Internet Service Disrupted before Iran Elections
I know that this isn’t necessarily a reaction to the Zionist scheme against the Islamic Republic, but it still is ominous
First, let’s note what they left out of the report. Fox News’ parent company, News Corp., is one of the many media conglomerates supporting SOPA. A disclosure to that effect should have been included, but wasn’t.
And that leads us to what they did include. At one point in the report, Cowan says of Google’s participation in the anti-SOPA protests: “Some call this ironic, since Google’s business is to link users to various sites, essentially, critics contend, stealing other people’s content every day.”
The “some say” construction is a favorite of Fox News’, and in this case we actually know who the “some” are that are saying these things about Google: News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch is a strong proponent of SOPA and very much dislikes Google, which he argues is the internet’s “piracy leader” because links to websites that offer pirated content show up in Google search results.
This argument, it should be noted, makes absolutely no sense and demonstrates the profound technical ignorance of a man with huge influence over tech policy.
But it makes enough sense for Fox News, which reported the absurd spin from its parent company on SOPA without noting their parent company’s support for the bill.
So sorry to all geeks, but now those who would like to remain apolitical or pretend that libertarianism is a gateway to freedom for are today find them in the space where push has come to shove.
My crime? Talking too much about Occupy Wall Street (I’m not an Occupier, but as a blogger and journalist it strikes me as one of the most important stories out there — hence the constant coverage), and talking too much about the controversial detainment without trial provisions contained in the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would basically shred the Bill of Rights and subject American citizens to military police forces. The same level of civil rights protection that enemy combatants in a cave in Afghanistan receive!
Suspended National Press Club Member Refuses to Attend Closed, Unrecorded Meeting
Some basics on this modern-day rabble-rouser: He has belonged to the NPC since 1997. He pays $600-$700 in annual dues. And yes, he has been “harangued” in the past about his tough questioning, but never to this extent. Some years ago, he recalled being suspended after being falsely accused of behaving badly at an event. In that instance, Husseini insists, it was another member, not him. They revoked the suspension and told him they’d made a mistake. Husseini wanted an apology letter in writing. They blew off that request. This time, however, he did receive a letter telling him explicitly not to come to the club during his two-week suspension.
So this is what happens when you get in a Saudi prince’s grill at a press conference asking legitimate questions.
Private Corporation Seeks Its Own Internet Kill Switch -- Fight Back | Demand Progress
Will you urge ICANN to reject Verisign’s request for its own Kill Switch?
Must not attack the Darth Vader of global media.
Anonymous, are you a defender of white privilege alone?
After Anonymous hacked BART and used its email list to advertise a new protest — now less about the shooting of Charles Hill by BART police and more about the censorship of a public demonstration — protestors rallied at BART stations last night.
This could easily be construed as Anonymous holding their rights to have access to telecommunication services as more important and dear than a destitute man having a right to live, such as Charles Hill was living.
Please, tell me Anonymous how this impression is wrong. Tell me that you give a damn any more about the injustice done to Charles Hill than the paralegal that gets on the train in Concord, goes to The City, works for a law firm defending a petrochemical company’s interest in polluting people here in the USA, then returns home at night to drink a beer and shout along with Sean Hannity on a cable noise channel.
The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill — despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What’s really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it’s seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There’s very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:
- Patrick J. Leahy — Vermont
- Herb Kohl — Wisconsin
- Jeff Sessions — Alabama
- Dianne Feinstein — California
- Orrin G. Hatch — Utah
- Russ Feingold — Wisconsin
- Chuck Grassley — Iowa
- Arlen Specter — Pennsylvania
- Jon Kyl — Arizona
- Chuck Schumer — New York
- Lindsey Graham — South Carolina
- Dick Durbin — Illinois
- John Cornyn — Texas
- Benjamin L. Cardin — Maryland
- Tom Coburn — Oklahoma
- Sheldon Whitehouse — Rhode Island
- Amy Klobuchar — Minnesota
- Al Franken — Minnesota
- Chris Coons — Delaware
» via TechDirt
You have got. to be fucking. kidding me.
I could see Feinstein voting for this, but the likes of Leahy and Franken? What is the rest of the story?
(Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act) COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list. The lists are for sites “dedicated to infringing activity,” but that’s defined very broadly — any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are “central to the activity of the Internet site” could be blocked.
The lists are for sites “dedicated to infringing activity,” but that’s defined very broadly — any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are “central to the activity of the Internet site” could be blocked.
