Mediaboss Marketing

EFF recently received dozens of pages of documents in response to a FOIA request we submitted about Operation Choke Point, a Department of Justice project to pressure banks and financial institutions into cutting off service to certain businesses. Unfortunately, the response from the Department of Justice leaves many questions unanswered.

EFF has been tracking instances of financial censorship for years to identify how online speech is indirectly silenced or intimidated by shuttering bank accounts, donation platforms, and other financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal wrote about the Justice Departments controversial and secretive campaign against financial institutions in 2013, and one Justice Department official quoted in the article stated:

"We are changing the structures within the financial system that allow all kinds of fraudulent merchants to operate," with the intent of "choking them off from the very air they need to survive."

While Operation Choke Point was purportedly aimed at shutting down fraudulent online payday loan companies, we became concerned that this campaign could also affect legal online businesses.

EFF filed FOIA requests with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission. The documents EFF received from the DOJ are primarily correspondence between members of Congress and the Department of Justice. In that correspondence, Congress members raised concerns about Operation Choke Point, asked questions about how it operates, and stated that this is an issue that constituents are sending letters about.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Kenny Marchant (D-TX), for example, emailed the Department of Justice with specific questions about how the Department defines a high risk financial business.

In the correspondence we received, the DOJ overwhelmingly replied with form letters that didnt describe the criteria the Department used to decide whether a company was considered high risk, how many companies were currently labeled high risk, whether a company would ever know if it was considered high risk, or any appeal process for companies to have themselves removed from that category.

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) wrote a letter to then Attorney General Eric Holder describing how two community banks in Wisconsin were bullied by regional agents of the FDIC, who told them to stop working with prominent online lenders:

These banks were informed that if they chose to ignore the FDIC's request, they would face "the highest levels of scrutiny they could imagine," and were given no explanation, details of complaints, or any evidence as to why these demands were being made.'

Duffy called these threats "outrageous" and "intimidation tactics."

Other members of Congress wrote to the Department of Justice about how Operation Choke Point was hampering opportunities for law-abiding Native American tribes and the Hispanic community.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who cosponsored the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and advocates for additional financial regulation, expressed deep concern about the Department of Justice stepping beyond the bounds of the law with Operation Choke Point. In his letter to Holder, he stated:

As much as I would like to see stronger regulation of consumer lenders, I've sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, I must oppose efforts to "legislate by prosecution" and legislate by "criminal investigation," even if I agree partly or completely with the ultimate substantive aim.

He also said, "[y]our department should conduct criminal investigations for the purpose of enforcing laws we havenot laws you (and I) might wish we had."

Unfortunately, the responses from the Department of Justice left more questions than answers. Vital details about Operation Choke Pointincluding what industries beyond online loans may be impacted, the exact criteria for labeling a business high risk, and the tactics used to pressure banks into participationare still unknown.

Many people believe that Americas financial institutions may need additional regulation, and some may believe that online lenders should face additional scrutiny. However, an intimidation squadron secretly pressuring banks to cut off businesses without due process is not the right way forward. As weve seen with digital booksellers, whistleblower websites, online publishers, and online personal ads, payment providers often cave to pressurewhether formal or informalto shut down or restrict accounts of those engaged in First Amendment-protected activity. In order to foster a future where digital expression can flourish, we need to ensure that necessary service providers like banks and payment processors dont turn into the weak link used to cut off unpopular speech.

But that requires transparency. We need more information about how the government is pressuring financial institutions. Unfortunately, the Department of Justices nonresponses to Congress dont get us any closer to understanding this complicated issue.

Check out the most recent documents EFF got in response to its FOIA request on Operation Choke Point. See documents EFF received earlier on this program.

Go here to read the rest:
Documents About Financial Censorship Under Operation Choke Point Show Concern from Congress, Provide Few ... - EFF

Common Dreams

Comparing Trump to Stalin, Australia's Chief Scientist Warns Against Censorship Common Dreams American scientists are facing censorship on par with that imposed in the USSR under Josef Stalin, Australia's chief scientist Alan Finkel said during a scientific roundtable in Canberra, Australia, on Monday. "Science is literally under attack ... Australia's Top Scientist Blasts Donald Trump Over Stalin-Like CensorshipHuffington Post Australia's chief scientist tears Trump's EPA mandate: 'It's reminiscent of the censorship exerted by political ...The Week Magazine Australia's chief scientist: Trump's EPA changes akin to Stalin's censorship of scienceTheBlaze.com The Guardian -The Australian -The Sydney Morning Herald all 15 news articles »

See more here:
Comparing Trump to Stalin, Australia's Chief Scientist Warns Against Censorship - Common Dreams

Renowned Pakistani poet, social activist and academic Salman Haider was abducted on January 6 from Islamabad Highway while he was on his way back home. His wife received a text from his own number, telling her to pick the car from a place few hundred meters away from their house. As the news about his abduction emerged in the mainstream media, the families of two other bloggers, Aasim Saeed and Ahmed Waqas Goraya, reportedto the police that they had been missing since January 4. Two other activists, Ahmed Raza Naseer and Samar Abbas, also went missing in the following days. All of them are well-known for holding a progressive worldview, often critical of the militarys policies.

