網絡受襲頻密 港排全球第三

網絡新世代重構傳媒生態

自由抄襲的平台

AppleDaily

Russia's virtual: the new reality?

Russia's blogosphere has until recently been largely written off as a politically blunt parallel space. The Facebook mobilisation of 50,000 protestors has challenged such assumptions, writes Julian Nocetti.

On 3-4 December, an unprecedented wave of cyber-attacks hit independent websites on the parliamentary elections days in Russia, including LiveJournal, the most popular blogging platform in the country, and “Karta Narusheniy”, a crowd-sourcing platform reporting election violations. Despite the attacks, the RuNet is full of reports and videos of election irregularities.

A fortnight earlier, on November 20, the RuNet also played a crucial role in circulating videos of the catcalls Putin received at a wrestling tournament in Moscow. The videos went viral, and were viewed almost 3 million times in just one week; many internet viewers left sarcastic comments. That very evening, the Russian state-controlled television masked the audience’s boos in broadcasts of the event. The main newspapers did not cover the event.

Both episodes are a strong signal that political debate in Russia is moving on to the Internet. Traditional media like television, radio and most of the press are tightly government-controlled or affiliated, and do not challenge the current regime. On the other hand, as of December 2011, nearly 60 million Russians use the Internet on a regular basis. In September, Russia overtook Germany as the country with the highest level of unique Internet users in Europe.

Networks and the public space

In some ways, the Internet has become a full public sphere where citizens can exchange increasingly critical ideas and implement “citizen” projects. During the Egyptian revolution in 2011, people were using blogs and microblogs such as Twitter to form networks, reassuring them that they were not alone in their views. There are certainly signs that this happening in Russia⎯— the collective action groups that sprung up during 2010 summer wildfires were perhaps the first real example of this; organisation ahead of Saturday’s demonstration would be another one. Networks such as these create a common consciousness of public affairs, eventually leading to the creation of a public voice.

'The Russian government has tried to impose its authoritarian style of governance on the horizontal space which is the Internet. This reflects their misunderstanding, not only of the emergence of a networked society, but also of the very nature of the Internet.'

Before Saturday, the “power of networks” in Russia was used mostly at a local level. Blogs were the only way to attract the attention of the authorities and make them act, when usual means do not work due to the total lack of attention of politicians to the population’s daily problems and the level of corruption. To some extent, pragmatic localism better reflects the worries of ordinary people, who place corruption, abuse of privilege and lack of accountability well above authoritarianism on the list of the country’s biggest problems.

Russian authorities are increasingly occupied by the potential for disruption that the Internet embodies.

The Internet has been first of all a factor of differentiation between Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. The “iPhone President” Medvedev has been using the Internet to promote his own modernization agenda; to a certain extent, Medvedev’s enthusiasm for the Internet is a branding exercise. Whereas Putin’s image is closely tied to industry and energy, Medvedev has used technology to distinguish himself and his image from that of his mentor. Indeed, some of the people I have interviewed in the course of my research suggest that the president used the Internet in order to bypass a system of governance in which he has no confidence. Putin, on the other hand, has insisted on the still strong dichotomy between traditional media, and new media. During the Arab Spring, the association of Web 2.0 with a TV channel like Al Jazeera created the ferment of the popular mobilization. The Prime Minister is keen to avoid such a development.

Chinese-style controls

Beyond the two leaders, the Russian government has tried to impose its authoritarian style of governance on the horizontal space which is the Internet. This reflects their misunderstanding, not only of the emergence of a networked society, but also of the very nature of the Internet.

The Minister of Internal Affairs, Rashid Nurgaliev was for a while the most prominent government minister to speak in favor of restrictions on the Internet, but just yesterday FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev echoed his calls, much to the dismay of human rights activists. Likewise, chief prosecutor General Yuri Chaika has also declared that control over social network activity was “necessary in the interest of the protection of civic liberties”. Even Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus Kirill has said that state control over the Internet should be stiffened.

'There is still a big question mark over the political maturity of the Russian population. While in the course of the last month or so, there has been a small shift to more political use, Russians generally remain profoundly indifferent towards politics⎯which is perpetuated online.'

Authorities have been very concerned about the internet communication tools over which it has no control. Earlier this year, for example, the FSB announced that Skype, Gmail and Hotmail ought to be banned in Russia simply because they were beyond the control of the secret services. The government’s reactivity is also visible on a legal level, with an abundance of tenders from state organs. In April, the government’s spokesman instructed experts to study foreign experience in Internet control. In October, the Ministry of Justice made public a tender for the acquisition of an online monitoring system that would compile reports on the information posted about the Minister, the President and the Prime Minister. Finally, Roskomnadzor, Russian Federal Service for Telecoms Supervision, announced a public tender for developing an Internet monitoring system.

These declarations and initiatives at the highest level of the state would indicate that tougher regulation of web content is already underway. That said, the authorities’ nervousness towards the Internet should possibly be read more as the expression of anxiety and misinterpretation of what the Internet is, rather than a will to establish wholesale online censorship.

The Russian spring?

Many parallels have been made between the Arab Spring revolutions and Russia’s domestic situation at election time. Personally, I would regard enthusiastic arguments about the Internet as a means for driving political change in Russia with some skepticism. The increasing polarization between TV audiences and Internet audiences tempers this idea. Most Russians who follow political reporting and debate online are part of the young urban elite, the politically engaged, and journalists who work for the independent press. On the other side, an offline mass of older, poorer and largely conservative people consume state-controlled TV. The latter segment of the population goes en masse to the ballot box. While there are individuals who have become famous through Internet activism in Russia, this is restricted to a small number, whose real political impact can be questioned. Alexey Navalny, an anti-corruption campaigner has become a cause célèbre in the West, yet before the election, only 6% of Russians know his name. However, more than 30% of those asked had heard his most famous maxim: United Russia, the party of swindlers and thieves. [data from the Levada Centre]

'It is likely that in the months ahead we will be witnessing more in the way of a counter-influence campaign online by pro-Putin cohorts and the increased use of “extremist” laws to harass critically-minded bloggers.'

There is still a big question mark over the political maturity of the Russian population. In Russia, like in most of the world, the Internet is above all used for entertainment and/or professional purposes. While in the course of the last month or so, there has been a small shift to more political use, Russians generally remain profoundly indifferent towards politics⎯which is perpetuated online. Before the elections, this indifference was cultivated by the authorities, who considered that Internet users inhabited a politically blunt “parallel universe”. Even opposition politician Vladimir Milov talked about an “apolitical Internet”. The authorities prioritized a policy of containment, restricting dissenting opinions to the Internet, first by favoring the development of new digital technologies, then by deploying proactive efforts to steer online conversations.

Anxiety over the elections seems to have triggered a change in approach, and it is certainly likely that in the months ahead we will be witnessing more in the way of a counter-influence campaign online by pro-Putin cohorts (e.g. Nashi), and the increased use of “extremist” laws to harass critically-minded bloggers. How social networks which “gave the floor” to oppositional voices on the day of voting at the parliamentary elections (LiveJournal, VKontakte) will respond to the inevitable increased pressure from FSB will also be of great interest.

Facebook Censorship 2.0 (by American Activist)

As an 8 year Veteran of Online Activism, as well as actually organizing protests (G-Summits: G7, G8, G20, crashing a Vice-Presidential Speech ”Dick Cheney”, University revolts in Paris France, Impeach Bush Protests, #Occupy World, etc…), I thought I would discuss online Censorship; especially pertaining to Facebook.

I created Anarchadia in 2010, to try and fight Mainstream Disinformation by Spin Doctors; and it worked well for a year. We were getting loads of feedback, people all over Facebook were hearing of our endeavors.

Then one day, our profile was deleted, under new Facebook Guidelines, which forced you to be an actual person, in order to have and maintain a Facebook Profile (which Facebook can change on a whim without any respect for their 800,000,000 clients. They don’t even have a Customer Service to complain, except for Law Enforcement who has a direct line on their Hotline #).There is also the fact, that many Organizations and Companies, were still creating Friend Profiles, and were not forced to delete. Everyone at the time said it was normal. I didn’t find it normal, but I decided to ignore.

Luckily, I had saved our Facebook Profile Information, before they deleted the Ask Anarchadia Profile we had. But I did think of all those people who had not. They lost precious information, maybe. Ask Anarchadia had people behind it; we used it to communicate with close Friends and acquaintances (just like the guidelines said), and everything Anarchadia did was Non-Profit, and totally Underground. So I dismissed the fact that Facebook had just targeted thousands of Activist Pages, not even crazy Religious/Fascist/Bigot Activist pages; I am talking about real censorship on Anarcho-Pacifist Organizers. Do you remember when Michael Moore said in 9/11, Homeland Security was targeting Anarcho-Pacifists.Real Censorship on intelligent action, and underground movements.

But as I said before, my first instinct was to refute any sort of paranoid thinking.

