Saudi Terror Funding

SUBHEAD: 'Sensitive' United Kingdom terror funding inquiry report may never be published.

By Jessica Elgot on 31 May 2017 for the Guardian -
(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/sensitive-uk-terror-funding-inquiry-findings-may-never-be-published-saudi-arabia)


Image above: Theresa May with crown prince Muhammad bin Nayef during her visit to Saudi Arabia in April. From original article.

An investigation into the foreign funding and support of jihadi groups that was authorized by David Cameron may never be published, the Home Office has admitted. That investigation into foreign funding and support of jihadi groups operating in UK is understood to focus on Saudi Arabia.

The inquiry into revenue streams for extremist groups operating in the UK was commissioned by the former prime minister and is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which has repeatedly been highlighted by European leaders as a funding source for Islamist jihadis.

The investigation was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Islamic State into Syria in December 2015.

Tom Brake, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, has written to the prime minister asking her to confirm that the investigation will not be shelved.

The Observer reported in January last year that the Home Office’s extremism analysis unit had been directed by Downing Street to investigate overseas funding of extremist groups in the UK, with findings to be shown to Theresa May, then home secretary, and Cameron.

However, 18 months later, the Home Office confirmed the report had not yet been completed and said it would not necessarily be published, calling the contents “very sensitive”.

A decision would be taken “after the election by the next government” about the future of the investigation, a Home Office spokesman said.

In his letter to May, Brake wrote: “As home secretary at the time, your department was one of those leading on the report. Eighteen months later, and following two horrific terrorist attacks by British-born citizens, that report still remains incomplete and unpublished.

“It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hardline Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes root.
”
The contents of the report may prove politically as well as legally sensitive. Saudi Arabia, which has been a funding source for fundamentalist Islamist preachers and mosques, was visited by May earlier this year.

Last December, a leaked report from Germany’s federal intelligence service accused several Gulf groups of funding religious schools and radical Salafist preachers in mosques, calling it “a long-term strategy of influence”.

The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said he felt the government had not held up its side of the bargain made ahead of the vote on airstrikes. The report must be published when it was completed, he insisted, despite the Home Office caution that information in the document would be sensitive.

“That short-sighted approach needs to change. It is critical that these extreme, hardline views are confronted head on, and that those who fund them are called out publicly,” he said.

“If the Conservatives are serious about stopping terrorism on our shores, they must stop stalling and reopen investigation into foreign funding of violent extremism in the UK.”

.

Freedom of speech threatened

SUBHEAD: Italy urges Europe to begin censoring free speech on the internet. US to attack "Fake News".

By Tyler Durden on 30 December 2016 for Zero Hedge-
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet)


Image above: 'Invasion of the Fake News" mashup from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". The war on "Fake News" is all about censoring real news. From (http://truepundit.com/the-war-on-fake-news-is-all-about-censoring-real-news/).

First it was the US, then Germany blamed much of what is wrong in society on "fake news", and not, say, a series of terrible decisions made by politicians.

Now it is Italy's turn to call for an end to "fake news", which in itself would not be troubling, however, the way Giovanni Pitruzzella, head of the Italian competition body, demands the European Union "cracks down" on what it would dub "fake news" is nothing short of a total crackdown on all free speech, and would give local governments free reign to silence any outlet that did not comply with the establishment propaganda.

In an interview with the FT, Pitruzzella said the regulation of false information on the internet was best done by the state rather than by social media companies such as Facebook, an approach taken previously by Germany, which has demanded that Facebook end "hate speech" and has threatened to find the social network as much as €500K per "fake" post.

Pitruzzella, head of the Italian competition body since 2011, said "EU countries should set up independent bodies — co-ordinated by Brussels and modeled on the system of antitrust agencies — which could quickly label fake news, remove it from circulation and impose fines if necessary."

In other words, a series of unelected bureaucrats, unaccountable to anyone, would sit down and between themselves decide what is and what isn't "fake news", and then, drumroll, "remove it from circulation."

On the other hand, coming one week after Obama give Europe the green light to engage in any form of censorship and halt of free speech that it desires, when the outgoing US president voted into law the  "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act", it should come as no surprise that a suddenly emboldened Europe is resorting to such chilling measures.

So with Europe on the verge of rolling out unbridled censorship, here is the strawman used to justify it.

“Post-truth in politics is one of the drivers of populism and it is one of the threats to our democracies,” Pitruzzella told the FT. “We have reached a fork in the road: we have to choose whether to leave the internet like it is, the wild west, or whether it needs rules that appreciate the way communication has changed. I think we need to set those rules and this is the role of the public sector.”

Translation: it will soon be up to Brussles to decide what content on the Internet is appropriate for broad European consumption, because unless a bureaucrat intervenes "fake news" will lead to even more populism and not, say, years of failed political reform, and central bank decisions.

In short, it's all the internet's fault that Europe's legacy political system is reeling from an unprecedented anti-establishment backlash, which has nothing to do with, well, anything else.

As the FT notes, Pitruzzella’s call comes amid growing concern over the impact of fake news on politics in western democracies, including in this year’s UK Brexit vote and the US election.

In Germany, which faces parliamentary elections in 2017, the government is planning a law that would impose fines of up to €500,000 on social media companies for distributing fake news.

Allies of Matteo Renzi, the former prime minister, have also complained that fake news contributed to his defeat in the December referendum on constitutional reform, which led to his resignation, even though he lost by a wide 20-percentage point margin. At least they haven't blamed Russian hackers... yet.

So even assuming limiting free speech is the answer, why not force potential offenders to companies to police themselves?

Well, according to Pitruzzella it would be inappropriate to leave this task to social media self-regulation. “Platforms like Facebook have created great benefits for people and customers: they are doing their part as an economic entity in adopting policies to modify their algorithms to reduce this phenomenon”, he said. “But it is not the job of a private entity to control information.

This is historically the job of public powers. They have to guarantee that information is correct. We cannot delegate this completely.”

We know of at least one Italian who would agree.

And just like the person shown above, Pitruzzella dismissed concerns that setting up state agencies to monitor fake news would introduce a form of censorship, saying people could “continue using a free and open internet”... as long as all the members of the "open" internet agreed with what the agencies determined to be true and undisputed. But he said there would be a benefit in that there would be a public “third party” — independent of the government — to “intervene quickly if public interests were harmed”.

At the moment, the only way that fake news can be tackled — at least in Italy — is through the judicial system, which is notoriously clunky. “Speed is a critical element,” Pitruzzella said, so what is the solution? Why a Ministry of Truth of course.

