Artists Faced Sharp Rise in Attacks and Censorship in 2016, Report Says – artnet News

A new report on artistic freedom by the Danish free speech advocacy group Freemuse has recorded a sharp rise in attacks and censorship.

In its annual report, titled Art Under Threat, Freemuse documented 1,028 violations of artistic freedom throughout 78 countries in 2016. According to the group, the increase in registered cases between 2015 and 2016 amounts to a spike of 119 percent, rising from 469 violations.

The non-profit dividesits findings into categories, includingserious violations, for killings, attacks, abductions, imprisonments, and threats; and acts of censorship. In 2016 the organization counted 840 incidents of censorship and 188 serious violations.

Categorized amongst the serious violations are three killings, two abductions, 16 attacks, 84 imprisonments and detentions, 43 prosecutions, and 40 persecutions and threats.

Violations of artistic freedom in 2016. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

Musicians were targeted most frequently, accounting for 86 cases of serious violations, followed by theatre with 32 serious violations, and visual arts with 27 serious violations. Meanwhile film was the most censored art form, amounting to 79 percent of censorship cases.

Iran, responsible for 30 cases, was once again the worst offender for serious violations of artistic freedom, making it the worst violator of artistic expression since Freemuse began recording data in 2012. Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, China, Malaysia, Syria, Tanzania, and Uzbekistan also recorded dismal artistic freedom records, collectively making up 67 percent of globally recorded serious violations.

Top 10 serious violators of artistic freedom. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

The worst practitioner of censorship in 2016 was Ukraine, responsible for a staggering 577 registered acts of censorship. Freemuse attributes this to a blacklist of 544 Russian films banned in the wake of the ongoing conflict between the two countries.

Other offenders making up the top 10 for recorded cases of censorship were Kuwait,China, Egypt, India, Russia, Turkey, USA, Pakistan, and Iran. Together these countries accounted for 88 percent of global censorship cases.

Top 10 practitioners of censorship. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

Summarizing its findings, Freemuse explained that the drastic increase may be a consequence of rising global populism and nationalistic political views, resulting in a greater number of reported cases of artists being censored or persecuted. The organization also said that improvements in its own data collection and documentation methodologies, as well as its expanding network, resulted in a greater number of incidents being accounted for.

However the advocacy group stressed that the actual frequency and number of artistic freedom violations is almost certainly far higher. Factors including lack of public awareness, ability, political will, intimidation, cultural or social pressure, and the threat of punishment often prevent people from reporting serious violations and censorship.

Read more:

Artists Faced Sharp Rise in Attacks and Censorship in 2016, Report Says - artnet News

Ooniprobe app helps people track internet censorship – Feb. 8, 2017 – CNNMoney

The Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), which monitors networks for censorship and surveillance, is launching Ooniprobe, a mobile app to test network connectivity and let you know when a website is censored in your area.

The app tests over 1,200 websites, including Facebook (FB, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30) and WhatsApp. You can decide how long to run the test, but the default is 90 seconds and would test between 10 and 20 websites depending on bandwidth. Links to blocked websites are listed in red, while available sites are green.

Service providers, sometimes controlled by the government, don't always shutdown the internet entirely -- for instance, Facebook.com might be inaccessible while CNN.com still works.

"Not only we will be able to gather more data and more evidence, but we will be able to engage and bring the issue of censorship to the attention of more people," Arturo Filast, chief developer for the Ooniprobe app, told CNNTech.

To test connectivity, Ooniprobe mimics what a browser does when you connect to a website. It tries to establish a connection to a site's IP address and download the webpage. OONI compares the activity to the same test on an uncensored network. If it doesn't match, the site is likely being censored.

Created in 2012 under the Tor Project, OONI monitors networks in more than 90 countries through its desktop and hardware trackers, which are available to anyone. It publishes censorship data on its site. The organization has confirmed censorship cases in a number of countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ethiopia and Sudan.

By introducing a mobile app, OONI can reach more people potentially affected by internet outages, especially in emerging markets where smartphones are more common than computers.

Related: This African country is taking an unprecedented step in internet censorship

In just the last week, at least two countries have experienced outages. Iraq shut down the internet while students took exams to prevent cheating, and in Cameroon, protests and unrest have led to ongoing outages in the country's English-speaking regions.

Ooniprobe tests web connectivity to not only figure out whether sites are blocked, but how they are being censored. For instance, an internet service provider can initiate a DNS-based block, so when you try to connect to a specific website, the page will say the domain is unknown or blocked. Ooniprobe can also check whether IP addresses are blocked, and looks for "middleboxes" or network devices that manipulate web traffic.

If the app detects a site is censored, it will list ways of getting around it. For instance, Ooniprobe might tell you to visit "HTTPS" versions of sites to circumvent "HTTP" blocking, or to download the Tor browser or the Orbot Android app. (Ooniprobe is used to find specific instances of censorship -- if the entire internet was blacked out, you would know.)

Ooniprobe is rolling out this week for iOS and Android.

Filast says Ooniprobe can help people see how censorship and surveillance impact them.

"They can better understand that this is something that isn't so abstract and so distant from them, but it's something they can actually understand how it's working," Filast said. "And maybe be less scared about it."

Read more:

Ooniprobe app helps people track internet censorship - Feb. 8, 2017 - CNNMoney

Editorial: Censorship in the Senate – Albany Times Union

Photo illustration by Jeff Boyer / Times Union

Photo illustration by Jeff Boyer / Times Union

Editorial: Censorship in the Senate

THE ISSUE:

The Senate majority leader shuts down criticism of a Cabinet nominee.

THE STAKES:

Where do such heavy-handed tactics end at a time of one-party rule?

---

An extraordinary moment came Tuesday in the U.S. Senate when Sen. Elizabeth Warren was told to sit down. She'd gone too far, it seems, in criticizing a Cabinet nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell shut down Ms. Warren on the grounds that Jeff Sessions of Alabama, President Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, is a senator himself, and as such should not be "impugned."

Whatever your political loyalty, this censoring of an elected representative marks a dangerous development for our democracy.

Ms. Warren, D-Mass., was speaking against Mr. Sessions' nomination Tuesday when the chair interrupted to remind her of Senate Rule 19, which states "no Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator." Ms. Warren had been voicing a host of concerns about Mr. Sessions' record on civil rights, abortion, women and immigration. She quoted harsh criticism he had drawn in 1986, when Mr. Sessions was being considered for a federal judgeship, from then-Sen. Edward Kennedy and civil rights icon Coretta Scott King. She continued until Mr. McConnell and his GOP colleagues cut her off, a ruling sustained by a party-line vote.

Put aside that it's absurd to argue Mr. Sessions merits more tender treatment than any other nominee. Let's call this for what it is: The majority leader of what's called the world's most deliberative body stifling deliberation he disagrees with.