After weeks of speculation and widespread protests across the country, fourof them returned to their families on January 28. Two of them have since left the country after an active media campaign framing them as blasphemers threatened their lives. The other two, although still in Pakistan, have relocated along with their families, uncertain about their future.

While several quarters suspect military spy agencies of being behind the abductions, the director general of the militarys Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), Major General Asif Ghafoor, in his first press conference, denied the armys involvement. Still, abold editorial appearing in Dawn newspaper on January 11 read, The sanitized language missing persons, the disappeared, etc. cannot hide an ugly truth: the state of Pakistan continues to be suspected of involvement in the disappearance and illegal detentions of a range of private citizens.

Dawns editorial predicted that a dark new chapter in the states murky, illegal war against civil society appears to have been opened.

After protests against the disappearances erupted, a popular Twitter and Facebook hashtag #WhoAreTheyDefending accused the protesters of supporting blasphemers, with many tweets calling for their deaths. TV anchor and televangelist Aamir Liaquat Hussain launched an attack against leading journalists like Owais Tohid, media outlets like Jang and Dawn group, as well as several members of the civil society, accusing them of committing treason and blasphemy. In doing so, Hussain who hosts a controversial talk show in a recently-launched TV channel repeatedlydefied a banon such accusations laid down bythe Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority(PEMRA), which called Liaquats commentshate speech.

Renowned activist and analysts Marvi Sirmed, who herself has come under personal attacks from Aamir Liaquat Hussain, believes there is no way to know if he is parroting someones line. However, looking at who else is taking the position that Aamir Liaquat is taking, it becomes clearer which unseen power wants that line to be propagated, she says.

In October last year, Dawn newspaper staffer Cyril Almeida reported the details of an off-camera meeting where the civilian leadership confronted the then-director general of Inter-Services Intelligence(ISI), Lt. General Rizwan Akhtar, about not allowing action against banned outfits in Punjab. Almeidas story drew a strong backlash from the government, andhis name was put on the Exit Control List only to be removed a few days later after a strong response from the English press and overall media platforms.

Daily The Nation, in aneditorial following the ban on Cyril Almeida, wrote, how dare the government and military top brass lecture the press on how to do their job. How dare they treat a feted reporter like a criminal. And how dare they imply that they have either the right or the ability or the monopoly to declare what Pakistans national interest is.

While the media attempt to push back, the state-sponsored censorship seems to be expanding from topics like Balochistan to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC); from mainstream to social media. Marvi Sirmed has observed the same phenomenon. I havent received any direct censorship directions from anywhere ever. Its just that they show their displeasure through hundreds of anonymous Twitter accounts, she says.

Sirmed, who writes a weekly column for Pakistan Today, recounts how her voice was censored: Recently, my regular column in The Nation has been stopped abruptly in the wake of pressure from some known unknowns.

The Nation became a target of social media abuse under the hashtag #ShameOnTheNation after publishing some op-eds criticizing the states policies. After a barrage of abuse and threats online, the publication was forced to remove some of the op-eds from its website.

After The Newsrecently broke the news that 90 acres of land had been allotted to the former chief of army staff, General Raheel Sharif, an organized campaign, both online and offline, called Jang Group treasonous and a blasphemer. Overnight, banners calling for the death of Najam Sethi a senior journalist and analyst associated with Jang Group appeared in front of the Karachi Press Club.

Shad Khan, a U.K.-based Pakistani journalist, was recently removed from the country while he was filming for a documentary on the effects of investment brought by CPEC on the people of Gwadar.

I was granted permission by the Gwadar Port Authority to shoot around the area, Khan says.

Known for The Secret Drone War, which won him an Amnesty Award, Khan was provided with a security official in Gwadar. I filmed with Pakistan Navy for a day after they verified all of the documentation provided by me, he says. However, on the fifth day of shooting, I started receiving visits from officials in civilian clothes who asked for my identity card and I was interrogated by an army major.

