Egypt blocks access to news websites including Al-Jazeera and Mada Masr | World news | The Guardian

Egypt has blocked access to at least 21 news sites critical of the government, notably the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera, Huffington Post’s Arabic-language site HuffPost Arabi and the independent website Mada Masr.

Fuente: Egypt blocks access to news websites including Al-Jazeera and Mada Masr | World news | The Guardian


Trump’s CIA Director Pompeo, Targeting WikiLeaks, Explicitly Threatens Speech and Press Freedoms

“To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.” At no point did Pompeo specify what steps the CIA intended to take to ensure that the “space” to publish secrets “ends now.”

Fuente: Trump’s CIA Director Pompeo, Targeting WikiLeaks, Explicitly Threatens Speech and Press Freedoms


Apple censura la aplicación del New York Times en | ELESPECTADOR.COM

El gigante estadounidense de la electrónica Apple confirmó este jueves que había retirado la aplicación del New York Times de la versión china de su tienda en línea, mientras que el sitio web del diario lleva bloqueado en China varios años.

Fuente: Apple censura la aplicación del New York Times en | ELESPECTADOR.COM


Facebook backs down from ‘napalm girl’ censorship and reinstates photo | Technology | The Guardian

“After hearing from our community, we looked again at how our Community Standards were applied in this case. An image of a naked child would normally be presumed to violate our Community Standards, and in some countries might even qualify as child pornography. In this case, we recognize the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time.”

Fuente: Facebook backs down from ‘napalm girl’ censorship and reinstates photo | Technology | The Guardian


Facebook al desnudo: la nueva moralina del arte se apodera de Internet – El Mostrador

El ejemplo de Tunick resulta muy ilustrativo. Si la intervención hubiera sido esta semana, la consecuencia serían miles de cuentas bloqueadas y una perjudicial autocensura en los medios que comparten sus contenidos en las redes. Pero, más allá de la ficción, sin ir más lejos, hace pocas semanas la Revista Nos, de Concepción, sufrió una insólita censura cuando Facebook bajó uno de sus videos promocionales –con el cual buscaban conmemorar sus 21 años de existencia–, tras considerarlo “contenido para adultos”.

Fuente: Facebook al desnudo: la nueva moralina del arte se apodera de Internet – El Mostrador


‘Anteproyecto vulnera abiertamente el derecho a la libertad de expresión’

Como una propuesta que “vulnera abiertamente el derecho a la libertad de expresión y genera condiciones que hacen prácticamente imposible el ejercicio del periodismo”, calificó Catalina Botero, ex relatora especial para la Libertad de Expresión de la Comisión Interamericana de los Derechos Humanos, un anteproyecto que obligará a los portales de internet a borrar los datos de cualquier ciudadano de forma “inmediata y completa”, si la persona considera que esa información afecta su intimidad.

Fuente: ‘Anteproyecto vulnera abiertamente el derecho a la libertad de expresión’


El Servel obligado a retroceder autoriza propaganda en diarios electrónicos y redes sociales – El Mostrador

Desde la institución quisieron “aclarar la desafortunada polémica” motivada por la decisión, que fue criticada por todos los sectores e incluso considerada una “desventaja” por la Comisión de Constitución de la Cámara que buscaba citar a Nicolás Eyzaguirre para dar una explicación.

Fuente: El Servel obligado a retroceder autoriza propaganda en diarios electrónicos y redes sociales – El Mostrador


Colegio de Periodistas sobre instructivo Servel: “Es discriminatorio y propende a la concentración de medios” – El Mostrador

“El manual margina a los medios digitales, muchas veces de propiedad de colegas y organizaciones de periodistas, que son soportes válidos y necesarios para la difusión de estos procesos”, sostuvo su presidente (s) Patricio Martínez.

Fuente: Colegio de Periodistas sobre instructivo Servel: “Es discriminatorio y propende a la concentración de medios” – El Mostrador


Insólito: Servel prohíbe publicidad electoral en uso de redes sociales y medios electrónicos – El Mostrador

Entre las “no permitidas” se encuentran: La prohibición de realizar propaganda en plazas, parques y otros espacios públicos no autorizados por el Servicio, o el impedimento de desplegar piezas gráficas que superen los dos metros cuadrados.Y: la prohibición a realizar propaganda electoral a través de redes sociales como Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, entre otros y a realizar propaganda electoral en diarios electrónicos.Asimismo, se prohíbe el envío de mensajes y llamadas telefónicas.