Mr. McConnell has employed this sort of partisan heavy-handedness in various ways before, notably in snubbing the Constitution by refusing to even consider former President Barack Obama's nominee for Supreme Court last year. That capped a long campaign of partisan obstructionism.

What we are witnessing what should matter to all Americans is nothing less than a breakdown of the norms of democratic government. Republican stonewalling of Mr. Obama's lower-level judicial appointments led Democrats to eliminate filibusters for those posts when they ran the Senate. Now Republicans may do the same on Supreme Court nominations. So much for a long-standing check on unbridled majority rule.

And now Mr. McConnell has introduced a new prospect: shut down whatever speech the majority doesn't like. What's next?

It's all the more alarming at a time of one-party rule in Congress and the presidency, and with Mr. Trump promising to pack the Supreme Court with ideologues. A top adviser to the president tells the free press to "keep its mouth shut" even as the Senate's leader says as much to one of the foremost women in the opposition party.

If they care nothing for the legacy this behavior is leaving our republic, Mr. McConnell and Republicans should at least weigh their own self-interest. Every bad precedent they enjoy setting today they will surely regret tomorrow.

Read the rest here:

Editorial: Censorship in the Senate - Albany Times Union

EDITORIAL: Don’t become an enemy of free speech, no matter how hateful it is – StateHornet.com

Rioters in Berkeley, Calif. forced the University of California, Berkeley to shut down a planned speech by so-called "alt-right" provocateur and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2017. (Photo courtesy of Pietro Piupparco / Flickr / CC-BY 3.0)

The president of the Sacramento State College Republicans demanded that school president Robert Nelsen and ASI President Patrick Dorsey if they did not denounce a riot that broke out at UC Berkeley on Feb. 1 in response to a visit by right-wing blogger Milo Yiannopoulos.

The demand came shortly after College Republicans President Mason Daniels and several others attempted to obstruct the path of an anti-Trump march on campus. Several anti-Trump demonstrators responded by telling them your hate speech isnt protected here.

Of course and to the chagrin of many on the left the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does protect hateful speech.

This is not to say that the rhetoric of the self-described alt-right is anything but repugnant to the very concept of morality.

But attempts to censor Yiannopoulos and white nationalist leader Richard Spencer have the potential to backfire for everyone opposed to the Trump administration.

Those protesters who prevented Yiannopoulos from speaking at UC Berkeley last week, and the two people who punched Spencer in the face last month, must have been emotionally satisfied at going the extra mile to oppose the alt-right a loosely-connected network of people opposed to multiculturalism and modernity.

But if the alt-right has shown anything in its quick rise from online harassment of female video game developers in 2014 to one of its own working in the White House, its that what doesnt kill it makes it stronger.

The riots sparked at Berkeley have only helped Yiannopoulos a blogger for Breitbart, the former home of Trump confidant and the aforementioned White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon go from an internet curiosity to a household name.

Yiannopolous YouTube response to the Berkeley riots has garnered 1.2 million views in just four days, as of press time. Being cast in the role of a victim, Yiannopoulos has become something of a folk hero even for those who do not share his repulsive philosophy.

This has made nobody happier than Yiannopoulos himself, with the possible exception of President Donald Trump, who tweeted that the federal government should consider defunding UC Berkeley.

Trump did not cause the divisions in our country, but he exacerbates them for his political gain. He hopes that by painting all people opposed to his policies as violent anarchists, he can get most Americans to pick him as a lesser of two evils.

Such a strategy worked in the past. According to an August 1968 poll, 53 percent of Americans thought that the U.S. should never have entered the Vietnam War.

Just several months later, however, Republican Richard Nixon and segregationist third party candidate George Wallace won 57 percent of the combined vote not because they were particularly pacifistic, but because they galvanized images of riots, urban crime and political assassinations to scare people into voting for them.

That may be why former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort said that Trumps Republican National Convention speech was specifically modeled on Nixons in 1968.

Again, this isnt to argue against a massive mobilization of Americans from the far left to principled conservatives to oppose Trump and the alt-right, even by taking to the streets in protest.

It is to argue that using violent tactics, smashing windows and burning limousines may be a cathartic release but do nothing to convince a Trump voter to change their mind.

And the violence deals another, more dangerous card to the president.

During the campaign, Trump showed very public disdain for religious liberty, freedom of the press, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Is this really the time to demand that government institutions give up neutrality regarding the content of political speech?

As president, Trump is a far larger threat to the Constitution than a small number of rioters in Berkeley which is precisely the problem.

Criticism of the First Amendments religious and political neutrality is nothing new. It has been charged with fostering indifferentism treating all ideas as equally valid.

All ideas are not equally valid, but censorship only gives the power of deciding what is and is not allowed to be talked about to whoever the most powerful person is And as the election upset should make clear, that can change very quickly.

No matter how grievous Yianopoulos or Spencer get, it is government neutrality in political speech that protects everyones right to speak freely.

Do we really want to set a precedent that offensive speech should be banned at a time when the president of the United States has praised dictators for murdering their opponents?

By all means protest, organize and vote. But dont play a character in Bannons dystopian play.

Take off your black bloc outfits, be brave enough to go face-to-face with the other side, and let it be said of us to quote a great leader of a different time that this was their finest hour.

More:

EDITORIAL: Don't become an enemy of free speech, no matter how hateful it is - StateHornet.com

Conversation Cafe covers book censorship – Daily Illini

Womens Resource Center creates an event to talk about reasoning behind book censorship and the affect of the community on the flow of information. The event will be held Friday at noon.

Brian Bauer

Brian Bauer

Womens Resource Center creates an event to talk about reasoning behind book censorship and the affect of the community on the flow of information. The event will be held Friday at noon.

Megan Bradley, Contributing Writer February 9, 2017

The removal and restriction of certain books is no new phenomenon. Despite a more historical and dystopian portrayal, book censorship is still a current issue.

To address and inform about this issue, the office for Diversity and Social Justice Education is holding a Conversation Cafe titled Burn Before Reading: Book Censorship at noon on Feb. 10 at the Womens Resource Center. The Conversation Cafe will be hosted by Emily Knox, a specialist on intellectual freedom and censorship.

Conversation Cafe is a lunchtime series focused on current questions or issues that might be emerging around social justice issues. They are often facilitated by current or former students or faculty. We really draw upon the talent and questions that people are asking here on campus, said Ross Wantland, the director of diversity and social justice education.

Wantland said the issue of book censorship is an emerging question for students and faculty alike. Knox, the speaker for the Burn Before Reading discussion, clarified that sometimes books are challenged for the right reasons, such as being in the wrong place for its genre or reading level. However, a lot of the time books are censored because of disagreements or a thirst for power.

A lot of it is about control: of the flow of information, how children develop or what the community should believe, Knox said.