The anti-establishment Five Star Movement is often labelled as the main facilitator of fake news in Italy, through the blog of its founder, the comedian Beppe Grillo, and a network of other websites affiliated to the party.

But Pitruzzella declined to cite them as the main culprits. “I don’t know if this is true, I would not want to criticise anyone, not even the Five Star Movement. But I believe that if there aren’t any rules then many can take advantage of this.”

Of course, once free speech is censored, Pitruzzella will have no problem with no only criticizing anyone who disagrees with him, but promptly shutting down their freedom of speech on the net.

---

Obama, DOD and Free Speech

By Claire Bernish on 24 December 2016 for Free Thought Project -
(http://thefreethoughtproject.com/distraction-obama-propaganda-provision-law/)


Image above: Source of US government propaganda includes "Fake News" in Mainstream Media. The FaceBook response on December 15th 2016 was announcement it will begin censoring stories they feel constitute "Fake News". From (http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/zuckerberg-announces-facebook-will-now-begin-censoring-stories-feel-constitute-fake-news/).

Using the cover of the holidays and distracted attention, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law Friday evening — just two days before many Americans celebrate Christmas — perhaps because it contains ominously Orwellian language meant to “counter propaganda and disinformation directed at the United States.”

Although the NDAA’s true purpose is to fund the military, notorious provisions — particularly of the variety which erase yet more freedoms — are often added to the overall legislation. In this case, the propaganda and disinformation provisions mentioned above had been attempted in a stand-alone bill which remains stalled in Congress — partly due to scathing criticism and unpopularity from wary politicians.

And that seems justifiable, given legitimate parallels drawn to 1950s McCarthyism and the Red Scare.
According to the text of the $619 billion bill, the Secretaries of State and Defense and other pertinent officials will be tasked with creating an innocuous-sounding “Global Engagement Center.”

“The purpose of the Center,”states the text, “shall be to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests.”

In actuality, however, countering propaganda amounts to silencing dissenting opinion — particularly in the press — of anything deemed shining a favorable light on one of the many countries the U.S. considers a foe.

Such as Russia — which has been the target of choice for blame concerning the election of Donald Trump.&

But it could also be a vehicle to initiate censorship of independent and alternative media for reporting on corruption — rife in the Democrat establishment and corporate press — as exposed by documents published by Wikileaks.

It also means creating and furthering propaganda of the American government — because, theoretically, you can’t combat foreign agitprop without filling the void with something convincing and favorable to governmental agendas.

As text of the new law explains, the center will “support the development and dissemination of fact-based narratives and analysis to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at the United States and United States allies and partner nations.”

Many of the Global Engagement Center’s duties concern targeting disinformation and propaganda being disseminated in other nations; however, it subtly suggests the effort would seek to prevent such content from reaching the United States — thus, domestic actions are, by no means, ruled out.

Indeed, as the law states:

“The Center is authorized to provide grants or contracts of financial support to civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions for the following purposes:

• To collect and store examples in print, online, and social media, disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies and partners.
• To analyze and report on tactics, techniques, and procedures of foreign information warfare with respect to disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda.
• To support efforts by the Center to counter efforts by foreign entities to use disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda to influence the policies and social and political stability of the United States and United States allies and partner nations.

Seeming at least somewhat innoxious, had the law been passed in a vacuum, the current hysteria over putative Russian interference during the election cycle presents alarming potential implications for the future of free speech and unobstructed access to information.

A subsequently partially backtracked report by the Washington Post, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,” originally published on November 24, boldly declared the Russians had been behind disinformation during the election cycle, and had facilitated the election of Donald Trump to suit a shady but noticeably unspecified political agenda. 

First to obtain an ostensibly damning list of news organizations affiliated with The Russians, the Post failed, negligently or intentionally, to investigate the nascent organization which provided said list, or to even contact a single outlet named — yet reported as if the information were so damning as to be indisputable truth. 

 In fact, the supposed experts cited by the once-illustrious outlet inhabited a single, newly created website, PropOrNot, whose owners sophomorically responded to outrage — giving the Post a black eye in the process — tweeting,

“Aww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject – they’re so vewwy angwy!! It’s cute [gloating emoticon] We don’t censor; just highlight.”

The website encourages reporters and anyone with questions to reach out via Twitter or email, but says, “If you’re a Russian troll, though, don’t bother. We’ll just ban you.”

Although the Post, itself, did not publish or link to the unsourced and unverified index of organizations — incidentally, comprising 200 independent, alternative outlets, and those who’d dared endorse presidential candidates other than Hillary Clinton — the damage exponentially worsened as countless corporate presstitutes parroted the non-information at a rapid clip.

 After its half-hearted retraction of that misstep, the Post further embarrassed itself with a report titled, “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House” — but stunningly provided even less evidence — and again failed due diligence to back this assertion, other than the putative claims of unnamed officials.

Worse, its own article disputed the audaciousness of the headline — the Post admitted no report would be forthcoming from a consensus of all 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies, since “minor disagreements” among officials persist. 

When the public had a difficult time swallowing such allegations, the White House stepped in and, rather flippantly, proclaimed Russian President Vladimir Putin played a direct role in hacking the U.S. presidential election — again,despite any evidence the ‘election’ had been ‘hacked.’ 

 Couple this renewed Red Scare with what, in essence, marked the legalization of one of the most nefarious covert domestic government operations in U.S. history — Operation Mockingbird — and any iterations this program won’t severely cripple legitimate but dissenting American media ring hollow. 

 Notably, though the Obama administration cited pernicious pro-Russian propaganda and the proliferation of false reports for causing the election of Trump, no unassailable evidence has yet been proffered proving this theory true — nor has any indication “fake news” so much as changed a single vote.  

.

Hello Russia! Are you there?

SUBHEAD: There is a war going on between US intelligent/security services involving China and Russia.

By Dmitry Orlov on 13 December 2016 for Club Orlov -
(http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2016/12/hello-russia.html)


Image above: Today's page hits by country to cluborlov.blogspot.com. Note the unlikely possibility that Russian traffic exceeds American traffic on this English language blog. From original article.

Over the past week, Google's Blogger has been reporting an excessive number of visits to this blog coming from Russia. This data is not corroborated by other web traffic monitoring sources, including Revolver Maps or Google's own Google Analytics.

Looking at the structure of the “Russian” traffic, it looks very much like random noise. What could this possibly be? “Evidence of Russian hacking,” anyone?

