Jump to content

Internet Censorship: Youtube Takes Down Videos Depicting Atrocities Committed by Syria Opposition Rebels


Recommended Posts

As for the the video clip YT has content rules which deem that videos like the dumb one made by Adams which include partial nudity and talk of "masturbation" be deemed adult only. Presumably all he has to do is tone it down a bit. // end COLBY

YOUR characterization OF THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT MASTURBATION IS DISHONEST

​LOL as previously noted reading comprehension is not your forte, then again neither are math, critical thinking or the ability to understand issues in anything but black and white terms. I was not referring to the “article” I wrote “As for the the VIDEO CLIP” nor did I say it was “about masturbation” I wrote that it 'include[d] partial nudity and talk of "masturbation"' it did. My comments were accurate, I don't think you are “dishonest” you have repeatedly demonstrated you are very sloppy but not very intelligent. This is the second or third time you've accused me of dishonesty based on your reading comprehension failures. As on the previous occasion(s) I don't expect a retraction/admission of error (let alone an apology; you're not 'man' or honest enough to do so.

The rest of your post is rehash and there is no need for a re-debunking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Fight for the Future: The Internet, Censorship, Surveillance, and You

Have you actually seen the video? I ask because you repeatedly post stuff you haven't looked at. If not why should anyone else watch it? If so what in it supports your case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is your (GAAL) one dimensional brain is incapable of anything beyond black and white thinking,// end COLBY

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA ......ECT ECT (COLBY THOUGHTS)

=========================================================================================

Strawman King I will donate $10,000 to your church if you can cite when I've indicated the CIA was a benevolent organization.

Syrian rebels use a child to behead a prisoner

http://humanrightsin...ead-a-prisoner/

=====================

As previously noted xit happens during civil wars

http://www.liveleak....=b27_1330298574

Summary Public Execution By Hanging Conducted By Free Syrian Army

Part of channel(s): Syria (current event), C-A-T-000p (promoted)

A man accused of being a "shabiha" conscript of President Assad is shown hanging, while armed factions aligned to the "Free Syrian Army" hold their weapons up and say God is with them. This is in Idlib province, Kafr Takharim.

Meanwhile, the call to jihad against the Syrian government is being spread on the streets of the west. In several cities including London, radicals can be seen calling for jihad against all of the Syrian, Afghan and Somali governments. While they receive protection of police in order to express their views freely. So Obama and Cameron today need jihad? Yesterday it was not allowed in Iraq next door?!

An anonymous source who didn't provide citations and dishonestly claimed “Today, Syrians voted to change the constitution in an historic event that allows multi-party rule and limits the term held by any president to two terms only.” even he acknowledged that the man was believed to be 'a "shabiha" conscript'. The French Resistance and other WWII partisan groups executed suspected collaborators as well, you should start a campaign to try any surviving leaders for war crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obfuscation king Colby's arguments aside, USA internet censorship a real issue. Its not just China !!

YouTube's age-restriction censorship of my TSA Help Wanted animation is a clear example of oppression against artistic expression and a dark mirror of the kind of free speech blackouts that regularly occur in Communist China. "TSA Help Wanted" is clearly being censored not because of its content (it contains no profanity and shows no actual nudity) but because it is critical of the government.

===============================

'Political' takedown requests increase in US

Posted June 18, 2012 - 06:32by Emma Woollacott

Google's released data on the governments aiming to censor internet content, and says it's seen a worrying rise in the number of such requests from Western democracies.

google_logo_0.jpgIn the second half of last year, for example, Spanish regulators asked for the removal of 270 search results that linked to blogs and newspaper articles referencing individuals and public figures, including mayors and public prosecutors.

One example that's more entertaining than chilling came from the Canadian authorities. They called for the removal of a YouTube video showing a man urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. Google let the video stand.

"When we started releasing this data in 2010, we also added annotations with some of the more interesting stories behind the numbers. We noticed that government agencies from different countries would sometimes ask us to remove political content that our users had posted on our services. We hoped this was an aberration. But now we know it’s not," says senior policy analyst Dorothy Chou.

"This is the fifth data set that we’ve released. And just like every other time before, we’ve been asked to take down political speech. It’s alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect — Western democracies not typically associated with censorship."

Google also received a number of requests from US law enforcement agencies. One concerned a blog post alleged to defame a law enforcement official in a personal capacity; another a series of 1,400 YouTube videos that were claimed to constitute harassment.