Her goal is to show that the power of reading is stronger than the power of censorship and there is no way to formally stop the flow of information in society.

Knoxs discussion of book banning will center on how an open flow of knowledge in society is important for social justice. She emphasized the importance of understanding the different people and places that reading can foster, and said students need to be exposed to ideas that are different from their own in order to grow and cultivate their own opinions.

The Conversation Cafe, which is typically on the second and fourth Friday of each month, has a different topic to focus on each week. Anyone is welcome to walk in and enjoy lunch while engaging with the different speakers that the program brings in.

The Lunch on Us programs provide a unique opportunity for people to dip their toes into the waters of these types of conversations, even if theyre studying areas that dont allow these conversations daily, Wantland said.

The lessons these programs can give students, Wantland said, are invaluable and can provide a strong basis for an understanding of different problems that affect campus life.

One of the students who is interested in this kind of discussion is Skylar Lipman, senior in ACES. Lipman found the event on Facebook and was intrigued by the title and topic as well as by the location of the event, the Womens Resource Center.

Censorship is an interesting topic to me, largely because it has to do with issues of choice and the power that comes along with this. Im also hoping to build some connections through the Womens Resource Center, as there is some very interesting work being done through there, Lipman wrote in an email.

Wantland said the importance of attending events such as the Conversation Cafes is that through the programs, his office is able to give a discussion space to issues that may otherwise not have homes around campus. Book censorship is one of these issues that Wantland is proud to be able to host.

Both Wantland and Knox emphasized the importance of students being able to use their years at college as a way to grow and develop views of the world. To Knox, this is largely facilitated through reading, which is why she believes in social justice and the flow of information working hand-in-hand.

Being in college is about being exposed to ideas you have not been exposed to before, and sometimes that might be uncomfortable. Part of the experience of higher education is being exposed and learning to work through them, you dont have to agree with all of them, Knox said.

features@dailyillini.com

Link:

Conversation Cafe covers book censorship - Daily Illini

Australian Scientists Who Faced Censorship Have Advice for Dealing With Trump – Seeker

Australian scientists are rallying behind their counterparts in the United States amid fears that President Donald Trump could ram through a damaging anti-science agenda over the next four years.

Trump's moves to censor federal government scientific departments and undermine the integrity of climate research have triggered sympathy and anger in Australia, where many scientists believe the country's conservative government has conducted a similar assault on science over the past few years.

"My sense is that morale among the science fraternity in the U.S. is extremely low at the moment," said Associate Professor Stuart Khan, a water researcher at the University of New South Wales and one of the organizers of the Australian March for Science. "We want to show that we understand what is going on and we stand in solidarity."

The United States is an important research partner for Australia and a bilateral science and technology relationship has existed in some form for 48 years.

However, Trump's recent directives, particularly his administration's instructions that any data from the EPA must undergo review by political appointees, have many Australian scientists concerned.

"It's reminiscent of the censorship exerted by political officers in the old Soviet Union," Dr. Alan Finkel, the chief science advisor to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, told a roundtable discussion in the capital Canberra on Monday. "Every military commander there had a political officer second-guessing his decisions."

Gag orders aren't the only sign of Trump's apparent anti-science stance. His pick to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has made a career of challenging the agencies environmental regulations. Trump has also reportedly tapped vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr., who has erroneously linked vaccines with autism, to lead a commission into immunization safety.

RELATED: Will Trump Go After Vaccine Science?

Australian scientists have not faced directives limiting interaction with the media and public like those imposed by Trump, but several said political interference has taken different forms.

"It's primarily lack of funding, pulling out government support, and public campaigns that undermine and belittle scientific achievements," Khan said.

After taking office in 2013, former prime minister Tony Abbott slashed science funding, abolished climate science programs and chose not to appoint a science minister for the first time since 1931.

Funding for Australia's main research grants body, the Australian Research Council, was cut by $74.9 million; the national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, had its funding slashed by $111 million.

As a result, severe job losses including up to 110 roles in the organization's Oceans and Atmosphere division were announced by CSIRO in February 2016. The decision was reversed and extra resources allocated to climate change research only after a public outcry and widespread international criticism.

"It was a brutal act to try and force compliance and control because they didn't regard the organisation to be sufficiently beholden to government directives," Dr. Michael Borgas, a climate scientist and former president of the CSIRO staff association, said.

RELATED: Cities Are Tackling Climate Change by Freeing Their Data

Abbott, who once declared that climate change was "absolute crap," was ousted by Malcolm Turnbull in a party coup in September 2015, but key science policies have remained intact.

In fact, the Turnbull government has proven it's not above scrubbing science from the record.

In May 2016, it was revealed the Australian government intervened to have all mentions of the country removed from a UNESCO report on climate change impacts at world heritage areas.

One of three Australian case studies, the Great Barrier Reef, experienced its worst coral bleaching ever in 2015-2016, an event scientists said was 175 times more likely because of human-caused climate change.

More than 93 percent of the smaller reefs that make up the wider ecosystem were affected by bleaching and preliminary surveys have shown widespread reef mortality.

"I was confidentially told by the editor of the report that the Australian government asked that the Great Barrier Reef case study and two others that referred to Australia were taken out of the report," said Professor Will Steffen, a climate science expert at the Australia National University, who reviewed the Great Barrier Reef chapter.

The Australian government later admitted the request was made because the reef's inclusion may have impacted tourism.

Borgas, who spent 15 years advocating for employees at CSIRO, said there were lessons from the Australian experience that could be useful to scientists in the U.S.

Participating in a trade union or scientific society that advocated for the rights of scientists was a good start, he said. But he also urged U.S. scientists to keep speaking out about threats to science integrity.

"Scientists sometimes don't like to be politically engaged," said Borgas. "But it's something you have to do. You have to learn to do it."

WATCH: The Difference Between Global Warming and Climate Change

Read the original here:

Australian Scientists Who Faced Censorship Have Advice for Dealing With Trump - Seeker

Will Facebook’s Fake-News Detection System Lead to Censorship? – Truthdig

Facebooks application for Patent 0350675 is either a smart method to use artificial intelligence to root out fake news or a potentially dangerous way of imposing censorship on muckraking media and political satire.

The threat of censorship is especially worrisome now that the search for fake news is becoming automated, with computers guided by artificial intelligence aiding human censors.

Facebook is a leader. It has applied for a patent for a computer device that would have the capability of sweeping through Facebook posts, searching for keywords, sentences, paragraphs or even the way a story is framed. The computer would spot content that includes objectionable material. This vague phrase seems to leave the door open for Facebook to censor opinion or unconventional posts that are out of the mainstream, although the company denies it has that intent.

