Navigation

Archive | Free Information

The Assange case – now what?

By on May 19, 2017 in Assange, Civil rights, Deep State, Free Information, Freedom of the Press, Human rights, Law enforcement, Wikileaks

The Swedish special prosecutor has decided to close the investigation into sexual misconduct against Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange.

First of all, the case in itself was remarkably thin. Second, Assange has never been charged with any crime. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued to question him. Such an interview was conducted last November. So, reasonably, the EAW have lost its function.

So, now… what?

British authorities still want to get their hands on Assange – formally for having jumped bail, which is a crime that is punishable with up to one year in prison.

But the core of the matter is: Will he be extradited to the U.S. to stand trial for some of the things Wikileaks has published? We know that there is a grand jury looking into the matter. But there are also strong voices referring to the first amendment in the constitution. It wouldn’t be reasonable to charge Wikileaks but not e.g. New York Times for publishing the same information.

The British authorities have, so far, refused to confirm or deny whether it has already received a U.S. extradition warrant for Julian Assange.

So, yet, it is not possible for Assange to walk out of the Ecuadorian embassy a free man.

/ HAX

1

Is EU slowly killing the Internet?

By on May 17, 2017 in Censorship, Copyright, EU, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Internet

Article 13 (in the European Union’s draft Copyright Directive), fewer than 250 words, is designed to provoke such legal uncertainty that internet companies will have no option other than to block, filter and monitor our communications, if they want to have any chance of staying in business. Ultimately, only the current internet giants, shedding crocodile tears at the prospect, will be able to survive. From global internet to “Googlebook”.

Joe McNamee, EDRi: Killing parody, killing memes, killing the internet? »

0

Fake news – are they for real?

By on May 10, 2017 in Big Government, Civil rights, decentralization, Democracy, Free Information, Google, Hacktivism, Media, Transparency

There is a lot of buzz about »fake news«. But there is very little discussion about what it is that is supposed to be fake.

Maybe, there isn’t that much real fake news. (Dissent doesn’t qualify as fake.) Maybe it’s about stuff we don’t really want to know about. Or are not supposed to.

»Fake news« seems to be a mirage that will vanish if you try to pin it down.

It might also be that we are already so entangled in lies that we can no longer recognize the truth, even in its presence.

/ HAX

2

Green Party pushing for Facebook censorship in Austrian court case

By on May 8, 2017 in Censorship, Facebook, Free Information, Freedom of Speech

Facebook is having a hard time lately amid claims of fake news, political bias and sexism. The European Union considered legislation to encourage a more unified response to such postings and Germany supports fines for social networks that ignore hate speech. Similarly, today an Austrian appeals court ruled that Facebook must delete hate postings written about the leader of the country’s Green party — and not just in Austria.

The original case was filed by the Austrian political party last December around posts written by a fake profile that called MP Eva Glawischnig a “rotten traitor” and a “corrupt tramp.” The Green party alleges that Facebook had not removed the posts after several requests to do so.

Rotten traitor and corrupt tramp… Are such statements really across the red line nowadays?

Engadget: Austria orders Facebook to delete hate postings »

0

»Fake news« overhyped?

By on May 8, 2017 in Big Data, disinformation, Facebook, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Google, Media, social media, Twitter

Our study of search and politics in seven nations – which surveyed the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain in January 2017 – found these concerns to be overstated, if not wrong. In fact, many internet users trust search to help them find the best information, check other sources and discover new information in ways that can burst filter bubbles and open echo chambers. (…)

We found that the fears surrounding search algorithms and social media are not irrelevant – there are problems for some users some of the time. However, they are exaggerated, creating unwarranted fears that could lead to inappropriate responses by users, regulators and policymakers.

The Conversation » Fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles: Underresearched and overhyped »

0

Stephen Fry to be charged with blasphemy?

By on May 7, 2017 in Censorship, Civil rights, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of Speech

This one will have our full attention.

