November 8, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Internet

Stop SOPA: Users hit back at internet restraints

January 20, 2012 By Leave a Comment

The dwindling support for congressional efforts to curb online piracy highlights the powerful platform that social networking has given to those who spend little to no money lobbying lawmakers. To be sure, strong opposition from internet giants such as Google and Wikipedia is playing a large role in the retreat of support for the proposed laws simply referred to as SOPA and PIPA.

But countless entrepreneurs, tech geeks and others who do no more than call their local lawmakers, if that, have taken to Facebook and Twitter to voice their displeasure, updating profile pictures with a ‘Stop SOPA’ banner or sharing related posts and stories with their legions of virtual friends.

“What we’ve witnessed here around this campaign is a possibly historic effort in terms of internet entrepreneurs paying attention to what’s happening in Washington,” said Phil Weiser, executive director of the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado. “Unlike more mature companies, they’re not necessarily organised to participate in traditional ways in Washington.”

“Social media has made this type of organising much more impactful,” said Weiser, dean of the CU Law School. Why are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) supposedly so dangerous, as foes argue, when most of those involved agree that illegal use of copyrighted content on the internet is a real problem? In general terms, provisions in the proposed measures make it more likely that internet companies such as Facebook and Google would face legal action if their users upload or share a link to a video with copyrighted content. Proponents of the bills include movie studios and record labels who say more needs to be done to curtail the piracy of digital goods.

As it stands now, internet companies are required to remove the infringing content if asked by the copyright holder but aren’t liable if the material slips through the cracks. “It’s hard for Facebook to proactively check all their users, all the time, in all sorts of ways,” Weiser said.

“If you build in such requirements and subject them to lawsuits on the back end, and if they don’t do it perfectly, that is a real risk to internet companies’ ability to thrive.” Opponents of the measures argue that the requirements would lead to censorship as large companies may limit services and smaller ones may shutter rather than face potentially crippling lawsuits.

“Shifting copyright enforcement responsibility from government to the private sector makes it much more costly to do business on the internet,” said Dan Lynn, co-founder of Denver-based tech start-up FullContact. Lynn is among those who have placed a ‘Stop SOPA’ banner on their Twitter avatars.

The issue is top of mind for many residents as Colorado’s Twitter users are generating about 2% of the tweets about SOPA, according to Trendrr, a social media intelligence platform. California, home to technology-rich Silicon Valley, tops the list at 11%.

Metropolitan State College of Denver criminal justice majorSilvia Arellano said she learned of the issue on Wednesday when she received a text alert about Wikipedia temporarily shutting its site in protest. Tyler Porritt, a Metro State student from Boulder, said content sharing is too widespread to address through legislation. “I understand the legality and income-loss issues, but I grew up in an era where everybody downloads everything,” he said.

Indrajit Ray, an associate professor in the computer science department at Colorado State University, said the onus should be on industry to come up with a business model that works in an internet age. “If we put in some type of legislation, the general trait of mankind is to break that,” Ray said. “One way to solve it is to come up with a different business model where the incentive to do piracy is not that great.”

“Some internet service providers have a voluntary pact with content providers to send subscribers a warning when they are engaging in infringement activity, such as downloading an illegal copy of a movie. Trials of such efforts have shown to be effective in reducing the amount of piracy,” said Weiser, a former deputy assistant attorney general at the US justice department. “If people know that their behaviour is not anonymous, they’re a lot more responsible,” he said.

Weiser said another option to fight the problem is to eliminate avenues for known file-sharing and piracy websites to accept payments or earn advertising revenue, similar to the way the US cracked down on internet gambling.

Filed Under: Censorship, SOPA/PIPA

Republican presidential candidates slam SOPA, Protect IP

January 20, 2012 By Leave a Comment

In response to question from CNN's John King, Republican presidential candidates find little to love in SOPA or Protect IP.

All four Republican presidential candidates today denounced a pair of controversial Hollywood-backed copyright bills, lending a sharp partisan edge to yesterday’s protest against the legislation by Wikipedia, Google, and thousands of other Web sites.

The bills are “far too intrusive, far too expensive, far too threatening (to) the freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet,” former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said during tonight’s CNN debate in South Carolina.

Romney’s rivals offered similar criticisms of the Senate measure, Protect IP-scheduled for a floor vote next week-and the House bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said that while he’s “weighing” the bills, having “the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations” is exactly the wrong thing to do. Former senator Rick Santorum said that while there is a “role” for the government in protecting intellectual property, SOPA and Protect IP go “too far.”

Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Texas Republican, publicly opposed SOPA long before nearly any other member of Congress, as CNET reported in November. Paul said tonight that “the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue”-SOPA’s author is Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, Hollywood’s favorite Republican-and he’s glad to see that changing.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, calls Protect IP an “extremely important” piece of legislation, and is planning a floor vote for next Tuesday despite objections from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican warned today that there are “serious issues” with the bill.

Wikipedia’s English-language pages went completely black on Wednesday with a splash page saying “the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet” and suggesting that readers contact members of Congress. (See CNET’s FAQ on the topic.)

Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of the debate, conducted by CNN’s John King:

KING: Let’s continue the economic conversation with some input from a question from Twitter. If you look up here you can see it, CNNDebate.

“What is your take on SOPA and how do you believe it affects Americans?”

For those who have not been following it, SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act, a crackdown on Internet piracy, which is clearly a problem. But opponents say it’s censorship. Full disclosure, our parent company, Time Warner, says we need a law like this because some of its products, movies, programming, and the like, are being ripped off online.

Let me start with you, Mr. Speaker. There’s two competing ends, two engines, even, of our economy here at on this.

How do you deal with it?

GINGRICH: Well, you’re asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: And I’m weighing it. I’m weighing it. I’m not rushing in. I’m trying to think through all of the many fond left- wing people who are so eager to protect.

On the other hand, you have virtually everybody who is technologically advanced, including Google and YouTube and Facebook and all the folks who say this is going to totally mess up the Internet. And the bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable.

Well, I favor freedom. And I think that if you — I think we have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds that it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue. But the idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations, economic interests, strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Mr. Speaker, Governor Romney, these companies complain — some of them are based in Hollywood, not all of them are — that their software, that their publishing, that their movies, that their shows are being ripped off.

ROMNEY: I think he got it just about right. The truth of the matter is that the law, as written, is far too intrusive, far too expensive, far too threatening, the freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet. It would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America, which is the Internet, and all those industries connected to it.

At the same time, we care very deeply about intellectual content that’s going across the Internet. And if we can find a way to very narrowly, through our current laws, go after those people who are pirating, particularly those from off shore, we’ll do that.

But a very broad law which gives the government the power to start stepping into the Internet and saying who can pass what to whom, I think that’s a mistake. And so I’d say no, I’m standing for freedom.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: I mean, it’s a big issue in the country right now.

Congressman Paul and Senator Santorum, your views on this one quickly.

PAUL: I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law. And we have worked -

(APPLAUSE) PAUL: We have had a concerted effort, and I feel like we’re making achievement. This bill is not going to pass. But watch out for the next one.

And I am pleased that the attitude has sort of mellowed up here, because the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue. And this is a good example on why it’s good to have somebody that can look at civil liberties and work with coalitions and bring people together. Freedom and the Constitution bring factions together. I think this is a good example.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Those who support the law, Senator, argue tens of thousands of jobs are at stake.

SANTORUM: I don’t support this law. And I agree with everybody up here that is goes too far. But I will not agree with everybody up here that there isn’t something that can and should be done to protect the intellectual property rights of people.

The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people, and particularly when we’re talking about — in this case, we’re talking about entities offshore that are doing so, that are pirating things. So, the idea that the government — that you have businesses in this country, and that the government has no role to try to protect the intellectual property of people who have those rights in this country from people overseas pirating them and then selling them back into this country, it’s great.

I mean, I’m for free, but I’m not for people abusing the law. And that’s what’s happening right now, and I think something proper should be done. I agree this goes too far.

But the idea that, you know, anything goes on the Internet, where did that come from? Where in America does it say that anything goes? We have laws, and we respect the law. And the rule of law is an important thing, and property rights should be respected.

KING: All right.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you.

Source:

Photo credit: CNN

Filed Under: Censorship, Justice, Law, Protests, SOPA/PIPA, USA

Wikipedia blackout: Facebook joins protest against SOPA

January 19, 2012 By 1 Comment

By PTI on January 19, 2012

New York: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has joined the growing chorus against the proposed anti-piracy bills in the US, saying the two “poorly thought out laws” are not the “right solutions” to the problem of piracy but will only harm the Internet.

Zuckerberg posted his remarks against the Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) on his social networking website’s wall.

Within two hours, his post got over 280,000 likes.

“The Internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We cannot let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the Internet’s development.

Facebook opposes SOPA and PIPA, and we will continue to oppose any laws that will hurt the Internet,” he wrote.

Zuckerberg said the world today needs political leaders who are “pro-Internet.”

Noting that social networking website Facebook takes online piracy and copyright infringement very seriously, he said rogue foreign sites that pirate American intellectual property or sell counterfeit goods pose significant problems for the US economy.

However, the two pieces of legislation in front of the Congress are “not the right solution to this problem, because of the collateral damage these overreaching bills would cause to the Internet,” Zuckerberg said.

“The two legislations could create very real problems for Internet companies like ours that are a primary driver of innovation, growth, and job creation in the 21st century economy,” he said.

The bills contain overly broad definitions and create a new private cause of action against companies on the basis of those expansive definitions, which could seriously hamper the innovation, growth, and investment in new companies that have been the hallmarks of the Internet, the Facebook founder said.

Meanwhile, it was a black day for most websites as they joined the protests to stop the Internet piracy legislation being considered by the US Congress.

While Wikipedia shut down completely for the day, Google blotted its logo with a black strip.

Social news site Reddit said it will shut down for 12 hours while Cheezburger, which has a network of 50 sites including the seminal ICanHasCheezburger as well as Fail Blog, Know Your Meme and the Daily What, also joined the strike.