I heard about such automated searching last year when I was working on a story for Truthdig about an organization called PropOrNot. It had compiled a blacklist of more than 200 news outlets that it said were running pro-Kremlin propaganda, and Truthdig was on the list. In the course of finding out how PropOrNot compiled the list and how Truthdig was added to it, I interviewed a well-known communications scholar, professor Jonathan Albright of Elon University in North Carolina.

Albright told me the information was collected basically through an algorithm, or set of instructions to a computer for sweeping or scraping websites or other material on the internetsimilar to what intelligence agents do in examining emails.

The computer would be instructed to tag words, sentences, paragraphs or even how the story is framed. I theorized that was how PropOrNot works, scraping sites in search of material that would fit its description of purveyors of Russian propaganda. Apparently, Truthdig and some other publications were incorrectly caught up in a PropOrNot sweep. PropOrNot, which operates in anonymity, told me my description of its methodology was generally correct.

In the course of our conversation, professor Albright told me Facebook was trying to develop a patent for a fake-news detection system.

His fear is that it is turning into a form of censorship or could be developed as censorship. He said he was concerned that Facebook, Google or the government could develop filters to determine what is [supposedly] fake and make decisions about that. They could hunt for particular words, sentences and ways the news is framed. Dissent could be filtered out, as could articles with unusual, non-mainstream slants. There are going to be keywords and language that will not be standard, and alternative voices will be buried, Albright said.

That concerned me. I dont, of course, like fake news of the kind that proliferated during the last election and afterward. Facebook, with its millions of users, is a target for people posting false news. Aware of that, Facebook has partnered with well-known news and fact-checking organizations to root out such news. They are ABC, FactCheck.org, The Associated Press, Snopes and PolitiFact.

I wanted to know how Facebook and these organizations determine what exactly constituted fake news. Thinking of how PropOrNot wrongly portrayed Truthdig and other news media as purveyors of Kremlin propaganda, I feared that Facebook and its news collaborators could end up wrongly censoring posts, particularly those of opinion-oriented publications and websites like ours.

I found the Facebook patent application (a Facebook representative told me the company often applies for patents and that shouldnt be taken as an indicator of future plans). I also discovered an article last November by Casey Newton on The Verge website explaining the application, which was most helpful to me, a non-technical person.

The application envisions using artificial intelligence to scan material that is scored by the computer and given a value. Based on that, it can be determined whether the content items include objectionable material.

Determining what passes Facebook tests are the social networks community standards. The standards, in brief, ban some nudity, hate speech, images glorifying sadism or violence, bullying and promotion of suicide, terrorism and organized crime. Violation of these standards could mean removal of a post from the Facebook site or its relegation to the bottom of the newsfeed, severely limiting readership.

I asked Facebook how this worked. A representative said that once a post is flagged, either by a person or the computer, it is turned over to teams of multilingual employees who are trained in maintaining community standards.

What about opinions that many consider outrageous or wrong? In December 2015, I wrote a column comparing Donald Trump with Hitler, and people told me I was wrong or at least way off the mark. Would comparing Trump to such an evil mass murderer constitute hate speech and be a violation of the standards? The Facebook representative said the company was not seeking to censor opinion or limit freedom of expression.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebooks founder and CEO, has acknowledged that dealing with an opinion piece requires caution. In a Facebook post, he wrote that many stories express an opinion that many will disagree with and flag as incorrect even when factual. I am confident we can find ways for our community to tell us what content is most meaningful, but I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.

Others are not sure how this would work out. I asked USC professor Mike Ananny, another respected internet communications scholar, if Facebooks automated data search, combined with its community standards, could be used to censor Truthdig or similar opinion journals.

Its a good question, he replied in an email. I dont believe Facebook would intentionally try to bury opinion sites like Truthdig, but ultimately, we have to take them at their word because we dont have the access required to interrogate and audit their systems. Even if it has intentions that we think align with our editorial values, we just dont know how these intentions play out when they are translated into opaque algorithmic systems.

Kalev Leetaru, a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security, wrote in Forbes last December, Remarkably, there has been no mention of how Facebook will arbitrate cases where journalists object to one of their articles being labeled as fake news and no documented appeals process for how to overturn such rulings. Indeed, this is in keeping with Facebooks opaque black box approach to editorial control on its platform. We simply have no insight into the level and intensity of research that went into a particular label, the identities of the fact checkers and the source material they used to confirm or deny an article the result is the same form of trust us, we know best that the Chinese government uses in its censorship efforts.

Leetarus mention of China brings to mind a new law that initiates an American government effort to identify and counter what officials consider propaganda from foreign nations.

In December, President Barack Obama signed legislation authored by Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut that greatly increases the federal governments power to find and counter what officials consider government propaganda from Russia, China and other nations and provides a two-year, $160 million appropriation. It would create a web of government fake-news hunters.

Portmans office said the legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques.

Its bad enough that Facebook and its media colleagues will be scrubbing and scraping for fake news, deciding whether investigative or opinion articles fit into that category. Creating a government fake-news search complexespecially with this Trump administrationis much worse.

Journalisms job is to cover government deeds and to shed light on actions that reporters, editors, publishers and the public consider wrong. It is journalisms obligation to investigate and explain government on behalf of the public.

This is muckraking, the word I used at the beginning of this column.

Merriam-Webster says the word dates back to the 17th century and means to search out and publicly expose real or apparent misconduct of a prominent individual or business. The Cambridge Dictionary says muckraking is trying to find out unpleasant information about people or organizations in order to make it public.

President Theodore Roosevelt used the term as an insult to reporters. They, being contrarians, wore the term as a badge of honor, as they still do.

Theres a difference between muckraking and fake news. Determining the difference is too difficult for a computer, even one with the smartest kind of artificial intelligence.

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

See more here:

Will Facebook's Fake-News Detection System Lead to Censorship? - Truthdig

Beware of Self-Censorship – New Republic

This condition of generalized fear may even be inspired by some act of ancient violence, passed on through underground lore to contemporary consciousness. In the western part of El Salvador, peasants remembered, long after the fact, the armys 1931 massacre of their families, which took over ten thousand lives. So powerful was that memory fifty years later that when the rest of the country rose up against the military, scarcely anyone in the region took up arms.

Such ripple effects, even if unintended, are especially potent when their target belongs to an already vulnerable group. After 9/11, for example, journalists and activists reported extensive fear throughout Arab and Muslim communities in the United States, inspired by the detention of 1,200 to 5,000 Muslim and Arab men. This was a fear not just of detention, deportation, or vigilante violence, but of speaking out on politically controversial issues of American foreign policy, which mightand often doesattract scrutiny, surveillance, or harassment from the federal government and police. Theres fear in the Arab community, reported Mino Akhtar. What I hear Arabs and Muslims saying is, Lets keep a low profile. Dont step out there. We need to stay quiet and let this blow over, a claim confirmed by numerous press reports.