Well, here it is, finally! Let's not forget, Google founder Sergei Brin is a Russian... And here we were thinking that “Russian hacking” is as real as “Iraqi WMDs”! Shame on us!

 Below is the December 13th, 2016 page hits by country to cluborlov.blogspot.com.

---

Dasvidaniya Rossiya!

SUBHEAD: You're not the only one Dmitry. At least my American readers outnumber the Russians.

By Juan Wilson on 14 December 2016 for Island Breath -
(islandbreath.blogspot.com/2016/12/hello-russia-are-you-there.html)


Image above: Today's page hits by country to islandbreath.blogspot.com. Note new heavy traffic from Russia as well as significant traffic from China. Both are new phenomena... and possible fake.

IslandBreath.org has been getting similar "misinformation" monitoring traffic to our website. Our website is divided into two internet service providers (isp). One isp has the oldest material on the "islandbreath.org" site from 1993 to 2009. That isp provider also has the outer frame that nests the newer material on the "islandbreath.blogspot.com"  that has been posted day to day since 2009.

The blogspot.com and blogger.com web tools were bought up by Google several years ago as blogging and blogger.com were getting very popular.

I know, that's sounds confusing but is is the way it is... and is does let me see things a bit differently then just through the viewport of Google's monitoring tools.

What I've discovered is that for some time in the recent past "Russian" views of our site have increased by at least two orders of magnitude. It is interesting that Club Orlov has more Russian than American traffic. Unlike Dmytri's site on the Island Breath sitethe Chinese traffic has increased similarly. American traffic to our website appears the Chinese traffic yesterday was almost almost tied with Russia. See chart above of our latest website traffic taken today.

But as Dmitry Orlov has discovered, other traffic statistic counters other than that provided by blogger.com have widely different results. IslandBreath uses www.statcounter.com to monitor traffic on our sites. Today it show the most recent traffic having hit from Hong Kong and no other traffic from China and no traffic from Russia.


Image above: The image above is a screen capture of recent traffic today 12/14/16 on our islandbreath.blogspot.com site provided by statcounter.com.

It looks like the anti-Trump elements (including CIA) of the American intelligent/security apparatus are trashing Russia and blaming it for the election Clinton loss. On the other hand elements of the FBI are on the other side of that fight.

Something is going on here that I suggest is disinformation that could threaten alternative news, information and opinion expressed on the most prevalent source for such information - the internet and its variations in social media.

The other aspect of this we should be aware of is the fake "Fake News" debacle. The US Congress has moved to "eliminate" sources of non approved "fake news". See below.

---

Disinformation & Propaganda

SUBHEAD: Senate passes billgiving the government a full mandate to punish, shut down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of foreign government propaganda.

By Tyler Durden on 12 December 2016 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/senate-quietly-passes-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act)

While we wait to see if and when the Senate will pass (and president will sign) Bill  "H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017", which was passed by the House at the end of November with an overwhelming majority and which seeks to crack down on websites suspected of conducting Russian propaganda and calling for the US government to "counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly,” another, perhaps even more dangerous and limiting to civil rights and freedom of speech bill passed on December 8.

Recall that as we reported in early June, "a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth has been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information.

Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability

Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles. “

These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations,” Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.“Surprisingly,”

Portman continued, “there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”

Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on wuch mainstream fake news portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would rask the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.

Fast forward to this past Thursday, December 8, when the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

Here is the full statement issued by the generously funded Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the passage of a bill that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for future which hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda" and is shut down by the government.

Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA
Portman/Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others 

U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government.

To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel.

Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on,” said Senator Portman. “With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”

“Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries’ widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America’s foreign policy goals,” said Murphy.

 “I’m proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it’s long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats.”

NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation. They are as follows:

• The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.
• Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.

In other words, the Act will i) greenlight the government to crack down with impunity against any media property it deems "propaganda", and ii) provide substantial amounts of money fund an army of "local journalist" counterpropaganda, to make sure the government's own fake news drowns that of the still free "fringes."

So while packaged politely in a veneer of "countering disinformation and propaganda", the bill, once signed by Obama, will effectively give the government a full mandate to punish, shut down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of "foreign government propaganda from Russia, China or other nations."

And since there is no formal way of proving whether or not there is indeed a foreign propaganda sponsor, all that will be sufficient to eliminate any "dissenting" website, will be the government's word against that of the website. One can be confident that the US government will almost certainly prevail in every single time.

.

Trudeau's Big TPP Test

SUBHEAD: After election he withdrew Canadian air support from ISIS war... now he faces the TPP limits to Canadian freedom.

By Meghan Sali on 2 November 2015 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/02/tpp-internet-censorship-and-trudeaus-first-big-test-prime-minister)


Image above: Before election Justin Trudeau vows to beat Conservative Stephan Harper. From (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/20/justin_trudeau_declares_he_can_beat_stephen_harper_in_a_federal_election_just_watch_me_he_writes_in_note_on_airplane.html).

Do you squeeze oranges expecting apple juice?

Of course not. So Canadians shouldn't be surprised when an undemocratic process like the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations yields an undemocratic result.

On October 5, just two weeks before the recent federal election, beaming trade ministers from the 12 TPP countries gathered on stage in Atlanta to announce that they had completed negotiations on the largest and most secretive trade agreement in modern history.

Now the TPP looks like it's becoming the first major test for the new Liberal government. Although the previous government signed Canada on to the deal, it will still need to be approved by the recently elected new Parliament.

Despite the fact that negotiations had been continuing for over three years, most Canadians knew nothing about the agreement, and so the announcement from Atlanta came as big news. Even those of us who have been following the process closely have little information on the TPP's contents. Of its 29 chapters, we have only seen three -- and only because they were leaked and published by Wikileaks.

So here we are, being told by political leaders that we must be a part of this agreement, as there is "simply too much to gain for Canada." But if we have so much to gain, why did the previous government wait until the last possible moment to pitch us the plan, and then keep it under wraps throughout the recent election?

The few who have read the leaked texts know exactly why: Canadians would never accept the TPP if we knew what was being negotiated on our behalf.

Despite vowing to release the full text before the election, Trade Minister Ed Fast reneged on his promise only days later, leaving Canadians without an opportunity to judge for themselves if the trumped-up benefits of the TPP are truly there at all.

For an example of just how bad the TPP is for Canadians, let's take a look at the Intellectual Property (IP) chapter. For years, digital rights experts the world over have been calling it "one of the worst global threats to the Internet."