Classifieds site Craigslist put up a black homepage that gave users information about the laws and condemned “corporate paymasters” to “keep those clammy hands off the Internet.”

The online protests were gradually having their impact as key co-sponsors of the legislation withdrew their support for the bills.

Republican senator Marco Rubio of Florida led the pack saying he will not back the anti-Internet piracy legislation he had co-sponsored.

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn followed in his footsteps and urged Congress to take more time to study the legislation.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of the Senate bill’s original co-sponsors, called it “simply not ready for prime time” and withdrew his support.

Rubio wrote on his Facebook page, “As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs.”

“However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and promotes new technologies,” he said.

“Stealing content is theft, plain and simple, but concerns about unintended damage to the Internet and innovation in the tech sector require a more thoughtful balance, which will take more time,” Rubio said.

The SOPA is up for consideration in the US House of Representatives while PIPA is in the Senate. Voting on the bills will begin on January 24.

The bills have been backed by major American media companies, with the Motion Picture Association of America the legislation’s main backer.

It estimates that 13 per cent of American adults have watched illegal copies of movies or TV shows online, which leads to billions of dollars in losses for the media companies.

The legislation would allow the US Justice Department to seek a court order requiring US Internet providers to block access to foreign pirate websites.

It could also seek a court order requiring credit-card processors to stop processing payments to the sites.

Both bills would also allow Hollywood studios and other content owners to take legal action against websites that host pirated material.

Explaining its position on the anti-piracy bills, Facebook expressed concern over the provisions in the bills that could “chill free expression or weaken the Internet’s architecture.”

The website said while the concerns of the film, music industries as well as other content creators and trademark owners over piracy is understandable, it must be ensured that Congress “does not do anything in this area that threatens the security of the Internet, hampers US innovation or competitiveness, or sets harmful precedents for other governments to follow.”

The solution to combat piracy, which eats into revenues of the media companies, could be found through a “constructive dialogue” and not by resorting to a rushed process, Facebook said.

“It’s too important not to take the time to get it right,” the website said adding that it has been working with lawmakers for months on better alternatives to the current proposals.

“We have a reporting system in place and a trained team dedicated to handling rights owner notices,” it said.

Source: https://daily.bhaskar.com/article/SCT-SOM-wikipedia-blackout-facebook-joins-protest-against-sopa-2767065.html

Filed Under: Censorship, Featured, Human Rights, Internet, SOPA/PIPA

GoDaddy Says It Doesn’t Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away

December 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment

by Mike Masnick on Dec 27th, 2011

from the bye-bye dept

After GoDaddy made its very public announcement that it no longer supports SOPA, after being a very vocal supporter (despite the fact that it almost certainly violated the original version of the law), many have doubted the sincerity of the company, especially since it confined its remarks to SOPA. So after getting some more pressure, the company put out a separate clarifying statement that it doesn’t support PIPA (PROTECT IP) either.

Still, there are plenty of people who don’t buy it. It didn’t help that the company’s new CEO (though he’s been at the company in other roles for a while) gave a really weak answer, when pressed on the company’s level of support, suggesting that it may have just stepped back from publicly supporting the bills, but hasn’t actually switched its full position:

Adelman couldn’t commit to changing its position on the record in Congress when asked about that, but said “I’ll take that back to our legislative guys, but I agree that’s an important step.” But when pressed, he said “We’re going to step back and let others take leadership roles.” He felt that the public statement removing their support would be sufficient for now, though further steps would be considered.

Either way, it appears people keep on transferring domains. Before the talk of a boycott happened on Thursday, it looked like GoDaddy was losing about 13,000 to 15,000 domains a day anyway. Then, on Friday, when people started transferring en masse, it jumped to 21,054. On Christmas Day, it looks like another 22,542 transferred out, so it doesn’t look like people are all that mollified by the public change in position. Another 26,032 were “deleted,” according toDailyChanges. And, remember, the “official” day that people had talked about for everyone to transfer their domains wasn’t until Thursday, December 29th, so all of this was happening before the “big day.” Who knows if the statements are enough to calm people down. For what it’s worth, plenty of people are still registering new domains with GoDaddy and transferring them in, but the transfers out and deletions definitely outweigh the new registrations and transfers in. It was definitely enough activity to make GoDaddy realize it was going to be in trouble if it didn’t change its position.

Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111226/22381317191/godaddy-says-it-doesnt-support-pipa-either-as-domains-keep-transferring-away.shtml

Image source: https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/anti-sopa-activists-launch-godaddy-boycott/

Filed Under: Censorship, Featured, Human Rights, Internet, Privacy

Lieberman Says U.S. Needs Chinese Style Internet Kill Switch

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Censorship, China, Internet, Surveillance, USA Tagged With:

Info No Go: Wikipedia Threatens Strike Over US Piracy Bill

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By rt.com

Wikipedia may temporarily blank out its pages in self-sacrifice to draw attention to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act. While the bill aims to protect copyrighted material, critics fear corporate manipulation could lead to greater censorship.

The US lawmakers behind the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) say it would deal a blow to online pirates and producers of counterfeit brand products like designer fashion items or medicines.

