Preocupa la propuesta del diputado Brugge para la creación de un defensor de las Redes Sociales « Fundación Vía Libre

La queja del diputado tiene que ver con la supuesta lentitud de los procesos de habeas data, por lo que propone la creación de un habeas data administrativo que avance directamente sobre las publicaciones consideradas inapropiadas – con una definición muy vaga de lo que es inapropiado – y los emisores de las mismas. Para esto, propone la creación de una figura novedosa: el defensor público en Redes Sociales y medios electrónicos, incluidos allí los servicios como Facebook, Twitter, entre otros así como Whatsapp, Telegram y cualquier otro medio electrónico a crearse en el futuro.Lo más preocupante de la iniciativa tiene que ver con las atribuciones del mentado defensor, ya que se le dará la posibilidad de bloquear tanto contenidos como usuarios de forma inmediata e inaudita parte, es decir, sin derecho a réplica alguno

Fuente: Preocupa la propuesta del diputado Brugge para la creación de un defensor de las Redes Sociales « Fundación Vía Libre


Pepper-sprayed students outraged as UC Davis tried to scrub incident from web | US news | The Guardian

The California university is being accused of censorship after paying a firm to try to hide references to the incident in which police sprayed protesters in 2011

Fuente: Pepper-sprayed students outraged as UC Davis tried to scrub incident from web | US news | The Guardian


Exigimos respuesta al retiro de notas sobre protesta del caso Narvarte

El domingo 29 de noviembre, varios medios de comunicación retiraron, bajo presión gubernamental, notas relacionadas con una protesta por los asesinatos de la colonia Narvarte. De acuerdo a informantes, el vocero del gobierno de la Ciudad de México exigió, además de la remoción de notas, un castigo para los fotógrafos que participaron en la protesta. Los medios han mantenido un silencio cómplice sobre el retiro de las notas, sin aclarar las razones por las que quitaron la información de sus sitios web.

Fuente: Exigimos respuesta al retiro de notas sobre protesta del caso Narvarte


With Power of Social Media Growing, Police Now Monitoring and Criminalizing Online Speech – The Intercept

With Power of Social Media Growing, Police Now Monitoring and Criminalizing Online Speech – The Intercept.

BY GLENN GREENWALD 

Featured photo - With Power of Social Media Growing, Police Now Monitoring and Criminalizing Online Speech

On March 6, 2012, six British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan by a roadside explosive device, and a national ritual of mourning and rage ensued. Prime Minister David Cameron called it a “desperately sad day for our country.” A British teenager, Azhar Ahmed, observed the reaction for two days and then went to Facebook to angrily object that the innocent Afghans killed by British soldiers receive almost no attention from British media. He opined that the UK’s soldiers in Afghanistan are guilty, their deaths deserved, and are therefore going to hell:

The following day, Ahmed was arrested and “charged with a racially aggravated public order offense.” The police spokesman explained that “he didn’t make his point very well and that is why he has landed himself in bother.” The state proceeded to prosecute him, and in October of that year, he was convicted “of sending a grossly offensive communication,” fined and sentenced to 240 hours of community service.

As demonstrators demanded he be imprisoned, the judge who sentenced Ahmed pronounced his opinions “beyond the pale of what’s tolerable in our society,” ruling: “I’m satisfied that the message was grossly offensive.” The Independent‘s Jerome Taylor noted that he “escaped jail partially because he quickly took down his unpleasant posting and tried to apologize to those he offended.” Apparently, heretics may be partially redeemed if theypublicly renounce their heresies.


Un hombre será formalizado por escribir en Twitter “me gustaría desmembrar con una bomba” a Cecilia Pérez – El Mostrador

Un hombre será formalizado por escribir en Twitter “me gustaría desmembrar con una bomba” a Cecilia Pérez – El Mostrador.

La investigación dio con un estudiante de Diseño que escribió el mensaje como un “desahogo”. La audiencia será el próximo lunes 5 de enero

A_UNO_444913_a6dbd

La Fiscalía Centro Norte formalizará como autor de amenzas a Andrés Fraga, acusado de usar su cuenta de Twitter, para amenazar a  Cecilia Pérez ex vocera del gobierno de Sebastián Piñera

 


Páginas de enlaces y descargas: Las webs de enlaces se apagan | Cultura | EL PAÍS

Páginas de enlaces y descargas: Las webs de enlaces se apagan | Cultura | EL PAÍS.

