Mediaboss Marketing

Getty

During the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been many economic and political measures. One of the most unfortunate ones is censorship of the Internet.

NetBlocks, a civil society group working at the intersection of digital rights, cyber-security and internet governance, reported on strange Internet outages in Wuhan during certain nights when the COVID-19 epidemic was starting to gather steam. The Farsi version ofWikipedia was blocked for about 24 hours in Iran.

VPN company Surfshark reported that its VPN infrastructure in Iran was seeing a dropoff of 50% in connection rate after the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 13th. Their cybersecurity advisor Naomi Hedges claims that since 13 March - when [COVID-19] was labeled as a pandemic - Surfshark's connection rates inIranhave dropped by 50%. Meanwhile, our website traffic fromIranhas decreased fivefold of its usual rate. Before the announcement, we haven't experienced notable fluctuations inIran's connectivity rates, so the numbers indicate the increased attempts to censor the internet.

It comes amid reports that China too is clamping on access to the Internet outside the Great Firewall, with VPN providers and connections under strain. Chinese social media networks such as WeChat have also been reported to have censored COVID-19 related terms since December 31st in a notable incident, Dr. Li Wenliang was censured by the Wuhan police for posting about COVID-19 in a private WeChat group.

This is a threat that many cryptocurrency and Bitcoin advocates are aware of. The Internet itself is a protocol Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies depend on in order to communicate data. If the Internet is shut down or content within it is filtered/blocked, peers within a certain country would not be able to communicate with one another effectively.

If content is being censored or tracked, cryptocurrency miners and peers within a country could see their connectivity attempts to the global network be denied, effectively shuttering their ability to transact and to get the global status of the Bitcoin network.

Its why Blockstream has tried to diversify away Bitcoin from its dependency on an uncensored Internet by launching a satellite network that broadcasts data from the Bitcoin blockchain and any other data people choose to pay to upload through the Lightning Network.

This makes the cost of censoring Bitcoin and other information more expensive: nation-states go from needing to cut off domestic broadband communications to having to deploy kinetic force in space an option few countries have access to, and which would be politically unenvious even for the boldest of political leaders.

Beyond just the blunt question of on/off censorship however, cryptocurrencies and their relationship to the Internet at large pose interesting dilemmas. As central banks look more and more at digitizing their currencies and the legal attitude towards digital privacy is being redefined by COVID-19, broad changes may threaten

Centralized digital currencies will have access to lots of metadata associated per each account, including possible location data, that can be tracked and compiled.

This may be necessary in a pandemic, but in general, governments who gain hard-fought emergency powers are loath to return them. The post-9/11 period saw a spate of renewals of the authorization of military force and Patriot Act, stretched to give cover to different government powers until reform only came more than a decade later. This fact led Edward Snowden to warn that temporary surveillance powers may well outlast the COVID-19 pandemic.

As governments look to respond to COVID-19, some will look to censor the Internet and some will look to use digital tools to track their population during the crisis period, perhaps with long-lasting consequences. Both have the potential for abuse, and both pose different but ever-present threats for cryptocurrencies and our liberty at large.

See original here:
Internet Censorship During COVID-19 Is Threat To Cryptocurrencies And Liberty - Forbes

In brief

The Bitcoin Core website is now reachable through the dark web, according to a statement on March 27. It will provide a greater level of resistance against censorship.

The Bitcoin Core website posts the latest updates to the open-source Bitcoin software. Bitcoin Core is maintained by a large group of developers.

The darknet or dark web is a part of the Internet that's hidden from Google. Image: Shutterstock.

After frequent requests, this site is now reachable as a Tor hidden service through an onion address, the post stated, adding, As well as adding another means of censorship resistance, a hidden service gives an alternative trust path that doesnt rely on certificate authorities nor DNS infrastructure.

Certificate authorities check that websites are genuine while the DNS infrastructure is what connects IP addresses to domain names, such as http://www.bitcoincore.org. By making the site accessible via the dark web, it becomes less reliant on these technologies.

The dark web is a segment of the Internet not indexed by traditional search engines. On the most basic level, this means that you cant find or visit a dark web site unless you know its exact URL-address. The dark web can be accessed via the Tor browser.

While the dark web is most commonly associated with illegal activities, such as buying and selling drugs, it can be used for legitimate reasons.

In October 2019, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) made its website available to Tor users last October by providing a dark web copy. This made its content available in Vietnam, China and Iran, where it was being censored.

However, the dark web can be risky to use. As Decrypt reported last year, malicious actors have used the onion network to steal Bitcoin funds from unsuspecting users.

Top stories, original features, rewards & more.

Get the best of Decrypt where you want it most.

More:
Bitcoin Core shifts to dark web to resist censorship - Decrypt

Enliven lessons by discussing Supreme Court cases and challenged books.