The bill is intended to crack down on websites operating outside of the United States. If passed, the legislation would allow the US government to shut down any site illegally hosting copyrighted content.

However, not everyone supports the move. Wikipedia is the latest to join internet industry giants in the fight to stop the bill from being pushed through the Senate.

While there are legitimate reasons behind showbiz’s drive in favor of SOPA – the industry is losing millions of dollars in revenue – some feel the legislation is overkill on internet piracy

Internet companies, the Consumer Electronics Association and others have argued that the measure goes too far and the wording is too ambiguous.

In reality, the real use of the bill could be much wider. If approved, SOPA will enable individuals or organizations claiming copyright to effectively block any website they suspect of infringing their rights. No court decision would be necessary, and third parties would be granted immunity from any reprisals resulting from their voluntary action against the alleged offenders.Consequently, popular sites like Wikipedia would be responsible for the material that is uploaded onto their site.

Fearing that a medium based on the free sharing of information could be targeted, Wikipedia has chosen to fight back with a highly symbolic act.

The “self-censorship” idea came to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales after Italian Wikipedia blanked out its site a few months ago in an effort to oppose a law in the country which would infringe on their editorial independence.

“The Italian Parliament backed down immediately,” Wales writes. “As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of ‘Stop Online Piracy Act’ is working its way through [the Senate] on a bit of a fast track.”

However, Wales is not quick to jump into action without consultation and approval from the site’s users and editors. The online information straw poll has been posted online so everyone can have their say before Wales makes a decision.

A ‘grave threat’…

The strongest lobbyist for SOPA is the US entertainment industry, which wants the government to act against what it labels “digital theft”.

Creative America, an organization fighting against online piracy is the biggest advocate for SOPA. In this fight Creative America is backed by an unprecedented coalition of major entertainment unions, guilds, studios and networks.

The organization warns of the “grave threat content theft poses” to industry’s “livelihood and creativity,” blaming pirates for making millions of dollars on illegal trafficking and undermining the legitimate online content providers.

…And corporate censorship

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, speaking at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, referred to the controversial legislation as a form of censorship.

“The solutions are draconian,” he said, as cited by Reuters. “There’s a bill that would require (internet service providers) to remove URLs from the web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked.”

The remarks followed a letter to lawmakers opposing the bills from a group of internet companies including Google, AOL Inc, eBay Inc, Facebook, Yahoo Inc and Twitter.

“We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job creation, as well as to our nation’s cyber security,” the companies wrote.

Essentially the fight is between entertainment industry and internet and consumer electronics industries. While the first one, rightfully defending its rights, vigorously supports SOPA, the latter one opposes it with an equal force.

Will Wikipedia’s strike tilt the scales in favor of online and electronics industry, before the bill is rammed through in Washington, is yet unknown. However, blanking out one of the most visited sites with billions of page views per month will definitely send a strong message to lawmakers in Washington. Maybe just in time.

Filed Under: Censorship, Protests, USA Tagged With:

SOPA, the NDAA, and Patent-Trolling: Why Americans Need a Civil Liberties Caucus

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By E.D. Kain

Nearly every elected official in Congress voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill placing domestic terrorism investigations into the hands of the US Military. We need to elect more politicians willing to vote ‘Nay.’

Over on Google Plus, in a response to this very excellent post by Alex Tabbarok, Jim Henley writes:

The IP law trend represents a move toward a new feudalism of the mind, where incumbents collect rents on ideas rather than parcels of ground. It’s part of the increasing effort, along with the official coddling of the FIRE sector and selective “austerity” budgeting, to lock in the gains of the Haves.

This is a smart observation. Look at the sectors of the economy that have long been subject to protectionism, price obfuscation, and so forth: healthcare, finance, defense, real-estate. With IP law and the surge in patent suits and patent-trolling we’re doing to the software and tech industry what we’ve already seen happen with the FIRE economy. It’s a troubling trend that’s bad for start-ups, for consumers, and for the economy at large.

The openness of the internet is threatened by bills like SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate. The long arm of the law is bending toward clamping down on sharing, collaboration, and innovation whether through overt censorship measures like those contained in these bills, or through the courts in the ever-growing and increasingly burgeoning patent system.

I like Henley’s framing of the issue. This is an attempt by the Haves to protect their interests against disruptive forces. Now, as a free market guy I see the biggest threat to entrenched interests and the Haves of this world as actually free markets. Without the protections offered through the legal system the status quo would actually have to compete to avoid failure. Through patent law – on everything from software to seeds – and other forms of protectionism, censorship, bailouts and subsidies the state bulwarks big corporations against market forces, consumer flight, and up-start start-ups.

Kevin Carson says it well:

Remember the Pinkertons, uniformed private thugs the bosses used to hire to bust union organizers’ heads? Now Monstanto hires them to snoop around private farms, testing farmers’ crops to see if they contain any genetic material from engineered seeds under patent. The Runyons, an Indiana farm family, were invaded in 2008 by Monsanto’s hired goons in response to an “anonymous tip” that their farm hosted Roundup-ready soybeans. Sounds almost like — ahem — the Drug War, doesn’t it?