Khan was asked to leave Gwadar without his equipment and the intelligence officials accompanying escorted him to a plane for the U.K.

Khan explains the apparent reason for his removal. I had to cover a rally of Sardar Akhtar Mengal, the head of Balochistan National Party, when they came to me and asked me to not cover the rally at all, Khan recalls. Upon my refusal to comply with their demand, they requested to cover the rally positively, which, as a journalist, is not a good practice.

Im a Pakistani citizen but not sure if I was just removed or deported. Im not sure if I still hold the Pakistani nationality or not. Pakistani High Commission in the U.K. hasnt returned my queries, he laments.

A similar incident happened with two New York City-based filmmakers, Rehana Esmail and Sina Zekavat, who have been working on a documentary called Boats Above My House for the past 18 months. The film is about a landslide in the northern areas of Pakistan and the chain of environmental, social, political, and economic events that followed. We focus on a group of people in Attabad village who are not formally recognized as citizens and are attempting to build their lives back after they lost their homes after this landslide, Zekavat says.

Their film received an on-site stop order on November 3, 2016from the Pakistani security agencies. Our line producer and DP (all locals) were forced to undergo a prolonged and unclear investigation process, Zekavat says, adding, all of our gear (including rental equipment and personal cell phones) and footage is being held for a forensic investigation and weve been informed that there are possibilities of serious charges against our fellow crew members.

One of the people they were filming with was Naz, who is the sister of the Baba Jan a left-wing activist and politician currently imprisoned for life. Naz is partially involved in her brothers release from prison as well the general human rights situation for people of Gilgit-Baltistan, Sina Zekavat says, adding, however, the footage that we got up until the stop, mainly consisted of Naz and her family cooking and eating together and doing very ordinary things.

The line of questioning by the investigators focused on filming Baba Jans house, which the co-directors insist wasnt the highlight of the documentary. Human rights activist and lawyer Asma Jahangir has decided to take up their case in the court.

In another sign of a growing crackdown, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) recently banned Khabaristan Times, a satire news website famous for taking on politicians, the military, and religious extremists.

Khabaristan Timeseditor Kunwar Khuldune Shahid considers the ban a continuation of the states crackdown on dissent in online spaces. Our content was published without any bylines, and the author only revealed their name to their audience if they chose to. Article 23 of the cybercrime law itself outlaws spoof and parody, and hence could be triggered to ban the satirical publication, he says.

Khuldune adds: Whether it was to target satire or anonymity, it is evident that secular and liberal voices are being targeted. For many jihadist groups are open to express themselves many do it anonymously as well.

Islamabad-based journalist Taha Siddiqui believes the attempts by the state to coerce journalists into toeing their narrative line are increasing. State has financially squeezed news networks if they tried to challenge the state narrative or openly report on taboo topics like Pakistani military affairs independently, since manages stories on such topics.

Siddiqui predicts tougher days for dissenting voices in Pakistan. The worst part is that journalists and activists have no idea what the red line is anymore and the state has started to react even more violently when it wants to clamp down on those who are vocal about critically evaluating sociopolitical issues in Pakistan, he asserts.

Kunwar Khuldune Shahid, who is a keen observer of current affairs himself, agrees.

This targeting of secular pages and websites could be a way to appease the Islamist sections at a time when a crackdown against jihadist groups and leaders has become inevitable owing to international pressure.

Hafiz Saeed being under house arrest, and members of LeT and JuD being put under the ECL [exit control list], highlights this. Maybe the states action against liberal voices, and the fact that it preceded the crackdown, was designed to forestall the Islamist backlash, he concludes.

Umer Ali is a freelance journalist based in Pakistan. He reports on human rights issues, social problems and more. He can be reached on Twitter at @iamumer1.

See the article here:
Pakistan's Censorship Takes a Dangerous Turn - The Diplomat

Arizona Bill Would Stop Censorship Of High-School Newspapers KJZZ A Supreme Court decision has ruled student newspapers don't have the same constitutional rights as other publications. But an Arizona state senator saw that as having a chilling effect and introduced a bill to stop school administrators from censoring ...

Original post:
Arizona Bill Would Stop Censorship Of High-School Newspapers - KJZZ

Internet censorship in Pakistan is government control of information sent and received using the Internet in Pakistan.

Pakistan made global headlines in 2010 for blocking Facebook and other Web sites in response to a contest popularized on the social networking site to draw images of the Prophet Mohammad. In general, Internet filtering in Pakistan remains both inconsistent and intermittent, with filtering primarily targeted at content deemed to be a threat to national security and at religious content considered blasphemous.