Against such a backdrop of fear, even the most innocuous actions can generate additional fear, with equally repressive results. In December 2001, for example, Mohadar Mohamed Abdoulah, a Yemeni immigrant living in San Diego, was granted $500,000 bail after being detained for two months as a 9/11 material witness and for having lied on his asylum application. Initially, the local Muslim community rallied to Abdoulahs cause, pledging $400,000 for his bail fund with promises to raise more. But once it was announced that each contributor would have to provide his or her name to the government and perhaps appear before the judge, many in the community balked. When people were told theyd have to go to court and answer questions from the judge, said Abdoulahs lawyer, they chilled out. One day, added the lawyer, its all about the solidarity and standing tall. Then they run. This community isnt split. This is about abject fear. Because of the states detentions and deportations, and because of vigilante attacks, this simple request to identify themselves to the court was enough to arouse fear throughout the Muslim community in San Diego.

Generating fear across time and space in this way requires the involvement, even cooperation, of the entire society: elites and collaborators, bystanders and victims. To command more than a small, immediate audience, political fear must mobilize generals and foot soldiers, and a supporting army of secretaries, cooks, and maids to tend to them. Political fear also relies upon bystanders, whose passivity paves a path for elites and their collaborators, and the targeted community of victims, who transmit didactic tales of fear among themselves, thereby increasing its reverberating effects. Inspired by the victims desire to shield themselves from sanctions, these small acts of education among the victims are central to the economy of fear. They minimize the amount of actual coercion perpetrators must apply, and they maximize the effect. One black North Carolina woman recounts that under Jim Crow her parents and grandparents warned her, at an early age, that if she disobeyed the rules of segregation, she would get arrested. So, she concluded, any time you saw white and colored, unless you wanted to be arrested and be in jail, you didnt dare.

This is the second in a series of five posts this week on fear in the age of Trump, drawn from Fear: The History of a Political Idea.

Link:

Beware of Self-Censorship - New Republic

Australia’s chief scientist: Trump’s EPA changes akin to Stalin’s censorship of science – TheBlaze.com

Australias top governmentscientist is likeningPresident Donald Trumps changes at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to scientific censorship under Soviet Union dictator Joseph Stalin.

Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, speaking during a roundtable discussion in Australias capital city ofCanberra, said Monday that science is literally under attack in the United States, according to the Guardian:

TheTrump administrationhas mandated that scientific data published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency from last week going forward has to undergo review by political appointees before that data can be published on the EPA website or elsewhere.

It defies logic. It will almost certainly cause long-term harm. Its reminiscent of the censorship exerted by political officers in the old Soviet Union.

Every military commander there had a political officer second-guessing his decisions.

Finkel was referring to a decisionby the Trump administration last month for political appointees toreview all the scientific data foundby scientists at the EPA before it can be cleared for publication.Doug Ericksen, communications director for Trumps EPA transition team, said that the review also applies to information on the agencys website and social media accounts.

And in January, EPA staffers said that the Trump White House ordered the agencyto remove its webpage on climate change a move that ruffled the feathers of many environmentalists.

If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear, one unnamed EPA staffer told Reuters last month, adding that some employees were working to preserve the data stored there.

Were taking a look at everything on a case-by-case basis, including the web page and whether climate stuff will be taken down, Ericksentold the Associated Press. Obviously with a new administration coming in, the transition time, well be taking a look at the web pages and the Facebook pages and everything else involved here at EPA.

Climate Central reported last weekthat the EPA has, in fact, started removing Obama-era information from the government website. Theyre mostly scrubbing it of anything that has a hint of Obama, Gretchen Goldman,research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said.

The administration, however, has downplayed the ordeal. White Housepress secretary Sean Spicer, who first denied Trumpdirectly orderedthe EPAs data scrub, said in January that the communications clampdown on scientific datawas not out of the ordinary, telling reporters, I dont think its any surprise that when theres an administration turnover, that were going to review the policy.

ButGeorge Gray, who was theassistant administrator for the EPAs Office of Research and Development under former PresidentGeorge W. Bush, told the Guardian that scientific studies are typically reviewed at lower levelsand rarely by political appointees.

Scientific studies would be reviewed at the level of a branch or a division or laboratory, he said. Occasionally, things that were known to be controversial would come up to me as assistant administrator and I was a political appointee. Nothing in my experience would go further than that.

Finkel, for his part, sees the White Houses decision as akin to Stalins efforts to censor science.

Soviet agricultural science was held back for decades because of the ideology of Trofim Lysenko, who was a proponent of Lamarckism, he said. Stalin loved Lysenkos conflation of science and Soviet philosophy and used his limitless power to ensure that Lysenkos unscientific ideas prevailed.

As the Smithsonian Magazine outlined, Lysenko was Stalins director of biology and he led a group of animal and plant breeders who rejected the science of genetics. He worked to discredit the genetic discoveries of Gregor Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan, attacking them for being foreigners with idealistic ideas that were the product of bourgeois capitalism.

Lysenko argued that he could quickly force plants and animals and even the Soviet people into forms that could meet practical needs and that those characteristic changes could be passed on to their offspring a debunked theory known as Lamarckism.

One of Lysenkosmost infamous claims was that he changed a species of spring wheat into winter wheat after just a few years. That was, of course, impossible, but it fed into Stalins mantra that the Soviet government could create the perfect utopia.

So while Western scientists embraced evolution and genetics, Russian scientists who thought the same were sent to the gulag. Western crops flourished. Russian crops failed, Finkel said. Today, the catch-cry of scientists must be frank and fearless advice, no matter the opinion of political commissars stationed at the U.S. EPA.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works suspended rules to approve Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA without any Democrats present. The Democrats boycotted Pruitts hearing last Wednesday, citing concerns over his rejection of climate change science.

A date for the Trump appointees full Senate vote has not yet been set, but given Republicans lead the Senate, his nominationis expected to be approved.

