Skip to main content

Home/ Future of the Web/ Group items tagged speech

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Paul Merrell

What's Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in its Name? - The Intercept - 0 views

firstlook.org/...terally-blocking-websites-name

censorship-crimes web-site-blocking terrorism™ civil liberties discrimination War-on-Muslims

shared by Paul Merrell on 19 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Forcibly taking down websites deemed to be supportive of terrorism, or criminalizing speech deemed to “advocate” terrorism, is a major trend in both Europe and the West generally. Last month in Brussels, the European Union’s counter-terrorism coordinator issued a memo proclaiming that “Europe is facing an unprecedented, diverse and serious terrorist threat,” and argued that increased state control over the Internet is crucial to combating it. The memo noted that “the EU and its Member States have developed several initiatives related to countering radicalisation and terrorism on the Internet,” yet argued that more must be done. It argued that the focus should be on “working with the main players in the Internet industry [a]s the best way to limit the circulation of terrorist material online.” It specifically hailed the tactics of the U.K. Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU), which has succeeded in causing the removal of large amounts of material it deems “extremist”:
  • In addition to recommending the dissemination of “counter-narratives” by governments, the memo also urged EU member states to “examine the legal and technical possibilities to remove illegal content.” Exploiting terrorism fears to control speech has been a common practice in the West since 9/11, but it is becoming increasingly popular even in countries that have experienced exceedingly few attacks. A new extremist bill advocated by the right-wing Harper government in Canada (also supported by Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau even as he recognizes its dangers) would create new crimes for “advocating terrorism”; specifically: “every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general” would be a guilty and can be sent to prison for five years for each offense. In justifying the new proposal, the Canadian government admits that “under the current criminal law, it is [already] a crime to counsel or actively encourage others to commit a specific terrorism offence.” This new proposal is about criminalizing ideas and opinions. In the government’s words, it “prohibits the intentional advocacy or promotion of terrorism, knowing or reckless as to whether it would result in terrorism.”
  • If someone argues that continuous Western violence and interference in the Muslim world for decades justifies violence being returned to the West, or even advocates that governments arm various insurgents considered by some to be “terrorists,” such speech could easily be viewed as constituting a crime. To calm concerns, Canadian authorities point out that “the proposed new offence is similar to one recently enacted by Australia, that prohibits advocating a terrorist act or the commission of a terrorism offence-all while being reckless as to whether another person will engage in this kind of activity.” Indeed, Australia enacted a new law late last year that indisputably targets political speech and ideas, as well as criminalizing journalism considered threatening by the government. Punishing people for their speech deemed extremist or dangerous has been a vibrant practice in both the U.K. and U.S. for some time now, as I detailed (coincidentally) just a couple days before free speech marches broke out in the West after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Those criminalization-of-speech attacks overwhelmingly target Muslims, and have resulted in the punishment of such classic free speech activities as posting anti-war commentary on Facebook, tweeting links to “extremist” videos, translating and posting “radicalizing” videos to the Internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Beyond the technical issues, trying to legislate ideas out of existence is a fool’s game: those sufficiently determined will always find ways to make themselves heard. Indeed, as U.S. pop star Barbra Streisand famously learned, attempts to suppress ideas usually result in the greatest publicity possible for their advocates and/or elevate them by turning fringe ideas into martyrs for free speech (I have zero doubt that all five of the targeted sites enjoyed among their highest traffic dates ever today as a result of the French targeting). But the comical futility of these efforts is exceeded by their profound dangers. Who wants governments to be able to unilaterally block websites? Isn’t the exercise of this website-blocking power what has long been cited as reasons we should regard the Bad Countries — such as China and Iran — as tyrannies (which also usually cite “counterterrorism” to justify their censorship efforts)?
  • s those and countless other examples prove, the concepts of “extremism” and “radicalizing” (like “terrorism” itself) are incredibly vague and elastic, and in the hands of those who wield power, almost always expand far beyond what you think it should mean (plotting to blow up innocent people) to mean: anyone who disseminates ideas that are threatening to the exercise of our power. That’s why powers justified in the name of combating “radicalism” or “extremism” are invariably — not often or usually, but invariably — applied to activists, dissidents, protesters and those who challenge prevailing orthodoxies and power centers. My arguments for distrusting governments to exercise powers of censorship are set forth here (in the context of a prior attempt by a different French minister to control the content of Twitter). In sum, far more damage has been inflicted historically by efforts to censor and criminalize political ideas than by the kind of “terrorism” these governments are invoking to justify these censorship powers. And whatever else may be true, few things are more inimical to, or threatening of, Internet freedom than allowing functionaries inside governments to unilaterally block websites from functioning on the ground that the ideas those sites advocate are objectionable or “dangerous.” That’s every bit as true when the censors are in Paris, London, and Ottawa, and Washington as when they are in Tehran, Moscow or Beijing.
Paul Merrell