Earlier in the year, a law enforcement agency asked for the removal of YouTube videos showing alleged piolice brutality.

In all these cases, Google refused to comply.

The US asked for the greatest number of takedowns, followed by India. All in all, there were more than twice as many content removal requests from the US as in the previous reporting period - 6,321, of which 93 percent were complied with in full or in part.

The report is here.

#########################

CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA ......ECT ECT (COLBY THOUGHTS)

=========================================================================================

Strawman King I will donate $10,000 to your church if you can cite when I've indicated the CIA was a benevolent organization.//end Colby

#########################

Rancid BALONEYKING (right back atya)

You believe CIA not part of DRUG trade. I believe they facilitate assets big time. I believe

POST # 3 and POST # 4 contain accurate material. YOU do not.

http://educationforu...showtopic=20001

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you have no acknowledgement of a problem ,you cant correct it.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fight for the Future: The Internet, Censorship, Surveillance, and You

Have you actually seen the video? I ask because you repeatedly post stuff you haven't looked at. If not why should anyone else watch it? If so what in it supports your case?

++++++++++++++++++++++

23:00 If it wasnt for activists SOPA would have removed much internet freedom.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fight for the Future: The Internet, Censorship, Surveillance, and You

Have you actually seen the video? I ask because you repeatedly post stuff you haven't looked at. If not why should anyone else watch it? If so what in it supports your case?

++++++++++++++++++++++

23:00 If it wasnt for activists SOPA would have removed much internet freedom.

So you posted the one hour video for brief mention of SOPA in the middle, he also has less than charitable things to say about pro-Assad activists, the Mubarak regime and Chinese Gov't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obfuscation king Colby's arguments aside, USA internet censorship a real issue. Its not just China !!

YouTube's age-restriction censorship of my TSA Help Wanted animation is a clear example of oppression against artistic expression and a dark mirror of the kind of free speech blackouts that regularly occur in Communist China. "TSA Help Wanted" is clearly being censored not because of its content (it contains no profanity and shows no actual nudity) but because it is critical of the government.

===============================

You obviously suffer from Goebbels in Oz Syndrome, the belief that if you repeat something enough times it becomes true. You can repost that moron's claims another 999 times it won't make them any truer. His comparison of Google putting an age-restriction on his stupid video to the censorship carried out by Communist China was absurd. Anyone 18 or older can watch the silly video on YT, anyone under 18 can do so by lying about their age and anyone independent of their age or honesty can watch it on other sites. The video had various instances of partial nudity and a part where Adams babbled about masturbation; meanwhile as you noted below Google refused numerous takedown requests from US law enforcement it also hosts all sorts of CT and other anti-establishment and anti-law enforcement material on its various sites. Thus the age restriction was almost certainly due to the graphic content of the video rather than its message.

And as predicted you are not honest enough to admit your accusation of dishonesty on my part was based on nothing other than your own ineptitude.

'Political' takedown requests increase in US

Posted June 18, 2012 - 06:32by Emma Woollacott

Google's released data on the governments aiming to censor internet content, and says it's seen a worrying rise in the number of such requests from Western democracies.

google_logo_0.jpg In the second half of last year, for example, Spanish regulators asked for the removal of 270 search results that linked to blogs and newspaper articles referencing individuals and public figures, including mayors and public prosecutors.

One example that's more entertaining than chilling came from the Canadian authorities. They called for the removal of a YouTube video showing a man urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. Google let the video stand.

"When we started releasing this data in 2010, we also added annotations with some of the more interesting stories behind the numbers. We noticed that government agencies from different countries would sometimes ask us to remove political content that our users had posted on our services. We hoped this was an aberration. But now we know it’s not," says senior policy analyst Dorothy Chou.

"This is the fifth data set that we’ve released. And just like every other time before, we’ve been asked to take down political speech. It’s alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect — Western democracies not typically associated with censorship."

Google also received a number of requests from US law enforcement agencies. One concerned a blog post alleged to defame a law enforcement official in a personal capacity; another a series of 1,400 YouTube videos that were claimed to constitute harassment.

Earlier in the year, a law enforcement agency asked for the removal of YouTube videos showing alleged piolice brutality.

In all these cases, Google refused to comply.

The US asked for the greatest number of takedowns, followed by India. All in all, there were more than

twice as many content removal requests from the US as in the previous reporting period - 6,321, of which 93 percent were complied with in full or in part.

The report is here.

