Mediaboss Marketing

Summary:Online censorship watchdog Greatfire says that Microsoft was attacked over the weekend, causing havoc for Chinese users.

Greatfire.org Microsoft's Outlook email service was subject to a cyberattack over the weekend, just weeks after Google's Gmail service was blocked in China.

On Monday, online censorship watchdog Greatfire.org said the organization received reports that Outlook was subject to a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack in China. A MITM attack intrudes on online connections in order to monitor and control a channel, and may also be used to push connections into other areas -- for example, turning a user towards a malicious rather than legitimate website.

After testing, Greatfire says that IMAP and SMTP for Outlook were under a MITM attack, while the email service's web interfaces were not affected.

A screenshot of the attack is below:

Greatfire.org

The attack, dubbed "especially devious" by Greatfire, involved a pop-up warning message in the email client. Unlike in the case of browser warnings, users are more likely to quickly click the "continue" button on the message without actually reading the message or considering risk factors -- potentially attributing the warning to a network issue instead and therefore nothing to be concerned about.

Once clicked upon, the user's emails, contacts and passwords could then be logged by the cyberattackers.

According to Greatfire, the attack lasted for approximately a day and has stopped -- at least, for now.

The cyberattack on Microsoft systems comes after recent MITM attacks which reportedly have taken place against Google, Yahoo and Apple in China. It is only weeks since Google's email client, Gmail, was blocked in the country well-known for its tough censorship laws. Since 26 December, Gmail users in China have been unable to access the service, even if they use a third-party service -- such as Outlook -- to access their messages. Currently, VPN circumvention of the block is the only way to use Gmail.

View post:
Microsoft Outlook hacked following Gmail block in China

NEW DELHI: India's censorship board has been hit by mass resignations over the past few days.

The chief censor of India's Central Board of Film Certification Leela Samson and nine other members had resigned in protest of the government's clearance of the film Messenger of God. It features popular guru Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh preaching and also beating up gangsters. Singh is a flamboyant character, known as "guru in bling" to his followers.

The board had deemed the film unfit for public viewing on fears that it could create religious tensions, but the film was cleared after it had gone to an appeals tribunal.

"When a film is sent to the Appeals Tribunal, it takes at least two weeks to reach a consensus, said Ira Bhaskar, one of the censorship board members who resigned. My question is why was this film given precedence over others and cleared in just 24 hours. If every film has to be sent to the Tribunal, then what is the need for the Central Board for Film Certification?"

The Information and Broadcasting Ministry, which controls the censorship and appeals process has however, denied any interference.

"There is a retired justice heading the appellate tribunal, there is a Supreme Court advocate in the appellate tribunal and there is very senior journalist in the tribunal, said Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, Indian Junior Minister for Information and Broadcasting. They have taken a decision that will be made public very soon. We respect all that as a government and we don't interfere in the decisions of the entire process of the film certification."

Meanwhile, several groups representing the Sikh community opposed to the film held protests across northern India following its clearance. They claim Singh, who is said to have over 50 million followers is also facing murder and rape charges in several courts, has insulted and belittled their faith in the film.

For now, the film's release has been delayed over this row and its fate would be known only once it is officially released. This controversy, however, has cast light on the simmering tensions between the government and the regulatory framework of the film certification body.

Read the original post:
India censors resign over alleged government interference

Argument: Members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews hold up signs reading "I am Charlie," "I am Jewish" and "I am Ahmed", in London on Sunday. Photo: Stefan Wermuth

In response to riots over the latest Charlie Hebdo cover this weekend, French President Francois Hollande said: "There are tensions abroad where people don't understand our attachment to freedom of speech." Yet for all the talk of free speech as a non-negotiable right, many Charlie Hebdo supporters are rank hypocrites. Far from bearing strong attachments to free speech, many support restrictions on free expression in their own countries.

Our concern with the erosion of free speech goes beyond partisanship. One of us is conservative, the other left-liberal. What unites us is a shared belief that people should be able to speak their minds, that freedom of speech irresponsible, offensive, even blasphemous speech is a cornerstone of democratic society.

We see an ominous trend toward government restrictions on speech in the very places speech freedoms were born.

We also believe that with free speech comes great responsibility not to gratuitously offend. But that responsibility belongs to the individual, not the government, and the consequences for breaching it should be social, not governmental. Yet we see an ominous trend toward government restrictions on speech in the very places speech freedoms were born.

Counterpoint: People protest against Charlie Hebdo in Lahore. Photo: Reuters

Many Australians, for instance, have no qualms over tweeting #jesuischarlie one moment and in the next calling to keep section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. But those who say they're Charlie, as former NSW Labor solicitor-general Michael Sexton has argued, should support changes to section 18c.

Advertisement

Australia, of course, is hardly alone in curtailing protections on free speech. In the US, from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that radio and television stations cover controversial issues in a balanced manner. At face value, this seemed reasonable, but the devil was in the details. Who decided what was controversial? What "balance" looked like? How to threaten stations to provide equal time and "balanced" news coverage? Like 18c, the Fairness Doctrine was rarely used to revoke stations' broadcasting licenses, but it still had a chilling effect on controversial speech.

That chilling effect now comes not from US government regulators but from university administrators. To be sure, there is a significant difference between the two, but it is a troubling trend that universities have increasingly become spaces that dole out tougher penalties for offensive speech than most American institutions. Professors have been fired for offensive tweets. Students have been constrained by university speech codes.

More here:
Charlie Hebdo hypocrisy: offensive speech demands scrutiny, not censorship

Super Mario RPG CENSORED - King Bowser #39;s Battle Victory Pose/Animation - Video Game Censorship
Did you know non-Japanese versions of Super Mario RPG (RPG) censor King Bowser #39;s battle victory pose? In the JP version of SMRPG, they actually perform a animation known...

By: Censored Gaming

Go here to read the rest:
Super Mario RPG CENSORED - King Bowser's Battle Victory Pose/Animation - Video Game Censorship - Video

Professor sues CSU-Pueblo over censorship allegations
Professor sues CSU-Pueblo over censorship allegations.

By: Colorado news and weather information from KRDO NewsChannel 13

Here is the original post:
Professor sues CSU-Pueblo over censorship allegations - Video