Never mind that the Runyons never planted Monsanto’s seed. Never mind that their crops were contaminated — very much against their will — by GMO pollen blowing over from a neighbor’s farm. You might think it was the Runyons who had a cause of action for the contamination of their crops with frankenfood DNA. But not in our so-called “free market system.” In this thing the neoliberals call a “free market,” being contaminated by Monsanto DNA — even against your will — is prima facie evidence of “piracy.” You’re guilty until proven innocent.

Orwell once observed that after 1914, the states of the 20th century were resurrecting forms of torture and atrocity largely unseen since the Inquisition. Likewise, under “our free market system,” we’re seeing a resurgence of — believe it or not — debtors’ prison. In the “old days” — as recently as the 1990s — creditors would attempt to collect debts in-house, then write them off. Now collection agencies buy up debt for pennies on the dollar. After serving process at an address where you lived three moves ago, they get you declared in contempt in absentiaand jailed. Or you might just find your bank account cleaned out by your bank in collusion with the creditors, without warning.

And then there are “food libel laws” and FDA restrictions on commercial speech. If you label your milk rBGH-free, you can expect to be muscled by Monsanto’s lawyers. The very act of informing your customers your milk lacks rBGH constitutes disparagement of the frankenmilk from those factory dairies, you see. If you advertise that you inspect your meat for Mad Cow Disease more frequently than the USDA requires, you’re disparaging your competitors by implying that simply meeting the regulatory standard — a standard based on SOUND SCIENCE! — is somehow inadequate. And someone’s feelings might get hurt.

Interestingly, the few attempts by government to actually serve the interests of consumers are foiled at every turn. The Consumer Protection Bureau has been all but strangled in its crib. Whether or not it will actually do what its creators envisioned or not is beside the point. If we can’t even get a director for the Bureau nominated, how can we find out one way or another if it will work or not?

Somehow bills like SOPA which hurt individuals and hedge in on free speech and civil liberties speed through congress and would speed all the way to the finish line but for the efforts of a few sensible Senators like Ron Wyden, while it’s essentially impossible to pass a bill that actually has a chance at helping individuals.

This is because the state, at least in its current iteration, is largely geared toward protecting the powerful against disruptive forces. Don’t get me wrong, I’m against the ‘selective austerity’ Jim mentions above. Cutting benefits for the poor and firing middle class public sector workers while maintaining huge tax breaks for the wealthy and leaving the vast systems of corporate subsidies and the near-trillion dollar a year defense budget intact is, as Jim argues, just another way to protect the Haves against the Have-Nots.

It’s all part and parcel of the same system, whether we’re talking about food libel laws, patent-trolling, internet censorship, indefinite detention in the War on Terror, or no-knock SWAT raids, the pepper-spraying of peaceful protesters- the law is increasingly tilted against the individual and against freedom.

Here’s my idea. Libertarians should give up on working with Republicans or trying to maintain their own party. Progressives should quit the Democrats. Let’s not worry about party affiliation or about parties at all – certainly let’s not worry about starting futile third parties.

Let’s focus on electing civil libertarians at the state, local, and federal level. I would vote for Ron Wyden or Rand Paul in a heartbeat over 99% of the politicians out there because these are men who actually care about liberty – and not just soundbite liberty. Not the sort of liberty that you hear about while chanting “USA! USA!” or during the run-up to the Iraq War or Libya.

We need elected officials who care about simple, mundane liberties. You know, like the right to a trial, a lawyer, to be considered innocent until proven guilty whether or not you’re a US citizen. The right to free speech and dissent and peaceful gathering. You know, the things that form the bedrock of this nation that we are so quick these days to cast on the bonfire of national security.

We need to elect more men and women willing to stand up against bills that strip away our basic rights. We have more to fear from these laws than we do from terrorism or internet piracy. We need leaders on the left and the right who reflect American values, and not American fears.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/10/sopa-the-ndaa-and-patent-trolling-why-americans-need-a-civil-liberties-caucus/

Filed Under: Censorship, Crime Tagged With: ,

The Spirit of Revolution

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

17-year-old Andrew Barrows invokes the spirit of the Founding Fathers to question America’s current direction.

I want to start with some quotes from past presidents of the United States Of America, as well as important activists who discussed freedom and oppression.

Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves. - Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object. - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. - Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. - Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. - George Washington (1732-1799)

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

I think to myself, all these people — historical leaders who will be talked about for as long as American history exists, had such wonderful views on freedom, and great ideas about how the country should be run. In fact, they are so wonderful we still talk about them hundreds of years later.

Now I think to myself, all these people — historical leaders who will be talked about for as long as American history exists, had such wonderful views on freedom, and great ideas about how the country should be run. In fact, they are so wonderful we still talk about them hundreds of years later.

I think about the American Revolution, and how many people have fought and died to make America, and what the American Revolution was all about. I constantly ponder the thought of, “I really wonder how past presidents would react to the way America is now.” I can imagine Abraham Lincoln or George Washington being brought back to life to experience modern America for just a day. But I can’t begin to imagine his facial expression when I would tell him:

Yeah, since all of your wonderful truth speaking, caring about the people, and doing what is right and fair to give people extraordinary documents dedicated to freedom…America has really gone down hill…and I mean…really down hill.

