Mediaboss Marketing

To mark World Day Against Cyber Censorship on 12 March, Reporters without Borders published a report targeting institutions that are deeply involved in cyber censorship, using national security as a pretext.

Last June, Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the surveillance methods used by the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the US National Security Agency (NSA). Although it is hardly news that countries such as China and Syria practice censorship and surveillance, it is perhaps surprising to learn that a number of national organs in more democratic countries are also indulging in such practices. This is however precisely what the explosive report Enemies of the Internet 2014 by Reporters Sans Frontires (Reporters without Borders), published to mark World Day Against Cyber Censorship, reveals. The RSF report lists thirty-two institutions which the watchdog says are at the heart of censorship and surveillance, and highlights the lengths to which these bodies go to maintain security at the cost of fundamental rights. What is worrying is that on the pretext of national protection, GCHQ and the NSA have used extensive espionage tactics, which we only found out about following Snowdens revelations, warned Grgoire Pouget, head of the New Media desk at RSF.

For example, the NSA paid a US standards-setting organisation to lower encryption levels and arranged with a French company to leave backdoor security gaps in systems, which enabled NSA to hack a wide range of routers. However hacking into systems and leaving security gaps amount to a very short-term view of security, argues Pouget, explaining: If the NSA exploits a security flaw this exposes the flaw and in the long term it will be exploited by others. RSF also points the finger at many other national agencies e.g. in Colombia where a digital surveillance unit has been set up that has enabled the authorities to intercept 26,000 emails between members of the FARC revolutionary movement and international journalists; and in Tunisia, where a Technical Agency for Telecommunications has been established by decree without any consultation through the democratic process and without any accountability, in order to combat information and communication crimes. Moreover, it seems to be fairly common nowadays to enact laws designed to protect national security which encroach on peoples rights. In France, parliament has passed a Military Programming Law which authorises communications surveillance without a formal court order, the justification for such measures being national security, the preservation of Frances economic assets, and the fight against crime.

In the same vein, in Turkey, a recent amendment to the Internet Law turns Internet Service Providers into instruments of censorship and surveillance, forcing them to join a new organisation that centralises demands for content blocking or removal. If they do not join and install the surveillance tools demanded by the authorities they will lose their licence, says the report. However, such censorship is not limited to public policy organs. Private companies also play a major role in surveillance and censorship on the Internet, underlines Grgoire Pouget. Drawing attention to the dangers of mass surveillance, the report criticises the major role played by private companies that specialise in intercepting communications and blocking online content, without which censorship and surveillance by bodies that are enemies of the Internet would simply not be possible, stresses the report. On the enemies list we also find what RSF describes as surveillance dealerships, i.e. the three major international Arms trade fairs: ISS World, Technology Against Crime and Milipol. These arms fairs, two out of the three of which were held in France in 2013, are closed to journalists, Pouget points out. To bring greater control to these snooping technology marketplaces, the report recommends that the United Nations draft an international convention on the export of Internet surveillance technology.

See the original post:
Enemies of the Internet: RSF lists agencies and companies from all over the world

BOSTON Free, free Palestine! protesters shouted, carrying a 30-foot-long Palestinian flag through the streets.

At first glance, the 150 people gathered just outside Northeastern University on March 18 seemed to be staging a typical rally criticizing Israeli policiesan increasingly common sight on left-leaning American campuses. But upon closer inspection, the mix of NEU students and local Boston activists were calling for another thing to be freed: their speech.

Eleven days before the protest, the NEU chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine had been suspended, meaning they could no longer meet as a group on NEU property or receive university funds. The administration cited several violations of campus policies and procedures, most recently when SJP failed to get university approval to distribute 600 fliers on February 23.

The fliers were designed as mock eviction notices to symbolize the Palestinian experience in occupied territory, where homes have been razed for Israeli settlements. It warned the reader that their dorm was scheduled for demolition in three days, followed by statistics on displaced Palestinian families. The flier was punctuated by a disclaimer at the bottom: This is not a real eviction notice. #BostonMockEviction.

The requirement to obtain pre-approval before distributing fliers is in the student resource handbook at Northeastern. But according to SJP members, the university doesnt consistently enforce the policy.

There are hundreds of fliers in different places around campus, and almost none of them have the universitys stamp of approval, said Max Geller, an SJP spokesman.

Charles Flewelling, a third-year law student who's part of several Northeastern student groups, including the National Lawyers Guild and Queers United in Radical Rethinking, agreed with that assessment. "It is common practice for student groups to put up fliers around school," he said. "None of [our] fliers had university approval," but neither he nor any of his group members "have received any form of discipline or warning."

Tori Porell, the president of SJP, said this double standard is part of a concerted effort to censor the pro-Palestinian group. The result, she said, is that our free speech is suppressed.

Renata Nyul, director of communications at Northeastern, said SJP was "sanctioned based on a series of violations of university policy. Every student organization is viewed the same way. [SJP] is not being singled out." Northeastern also wrote in an earlier statement that the issue at hand is not one of free speech."

Still, the campus has become the latest battleground for pro-Palestinian student activists who claim they have been marginalized or unfairly punished by university higher-ups. Earlier this month, a banner reading Stand for Justice, Stand for Palestine was taken down at Barnard College following complaints by pro-Israel student groups. Last year, five Florida Atlantic University students were put on indefinite probation and ordered to take a civility training course after briefly protesting and walking out of a talk by a member of the Israel Defense Forces. The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been tracking this issue, has documented more than 80 complaints of campus intimidation against advocates for Palestinian human rights.

Originally posted here:
Pro-Palestinian Students Charge Universities With Censorship

A new policy at Fond du Lac High School that allows administrators to oversee student publications is drawing criticism and sparking a free speech debate - and several English teachers are asking the school district to rethink the rules.

Journalism students at "Cardinal Columns," a student magazine, were told this month that the district was implementing a policy that would allow the principal to oversee all student publications and refuse to publish certain items.

The move came after the student magazine published a story in February called "The Rape Joke," according to the Fond du Lac Reporter Media. The story, by senior Tanvi Kumar, investigated the prevalence of rape jokes and rape culture at the school and included anonymous stories from victims.

School Superintendent James Sebert and high school Principal Jon Wiltzius raised concerns about the content, including the possibility that the subject matter might be inappropriate for immature audiences and that the photos might be too suggestive or edgy.

Sixteen members of the English Department have signed and presented a 22-page statement supporting the students. It reads: "Such guidelines are not only a clear path toward censorship of student expression but also drastically alter the relationship between school publications and the administration and break sharply with roughly 100 years of district precedent regarding such publication."

The teachers urge the superintendent and school board to either abandon the guidelines or put them on hold "until new guidelines or a new policy may be drafted in collaboration with the students, community and experts in the field."

The statement also says the story "stands as an exemplar of high-quality, responsible journalism that has helped countless readers feel supported, speak up, seek help and come together in a way that has undoubtedly resulted in a more positive environment in our school."

See the article here:
Fond du Lac High School censorship rule under fire

Google Nazi Censorship - Damn YOU Plus! +
Google Nazi Censorship.

By: Daniel Vincent Kelley

View original post here:
Google Nazi Censorship - Damn YOU Plus! + - Video

RightsCon 2014: Privatised Enforcement and Corporate Censorship: The Future of Freedom of Expression
Moderator: Lucy Purdon, Programme Support Manager, IHRB Participants: Joe McNamee, Executive Director, EDRi Gabrielle Guillemin, Legal Officer Article 19 Ani...

By: Institute for Human Rights and Business

Read this article:
RightsCon 2014: Privatised Enforcement and Corporate Censorship: The Future of Freedom of Expression - Video