The previous government assured Canadians that the TPP's changes to copyright law are "fully consistent with Canadian law and policy." But only days after the announcement by trade ministers, the final version of the IP chapter was leaked -- and it's even worse than we could have imagined.

We know now that Canadians will see copyright terms extended by 20 years, robbing the public domain and snatching what experts estimate will be hundreds of millions of dollars out of our pockets every year.

And that's not all: vaguely worded clauses will mean increased Internet censorship, complete with content takedowns and website blocking. You could even have your computer seized and destroyed just for ripping your favourite CD onto your computer. Under the TPP, will we even really own what we buy?

The trend here is clear: to replace Canada's balanced copyright rules with a much harsher, U.S.-style approach. The fact is, secretive, closed negotiations only benefit those who have a seat at the table.

Throughout the negotiations, TPP officials went out of their way to avoid engaging in genuine, citizen stakeholder engagement.

Canadians must demand that our new incoming government reject the TPP's Internet censorship plan. Frankly, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

.

Florida has no Global Warming

SUBHEAD: Republican Florida governor bans state using terms "global warming" and "climate change".

[IB Publisher's note: The giant Florida electric utility company Nextera is taking over Hawaii's HECO and if its operations in its conservative home state are any indication home owners in Hawaii that want energy independence better hurry up and get their solar panels. See "NextEra Energy and Hawaiian Electric Industries to Combine" (http://www.nexteraenergy.com/news/contents/2014/120314.shtml)]

By Doyle Rice on 9 March 2015 for USA Today -
(http://www.wtsp.com/story/tech/science/2015/03/09/florida-to-workers-dont-say-climate-change/24638485/)


Image above: Recent flooding in Pasco County Florida. From article below.

If Florida Gov. Rick Scott didn't want the terms "climate change" or "global warming" officially associated with his state, he won't be happy with the media attention his decision has sparked.

Scott, a Republican, banned the use of those terms in state communications and publications shortly after he took office in 2011, according to a Miami Herald story Sunday by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. See (http://fcir.org/2015/03/10/fcir-editor-discusses-floridas-climate-change-ban-on-national-radio-shows/) for followup.



Though it was not a written rule, "we were told not to use the terms 'climate change,' 'global warming' or 'sustainability,' " Christopher Byrd, a former attorney with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Office of General Counsel told the investigative reporting center. "That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors," said Boyd, who held that post from 2008 to 2013.

When reached for comment about the supposed ban on the terms, Gov. Scott's spokesperson John Tupps said "it's not true." Tupps said that neither the governor's office nor the DEP had a policy on the use of the terms.

Florida government officials may have instructed employees not to use the terms 'climate change' or 'global warming' in official communications.
In Florida, about 300,000 houses worth about a total of $145 billion are vulnerable to a rise in the sea level caused by climate change, according to Climate Central. a nonprofit news organization that analyzes and reports on climate science.

Sea-level rise was another term that Scott prohibited, saying it should be called "nuisance flooding," the newspaper said.

This has happened before: In North Carolina in 2012, the legislature said it would ignore studies that mentioned sea-level rise.

Last year, the federal National Climate Assessment said Florida is vulnerable. "There is an imminent threat of increased inland flooding during heavy rain events in low-lying coastal areas such as southeast Florida, where just inches of sea-level rise will impair the capacity of stormwater drainage systems to empty into the ocean," the study said.

The Washington Post, CNN and other media have picked up on the story about the Florida ban, spreading the word about how climate change is likely to impact Scott's state.

---

 Home Solar systems illegal in Florida

SUBHEAD: Since there is no CO2 problem utility companies in Florida battle to keep home solar systems illegal.

By ate Sheppard on 9 March 21015 for Huffington Post 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/florida-solar-conservatives_n_6834792.html)


Image above: An illegal off-grid house in Florida. From (http://humansarefree.com/2014/03/off-grid-living-is-illegal-in-florida.html).

A Florida effort to expand access to solar power has become a face-off between two factions of the conservative movement.

The group Conservatives for Energy Freedom is blasting Americans for Prosperity for what it called a "campaign of deception" against a ballot initiative that would make it easier for businesses and individuals to install rooftop solar energy.

Conservatives for Energy Freedom, along with the state group Floridians for Solar Choice and a number of other organizations from across the political spectrum, have been working to gather enough signatures to get a measure on the November 2016 ballot that would allow direct sale of solar power to consumers.

Currently, Florida is one of only five states in the country where it is illegal to sell power from any source other than electric utilities. But if approved, the ballot measure would allow homes and businesses to install solar and sell excess energy they generate to their neighbors. It would also allow for power purchase agreements, where a solar company pays the upfront cost of installing solar generating systems on homes and businesses, and then the customers pay for the energy they use.

The ballot measure has gathered wide-ranging support, from national groups like the Tea Party Network and the Christian Coalition; in-state conservative groups like the Libertarian Party of Florida and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida; environmental groups like the Sierra Club's Florida chapter and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; and business groups like the Florida Retail Federation.

But one foe has emerged: Americans for Prosperity, the conservative political group backed by the Koch brothers.

Americans for Prosperity has been pillorying the ballot measure in emails to its supporters. "The Floridians for Solar Choice (FSC) ballot initiative isn’t about freedom or choice -- it’s about money, and using government and taxpayers to prop up the solar industry," the group's Florida chapter wrote in a letter to supporters, which the pro-solar faction provided to reporters.

The AFP letter claims that the solar industry "cannot survive without taxpayer funded subsidies and mandates" and that if the ballot measure passes, Floridians "can expect those subsidies to grow." Conservative advocates in Florida say AFP has been emailing and calling supporters in the state to try to turn them against the ballot measure.

Proponents of the ballot measure argue there aren't any subsidies or mandates in the measure -- just legal changes that would make it easier for people in the state to get solar if they want. Debbie Dooley, a Georgia-based tea party leader and founder of Conservatives For Energy Freedom, accused the AFP of "hypocrisy" on the issue of solar power.

"AFP is supposed to espouse free-market principles, but they're trying to prevent Floridians from engaging in commerce in a free-market manner," Dooley told The Huffington Post. "They are resorting to outright lies."

Dooley accused the group of kowtowing to its corporate benefactors rather than the will of the people, as the Koch brothers made much of their money off fossil fuels. "You don’t throw your principles out the window to benefit your corporate benefactors," she said.