Un usuario accede a una web de enlaces. / ULY MARTÍN

Cada día, una baja. En la peor semana que los aficionados del todo gratis en Internet recuerden -la mejor, claro, para los creadores- primero las webs de enlaces SeriesPepito y PeliculasPepito sufrieron el cierre del juez, por un supuesto delito contra la propiedad intelectual. Luego, Series.ly anunció en un comunicado que retiraría todos los enlaces que puedan infringir la ley. Mientras tanto, también cayó Magnovideo, que solo muestra el siguiente mensaje: “Debido a los recientes cambios en el marco legal español nos vemos obligados a cancelar el servicio de alojamiento gratuito de vídeos Magnovideo. Sentimos mucho tomar una decisión tan dolorosa sin previo aviso, no hemos tenido tiempo de reacción”. Y hoy en Francia la justicia ha bloqueado la web The Pirate Bay. Aun así, a juzgar por lo que sugieren varios abogados expertos en Propiedad Intelectual, cabe esperar que la avalancha acabe por arrastrar más páginas.

El apagón complica la caza por la siguiente web para ver series y películas de forma gratuita

“Cualquier usuario Premium puede pedir un reembolso del importe pagado por su cuenta Premium”, añade el mensaje de Magnovideo, conocida en el mundillo como la Megaupload española (en alusión al servicio de Kim Dotcom, cerrado hace dos años por el FBI). Precisamente allí, en los usuarios dispuestos a pagar para obtener un servicio mejor y más rápido, se hallaba parte del negocio por ejemplo de Seriespepito, según la Policía Nacional. La otra fuente de ingresos suele ser la publicidad que estas páginas alojan.

El goteo de caídas se debe, según abogados que defienden a los dueños de algunas de estas páginas, tanto a una persecución que “se refuerza en Navidad, como operación de propaganda”, como a los cambios legislativos en marcha. Por un lado, el 1 de enero entra en vigor la nueva Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, que refuerza la lucha y las sanciones contra las páginas de enlaces. Por otro, la reforma del Código Penal todavía por aprobar castigaría con hasta seis años de cárcel estos delitos.


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.


Twitter suspende cuentas que compartan fotos de periodista decapitado – BioBioChile

Twitter suspende cuentas que compartan fotos de periodista decapitado – BioBioChile.


Foto de archivo de James Foley | AFP PHOTO / ARIS MESSINIS

Foto de archivo de James Foley | AFP PHOTO / ARIS MESSINIS

Publicado por Eduardo Woo
Twitter se encuentra eliminando las fotos que circulan sobre la decapitación del periodistas estadounidense, James Foley, luego que fuera liberado un video con las grotescas imágenes en la que se ve la acción ejecutada por un yihadista presuntamente británico del Estado Islámico, grupo islamista ultrarradical que opera en Siria e Irak.

El presidente de Twitter, Dick Costolo, indicó a través de su cuenta que la compañía se encuentra suspendiendo las cuentas que estén viralizando ese contenido.


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”.


The Ethiopian bloggers charged as terrorists – Twitter Q&A | World news | theguardian.com

The Ethiopian bloggers charged as terrorists – Twitter Q&A | World news | theguardian.com.

A group of journalists and bloggers known as the Zone Nine collective have felt the full force of a government media crackdown. With their colleagues imprisoned awaiting trial they took over @guardianafrica to answer your questions

 

 

 

Ethiopian man waves Ethiopian flag
An Ethiopian flag. The government has been broadly criticised for its media crackdown and silencing a ‘once thriving’ blogosphere. Photograph: Tony Gentile/Reuters

 

Six members of Ethiopia’s blogging collective and three journalists, known as Zone Nine, are facing terrorism charges. In an alleged plot to “destabilise the nation” they stand accused of having links to banned rebel group Ginbot 7 and planning attacks.

The group have been imprisoned since April, with critics accusing the government of making unnecessary delays to the trial at their expense. There have been seven hearings and it emerged that the latest, due to be held this week, would be postponed until 20 August.

The Zone Nine mantra is “we blog because we care”. They became known for criticising the government and its policies. Last month, their colleagues mobilised online campaigners, asking them to use the hashtag #FreeZone9Bloggers to protest in favour of their release.

Freedom activists have criticised the detention of the bloggers. Responding to the court issuing the terror charge on the 18 July, Human Rights Watch said Ethiopia is making a “mockery of its own judicial system” and “hiding behind an abusive anti-terrorism law.”

A sustained government crackdown has crippled Ethiopia’s independent press and a briefly “thriving and energetic blogosphere” has been silenced by government censorship, says blogging website global voices. Freedom House categorises Ethiopia’s press as “not free”.