Fuente: Insólito: Servel prohíbe publicidad electoral en uso de redes sociales y medios electrónicos – El Mostrador


Comunicadores populares repudian censura impuesta por Macri – Resumen

Periodistas e intelectuales de Argentina y de la región crearon el Frente de Comunicadores por la Expresión de los Pueblos, con el objetivo de hacer frente a las amenazas contra la libertad de expresión.

Fuente: Comunicadores populares repudian censura impuesta por Macri – Resumen


Israel action threatens to close down rights group and ‘chill’ free speech | World news | The Guardian

A high-profile Israeli human rights group that publishes the anonymous testimonies of soldiers in the Palestinian territories is facing a court hearing that threatens to shut down its work in what is being viewed as a crucial test case for civil society.The case, which will be heard in court next week, is being brought by the Israeli government, which is demanding that Breaking the Silence identify anonymous serving military personnel who have given it testimony relating to alleged crimes in the 2014 Gaza war. The group says this is likely to deter future potential testifiers coming forward.

Fuente: Israel action threatens to close down rights group and ‘chill’ free speech | World news | The Guardian


Fronda y censura: la mordaza de la Transición – El Mostrador

La Fronda pretende encerrar el debate en los marcos legales, arrinconar al SII y deslegitimar a la Fiscalía, todo eso para escapar de lo que parece una tormenta perfecta. La norma que se propone no pretende, solamente, reducir el espacio de acción de la prensa, sino también pretende privar a la opinión pública de información fundamental para decidir por quién votar y por quién no votar. Esto explica por qué la Fronda se siente tan amenazada por la nueva lógica de los medios digitales y las redes: ya no puede controlar los contenidos, ya no puede censurar en las cortes. La Fronda busca protegerse de forma impúdica, aterrada ante la disolución del principio de autoridad que había guiado la transición.

Fuente: Fronda y censura: la mordaza de la Transición – El Mostrador


Those Demanding Free Speech Limits to Fight ISIS Pose a Greater Threat to U.S. Than ISIS

We’ve been told for years that The Terrorists “hate our freedoms,” yet we cannot seem to rid ourselves of those who think the solution is to voluntarily abolish those freedoms ourselves.

Fuente: Those Demanding Free Speech Limits to Fight ISIS Pose a Greater Threat to U.S. Than ISIS


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

What’s Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in its Name? – The Intercept.

Featured photo - What’s Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in its Name?

The French Interior Ministry on Monday ordered that five websites be blocked on the grounds that they promote or advocate terrorism. “I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet,” proclaimed Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve.

When the block functions properly, visitors to those banned sites, rather than accessing the content of the sites they chose to visit, will be automatically redirected to the Interior Ministry website. There, they will be greeted by a graphic of a large red hand, and text informing them that they were attempting to access a site that causes or promotes terrorism: “you are being redirected to this official website since your computer was about to connect with a page that provokes terrorist acts or condones terrorism publicly.”

No judge reviews the Interior Ministry’s decisions. The minister first requests that the website owner voluntarily remove the content he deems transgressive; upon disobedience, the minister unilaterally issues the order to Internet service providers for the sites to be blocked. This censorship power is vested pursuant to a law recently enacted in France empowering the interior minister to block websites.

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.”


Francia bloquea cinco páginas web por apología del terrorismo yihadista | Internacional | EL PAÍS

Francia bloquea cinco páginas web por apología del terrorismo yihadista | Internacional | EL PAÍS.

 

Primera vez que se toma esta medida a través de un decreto que no exige decisión judicial

 

 

 

Así sale el mensaje de censura emitido por el Ministerio del Interior francés. / Captura de imagen

El Gobierno francés ha aplicado este fin de semana por vez primera el decreto aprobado el 4 de febrero pasado y que le permite bloquear páginas web que hagan apología del terrorismo. Se trata de una decisión administrativa que no requiere decisión previa de un juez y que, a demanda del Ministerio del Interior, los proveedores de Internet deben aplicar en el plazo de 24 horas. En total, son cinco las páginas de presunta propaganda yihadista las que han quedado bloqueadas este lunes, según ha confirmado Interior.