Chris Hudson, director of AFP's Florida chapter, said the group's stance was in line with free-market principles, and that solar can't compete in a free market currently. "At least at this point ... it relies on government mandates and taxpayer-funded subsidies to make it feasible," he said in an emailed statement to HuffPost. "The policies that some are promoting would shift more costs onto homeowners that don’t user solar."

Advocates, meanwhile, say their effort is in line with conservative principles. "It's opening up the free market and freedom of choice for businesses and consumers," said Tory Perfetti, chairman of Floridians for Solar Choice. "Right now Florida is basically blocking the free market and commerce that normal American consumers are used to practicing."

Current Florida state law, Perfetti said, "outlaws the free market" when it comes to energy. "If solar is going to succeed or fail, or any form of energy is going to succeed or fail, allow the free market to determine that. Allow people the choice of what they want," said Perfetti, a Tampa-area based political activist who also serves as the state director of Conservatives for Energy Freedom.

There's a lot of room for solar growth in the Sunshine State. The Solar Energy Industries Association ranks Florida third in the country in terms of the potential for solar energy, but it is currently only 13th in installed capacity.

AFP's bulletin also tries to link the ballot initiative to "radical environmentalists" funded by Tom Steyer, the millionaire environmental advocate, arguing that one of the environmental groups, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, is funded by Steyer. The alliance's executive director tells HuffPost they've never received funding from Steyer or any of his groups.

Besides, the measure's conservative supporters say, even if he was funding it, it wouldn't matter. "If Tom Steyer or anyone else wants to donate to help us open the market for solar and push for free-market energy choice in Florida, I would be very happy to accept their money," said Dooley.

The group has already gathered 100,000 signatures on its petition to add the measure to the ballot, the first of several steps toward getting it officially included in 2016. Advocates say they're positive that the large coalition they've built to support the measure will ultimately be successful, despite AFP's efforts

"I guess [AFP's] hoping the conservative activists in Florida are really stupid," said Dooley. "I think they're going to find out they're not stupid."

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Klein at UH on HECO 2//28/15

.

PIPA Support Evaporates

SUBHEAD: Sponsors of the PIPA/SOPA internet copyright legislation found to be pirates and have to abandon ship. [Editor's note: In the last few days the internet communication community faced off against the old-guard corporate content distributors and have turned the tide away from government censorship. The help of organizations like Google and Wikipedia were huge, but even more so was the response by the public.] By Timothy B. Lee on 18 January 2012 for Ars Technica - (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/pipa-support-collapses-with-13-new-opponents-in-senate.ars) Image above: Illustration of PIPA crumbling illustration by illustration by Aurich Lawson. From original article.

Members of the Senate are rushing for the exits in the wake of the Internet's unprecedented protest of the Protect IP Act (PIPA). At least 13 members of the upper chamber announced their opposition on Wednesday. In a particularly severe blow for Hollywood, at least five of the newly-opposed Senators were previously co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act. (Update: since we ran this story, the tally is up to 18 Senators, of which seven are former co-sponsors. See below.)

The newly-opposed Senators are skewed strongly to the Republican side of the aisle. An Ars Technica survey of Senators' positions on PIPA turned up only two Democrats, Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who announced their opposition on Wednesday. The other 11 Senators who announced their opposition on Wednesday were all Republicans. These 13 join a handful of others, including Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR), who have already announced their opposition.

Marco Rubio, a freshman Republican Senator from Florida who some consider to be a rising star, withdrew his co-sponsorship of the bill, citing "legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the Internet." He urged the Senate to "avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences."

Another co-sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) echoed that sentiment. He blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for "pushing forward w/ a flawed bill that still needs much work."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), one of the chamber's longest-serving members and another co-sponsor, described the Protect IP Act as "simply not ready for prime time."

The partisan slant of the defections is surprising because copyright has not traditionally been considered a partisan issue. Before Wednesday's protests, PIPA had 16 Republican co-sponsors and 23 Democratic ones. The bill lost a quarter of its Republican co-sponsors on Wednesday, while we know of only one Democrat, Ben Cardin (D-MD), who dropped his support.

Those who dropped their support were most likely bolstered by strong opposition from conservative think tanks and blogs. On Tuesday, the influential Heritage Foundation announced that it would include SOPA and PIPA as a key issue on its voter scorecard. And the popular conservative blog redstate.com, whose founder threatened to mount primary challengers to SOPA supporters last month, has been hailing Senators who come out in opposition.

Neither side is close to having a majority. A whip count by OpenCongress found 35 supporters (including 34 co-sponsors), 18 opponents, and 12 more Senators leaning toward opposition. About 35 Senators have not committed to a position, perhaps reluctant to do so for fear of angering either deep-pocketed Hollywood campaign contributors or their constituents back home.

Here is the full list of new opponents. An * indicates a former co-sponsor.

• Roy Blunt (R-MO) *
• John Boozman (R-AR) *
• Scott Brown (R-MA)
• Ben Cardin (D-MD) *
• John Cornyn (R-TX)
• Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• Orrin Hatch (R-UT) *
• James Inhofe (R-OK)
• Mark Kirk (R-IL)
• Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
• Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
• Marco Rubio (R-FL) *
• Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Update (7 PM): David Vitter (R-LA) is now also opposed. He was previously a co-sponsor of the legislation.

Update (9 PM): Three more opponents, all Republicans: Tom Coburn (R-OK), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Mike Johanns (R-NE).

Update (10 PM): Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is jumping on the bandwagon. She was a PIPA co-sponsor.

---

PIPA Supporters are Pirates By Jamie Taete on 18 January 2012 for Vice Magazine - (http://www.vice.com/read/pipa-supporters-copyright-violations)
[Editor's note: This article was featured on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show last night and it hit a raw nerve in Washington DC.] Image above: "Overweight Government Pig" clip art illustration by John Pritchitt illegally used by PIPA co-sponsor Dennis Rodman on hus website. From original article.

PIPA Supporters Violate Copyright Too

Last week, I wrote something about the hypocritical copyright violations on SOPA author Lamar Smith’s very own website. You might have seen it when it was featured on theForbes, Time or Huffington Post websites, or, most likely, when Tyler, the Creator tweeted about it just now.

I asked you guys to send me any other copyright violations you could find by supporters of Lamar’s “Stop Online Piracy Act.” To be honest, we thought the outcry surrounding the proposals had died down—there was talk that SOPA had been shelved, and Lamar’s office hasn’t been taking our calls—but earlier today, Lamar resurfaced to let us know that he still intends to use his bill to criminalize us all for posting the lyrics to “The Thong Song” on each other’s Facebook pages.

