Thread: Google Is Already Using SOPA-Like Censorship

Google Is Already Using SOPA-Like Censorship

The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Web giant blacklists websites, follows government orders to remove material

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, January 19, 2012

Despite Google’s much-heralded support for the anti-SOPA movement, the web giant is already enforcing SOPA-like policies of its own, blacklisting legitimate websites from its news aggregator and following government orders to remove material from its search results and You Tube.

As major Internet giants joined forces yesterday to protest legislation that would hand the U.S. government power to arbitrarily seize websites with no legal process under the pretext of copyright infringement, Google slapped a black censorship image over its logo and urged people to sign an anti-SOPA petition that has accrued over 5 million signees.

However, Google’s main issue with SOPA is seemingly not related to their concerns about Chinese-style web censorship becoming commonplace, but rather which entity gets to wield those powers – large transnational corporations or governments.

While Google criticizes SOPA publicly, it is already privately using SOPA-like powers to unfairly marginalize legitimate web content.

Google News is a content aggregator that allows users to search thousands of news sources for relevant stories. Although the aggregator includes a plethora of obscure, occasionally offensive, and barely-read websites, in November 2010 Google took the decision to de-list PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.com from its indexed news sources.

Infowars.com alone is an internationally recognized news website that gets more traffic than MSNBC.com and innumerable other big mainstream news websites. Our articles are routinely featured on the Drudge Report, which itself is renowned as the primary agenda-setting news website in the United States, driving more traffic to individual stories than the likes of Facebook and Twitter combined.

Infowars owner Alex Jones is a nationally syndicated radio host whose broadcast appears on an ever-expanding list of big mainstream radio stations. Jones has been afforded feature profiles by the likes of Rolling Stone Magazine, who acknowledged his role as a pioneer in the media world.

Infowars.com is clearly a legitimate and important news website that features original content which routinely makes an impact and occasionally goes viral. And yet Google de-listed the website from its news aggregator on a whim with no explanation provided. Since Google and its owner Eric Schmidt are prominent financial contributors to the Obama campaign, we can only assume we were blacklisted for political reasons.

Whether you concur with our political stance or are rapidly against it, what can’t be argued is that we are a legitimate news outfit – but Google has arbitrarily banned us from appearing on their ‘news’ search results.

This is a clear example of how Google is already enforcing SOPA-like rules of its own choosing, without the need for any law to be passed by any legislative body.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

In addition, while concerns rage about the state obtaining the power to shut down websites and remove web content with no recourse, Google is already following orders from the federal government in the majority of cases in removing videos from its You Tube platform, including takedowns on the grounds that the videos contain “government criticism”.

Google-owned You Tube has complied with thousands of requests worldwide to remove political protest videos that are clearly not in violation of any copyright or national security interests and do not constitute defamation.

The number of takedown orders received by Google from authorities based in the United States rose dramatically over the past year, with demands to remove information increasing by 70 per cent. Google complied in removing the material in 63% of the cases.

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

Google has also targeted our own You Tube channel for termination on numerous occasions merely for posting legitimate news content, such as the Wikileaks Apache helicopter footage, which appears on hundreds of other You Tube channels.

Crucially, Google has for years censored its own search results subject to the mandates of different governments across the world. SOPA and PIPA are merely an effort to codify into US law what is already taking place in more authoritarian countries, with the willing participation of Google itself.

Many other web giants are also moving to censor the Internet, including VeriSign, who recently demanded the power to terminate websites deemed “abusive” with no legal oversight whatsoever.

Public wi-fi systems stationed in airports, train stations, libraries, schools, and workplaces also routinely censor political websites.

Who needs government to censor the Internet when large corporations are already doing it? Amidst all the anti-SOPA rage, we should not be so naive as to give the likes of Google a pass when considering the totality of threats posed to free speech on the world wide web.

We encourage people to at least be aware of alternatives to Google, search websites that will not enact SOPA-like censorship policies, such as StartPage.com. Watch a video below from November 2010 in which Alex Jones explains how Google is censoring the web – without the need for SOPA.