Then one of our close friends Wiki Junky got her account deleted, just for helping us spread, truthful, intelligent information, to our Friends. Wiki is now a commited volunteer (and we got a bit more credibility since our account had been directly attacked) there wasn’t only a negative side, to this story.

So I forgot that Homeland Security has over 50,000 people acting as real people, spreading distorted information. And most of America did the same; it was at a time, when most people, still thought Obama was the Real-Deal-Socialist-Selfless-Helper of the poor, he said he was. There was this sort of illusion still permeating in the air, that all of George Bush’s Policies were passé. I also couldn’t complain, because Facebook had turned my Profile into a Like Page (after deleting all of our personal/public Information; and since we only published our information on Facebook, it was a severe blow). But that was another Catch 22. There is a reason for Like Pages and Profile Pages on Facebook; and it goes far beyond, the naive thought, that Facebook is just: “trying to help”. You have to pay for a Like Page to be shared by Facebook (unless you are advertised externally; which is hard to do when you have no funds, and are only specialized in Geo-Politics, not Web Designing), with a profile page Facebook advertises your profile for free.

If you don’t have the right to make loads of activist friends, or spread the truth on Facebook, then who must these “Friend Profiles” be for?

Allow me to say this before, you consider my answer:

There is a Myth around Facebook which obscures most of the truth, just like the most expensive Public Relations Campaigns do; with such agility and finess.The idea is that Facebook is made up of complex Algorithyms, which allow us to communicate better (True). There is also the factor of being censored by your peers (True), and also forced to follow Facebook Guidelines (whatever they might become, once public opinion believes Facebook is an Angel from Heaven: just like Americans used to associate Coca Cola with Santa Claus and not Cancer). And worst of all, if Facebook is caught censoring you, they can say it was an accident, remember the “Automatic Algorithms”?

So what would stop, a Facebook Homeland Security Joint Task Force? And who would that force be truely paid to protect? Individual Rights? Or a Malevolently-Greed-Enthusiastic Corporation’s Rights? Probably the latter one, just like Obama, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, Judge Napolitano, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton did… or sold out to. Could Facebook also be enforcing the CIA/World Bank/Corporate Agenda? Since the 1950′s the CIA and World Bank have been backing Right-Wing Coups, corrupting Government Officials, Terrorists, and Dictators (most of whom trained on American soil, in our infamous School of the Americas), in order to quench the insatiable thirst of 1st World Corporations.

You don’t see very many Right wing extremists being censored on Facebook, I have seen some pretty horrific things, in my time browsing the site. It seems more to me as if Facebook doesn’t censor ignorance; it censors valuable information for those who have no interests in the corrupt values/methods/ideologies our Corporatocracy employs; those people are the ones getting censored. So the War is still between the Haves and Have nots. And that can’t change as long as there are those who have, and the rest. I’m sure if you work for a Corporation you are probably furious at this article, and will paste it somewhere in the paranoid conspiracies section of your brain. But what if we were all debt slaves, being lead toward Corporate Fascism, would you still dismiss it?

Nato/ U.S Military have killed more than 30,000,000 people, since 1949. In the past 10 years, the Nato Forces have killed over 1,033,000 (only counting the Middle East), versus the 3500 Al Qaeda has killed. Over-Population? 2012 Conspiracies? You mean the current genocide, of South American Indigenous tribes? And don’t even mention the Taliban, because we know exactly who put them in Afghanistan in the first place.The gap between the rich and the poor has never been so great. And International Bankers would love you to keep believing everything happens by chance, especially when they are pulling strings, to solely satisfy their own personal greed.

So, If you don’t have the right to make loads of activist friends, or spread the truth on Facebook, then who must it be for?

The Corporations of course! Facebook is about making money (for the few), and lots of it. Just like the U.S Military, Federal Reserve, and every other Country’s Centralized/International Banker controlled/ Privatized Monetary Systems. Don’t trust Mr. Zuckerberg one second, when he boasts about being a humble and down to earth type of guy. A humble person doesn’t rob an idea from several people, to then monopolize, and censor positive Activism.

And its absolutely your decision to dismiss this article as Paranoid Conspiracy or simply as an observation.

