Government Orders You Tube To Censor Protest Videos

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7400
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:09 pm

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 9:46 pm » by Mozi!!a


Forget copyright infringement, You Tube is now complying with removal orders from governments to stop populist rage going viral

Image

In a frightening example of how the state is tightening its grip around the free Internet, it has emerged that You Tube is complying with thousands of requests from governments to censor and remove videos that show protests and other examples of citizens simply asserting their rights, while also deleting search terms by government mandate.

The latest example is You Tube’s compliance with a request from the British government to censor footage of the British Constitution Group’s Lawful Rebellion protest, during which they attempted to civilly arrest Judge Michael Peake at Birkenhead county court.

Peake was ruling on a case involving Roger Hayes, former member of UKIP, who has refused to pay council tax, both as a protest against the government’s treasonous activities in sacrificing Britain to globalist interests and as a result of Hayes clearly proving that council tax is illegal.

Hayes has embarked on an effort to legally prove that the enforced collection of council tax by government is unlawful because no contract has been agreed between the individual and the state. His argument is based on the sound legal principle that just like the council, Hayes can represent himself as a third party in court and that “Roger Hayes” is a corporation and must be treated as one in the eyes of the law.

The British government doesn’t want this kind of information going viral in the public domain because it is scared stiff of a repeat of the infamous poll tax riots of 1990, a massive tax revolt in the UK that forced the Thatcher government to scrap the poll tax altogether because of mass civil disobedience and refusal to pay.

When viewers in the UK attempt to watch videos of the protest, they are met with the message, “This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request.”

We then click through to learn that, “YouTube occasionally receives requests from governments around the world to remove content from our site, and as a result, YouTube may block specific content in order to comply with local laws in certain countries.”

You can also search by country to discover that Google, the owner of You Tube, has complied with the majority of requests from governments, particularly in the United States and the UK, not only to remove You Tube videos, but also specific web search terms and thousands of “data requests,” meaning demands for information that would reveal the true identity of a You Tube user. Google claims that the information sent to governments is “needed for legitimate criminal investigations,” but whether these “data requests” have been backed up by warrants is not divulged by the company.

“Between July 1 and Dec. 31 (2009), Google received 3,580 requests for user data from U.S. government agencies, slightly less than the 3,663 originating from Brazil,” reports PC World. “The United Kingdom and India sent more than 1,000 requests each, and smaller numbers originated from various other countries.”

With regard to search terms, one struggles to understand how a specific combination of words in a Google search can be considered a violation of any law. This is about government and Google working hand in hand to manipulate search results in order to censor inconvenient information, something which Google now freely admits to doing.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (AD)

You Tube’s behavior is more despicable than the Communist Chinese, who are at least open about their censorship policies, whereas You Tube hides behind a blanket excuse and doesn’t even say what law has been broken.

Anyone who swallows the explanation that the videos were censored in this case because the government was justifiably enforcing a law that says scenes from inside a court room cannot be filmed is beyond naive. Court was not even in session in the protest footage that was removed, and the judge had already left the courtroom.

The real reason for the removal is the fact that the British government is obviously petrified of seeing a group of focused and educated citizens, black, white, old and young, male and female, go head to head with the corrupt system on its own stomping ground.

In their efforts to keep a lid on the growing populist fury that has arrived in response to rampant and growing financial and political tyranny in every sector of society, governments in the west are now mimicking Communist Chinese-style Internet censorship policies in a bid to neutralize protest movements, while hypocritically lecturing the rest of the world on maintaining web freedom.

Via a combination of cybersecurity legislation and policy that is hastily introduced with no real oversight, governments and large Internet corporations are crafting an environment where the state can simply demand information be removed on a whim with total disregard for freedom of speech protections.

This was underscored last year at the height of the Wikileaks issue, when Amazon axed Wikileaks from its servers following a phone call made by Senator Joe Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee demanding the website be deleted.