Police in the Republic of Ireland have launched an investigation after a viewer claimed comments made by Stephen Fry on a TV show were blasphemous.

The alleged crime…

Fry said: “How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It’s not our fault? It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”

He went on to say that Greek gods “didn’t present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent”, adding “the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish”.

The law prohibits people from publishing or uttering “matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion”.

Really? Not even if it´s objectively true or scientifically proved? What does »grossly abusive« even mean? Exactly what? Who can predict the whats and the whys, when it comes to why people go bananas? What is »a substantial number«? 17, a lot or most?

And why shouldn’t we be allowed to criticize religion? It makes claims about how things should be done and organized in society – so, we must be allowed to criticize and even mock it.

BBC: Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments »

Update, The Independent: Irish police drop Stephen Fry blasphemy investigation due to ‘lack of outraged people’ »

0

Barrett Brown back in custody

By on April 28, 2017 in Barret Brown, Civil rights, Deep State, Democracy, Free Information, Freedom of the Press, Hacktivism, US

Journalist and writer Barrett Brown, who was imprisoned after exposing private sector surveillance – has been detained again. The Intercept:

Brown quickly became a symbol of the attack on press freedom after he was arrested in 2012 for reporting he did on the hacked emails of intelligence-contracting firms. Brown wrote about hacked emails that showed the firm Stratfor spying on activists on behalf of corporations. Brown also helped uncover a proposal by intelligence contractors to hack and smear WikiLeaks defenders and progressive activists. (…)

According to his mother, who spoke with Brown by phone after his arrest, Brown believes the reason for his re-arrest was a failure to obtain “permission” to give interviews to media organizations. Several weeks ago, Brown was told by his check-in officer that he needed to fill out permission forms before giving interviews.

The Intercept: Formerly imprisoned journalist Barrett Brown taken back into custody before PBS interview »

0

EU AVMSD: It’s not censorship to censor legal content

By on April 27, 2017 in AVMSD, Big Brother, Censorship, Civil rights, EU, Free Information, Freedom of Speech, Rule of law, social media

The EU is in the process of updating the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).

As one could expect, this opens the floodgates when it comes to regulating and censoring content such as video (and even animated GIF:s) on a number of platforms. This includes otherwise legal content.

Today the EU E-Commerce Directive gives service providers and platforms some reasonable protection. EDRi explains…

That Directive protects freedom of expression by ensuring that internet companies are not unduly incentivised to delete content. It does so by limiting liability to situations where they fail to act diligently upon receipt of a notice of the illegality of the content in question.

But with the revised AVMSD things might change…

The Council and the Parliament want a wide variety of content to be regulated – anything that (based on the wisdom of the provider, in the first instance) might impact the physical, mental and moral development of minors. At the same time, video-sharing and (some) social media platforms are expected to restrict content that is an “incitement to violence or hatred” by reference, for example, to sex, racial or ethnic origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation.

The content that the providers will be required to regulate is not, or not necessarily, illegal. As a result, it is argued that this privatised regulation of freedom of expression does not breach the E-Commerce Directive, because the obligation is to regulate content. In short, restriction of legal content is not a breach of rules that cover illegal content.

So… according to EU logic, it’s not censorship if you censor legal content?

The Council also wants video-sharing and social media platforms to regulate live-streamed video.

This revision is turning into a mess. And for once it’s not the copyright industry that is pushing the changes. It’s politicians – aiming to regulate what you can or cannot say (or even joke about).

If this becomes law, platforms like Youtube and Facebook will have to introduce new terms and conditions narrowing down the scope of what is acceptable for users to upload. Doing so, they most certainly will be overly cautious – to stay on the safe side when it comes to EU regulation.

It all boils down to the EU – once again – pushing private companies to use their terms and conditions to limit in other ways legal free speech.

EDRi: AVMS Directive: It isn’t censorship if the content is mostly legal, right? »

/ HAX

0