But if SOPA does ultimately flop, as all sane people expect it to, the slightly-less-bad PIPA bill is still waiting in the wings to gallop in and throttle all the fun out of the internet. So I’m moving the search over to PIPA supporters. (A full list of which can be viewed here.)

Thanks to everyone who sent me stuff. Sorry if you haven’t heard back from me, I got A LOT of emails relating to this. Below are the copyright violations carried out by PIPA supporters that I was able to prove. There’s many many many more (from almost every single PIPA co-sponsor’s site, in fact), but without actually getting written confirmation from the copyright owners in question, I’m unable to post anything here.

A lot of people have also been getting in touch to point out to me that these people are not violating SOPA/PIPA. Which is true. My point is more that, if these people aren’t able to abide by EXISTING copyright laws, they clearly lack the understanding to create stricter ones and, ideally, should just GTFO.

ROY BLUNT

This is a screencap of PIPA co-sponsor Roy Blunt’s Twitter page from a couple of days ago.

The background image is by photographer Walter Rowland. I spoke to his wife Linny, and she told me:

“Wow, I’m so surprised to see that someone would do this. Especially a senator! It’s even more of a violation because I’m actually in the photo so it’s as if I’m supporting his beliefs. Yes, that’s one of my husband’s photos who is actually a semi-professional photographer, and no, they weren’t given permission.”

Roy has since changed the background on his Twitter in an attempt to cover his tracks.

CLAIRE McCASKILL

This is PIPA supporter and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill’s Twitter page as it appears right now.

And this is the background image she stole from Flickr user J. Stephen Conn, who told me this:

“I do not recall giving the senator permission to use this photo on her Twitter account. I have put the photo in the Creative Commons, which means anyone may use it for non-commercial purposes, however, proper attribution of the photo should be given because it is NOT in the public domain.”

DENNIS ROSS

The above screencap shows the homepage of Florida congressman/PIPA co-sponsor Dennis Ross’ website.

Which features the appropriately titled illustration (above) “Overweight Government Pig” by cartoonist John S. Pritchett. You’ll notice that Dennis cropped out the part where it says “© John Pritchett”. We contacted John, and he told us:

“To my knowledge, I did not license the usage of my “Overweight Govt. Pig” illustration to Dennis Ross.”

Wuh oh!

SHERROD BROWN

And finally, we have Ohio senator and PIPA co-sponsor Sherrod Brown. Who, as you can see from the above screencap, is using an image lifted from Google Maps on his offical senate site.

According to the Google Maps content rules and guidelines page, you are only allowed to use content from Google Maps if you credit Google, and “Make attribution readable to the average reader or viewer.” At the time of writing, Sherrod’s site does not credit Google Maps.

It truly saddens me to see this group of people using creative content that they did not create to further their own political agendas. Here’s to hoping PIPA passes to offer the world some protection from these wicked, wicked people.

See also: Ea O Ka Aina: Internet Censorship Ahead 11/16/11 Ea O Ka Aina: Wikipedia Blackout 1/18/12 Ea O Ka Aina: Google Petition 1/18/12 .

Google Petition

SUBHEAD: Google protests SOPA using popular home page and asks visitors to ask US Congress to back away.
[Editor's Note: You can sign Google's online petition against SOPA/PIPA here (https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/).] By Declan McCullagh & Greg Sandoval on 17 January 2012 for CNet - (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57360223-261/google-will-protest-sopa-using-popular-home-page/?part=rss&subj=latest-news&tag=title) Image above: Google blocks out its logo on webpage on 18 January 2012. From (https://www.google.com/).

Google, the Web's top search company and one of technology's most influential powers in Washington, will post a link on its home page tomorrow to notify users of Google's opposition to controversial antipiracy bills being debated in Congress.

The company confirmed in a statement that it will join Wikipedia, Reddit, and other influential tech firms in staging protests of varying kinds against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), which are backed by big entertainment and media interests. (Read a roundup of our SOPA and PIPA coverage here.)

"Like many businesses, entrepreneurs, and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue Web sites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," a Google representative said. "So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page."

In response to questions about how the protest link would be displayed on the page, all Google would say is that the link would not replace the company logo.

Not everyone who opposes the legislation agrees on how best to stage a protest. None of the protests appear to take as dramatic a step as the one planned by Wikipedia. The English version of the Web encyclopedia is scheduled to go dark for 24 hours.

The past weekend will likely long be remembered as a turning point in the debate over how to fight online piracy in the United States. Supporters of SOPA and PIPA once could boast of wide bipartisan support, but the proposals suffered a series of blows starting Thursday, when the Senate leaders decided to eliminate an important provision in PIPA.

By Friday, both houses of Congress had eliminated a requirement in each bill that would have compelled U.S. Internet service providers to cut off access to foreign sites accused of piracy.

Following that, a group of Senators--some who once supported PIPA--requested that a vote on the bill be delayed. The request was denied, but things kept getting worse for antipiracy proponents. On Saturday word came that the House would delay a vote on SOPA. And then finally, the White House, considered an ally of the music and film industries, suggested in a statement that the president would not support several cornerstone provisions of the bills.

All of the news culminated in what may come to be known in the entertainment sector as Black Sunday. Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp. and one of the world's preeminent media tycoons, displayed a rare public tantrum via Twitter. In his posts, he accused the president of taking his marching orders from "Silicon Valley paymasters." Murdoch suggested Google was whipping up opposition and was a "piracy leader."

Google called Murdoch's accusations "nonsense."

Whatever it was, the outburst illustrated the frustration of copyright owners. There was no hiding that the tide of the legislative battle had reversed and copyright owners were alarmed.

Nonetheless, the fight still has a long way to go.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to go ahead with a vote on PIPA on January 24. In the meantime, the tech sector will move forward with its protests in an attempt to enlist help from the masses.

See also: Ea O Ka Aina: Internet Censorship Ahead 11/16/11 .

Wikipedia Blackout

SUBHEAD: Imagine a world without free knowledge. With SOPA and PIPA soon you won't need imagination. By Staff on 18 January 2012 for Wikipedia - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more) Image above: The face of the English version of Wikipedia during SOPA/PIPA blackout on 18 January 2012 blackout/ From (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out the English version of Wikipedia.

Why is Wikipedia blacked-out?