Being a president today actually means who’s the best liar on the stage. It is like a highschool talent show. Each person goes on stage and tries to convince the audience to like them, and whoever lies the most wins. They are just puppets who can’t really do anything. Congressional approval is 8% and WE the people don’t actually get a say in what happens. The mega rich call the shots and huge companies actually control what the government does while the middle class and poor get robbed blind.

After I would study his confusion…I would continue…

The Patriot Act

(After explaining what a phone and the Internet is). Gives the government the power to read my emails, my text messages, track my phone, follow me, tap my phone calls, install a tracking device under my car to know my exact location. In short…violate my privacy completely.

Then I would discuss the SOPA/PROTECT IP ACT.

A bill that has been introduced in the Senate and the House and is moving quickly through Congress. It gives the government and corporations the ability to censor the Net, in the name of protecting “creativity”. The law would let the government or corporations censor entire sites — they just have to convince a judge that the site is “dedicated to copyright infringement.”

Next of course, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The bill grants power to the military to arrest U.S. citizens on American soil and detain them in military prisons forever without offering them the right to legal counsel or even a trial. This isn’t a totally new thing: “dirty bomb” plotter Jose Padilla spent three-and-a-half years as an “enemy combatant” until he was finally charged. But Padilla’s detention was unusual and sparked a huge outcry; the new provisions would standardize his treatment and enable us all to become Jose Padillas.

Than I would probably make him watch this video on YouTube: “A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945″ by Isao Hashimoto

 

 

Than I would explain having a gun, missing fingers, or 7 days of food at your house = YOU ARE A TERRORIST

You know, at this point he would probably be on his knees with a huge headache.

I’m sure eventually he would say something like “Why are the people allowing this to happen? And what happened to people fighting for what is right?”

Than I would explain the Anonymous Internet group and the Occupy movement and protests. I think he would be pretty happy and would get up off his knees.

BUT than I would show him videos of what is happening when people are trying to protest and spread truth. I would start probably with this video:

or this video:

 

It’s really hard to choose which video of police attacking innocent protesters expressing their Constitutional rights I would show because, honestly, YouTube is filled with them. So I would probably just let him browse around for a while.

Now at this point I would imagine he would pretty much scream or yell that everything that past Americans had fought for to create has been literally bashed by the people who are supposed to enforce it, and has been turned around and used against the people instead of protecting them.

Than I would get Paul Revere out of my time machine/life regeneration thing and Paul Revere would jump on his horse and ride through the city streets of Boston yelling “The British aren’t coming; they are already here!

“Would our Founding Fathers be disgraced at what America has become? Is everything they fought for now becoming useless?

Would they call for a revolution?

 

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/spirit-of-revolution.html#more

Filed Under: Censorship, Corporations, Corruption, Crime, Financial Crisis, Imperialism, Military, Military Industrial Complex, Money, Nuclear, Occupy, Politicians, Protests, Radiation, Revolution, Rights, Science, Social Unrest, Surveillance, Technology, USA, War Tagged With:

Morocco: Seven People Were Burned In Protests Against Oppression In 2011.

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Friday 09/12/2011, the Moroccan authorities reported the death of Muhammed Suleiman street vendor Rushd hospital in Casablanca, having burned his own body to protest the heavy police oppression.

The Arab world has been at the limit of endurance, with respect to heavy repression that you receive from your government. Execute arbitrary laws and almost no convictions that the accused has the right to defense.

The example of Tunisia in January a street vendor had their goods taken by the security forces have seen no alternative to support her four children and wife. burned his body in front of the courthouse to protest the abuse of power and lack of government investment in economic leveling of the population.

Yesterday, the Moroccan authorities reported the death of Muhammed Suleiman street vendor Rushd hospital in Casablanca, having burned his own body to protest the heavy police oppression.

According to the “February 20 Movement“, which represents the popular revolution of Morocco, the boy was selling smuggled gasoline (a common activity in the country), and he was pressured by police who threatened to take his goods if they pay a small “rate”.

Another reference is the website ”lakome“ who said the boy found himself depressed and angry, threw gasoline on his body while arguing with police who threatened to confiscate petrol prohibited until fired. According to sources, the young man died on Friday 09 December because of injuries, despite receiving medical attention.

National crisis

According to the February 20th Movement, a grassroots movement of opposition to the current Moroccan regime, even after the last elections, which were also considered “a success”, this is already the 7th incident in the country. All these desperate people, their bodies incinerated after not finding any more support in law or in society, or to consider that, through the police force, no one would care to hear their problems.

The average suicide has been between 20 and 32 years. Among these, there is a young, 20. While the population seeks to draw the attention of authorities for their needs, only the rich life and improve more and more people are living without rights. A crisis worsens and the apparent efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Moroccan people has not been sufficiently implemented, is what describes the “February 20 Movement.” According to testimony from members of the movement, most of the suicides came as a result of heavy police repression and abuse of authority. There are cases like Kamal Amri, who was killed by the system, so that seemed to suicide by fire.

