Mediaboss Marketing

Google and Twitter have rejected calls by a UK parliamentary committee to introduce measures to stop users breaking privacy injunctions, saying it would be impossible to censor content effectively.

The cross-party select committee of MPs and peers said in a report that the government should consider introducing legislation that would force Google to censor its search results to block material that a court has found to be in breach of someone's privacy.

Requiring search engines to screen the content of their web pages would be like asking phone companies to listen in on every call made across their networks for potentially suspicious activity, Google said on Tuesday.

However, the company said it already removes specific pages deemed unlawful by the courts and provides a number of simple tools anyone can use to report such content.

Twitter said it would continue to operate its current system of evaluating legal requests to remove material on a case-by-case basis.

Facebook said it was still reviewing the report by the cross-party committee set up by the prime minister in May last year to examine privacy and free speech after the controversy over the increasing use of so-called "super-injunctions" like the one taken out by footballer Ryan Giggs.

Google

Although the Manchester United footballer had taken out a super-injunction to prevent the newspapers from reporting allegations that he had an extramarital affair with model Imogen Thomas, details of the injunction and the alleged affair were widely reported on social networking sites.

The committee said on Tuesday that new privacy laws were not necessary, but called for an enhanced press regulator, with powers to fine newspapers. It also singled out internet companies for criticism, according to the Financial Times.

The committee said internet companies, such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, had presented numerous challenges to the rule of law in the UK.

The rest is here:
Twitter and Google reject UK calls for censorship

An editor-in-chief of the Georgian edition of Forbes, Revaz Sakevarishvili, said he was quitting the magazine citing systematic attempts of censorship and meddling into editorial independence by a publisher company.

Forbes Georgia is one of those 21 international licensee editions which the publishing and new media company, Forbes, has worldwide.

Forbes Georgia was launched in December 2011 and its publisher is Media Partners Georgia, which, according to Forbes, is a publishing house established by partners that have more than ten years of industry experience in Caucasus and Central Asia."

Sakevarishvili said in a statement on March 27, that the most recent case of censorship attempt by co-founder of Media Partners, Gagik Yeghiazarian, came when Forbes Georgia wanted to make a focus of its next issue Bidzina Ivanishvili, a Georgian opposition politician, who featured in the Forbes magazine's annual list of the world's billionaires earlier this month with an accompanying lengthy story profiling the billionaire-turned-politician.

Sakevarishvili alleged that after backing off from his initial attempt to completely remove story about Ivanishvili from Forbes Georgias next issue, Yeghiazarian then started meddling in preparing questions for an interview with Ivanishvili and after preparing a story, Sakevarishvili claimed, Yeghiazarian tried to directly and roughly censor the story.

Maia Mirijanashvili of Media Partners Georgia told Civil.ge on Tuesday that the company would put a statement in response to Sakevarishvilis allegations on Forbes Georgia website on March 28.

Sakevarishvili suggested that Yeghiazarians friendship with Gela Bezhuashvili, chief of the Georgian intelligence service, was largely the reason behind censorship attempts from the publisher.

Former editor-in-chief of Forbes Georgia also said that his email correspondence with Yeghiazarian contains evidence to prove his allegations about censorship attempts from the publisher and would make them public if needed.

See the original post here:
Forbes Georgia Editor Quits Citing 'Censorship'

By Computerworld New Zealand staff Computerworld New Zealand March 23, 2012

AUCKLAND - New Zealand is among the first countries to have access to a technology developed by Microsoft that identifies and removes images posted on the internet that exploit or endanger children.

Internal Affairs minister Amy Adams says the Internal Affairs Censorship Compliance Unit has been working with Microsoft on the development of PhotoDNA, which will allow investigators to detect and process objectionable images, as well as re-examine the methods they use to review the images.

New Zealand is one of the first countries in the world to have access to this technology, which gives investigators another valuable tool to help us in the fight against this problem, Adams says. Millions of objectionable images are circulating the internet and PhotoDNA could help rescue the victims of abuse and find the offenders.

It will also allow a greater level of information sharing with our international partners as more systems come online that use this technology, she says.

Adams says that during forensic analysis it is common for the Unit to review more than 100,000 image files on one computer system.

InternetNZ chief executive Vikram Kumar said his organisation fully supports the government in its efforts to stop the exploitation of children and urges it do more, but he was concerned whether appropriate checks and balances were in place.