By: John McCarthy

Further Links:

http://www.change.org/petitions/facebook-give-the-people-true-freedom-to-share

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Government_censorship

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Social-Network-Censorship/145984358805461

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=246493818715378&set=a.238215772876516.69311.237744256257001&type=3&theater

Julian Assange: iPhone, Blackberry and Gmail users are 'screwed' - video

WikilLeaks founder Julian Assange tells smartphone and Gmail users 'you're all screwed' by intelligence contractors who sell mass surveillance devices for such technologies in the post 9/11 world. He also announced that his whistleblowing organisation was embarking on a new 'source protection platform'

LINK

Stallman: Facebook IS Mass Surveillance

RT LINK

The father of free software philosophy spoke to RT on evil developers, spying social networks, the almost-legitimacy of Anonymous hacks and the condition under which he would take a proprietary program and a million dollars.

Stallman is the man behind the concept that every computer program must be free for users to study and modify as they want. This is the only way to ensure that by using the software users do not compromise their human rights, he says.

“Free software literally gives you freedom in the area of computing. It means that you can control your computing. It means that the users individually and collectively have control over their computing. And in particular it means they can protect themselves from the malicious features that are likely to be in proprietary software,” he told RT.

“This doesn’t automatically give you freedom in some other area of life. To get that you have to fight for it. But human rights support each other. In an age when a lot of what we do, we do with computers, if we don’t have freedom in our computing, that makes it harder for us to defend or fight for freedom in other areas. You lose one set of rights – and it’s harder for you to keep the others.”

There are many ways how people can be stripped of their freedom through the software they use. One of the latest examples is the scandal with Carrier IQ’s software, which is being accused of logging every keystroke on devices, which run it.

“This is an example of malicious features in non-free software. Those mobile phones are being run by non-free software, so it’s no surprise that they have malicious features in them. The most commonly used non-free programs do,” Stallman sadly pointed out.

Another example is Facebook’s data-mining activities, which includes massive spying on people browsing the internet.

“Facebook does massive surveillance. If there is a ‘like’ button in a page, Facebook knows who visited that page. And it can get IP address of the computer visiting the page even if the person is not a Facebook user. So you visit several pages that have ‘like’ button and Facebook knows that you visited all of those, even if it doesn’t really know who you are,” he said.

But the public awareness of the danger is rising, and they start resisting it. For instance, operations of the Anonymous hacker group are basically an online version of protest demos, Stallman says.

“The Anonymous protests for the most part work by having a lot of people send a lot of commands to a website, that it can’t handle so many requests. This is equivalent of a crowd of people going to the door of a building and having a protest on the street. It’s basically legitimate. And when people object to this, let’s look at who they are and what they do. Usually they are people who are doing much worse things,” he believes.

Another vivid example is the rise of pirate parties in Europe, which have started winning seats in elected bodies there.

“I more-or-less agree with their positions and I’m glad to see that these issues are becoming election issues. I don’t necessarily endorse pirate parties because to do that I would have to know what all the other parties are and these are not the only issues I think are important. For instance, putting a limit on global heating is extremely important. Many pirate parties don’t take a position on that. So I might choose to support a green party instead,” he said.

At the same time Stallman points out that many people endorse piracy for absolutely wrong reasons. They want to have a right to use proprietary software free of charge, while they should not to it at all.

“Why is it bad to use an unauthorized copy of a proprietary program? Because it’s proprietary! So an unauthorized copy is almost as nasty as an authorized copy of the same program. They are both nasty because they are proprietary. The users don’t have control over them. If they pay developer – that makes it worse, because they are rewarding this delinquency. That’s why the authorized copy is worse. But they are both bad because they are both proprietary software. If you want freedom, you have to get rid of them both, because they both control you,” he explained.

“I don’t use that software. If you offered me an authorized copy and you wanted to pay me a million dollars to take it, I still wouldn’t take it, unless I could throw it away immediately. Yeah – if I could take the million dollars and throw away the program, then I would say yes,” Stallman added.

The visionary says the shrinking of software development industry, should that be caused by wider introduction of free software, would be absolutely irrelevant in the face of the benefit would bring.

“Who cares? What good is a so-called industry that’s creating tools to subjugate people? I won’t use the non-free software at all! I dedicate my effort to getting away from it! So if they stop making it – that would be great! I wish they would. I hope for the day when they won’t make non-free software anymore,” he said.

Certainly, such a turn of events may damage innovative industries, but Stallman says the direction where software development heads now harms it more anyway.

“With software patents the US has become a dangerous place for software development, including innovative software development, because when a program is innovative, that means it has some new ideas in it. But it also has lots of well-known ideas in it. A large program combines thousands of ideas. So if you have some new ideas and you want to use them, in order to use them you have to combine them with a lot of other ideas that are well-known. And if you are not allowed to do that because those other ideas are patented, you can’t use your new idea,” he explained.

For answers to your questions asked via Twitter and Facebook, watch the full video version of the interview.