Visit link:

Australia's chief scientist: Trump's EPA changes akin to Stalin's censorship of science - TheBlaze.com

Uzbekistan: Emboldened Media Shedding Self-Censorship – EurasiaNet

A stack of Uzbek newspapers. Censorship is in theory proscribed by law in Uzbekistan. In reality, those few reporters that have been foolhardy enough to flout the rule on self-censorship have been subjected to intimidation and harassment. However, some news outlets in this Central Asian state have recently started dabbling with easing their policy of self-censorship on sensitive topics. (Photo: EurasiaNet)

As headlines go, this one might not look especially exciting; What Can We Expect from the Liberalization of the Foreign Currency Market? But the article, by respected economist Yuliy Yusupov, became an instant sensation when it was published January 17 by the Uzbekistan-focused online business news outlet Kommersant.uz. Tight official controls over currency and trade and the flourishing of a black economy in both these areas had made the subject off-limits for any local media in the days of the late President Islam Karimov. Thus, it is no surprise that the January 17 article touched off a flurry of social media chatter among Uzbek news consumers. The appearance of the piece offers evidence that, slowly and tentatively, some news outlets in Uzbekistan are dabbling with easing their policy of self-censorship on sensitive topics. Yusupov said he was initially approached by Kommersant.uz to write the article, but that they were surprised by the boldness of what they got back. They wavered over [the article] for a long time. Nobody has yet written such a candid piece in the press. Especially since they have experience of senior comrades telling them what they could and could not write, Yusupov told EurasiaNet.org. Eventually, the website relented and even published two more similar articles by Yusupov. Kommersant overcame the self-censorship, good for them. We will definitely continue, this is just the beginning, Yusupov said. So far, the higher-ups are quiet. Lets hope for the best. Yusupovs most recent article, published on February 6, is titled; About the Danger of Protectionism. The piece is, in effect, a frontal assault on a policy long favored by Karimov. Such articles would struggle to stand out in a Western business publication, but critical analyses of economic policies in particular, discussion of how badly the government has handled the economy have long been a no-go area for reporters in Uzbekistan. Censorship is in theory proscribed by law in Uzbekistan. On paper, existing legislation provides for expansive editorial freedoms. One passage in the law regulating media activity states that nobody has the right to demand prior approval for published material, or to demand changes to a text, or its removal from circulation. In reality, those few reporters that have been foolhardy enough to flout the rule on self-censorship have invariably been summoned to prosecutors offices, where they have been subjected to intimidation and harassment. Controls tend to be even stronger on reporters in the regions, and will likely remain so for some time. In the city of Samarkand, reporter Toshpulat Rakhmatullayev recently wrote a piece on news website Nuz.uz titled; Who Will Free Samarkand of the Powers of Darkness? The article examines the spate of power shortages that has been afflicting his region of late, and, on the face of, is quite standard, if heavily opinionated. In addition to describing the routine blackouts occurring in Samarkand carefully tabulating how many times the power went out Rakhmatullayev also recounts his exchanges with government officials. It is not difficult to note that between the power going out and going back on again, there would be intervals of one to three minutes. You can imagine how this grates the nerves. My friend, who has a generator at home, says that as soon as he gets to his device, they turn the light back on, Rakhmatullayev wrote. The report duly earned Rakhmatullayev a summons to the prosecutors office. But, undeterred, the journalist penned another piece on February 1 headlined; Why Should Journalists Suffer for Telling the Truth? I had to tell this person from the prosecutors office that it is necessary to distinguish between complaining and journalism. I did not complain, but I just raised the problem of electricity supply to Samarkand, which is a problem that is of concern to thousands of people, Rakhmatullayev wrote. Letters from Samarkand residents to the presidential website, which recently introduced a function allowing citizens to write in directly with complaints, have proven of little use in alleviating the problem, Rakhmatullayev noted. He added that when he complained to local officials, they did nothing but try to gather incriminating information about him. Since President Shavkat Mirziyoyevs ascendancy to power, articles have appeared in the Uzbek press detailing the everyday problems affecting citizens. These concern primarily shortages of electricity, gas, water and employment. It is Mirziyoyev himself who has encouraged this sudden surge of emboldened criticism by publicly urging officials to pay more heed to the pleas of ordinary citizens, and to discuss them in newspapers and Internet publications. You too should act from below and demand solutions to your problems, the president told an audience during a meeting with members of the public in January in the semiautonomous republic of Karakalpakstan. Mirziyoyev has also been effecting some changes at the top. On February 3, he appointed a new head of the national television and radio broadcaster a former minister for information technology and communication development, Hurshid Mirzahidov. The outgoing head of the broadcaster, Alisher Hadjaev, who had filled the position since December 2005, was a high-ranking officer in the National Security Service, or SNB. The SNB has in the decades since independence amassed a vast army of operatives and extended its influence into all areas of life with a view to consolidating the authority of the ruling elite. Under Hadjaev, state television was used as a platform for the propagation of the late President Karimovs political programs and ideology. Even mild criticism of any aspects of government policy disappeared from the airwaves, and progressive-minded journalists were dismissed. Despite being one of the largest broadcasters in the region, Uzbekistans national state television and radio company has no correspondents anywhere across the former Soviet Union and focuses entirely on domestic developments. In addition to hammering home state ideology, the government-run broadcaster was also used to target perceived opponents of the authorities, or the country itself. For example, in 2012, at the height of a smear campaign targeting Turkish businesses in Uzbekistan, the state broadcaster pulled the plug on popular Turkish TV shows, substituting them with South Korean soap operas instead. And it was during the Hadjaev era that the TV evening bulletin earned the mocking unofficial nickname of News from Heaven.

View post:

Uzbekistan: Emboldened Media Shedding Self-Censorship - EurasiaNet

Russian Filmmakers Protest Attempts To ‘Censor’ Film About Young Tsar – RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

An independent group of Russian filmmakers is protesting what it says is are efforts by a State Duma deputy from Russia-annexed Crimea to "censor" a controversial film centered on a love affair between the future Tsar Nicholas II and a young ballerina.

Kino Soyuz (Union of Filmmakers) on February 7 published an open letter protesting Duma Deputy Natalya Poklonskaya's calls for investigations of the unreleased film, Matilda, by director Aleksei Uchitel.

The protest letter, signed by more than 40 Russian directors, also charges that nationalists belonging to a group called "Orthodox State -- Holy Russia" have been threatening "arson attacks and violent acts against theaters that would dare to show the film."

Poklonskaya was the Kremlin-appointed prosecutor-general in Crimea from the time Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory in March 2014 until she was elected to Russia's State Duma in September.

She now wants Moscow prosecutors to declare that Uchitel's film violates provisions in Russia's Criminal Code against insulting "the religious feelings of believers."

She says the film portrays Tsar Nicholas II -- a canonized Russian Orthodox saint -- as a sinner.

'Drunkards And Fornicators'

Poklonskaya also charges that Uchitel wrongly portrays Russia as a country full of "drunkards, gallows, and fornicators."

Although Matilda is not scheduled to have its first screening until October 2017, it became mired in controversy after a promotional trailer was released in 2016.

The film tells the story of a three-year affair between Crown Prince Nicholas and a teenage ballet dancer named Matilda Kshesinskaya that ended in 1894. After the affair, Nicholas married the German princess who became Empress Aleksandra.

Tsar Nicholas II with his family in 1914, three years before they fell foul of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Nicholas II was executed together with his entire family after the 1917 Bolshevik coup. They were canonized as Russian Orthodox saints in 2000.

A Russian Orthodox Christian and monarchist organization called Tsar's Cross denounced the film project as pornographic and unpatriotic -- leading Poklonskaya in November to demand a criminal investigation.

