“Facebook has reinstated a number of sites’ Facebook pages that were taken down due to bogus copyright claims this week. The company issued an apology for the inconvenience and says that DMCA notice abuse is an issue that Facebook takes seriously, but serious questions still remain about the effectiveness of Facebook’s process for dealing with complaints.
Malicious individuals sure have an easy time taking down some popular Facebook fan pages, but sometimes it goes further than the lulz. ReadWriteWeb recounted a story from Hamard Dar’s Rewriting Technology site, who had its Facebook page taken down over fake copyright claims, only to be threatened later with extortion by the party who submitted the claim.”
From Ars Technica
Tag Archives: Law and Policy
“Reporters Without Borders is both amused and shocked to learn that the High Council for Telecommunications (TIB), Turkey’s Internet regulator, has issued Internet service providers and website hosting companies with a list of 138 keywords that are henceforth to be banned from Turkish Internet. The list was sent out on 27 April.
“With Turkey already blocking thousands of sites with content that is considered sensitive, the consequences of such keyword filtering could be disastrous for online freedom of expression. The authorities must abandon this scheme and instead reform Law 5651 on the Internet, which makes such arbitrary censorship possible,” Reporters Without Borders said.”
“Broadband providers have voiced alarm over an EU proposal to create a “Great Firewall of Europe” by blocking “illicit” web material at the borders of the bloc.
Anti-censorship campaigners compared the plan to China’s notorious system for controlling citizens’ access to blogs, news websites and social networking services.”
From The Telegraph
“India’s New Laws Silence Online Speech. An innocuous-sounding set of rules called the “Information Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011″ [pdf] went quietly into effect last month in India. These rules, possessing the force of law, practically guarantee that no user of electronic communications in one of the world’s largest countries will ever be completely safe from persecution again.
Under the new rules, anyone who objects to content online will be able to effect that content’s immediate removal. The justifications for removal are so extensive and so vague that virtually anything will qualify for removal.”
From The New York Times
“CASABLANCA — After the Moroccan journalist Ali Lmrabet wrote about the king’s real estate holdings in 2001, he was tried in court on defamation charges and the article cost him his career: His satirical magazine, Demain, a symbol of the independent press, was shut down.
In 2003, he spent eight months in prison for “offending the monarchy,” and in 2005 he was barred from practicing journalism for 10 years for “threatening territorial integrity” and Demain was closed.
Now, the Internet has allowed him to make a comeback as the editor of the news site Demain Online.”
From The New York Times
“Civil rights groups, advocates for freedom of expression, online media and netizens are all up in arms against the new computer crime bill which will replace the existing law that has been in force since July 18, 2007. They have a good reason to fear and despise the new law, which they believe will make the current legislation, already condemned as repressive, seem mild in comparison.
Evidence abounds as to how bad the current Computer Crime Act is. Ever since the law came into force four years ago, many tens of thousands of websites and web pages have been cached, blocked, blacklisted or shut down by the chief law enforcer, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology.”
From Bangkok Post
“Franken has requested that both Apple and Google send representatives to testify at the May 10 hearing of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. The subcommittee was created when the new Congress convened in January. This hearing, on “Protecting Mobile Privacy: Your Smartphones, Tablets, Cell Phones and Your Privacy,” will be the subcommittee’s first ever.
The Judiciary Committee hasn’t heard from Google about whether it will send anyone to testify. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who chairs the full committee, sent a letter to Jobs and Google CEO Larry Page Wednesday urging them to seriously consider Franken’s request.”
From The Atlantic
“DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — No protesters have taken to the streets calling for reforms. There’s been barely a public whisper about whether the Arab uprisings could intrude on the cozy world of the United Arab Emirates’ rulers.
The main challenge to authority so far has been a modest online petition urging for open elections and the creation of a parliament.
But even that crossed a line. Security agents have arrested at least five Internet activists over the past month. The swift government action to snuff out any whiff of dissent shows that, despite the UAE’s transformation into a cosmopolitan showcase, it has never outgrown its tribal-style rule that keeps power in the hands of just a few.”
From The Huffington Post
“The Sony PlayStation network breach has revived Australia’s dormant security disclosure debate.
Rob Forsyth, A/NZ managing director of Sophos, says the government must legislate for mandatory disclosure, noting that it has been proposed in a large number of privacy recommendations. If personally identifiable information is lost, he said, companies must notify both the general public and the individuals whose information has been stolen.
“Sony was not quick to notify people that there had been a breach of security,” RMIT lecturer and computer networking specialist Dr Mark Gregory told the same programme, even though the speed with which the network was shut down demonstrated that Sony was aware of the problem before it went public.”
From The Register
“MUMBAI — Free speech advocates and Internet users are protesting new Indian regulations that seek to restrict Web content that, among other things, could be considered “disparaging,” “harassing,” “blasphemous” or “hateful.”
The new rules, issued by the Indian Department of Information Technology this month without much publicity, allow officials and private citizens to demand that Internet sites and service providers remove content that they consider objectionable by drawing from a long list of reasons.
Critics say that the new regulations could severely curtail debate and discussion on the Internet, use of which has been growing quickly in India. The list of objectionable content is sweeping and, for instance, includes anything that “threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.”
From The New York Times