The list of martyrs courtesy Ratoune Mourad political activist of Moroccan popular organization “Youth Movement February 20“:

Deaths by suicide

  • Judge Emad, 18
  • Bnkaddor horse, 25
  • Salmi beauty, 24
  • Samir Albuazawa, 17
  • Fadwa Laroui, 20
  • Shayeb Karim, 21
  • Kamal Al-Amari, 30
Killings by security forces.
  1. Alknona Hamid, 26
  2. Mohammed Bodroh
  3. Kamal al-Hassani, 28

Source: https://bloghumans.blogspot.com/2011/12/marrocos-7-pessoas-se-incendiaram-em.html?spref=fb

Filed Under: Censorship, Police, Politics, Poverty, Propaganda, Protests, Revolution, Rights, Social Unrest, Suicide, Tyranny Tagged With: , ,

Status Update: I’m Rich! Facebook Flotation To Create 1,000 Millionaires Among Company’s Rank And File

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Travelling to space or embarking on an expedition to excavate lost Mayan ruins are normally the stuff of adventure novels.

But for employees of Facebook, these and other lavish dreams are moving closer to reality as the world’s No. 1 online social network prepares for a blockbuster initial public offering that could create at least a thousand millionaires.

The most anticipated stock market debut of 2012 is expected to value Facebook at as much as $100 billion, which would top just about any of Silicon Valley’s most celebrated coming-out parties, from Netscape to Google Inc.

While weak financial markets could postpone or downsize any IPO, even the most conservative market-watchers say Facebook seems destined to set a new benchmark in a region famous for minting fortunes, with even the rank-and-file employees reaping millions of dollars.

Facebook employees past and present are already hatching plans on how to spend their anticipated new wealth, even as securities regulations typically prevent employee stock options from being cashed in until after a six-month lock-up period.

‘There’s been discussions of sort of bucket list ideas that people are putting together of things they always wanted to do and now we’ll be able to do it,’ said one former employee who had joined Facebook in 2005, shortly after it was founded.

He is looking into booking a trip to space that would cost $200,000 or more with Virgin Galactic or one of the other companies working on future space tourism. That’s chump change when he expects his shares in Facebook to be worth some $50 million.

‘If that IPO bell happens, then I will definitely put money down,’ said the person, who declined to be identified because he did not want to draw attention to his financial status, given the antiglitz ethos of many people in Silicon Valley. ‘It’s been a childhood dream,’ he said of space travel.

Others are thinking less science fiction and more ‘Indiana Jones.’ A group of current and former Facebook workers has begun laying the groundwork for an expedition to Mexico that sounds more suited to characters from the Steven Spielberg film ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ than to the computer geeks famously portrayed in the movie about Facebook, ‘The Social Network.’

Initially, the group wanted to organize its own jungle expedition to excavate a relatively untouched site of Mayan ruins, according to people familiar with the matter who also did not want to court notoriety by being identified in this story. After some debate earlier this year, they are now looking at partnering with an existing archeological program.

Founded in a Harvard dorm room in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg and his friends, Facebook has grown into the world’s biggest social network with over 800 million members and revenue of $1.6 billion in the first half of 2011.

Information about its ownership structure or employee compensation packages is hard to come by, since the still-private company discloses very little. Facebook declined to comment for this story.

It is clear that Facebook’s earliest employees, who were given ownership stakes, and early venture capital investors — such as Accel Partners, Greylock Partners and Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel — will see the biggest paydays. Zuckerberg, 27, is estimated to own a little over a fifth of the company, according to ‘The Facebook Effect’ author David Kirkpatrick.

But the wealth will trickle down to engineers, salespeople and other staffers who later joined the company, since most employees receive salary plus some kind of equity-based compensation, such as restricted stock units or stock options.

Facebook’s headcount has swelled from 700 employees in late 2008 to more than 3,000 today. Given its generous use of equity-based compensation in past years, people familiar with Facebook say that even by conservative estimates there are likely to be well over a thousand people looking at million-dollar-plus paydays after the company goes public.

‘There will be thousands of millionaires,’ said a former in-house recruiter at Facebook, who did not want to be identified because of confidentiality agreements.

Lou Kerner, the head of private trading at Liquidnet, estimates that Facebook now has roughly 2.5 billion shares outstanding, which would translate to a per-share price of $40 at a $100 billion valuation.

Domination: Facebook has grown into the world’s biggest social network with over 800 million members and revenue of $1.6 billion in the first half of 2011

Engineers are the most richly rewarded among the rank and file. The former Facebook recruiter said as recently as 2009, the company gave an engineer with 15 years experience options to buy about 65,000 shares at around $6 per share.

After a 5-for-1 stock split in October 2010, the engineer would now have the right to buy around 325,000 shares. Assuming a $40 share price, that would yield a profit of more than $12 million.

According to another former Facebook employee, it was not unusual for the company to offer some executive-level hires up to 100,000 restricted shares as recently as three years ago.

