that they are virtuous servants of the public interest. Their abuse of the Defamation Bill has revealed a less wholesome reality.

The Hacked Off campaign and its supporters should take note: the antics in the Lords have revealed the presence in Parliament of opinions it suits them to pretend do not exist.

Vulnerable to the accusation that a press law, once enacted, might be strengthened rapidly, they say limited statutory backing for a new system of regulation would not be extended to impose tougher controls. They accuse Levesons opponents of imagining the slippery slope down which we believe Britains press laws would slide if his proposals were implemented. The use made of the Defamation Bill by Leveson-supporting peers, such as Lord Puttnam and Baroness Boothroyd, has exposed such views as misguided.

I hope this useful and progressive Bill can be rescued and enacted with the support of both Houses. But whether it lives or dies, it has already performed service to the causes of liberal democracy and press freedom. Britain needs self-regulating newspapers untrammelled by a statutory backstop because there are already in Parliament men and women who believe they are entitled to impose upon others their values and their ideology.

To believe that such well-intentioned meddlers will become less bold in future is wishful thinking. They exist and have made it plain that they could exploit a minimalist piece of legislation to neuter newspapers entirely. We have been warned. Any press regulator supervised or empowered by legislation would give politicians a tool to extend control over the press. Some of them have now shown us how willing they would be to use it.

They would not call it censorship. They would believe they were acting in the public interest. If they shared any of the hubris shown by the peers who amended the Defamation Bill, they might sincerely believe it. Those who consider press freedom and liberty inseparable should not trust them. They need only win once. If we are to preserve liberties that have endured for centuries and made this country a beacon of democracy, we must win every time.

The writer is professor of journalism at the University of Kent and author of the pamphlet Responsibility without Power: Lord Justice Levesons constitutional dilemma

Read this article:
Read between the lines: this is press censorship