In mid-2012 Pakistanis had relatively free access to a wide range of content, including most sexual, political, social, and religious sites on the Internet. The OpenNet Initiative listed Internet filtering in Pakistan as substantial in the conflict/security area, and as selective in the political, social, and Internet tools areas in August 2012.[1] Additionally, Freedom House rated Pakistan's "Freedom on the Net Status" as "Not Free" in its Freedom on the Net 2013 report.[2] This is still true as of 2016.[3]

Internet filtering in Pakistan is regulated by the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) under the direction of the government, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and the Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT). Although the majority of filtering in Pakistan is intermittentsuch as the occasional block on a major Web site like Blogspot or YouTubethe PTA continues to block sites containing content it considers to be blasphemous, anti-Islamic, or threatening to internal security. Online civil society activism that began in order to protect free expression in the country continues to expand as citizens utilize new media to disseminate information and organize.[1]

Pakistan has blocked access to websites critical of the government or the military.[1] Blocking of websites is often carried out under the rubric of restricting access to blasphemous content, pornography, or religious immorality.[4] At the end of 2011, the PTA had officially banned more than 1,000 porn websites in Pakistan.[4][5]

The Pakistan Internet Exchange (PIE), operated by the state-owned Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL), was created to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic between ISPs within and outside of Pakistan.[6] Because the majority of Pakistan's Internet traffic is routed through the PIE (98% of Pakistani ISPs used the PIE in 2004), it provides a means to monitor and possibly block incoming and outgoing Internet traffic as the government deems fit.[7]

Internet surveillance in Pakistan is primarily conducted by the PIE under the auspices of the PTA. The PIE monitors all incoming and outgoing Internet traffic from Pakistan, as well as e-mail and keywords, and stores data for a specified amount of time. Law enforcement agencies such as the FIA can be asked by the government to conduct surveillance and monitor content. Under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (PECO), ISPs are required to retain traffic data for a minimum of 90 days and may also be required to collect real-time data and record information while keeping their involvement with the government confidential. The ordinance does not specify what kinds of actions constitute grounds for data collection and surveillance.[1]

In April 2003, the PTCL announced that it would be stepping up monitoring of pornographic websites. "Anti-Islamic" and "blasphemous" sites were also monitored.[8] In early March 2004, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) ordered Internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor access to all pornographic content. The ISPs, however, lacked the technical know-how, and felt that the PTCL was in a better position to carry out FIA's order. A Malaysian firm was then hired to provide a filtering system, but failed to deliver a working system.

In March 2012, the Pakistan government took the unusual step of touting for firms that could help build it a nationwide content-filtering service.[9] The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority published a request for proposals for the deployment and operation of a national level URL Filtering and Blocking System which would operate on similar lines to China's Golden Shield, or "Great Firewall".[9] Academic and research institutions as well as private commercial entities had until 16 March to submit their proposals, according to the request's detailed 35-point system requirements list. Key among these is the following: "Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to 50 million URLs (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing delay of not more than 1 milliseconds".[9]

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors, resulting in more than 100 reported deaths,[10] and included the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan, setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming of European buildings, and the burning of the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French, and German flags in Gaza City.[11][12] The posting of the cartoons online added to the controversy.

On 1 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Pakistan directed the government to keep tabs on Internet sites displaying the cartoons and called for an explanation from authorities as to why these sites had not been blocked earlier.[13] On 2 March 2006, pursuant to a petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, the Supreme Court sitting en banc ordered the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) and other government departments to adopt measures for blocking websites showing blasphemous content. The Court also ordered Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan to explore laws which would enable blocking of objectionable websites. In announcing the decision, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, said, "We will not accept any excuse or technical objection on this issue because it relates to the sentiments of the entire Muslim world. All authorities concerned will have to appear in the Court on the next hearing with reports of concrete measures taken to implement our order".

Consequently, the government kept tabs on a number of websites hosting the cartoons deemed to be sacrilegious. This ban included all the weblogs hosted at the popular blogging service blogger.com, as some bloggers had put up copies of the cartoons particularly many non-Pakistani blogs.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Chaudhry, summoned the country's Attorney General as well as senior communication ministry officials to give a report of "concrete measures for implementation of the court's order". At the hearing on 14 March 2006, the PTA informed the Supreme Court that all websites displaying the Muhammad cartoons had been blocked. The bench issued directions to the Attorney General of Pakistan, Makhdoom Ali Khan, to assist the court on how it could exercise jurisdiction to prevent the availability of blasphemous material on websites the world over.[14]

The blanket ban on the blogspot.com blogs was lifted on 2 May 2006.[15] Shortly thereafter the blanket ban was reimposed and extended to Typepad blogs. The blanket ban on the blogspot.com blogs was later lifted again.