Microsoft Demos Real-Time Translation Over Skype - Slashdot - 1 views

tech.slashdot.org/...al-time-translation-over-skype

audio-translations Microsoft Skype Kurzweil

shared by Paul Merrell on 29 May 14 - No Cached
  • "Today at the first annual Code Conference, Microsoft demonstrated its new real-time translation in Skype publicly for the first time. Gurdeep Pall, Microsoft's VP of Skype and Lync, compares the technology to Star Trek's Universal Translator. During the demonstration, Pall converses in English with a coworker in Germany who is speaking German. 'Skype Translator results from decades of work by the industry, years of work by our researchers, and now is being developed jointly by the Skype and Microsoft Translator teams. The demo showed near real-time audio translation from English to German and vice versa, combining Skype voice and IM technologies with Microsoft Translator, and neural network-based speech recognition.'"
  • Paul Merrell on 29 May 14
     
    Haven't yet explored to see what's beneath the marketing hype. And I'm less than excited about the Skype with its NSA tendrils being the vehicle of audio translations of human languages. But given the progress in: [i] automated translations of human texts; [ii] audio screenreaders; and [iii] voice-to-text transcription, this is one we saw coming. Slap the three technologies together and wait until processing power catches up to what's needed to produce a marketable experience. After all, the StarTrek scriptwriters saw this coming too.   Ray Kurzweil, now at Google, should get a lot of the pioneer credit here. His revolutionary optical character recognition algorithms soon found themselves redeployed in text-to-speech synthesis and speech recognition technology. From Wikipedia: "Kurzweil was the principal inventor of the first CCD flatbed scanner, the first omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first commercial text-to-speech synthesizer, the first music synthesizer Kurzweil K250 capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition." Not bad for a guy the same age as my younger brother. But Microsoft's announcement here may be more vaporware than hardware in production and lines of executable code. Microsoft has a long history of vaporware announcements to persuade potential customers to hold off on riding with the competition.  And the Softies undoubtedly know that Google's human language text translation capabilities are way out in front and that the voice to text and text to speech API methods have already found a comfortable home in Android and Chromebook. What does Microsoft have that's ready to ship if anything? I'll check it out tomorrow. 
Paul Merrell

NSA Surveillance: Snowden Docs Raise Questions About U.S. Phone Calls - 0 views

firstlook.org/...scription-american-phone-calls

surveillance state NSA speech-recognition phone-content

shared by Paul Merrell on 10 Jun 15 - No Cached
  • Third in a series. Part 1 here; Part 2 here. When it comes to the National Security Agency’s recently disclosed use of automated speech recognition technology to search, index and transcribe voice communications, people in the United States may well be asking: But are they transcribing my phone calls? The answer is maybe. A clear-cut answer is elusive because documents in the Snowden archive describe the capability to turn speech into text, but not the extent of its use — and the U.S. intelligence community refuses to answer even the most basic questions on the topic.
  • thanks to previous explorations of the Snowden archive and some documents released by the Obama administration, we know there are four major methods the NSA uses to get access to phone calls involving Americans — and only one of them technically precludes the use of speech recognition.
Paul Merrell