La alerta la dio por la mañana el corresponsal en Túnez y Libia de la RFI, David Thomson, en su cuenta de Twitter. “¡Una página de información islámica censurada en Francia sin decisión judicial!”, anunció a primera hora de la mañana el periodista. Se trataba de una página web en la que se defendían las acciones yihadistas en Siria e Irak, según el mismo Thomson, autor del libro Los franceses yihadistas. La página cerrada era www.islamic-news.info. Tras la intervención gubernamental, al acceder a ella aparecen el logo del Ministerio del Interior y una leyenda en letras rojas que advierte de que dicha página provocaba acciones terroristas. Este ministerio informó unas horas más tarde la censura de un total de cinco páginas entre las que está también una de al-Hayat Media Center, que se encarga de la comunicación del Estado Islámico. El sitio web seguía por la tarde activo.


13 ejemplos de que la censura a la libertad de expresión consigue justo lo contrario | Verne EL PAÍS

13 ejemplos de que la censura a la libertad de expresión consigue justo lo contrario | Verne EL PAÍS.


El atentado contra Charlie Hebdo tampoco servirá para nada

Portada de Charlie Hebdo del 2 de enero de 2011. El nuevo redactor jefe de "Sharia Hebdo" amenaza con "cien latigazos si no te mueres de risa"
Portada de Charlie Hebdo del 2 de enero de 2011. El nuevo redactor jefe de “Sharia Hebdo” amenaza con “cien latigazos si no te mueres de risa”

 

Tres hombres han entrado durante la mañana del miércoles en el semanario satírico francés Charlie Hebdo armados con Kalashnikov y han asesinado a 12 personas, dejando malheridas a otras cuatro. El semanario había sido objeto de amenazas y ataques, después publicar en 2006 caricaturas de Mahoma. De hecho, fue atacado con cócteles molotov en 2011, tras una portada en la que el profeta aparecía como redactor jefe de un número bautizado como Sharia Hebdo.

Si estos asesinatos pretendían que las caricaturas dejaran de circular, han fracasado: a los pocos minutos estos dibujos inundaban Twitter y aparecíangalerías en muchos medios de comunicación. En redes, muchos recogían ademásuna propuesta: que las portadas de los diarios del día siguiente al atentado llevaran las caricaturas de Charlie Hebdo.

Salvando las distancias, es un ejemplo (trágico) del efecto Streisand: cuando alguien intenta censurar algo en internet, se divulga aún más. Este efecto debe su nombre a la denuncia de la actriz y cantante para exigir que se retirara de una web una foto aérea de su casa. La denuncia sólo consiguió que la imagen se difundiera hasta el punto de que aparece hasta en la Wikipedia. El efecto contraproducente de la censura se potencia con internet, pero no es exclusivo de la red, como podemos ver en estos trece ejemplos que muestran que más tarde o más temprano, la libertad de expresión tiene todas las de ganar.


Ley de medios digitales en Chile: registrar, dificultar y castigar – ONG Derechos Digitales

Ley de medios digitales en Chile: registrar, dificultar y castigar – ONG Derechos Digitales.

Al legislar, los parlamentarios de la región deben tener presente que las libertades de emitir opinión y la de informar, sin censura previa, constituyen derechos fundamentales, que incluyen el derecho a no ser perseguido ni discriminado a causa de las propias opiniones y el derecho de buscar y recibir informaciones, y difundirlas por cualquier medio. Todo lo anterior, sin imponer trabas directas o indirectas al ejercicio de estos derechos.

Por Francisco Vera y Rayén Campusano

La comisión de ciencia y tecnología está discutiendo un proyecto de ley que cambiaría el estatuto de los medios de comunicación en Internet. CC BY (dw capital GmbH) SALa comisión de ciencia y tecnología está discutiendo un proyecto de ley que cambiaría el estatuto de los medios de comunicación en Internet. CC BY (dw capital GmbH) SA

Durante los últimos años, en Latinoamérica hemos visto como diversas leyes de medios, telecomunicaciones, delitos informáticos, o de otra índole, afectan el derecho a la libertad de expresión de diversas formas, ya sea facilitando actos de censura, la identificación de usuarios, la imposición de cargas a los medios de comunicación u otros mecanismos. Lamentablemente, proyectos de Ley presentados en Chile quieren sumar al país a esa tendencia.

