Lieberman Has Power To Shut Down Websites With A Phone Call
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Senator Joe Lieberman, the man behind legislation to give President Obama a kill switch for the Internet in the move towards a Chinese-style government controlled world wide web, now has the power to shut down websites with a mere phone call, as was underscored yesterday when Amazon axed Wikileaks from its servers after being pressured to do so by Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The revelation that Amazon had killed Wikileaks after the controversial whistle blower organization moved over its servers to Amazon’s cloud network came directly from Lieberman himself, stating that the, “Decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material.”
The decision was made after Lieberman’s staffers called Amazon to pressure the company to axe Wikileaks. “Committee staff had seen news reports yesterday that Wikileaks was being hosted on Amazon’s servers,” reports TPM. “Staffers then, according to the spokeswoman, Leslie Phillips, called Amazon to ask about it, and left questions with a press secretary including, “Are there plans to take the site down?”
Amazon later called back Lieberman’s office to tell them that they had taken down the website. Amazon claimed the take down was because Wikileaks had violated its terms of service, but as TPM’s Rachel Slajda points out, this was a somewhat nebulous reason.
“(Amazon’s) terms of acceptable use include a ban on illegal activities (it’s not yet clear whether Wikileaks has broken any laws) and content “that may be harmful to our users, operations, or reputation.” It also prohibits using Amazon’s servers “to violate the security or integrity of any network, computer or communications system,” although Wikileaks obviously obtained the cables long before hopping on Amazon’s servers.”
“Funny how Amazon spent days loudly refusing to delete a pedophile guidebook on free speech grounds, but this happened behind the scenes and the company is refusing to comment,” writes Rob Beschizza.
Wikileaks also responded to the shut down by slamming Amazon for its apparent disdain for free speech, tweeting, “If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books.”
The London Guardian notes that the website was pulled after “US political pressure”.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Stock up for the Holidays with eFoods Direct and get FREE Shipping!
Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston labeled Amazon’s decision to kill the website “disappointing,” adding that “pressure” from Lieberman’s office or any other authority serves to “limit the materials the American public has a First Amendment right to access.”
The fact that Lieberman has concentrated such power within the purview of Homeland Security and now wields it by intimidating hosting companies to take down websites with no due course or legal process is particularly alarming given his recent odious public statements concerning free speech and the web.
As we have documented, Lieberman’s vision for the Internet is less of an information superhighway and more of a government-controlled sanitized clone of cable television, where the web is purged entirely of dissent in a system even more draconian than that employed by the Communist Chinese.
The Senator has been vehemently pushing efforts to provide President Barack Obama the power to shut down the Internet with a figurative flick of a switch, and has made it clear that his Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act is about big government deciding who can say what on the web.
“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley earlier this year.
However, China’s “war” is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, it’s against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. China’s system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns as Lieberman well knows. It’s a system concentrated around state oppression of any individual or group that seeks to use the Internet to draw attention to political causes frowned upon by the authorities.
China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse of its citizens.
This is what Lieberman envisions for the future of the Internet in the United States, a highly regulated, state-controlled forum where the government can shut down websites it disapproves of on a whim, as is already being done by Homeland Security without court order in dozens of cases this week alone.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
Have You Heard The News? - Prison Planet.tv is Going Supernova! - Don't Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/privacy-do-not-track-federal-trade-commission-report.html
The business and culture of our digital lives,
from the L.A. Times
Federal regulators call for Do Not Track option for consumers as part of a long-awaited online privacy report
December 1, 2010 | 9:04 am
The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday backed the creation of a Do Not Track option -- similar to the popular Do Not Call registry for people who want to avoid telemarketers -- to allow consumers to protect their privacy as they use the Web.
The recommendation, which would require congressional action, comes in a lengthy and long-awaited draft report entitled "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change." The report comes as lawmakers and regulators are focusing increased attention on privacy amid the rapid growth of social networks, mobile Web surfing and other online activity.
Many websites collect data from people, including past searches and sites visited, and share that data with advertisers who use it to target online pitches. Those pitches are known as behavioral advertising because they are tailored to a person's behavior.
"Consumers live in a world where information about their purchasing behavior, online browsing habits, and other online and offline activity is collected, analyzed, combined, used, and shared, often instantaneously and invisibly,'' the FTC said.
The agency said that "long, incomprehensible privacy policies that consumers typically don't read, let alone understand" are not the answer.
Neither are voluntary industry efforts, such as the tool offered by the Network Advertising Initiative to allow consumers to opt out of behavioral advertising offered by its members, which include Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Those efforts have "fallen short," the FTC said.
Consumers need to be able to easily choose if they want to prevent websites from collecting information about them, the FTC said.
-- Jim Puzzanghera
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958566
The recommendation, which would require congressional action, comes in a lengthy and long-awaited draft report entitled "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change." The report comes as lawmakers and regulators are focusing increased attention on privacy amid the rapid growth of social networks, mobile Web surfing and other online activity.
Many websites collect data from people, including past searches and sites visited, and share that data with advertisers who use it to target online pitches. Those pitches are known as behavioral advertising because they are tailored to a person's behavior.
"Consumers live in a world where information about their purchasing behavior, online browsing habits, and other online and offline activity is collected, analyzed, combined, used, and shared, often instantaneously and invisibly,'' the FTC said.
The agency said that "long, incomprehensible privacy policies that consumers typically don't read, let alone understand" are not the answer.