EFF to Court: Don't Undermine Legal Protections for Online Platforms that Enable Free S... - 0 views

www.eff.org/...e-platforms-enable-free-speech

Communications-Decency-Act litigation news-aggregators EFF

shared by Paul Merrell on 25 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • EFF filed a brief in federal court arguing that a lower court’s ruling jeopardizes the online platforms that make the Internet a robust platform for users’ free speech. The brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argues that 47 U.S.C. § 230, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act (known simply as “Section 230”) broadly protects online platforms, including review websites, when they aggregate or otherwise edit users’ posts. Generally, Section 230 provides legal immunity for online intermediaries that host or republish speech by protecting them against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. Section 230’s immunity directly led to the development of the platforms everyone uses today, allowing people to upload videos to their favorite platforms such as YouTube, as well as leave reviews on Amazon or Yelp. It also incentivizes the creation of new platforms that can host users’ content, leading to more innovation that enables the robust free speech found online. The lower court’s decision in Consumer Cellular v. ConsumerAffairs.com, however, threatens to undermine the broad protections of Section 230, EFF’s brief argues.
  • In the case, Consumer Cellular alleged, among other things, that ConsumerAffairs.com should be held liable for aggregating negative reviews about its business into a star rating. It also alleged that ConsumerAffairs.com edited or otherwise deleted certain reviews of Consumer Cellular in bad faith. Courts and the text of Section 230, however, plainly allow platforms to edit or aggregate user-generated content into summaries or star ratings without incurring legal liability, EFF’s brief argues. It goes on: “And any function protected by Section 230 remains so regardless of the publisher’s intent.” By allowing Consumer Cellular’s claims against ConsumerAffairs.com to proceed, the lower court seriously undercut Section 230’s legal immunity for online platforms. If the decision is allowed to stand, EFF’s brief argues, then platforms may take steps to further censor or otherwise restrict user content out of fear of being held liable. That outcome, EFF warns, could seriously diminish the Internet’s ability to serve as a diverse forum for free speech. The Internet it is constructed of and depends upon intermediaries. The many varied online intermediary platforms, including Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and Instagram, all give a single person, with minimal resources, almost anywhere in the world the ability to communicate with the rest of the world. Without intermediaries, that speaker would need technical skill and money that most people lack to disseminate their message. If our legal system fails to robustly protect intermediaries, it fails to protect free speech online.
Paul Merrell

F.B.I. Director to Call 'Dark' Devices a Hindrance to Crime Solving in a Policy Speech ... - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...indrance-to-crime-solving.html

surveillance state FBI Comey encryption

shared by Paul Merrell on 16 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • In his first major policy speech as director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey on Thursday plans to wade deeper into the debate between law enforcement agencies and technology companies about new programs intended to protect personal information on communication devices.Mr. Comey will say that encryption technologies used on these devices, like the new iPhone, have become so sophisticated that crimes will go unsolved because law enforcement officers will not be able to get information from them, according to a senior F.B.I. official who provided a preview of the speech.The speech was prompted, in part, by the new encryption technology on the iPhone 6, which was released last month. The phone encrypts emails, photos and contacts, thwarting intelligence and law enforcement agencies, like the National Security Agency and F.B.I., from gaining access to it, even if they have court approval.
  • The F.B.I. has long had concerns about devices “going dark” — when technology becomes so sophisticated that the authorities cannot gain access. But now, Mr. Comey said he believes that the new encryption technology has evolved to the point that it will adversely affect crime solving.He will say in the speech that these new programs will most severely affect state and local law enforcement agencies, because they are the ones who most often investigate crimes like kidnappings and robberies in which getting information from electronic devices in a timely manner is essential to solving the crime.
  • They also do not have the resources that are available to the F.B.I. and other federal intelligence and law enforcement authorities in order to get around the programs.Mr. Comey will cite examples of crimes that the authorities were able to solve because they gained access to a phone.“He is going to call for a discussion on this issue and ask whether this is the path we want to go down,” said the senior F.B.I. official. “He is not going to accuse the companies of designing the technologies to prevent the F.B.I. from accessing them. But, he will say that this is a negative byproduct and we need to work together to fix it.”
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Mr. Comey is scheduled to give the speech — titled “Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy and Public Safety on a Collision Course?” — at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
  • In the interview that aired on “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Mr. Comey said that “the notion that we would market devices that would allow someone to place themselves beyond the law troubles me a lot.”He said that it was the equivalent of selling cars with trunks that could never be opened, even with a court order.“The notion that people have devices, again, that with court orders, based on a showing of probable cause in a case involving kidnapping or child exploitation or terrorism, we could never open that phone?” he said. “My sense is that we've gone too far when we've gone there.”
  • Paul Merrell on 16 Oct 14
     
    I'm informed that Comey will also call for legislation outlawing communication by whispering because of technical difficulties in law enforcement monitoring of such communications. 
Paul Merrell

Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments - 0 views

theintercept.com/...he-u-s-and-israeli-governments

OpenWeb censorship Facebook Instagram Israel U.S.

shared by Paul Merrell on 29 Jan 18 - No Cached
  • In September of last year, we noted that Facebook representatives were meeting with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the ground that they constituted “incitement.” The meetings — called for and presided over by one of the most extremist and authoritarian Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply with Israeli deletion orders would result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country. The predictable results of those meetings are now clear and well-documented. Ever since, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials. Indeed, Israeli officials have been publicly boasting about how obedient Facebook is when it comes to Israeli censorship orders
  • Facebook now seems to be explicitly admitting that it also intends to follow the censorship orders of the U.S. government.
  • What this means is obvious: that the U.S. government — meaning, at the moment, the Trump administration — has the unilateral and unchecked power to force the removal of anyone it wants from Facebook and Instagram by simply including them on a sanctions list. Does anyone think this is a good outcome? Does anyone trust the Trump administration — or any other government — to compel social media platforms to delete and block anyone it wants to be silenced? As the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick told the Times: It’s not a law that appears to be written or designed to deal with the special situations where it’s lawful or appropriate to repress speech. … This sanctions law is being used to suppress speech with little consideration of the free expression values and the special risks of blocking speech, as opposed to blocking commerce or funds as the sanctions was designed to do. That’s really problematic.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • As is always true of censorship, there is one, and only one, principle driving all of this: power. Facebook will submit to and obey the censorship demands of governments and officials who actually wield power over it, while ignoring those who do not. That’s why declared enemies of the U.S. and Israeli governments are vulnerable to censorship measures by Facebook, whereas U.S and Israeli officials (and their most tyrannical and repressive allies) are not
  • All of this illustrates that the same severe dangers from state censorship are raised at least as much by the pleas for Silicon Valley giants to more actively censor “bad speech.” Calls for state censorship may often be well-intentioned — a desire to protect marginalized groups from damaging “hate speech” — yet, predictably, they are far more often used against marginalized groups: to censor them rather than protect them. One need merely look at how hate speech laws are used in Europe, or on U.S. college campuses, to see that the censorship victims are often critics of European wars, or activists against Israeli occupation, or advocates for minority rights.
  • It’s hard to believe that anyone’s ideal view of the internet entails vesting power in the U.S. government, the Israeli government, and other world powers to decide who may be heard on it and who must be suppressed. But increasingly, in the name of pleading with internet companies to protect us, that’s exactly what is happening.
Paul Merrell

AT&T ups the ante in speech recognition | Signal Strength - CNET News - 2 views

news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20023189-266.html

AT&T Watson voice computing human <> machine interop cloud computing

shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Nov 10 - No Cached
  • It's developed a core technology platform, known as Watson, which is a cloud-based system of services that not only identifies words but interprets meaning and context to deliver more accurate results. The system itself is built on servers that model and compare speech to recorded voices. Watson is an evolving platform that with more data is able to adapt and learn so that it continues to improve accuracy and also cross reference data to use speech as input for getting to all kinds of communication and data. "We are really on the cusp of a technology revolution in speech and language technology," said Mazin Gilbert, executive director of speech and language technology at AT&amp;T Labs. "It's no longer about simply trying to get the words right. It's about adding intelligence to interpret what is being said and then using that to apply to other modes of communication, such as text or video."
  • The system is designed to get more accurate over time as it learns the speech patterns of large numbers of users.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