En la Comisión de Ciencias y Tecnología de la Cámara de Diputados de Chile se están discutiendo dos proyectos de ley que modifican la Ley N° 19.733 “Sobre Libertad de Opinión e Información y el Ejercicio del Periodismo”, para incluir a los periódicos electrónicos o digitales como medios de comunicación social.

¿Qué implican los proyectos en cuestión?

La Ley sobre Libertad de Opinión e Información y el Ejercicio del Periodismo, vigente desde el año 2001, define qué es un medio de comunicación social, con términos amplios y con independencia del soporte utilizado, dejando por ende a los medios electrónicos incluidos en esta definición, sin necesidad de declaración posterior. Lo anterior se extiende incluso a la aplicación de los delitos de injurias y calumnias1 con publicidad a cualquier publicación en Internet.

El proyecto en cuestión pretende considerar como diario2 a todo periódico digital que se publique a lo menos cuatro días en cada semana y cumpla los demás requisitos legales. De esta forma, los proyectos no apuntan realmente a que se consideren los periódicos electrónicos o digitales como medios de comunicación social, sino a considerarlos expresamente como diarios.3

 Es necesario contar con más y mejor libertad de expresión, no con una Ley cuyo fin posible es implementar cargas injustificadas a la publicación de contenidos por Internet.Es necesario contar con más y mejor libertad de expresión, no con una Ley cuyo fin posible es implementar cargas injustificadas a la publicación de contenidos por Internet.

Así, y debido a la poca claridad de los fines perseguidos por estos proyectos de Ley, sólo cabe plantear que su redacción apunta a imponer mayores cargas y requisitos a los medios digitales, lo que sumado a la ambigüedad de las normas involucradas podría significar que esas cargas terminen extendiéndose  a cualquier forma de expresión en la web chilena que se renueve más de cuatro veces a la semana, incluyendo publicaciones en Facebook, blogs de uso personal, una cuenta de Twitter, páginas como “jaidefinichon.cl”, “porlaputa.cl”, o incluso plataformas como ONG Derechos Digitales.


Should Twitter, Facebook and Google Executives be the Arbiters of What We See and Read? – The Intercept

Should Twitter, Facebook and Google Executives be the Arbiters of What We See and Read? – The Intercept.

By 246
Featured photo - Should Twitter, Facebook and Google Executives be the Arbiters of What We See and Read?DEAUVILLE, FRANCE – MAY 26: (L-R) Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook Inc. and Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google Inc. arrive for the internet session of the G8 summit on May 26, 2011 in Deauville, France. (Photo by Chris Ratcliffe – Pool/Getty Images)

There have been increasingly vocal calls for Twitter, Facebook and other Silicon Valley corporations to more aggressively police what their users are permitted to see and read. Last month in The Washington Post, for instance, MSNBC host Ronan Farrow demanded that social media companies ban the accounts of “terrorists” who issue “direct calls” for violence.

This week, the announcement by Twitter CEO Dick Costolo that the company would prohibit the posting of the James Foley beheading video and photos from it (and suspend the accounts of anyone who links to the video) met with overwhelming approval. What made that so significant, as The Guardian‘s James Ball noted today, was that “Twitter has promoted its free speech credentials aggressively since the network’s inception.” By contrast, Facebook has long actively regulated what its users are permitted to say and read; at the end of 2013, the company reversed its prior ruling and decided that posting of beheading videos would be allowed, but only if the user did not express support for the act.

Given the savagery of the Foley video, it’s easy in isolation to cheer for its banning on Twitter. But that’s always how censorship functions: it invariably starts with the suppression of viewpoints which are so widely hated that the emotional response they produce drowns out any consideration of the principle being endorsed.

It’s tempting to support criminalization of, say, racist views as long as one focuses on one’s contempt for those views and ignores the serious dangers of vesting the state with the general power to create lists of prohibited ideas. That’s why free speech defenders such as the ACLU so often represent and defend racists and others with heinous views in free speech cases: because that’s where free speech erosions become legitimized in the first instance when endorsed or acquiesced to.

The question posed by Twitter’s announcement is not whether you think it’s a good idea for people to see the Foley video. Instead, the relevant question is whether you want Twitter, Facebook and Google executives exercising vast power over what can be seen and read.

It’s certainly true, as defenders of Twitter have already pointed out, that as a legal matter, private actors – as opposed to governments – always possess and frequently exercise the right to decide which opinions can be aired using their property. Generally speaking, the public/private dichotomy is central to any discussions of the legality or constitutionality of “censorship.”


Twitter: from free speech champion to selective censor? | Technology | theguardian.com

Twitter: from free speech champion to selective censor? | Technology | theguardian.com.

By acting on footage of James Foley’s murder, Twitter has taken responsibility in a way it hasn’t over abuse and threats. So what happens next?
Man's hands at computer

Twitter was once characterised by its general counsel as ‘the free speech wing of the free speech party’. Photograph: Alamy

Twitter has got itself into a tangle. The social network’s decision to remove all links to the horrific footage showing the apparent beheading of the photojournalist James Foley is one that most of its users, reasonably, support.

The social network went still further, suspending or banning users who shared the footage or certain stills, following public tweets from the company’s CEO, Dick Costolo, that it would take action against such users.

It is hard to think of anyone having a good reason to view or share such barbaric footage, but Twitter’s proactive approach reverses a long record of non-intervention.

Twitter has promoted its free speech credentials aggressively since the network’s inception. The company’s former general counsel once characterised the company as “the free speech wing of the free speech party”, an approach characterised by removing content only in extreme situations – when made to by governments in accordance with local law, or through various channels designed to report harassment.

The social network’s response to the Foley footage and images is clearly a break from that response: not only did the network respond to reports complaining about posts using the material, they also seem to have proactively sought it out in other instances.

And yet there is not a universal consensus on the use of the images, as was reflected by the New York Post and New York Daily News’ decision to use graphic stills from the footage as their front-page splashes. Here begin the problems for Twitter: the network decided not to ban or suspend either outlet for sharing the images – despite banning other users for doing the same.

Twitter has not been nearly as eager to enter the content policing game in other situations. Like many other major companies, Twitter has long insisted it is not a publisher but a platform.

The distinction is an important one: publishers, such as the Guardian, bear a far greater degree of responsibility for what appears on their sites. By remaining a platform, Twitter is absolved of legal responsibility for most of the content of tweets. But by making what is in essence an editorial decision not to host a certain type of content, Twitter is rapidly blurring that line.

The network has not been as quick to involve itself when its users are sharing content far beyond what is even remotely acceptable – even when the profile of the incidents is high.


James Foley and the daily horrors of the internet: think hard before clicking | James Ball | Comment is free | theguardian.com

James Foley and the daily horrors of the internet: think hard before clicking | James Ball | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

Outcry over footage of Foley’s apparent beheading raises difficult questions about editorial ethics – and our own choices

 

 

James Foley in Syria in 2012
James Foley in 2012. In a statement on his Facebook page, his mother said: ‘We have never been prouder of our son Jim. He gave his life trying to expose the world to the suffering of the Syrian people.’ Photograph: Nicole Tung/AP

 

With depressing frequency in this summer of diverse horrors, we hear tales of desperate human misery, suffering and depravity – and because we live now in an era where virtually every phone is a globally connected camera, we are confronted with graphic evidence of tragedy.

 

The footage of the apparent beheading (to refer to the atrocity as an execution serves only to lend a veneer of dignity to barbarism) of the US photojournalist James Foley at the hands of a British Isis extremist has raised particularly strong feelings.

 

Social networks are banning users who share the footage. Newspapers are facing opprobrium for the choices they make in showing stills or parts of the video. Others, of course, will seek out the video after seeing the row, or else post it around the internet in a juvenile form of the free speech argument.

 

Before considering the rights and wrongs of the position, there is one fact we should face: we are presented with images of grotesque violence on a daily basis. Last month the New York Times ran on its front page the dead and broken body of a Palestinian child.

 

Like Foley, that child was someone’s son, someone’s brother, someone’s friend, and in a connected world there is just as much chance his family saw the photo and its spread as Foley’s will see the latest awful images of their loved one.