I have no idea what the author based her claim “ 93 percent [of US takedown requests] were complied with in full or in part” the cited source indicated a 46% compliance rate for the 1st half of 2012 and 63 and 42% for the 1st and 2nd halves of 2011. There is a rough correlation between the compliance rate and % of requests that were court orders, and significant % of court orders were not complied with (presumably pending appeal). The majority of requests were court orders due to defamation. Let's say for example someone posted an entry on Blogger and/or a video on YT claiming you sacrificed young children to Satan and sexually assaulted them pre- and postmortem. Wouldn't you be within your rights to ask Google to take it down then go court if they refused? OMG censorship! The US is worse than Russia under Stalin! The fact that so many 'requests' were court orders indicates Google on its own can be reluctant to take such material down. 62% of US requests were due to defamation, trademark or copyright while only 22% were “Privacy and Security” or “Other” from “Executive, Police, etc ”

#########################

CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA IS GOOD CIA ......ECT ECT (COLBY THOUGHTS)

=========================================================================================

Strawman King I will donate $10,000 to your church if you can cite when I've indicated the CIA was a benevolent organization.//end Colby

#########################

Rancid BALONEYKING (right back atya)

You believe CIA not part of DRUG trade. I believe they facilitate assets big time. I believe

POST # 3 and POST # 4 contain accurate material. YOU do not.

http://educationforu...showtopic=20001

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you have no acknowledgement of a problem ,you cant correct it.

I'll take your non-reply reply as a tacit admission you have no evidence for your claim I've said anything like “CIA is good”. I offered to make substantial donations to you or your church several times in exchange for you documenting your claims, so far you've not been unable to do so. Speaking of which, all such offers still stand, including the one about Noguchi.

"Rancid Baloneyking" LOL and you whine about the nasty tone our threads take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously suffer from Goebbels in Oz Syndrome // end Colby

"Rancid Baloneyking" LOL and you whine about the nasty tone our threads take. // end COLBY

GEE Who said strawmanking ?? (Gaal) Goebbels ?? Odd to me its a whine FROM Brazil I hear.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

========================================

Posted on March 3, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Americans Are Acting Like Slowly Boiling Frogs

In the classic history of Nazi Germany, They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer writes:

“What happened here was the
gradual habituation of the people, little by little
, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap,
took place so gradually and so insensibly, each
disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes
. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the
slow motion
underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

The German citizens were boiling frogs … the water heating up so gradually that they didn’t realize they had to jump out of the pot to safety.

Because the exact same thing is happening to Americans (fear of terror makes people stupid no matter what country they live in), let’s remember exactly what we’ve lost in recent years …

First Amendment

The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.

A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a “chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.

There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).

The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment. The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are sayingthat we are descending into tyranny.

For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:

And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism:

  • Liking

  • Being a

Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America.

And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.

Second Amendment

The 2nd Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun control and gun rights advocates obviously have very different views about whether guns are a force for violence or for good.

But even a top liberal Constitutional law expert reluctantly admits that the right to own a gun is as important a Constitutional right as freedom of speech or religion:

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda
.

***

It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

***

More important,
the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press.
The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army.
Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense,
it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the
may have been right.
This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that
gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it
.

The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned – is still in flux …

Third Amendment

The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house soldiers:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Hey … we’re still honoring one of the Amendments! Score one for We the People!

Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

Fourth Amendment

The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But the government is flying drones over the American homeland to spy on us.

Senator Rand Paul correctly notes:

The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy.

Paul introduced a bill to “protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones.”

Emptywheel notes in a post entitled “The OTHER Assault on the Fourth Amendment in the NDAA? Drones at Your Airport?”:

Picture-7.png

***

As the map above makes clear–taken from
–DOD [the Department of Defense] plans to have drones all over the country by 2015.

Many police departments are also using drones to spy on us. As the Hill reported:

At least 13 state and local police agencies around the country have used drones in the field or in training, according to the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry trade group. The Federal Aviation Administration has predicted that by the end of the decade, 30,000 commercial and government drones could be flying over U.S. skies.

***

“Drones should only be used if subject to a powerful framework that regulates their use in order to avoid abuse and invasions of privacy,” Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said during a congressional forum in Texas last month.

He argued police should only fly drones over private property if they have a warrant, information collected with drones should be promptly destroyed when it’s no longer needed and domestic drones should not carry any weapons.

He argued that drones pose a more serious threat to privacy than helicopters because they are cheaper to use and can hover in the sky for longer periods of time.