The Connection Between The Copyright Industry And The NSA | TorrentFreak - 1 views

torrentfreak.com/-copyright-industry-nsa-140517

connection copyright industry nsa

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 May 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 May 14
     
    " Rick Falkvinge on May 18, 2014 C: 21 Opinion There is a direct connection between copyright monopoly enforcement and mass surveillance, and between mass surveillance and lack of free speech. If you want to keep free speech, the copyright monopoly must be reduced sharply."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 May 14
     
    " Rick Falkvinge on May 18, 2014 C: 21 Opinion There is a direct connection between copyright monopoly enforcement and mass surveillance, and between mass surveillance and lack of free speech. If you want to keep free speech, the copyright monopoly must be reduced sharply."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

French Government Starts Blocking Websites With Views The Gov't Doesn't Like - 0 views

www.techdirt.com/...h-views-govt-doesnt-like.shtml

french government starts blocking websites whose views dislike the censorship they critic from others| Techdirt

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Mar 15
     
    "from the liberte?-egalite? dept We had been noting, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, how the country that then held a giant "free speech" rally appeared to be, instead, focusing on cracking down on free speech at every opportunity. And target number one: the internet."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Mar 15
     
    "from the liberte?-egalite? dept We had been noting, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, how the country that then held a giant "free speech" rally appeared to be, instead, focusing on cracking down on free speech at every opportunity. And target number one: the internet."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Tech giants, government struggle with online speech policies | ITworld - 0 views

www.itworld.com/...th-online-speech-policies.html

tech giants government struggle online speech policies hate speech vs free speech censorship manipulation peace politics

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 01 Jun 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 01 Jun 16
     
    " Officials with Google and State Department are struggling to craft a balanced policy that combats terrorist messages without unduly curbing Internet freedom. By Kenneth Corbin"
Paul Merrell

YouTube removed five times more content for violating hate speech rules - CNN - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

Google YouTube censorship

shared by Paul Merrell on 26 Sep 19 - No Cached
  • n a blog post on Tuesday, YouTube said it had removed more than 100,000 videos and over 17,000 channels for violating its hate speech rules in April through June, which is five times more than it removed in the previous three months. It also took down over 500 million comments over hate speech. YouTube attributed the increase to its recent efforts to counter the proliferation of hate content. In June, the company updated its hate speech policy to include a ban on supremacist content and the removal of videos that deny well-documented atrocities, such as the Holocaust, and the 2012 shooting rampage at Sandy Hook elementary school.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

How Edward Snowden started a conversation that is changing the world - Access Now - 0 views

www.accessnow.org/ed-conversation-changing-world

changing world conversation about spied citizens institutions else politics policies transparency global internatonal

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Oct 16
     
    "On January 17, 2014 - more than seven months after the first document was published in what we now refer to as the "Snowden revelations" - U.S. President Obama gave a speech at the Department of Justice that became known as the "NSA speech." In it he discussed the scope of post-9/11 surveillance. He explained the significant steps that the administration had taken, and would continue to take, to review foreign intelligence surveillance, including creating an independent review group. He also acknowledged a man by the name of Edward Snowden."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Transcribe Speech To Text With Linux And Google | Freedom Penguin - 2 views

freedompenguin.com/...-to-text-with-linux-and-google

speech-to-text speech text GNU_Linux Linux Google applications

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 05 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 05 Sep 15
     
    "Sometimes in life, you run into situations where turning a voice recording into a text document is necessary. Perhaps this is from an interview for a news publication or perhaps you need to transcribe a verbal lecture from school. On "
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 05 Sep 15
     