Lieberman has been at the forefront of a push to purge the Internet of all dissent by empowering Obama with a figurative Internet kill switch that he would use to shut down parts of the Internet or terminate websites under the guise of national security. Lieberman spilled the beans on the true reason for the move during a CNN interview when he stated “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”

Except that China doesn’t disconnect the Internet “in case of war,” it only ever does so to censor and intimidate people who express dissent against government atrocities or corruption, as we have documented. This is precisely the kind of online environment the British and American governments are trying to replicate as they attempt to put a stranglehold on the last bastion of true free speech – the world wide web.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/government- ... ideos.html

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:21 pm

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 9:48 pm » by Daemonfoe


LOL! Anonymous is going to fuck them so hard.
The two choices we have are something starting from nothing, or something existing infinitely. These are both paradoxes. The existence of everything is therefore a paradox. -daemonfoe

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:00 am

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 10:01 pm » by Ridee


i think we should all be outside celebrating with all that is happening around us ^^

we are going to win this , this shit is going dowwwwwwwwnnnnnnn

bring it bring it on

3 days i am going nuts and do not know why , something big is coming oyee
My blog --- > http://uplifting7.blogspot.com/

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7400
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:09 pm

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 10:04 pm » by Mozi!!a


Something Big No Doubt Ridee :flop:

But To What End?

Good Or Bad For US?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2949
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:47 am

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 10:11 pm » by Opalserpent


The currupt elite are scared.
Live by the Terror, Die by the Terror.

Writer
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:36 am

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 10:37 pm » by Bodyrotten


:twisted: :twisted: I GIVE A BIG MIDDLE FINGERS UP :evil:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1338
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:33 pm

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 11:24 pm » by Fatbastard


"I say, gob shit." Start thinkin.'
"Senator. I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader, and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anyone on my behalf."

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 9133
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 11:25 pm » by Noentry


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11 ... wn_powers/

VeriSign demands website takedown powers

alert
print
comment
tweet

No court order necessary

By Kevin Murphy • Get more from this author

Posted in Hosting, 11th October 2011 09:44 GMT

Watch the webcast - HP ProLiant DL980 servers and SAP HANA

VeriSign, which manages the database of all .com internet addresses, wants powers to shut down "non-legitimate" domain names when asked to by law enforcement.

The company said today it wants to be able to enforce the "denial, cancellation or transfer of any registration" in any of a laundry list of scenarios where a domain is deemed to be "abusive".

VeriSign should be able to shut down a .com or .net domain, and therefore its associated website and email, "to comply with any applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency, or any dispute resolution process", according to a document it filed today with domain name industry overseer ICANN.

The company has already helped law enforcement agencies in the US, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, seize domains that were allegedly being used to sell counterfeit goods or facilitate online piracy, when the agency first obtained a court order.

That seizure process has come under fire because, in at least one fringe case, a seized .com domain's website had already been ruled legal by a court in its native Spain.

Senior ICE agents are on record saying that they believe all .com addresses fall under US jurisdiction.

But the new powers would be international and, according to VeriSign's filing, could enable it to shut down a domain also when it receives "requests from law enforcement", without a court order.

"Various law enforcement personnel, around the globe, have asked us to mitigate domain name abuse, and have validated our approach to rapid suspension of malicious domain names," VeriSign told ICANN, describing its system as "an integrated response to criminal activities that utilize Verisign-managed [top-level domains] and DNS infrastructure".

The company said it has already cooperated with US law enforcement, including the FBI, to craft the suspension policies, and that it intends to also work with police in Europe and elsewhere.

It's not yet clear how VeriSign would handle a request to suspend a .com domain that was hosting content legal in the US and Europe but illegal in, for example, Saudi Arabia or Uganda.

VeriSign made the request in a Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) document filed today with ICANN. The RSEP is currently the primary mechanism that registries employ when they want to make significant changes to their contracts with ICANN.

The request also separately asks for permission to launch a "malware scanning service", not dissimilar to the one recently introduced by ICM Registry, manager of the new .xxx extension.

That service would enable VeriSign to scan all .com websites once per quarter for malware and then provide a free "informational only" security report to the registrar responsible for the domain, which would then be able to take re-mediation action. It would be a voluntary service.

RSEP requires all registries including VeriSign to submit to a technical and competition evaluation.

Sometimes, ICANN also opens up an RSEP question to public comment, as seems likely in this case.