A congressional report earlier this year predicted that drones could soon be equipped with technologies to identify faces or track people based on their height, age, gender and skin color.

Even without drones, Americans are the most spied on people in world history:

The American government is collecting and storing virtually every
,
,
, and virtually all other information of every American. [And see
.]

Some also claim that the government is also using facial recognition software and surveillance cameras to
. Moreover, cell towers
at any moment, and the major cell carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, responded to
for cell phone locations and other data in 2011. (And – given that your
back to Apple or Google – it would be child’s play for the government to track your location that way.) Your
, or
is spying on
(ProPublica notes: “
“).

As the top spy chief at the U.S. National Security Agency
this week, the American government is collecting some 100 billion 1,000-character emails per day, and 20 trillion communications of all types per year.

He says that the government has collected all of the communications of congressional leaders, generals and everyone else in the U.S. for the last 10 years.

He further explains that he set up the NSA’s system so that all of the information would automatically be encrypted, so that the government had to obtain a search warrant based upon probably cause before a particular suspect’s communications could be decrypted. [He specifically did this to comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.] But the NSA now collects all data in an unencrypted form, so that no probable cause is needed to view any citizen’s information. He says that it is actually cheaper and easier to store the data in an encrypted format: so the government’s current system is being done for political – not practical – purposes.

He says that if anyone gets on the government’s “enemies list”, then the stored information will be used to target them. Specifically, he notes that if the government decides it doesn’t like someone, it analyzes all of the data it has collected on that person and his or her associates over the last 10 years to build a case against him.

Wired reports:

Transit authorities in cities across the country are quietly installing microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public buses that would give them the ability to record and store private conversations….

The systems are being installed in San Francisco, Baltimore, and other cities with funding from the Department of Homeland Security in some cases ….

The IP audio-video systems can be
(.pdf), and can be combined with GPS data to track the movement of buses and passengers throughout the city.

***

The systems use cables or WiFi to
pair audio conversations with camera images in order to produce synchronous recordings. Audio and video can be monitored in real-time
, but are also stored onboard in blackbox-like devices, generally for 30 days, for later retrieval. Four to six cameras with mics are generally installed throughout a bus, including one near the driver and one on the exterior of the bus.

***

Privacy and security expert Ashkan Soltani told the Daily that the audio could easily be coupled with facial recognition systems or audio recognition technology to identify passengers caught on the recordings.

RT notes:

Street lights that can spy installed in some American cities

America welcomes a new brand of smart street lightning systems: energy-efficient, long-lasting, complete with LED screens to show ads. They can also spy on citizens in a way George Orwell would not have imagined in his worst nightmare.

­With a price tag of $3,000+ apiece, according to an ABC report, the street lights are now being rolled out in Detroit, Chicago and Pittsburgh, and may soon mushroom all across the country.

Part of the Intellistreets systems made by the company Illuminating Concepts, they have
a number of “homeland security applications” attached
.

Each has a microprocessor “essentially similar to an iPhone,” capable of
communication. Each can capture images and count people for the police through a digital camera, record conversations of passers-by and even give voice commands thanks to a built-in speaker
.

Ron Harwood, president and founder of Illuminating Concepts, says he eyed the creation of such a system after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Hurricane Katrina disaster. He is
“working with Homeland Security” to deliver his dream of making people “more informed and safer.”

Fox news notes that the government is insisting that “black boxes” be installed in cars to track your location.

The TSA has moved way past airports, trains and sports stadiums, and is deploying mobile scanners to spy on people all over the place. This means that traveling within the United States is no longer a private affair. (And they’re probably bluffing, but the Department of Homeland Security claims they will soon be able to know your adrenaline level, what you ate for breakfast and what you’re thinking … from 164 feet away.)

And Verizon has applied for a patent that would allow your television to track what you are doing, who you are with, what objects you’re holding, and what type of mood you’re in. Given Verizon and other major carriers responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011, such information would not be kept private. (And some folks could be spying on you through your tv using existing technology.)

Of course, widespread spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this). So the whole “post-9/11 reality” argument falls flat.

And the spying isn’t being done to keep us safe … but to crush dissent and to smear people who uncover unflattering this about the government … and to help the too big to fail businesses compete against smaller businesses (and here).

In addition, the ACLU published a map in 2006 showing that nearly two-thirds of the American public – 197.4 million people – live within a “constitution-free zone” within 100 miles of land and coastal borders:

Image-Map.gif

The ACLU explained:

  • Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.

  • The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”

  • But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.

  • As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.

  • Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.