We invited two members of the blogging collective, Soliyana Shimeles and Endalk Chala to takeover @guardianafrica to answer your questions. Where does the case stand? How do they cope with censorship? And what do they hope for the future?


China bloquea varias páginas de Google antes de la conmemoración de Tiananmen – BioBioChile

China bloquea varias páginas de Google antes de la conmemoración de Tiananmen – BioBioChile.


Google Doodles

Google Doodles

Publicado por Gabriela Ulloa | La Información es de Agencia AFP
ChinVarias páginas de Google estaban bloqueadas en China coincidiendo con la conmemoración del 25 aniversario de la represión de las manifestaciones en la Plaza de Tiananmen, indicó un grupo que controla la censura en China.

El gobierno chino prohíbe permanentemente el acceso a varias páginas web, entre ellas YouTube y Twitter, usando un sistema llamado “Gran Cortafuegos”, un bloqueo que se refuerza cuando llegan fechas consideradas sensibles.

Aunque Google se retiró de China en 2010, se puede acceder a sus páginas en el extranjero, pero en los últimos días han sido bloqueadas, indicó la organización GreatFire.org.


Filtrar Internet: ¿una nueva función del estado? | Manzana Mecánica

Filtrar Internet: ¿una nueva función del estado? | Manzana Mecánica.

En julio de este año el Primer Ministro británico, James Cameron, anunció que los proveedores de Internet debían filtrar la pornografía para sus clientes residenciales. La razón para hacerlo: “el impacto que está teniendo en la inocencia de nuestros niños, como la pornografía en línea está corrompiendo la niñez.”

Los grandes proveedores de Internet en el Reino Unido: Sky, BT y Virgin y TalkTalk, están implementando estos sistemas de acuerdo a los lineamientos del gobierno. El principal es que cada cliente residencial debe recibir un aviso y tomar una decisión entre una conexión filtrada y una conexión sin filtrar.

Hasta el momento no hay estadísticas sobre cuánta gente elige una opción u otra, un asunto delicado porque no está claro quiénes tienen acceso a saber qué ha decidido cada cliente. Lo que sí ha ocurrido es la realización súbita de quefiltrar Internet no funciona en la práctica.

Newsnight, un programa de la BBC, realizó algunas pruebas, obteniendo los resultados esperables. De una lista de 68 sitios pornográficos, un proveedor bloqueó 62 y otro 67, pero este último también bloqueó 8 sitios que ayudan a gente que quiere luchar contra la adicción a la pornografía. Además:

Uno de los proveedores además bloqueó completamente el sitio de hosting de imágenes Imgur porque usa la misma red de distribución de contenido (CDN) que un sitio pornográfico.

¿Quiénes son realmente “los niños” para un gobierno que decide que bloquear Internet es parte de sus funciones?

En suma, considerando el tamaño de Internet y la cantidad de sitios nuevos que aparecen todos los días, no es de extrañarse que las medidas tecnológicas puedan hacer poco o nada para proteger “la inocencia de nuestros niños”. Pero más importante aún, cuando Cameron se refiere a “nuestros niños”, ¿a quiénes se refiere? ¿Quiénes son realmente “los niños” para un gobierno que decide que bloquear Internet es parte de sus funciones?


En China las amantes denuncian la corrupción oficial – El Mostrador

En China las amantes denuncian la corrupción oficial – El Mostrador.

Cada vez con más frecuencia, amantes de altos funcionarios del Partido Comunista deciden hablar públicamente tras descubrir que sus parejas estaban casadas, tenían hijos y además eran corruptos.

Chinaa1

Lujuria, poder y corrupción son de por sí una mezcla explosiva. Pero lo es mucho más cuando a la muy publicitada ofensiva contra la corrupción del presidente chino, Xi Jinping, se suma una fuente de filtraciones tan improbable como una amante despechada.

En las últimas semanas, los chinos se han enfurecido con unas revelaciones muy poco habituales del extravagante estilo de vida de algunos miembros de la cúpula del Partido Comunista.

INTERNET

Uno de los principales lugares en que se han hecho públicas estas revelaciones es el blog de Zhu Ruifeng, que, dedicado a denunciar la corrupción, ganó visibilidad el año pasado cuando publicó un video sexual protagonizado por un funcionario que acabó en la cárcel.

Con el poder creciente de internet, detalles que en otro tiempo hubieran permanecido ocultos, están ahora a la vista del público.