Allegations of suppressing vote-rigging videos by the Musharraf administration were also leveled by Pakistani bloggers, newspapers, media, and Pakistani anti-Musharraf opposition parties. The ban was lifted on 26 February 2008.[16][17]

In 2006 the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority blocked five websites for "providing misleading informations".[18] Some allege that the websites' real crime was reporting on the Balochistan separatist conflict.[19]

YouTube was blocked in Pakistan following a decision taken by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority on 22 February 2008 because of the number of "non-Islamic objectionable videos."[17][20] One report specifically named Fitna, a controversial Dutch film, as the basis for the block.[21] Pakistan, an Islamic republic, ordered its ISPs to block access to YouTube "for containing blasphemous web content/movies."[22] The action effectively blocked YouTube access worldwide for several hours on 24 February.[23] Defaming Muhammad under 295-C of the Blasphemy law in Pakistan requires a death sentence.[24] This followed increasing unrest in Pakistan by over the reprinting of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons which depict satirical criticism of Islam.[22] Router misconfiguration by one Pakistani ISP on 24 February 2008 effectively blocked YouTube access worldwide for several hours.[23] On 26 February 2008, the ban was lifted after the website had removed the objectionable content from its servers at the request of the government.[16]

On 19 and 20 May 2010, Pakistan's Telecommunication Authority (PTA) imposed a ban on Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr, and Facebook in response to a competition entitled Everybody Draw Mohammed Day on Facebook, in a bid to contain "blasphemous" material[25][26] The ban imposed on Facebook was the result of a ruling by the Lahore High Court, while the ban on the other websites was imposed arbitrarily by the PTA on the grounds of "objectionable content", a different response from earlier requests, such as pages created to promote peaceful demonstrations in Pakistani cities being removed because they were "inciting violence". The ban was lifted on 27 May 2010, after the website removed the objectionable content from its servers at the request of the government. However, individual videos deemed offensive to Muslims that are posted on YouTube will continue to be blocked.[27][28]

In September 2012, the PTA blocked the video-sharing website YouTube for not removing an anti-Islamic film made in the United States, Innocence of Muslims, which mocks Mohammed. The website would remain suspended, it was stated, until the film was removed.[29][30] In a related move, the PTA announced that it had blocked about 20,000 websites due to "objectionable" content.[31]

On 25 July 2013, the government announced that it is mulling over reopening YouTube during the second week of August. A special 12-member committee was working under the Minister of IT and Telecommunication, Anusha Rahman, to see if objectionable content can be removed. The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, the telecom watchdog in the country, has already expressed its inability to filter out select content.[32]

On 21 April 2014, Pakistan's Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights requested the Federal Government remove the ban on YouTube.[33][34]

On 8 February 2015, the government announced that YouTube will remain blocked 'indefinitely' because no tool or solution had been found which can totally block offensive content.[35] As of June 2015 1,000 days on the ban was still in effect, and YouTube cannot be accessed from either desktop or mobile devices.[34]

The ban was lifted due to technical glitch on December 6, 2015 according to ISPs in Pakistan.[36] As September 2016, the ban has been lifted officially, as YouTube launched a local version for Pakistan.[37]

In June 2013, The Citizens Lab, an interdisciplinary research laboratory uncovered that Canadian internet-filtering product Netsweeper is functioning at the national level in Pakistan. The system has categorized billions of URLs and is adding 10 million new URLs every day. The lab also confirmed that ISPs in Pakistan are using methods of DNS tampering to block websites at the behest of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.

According to the report published by the lab, Netsweeper technology is being implemented in Pakistan for purposes of political and social filtering, including websites of secessionist movements, sensitive religious topics, and independent media.[38]

In July 2013, Pakistani ISPs banned 6 of the top 10[39] public Torrent sites in Pakistan. These sites include Piratebay, Kickass torrents, Torrentz, Bitsnoop, Extra Torrent and Torrent Reactor.[40] They also banned the similar site Mininova.[41] However proxies for these torrent sites are still active and P2P connections are working normally.[42] This move lead to a massive public backlash, especially from the Twitter and Facebook communities of Pakistan. In the aftermath of such critique, the IT Minister of Pakistan, Anusha Rehman, deactivated her Twitter account.[43]

View original post here:
Internet censorship in Pakistan - Wikipedia