  • However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.

  • The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets.

Computer World reports today:

Border agents don’t need probable cause and they don’t need a stinking warrant since they don’t need to prove any reasonable suspicion first. Nor, sadly, do two out of three people have First Amendment protection; it is as if DHS has voided those Constitutional amendments and protections they provide to nearly 200 million Americans.

***

Don’t be silly by thinking this means only if you are physically trying to cross the international border. As we saw when discussing the DEA using license plate readers and data-mining to
, the U.S. “border” stretches out 100 miles beyond the true border. Godfather Politics
:

But wait, it gets even better! If you live anywhere in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey or Rhode Island, DHS says the search zones encompass the entire state.

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have a “longstanding constitutional and statutory authority permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent.” This applies to electronic devices, according to the recent CLCR “Border Searches of Electronic Devices” executive summary [PDF]:

Fourth Amendment

The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and longstanding, and courts have not treated searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects. We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits. However, we do think that recording more information about why searches are performed would help managers and leadership supervise the use of border search authority, and this is what we recommended; CBP has agreed and has implemented this change beginning in FY2012.

First Amendment

Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment rights.

The ACLU said, Wait one darn minute! Hello, what happened to the Constitution? Where is the rest of CLCR report on the “policy of combing through and sometimes confiscating travelers’ laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices—even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing?” DHS maintains it is not violating our constitutional rights, so the ACLU said:

If it’s true that our rights are safe and that DHS is doing all the things it needs to do to safeguard them, then why won’t it show us the results of its assessment? And why would it be legitimate to keep a report about the impact of a policy on the public’s rights hidden from the very public being affected?

***

As ChristianPost wrote, “Your constitutional rights have been repealed in ten states. No, this isn’t a joke. It is not exaggeration or hyperbole. If you are in ten states in the United States, your some of your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been made null and void.”

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the entire DHS report about suspicionless and warrantless “border” searches of electronic devices. ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said “We hope to establish that the Department of Homeland Security can’t simply assert that its practices are legitimate without showing us the evidence, and to make it clear that the government’s own analyses of how our fundamental rights apply to new technologies should be openly accessible to the public for review and debate.”

Meanwhile, the EFF has tips to protect yourself and your devices against border searches. If you think you know all about it, then you might try testing your knowledge with a defending privacy at the U.S. border quiz.

Wired pointed out in 2008 that the courts have routinely upheld such constitution-free zones:

Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to search through travelers’ laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for evidence of crimes, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, extending the government’s power to look through belongings like suitcases at the border to electronics.

***

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, finding that the so-called border exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches applied not just to suitcases and papers, but also to electronics.

***

Travelers should be aware that anything on their mobile devices can be searched by government agents, who may also seize the devices and keep them for weeks or months. When in doubt, think about whether online storage or encryption might be tools you should use to prevent the feds from rummaging through your journal, your company’s confidential business plans or naked pictures of you and your-of-age partner in adult fun.

Fifth Amendment

The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But the American government has shredded the 5th Amendment by subjecting us to indefinite detention and taking away our due process rights.

The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.

As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for private purposes.

The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a grand jury is difficult to gauge, as there is so much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.

Protection against being tried twice for the same crime after being found innocent (“double jeopardy”) seems to be intact.

Sixth Amendment

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassinationobviously violates the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial. In both cases, the defendants is “disposed of” without ever receiving a trial … and often without ever hearing the charges against them.

More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.

The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people. And see this and this.

Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs.

Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret. And it’s about to get a lot worse.

True – when defendants are afforded a jury trial – they are provided with assistance of counsel. However, the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts and the public defenders’ offices nationwide.

Moreover, there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. The government made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, even though fraud is the main business model adopted by Wall Street. Indeed, the largest insider trading scandal of all time, illegal raiding of customer accounts and blatant financing of drug cartels and terrorists have all been committed recently without any real criminal prosecution or jail time.

On the other hand, government prosecutors are using the legal system to crush dissent and to silence whistleblowers.

And some of the nation’s most powerful judges have lost their independence … and are in bed with the powers-that-be.

Seventh Amendment

The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As far as we know, this right is still being respected. However – as noted above – the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the wheels of justice slowing down considerably.

New+Image3.JPG

Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

Eighth Amendment

The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Indefinite detention and assassination are obviously cruel and unusual punishment.

The widespread system of torture carried out in the last 10 years – with the help of other countriesviolates the 8th Amendment. Many want to bring it back … or at least justify its past use.

While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism.

And government whistleblowers are being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out. They are literally being treated as terrorists.

Statue_of_Liberty2.jpg

Ninth Amendment

The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We can debate what our inherent rights as human beings are. I believe they include the right to a level playing field, and access to safe food and water. You may disagree.

But everyone agrees that the government should not actively encourage fraud and manipulation. However, the government – through its malignant, symbiotic relation with big corporations – is interfering with our aspirations for economic freedom, safe food and water (instead of arsenic-laden, genetically engineered junk), freedom from undue health hazards such as irradiation due to government support of archaic nuclear power designs, and a level playing field (as opposed to our crony capitalist system in which the little guy has no shot due to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super-elite, and government support of white collar criminals).

By working hand-in-glove with giant corporations to defraud us into paying for a lower quality of life, the government is trampling our basic rights as human beings.

Tenth Amendment

The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:

(1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the people

and

(2) Separation of powers

Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom … and that it is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed”.

And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the states and the people. For example, former head S&L prosecutor Bill Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the resident examiners and regional staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [both] competed to weaken federal regulation and
aggressively used the preemption doctrine to try to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent mortgage lenders
.

Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously suffer from Goebbels in Oz Syndrome // end Colby

"Rancid Baloneyking" LOL and you whine about the nasty tone our threads take. // end COLBY

GEE Who said strawmanking ?? (Gaal) Goebbels ?? Odd to me its a whine FROM Brazil I hear.

So you calling me "Rancid Baloneyking" is comparable to me calling you "strawman king"? Especially when you had ascribed to me a position I've never taken? Still waiting for an admission of error regarding your claim I was dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Internet censorship news, articles and information:

SOPA-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act.jpg

At least 7,000 websites black out their homepages in protest of SOPA and PIPA internet censorship bills

1/19/2012 - On January 18, 2012, thousands of websites from around the world came out in protest of two pieces of legislation that threaten to censor the internet as we know it. Google, WordPress, Wired.com, Wikipedia, Tumblr, The Daily Paul, reddit, NaturalNews, and thousands of other websites censored portions...

Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2N3kAKy7x

=============o0o0o=============

Internet:

Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2N3kMuiW6

=============o0o0o=============

The internet:

Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2N3kzRKNV

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL were you insisting Google is a foe of free speech akin to the Chinese Gov't. SOPA and PIPA are bad solutions to legitimate problems the latter didn't make it out of committee, the latter did but has been indefinitely shelved. Obama indicated he would oppose such legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL were you insisting Google is a foe of free speech akin to the Chinese Gov't. SOPA and PIPA are bad solutions to legitimate problems the latter didn't make it out of committee, the latter did but has been indefinitely shelved. Obama indicated he would oppose such legislation.

+++++++++++++++++

OBAMA ?? GUESS THERE IS A COMPUTER GLITCH ?? POST # 23 DOESNT REGISTER ON SOME LATIN AMERICAN NETWORKS.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ANYWHO ITS STILL ALIVE

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No, President Obama Did Not Kill SOPA

sopa-logo-11-300x300.jpg

SOPA isn't dead, it's just on hold.

Forbes contributor John Gaudiosi writes:

Both SOPA and Protect IP attempt to combat online piracy by preventing American search engines like
and
from directing users to sites distributing stolen content. Both bills also would enable people and companies to sue if their copyright was infringed. Obama has come out against both bills, which killed SOPA and puts pressure on senators come January 24
th
.

This isn’t quite right on several levels. The bills wouldn’t give copyright holders the capacity to sue – this is already the law of the land, for one thing. It would give content owners the ability to actually shut down websites that they believe violate their copyright.

The more troubling error in John’s statement, however, is that Obama’s statement “killed SOPA.” This is simply not the case, even if it is some nice wishful thinking.

SOPA is very much alive, though it has been drastically slowed down. Minority Whip, Eric Cantor, has assured SOPA-opponent Rep. Darrell Issa that the bill won’t move forward without consensus. Whatever that means, it surely does not mean that SOPA is dead.

I’m worried that this sentiment is widely shared by people who took heart at the president’s statement. It was a comforting rumble from the White House, but not a bill-killer.

As Forbes cyber-security blogger-in-chief Andy Greenberg reports:

Texas representative Lamar Smith has vowed to pick up what’s left of the tattered bill he introduced last October and push forward a markup hearing on the legislation in February. “To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America’s intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy,” he wrote in a statement to reporters. “I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property.”