But ICANN's board of directors would have the make the ultimate decision whether to approve the anti-abuse policy and the malware-scanning service.

VeriSign is already anticipating that there may be criticisms from internet users "concerned about an improper takedown of a legitimate website" and told ICANN it plans to implement a "protest" policy to challenge such decisions.

The company's move echoes policy development in the UK, where .uk registry Nominet is in the late stages of creating rules that would allow it to suspend domains allegedly involved in criminal activity at the behest of law enforcement. ®


:shooting: Demand ,demand who are they to demand. :badair:
The net is closing one small step at a time. :peep:
Demobe great post :flop:
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1338
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:33 pm

PostMon Oct 17, 2011 11:29 pm » by Fatbastard


demobe. It's all crap, "Brother."
"Senator. I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader, and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anyone on my behalf."

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7400
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:09 pm

PostTue Oct 18, 2011 12:36 am » by Mozi!!a


noentry wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedown_powers/

VeriSign demands website takedown powers

alert
print
comment
tweet

No court order necessary

By Kevin Murphy • Get more from this author

Posted in Hosting, 11th October 2011 09:44 GMT

Watch the webcast - HP ProLiant DL980 servers and SAP HANA

VeriSign, which manages the database of all .com internet addresses, wants powers to shut down "non-legitimate" domain names when asked to by law enforcement.

The company said today it wants to be able to enforce the "denial, cancellation or transfer of any registration" in any of a laundry list of scenarios where a domain is deemed to be "abusive".

VeriSign should be able to shut down a .com or .net domain, and therefore its associated website and email, "to comply with any applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency, or any dispute resolution process", according to a document it filed today with domain name industry overseer ICANN.

The company has already helped law enforcement agencies in the US, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, seize domains that were allegedly being used to sell counterfeit goods or facilitate online piracy, when the agency first obtained a court order.

That seizure process has come under fire because, in at least one fringe case, a seized .com domain's website had already been ruled legal by a court in its native Spain.

Senior ICE agents are on record saying that they believe all .com addresses fall under US jurisdiction.

But the new powers would be international and, according to VeriSign's filing, could enable it to shut down a domain also when it receives "requests from law enforcement", without a court order.

"Various law enforcement personnel, around the globe, have asked us to mitigate domain name abuse, and have validated our approach to rapid suspension of malicious domain names," VeriSign told ICANN, describing its system as "an integrated response to criminal activities that utilize Verisign-managed [top-level domains] and DNS infrastructure".

The company said it has already cooperated with US law enforcement, including the FBI, to craft the suspension policies, and that it intends to also work with police in Europe and elsewhere.

It's not yet clear how VeriSign would handle a request to suspend a .com domain that was hosting content legal in the US and Europe but illegal in, for example, Saudi Arabia or Uganda.

VeriSign made the request in a Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) document filed today with ICANN. The RSEP is currently the primary mechanism that registries employ when they want to make significant changes to their contracts with ICANN.

The request also separately asks for permission to launch a "malware scanning service", not dissimilar to the one recently introduced by ICM Registry, manager of the new .xxx extension.

That service would enable VeriSign to scan all .com websites once per quarter for malware and then provide a free "informational only" security report to the registrar responsible for the domain, which would then be able to take re-mediation action. It would be a voluntary service.

RSEP requires all registries including VeriSign to submit to a technical and competition evaluation.

Sometimes, ICANN also opens up an RSEP question to public comment, as seems likely in this case.

But ICANN's board of directors would have the make the ultimate decision whether to approve the anti-abuse policy and the malware-scanning service.

VeriSign is already anticipating that there may be criticisms from internet users "concerned about an improper takedown of a legitimate website" and told ICANN it plans to implement a "protest" policy to challenge such decisions.

The company's move echoes policy development in the UK, where .uk registry Nominet is in the late stages of creating rules that would allow it to suspend domains allegedly involved in criminal activity at the behest of law enforcement. ®


:shooting: Demand ,demand who are they to demand. :badair:
The net is closing one small step at a time. :peep:
Demobe great post :flop:


Upload to Disclose.tv



:cheers:


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook