Mediaboss Marketing

The Iranian government has reportedly begun blocking access to the Internet. A post on Hacker News explains that since yesterday, it’s been difficult to impossible to get online. “Since Thursday Iranian government has shutted [sic] down the HTTPS protocol which has caused almost all Google services (Gmail, and Google.com itself) to become inaccessible,” Sara70 writes. “Almost all websites that rely on Google APIs (like Wolphram Alpha) won’t work.”   

This month marks the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution (a celebration which continues through March), and the Iranian government is allegedly attempting to contain potential demonstrations by quieting citizens’ connection to the rest of the world.

Websites using HTTPS are many: in addition to Google and its various Web products, they include Facebook, Hotmail, and Yahoo. An Iranian citizen who wished to remain anonymous told Cnet this morning that despite the widespread news, the government is denying these actions.

If the Iranian officials plan to cut off citizens during the entire holiday, that means Iran could be in the dark until next month. Iran operates its Internet much like China, meaning it has its own state run firewall. According to various reports, work-arounds typically used to circumvent this are not working.

Last year the Middle East fell into a similar Internet blackout when protestors’ demonstrations began making the rounds via various social networking sites. Despite the heavy-handed censorship, the Arab Spring revolutions continued on and there were even spikes in activism as a result of the black outs.

Still, the Internet has proved a powerful tool not only in reaching the outside world but in uniting forces on the inside. Facebook and Twitter have particularly been mouthpieces of the people during these recent rebellions. Although this should cause everyone to wonder how Twitter’s new International censorship policy will work in practice. 

In 2009, Iranian citizens used Twitter to organize what have become called the “Twitter Revolutions.” The microblogging site even delayed scheduled maintenance so that it could remain up and running for the protestors. Relationships between US-based Web companies and Iran have remained tense since, and intense restrictions remain. However, any progress that’s been made may be hurt by the nation’s decision to restrict citizen access. 

This article was originally posted on Digital Trends

More from Digital Trends

Facebook: We didn’t mean to censor activists

Infographic: A short history of social media

Twitter will consider international policies for censoring tweets

Google’s all-or-nothing plan to make you a Google+ user

View post:
Iran blocks the Internet

Protests against Internet censorship will blanket Europe this weekend, while Germany and Latvia announced Friday they would put the brakes on signing a copyright treaty that has sparked controversy across the continent.

More than 200,000 people have committed to attending rallies in 200 cities to protest the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or "ACTA."

[More from Mashable: WikiLeaks Founder Assange Fighting Extradition]

"The map of planned protests is just breathtaking," said Holmes Wilson, co-founder of anti-ACTA group Fight for the Future. "You've got tens of thousands of people taking to the streets in small cities, in countries where large street protests are not common."

Proponents of ACTA say that the treaty will help fight global copyright theft. Opponents, fresh off the SOPA and PIPA battlefields, argue that ACTA will harm free speech on the Internet. They also accuse the treaty's architects of holding negotiations away from the public eye.

[More from Mashable: Obama: Protect The ‘Fundamental Integrity’ of the Internet]

"This is truly the Internet's Arab Spring," said Fight for the Future co-founder Tiffiniy Cheng. "People are rising up against anti-democratic laws that stifle individual freedoms. And they're organizing spontaneously, without leaders, using tools available to everyone."

SEE ALSO: What is ACTA? | ACTA 'Is More Dangerous Than SOPA'

Public opposition to the treaty has already struck Europe. Last month, thousands of people in Poland took to the streets in protest while the European rapporteur for ACTA resigned after calling the negotiation process a "charade."

It appears some European leaders have been listening to ACTA's naysayers. Germany and Latvia's decision to delay signing ACTA puts them in league with Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, who have also halted the process.

A German foreign ministry spokesperson said that the country needed "time to carry out further discussions" about the treaty, the " target="_blank">BBC reported.

ACTA was signed by the U.S. and Japan in 2006. Australia, Canada, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea signed on last year and the European Union signed last month, but no country's legislature has yet ratified the treaty. ACTA will go into force when ratified by at least six countries.

Would you hit the streets to protest ACTA? Is ACTA just as bad as SOPA and PIPA? Let us know in the comments below.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, richterfoto

This story originally published on Mashable here.

More here:
Europeans Plan Widespread Protests Against Internet Censorship

Tens of thousands of people marched in protests in more than a dozen European cities Saturday against a controversial anti-online piracy pact that critics say could curtail Internet freedom.

Some 41,000 people rallied in Germany, including 16,000 in Munich and 10,000 in Berlin, against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was negotiated between the 27-nation European Union and 10 other countries.

Many brandishing "Stop ACTA" banners and wearing Guy Fawkes masks -- a symbol of hacker-led rallies -- the mostly young protestors also braved subzero temperatures to mass in cities such as Budapest, Bucharest, Bratislava, Prague, Paris, Sofia, Tallinn, Vilnius and Vienna.

ACTA is awaiting ratification from several governments, but intense opposition led by Internet users has forced some EU states including Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia to freeze their ratification process.

"We see the suspension of ratification as a victory, but we cannot over-estimate it," said the vice-president of the Czech Republic's pirate party, Mikulas Ferjencik.

"We want ACTA to be stopped completely," he added.

In Sofia, more than 3,000 demonstrators marched along major downtown boulevards, booing at the buildings of government and parliament.

Shouting "No to ACTA!" and "Mafia!", they accused the government of signing the agreement secretly and without consulting the public.

In Tallinn, where about 1,500 turned out, lawmakers widened their criticism of ACTA to an attack on the country's leadership.