Proponents of SOPA, which seeks to block access to foreign sites accused of violating copyright and any site that helps to access those blocked sites, have already agreed to remove a portion of the bill that would use the Domain Name System to disappear sites from the Internet. But the bill still contains a provision that allows Internet service providers to block access to foreign sites, as well as taking legal action against any site that offers circumvention tools, a vaguely worded provision that could cause problems for any site that allows user-generated content.

Andy continues:

Representative Smith railed against Wikipedia’s blackout plan in a separate statement: “It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act. The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites,” he wrote. “This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy.”

The big tech companies and social media sites don’t think SOPA is dead. Lamar Smith, the bill’s architect, sure doesn’t think that SOPA is dead. Far from killing the bill, the president’s statement simply brought it to a temporary halt. For opponents of the legislation this is a victory, but not a total victory.

There’s a great deal of work to be done and nobody appears to be backing down any time soon.

Follow me on Twitter or Facebook. Read my Forbes blog here.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL were you insisting Google is a foe of free speech akin to the Chinese Gov't. SOPA and PIPA are bad solutions to legitimate problems the latter didn't make it out of committee, the latter did but has been indefinitely shelved. Obama indicated he would oppose such legislation.

+++++++++++++++++

OBAMA ?? GUESS THERE IS A COMPUTER GLITCH ?? POST # 23 DOESNT REGISTER ON SOME LATIN AMERICAN NETWORKS.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ANYWHO ITS STILL ALIVE

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No, President Obama Did Not Kill SOPA

SOPA isn't dead, it's just on hold.

LOL I guess you failed to notice that article was from Jan. 18...

...2012!!

It was posted at 9:08 later that day Reid and Smith announced they were putting off voting on the bills. Two days later the NYT described them as 'shelved' and six months later described them as "a failed industrywide attempt to pass antipiracy legislation"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/technology/senate-postpones-piracy-vote.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/business/media/tech-and-media-elite-are-likely-to-debate-piracy.html

The bills have been on hold for well over a year which means they're essentially dead. A new congress has been sworn in since then so the whole process would have start all over again.

Note also that even your source said SOPA was "on hold" which is not that different from "indefinitely shelved" the term I used.

Note that even your source didt not challenge the other author's contention that "Obama has come out against both bills"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Google Breaks Silence On FBI's National Security Letters That Demand Its Users' Data
  • FORBES

  • National security letters are the Fight Club of government data surveillance. Thanks to the gag orders that accompany those FBI requests for users’ private information, the first rule for any company that receives an NSL is that it doesn’t talk about receiving an NSL. Now Google is doing its best to blur–if not quite break–that rule.
    In a new section of its bi-annual Transparency Report on government censorship and surveillance of its data, Google on Tuesday issued its first ever accounting of how many NSLs it has received for the last four years along with how many users were affected, albeit in extremely broad terms. For each of those years, for instance, Google says it has received less than one thousand NSLs. In 2012, those requests for users’ data targeted somewhere between one and two thousand of its users, the same numbers as 2011 and down from between two and three thousand users affected in 2010.
    Vague as those revelations may be, they start to give some sense of the scale of how often NSLs are used to obtain user data in investigations of purported national security threats. In the second half of 2012, for instance, Google says that it received requests for at least some data from 14,791 accounts. More than 10,000 of those users were targeted with subpoenas, and another 3,000 had their information requested with a search warrant.
    But Google previously labeled another 1,249 accounts as having had their data requested by “other” means. With more than a thousand users affected by NSLs sent to Google in 2012, it seems a significant chunk of those users had their data taken from Google’s servers using the FBI’s un-discussable letters.
    Correction: Google spokesperson Chris Gaither writes to me in an email that those NSL numbers aren’t in fact included in the “other” category of Google’s Transparency Report, but have simply been left out of the Transparency Report’s statistics until now. The “other” category, according to Gaither, consists of “court orders issued under [the Electronic Communications Privacy Act] by a judge and other court-issued legal process.”
    “The FBI has the authority to prohibit companies from talking about these requests,” reads a blog post about the new numbers on Google’s public policy blog. “But we’ve been trying to find a way to provide more information about the NSLs we get—particularly as people have voiced concerns about the increase in their use since 9/11. Starting today, we’re now including data about NSLs in our Transparency Report. We’re thankful to U.S. government officials for working with us to provide greater insight into the use of NSLs.”
    NSLs have come under fire not just for their secrecy, but for their lack of judicial review; They require far less oversight than a search warrant or even a subpoena, can be issued by any FBI field office, and have been applied much more widely in the post-9/11 era. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called NSLs “one of the most frightening and invasive…of all the dangerous government surveillance powers that were expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act.”
    Google specifies in an FAQ included with its report on NSLs that the letters can only legally seek “the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records” of a Google user. Those outmoded legal terms mean that the FBI shouldn’t be able to get actual content data such as Gmail messages or private YouTube videos. Perhaps surprisingly, even IP addresses are off limits, Google says.
    But Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at the Cato Institute who has tracked the NSL issue, says that NSLs sent to an Internet service like Google could still be used to de-anonymize Internet content when the FBI knows an IP address but not a name or other identifying details. “These kinds of requests are supposed to to be limited to less sensitive information,” says Sanchez. “But if the point is to de-anonymize anonymous information, it’s not clear that’s less sensitive.”
    Google’s numbers also indicate that the use of NSLs might be far more widespread than previously thought. Sanchez refers to the government’s own tally of NSLs issued in 2011 that excluded the kind of non-content requests sent to Google. Those letters targeted information about 7,201 people that year, according to the Department of Justice.
    According to Google’s new report, the company received requests that targeted more than a thousand people that same year. So either Google’s alone received NSLs that affected close to one out seven of the people targeted by NSLs in total, or far more likely, the Department of Justice tally represents only a small fraction of requests actually sent.
    “This is a tool that can be sued to strip away online anonymity,” says Sanchez. “And extrapolating from these numbers it’s being used on a much larger scale than the official numbers would lead one to believe.”
    Read Google’s full blog post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Shopping blocks all vitamins and natural products - glitch or deliberate censorship?, 8/19/12