Neither are voluntary industry efforts, such as the tool offered by the Network Advertising Initiative to allow consumers to opt out of behavioral advertising offered by its members, which include Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Those efforts have "fallen short," the FTC said.
Consumers need to be able to easily choose if they want to prevent websites from collecting information about them, the FTC said.
"One way to facilitate consumer choice is to provide it in a uniform and comprehensiveThe FTC's report comes as the Commerce Department is also preparing a report about online privacy, expected to be released later this month. Protecting online privacy has bipartisan appeal, and a House subcommittee will hold a hearing Thursday looking at whether Congress should require a Do Not Track option for consumers.
way.... The most practical method of providing such universal choice
would likely involve the placement of a persistent setting, similar to a cookie, on the consumer’s browser signaling the consumer’s choices about being tracked and receiving targeted ads. Commission staff supports this approach, sometimes referred to as 'Do Not Track.' "
-- Jim Puzzanghera
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958566
Clintons' InfoUSA Ties Scrutinized
Political campaigns spend thousands, even millions of dollars to acquire good mailing lists.
Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.
It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.
"As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently."
There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year.
Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price.
According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list. A political consultant suggested that the list broker's unidentified client could have rented the list as a sample one — to do a test-run mailing.
But most intriguing of all was the renter of the Clinton list: a list brokerage company that is a subsidiary of one of the data-collection industry titans, Info U.S.A.
Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.
Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons, and gave $1 million for the 2000 Millennium Celebration, a New Year's Party thrown by the Clintons.
When he was president, Bill Clinton named Gupta to the Kennedy Center board of directors. Gupta also got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. He gave another million to the Clinton Presidential Library.
The library is run by the National Archives, but Bill Clinton raised the money for its construction and always refused to identify his major donors.
Last fall, ABC News reported that the library rented out a portion of its donor list to a list broker — the same one that rented Hillary Clinton's campaign lists.
Gupta spent $900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various destinations. The Clinton campaign said in May that Info U.S.A. had been reimbursed to comply with federal campaigning and ethics rules.
After the Clintons left the White House, Gupta hired Bill Clinton as a consultant. It's one of two continuing business relationships he has had since leaving office, and it has been worth $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock.
When challenged about that outlay of cash to the former president, Gupta has said Clinton is worth $40 million to the company.
Kevin Starke is a stock analyst in Connecticut who follows Gupta's company.
"If it were me, and I had hired Bill Clinton to the tune of $3 million, I think I would try to make a fairly distinct case for why that was money well spent, and I'm not entirely clear on why he hasn't done so," Starke said.
The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors.
There are plenty of other allegations in the suit about homes, cars, and a yacht for Gupta. A Delaware chancery court judge dismissed some of the allegations involving the Clintons. But the case is still proceeding. It has led to an informal inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is also asking if Gupta misspent corporate funds.
"It's not a company that's threatened with bankruptcy or anything like that. It needs probably to be run with more of a view toward generating value for all shareholders, and not just the main shareholder," Starke said.
Info U.S.A. did not respond to interview requests this week.
The Clinton campaign said Wednesday that the lists were rented out by her 2006 Senate campaign committee — and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January.
That would mean the rental fees went unpaid for at least 11 months. Starke, the analyst, cites Info U.S.A. data showing that on average, it settles accounts within 64 days.
Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.
It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.
"As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently."
There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year.
Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price.
According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list. A political consultant suggested that the list broker's unidentified client could have rented the list as a sample one — to do a test-run mailing.
But most intriguing of all was the renter of the Clinton list: a list brokerage company that is a subsidiary of one of the data-collection industry titans, Info U.S.A.
Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.
Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons, and gave $1 million for the 2000 Millennium Celebration, a New Year's Party thrown by the Clintons.
When he was president, Bill Clinton named Gupta to the Kennedy Center board of directors. Gupta also got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. He gave another million to the Clinton Presidential Library.
The library is run by the National Archives, but Bill Clinton raised the money for its construction and always refused to identify his major donors.
Last fall, ABC News reported that the library rented out a portion of its donor list to a list broker — the same one that rented Hillary Clinton's campaign lists.
Gupta spent $900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various destinations. The Clinton campaign said in May that Info U.S.A. had been reimbursed to comply with federal campaigning and ethics rules.
After the Clintons left the White House, Gupta hired Bill Clinton as a consultant. It's one of two continuing business relationships he has had since leaving office, and it has been worth $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock.
When challenged about that outlay of cash to the former president, Gupta has said Clinton is worth $40 million to the company.
Kevin Starke is a stock analyst in Connecticut who follows Gupta's company.
"If it were me, and I had hired Bill Clinton to the tune of $3 million, I think I would try to make a fairly distinct case for why that was money well spent, and I'm not entirely clear on why he hasn't done so," Starke said.
The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors.
There are plenty of other allegations in the suit about homes, cars, and a yacht for Gupta. A Delaware chancery court judge dismissed some of the allegations involving the Clintons. But the case is still proceeding. It has led to an informal inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is also asking if Gupta misspent corporate funds.
"It's not a company that's threatened with bankruptcy or anything like that. It needs probably to be run with more of a view toward generating value for all shareholders, and not just the main shareholder," Starke said.
Info U.S.A. did not respond to interview requests this week.
The Clinton campaign said Wednesday that the lists were rented out by her 2006 Senate campaign committee — and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January.
That would mean the rental fees went unpaid for at least 11 months. Starke, the analyst, cites Info U.S.A. data showing that on average, it settles accounts within 64 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment