Group items tagged

A blog post covering the Pirate Party UK and the recent launch of it's manifesto. The Pirate Party is fighting to reform 'intellectual property' law but also covers freedom of speech on the Internet an other web related issues. After winning seats on the European and German parliament, could they also be successful in the UK?

Iceland is planning to propose the "The Icelandic Modern Media Initiative" to save freedom of expression on the internet, aiming at press and source protection it would turn the country into a save haven for journalists and bloggers all around the world.

Engaging in social media backfires for Nestle. Due to the Greenpeace protest against the company with regards to how the company uses palm oil in its products, a number of people posted their distaste on Nestle's Facebook page. Unfortunately for the company, the representative in charge of replying to comments was far from being amiable, or even courteous. Sample exchange of comments: Nestle: "You have freedom of speech and expression. Here, there are some rules we set. As in almost any other forum. It's to keep things clear." Paul Griffin: "Your page, your rules, true, and you just lost a customer, won the battle and lost the war! Happy?" Nestle: "Oh please...it's like we're censoring everything to allow positive comments." Social media has significant benefits for companies and how they market the products to consumers. However, if used wrongly, as with this case, massive PR clean-up is inevitable.

Amendments made to the digital economy bill last week, handing courts the power to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites, threaten freedom of speech and will lead to British websites being blocked without due judicial process, the chief executives of leading technology companies said in an open letter to the Financial Times. The heads of the four largest UK internet service providers as well as Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo have all co-signed the letter, along with consumer groups and academics, objecting to amendment. Theoretically the amendment could lead to sites such as YouTube being blocked in the UK.

It seems like Internet censorship is compatible with democracy. It is shame that South Korea is with the countries of the Islamic theocracies of Saudi Arabia and some of less than democratic countries in the Middle East. South korea seems fond to mimic the US and Japan, but is the freedom of speech on the Net a thing they particularly want to stand up for themselves?

blog entry: it may seem as simple as eating here, but it's definitely not up there in China. Day after Google announced to resign China, couples of foreign reports' email accounts were either hacked or blocked. Coincident? !!!

Aust slammed by Google and US State Dept - they're the only ones allowed to filter (for agreed public good while maintaining fiction of unconstrained freedom).

Kind of a scary headline after today's class. Not quite what it sounds though. .. Or is it? Google owns or controls content. Now Google owns more content. If you look at Benkler's definition of layers (via Lessig), both the physical layer and the content layer have been subject to ownership and freedom exists/ed mainly on the layer of logic or code. Google is just a giant content aggregator.

A speech by Stephen Collins, member of the EFA Board, that he gave at Parliament House recently to highlight the problems with the mandatory filter.

This article discusses how cyberbullying is not limited to strictly school children, or students rather teachers are also victims of cyberbullying. As students create social network hate groups, secretly film or photograph their teachers, and post embarassing moments online. identities of the victims are stolen, and then are used for either harassment, or illegal activity online. Though Facebook has mentioned that they will remove any content regarding teachers if reported, it brings to light a new issue. If laws need to address how we conduct ourselves online, should we compromise our freedom of speech (any jurisdiction that has constituted it) because the content is online?

The Internet is changing every seconds and obviously getting to be worriyng in some aspects. However, free access to information, free expression and participation, and thus free access to the world is now becoming narrowed due to govermental regulations and censorship. And who is going to decide which websites should be banned or not? It seems to be worried that increasingly soficiticated leak could be created by computer geeks to retrieve the freedom of the internet.

Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State for the US has 'raised concerns' with Australian officials as part of the ongoing relationship between the countries on the plan to implement mandatory filtering. If the government succeeds, Australia will join the likes of Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, North Korea, Egypt, Iran and other countries often less than co-operative in foreign affairs.

It is the first time in North America that assisted suicide laws have been applied to the Internet. William Melchert-Dinkel has been charged with assisting in 2 suicides, where he posed under several aliases and made suggestions of suicides from medication to advice on how to tie nooses. Though the argument was that suicide is the behaviour done unto oneself, and suggestion is freedom of speech, this is no different than cyberbullies who also suggest the same thing, however this heinous individual offered information to those that were indanger of commiting suicide. Based on the wording in the state of Minnesota, assisted suicides do not require the actual physical presence of the person, hence the prosecution stands.

This article discusses who is held resposible for cyberbullying. Three executives from Google have been convicted of privacy violation, and have been accused of not acting swiftly enough to take down an online video of an autistic boy being beating by teen bullies. There are many issues that arise from this topic, for example, how far does accountability stretch, does it stem from the original poster, to the Internet Service Provider, the company hosting the content.It brings to question who do we hold responsible, and under which jurisdiction and set of laws do we use. Should there be a screening process to prevent such videos from being posted online?

This article is about an intresting hacker attack to the government portal website. The orgnazion Anounymous laughed this attack to express their protest of the forthcoming Mandatory ISP filtering plan. Several government site are down at February 10th 2010 morning. The alleged principle of Anounymous is to fight against the threaten of internet freedom.

Google Australia says here that the mandatory internet filtering is too wide and they believe that the filtering not only would slow user access speeds, but also questions the legitimacy of the measure because of the associated restrictions on access to information

I thought that freedom of expressions, access to information and political and social participation are universal rights, but, maybe, it is just fantasy for some conturies

American government supports the troublemakers to challenge the censorship system in China. It will bring negative influence on China- America relationship.

Additional information regarding Iceland's initiative. Watch the video, summarizing and explaining the plan, it's really good!