But the Prosecutor-General's Office in Moscow announced in January that it was unable to uncover any evidence suggesting the film might offend religious beliefs.

That ruling led more than 20,000 Russian Orthodox activists to petition Russia's Culture Ministry and demand that the film be banned.

Bolstered by that petition, Poklonskaya announced on January 30 that she had officially requested that the investigation be reopened.

'Influential Forces'

The Russian Orthodox Church and Culture Ministry have not taken any public position on the controversy surrounding the film.

On February 7, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said President Vladimir Putin's administration "does not want to take sides" in the dispute.

Peskov said debate about whether the film is offensive should take place after it has been publicly screened.

The protest letter by Kino Soyuz says independent Russian filmmakers "know very well what censorship is" because of "decades" during the Soviet era that "ruined the destinies and fates of artists and impeded the development of the arts."

The letter concludes that Russian culture should "not be pressured by new forms of censorship, no matter what influential forces initiate it."

See original here:

Russian Filmmakers Protest Attempts To 'Censor' Film About Young Tsar - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Documents About Financial Censorship Under Operation Choke Point Show Concern from Congress, Provide Few … – EFF

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.

Excerpt from:

Documents About Financial Censorship Under Operation Choke Point Show Concern from Congress, Provide Few ... - EFF

Pakistan’s Censorship Takes a Dangerous Turn – The Diplomat

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 more here:

Pakistan's Censorship Takes a Dangerous Turn - The Diplomat

Comparing Trump to Stalin, Australia’s Chief Scientist Warns Against Censorship – Common Dreams


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 Top Scientist: Trump's EPA Changes Akin to Stalin's Censorship of ScienceThe Libertarian Republic
The Guardian -The Australian -The Sydney Morning Herald
all 14 news articles »

More:

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

Arizona Bill Would Stop Censorship Of High-School Newspapers – KJZZ

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 ...

Read more from the original source:

Arizona Bill Would Stop Censorship Of High-School Newspapers - KJZZ

A Pirate Podcast App Takes on Iran’s Hardline Censors – WIRED

Slide: 1 / of 2. Caption: RadiTo

Slide: 2 / of 2. Caption: RadiTo

Reza Ghazinouri remembers the importance of pirate radio as a teenager growing up in in the city of Mashhad in northeast Iran. His father tuned in multiple times a day to the banned Farsi version of the BBC transmitted from neighboring countries, to hear the truth about Iranian political scandals like the impeachment of the countrys liberal minister of culture, and the shutdown of dozens of its newspapers. While Ghazinouri studied for his college entrance exams in 2003, hed listen to the US government-funded Radio Farda coverage of student protests against university privatization. I still remember those programs so clearly, Ghazinouri says, Every night Id imagine myself protesting like the students.

Today, Ghazinouri has found his own form of protest. Hes one of the creators of an app that aims to bring the same contraband audio to modern Iran in a revamped form: the pirate podcast. Today he and his fellow activists and coders at the Berkeley-based, Iran-focused app developer IranCubator will launch RadiTo, an audio app for Android uniquely suited to the conditions of the countrys internet. It navigates slow, expensive data connections, users who speak a variety of languages and dialects ignored by most podcast distributors, and trickiest of all, a draconian digital censorship regime. With RadiTo, the group hopes to evade that internet filtering and bring a rare stream of aural information about the outside world to the countrys burgeoning smartphone culture.

For now, the app works as a kind of digital radio tool, offering banned foreign channels like the BBC, Radio Farda, and Amsterdam-based Radio Zamaneh. But eventually RadiTo, whose name means Radio You in Farsi, plans to let anyone create their own podcast channel, serving as a kind of audio-only Iranian YouTube for illicit ideas and entertainment. This allows individuals to have a platform to broadcast whatever they want to broadcast, says Firuzeh Mahmoudi, one of IranCubators founders and the executive director of its creator United For Iran. Getting access to radio stations outside the country is imperative, and a platform where individuals can have channels to share information is critical.

Beyond mere news, RadiTo will offer audio channels devoted to other subjects forbidden in Iran. One show it plans to distribute, called Taboo, has in the last several months devoted episodes to censored topics like pre-marital sex, separatist groups, and the female orgasm. Another show will focus on Iranian mysticism, a controversial topic under Irans strict interpretation of Islam. Both shows are run by Iranians living in America; the subjects they cover, after all, are a form of thought crime in Iran. Irans digital censorship body, the Supreme Council for Cyberspace, has long blocked all internet content in the country that violates its tight restrictionseverything from political dissent against the countrys hardline regime to cultural content it considers anti-Islamic.

RadiTo has a few ideas about how to stay ahead of that filtering. It offers two ways to download RadiTo: both Google Play and trusted Telegram accounts, like the one run by pseudonymous Iranian activist and blogger Vahid Online. Iran doesnt currently block either method, Ghazinouri says, and since connections to Google Play are encrypted, the Iranian censors cant easily block downloads of RadiTo without blocking all connections to the Android app store that serves more than 70 percent of the countrys smartphone users. The server that hosts RadiTos content, Ghazinouri explains, is hosted on Amazon Web Services and encrypted, which similarly hides its data in a tough-to-block collection of other services. (The encrypted calling and texting app Signal recently used a similar tactic to circumvent blocking of the app in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.)

Ghazinouri concedes that the government might still find a way to block the apps connections by, say, identifying the exact IP range of the apps Amazon servers, or using deep packet inspection to spot its data in transit. So the group also has a workaround in mind: In the case of a block, its ready to push an update to the app via both Google Play and Telegram that would embed a proxy function, routing its data over the Psiphon network, an anti-censorship tool created by the University of Torontos Citizen Lab, which bounces users connections through the computers of volunteers outside Iran. Individual Farsi audio apps from broadcasters like Radio Zamaneh do have their own Android apps, but probably arent as well prepared to play the cat-and-mouse game of censorship evasion, argues Ghazinouri. The Iranian government comes up with new censorship techniques all the time, says Ghazinouri. You always have to have a Plan B.

Iranians can already access some of these services piecemeal, through proxies and other workarounds. But RadiTo on top of censorship circumvention, RadiTo also has features that solve uniquely Iranian problems. Its interface offers not only Farsi and English, but four other Iranian minority languages: Balouchi, Iranian-dialect Turkish, Kurdish, and Arabic. And it allows users to download content and listen offline, a crucial setting in a country where a lack of infrastructure and intentional government throttling slows internet speeds to an expensive trickle. Theres no other Iranian app that offers all this, says Fereidoon Bashar, an internet activist and developer at the Toronto-based technology lab ASL-19, which is working with IranCubator on future apps for the same market. Its accommodating not just the user experience, but also the internet ecosystem that exists in Iran, the limited access to data.