"Estonia's PM Ansip has often demonstrated that government decisions in Estonia are born somewhere in hidden cellars," charged lawmaker Juku-Kalle Raid, whose party governs with Andrus Ansip's Reform Party.

"The current case with ACTA only indicated that once again a decision was to be made without discussion with the people," added the lawmaker.

The European Commission meanwhile published a document detailing the negotiation process of the pact, as it sought to defend itself against accusations of opacity.

"The EU strongly denies having provided any kind of preferential access to information to any group of stakeholders," it said.

"There are also no secret protocols to the agreement and the final text is fully public and available to all citizens on the website of the European Commission," it added.

ACTA was signed last year in Tokyo, and aims to bolster international standards for intellectual property protection, for example by doing more to fight counterfeit medicine and other goods.

But its attempt to attack illegal downloading and Internet file-sharing has sparked charges that it compromises online freedom.

"I am here because I am against censorship on the Internet, against the attempts to limit the freedom of information and against corporate interests which trample on human rights," Maya Nikolova, 27, told AFP in Sofia.

Many Bulgarian musicians were also among the crowd, claiming that they rarely get copyright royalties anyway but were ready to sacrifice whatever little they do earn for the sake of Internet freedom.

One of the Vilnius rally organisers, Mantas Kondratavicius, told AFP: "Some provisions of the treaty are too ambiguous and allow different interpretations."

"If ACTA is approved, the understanding of human rights and privacy would change and there can be no way back," warned the 21-year-old.

"I don't deny that authors should be paid but that cannot be done at the expense of privacy or freedom of speech," he stressed.

Meanwhile, some on Facebook chose to protest through blood donations.

"Blood is a life-giving power, just as information and ideas are for the web. Join our symbolic way to show that sharing is not a crime but has vital importance," its organisers said.

Besides the EU, other ACTA signatories are Australia, Canada, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States.

Read the original here:
Europeans protest controversial Internet pact

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Internet service providers are not broadcasters, and don't need to adhere to strict rules designed to boost Canadian content on domestic television and radio, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.

The decision is a victory for telecommunications and Internet companies, including Bell Canada, Telus, Rogers Communications, Cogeco Cable and Bell Aliant, and a loss for Canadian performers and producers.

The communications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), had asked the court to clarify whether companies that provide access to programming via Internet should be considered as broadcasters.

That would make them subject to the Broadcasting Act, legislation that requires broadcasters to carry some Canadian programs, in an attempt to avoid complete domination by U.S. shows. Broadcasters must also pay into funds that support the creation of local content.

"ISPs provide Internet access to end-users. When providing access to the Internet ... they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content," the court ruled in its unanimous decision.

Cultural and artist groups had argued that Internet service providers should pay fees to the local content funds, and the Broadcasting Act should include ISPs, given that more and more people are now watching shows online.

Mirko Bibic, senior vice-president for regulatory and government affairs at BCE's Bell Canada unit, said if the Supreme Court had decided otherwise it would have hurt users.

"It leaves no doubt that ISPs are not broadcasters just because customers access broadcast content over the Internet," he said.

"Any other decision would have allowed the CRTC to impose a levy on ISPs' Internet revenues to pay producers for new media content, something that would harm consumers and stifle innovation. Today's decision means that can't happen."

The name of the case is Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists et al. v. Bell Aliant Regional Communications LP et al. (F.C.)(33884)

(Reporting by Randall Palmer and Alastair Sharp; editing by Janet Guttsman and Rob Wilson)

Read the rest here:
Internet firms aren't broadcasters: court

Retail internet service providers, such as Rogers and Bell, that provide end?users with access to broadcasting over the internet are not subject to the Broadcasting Act because they have no control over the programming transmitted, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

Under the act, those that provide “broadcasting undertakings” are assumed to have some measure of control over programming.

However, internet service providers (ISPs) that provide the mode of transmission to broadcasting, both video and audio requested by end-users, "take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content," the top court said in a decision Thursday.

ISPs merely act as a conduit for information provided by others, and so cannot themselves be held to communicate the information, the court ruled.

"We’re very pleased that the court made the right decision," said Leigh-Ann Popek, a spokeswoman for Rogers, told CBC News in an email.

The appellants, which included the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, the Canadian Media Production Association, the Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada, had argued that ISPs form part of a single broadcasting system that is subject to regulation under the act.

They based their argument on the 1978 Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-television Commission (CRTC) case.

Under a 1968 version of the act, the CRTC had amended Rogers Cable’s licence, allowing it to delete and substitute the television advertisements in the U.S. broadcasts it received before distributing them to Canadian viewers.

The American broadcasting stations attempted to sever the function of receiving television signals from the distribution or retransmission of those signals within a particular province. The court rejected this severance of reception and distribution, ruling it was a single system coming under federal jurisdiction.

In making the ruling Thursday, the top court upheld a 2010 Federal Court of Appeal decision.

In a 1999 report, the CRTC concluded that the term “broadcasting” included programs transmitted to end-users over the internet, but that it was not necessary to regulate broadcasting services provided through the internet.

It exempted these “new media broadcasting undertakings” from the requirements of the Broadcasting Act. However, in 2008, after public hearings, the CRTC revisited the exemption.

One of the issues raised was whether internet service providers — ISPs — were subject to the act when they provided end-users with access to broadcasting through the internet.

The respondents in the Supreme Court case included Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc., MTS Allstream Inc.,Rogers Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Company,Videotron Ltd. and Shaw Communications Inc. The CRTC had intervenor status.

Visit link:
Internet providers not subject to Broadcasting Act