» Google Is Already Using SOPA-Like Censorship Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

bttt

Obama Tries to Bypass Congress with Deadly Global Internet Treaty ACTA | Print |
Written by Raven Clabough
Friday, 27 January 2012 16:00

Before the American people were protesting the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, the president managed to sign an international treaty which would permit foreign companies to demand that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) remove web content in the United States without any legal oversight. Entitled the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the treaty was signed by Obama on October 1, 2011, but it is currently a subject of discussion because the White House is circulating a petition demanding that senators ratify the treaty.

What’s worse is that the White House has done some maneuvering — characterizing the treaty as an "executive agreement" — thereby bypassing approval by members of Congress. Concerned by this action of the administration, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., above left) sent a letter to President Obama in which he declared:

It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law. But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law ... the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval.

Similarly, TechDirt observes:

... [E]ven if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement? The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over.

But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the President legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.

Twenty-two EU member states signed the treaty at a ceremony in Tokyo on January 26. Other nations interested in signing the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.

According to Wikipedia, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement “creates a governing body outside national institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.” The scope of the agreement includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines, and pirated copyright-protected works.

The provisions of ACTA grant copyright holders direct powers to demand that ISPs remove material from the Internet, without the requirement of a court order, and permit foreign influence over ISPs in the United States.

Advocates of the treaty seek to give copyright holders the ability to demand that users who do violate intellectual property rights have their Internet connections terminated as a punishment. To enforce such a system would require the creation of an individual Internet ID.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reports:

The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes”/Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers.

The EFF has been vehement in its opposition to ACTA, particularly regarding the secrecy surrounding the treaty negotiations. Likewise, Michael Geist, in writing for Copyright News, asserted that ACTA was “shrouded in secrecy.” He pointed out that ACTA negotiations did not include civil society groups or developing countries, noting also that “reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty’s provisions leaking to the public.”

The European Commission denied this allegations in 2008, arguing, “It is only natural that intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact, do not take place in public and that negotiators are bound by a certain level of discretion.”

As noted on Wikipedia, opponents of ACTA also assert that it will impinge upon freedom of expression and communication privacy. A large number of the World Trade Organization’s 157 members have voiced concerns that the treaty would have a negative impact on trade. Others have pointed out that ACTA does not include provisions for legal safeguards protecting ISPs from liability for the actions of their subscribers. Without such provisions, ISPs will be forced to invade the privacy of their subscribers in order to protect themselves.

Aaron Shaw, research fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, stressed that “ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties.”

The technology news and information website ArsTechnica.com argues that ACTA encourages ISPs to collect and provide information about suspects by providing for those ISPs “safe harbor from certain legal threats.”

In protest against the treaty, the hacktivist group Anonymous hacked into the Federal Trade Commission’s cybersecurity advice website on January 24, replacing the homepage with the Anonymous logo, a rap song, and a message threatening more attacks if anti-piracy legislation in Congress were to pass. According to The Next Web:

The message left temporarily on OnGuardOnline referred to the Stop Online Piracy Act, The Protect Intellectual Property Act and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. If they pass, the message said, "we will wage a relentless war against the corporate Internet, destroying dozens upon dozens of government and company websites."

Both SOPA (in the House) and PIPA (Senate) are bills intended to combat piracy of intellectual property; however, both contain dangerous provisions which would require Internet service providers to block offending sites and search engines. Critics say their passage would amount to virtual censorship of the Internet.

On January 18, thousands of websites, including Reddit and Wikipedia, blacked out in protest against SOPA and PIPA, posting messages urging users to join their protest. Millions of Americans signed the petitions opposing the two bills which circulated throughout the Internet that day. Facebook users nationwide posted messages on their Facebook pages, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who wrote:

The Internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can’t 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.

The world today needs political leaders who are pro-internet. We have been working with many of these folks for months on better alternatives to these current proposals. I encourage you to learn more about these issues and tell your congressmen that you want them to be pro-internet.

As a result of the massive protest staged against both SOPA and PIPA, the two bills have been put on hold indefinitely. However, if ACTA goes into effect, the two bills would be superfluous.

In August, 2010, Washington College of Law in the nation's capital held a Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, which was attended by a number of academics and public interest organizations from six continents. Participants concluded that the “terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.”