RadiTo is only the first official launch for IranCubator. In the coming months, it hopes to launch a dozen apps, all tailored for Iranian users and the challenges of Irans cloistered internet. Later in February, for instance, IranCubator plans to release a tool called Hamdam, aimed at womens health education. Hamdam will include a period tracker, information about marriage rights and divorce, and advice about dealing with domestic violence.

IranCubator founder Mahmoudi says she hopes the groups human-rights focused apps can collectively ride the growing wave of mobile device adoption in Iran, where 40 million people already own smartphones, with a million more added every month. Iranians are tech-savvy and globally minded. They want to be in a county thats more democratic and worldly, says Mahmoudi. All the indicators are there. Technology is the right tool to engage people where they want to engage.

Read more:

A Pirate Podcast App Takes on Iran's Hardline Censors - WIRED

Censorship or parental control? Va. lawmakers divided on bill – WTOP

The bill would require schools to notify parents of any potentially sexually explicit classroom material and require that schools offer an alternative for the students of any parents who opt out. (Thinkstock)

WASHINGTON Virginias House of Delegates could take a final vote Monday on a bill that would require schools to notify parents of any potentially sexually explicit classroom material and require that schools offer an alternative for the students of any parents who opt out.

Opponents of the bill said it amounts to censorship in schools. Supporters said it is simply a requirement to keep parents informed and in control.

This does not prohibit any teacher from assigning any type of material they deem necessary or appropriate. It does not ban books. It does not ban any materials that teachers or school systems would like to have on their reading list and the like. It doesnt do that, the bills patron Del. Steve Landes, R-Augusta, said Friday.

This legitimately addresses a legitimate concern that parents raised, he said.

Del. Dave Albo, R-Springfield, described the bill as a compromise that strikes a fair balance.

I think that 99.99999 percent of the parents in Virginia would like to know if someone assigned a book that has scenes about sexual abuse of a child and infected sexual battery, Albo said.

Del. Alfonso Lopez, D-Arlington, said that even though this years bill set for a final vote is narrower than the bill that was vetoed by Gov. Terry McAuliffelast year, there would still be significant unintended consequences and problems.

More than likely, a teacher will not be able to do two entire lesson plans for the same class, sometimes on a very quick turnaround, after an objection from just one parent. This makes it much less likely that theyd be willing to even attempt to use anything that might be considered objectionable in their lessons, Lopez said.

He said it would be a form of censorship that could limit all kinds of classic art and literature.

For a junior taking AP English and learning iambic pentameter, what is less objectionable literary work that is the equivalent to any of Shakespeares plays? Lopez said.

Most importantly, what is an equivalent work to Toni Morrisons Beloved, which teaches us in a very raw and unflinching manner and terms about the horrors of slavery? he added.

The bill was originally triggered by a Fairfax County mother who protested the use of Beloved in her sons class when he was a senior in high school.

Lopez and Del. Vivian Watts, D-Annandale, warned of a potential black eye for Virginias reputation if the bill passes, and it becomes widely reported or mentioned on late-night TV.

Lopez cited the widespread reaction to the recent move in Accomac, Virginia, to pull To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn following a parents complaint.

We will end up with excluding for all what might be objectionable to just a few, she added.

The bill advanced Friday on a voice vote to a final vote that is expected on Monday. The bill would then go to the state Senate.

Del. Nicholas Freitas, R-Culpeper, said this is simply a service for parents.

I dont care how many Pulitzer Prizes it has. If its sexually explicit material, that might be something as a parent that I want to be notified of, Freitas said.

Read the proposed bill on theVirginia General Assembly website.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.

2017 WTOP. All Rights Reserved.

Read the rest here:

Censorship or parental control? Va. lawmakers divided on bill - WTOP

The Censorship Conspiracy Theories Have Begun, And Media … – Forbes


Forbes
The Censorship Conspiracy Theories Have Begun, And Media ...
Forbes
A technical glitch during an ABC broadcast about Trump's travel ban has led to hundreds of people claiming censorship from the White House, and this is just ...
No, Donald Trump Didn't Censor ABC News, As a Viral Reddit Post ...Observer

all 2 news articles »

Read more:

The Censorship Conspiracy Theories Have Begun, And Media ... - Forbes

Internet censorship in Pakistan – Wikipedia

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]

Read more:

Internet censorship in Pakistan - Wikipedia

Ethereum Project Offers Censorship Resistant ‘World …

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The popular digital currency Bitcoin, witha market capitalization of over $16 billion, was in the news over the weekend after it recrossed the $1,000/Bitcoin value threshold. Despite the buzz around Bitcoin, there is another cryptocurrency-related project that is poised to revolutionize the way in which we exchange.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The Ethereum Project, an open source platform developed by 22-year old programmer Vitalik Buterin, is seeking to build upon the blockchain technology established by Bitcoin by allowing developers to use the blockchain to build decentralized applications.

The blockchain is a decentralized database where records and entries are virtually unchangeable. While Bitcoin utilizes blockchain technology to manage a currency, the Ethereum Project provides an open source environment where programmers can create applications on the blockchain.

Tristan Winters, a reporter at ETHNews, the leading online Ethereum news site, explained to me the Ethereum project in laymans terms: Ethereum is a world computer. Instead of hosting apps on a server, you host them on the Ethereum blockchain and p2p network (world computer). So the apps are censorship resistant and no one can shut them down, even if they want to.

Ethereum is driven by Ether, a cryptocurrency that acts as fuel for the system. According to the projects website, Ether is a necessary element that ensures that developers are writing quality applications:

Ether is a necessary element a fuel for operating the distributed application platform Ethereum. It is a form of payment made by the clients of the platform to the machines executing the requested operations. To put it another way, ether is the incentive ensuring that developers write quality applications (wasteful code costs more), and that the network remains healthy (people are compensated for their contributed resources).

Because of the open source nature of Ethereum, its has almost limitless functions. Developers have proposed and began work on decentralized file storage systems, financial systems, and business management systems.

Ethereum allows actors to create smart contracts, which are programs that run on the blockchain that can handle currency in a way that is unchangeable. Smart contracts can be used for a variety of business functions, such as the representation of shares, organizational voting, and fundraising.

The decentralized nature of the Ethereum blockchain would allow for social networks that are truly resistant to censorship. Unlike Facebook or Twitter, a social network operating on Ethereum wouldnt be accessed via centralized servers. Such a network would exist as a peer-to-peer network that lives on computers throughout the world. Because such a network would have no centralized body, censorship would be extremely difficult.

Although it is unclear what the future holds for the Ethereum Project and the value of Ether, it seems likely that there is increasing interest in decentralized applications that have the potential to liberate an increasingly centralized world.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about social justice and libertarian issues for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

Read this article:

Ethereum Project Offers Censorship Resistant 'World ...