    "Sometimes in life, you run into situations where turning a voice recording into a text document is necessary. Perhaps this is from an interview for a news publication or perhaps you need to transcribe a verbal lecture from school. On "
Paul Merrell

A Short Guide to the Internet's Biggest Enemies | Electronic Frontier Foundation - 1 views

www.eff.org/...uide-internets-biggest-enemies

surveillance state enemies of the internet

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF) released its annual “Enemies of the Internet” index this week—a ranking first launched in 2006 intended to track countries that repress online speech, intimidate and arrest bloggers, and conduct surveillance of their citizens.&nbsp; Some countries have been mainstays on the annual index, while others have been able to work their way off the list.&nbsp; Two countries particularly deserving of praise in this area are Tunisia and Myanmar (Burma), both of which have stopped censoring the Internet in recent years and are headed in the right direction toward Internet freedom. In the former category are some of the world’s worst offenders: Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Belarus, Bahrain, Turkmenistan, Syria. &nbsp;Nearly every one of these countries has amped up their online repression in recent years, from implementing sophisticated surveillance (Syria) to utilizing targeted surveillance tools (Vietnam) to increasing crackdowns on online speech (Saudi Arabia). &nbsp;These are countries where, despite advocacy efforts by local and international groups, no progress has been made. The newcomers&nbsp; A third, perhaps even more disheartening category, is the list of countries new to this year's index.&nbsp; A motley crew, these nations have all taken new, harsh approaches to restricting speech or monitoring citizens:
  • United States: This is the first time the US has made it onto RSF’s list. &nbsp;While the US government doesn’t censor online content, and pours money into promoting Internet freedom worldwide, the National Security Agency’s unapologetic dragnet surveillance and the government’s treatment of whistleblowers have earned it a spot on the index. United Kingdom: The European nation has been dubbed by RSF as the “world champion of surveillance” for its recently-revealed depraved strategies for spying on individuals worldwide. &nbsp;The UK also joins countries like Ethiopia and Morocco in using terrorism laws to go after journalists. &nbsp;Not noted by RSF, but also important, is the fact that the UK is also cracking down on legal pornography, forcing Internet users to opt-in with their ISP if they wish to view it and creating a slippery slope toward overblocking. &nbsp;This is in addition to the government’s use of an opaque, shadowy NGO to identify child sexual abuse images, sometimes resulting instead in censorship of legitimate speech.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Where in the world is Richard Stallman? - Free Software Foundation - working together f... - 0 views

www.fsf.org/...rms-speeches.html

RMS Richard Stallman Spain conferences schedule Open Source Free Software freedom knowledge community

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 09 Nov 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 09 Nov 16
     
    "President and founder of the Free Software Foundation Richard Stallman has an extensive travel schedule and frequently gives talks about free software all over the world. If you would like Richard Stallman (RMS) to speak at your event, please contact rms-assist@gnu.org. If you would like RMS to come to your school and speak, try asking professors in IT-related departments if they would like to bring him. They can contact rms-assist@gnu.org. You can find video and audio recordings of many of Dr. Stallman's speeches and lectures at audio-video.gnu.org."
Paul Merrell

EPIC - EPIC Prevails in FOIA Case About "Internet Kill Switch" - 0 views

epic.org/...prevails-in-foia-case-abo.html

internet-kill-switch FOIA EPIC DHS litigation 1st Amendment

shared by Paul Merrell on 17 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • In a Freedom of Information Act case brought by EPIC against the Department of Homeland Security, a federal court has ruled that the DHS may not withhold the agency's plan to deactivate wireless communications networks in a crisis. EPIC had sought "Standard Operating Procedure 303," also known as the "internet Kill Switch," to determine whether the agency's plan could adversely impact free speech or public safety. EPIC filed the FOIA lawsuit in 2012 after the the technique was used by police in San Francisco to shut down cell service for protesters at a BART station, who had gathered peacefully to object to police practices. The federal court determined that the agency wrongly claimed that it could withhold SOP 303 as a "technique for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions." The phrase, the court explained, "refers only to acts by law enforcement after or during the prevention of a crime, not crime prevention techniques." The court repeatedly emphasized that FOIA exemptions are to be read narrowly. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (SOP 303) and EPIC: FOIA.
  • Paul Merrell on 17 Nov 13
     