The internet has the potential to help you to reach more people than you ever imagined. But for many small-time authors and entrepreneurs you had might as well bury your work six-feet under the ground in what I call online insignificance. Furthermore, there may be no such thing as giving away information for free any longer. If you want a substantial number of people to view your free content you are likely going to have to pay to give your information away.

Online Insignificance: Buried on Google Search Page 23, 8/10/12

The latest attack on free speech in America comes from the FDA and is supported by Google Adwords. NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is quietly, and without notice to affected companies, commanding Google to disable the full Adwords accounts of nutritional supplement companies offering "detox" or "chelation" nutritional products.

Google complies with FDA demands to secretly disable Adwords accounts of nutritional detox companies, 8/8/12

We recently wrote about the fight over copyright/fair use in political videos. In the comments, someone anonymous pointed us to a YouTube page including a typical takedown notice.. Here’s a screenshot.

This is actually the first time I can recall that I’ve seen a takedown that had “multiple” takedown notices. So it’s interesting that YouTube even has such an error message. But what really caught my attention was the second claimant listed. United States Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security?

Homeland Security Teams Up With YouTube To Take Down Controversial Videos, 8/3/12

Megaupload boss Kim Dotcom has launched an online song attacking US President Barack Obama and urging supporters not to vote for the US leader, who he accuses of trampling on Internet freedom.

Google Shopping blocks all vitamins and natural products - glitch or deliberate censorship?, 8/19/12

The internet has the potential to help you to reach more people than you ever imagined. But for many small-time authors and entrepreneurs you had might as well bury your work six-feet under the ground in what I call online insignificance. Furthermore, there may be no such thing as giving away information for free any longer. If you want a substantial number of people to view your free content you are likely going to have to pay to give your information away.

Online Insignificance: Buried on Google Search Page 23, 8/10/12

The latest attack on free speech in America comes from the FDA and is supported by Google Adwords. NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is quietly, and without notice to affected companies, commanding Google to disable the full Adwords accounts of nutritional supplement companies offering "detox" or "chelation" nutritional products.

Google complies with FDA demands to secretly disable Adwords accounts of nutritional detox companies, 8/8/12

We recently wrote about the fight over copyright/fair use in political videos. In the comments, someone anonymous pointed us to a YouTube page including a typical takedown notice.. Here’s a screenshot.

This is actually the first time I can recall that I’ve seen a takedown that had “multiple” takedown notices. So it’s interesting that YouTube even has such an error message. But what really caught my attention was the second claimant listed. United States Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security?

Homeland Security Teams Up With YouTube To Take Down Controversial Videos, 8/3/12

Megaupload boss Kim Dotcom has launched an online song attacking US President Barack Obama and urging supporters not to vote for the US leader, who he accuses of trampling on Internet freedom.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...