Internet Freedom at risk

Interview of Steve Woznia, interesting facts.

SOPA and PIPA, lets find out...

I found some facts about it.

Arguments for and Against SOPA and PIPA

Opponents of SOPA and PIPA believe that neither piece of legislation does enough to protect against false accusations. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues, provisions in the bill grant immunity to payment processors and ad networks that cut off sites based on a reasonable belief of infringement, so even if claims turn out to be false, only the site suffers. "The standard for immunity is incredibly low and the potential for abuse is off the charts," says the EFF.

Meanwhile, sites that host user-generated content will be under pressure to closely monitor users' behavior. That monitoring already happens on larger sites such as YouTube, but it could be a huge liability for startups, the EFF argues.

Some progressive pundits have argued that media companies are trying to legislate their way out of what's really a business-model problem. "As we've seen over and over again, the most successful (by far) 'attack' against piracy is awesome new platforms that give customers what they want, such as Spotify and Netflix," TechDirt's Mike Masnick writes.

SOPA and PIPA supporters argue that prophecies of a broken Internet are overblown. Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, writes that SOPA clearly defines infringing sites based on Supreme Court holdings and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and requires rights holders to follow a strict set of rules when trying to get payment cut off to an infringing site. False claims, Sherman argues, "can result in damages, including costs and attorneys' fees."

Sherman also points out that previous actions against infringing sites, such as the MGM vs. Grokster case in 2005, triggered similar doomsday predictions from the tech industry, yet digital music innovation has flourished since then.

Who's for SOPA and PIPA, and Who's Against?

Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is the author of SOPA, which is backed by 31 cosponsors in the House. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) wrote PIPA, which has 40 cosponsors in the Senate. ProPublica has a visualized list of supporters in both the House and Senate.

The White House has expressed concerns about the bills in their current state, writing in a statement that "any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet."

As for outside parties, the list of SOPA supporters consists mostly of media companies, including record labels, TV networks, movie studios, and book publishers. Some companies with an interest in fighting sales of other counterfeit goods, such as beauty-product maker Revlon and pharmaceutical company Pfizer, also appear on the list.

Opposition to SOPA and PIPA is strong in the tech sector. An open letter to Washington speaking out against the legislation was signed by founders of Craigslist, eBay, Google, Mozilla, Twitter, and Wikipedia, among others.

In the middle are companies at the intersection of media and technology. Many video game publishers have stayed silent on the matter while their trade group, the Entertainment Software Association, supports the bills. The Business Software Alliance originally supported the bill, but withdrew its support after deciding that the legislation went too far. As for Apple and Microsoft, which are both BSA members, the former has not come out publicly for or against SOPA or PIPA, while the latter now says that it opposes SOPA "as currently drafted." 

Lets wait till we will be informed, or if you are willing to help resistance, join the movements such as Kim Dotcom created.

The UN Wants Complete Control Over The Internet And That Would Mean Unprecedented Censorship, Taxes And Surveillance

One of the fastest ways to ruin the Internet would be to put the United Nations in charge of it.  Unfortunately, that is exactly what the United Nations wants.  The United Nations is now pushing very hard for complete control over the Internet. A proposal that has the support of China, Russia, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iran would give control of the Internet to the UN’s International Telecommunication Union.  This is perhaps the greatest threat to the free and open Internet that we have seen yet.  At a UN conference in Dubai this upcoming December, representatives from 193 nations will debate this proposal.  The United States and many European nations are firmly against this proposal, but it is unclear whether they have the votes to stop it.  Unlike the Security Council, there are no vetoes when it comes to ITU proceedings.  So the United States may not be able to stop governance of the Internet from being handed over to the United Nations.  The United States could opt out of any new treaty, but that would result in a “balkanized” Internet.  If the UN gains control over the Internet, you can expect a whole new era of censorship, taxes, and surveillance.  It would be absolutely catastrophic for the free flow of commerce and information around the globe.  Unfortunately, many repressive regimes are very dissatisfied with how the Internet is currently working and they desperately want to be able to use the power of the UN to tax, regulate and censor the Internet.  Needless to say, that would be a disaster.  International control over the Internet would be a complete and total nightmare and it must be resisted.

Top Internet experts are sounding the alarm bells about this proposal as well.  The following comes from a recent CNET article….

Vint Cerf, Google’s chief Internet evangelist, co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol, and former chairman of ICANN, said the ITU meeting could lead to “top-down control dictated by governments” that could impact free expression, security, and other important issues.
“The open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now,” Cerf said.

Sadly, the United States cannot block this from happening.  As an article by Robert M. McDowell explained, all it is going to take for this proposal to be accepted is for a simple majority of the 193 UN members states to agree to it….

Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings.

Once the ITU gains control, the United States and other nations could attempt to “opt out”, but that would create a “balkanized” Internet that would be much different than what we have today.


As long as United Nations will become in control of internet, than the Personal Privacy Protection Law will be just a essay with no power at all...

The Pirate Bay moves to the cloud to avoid shutdown

File-sharing website The Pirate Bay has moved its servers to the cloud to frustrate attempts to take it offline.

The site, which has been blamed for encouraging illegal file-sharing, will now operate from cloud-hosting providers around the world.
It says the move will save money and make it harder for law-enforcement agencies to shut it down.
"All attempts to attack [us] from now on is an attack on everything and nothing," it says.
In 2006, police in Sweden raided The Pirate Bay, shutting down its servers and taking the site offline.
The Pirate Bay (TPB) now says its new cloud-based servers, which use the internet for storage, do not have to be hosted with the same provider, or even on the same continent - making it impervious to attempts to close it down.
Its statement continues: "The site that you're at will still be here, for as long as we want it to. Only in a higher form of being. A reality to us. A ghost to those who wish to harm us."
A TPB representative told the TorrentFreak website: "Moving to the cloud lets TPB move from country to country, crossing borders seamlessly without downtime.
"The hosting providers have no idea that they're hosting The Pirate Bay, and even in the event they found out it would be impossible for them to gather data on the users."
TPB says it will retain control of the technology - transit routers and load balancers - which allows it to distribute file-sharing requests across multiple computers, and also hide the identity of both the cloud-provider and its users.
The statement said: "If the police decide to raid us again there are no servers to take, just a transit router.
"If they follow the trail to the next country and find the load balancer, there is just a disk-less server there. In case they find out where the cloud provider is, all they can get are encrypted disk-images."

So from now TPB will have to strict physical location, the modern templates and technologies, working against intellectual data owners.

Freedom of internet is under attack

Movement against PIPA, SOPA, ACTA started by Kim Dotcom.

 Are we really have to be enforced?

Kim Dotcom released or how right holders lost their sue attempt

Kim Dotcom founder of Megauploads was released, copyright holders in scope with American government couldn't prove that their actions by cruelly taking him from home was justified.
And hugest "pirate" was released, after the day it happened, he said that he is about to launch new service with name "megabox" it will be modified version of Megauploads.

In his interview he said: "I will fight this and win".

Copyright facing a hard time...

What we call the privacy...

Google is the biggest and most popular mail and search service in the world, but since i started to use it, i always seen the context ads in it.

 

As i know, context ad is formed based on the content of the page displayed. What does it mean? 

It means that Google indexing content of my mailbox to provide me ad i might be interested in.

But my mail is belong to me, and i don't want any one or any service to have an access to it...

It brought a question: "Is it legal?". 

The answer is: Yes, it is.

It is described in Google's term of service, so i was forced to accept without having any other options.

I found some video about it.

 

It is an ad, but it clearly show the issue of privacy.