How common is it for someone to challenge all library materials on a topic? This hasnt happened in the public library where I work, but local churches are urging members to challenge materials in schools on the occult and witchcraft.Individuals and groups have been trying to challenge all materials on specific content areas since ALAs Office for Intellectual Freedom began tracking challenges to books and materials. Childrens books about witchcraft and the occult have always been problematic to some people, but the first Harry Potter book in 1997 brought the topic front and center. Now, LGBTQ+ content is the latest area targeted by churches, community organizations, and individuals wishing to control what children read. Their rationale: Children will be warped by the topic.

Since school and public libraries make their catalogs available online, its easy for censors to list materials they deem inappropriate for children. This can be controlled with a good materials reconsideration policy. It should make clear that individual materials may be challenged and reconsidered, but not entire topics. This may halt broad efforts to ban materials dealing with a specific issue.

An eighth grade teacher wants to develop a different approach to teaching the First Amendment to her students. She says they are bored with the textbook analysis.Students need to understand the First Amendment in its historical context, and they also need to know how to apply it to their own lives. Suggest that the teacher assign them to read about Supreme Court cases where students have fought for First Amendment rights:

1. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District(1969)

2. Board of Education v. Pico(1982)

3. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier(1988)

Debating both sides of an issue helps students understand how complicated free speech is today. Have them discuss how Morse v. Frederick (2007)is different from Tinker v. Des Moines. It appears to be a similar issue about students right to free speech in school, but the Supreme Court ruled against the former while ruling in favor of Tinker.

Book censorship is still a major problem in schools. Give students a list of challenged titles and ask them to check ones theyve read. Discuss why each has been challenged. Divide the class into three groups and have each read a challenged book. I suggest The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas,American Born Chinese by Gene Luen Yang, and The House of Scorpion by Nancy Farmer.

Each group should then conduct a mock Reconsideration Committee meeting, an opportunity for students to listen to all sides of an issue.

I encourage the teacher to include a discussion about rights and responsibilities. This should include appropriate behavior on social media sites. Most students dont realize how inflammatory speech or bullying on social media can get them in trouble at school.

The internet is like the historical public square where anyone can speak about any topic and slant it to their own bias. Its increasingly important that teachers help students recognize such biases and encourage them to read about topics from many viewpoints before they form an opinion. All Americans have the right to express themselves, but their thoughts will be better heard if they back their ideas with relevant information.

I work in a large public library system. All materials are selected by the collection development staff. I asked why so few graphic novels were bought for the childrens collection and was told that most graphic novels arent appropriate.This is simply not true. Reviews show just how many graphic novels are available for children. Someone in that department is interjecting their own bias. Arrange a meeting with the collection development staff. If that doesnt work, speak to the director.

Pat Scales is the former chair of ALAs Intellectual Freedom Committee. Send questions to pscales@bellsouth.net.

Libraries are always evolving. Stay ahead. Log In.

See the original post here:
Bored with the First Amendment | Scales on Censorship - School Library Journal

In times of mortal strife, humans crave information more than ever, and its journalists responsibility to deliver it.

But what if that information is inaccurate, or could even kill people?

Thats the quandary journalists have found themselves in as they decide whether to cover President Donald J. Trumps press briefings live.

Some television networks have started cutting away from the briefings, saying the events are no more than campaign rallies, and that the president is spreading falsehoods that endanger the public.

If Trump is going to keep lying like he has been every day on stuff this important, we should, all of us, stop broadcasting it, MSNBCs Rachel Maddow tweeted. Honestly, its going to cost lives.

News decisions and ethical dilemmas arent simple, but withholding information from the public is inconsistent with journalistic norms, and while well-meaning, could actually cause more harm than good in the long run. Keeping the presidents statements from the public prevents the public from being able to evaluate his performance, for example.

The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, updated in 2014 during my term as president, states that the press must seek truth and report it, while also minimizing harm.

When the president of the United States speaks, it matters it is newsworthy, its history in the making. Relaying that event to the public as it plays out is critical for citizens, who can see and hear for themselves what their leader is saying, and evaluate the facts for themselves so that they may adequately self-govern.

Thats true even if leaders lie. Actually, its even more important when leaders lie.

Think of libertarian philosopher John Miltons plea for the free flow of information and end of censorship in 1600s England. Put it all out there and let people sort the lies from the truth, Milton urged: Let her and Falsehood grapple.

If a president spreads lies and disinformation, or minimizes health risks, then the electorate needs to know that to make informed decisions at the polls, perhaps to vote the person out to prevent future missteps.

Likewise, theres a chance the president could be correct in his representation of at least some of the facts.

Its not up to journalists to decide, but simply report what is said while providing additional context and facts that may or may not support what the president said.

Maddow is correct that journalists should not simply parrot information spoon fed by those in power to readers and viewers who might struggle to make sense of it in a vacuum. That is why its imperative journalists continuously challenge false and misleading statements, and trust the public to figure it out.