Wikipedia is protesting against SOPA and PIPA by blacking out the English Wikipedia for 24 hours, beginning at midnight January 18, Eastern Time. Readers who come to English Wikipedia during the blackout will not be able to read the encyclopedia. Instead, you will see messages intended to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA, encouraging you to share your views with your representatives, and with each other on social media.

What are SOPA and PIPA?

SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short for the "Stop Online Piracy Act," and PIPA is an acronym for the "Protect IP Act." ("IP" stands for "intellectual property.") In short, these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the blackout. GovTrack lets you follow both bills through the legislative process: SOPA on this page, and PIPA on this one. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for the public interest in the digital realm, has summarized why these bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure, and free Internet.

Why is the blackout happening?

Wikipedians have chosen to black out the English Wikipedia for the first time ever, because we are concerned that SOPA and PIPA will severely inhibit people's access to online information. This is not a problem that will solely affect people in the United States: it will affect everyone around the world.

Why? SOPA and PIPA are badly drafted legislation that won't be effective at their stated goal (to stop copyright infringement), and will cause serious damage to the free and open Internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. And, SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.

Does this mean that Wikipedia itself is violating copyright laws, or hosting pirated content?

No, not at all. Some supporters of SOPA and PIPA characterize everyone who opposes them as cavalier about copyright, but that is not accurate. Wikipedians are knowledgeable about copyright and vigilant in protecting against violations: Wikipedians spend thousands of hours every week reviewing and removing infringing content. We are careful about it because our mission is to share knowledge freely. To that end, all Wikipedians release their contributions under a free license, and all the material we offer is freely licensed. Free licenses are incompatible with copyright infringement, and so infringement is not tolerated.

Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved, and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?

No, neither SOPA nor PIPA is dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed in early February. There are signs PIPA may be debated on the Senate floor next week. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. In many jurisdictions around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation that prioritizes overly-broad copyright enforcement laws, laws promoted by power players, over the preservation of individual civil liberties.

How could SOPA and PIPA hurt Wikipedia?

SOPA and PIPA are a threat to Wikipedia in many ways. For example, in its current form, SOPA would require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to, to ensure it doesn't host infringing content. Any link to an infringing site could put us in jeopardy of being forced offline.

I live in the United States. What's the best way for me to help?

The most effective action you can take is to call your representatives and tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar legislation. Type your zipcode in the locator box to find your representatives' contact information. Text-based communication is okay, but phone calls have the most impact.

I don't live in the United States. How can I help?

Contact your local State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar branch of government. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar legislation. SOPA and PIPA will affect sites outside of the United States, and actions to sites inside the United States (like Wikipedia) will also affect non-American readers -- like you. Calling your own government will also let them know you don't want them to create their own bad anti-Internet legislation.

Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?

Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page. Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.

I keep hearing that this is a fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Is that true?

No. Some people are characterizing it that way, probably in an effort to imply all the participants are motivated by commercial self-interest. But it's obviously not that simple. The proof of that is Wikipedia's involvement. Wikipedia has no financial self-interest at play here: we do not benefit from copyright infringement, nor are we trying to monetize traffic or sell ads. We are protesting to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA solely because we think they will hurt the Internet, and your ability to access information online. We are doing this for you, because we're on your side.

In carrying out this protest, is Wikipedia abandoning neutrality?

We hope you continue to trust Wikipedia to be a neutral information source. We are staging this blackout because (as Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Kat Walsh said recently), although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. For over a decade, Wikipedians have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Wikipedia is a tremendously useful resource, and its existence depends upon a free, open and uncensored Internet. SOPA and PIPA (and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States) will hurt you, because they will make it impossible for sites you enjoy, and benefit from, to continue to exist. That's why we're doing this.

See also: Ea O Ka Aina: Google Petition 1/18/12 Ea O Ka Aina: Internet Censorship Ahead 11/16/11 .

Dump GoDaddy Day Works

SUBHEAD: GoDaddy domain service bows to boycott, now 'opposes' dangerous SOPA copyright bill.

 By Declan McCullagh on 29 December 2011 for CNET - 
  (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57349913-281/godaddy-bows-to-boycott-now-opposes-sopa-copyright-bill)

   
Image above: Still image of GoDaddy dilemma created by embracing SOPA. Still from video below.
  
GoDaddy, the domain register targeted by online activists in response to its enthusiasm for a pair of Hollywood-backed copyright bills, has finally denounced the legislation in response to a boycott scheduled for today.

Warren Adelman, the company's chief executive, said today that "GoDaddy opposes SOPA," meaning the Stop Online Piracy Act, which is facing a House of Representatives committee vote next month.

A GoDaddy spokeswoman confirmed to CNET this afternoon that "we oppose PIPA, as well." That's the Senate bill known as Protect IP, which will be debated on the Senate floor January 24. (See CNET's SOPA FAQ.)

The idea of boycotting GoDaddy began with a protest thread on Reddit and was aided by Jimmy Wales' announcement last week that "Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy." It inspired GoDaddyBoycott.org, which urged Internet users and companies to "boycott GoDaddy until they send a letter to Congress taking back any and all support of the House and Senate versions of the Internet censorship bill, both SOPA and PIPA."

GoDaddy did itself few favors by only saying it no longer supported SOPA -- but pointedly not criticizing it -- and declining to answer questions from CNET and customers who asked for further clarification. Accusations of interfering with customers' attempts to leave, which appear to have arisen from a misunderstanding, didn't help.

Neither did gleeful attempts by competitors to lure away GoDaddy customers. At least half a dozen GoDaddy rivals responded with anti-SOPA promotions: NameCheap dubbed December 29 "move your domain" day, offering below-cost transfers with the coupon "SOPASUCKS" plus a $1 donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Other registrars such as Dreamhost, HostGator, Hover.com, and Name.com have offered similar anti-SOPA promotions. NameCheap even offered step-by-step instructions titled: "How to transfer a domain from GoDaddy."

After GoDaddy began to back away from SOPA last week, customers-turned-activists demanded a full repudiation. A discussion thread on GoDaddy's support forums said: "Until GoDaddy gets a clue and changes their stance to being opposed to all SOPA-like legislation... my business and I and our network of influence will continue to boycott you."

Today's newly contrite statement from Adelman, the CEO, did just that:

We have observed a spike in domain name transfers, which are running above normal rates and which we attribute to GoDaddy's prior support for SOPA, which was reversed. GoDaddy opposes SOPA because the legislation has not fulfilled its basic requirement to build a consensus among stake-holders in the technology and Internet communities. Our company regrets the loss of any of our customers, who remain our highest priority, and we hope to repair those relationships and win back their business over time.