The only caution we have is that sometimes what starts off as a really good idea starts being used for other areas which could affect privacy, begin stopping free speech etcetera, Kumar said. At the moment its going really well but without checks and balances there would be an opportunity for abuse of these systems.

Kumar added that it wasnt very clear in the announcement if the PhotoDNA technology would be linked to the existing online child exploitation filter which was an area we have had concerns with.

The ministry seems to be sitting on the fence in that regard, Kumar said.

Read the rest here:
Censorship unit works with Microsoft to develop PhotoDNA

Censorship has been a topic that has received a great deal of attention in the technology and internet sector simply because there are markets that do experience a great deal of censorship. My article on Friday, for example, discussed the Pakistani filtering request and potential implications that it would have on future censorship in that country. China, however, receives the most attention for the censorship that is experienced in the country with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others all being blocked. Now, with a fresh censoring episode in China of the term "Ferrari," new issues are raised regarding how censoring can negatively impact a specific company and its business.

On Sunday, a Ferrari 458 carrying two women and an unidentified third crashed in the Haidian district of Beijing. The two women sustained potentially serious injuries while the unidentified driver was killed. According to various international sources, reports of the crash in China as well as the term "Ferrari" have been deleted from websites in the country to apparently reduce the information available regarding the crash. Further, online searches of the term "Ferrari" have been blocked. This activity has brought forth media speculation of the driver's identity and the potential for it to be someone of particular importance. Regardless of the reason for the censorship in the form of deletions and blockings, there are potentially harmful effects to Ferrari in that market. The harm is specifically in relation to a restriction of their online presence and their resulting diminished search engine optimization.

Like us on Facebook

Lessons for Internet MarketersFerrari, the company, did not do anything controversial or put out any message related to restricted or sensitive topics in the Chinese market (which largely characterizes the reason for others being censored). Instead, the company was unfortunately brought into this situation by the circumstances of the crash. Thus, this case illustrates the volatile nature of conducting business and having an online presence in a market that experiences internet censorship; at any time, your online presence can be restricted or simply eliminated for any length of time.

Ferrari could experience this disruption to their online presence for a number of weeks, months, or potentially longer. In dealing with censorship, it is hard to predict the length of such disruptions. Thus, companies operating in markets that experience censorship should not rely solely on their internet presence for their business, this makes ecommerce sites especially vulnerable.

Further, Ferrari could not have predicted such an event and subsequent blocking of their name from internet searches. However, there are measures that they can take now to recover (and can be taken by other companies to minimize harm if experiencing a similar situation). This measure is that of diversifying the internet marketing that your company engages in and implementing a coordinated effort containing search engine optimization, paid search, and social media, among others. This way, if one aspect of your strategy cannot function (like a social platform gets banned or your organic search is blocked like Ferrari) then you can fall back on the other facets of your overall strategy. In the end, it is case specific as different companies use their online presence for different purposes. For example, it is likely Ferrari does not try to drive conversions online as that is not the way they make sales, however, their online presence is valuable and they use it to engage with their wider audience.

Contact me directly at rbuddenhagen@webimax.com if you have any questions regarding how your business can navigate such a scenario or how your company can develop a proactive strategy if operating in markets where such disruptions are possible.

Continued here:
When Censorship Hurts Businesses' SEO; The Curious Blocking of Ferrari in China

Pakistani Parliament House

Last week we reported on the controversy over Pakistan's Request for Proposals for a sophisticated Internet censorship system. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has vowed to stop the distribution of "blasphemous and objectionable content" over the Pakistani Internet, and was seeking a system capable of blocking up to 50 million URLs. Internet freedom activists rallied against the proposal and secured commitments from several major IT vendors not to bid for the project.

Now the Pakistani government appears to be backing away from the proposal. A member of the National Assembly, the lower house of Pakistan's legislature, told the Express Tribune that Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology had withdrawn the project "due to the concern shown by various stakeholders."

Yet the Pakistani officials in charge of the proposal have yet to confirm the reports. A spokesman from the IT Ministry told the Express Tribune that it would release a statement on Tuesday, but Ars was unable to find such a statement on the agency's website.

Critics of the censorship scheme hailed the news, but warned the fight was far from over.

"While these reports are promising, there is still a possibility that the Pakistani government could try to covertly implement a similar system," said Mike Rispoli, a spokesman for the advocacy group Access. His group collected more than 18,000 signatures opposing the scheme.

Rispoli called for new legislation prohibiting the Pakistani government from implementing such a censorship regime in the future.

See the original post here:
Pakistan backs away from proposed censorship system