    Talk about a prior restraint of speech! The link at the bottom of the quoted portion takes you to a page with the relevant court records.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

GNU's Framework for Secure Peer-to-Peer Networking GNU's Framework for Secure Peer-to-P... - 0 views

gnunet.org/philosophy

GNU framework secure peer-to-peer networking

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 Apr 14
     
    "Philosophy The foremost goal of the GNUnet project is to become a widely used, reliable, open, non-discriminating, egalitarian, unfettered and censorship-resistant system of free information exchange. We value free speech above state secrets, law-enforcement or intellectual property. GNUnet is supposed to be an anarchistic network, where the only limitation for peers is that they must contribute enough back to the network such that their resource consumption does not have a significant impact on other users. GNUnet should be more than just another file-sharing network. The plan is to offer many other services and in particular to serve as a development platform for the next generation of decentralized Internet protocols."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 Apr 14
     
    "Philosophy The foremost goal of the GNUnet project is to become a widely used, reliable, open, non-discriminating, egalitarian, unfettered and censorship-resistant system of free information exchange. We value free speech above state secrets, law-enforcement or intellectual property. GNUnet is supposed to be an anarchistic network, where the only limitation for peers is that they must contribute enough back to the network such that their resource consumption does not have a significant impact on other users. GNUnet should be more than just another file-sharing network. The plan is to offer many other services and in particular to serve as a development platform for the next generation of decentralized Internet protocols."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Dangerous Ruling: EU Says Google Must Help People Disappear Stuff They Don't Like From ... - 0 views

www.techdirt.com/...-they-dont-like-internet.shtml

google internet right to be forgotten delete past information EU ruling attack free speech

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 May 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 May 14
     
    "from the right-to-be-forgotten dept For years now we've explained why Europe's concept of a "right to be forgotten" is a terrible, dangerous and impossible idea. The basic idea is that if you were involved in something that you're not happy about later, you can demand that the incident be stricken from the record... everywhere. It's a clear attack on free speech -- allowing people to censor others from saying truthful and accurate things about someone. "
Paul Merrell

Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) Version 1.0 - 0 views

www.w3.org/...pronunciation-lexicon-20081014

interop pronunciation lexicon w3c

shared by Paul Merrell on 16 Oct 08 - Cached
  • Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) Version 1.0 W3C Recommendation 14 October 2008
  • The accurate specification of pronunciation is critical to the success of speech applications. Most Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) and Text-To-Speech (TTS) engines internally provide extensive high quality lexicons with pronunciation information for many words or phrases. To ensure a maximum coverage of the words or phrases used by an application, application-specific pronunciations may be required. For example, these may be needed for proper nouns such as surnames or business names. The Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) is designed to enable interoperable specification of pronunciation information for both ASR and TTS engines. The language is intended to be easy to use by developers while supporting the accurate specification of pronunciation information for international use.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Copyright Law as a Tool for State Censorship of the Internet | Electronic Frontier Foun... - 1 views

www.eff.org/...tool-state-internet-censorship

copyright law tool state censorship internet frontier foundation electronic electronics

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 05 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 05 Dec 14
     
    "When state officials seek to censor online speech, they're going to use the quickest and easiest method available. For many, copyright takedown notices do the trick. After years of lobbying and increasing pressure from content industries on policymakers and tech companies, sending copyright notices to take media offline is easier than ever."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 05 Dec 14
     
    "When state officials seek to censor online speech, they're going to use the quickest and easiest method available. For many, copyright takedown notices do the trick. After years of lobbying and increasing pressure from content industries on policymakers and tech companies, sending copyright notices to take media offline is easier than ever."
1 - 20 of 98 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page