SOPA, of course, represents the latest effort from Hollywood's movie and recording studios and their allies to counter what they view as rampant piracy on the Internet, especially at offshore sites such as ThePirateBay.org. It would allow the Justice Department to force search engines, Internet providers, and other companies to make a suspected piratical Web site effectively vanish, a kind of Internet death penalty. It's opposed (PDF) by many Internet companies and Internet users, who often cite free speech concerns.

Before this public relations debacle, GoDaddy had been an enthusiastic supporter of expanding copyright law to deal with "parasite" Web sites. In testimony (PDF) before a House of Representatives hearing this spring, GoDaddy general counsel Christine Jones endorsed Domain Name System (DNS) blocking as a way to prevent Americans from accessing suspected piratical Web sites.

Jones said that DNS blocking is an "effective strategy for disabling access to illegal" Web sites. It can "be done by the registrar (which provides the authoritative DNS response), or, in cases where the registrar is unable or unwilling to comply, by the registry (which provides the Root zone file records -- the database -- for the entire TLD)," she said.


Video above: Taiwanese animation explains "Leave GoDaddy Day!" From (http://www.technologytell.com/apple/87361/leave-go-daddy-day-explained-by-taiwan-animation).

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: GoDaddy support of SOPA hurting 12/26/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Internet Censorship Delayed 12/18/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Internet Censorship Ahead 11/16/11 .

GoDaddy support of SOPA hurting

SUBHEAD: Wikipedia's to ditch GoDaddy domain service over its support of internet censorship legislation.  

By Bianca Bosker on 26 December 2011 for Huffington Post -  
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/wikipedia-godaddy-sopa_n_1170034.html)

 
Image above: When someone thinks your company needs a logo-promoting NASCAR paint job its time to reevaluate your goals. From (http://www.rfactorcentral.com/painters_profile.cfm?ID=NeXuS.TeaM).

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales announced that domain names belonging to Wikipedia and Wikia would be transferred off of GoDaddy, an Internet domain registrar, to protest GoDaddy's support for the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, a controversial anti-piracy bill under consideration by Congress.

"I am proud to announce that the Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy. Their position on #sopa is unacceptable to us," Wales wrote in a tweet. He later added, "Wikia is also moving several hundred domains from godaddy. Which registrar has quality and price right?"

GoDaddy has been hemorrhaging domains in a backlash against the company's endorsement of SOPA. Though GoDaddy said in a blog published December 20 that it was withdrawing its support for SOPA, GoDaddy CEO Warren Adelman acknowledged in a subsequent interview with TechCrunch that the company had not yet officially registered with Congress its plans to switch sides.

According to VentureBeat, GoDaddy has lost more than 37,000 domains in total. Other companies that have joined in the exodus include the Cheezburger Network, which runs popular sites such as FAIL Blog, Failbook and I Can Has Cheezburger. Cheezburger Network CEO Ben Huh tweeted, "Not happy with @godaddy. Emailed CEO, asking for clear, unequivocal dropping of SOPA support. Still planning on moving off." Commenters on Reddit have also called for a GoDaddy boycott and one Reddit user suggested December 29 should be "move your domain away from GoDaddy day."

The Next Web writes that GoDaddy has been "calling customers, begging them to stay," noting that one customer shared an anecdote about a conversation with a GoDaddy representative in which the company's rep attempted to clarify GoDaddy's stance on SOPA.

Wales previously contemplated protesting SOPA with a Wikipedia blackout that would have seen many or all English-language Wikipedia pages taken offline.

"A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately.

As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of 'Stop Online Piracy Act' is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track," Wales wrote on Wikipedia.

"My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case." .

Internet Censorship Delayed

SUBHEAD: The "Stop Online Piracy Act" controlling internet content delayed in Congress.  

By Zack Carter on 17 December 2011 for Huffington Post -   
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/sopa-vote-delayed_n_1154347.html)

Image above: Illustration for article on constitutionality oc SOPA. From (http://thepoliticalelite.com/harvard-law-professor-sopa-is-unconstitutional/2584).

After two days of debate, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) abruptly halted a key hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act, postponing a Committee vote on the bill until 2012. The move marks a win for hordes of internet activists who oppose the bill, but gives lawmakers another opportunity to juice deep-pocketed corporations for campaign contributions.

"This is a huge victory for everyone who uses the Internet -- and proof that millions of people speaking out can still make a difference in a Congress usually run by corporate lobbyists," said Aaron Swartz, co-founder of Reddit and Demand Progress, an organization that has staunchly opposed the bills for months.

SOPA is being aggressively pushed by Hollywood movie studios, major record labels and luxury goods providers as an effort to crackdown on internet piracy of their products. But the tools envisioned are so extreme that tech experts warn the legislation threatens the very functionality of the Internet. The ACLU and other free-speech groups emphasize that by authorizing the federal government and corporations to shut down entire websites without a trial for posting just a single piece of copyright-infringing content, the bill would sharply curb the exercise of free speech online.

Delay has been the dominant strategy for SOPA opponents in Washington for some time. The deeper into 2012 the vote on the bill is pushed back, the more likely the legislation is to die in an election year.

"It is good news," said Sherwin Sie, deputy legal director Public Knowledge, a non-profit group opposing the bill. "The last thing you want is to get something like this rushed through at the last minute while people are trying to do something else. That's been the message of SOPA opponents throughout. What's the big rush?"

It's a legislative strategy that members of Congress are all too willing to accept. With huge corporations on both sides of the bill, lawmakers will be able to request another round of campaign contributions, no matter what the legislation's ultimate fate may be.

"The most troubling dynamic in Congress is the way the agenda itself becomes a tool for fundraising," notes Harvard University Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig. "Dramatic fights over billion-dollar industries are exactly what legislators want going into an election year, because it flushes money into their pot. "

And SOPA is precisely one of those issues. Smith did not need to delay the vote in order to round up additional support to ensure passage. The House Judiciary Committee has close ties to Hollywood and is strongly supportive of the bill. Smith wrote the legislation, and over the past two days, the committee shot down amendments to weaken or moderate provisions of the legislation by wide margins.

"Congress benefits from keeping us all in suspense," noted Gabriela Schneider, spokesperson for the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to government transparency."Those special interests who have a stake in it are ... contributing directly to campaigns, and this gives them more time to do it."
See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Internet Censorship Ahead 11/16/11 .