Mediaboss Marketing

A looming land grab for internet governance by the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union (ITU) could spell a drastic change for governments and internet service providers alike.

However, misguided or not, the union's motivations are far from a desire to annex the internet, observers say.

Representatives from 193 nations will convene in Dubai this December to redefine the scope of the ITU's International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR) treaty, a set of principles governing global telecommunications interconnects and cost structures last re-negotiated in 1988.

The treaty currently covers operational, regulatory, economic and legal concerns in telecommunications, including things as banal as the 'accounting principals' behind interconnection fees.

But the ITU intends to update the treaty to account for the biggest single change since its negotiation: the global spread of the internet.

The regulations, primarily aimed at traditional voice networks, were developed well before the advent of Skype, and before VoIP as a technology began eating into the core voice revenue stream telcos traditionally relied upon.

According to iiNet's chief technology officer. John Lindsay, new delivery models have given the "old world" of government-owned telcos an impetus to fight back.

"The ITU would love to make the messy unregulated world of VoIP and online content go away," Lindsay told iTnews.

Though seen by countries and some ISPs as an attempt by the ITU to 'fix' the problem, Lindsay said it is also the one the union initially created.

"The ITU can be thanked for sky-high global roaming charges, high international voice terminating access prices, and codifying the Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing plan," he said.

Go here to see the original:
Censorship vs economics in battle for internet control

Schools Coalition, ACLU of Utah express concerns to superintendent.

Controversy in the Davis School District over limiting student access to a book about a lesbian couple raising a family continued Thursday, when a national anti-censorship group asked school officials to reconsider a recent decision to place the picture book In Our Mothers House behind counters in elementary libraries.

The Kids Right to Read Project, a joint effort of the New York-based National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, wrote to Superintendent Bryan Bowles.

"Parents who object to the book could easily supervise their childrens reading choices," the groups said, but restricting the access of others "diminishes the education value of the library whose primary role is to allow students to make choices according to their own interests, experiences, and family values."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah on Tuesday sent a similar letter to Bowles, stating that the decision to limit access to the book by author Patricia Polacco is likely unconstitutional.

"Federal courts have consistently concluded that the First Amendment protects student access to books in their school libraries, free from limits based on the administrations disagreement with the viewpoints expressed in the books," said John Mejia, legal director of the ACLU of Utah.

"From what we know of the districts removal of the book, we have serious concerns that the district may have fallen short of these protections."

The districts decision to keep the book behind the counter followed an April 30 meeting during which a seven-member committee determined it isnt aligned with district curriculum standards. The committee of teachers, administrators and parents voted 6-1 to keep the book off shelves, with Bountiful High librarian Trudena Fager casting the dissenting vote.

District spokesman Chris Williams said the decision was made because state law dictates that curriculum cannot advocate homosexuality.

Concerns about the book surfaced in January, after the mother of a kindergarten student at Windridge Elementary in Kaysville became upset when her child checked out the book and brought it home. The mother and her husband took their concerns to elementary school officials, according to Williams.

More:
Anti-censorship group joins conversation about book limitation in Davis County

Schools Coalition, ACLU of Utah express concerns to superintendent.

Controversy in the Davis School District over limiting student access to a book about a lesbian couple raising a family continued Thursday, when a national anti-censorship group asked school officials to reconsider a recent decision to place the picture book In Our Mothers House behind counters in elementary libraries.

The Kids Right to Read Project, a joint effort of the New York-based National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, wrote to Superintendent Bryan Bowles.

"Parents who object to the book could easily supervise their childrens reading choices," the groups said, but restricting the access of others "diminishes the education value of the library whose primary role is to allow students to make choices according to their own interests, experiences, and family values."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah on Tuesday sent a similar letter to Bowles, stating that the decision to limit access to the book by author Patricia Polacco is likely unconstitutional.

"Federal courts have consistently concluded that the First Amendment protects student access to books in their school libraries, free from limits based on the administrations disagreement with the viewpoints expressed in the books," said John Mejia, legal director of the ACLU of Utah.

"From what we know of the districts removal of the book, we have serious concerns that the district may have fallen short of these protections."

The districts decision to keep the book behind the counter followed an April 30 meeting during which a seven-member committee determined it isnt aligned with district curriculum standards. The committee of teachers, administrators and parents voted 6-1 to keep the book off shelves, with Bountiful High librarian Trudena Fager casting the dissenting vote.

District spokesman Chris Williams said the decision was made because state law dictates that curriculum cannot advocate homosexuality.

Concerns about the book surfaced in January, after the mother of a kindergarten student at Windridge Elementary in Kaysville became upset when her child checked out the book and brought it home. The mother and her husband took their concerns to elementary school officials, according to Williams.

Continued here:
Anti-censorship group joins debate about book restricted in Davis County

A study by researchers at Harvard University offers an intriguing look behind the veil of Chinas extensive Internet censorship effort, and suggests that censorship behavior around specific topics could serve as a predictor of government action. The group found, for example, that censors began removing a higher-than-normal percentage of comments referring to outspoken artist and political activist Ai Weiwei several days before his surprise arrest in 2011.

The research, which the authors call the first large-scale, multiple-source analysis of social media censorship in China, is certainly comprehensive. And its publication comes at a time when the Chinese governments efforts to control online discourse have garnered worldwide attention.

The researchers conclude that contrary to much research and commentary, the purpose of the censorship program is not to suppress criticism of the state or party. In other words, the censors are surprisingly tolerant of people bad-mouthing the government or its representatives. The Internet police in China are much more focused on silencing comments that could spur or reinforce collective action in the real worldlike protests over an activists arrest.

Using an automated process, executed from many locations around the world, including China itself, the researchers collected millions of posts from 1,382 different Chinese social media sites over a six-month period last year. They then ranked the posts according to their political sensitivity and kept track of which ones were removed. Nearly 60 percent of the posts collected were published on Sina Weibo, the countrys most popular micro-blogging platform.

Bill Bishop, an independent analyst in Beijing who monitors Chinese Internet media, says the fact that censors are more concerned with collective action than about individuals using social media to criticize the government is probably obvious to most users of Weibo. What is interesting about Weibo is not what is censored but what is not, Bishop said in an email to Technology Review. It is full of people criticizing the government.

Read more:
A Peek Behind China's 'Great Firewall'

New Delhi: After a spate of attacks on a number of Indian websites and a ground protest event on June 9, that evoked lukewarm response, hactivist group Anonymous Operation India has chosen the Right to Information Act (RTI) as the latest tool in their battle against Internet censorship.

Anonymous India is urging Indian citizens to file RTI applications to seek information regarding the correspondence of public servants with Google, Facebook or other websites on content censorship. Anonymous India says they will collate the information and use it "in even more powerful ways." But did not venture upon further details.

This phase called 'Operation RTI Engaged' is a part of many initiatives planned by the hacker collective in their effort to force the Government of India rethink its Internet censorship strategy.

This phase called 'Operation RTI Engaged' is part of many initiatives planned by the hacker collective.

Full text of Anonymous Operation India's letter to the citizens of India

ANONYMOUS OPERATION INDIA

PHASE II - OPERATION RTI ENGAGED - #OpRTI

June 12, 2012

Dear Citizens of India,

We are Anonymous. We are engaged in a fight with your government to fight their evil schemes of gaining control of our internet. We will not allow this. We will not allow those who do not understand the internet to mangle our rights in their futile attempts at the impossible. Content on the internet cannot be wiped out for those who want to see it and content on the internet must not be made to fit the idea of agreeable for a few powerful people.

See original here:
Anonymous India to use RTI to fight censorship