Also don’t miss RT’s Spotlight program on December 17, in which Richard Stallman elaborated on his convictions and activism.

鍵盤戰線對《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》的聲明

鍵盤戰線對《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》的聲明

鑑於最近兩天《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》有最新進展，政府發言人指不打算在修訂版權條例時豁免二次創作，企圖先通過修例，待明年再就豁免戲仿作品諮詢公眾。就此，本組織對此惡法作出鄭重聲明：

1. 政府強硬通過惡法，製造白色恐怖
   至今，修訂草案仍未有明確指引及對二次創作的共識便希望強硬通過修訂，版權修訂原意為保護創作人，打擊盜版，在未有最具切身關係的創作人認同前，卻以有迫切性為由企圖強迫全港市民就範，簡直本末倒置。
   版權條例諮詢立法週期往往需四、五年，於這些年間，市民想小創作也要思量一番，只能處於白色恐怖的環境中，法例不單未能保護市民的使用權與平衡創作業界的利益，更直接損害市民的創作權利，這法律只會淪為打壓異見工具，並非保護市民。
   
2. 二次創作是具有高價值的創作，亦不會侵害原作者利益
   草案委員會主席陳鑑林說得一點都沒錯，市民「有本事就自己創作」，所以才會有大批有本事的市民都積極參與二次創作。
   
   大部份惡搞都沒有賺錢，又或是與原作品處於不同市場，絕對談不上侵害到原作者權利，若以保障原作者利益為由立法，根本站不住腳。
   
   而惡搞是二次創作的一種，把某種事物賦予新的意義，並非純粹抄襲其他作品。現今國際不少知名創作品，其實都是二次創作，國際上一向認可二次創作，早前著名電影商VIACOM更在旗下網站設「惡搞專區」， 既能吸納創意，更可羅致創作專才，而且作品更可為原作品提升宣傳效益。
   
   加 上，二次創作的作品，不少已脫離原作品產生的效應，它擁有與原作品不同效應、市場、意思，原作品的版權持有人控制一個與原作截然不同作品的版權，實在不合 理。事實上，二次創作根本難以侵權，修改法例阻止一切二次創作正正與特區政府大力推動的「創意」相違背，必須豁免二次創作，強行通過修訂才再作出咨詢，是 漠視民意的行為。
   
3. 實務守則侵害網民私隱
   根據實務守則， OSP(服務提供者)須按投訴人要求移除疑似侵權內容，並提醒被投訴的用戶有權尋求獨立法律意見或直接聯絡投訴人。用戶可發出「異議通知」抗辯，但必須填寫姓名、地址及電話號碼，再由 OSP轉 交投訴人，否則異議無效。如有人有心控告，普通網民便會陷入言論自由與個人私隱的兩難，全體網民也會隨之公然受害，本組織憂慮此舉將造成寒蟬效應。當網站 接到侵權投訴時，不把貼文影音下架當然要負起連帶責任，但上載發貼人如欲抗辯，也不應被逼獻上個人私隱資料予投訴人，最起碼不是在法庭受理案件前奉上個人 資料。加上，「安全港」制度 一旦實施，配合「貶損處理」，任何有錢有勢力的人士都可對他不利的言論進行上網大清洗，大行白色恐怖，這直接令網民私隱完全沒有保障。
   
4. 不應設立刑事罪行，侵權與否只應由版權持有人判斷
   民 事罪行是由受害人控告的，只是被告與受害人中間有衝突或損害；刑事罪行則由律政司控告，被告所犯的是傷害社會的事，與社會為敵。現政府卻欲把版權條例修訂 至設立刑責，把二次創作歸為與社會為敵的事，但設立版權條例終目的應該是保護版權持有人，在過去不少領域裏，有些版權持有人明白二次創作與原創作共生互利 之道，不提出侵權起訴，例如日本漫畫與同人誌等等。二次創作不但對版權持有者沒有任何金錢或名譽上的傷害，更為原創作賦予新的意義，大家互惠互利，更不談 上傷害。版權持有者不認為二次創作或轉載作品是侵權行為時，第三者更加沒有理由提出控告，根本沒有必要設立刑事罪行，創作是否侵權只有版權持有者能作出判 斷。

就以上幾點，本組織強烈反對《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》的強硬通過，並擔憂此惡法的通過會變成往後政府強行立法的案例，為香港的司法及民主道路帶來極深影響。本組織要求草委會必先理解創作的意義及獲得市民共識，強硬立法只會適得其反，令市民大力反抗。

LINK