The company has since cut back on equity compensation for new hires. Managers hired one year ago received 2,000 to 30,000 restricted shares depending on the job function, according to another recruiter who had also worked for Facebook.

The company has also been stingier in handing out equity to noncore employees — so there may not be as many of the dazzling rags-to-riches stories that were commonplace at the time of the Google IPO, when in-house chefs and at least one masseuse struck gold with options.

Facebook has its share of chefs — including head chef Josef Desimone who was lured away from Google — and other support staff, but it’s not clear how many of them were awarded share options.

These days, ‘Google and Facebook are notorious for hiring contract employees they don’t have to give equity to,’ said the second former Facebook recruiter.

Facebook’s IPO has been long anticipated, but veterans of other startups that have gone public say the period after could be fraught with new challenges.

Some employees could grow jealous over colleagues with more stock, while others might look down on peers who are too quick to sell, questioning their loyalty to the company.

And there is always the risk that talented staff would leave with their newfound wealth to make their own mark in the technology world by becoming entrepreneurs or investing in other promising startups.

Some Facebook employees have already left the company to do that, selling their shares ahead of the IPO on private exchanges such as those run by SecondMarket or SharesPost.

FACEBOOK CO-FOUNDERS’ WORTH

Mark Zuckerberg:

Age: 27
Net worth: $17.5 billion
Owns 24% of Facebook, previously worth $5.3 billion
ROLE: Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Facebook
Currently creating his own monetary system ‘Facebook Credits’ to facilitate transactions and profits, according to Forbes.

Dustin Moskovitz:

Age: 27
Net worth: $3.5 billion
Holds a 6% stake in Facebook previously worth $1.3 billion
ROLE: A co-founder and the social-networking site’s first chief technology officer, Moskovitz left in 2008 and started Asana, a software company that allows individuals and small companies to better collaborate.

Chris Hughes:

Age: 28
Net worth: estimated at $700 million
ROLE: Co-founder & original Facebook spokesperson. Most recently served as Barack Obama’s Director of online Organizing for his 2008 presidential campaign. Currently the executive director of a new social network called Jumo which connects individuals to global non-profits.

One such person is engineer Karel Baloun, who joined the social network in 2005 and left just over a year later to start his own online network for commodities-futures traders, funded by a tidy package of stock options. It failed and Baloun laments that he could have made a lot more money if he had stayed at Facebook.

But he is philosophical, saying that the equity windfall gave him the cushion to do new things.

‘It’s really wonderful being able to choose your work based on the meaning of it, not the size of your salary,’ said Baloun, now chief technology officer at mobile-commerce company Leap Commerce. ‘I have two kids, and I couldn’t do it if I didn’t have some savings from this IPO.’

Baloun said he has sold about half his Facebook shares and is holding on to the rest until after the IPO. ‘I will buy a house,’ he said.

For many of Facebook’s staffers, the IPO will provide the means to pay off school loans and buy a house or new car. Home prices in the San Francisco Bay Area have typically been lofty, but many homeowners and real-estate agents are eagerly anticipating a surge of new buyers flush with money from the IPOs of Facebook and other Web companies.

‘Watch for Facebook proceeds to buy Palo Alto real estate,’ said David Cowan, a venture capitalist at Bessemer Venture Partners who backed social network LinkedIn Corp, among other companies.

Wealth managers and investment advisers are also looking to win new clients from the Facebook crowd.

‘A lot of them are going to be multimillionaires at 30 and live to be 100. That means creating a 70-year plan, which is unheard of,’ said John Valentine of Valentine Capital Asset Management in San Ramon, California, noting that his average client plan spans about 35 years.

Valentine, whose firm manages about $600 million in assets, said he plans to break into the Facebook client base through connections with venture capital firms, and he has meetings set the next two weeks to leverage those relationships. ‘It’s the hot ticket in Silicon Valley,’ he said of Facebook.

David Arizini, managing director of Constellation Wealth Advisors, has several current and former Facebook employees as clients and hopes they refer more of their friends.

But he knows that it will take time and work to win them over for his firm, a New York and Menlo Park-based wealth manager with about $4.5 billion in assets under management.

‘They are very skeptical of the financial services industry largely because of what has transpired over the last three years,’ he said. ‘So the bulk of clients interviewed five to 10 advisers before they made their choice.’

The imminent flood of Facebook dollars is sure to provide a welcome boost to local businesses in Silicon Valley, from high-end car dealerships to wine merchants.

Buff Giurlani, founder of car and wine storage service AutoVino in Menlo Park, is looking forward to an acceleration in already-brisk trade. ‘If a Facebook guy buys a house and wants to remodel it, maybe the contractor will buy another car,’ he said. ‘Maybe the realtor will put a car in. There’s a trickle-down effect.’

For Facebook’s younger staffers, who favor jeans and T-shirts over designer suits, the shopping sprees will almost certainly involve computers and electronics.

‘Start packing pepper spray for your next trip to the Apple store,‘ said Bessemer Venture’s Cowan.

Source : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072204/Facebook-IPO-create-1-000-millionaires-companys-rank-file.html#ixzz1gIylinU8

Filed Under: Corporations, Money, Social Media Websites, USA Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »