Google claims that they have been told by authorities from various governments, by way of more than 1,000 requests, to remove content from YouTube in the last 6 months of 2011. Google says this is “an alarming trend”. This is an attempt to subvert responsibility from the mega search engine, who works for the National Security Agency (NSA).

A US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, ruled last month that the NSA does not need to confirm nor deny (known as a “Glomar” response) its collaborations with Google; how the two work together to spy on American citizens in the name of protecting the public from false flag “cyber-attacks”.

The court’s ruling states effectively that regardless of a filing by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) with the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents as to the relationship, the US government does not have to divulge any arrangement between the NSA and the search engine giant.

Dorothy Chou, Google’s senior policy analyst, states: “Unfortunately, what we’ve seen over the past couple years has been troubling, and today is no different.

We hoped this was an aberration. But now we know it’s not.”

Google now admits that these requests targeted political speech, as mentioned in their Transparency Report in 2010. Chou confirms that it is “not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect — Western democracies not typically associated with censorship.”

Google has simply complied with court orders and informal requested to remove content from the internet.

The search engine, subverting their influential responsibility, blames:

• Spanish regulators request 270 links to blogs, newspaper articles be removed criticizing public figures
• German government demands removal of Nazi references in YouTube videos
• Government officials in Thailand requested videos featuring their monarch be erased
• Canadian government said remove video of citizen urinating on Canadian passport; however in this one instance Google refused

In January of 2012, the European Union, under the guise of creating “a clean and open internet” set guidelines by which under certain circumstances they would have legal recourse to censor content and have it removed from the internet. The EU regulators used the excuse of racial content, child abuse and spam to take down content and curb free speech on the Web.

The EU has modeled their censorship of the internet after the Chinese approach.

In April of 2011, at the European Parliament’s event entitled, Creative Industries: Innovation for Growth, Michael Barnier of the French European Commissioner for the Internal Market stated that they have plans to enforce intellectual property rights onto internet service providers (ISPs) by way of police, called online intermediaries, who will criminalize consumers on the internet.

The EU is collecting user names and IP addresses from file-sharing sites and hosting services. Under the ACTA Treaty , the EU justifies its use of law enforcement against claimed copyright law infringement and uploading unlicensed material.

The EU/China internal policy on censorship of the internet will be based on the European model of censorship by proxy , whereby Internet intermediaries undertake the work. For unwanted traffic from outside the EU, the Chinese model of a “virtual border” is being pushed forward, despite recent protestations of innocence from the EU institutions.

Google, trying to clean up their image as a dominating force on the internet working for governments to subvert the freedom of the internet, is claiming that they are innocent in their removal of content by blaming government agencies and courts who demand corporations censor the internet for various reasons.

This bait and switch may convince the integrated masses who have not come to the realization that this world is controlled by a global Elite who is ushering in by incremental stages a one world government, but many are waking up to this fact.

And because the sheep are waking up, their efforts to purvey propaganda are losing its foothold.

The post Google Says Governments Are Using Their Services to Censor the Internet appeared first on Susanne Posel.

This week, the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) will launch the 6 strikes Copyright Alert System (CAS) that has major participants such as AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon.

Intnernet Service Providers (ISPs) will collaborate to monitor the internet for users who download copyrighted material from websites such as BitTorrent.

Once a user is identified, the ISP will send a warning. There is a 3 tier system of warnings with two per tier. After 6 warnings the user is blocked.

Categorizing the first two warnings as “educational alters”, the user will be informed that their online activity was logged.

Next come the “acknowledgement alerts” that will take over the user’s browser. A message will be displayed that outlines the user was “caught” wherein the user must acknowledge that they have received this warning.

Finally, the last 2 warning are called “mitigation measures” because the ISP will withhold bandwidth from the user and/or block access to certain websites. The ISP cannot disable the internet completely; however the user’s ability to freely choose to go to any website will be severely impaired.

The CCI portrays itself as benign and assisting small internet businesses in keeping their right to monetarily benefit from copyrighted material.

CCI said: “Practically speaking, this means our content partners will begin sending notices of alleged P2P copyright infringement to ISPs, and the ISPs will begin forwarding those notices in the form of Copyright Alerts to consumers. Most consumers will never receive Alerts under the program. Consumers whose accounts have been used to share copyrighted content over P2P networks illegally (or without authority) will receive Alerts that are meant to educate rather than punish, and direct them to legal alternatives.”

Jill Lesser, executive director for the CCI explained: “Implementation marks the culmination of many months of work on this groundbreaking and collaborative effort to curb online piracy and promote the lawful use of digital music, movies and TV shows. The CAS marks a new way to reach consumers who may be engaging in peer-to-peer (P2P) piracy.”

Lesser goes on to say that she hopes “this cooperative, multi-stakeholder approach will serve as a model for addressing important issues facing all who participate in the digital entertainment ecosystem.”

As copyrighted material is better protected, there will be a collective understanding that “we all benefit from a better understanding of the choices available and the rights and responsibilities that come with using digital content, thereby helping to drive investment in content creation and innovative services that offer exciting ways to enjoy music, video and all digital content.”

Lesser is a former employee of AOL/Time Warner “serving as a lead advisor on technology, intellectual property and telecommunications issues as well as other issues affecting the media industry.” Serving on the US Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee (USCICA), Lesser lobbied for the necessities of copyright enforcement on the internet for the sake of protecting consumer, intellectual property, and corporate expression on the internet.

As cited by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, SOPA and PIPA came together to create the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which “effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws”. This big brother legislation would have given the power to the corporations to allege copyright infringement which would empower them to spy on users online activity, personal data, ISPs, search engines, social networks, text messages, phone calls, emails and all other digital correspondence.

CISPA inspired protests across the nation while over 3 million corporations in the domestic US supported the bill.

In August of 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was central in the taking of domain names for websites without due process or explanation – simply using the blanket claim of copyright infringement. US Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of DHS Janet Napolitano received correspondence from several members of the House of Representatives who were in protest of the domain name seizures, citing that the copyright claims were questionable and that the websites were clearly being censored for alternative reasons.

The letter stated that: “Our concern centers on your Department’s methods, and the process given, when seizing the domain names of websites whose actions and content are presumed to be lawful, protected speech.”

The EFF have reported on copyright trolls that experiment with claiming copyright infringement to “extract settlements from individuals.” These trolls “try to grow businesses out of suing Internet users.”

Professional trolls litter the court system with frivolous lawsuits based on wild accusations of copyright infringement in order to wear down the victim as well as hoping to squeeze monetary restitution for fraudulent claims. The members of the alternative media as well as readers need to be aware of these individuals who are cloaked in truth yet rife with disinformation. Their intention is to cut off the free flow of information on the internet and stifle voices that are exposing truth for their own selfish gains.

In a White House statement, the Obama administration seeks to incorporate America with Canada and the other TPP countries in a “next-generation regional agreement that liberalizes trade and investment.” The press release explains that trans-pacific partnership (TPP) will build upon “the commitments of NAFTA.”

The TPP defines intellectual property as:

• Copyright
• Trademarks
• Patents
• Geopolitical indicators

The leaked document drafted as the TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter clearly states that negotiators for Obama are actively pushing for the adaptation of copyright measures that further restrict that is outlined in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and other similar international treaties.

There is an initiative to control global IP enforcement by the UN under signatory treaty wherein nations will be mandated to enact domestic laws that have been worded to reflect the provisions in the TPP agreement.

In June of 2012, Senators Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden and Robert Menendez wrote to the Obama administration requesting transparency regarding the TPP talks. In the correspondence, the Senators conveyed: “Groups essential to the success and legitimacy of any agreements are not being provided the opportunity to provide meaningful input on negotiations that have broad policy ramifications. If Congress and the broader public are not informed of the exact terms of the agreement until the conclusion of the process, then the opportunity for meaningful input is lost. The lack of transparency and input makes passage of trade agreements more contentious and controversial.”

The post Copyright Alert System: ISPs Now Control User Access to Content on the Internet appeared first on Susanne Posel.

The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (SCNPC) in China passed a law which requires citizens using the internet to identify themselves when signing up for Web and phone services. Blaming social media “discussions” for having increased “instability in certain regions” there will be a real name registration that “will make web users more cautious when posting comments online.”

The newly approved legislation forces internet users to use their real names when signing up for internet, mobile phones or land-line phone service. This stipulation will allow them to post information or commentary online.

Chinese state-sponsored media stated that “the law should escort the development of the internet to protect people’s interest. Only that way can our internet be healthier, more cultured and safer.”

Murong Xuecun, a prominent Chinese writer, explains: “Their intention is very clear: It is to take back that bit of space for public opinion, that freedom of speech hundreds of millions of Chinese Internet users have strived for.”

Network service providers will be required to have their customers use their real names and other identification to post commentary in public forums.

It has been proposed that an ID card would be issued to citizens with specific numbers attached to them that could corroborate their identity.

The philosophy behind such measures is that “There is no absolute Internet freedom. Internet information has its own boundaries — it must not harm others’ freedom, be subject to moral standards, and comply with laws and regulations.”

Li Fei, deputy director of the legislature’s Legal Work Committee and member of the SCNPC, said that “this is needed for the healthy development of the Internet.” Fei went on to say that “the country’s constitution protects citizens’ rights in supervising and criticizing the state and government officials’ behavior.”

The Chinese government justifies this move as preserving the integrity of the internet from those who would choose to make defamatory statements against the government with malice and hide under anonymity. The SCNPC believes that they are following suit after other countries who have recently installed similar controls over the free flow of information and commentary on the internet.

In December of 2012, Terry Kramer, US Ambassador attending the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, claimed that China and Russia are pushing for the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to have oversight extensions to include the internet – as of now, they are solely governing broadband telephone communications and international calls.

Canada, Australia, Europe and Japan have joined the US in propositioning the WCIT to limit the range of totalitarian controls the UN can impose on the internet. This alliance and their ideas are being met with harsh criticism from the ITU. There has been a surprising alliance formed with some Arab nations with Russian and China in allowing the UN to take over the internet.

Kramer asserts that China and Russia are pushing for the ITU to have oversight extensions to include the internet – as of now, they are solely governing broadband telephone communications and international calls.

After much banter, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and China have withdrawn their proposal for individual nation’s power over internet addresses and digital domains which would have decentralized power over web addresses.

The US House of Representatives voted against the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and their scheme to oversee an “increased government control over the Internet” that would “undermine the current multistake-holder model that has enabled the Internet to flourish and under which the private sector.” The European Parliament in England paved the way last month by passing an identical resolution.

The unilateral vote was 397-0 to approve the fight against the UN and their international move to control the internet.

In the US, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request to obtain a copy of Presidential Policy Directive 20 (PPD20) or the new cybersecurity declaration from the executive branch of our US government.

Obama has outlined a protocol that explains procedures that enable the military industrial complex to prevent digital attacks from foreign nations, hackers and any other definable threat to national security by specifying “constitutes an “offensive” and a “defensive” action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism, where an attack can be launched in milliseconds by unknown assailants utilizing a circuitous route.”

It is said that PPD20 directs the military to take over the internet in the event a cyber-attack is acknowledged by the President. Obama has outlined a protocol that explains procedures that enable the military industrial complex to prevent digital attacks from foreign nations, hackers and any other definable threat to national security on the internet. This “secret law” allows the National Security Agency (NSA) and Pentagon to employ armed forces to ensure American cyber-infrastructure and digital communications.

In 2011, Obama announced the proposal of internet ID cards issued to Americans described by Howard Schmidt, the White House Cybersecurity coordinator, as an “identity ecosystem” for the internet.

Gary Locke, Commerce Secretary, spoke at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research to explain the internet ID card. Locke said: “We are not talking about a national ID card. We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities.”

The post China Requires Users to Identify Themselves on Internet appeared first on Susanne Posel.

The Illinois State Senate has introduced bill 1614 entitled “Internet Posting Removal Act” that “provides that a web site administrator shall, upon request, remove any posted comments posted by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

This bill is championed by State Senator Ira Silverstein. The language of the bill defines an anonymous poster as “any individual who posts a message on a web site including social networks, blogs, forums, message boards, or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.”

In the name of curbing telephone harassment and applying this control to Internet activity, Arizona State legislators have passed House Bill 2549. The law uses anti-bullying campaigns to establish any offensive communications including editorials, illustrations, and satires become a crime to be punished.

According to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund: “The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’ as well as certain sexual speech. Because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, HB 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.”

The Media Coalition wrote a letter to Governor Jan Brewer concerning HB 2549 saying that it “would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify’ . . . ‘lewd’ and ‘profane’ are not defined in the statute or by reference.”

The bill defines “lewd” as vague and basically “that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.”

Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google has recently said that he believes the biggest threat to internet freedom is “a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry’s attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of “restrictive” walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.”

Brin’s concerns are the censorship that countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran implement to alter their internet for their citizens. “There’s a lot to be lost,” Brin said.

Goggle has released their 2013 report stating that the US is first in line of governments across the globe that are requesting information on users; with more than 8,000 requests on nearly 15,000 users.

The internet giant claims to be forced to hand over this data to the federal government. The reports produced by Google show that the US government is increasing their surveillance on their citizen’s private lives.

Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), federal agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are able to obtain information from corporations without the necessity of a warrant. While 68% of the requests to Google from federal agencies were legal, there are still 42% of those demands for digital information on users that circumvented the process of obtaining a warrant to justify the need for this invasion of American’s privacy.

Last year, Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, drafted the ECPA substitution which was meant to be an update to a piece of legislation.

Leahy meant to replace the 180 – day rule within the ECPA that gives law enforcement agencies the freedom to simply subpoena (i.e. request) a warrant to gain lawful access to private citizen’s emails older than 6 months. The subpoena would be sufficed in lieu of obtaining an actual warrant. As of now, a police department can claim – without being subject to proof – that a particular email is an imperative to an investigation and can gain access to that information without having to seek judicial means.

The change to the ECPA was never made. Instead, Leahy rewrote the bill to say that law enforcement no longer needed a warrant at all and could access any electronic information required to conduct their investigation by simply claiming its relevance.

In this newly altered bill HR 2471, federal and local law enforcement agencies including Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Federal Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will be empowered to obtain any US citizens:

• Private email
• Google Docs
• Facebook posts
• Twitter posts

Censorship of speech on the internet is the concern of pro-Zionist groups such as the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) who are “a private, independent, non-violent protest organization representing a collective of activists” that are committed to advocating for Israel on the internet by pro-Israel “presenting news, viewpoints, and information throughout a large network reaching hundreds of thousands via email, Facebook, YouTube, RSS feeds, Twitter, and other digital hubs to those who share our concerns for Israel and about anti-Semitic and jihadist online content.”

JIDF are proud that they have been integral in “the removal of thousands of anti-Semitic and jihadist pages online. Whether it’s an anti-Semitic Facebook page with millions of members, or a YouTube video promoting global jihad, our team is on it, monitoring it, and urging companies to adhere to their own rules.”

In the name of controlling free speech on the Web, as well as demanding that anti-Zionist views be silenced, JIDF have gathered “individuals” together in “a real grassroots effort for change.”

In Russia, a vague law was passed for the sake of protecting children on the internet. Websites identified as having “harmful information” specified as “child pornography, suicide how-to instructions and drug providers to install special equipment” is a thinly-veiled attempt to create “mechanism for blocking foreign sites.”

The post US States Pass Legislation to Censor Free Speech on the Internet appeared first on Susanne Posel.