In addition, a group of 75 law professors from top law schools around the country signed a letter on October 28, 2010 to President Obama demanding that ACTA be halted and changed.

When the Polish government announced on January 19 that it would be signing the treaty, websites in that country were shut down in much the same way that U.S. websites blacked out in opposition to SOPA and PIPA. Regardless of the opposition of the Polish people, however, Poland's Ambassador to Japan signed the treaty.

Kader Arif, European rapporteur for ACTA, resigned his position on January 26 in opposition to ACTA, declaring, “I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade.”




Obama Tries to Bypass Congress with Deadly Global Internet Treaty ACTA



Oppose Dangerous Global Internet Treaty

In the annals of President Obama’s short reign, many have learned to expect the unexpected. New and innovative processes combined with unconstitutional initiatives are helping the Obama Administration serve its political agenda. Topping the list just might be the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a treaty signed by President Obama on October 1, 2011, and now presented to the American public and Congress as an “executive agreement.”

Although containing many confusing rules and regulations that even the international signers don’t exactly understand, ACTA is basically an international trade agreement or global pact to protect private interests and copyright holders. Like the name implies, though, ACTA combines counterfeiting and piracy, http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/...vil-twin-acta/ which of course are two very different things.

Under ACTA, copyright holders could demand that their intellectual property rights were violated and Internet connections could be terminated for suspects without due process. Even a country like China could demand that an Internet service provider (ISP) in the U.S. be forced to remove content or the website shutdown. In addition, much broader power to search laptops and other devices at global checkpoints would be initiated. It is an Internet censorship measure that would penalize those who innocently share a newspaper article or upload a video with copyrighted music.

But most alarming is the nefarious way in which the legislative process has been circumvented.

While most have never heard of the term “executive agreement,” it has been used quite liberally since the dawn of the 20th century. Most often executive agreements are used in relation to foreign policy. Both FDR and Truman made secret executive agreements at Cairo, Yalta, and Potsdam that greatly impacted the entire world. The bombing of Cambodia and Laos were secret arrangements that also came under the executive agreement label.

Often the ploy is to sign on to international agreements, then force Congress to approve the agreements by resolution in order to meet “international obligations,” that were solidified in secret and without open debate. And that seems to be the case with Obama and ACTA. It’s also an easy way to hide draconian legislation inside these trade agreements which the public routinely turns a blind eye to. With ACTA, Obama could achieve what the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) couldn’t, and that is legitimize dangerous and sweeping intellectual property regulations that would give our government and international governments the keys to the Internet.

Forcing implementation of ACTA is an attempt by Obama to bind the entire nation to international regulations that only Congress is empowered to authorize. Intellectual property and copyright laws are the concern of Congress, so its members should be hopping mad that their role has once again been usurped by the White House. Allowing an executive agreement to trump constitutionally authorized legislative powers is a dangerous precedent and should be challenged and resisted.

Contact your Senators and Representative
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?...svisited=false

and tell them to assert the legislative powers they have been granted by the Constitution by rejecting ACTA and this blatant extension of the Executive Branch’s power. Let them know that they should never support legislation in favor of ACTA, or pass it as a treaty. Right now it seems the only Senator who understands the gravity of the situation is Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) who sent a letter to President Obama on the subject back in 2011 wherein Wyden points out the lack of congressional approval for ACTA.

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/pre...4-a11b35b4ec53

In a preemptive strike, also warn your congressional representatives of the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that is the sequel to ACTA. The TPP is currently being negotiated by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) with Pacific Rim countries. The Obama Administration’s transparency policy for TPP “does not involve any commitments to sharing the text with the general public.” Instead only member countries and the USTR advisory board know the contents of this secret pact that is said to subject whole countries to “fines” for non-compliance.

This is not how Americans should have regulations imposed upon them. Preserve the Internet from global control and censorship by helping to stop ACTA and the TPP now!

Thanks,

Your friends at The John Birch Society

We need your help here please
Calls to Indiana to Stop In-state Tuition

http://www.alipac.us/f9/<font color=...ont>sa-251848/