Those who would urge the medias censorship of the presidents speeches may feel they are protecting citizens from being duped, because they believe the average person cant distinguish fact from fiction. Communication scholars call this third-person effect, where we feel ourselves savvy enough to identify lies, but think other more vulnerable, gullible and impressionable minds cannot.

It is understandable why journalists would try to protect the public from lies. Thats the minimizing harm part in the SPJ code of ethics, which is critical in these times, when inaccurate information can put a persons health at risk or cause them to make a fatal decision.

So how do journalists report the days events while minimizing harm and tamping down the spread of disinformation? Perhaps this can be accomplished through techniques already in use during this unorthodox presidential period:

The coronavirus pandemic is a critical time for the nations health and its democracy. Now, more than ever, we need information. As humans, we crave knowing what is going on around us, a basic awareness instinct, as termed by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their foundational book, The Elements of Journalism.

People arent dummies

Sometimes people dont even realize they need information until after they have lost it.

In his autobiography, the late Sen. John McCain wrote that upon his release after five years as a Vietnamese prisoner of war, the first thing he did when he got to a Philippines military base was order a steak dinner and stack of newspapers.

I wanted to know what was going on in the world, and I grasped anything I could find that might offer a little enlightenment, McCain wrote. The thing I missed most was information free, uncensored, undistorted, abundant information.

People arent dummies. They can decipher good information from bad, as long as they have all the facts at their disposal.

And journalists are the ones best positioned to deliver it.

David Cuillier is an associate professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Arizona.

This article originally was published on The Conversation.

Send letters to: letters@suntimes.com.

View post:
Its a bad idea for journalists to censor Trump instead, they can help the public identify whats true or f - Chicago Sun-Times

Societys dependence on the internet: 5 cyber issues the coronavirus lays bare

As more and more U.S. schools and businesses shutter their doors, the rapidly evolving coronavirus pandemic is helping to expose societys dependence -- good and bad -- on the digital world.

Entire swaths of society, includingclasses we teach at American University, have moved online until the coast is clear. As vast segments of society are temporarily forced into isolation to achieve social distancing, the internet is their window into the world. Online social events like virtual happy hours foster a sense of connectedness amid social distancing. While the online world is often portrayed as a societal ill, this pandemic is a reminder of how much the digital world has to offer.

The pandemic also lays bare the many vulnerabilities created by societys dependence on the internet. These include the dangerous consequences of censorship, the constantly morphing spread of disinformation, supply chain vulnerabilities and the risks of weak cybersecurity.

The global pandemic reminds us that evenlocal censorship can have global ramifications.Chinas early suppression of coronavirus informationlikely contributed to what is now a worldwide pandemic. Had the doctor in Wuhan who spotted the outbreak been able to speak freely, public health authorities might have been able to do more to contain it early.

China is not alone. Much of the world lives in countries that imposecontrols on what can and cannot be said about their governments online. Such censorship is not just a free speech issue, but a public health issue as well. Technologies that circumvent censorship are increasingly a matter of life and death.

During a public health emergency, sharing accurate information rapidly is critical. Social media can be an effective tool for doing just that. But its also a source of disinformation and manipulation in ways that can threaten global health and personal safety something tech companies are desperately, yet imperfectly, trying to combat.

Facebook, for example, has banned ads selling face masks orpromising false preventions or cures, while giving the World Health Organization unlimited ad space. Twitter is placing links to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other reliable information sources atop search returns. Meanwhile, Russia and othersreportedly are spreading rumorsabout the coronaviruss origins. Others are using the coronavirus to spreadracist vitriol, in ways that put individuals at risk.

Not only does COVID-19 warn us of the costs -- and geopolitics -- of disinformation, it highlights the roles and responsibilities of the private sector in confronting these risks. Figuring out how to do so effectively, without suppressing legitimate critics, is one of the greatest challenges for the next decade.

Our university has moved our work online. We are holding meetings by video chat and conducting virtual courses. While many dont have this luxury, including those on the front lines of health and public safety or newly unemployed, thousands of otheruniversities,businessesand other institutions also moved online -- a testament to the benefits of technological innovation.

At the same time, these moves remind us of the importance of strong encryption, reliable networks and effective cyber defenses. Today network outages are not just about losing access to Netflix but about losing livelihoods. Cyber insecurity is also a threat to public health, such as whenransomware attacks disrupt entire medical facilities.

The virus also exposes the promise and risks of the internet of things, the globe-spanning web of always-on, always-connected cameras, thermostats, alarm systems and other physical objects. Smart thermometers, blood pressure monitors and other medical devices are increasingly connected to the web. This makes it easier for people with pre-existing conditions to manage their health at home, rather than having to seek treatment in a medical facility where they are at much greater risk of exposure to the disease.

More:
Society's dependence on the internet: 5 cyber issues the coronavirus lays bare - GCN.com