 

That photo raised little controversy in comparison to the use of images of Foley. Photos of groups of civilian men massacred by Isis across Iraq and Syria – widely shared on social media and used by publications across the world – caused no outcry whatsoever.

 

It’s hard to look at that and not see a double standard: like many other courageous and talented people, Foley had chosen to travel to the region, and knew the risks that entailed. Others were killed simply fleeing their homes. In a strange and bitter irony, one of the duties of photographers such as Foley is documenting bloodshed in order to show the world.

 

To see an outcry for Foley’s video and not for others is to wonder whether we are disproportionately concerned over showing graphic deaths of white westerners – maybe even white journalists – and not others.


What Happens to #Ferguson Affects Ferguson: — The Message — Medium

What Happens to #Ferguson Affects Ferguson: — The Message — Medium.

Net Neutrality, Algorithmic Filtering and Ferguson

View image on Twitter

Ferguson is about many things, starting first with race and policing in America.

But it’s also about internet, net neutrality and algorithmic filtering.

It’s a clear example of why “saving the Internet”, as it often phrased, is not an abstract issue of concern only to nerds, Silicon Valley bosses, and few NGOs. It’s why “algorithmic filtering” is not a vague concern.

It’s a clear example why net neutrality is a human rights issue; a free speech issue; and an issue of the voiceless being heard, on their own terms.

I saw this play out in multiple countries — my home country of Turkey included — but last night, it became even more heartbreakingly apparent in the United States as well.

For me, last night’s Ferguson “coverage” began when people started retweeting pictures of armored vehicles with heavily armored “robocops” on top of them, aiming their muzzle at the protesters, who seemed to number a few hundred. It was the fourth night after an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, was shot by a — still unnamed — police officer after a “jaywalking” incident. Witnesses say he died hands in the air, saying “don’t shoot”.

Ferguson is about many things, starting first with race and policing in America.

But it’s also about internet, net neutrality and algorithmic filtering.

It’s a clear example of why “saving the Internet”, as it often phrased, is not an abstract issue of concern only to nerds, Silicon Valley bosses, and few NGOs. It’s why “algorithmic filtering” is not a vague concern.

It’s a clear example why net neutrality is a human rights issue; a free speech issue; and an issue of the voiceless being heard, on their own terms.

I saw this play out in multiple countries — my home country of Turkey included — but last night, it became even more heartbreakingly apparent in the United States as well.

For me, last night’s Ferguson “coverage” began when people started retweeting pictures of armored vehicles with heavily armored “robocops” on top of them, aiming their muzzle at the protesters, who seemed to number a few hundred. It was the fourth night after an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, was shot by a — still unnamed — police officer after a “jaywalking” incident. Witnesses say he died hands in the air, saying “don’t shoot”.


WikiLeaks reveals Australian gagging order over political bribery allegations | World news | The Guardian

WikiLeaks reveals Australian gagging order over political bribery allegations | World news | The Guardian.

Superinjunction reported to have been issued on 19 June to block reporting of claims involving international politicians
WikiLeaks screensaver

In a statement published with the leak, Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder, said the gagging order relates to a case that “concerns the subsidiaries of the Australian central bank”. Photograph: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images

A sweeping gagging order issued in Australia to block reporting of any bribery allegations involving several international political leaders in the region has been exposed by WikiLeaks.

The prohibition emerged from a criminal case in the Australian courts and applies throughout the country. It was issued by the criminal division of the supreme court of Victoria in Melbourne “to prevent damage to Australia’s international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings”.

The Australia-wide gagging order is a superinjunction, which means it also contains a clause insisting that the terms of the order itself should remain secret. It was issued on 19 June and states: “Subject to further order, there be no disclosure, by publication or otherwise, of any information (whether in electronic or paper form) derived from or prepared for the purposes of these proceedings including the terms of these orders.”

In a statement published with the leak, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, said the gagging order relates to a case that “concerns the subsidiaries of the Australian central bank”.

He said it was the first blanket suppression order of this nature in Australia since 1995. “With this order, the worst in living memory, the Australian government is not just gagging the Australian press, it is blindfolding the Australian public,” said Assange, who is himself Australian. “This is not simply a question of the Australian government failing to give this international corruption case the public scrutiny it is due. Foreign minister Julie Bishop must explain why she is threatening every Australian with imprisonment in an attempt to cover up an embarrassing corruption scandal involving the Australian government. The concept of ‘national security’ is not meant to serve as a blanket phrase to cover up serious corruption allegations involving government officials, in Australia or elsewhere. It is in the public interest for the press to be able to report on this case.”


BBC News – Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

BBC News – Why has Google cast me into oblivion?.


google sign

This morning the BBC received the following notification from Google:

Notice of removal from Google Search: we regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html

What it means is that a blog I wrote in 2007 will no longer be findable when searching on Google in Europe.

Which means that to all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for most people.

So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?

Robert Peston: Removed article “was in public interest”

Well it has responded to someone exercising his or her new “right to be forgotten”, following a ruling in May by the European Court of Justice that Google must delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data from its results when a member of the public requests it.

Track record

The ruling stemmed from a case brought by Mario Costeja González after he failed to secure the deletion of a 1998 auction notice of his repossessed home that was reported in a Spanish newspaper.

Now in my blog, only one individual is named. He is Stan O’Neal, the former boss of the investment bank Merrill Lynch.

My column describes how O’Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made.

Is the data in it “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”?


Reporteros Sin Fronteras (RSF) nombra a Estados Unidos como “enemigo de internet” – BioBioChile

Reporteros Sin Fronteras (RSF) nombra a Estados Unidos como “enemigo de internet” – BioBioChile.

 

US Embassy Panama (CC)US Embassy Panama (CC)

 

Publicado por Christian Leal | La Información es de Agencia AFP

 

Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña figuran entre los “enemigos de internet” señalados este miércoles en un informe anual de la organización Reporteros Sin Fronteras (RSF).

Publicado con motivo del día internacional contra la censura, el informe acusa a 31 instituciones como “enemigas de internet”, algunas de ellas pertenecientes a democracias tradicionalmente consideradas como respetuosas de las libertades individuales.

RSF incluyó en su lista negra a la Agencia Nacional de Seguridad (NSA) de Estados Unidos y al Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) de Gran Bretaña.

La NSA y el GCHQ, afirma, “espiaron las comunicaciones de varios millones de ciudadanos, incluyendo numerosos periodistas, introdujeron deliberadamente fallas de seguridad en estructuras destinadas a realizar búsquedas en internet, y piratearon el corazón mismo de la red en el marco de los programas Quantum Insert para la NSA y Tempora para el GCHQ”.

“Internet era un bien común, el NSA y el GCHQ lo convirtieron en arma al servicio de intereses particulares, atentando al pasar contra la libertad de información, la libertad de expresión y el derecho a la vida privada”, denuncia RSF, que también señala a un organismo de vigilancia de telecomunicaciones de la India.

“Las prácticas de vigilancia de esos tres países, algunas de las cuales fueron reveladas por el lanzador de alerta Edward Snowden, son tanto más intolerables cuanto que son utilizadas por países autoritarios como Irán, China, Turkmenistán, Arabia Saudita o Bahrein para justificar sus propios atentados contra la libertad de información”.


China levanta su ‘Gran Cortafuegos’ para proteger al régimen de la Red

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/10/26/actualidad/1351278234_650074.html

Las autoridades bloquean cualquier atisbo de crítica hacia los dirigentes

‘The New York Times’ o Bloomberg han sufrido la mordaza de Pekín

El artista y disidente Ai Weiwei baila junto a varios amigos al estilo Gangnam en protesta contra las autoridades chinas este miércoles. / HANDOUT (REUTERS)

A las autoridades chinas no les gusta que se hable de sus dirigentes. Y menos de sus finanzas o tejemanejes familiares. El bloqueo ayer del acceso a las versiones online, en chino e inglés, del diario estadounidense The New York Times, tras la publicación de un reportaje sobre el entramado económico de la familia del primer ministro chino, Wen Jiabao, no es siquiera el primer episodio este año de censura en Internet para silenciar los manejos de dinero de la clase dirigente comunista. El Gobierno chino adoptó a principios de julio la misma medida, esta vez contra el gigante de la información financiera Bloomberg y su revista Business Week. El motivo: un artículo sobre las redes financieras establecidas por el millonario vicepresidente, Xi Jinping, señalado para tomar el relevo del actual presidente, Hu Jintao.