Defense Department Blocking Any Website With Wikileaks In The Title?

from the department-of-denial dept

Given the Library of Congress' silly decision to block Wikileaks' website, we've been informed by a reader at the Defense Department that filters of DoD computers currently seem to be blocking access to any website that has "Wikileaks" in the title. The reader (who acknowledges this policy is pretty freaking stupid) was wondering if we might stop using Wikileaks in post titles so that he can continue to read our coverage -- since the filters do allow him to access stories with Wikileaks in the text, rather than the title. First off, we're not going to do that (if you want, try using an RSS reader or reading the stories via the front page) but more importantly, what is the Defense Department thinking? What a hamfisted attempt to block access to information that's widely available.

Filed Under: blocks, defense department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Did Library Of Congress Lie? White House Says No Requirement To Block Wikileaks

from the the-law-is-the-law? dept

On Friday, we wrote about how the Library of Congress, in an act of pure denial, had blocked Wikileaks, saying that it was required by law to block access to the site. As we noted at the time, this seemed silly, since the documents were widely available all over the internet and press reports were covering most of the details anyway. We got a few folks in the comments to respond with statements along the lines of "the law is the law, they have to block it." Of course, that misses the point. Even if there was such a law, the only way to "block" such information is to shut off the internet entirely, which is pretty pointless. However, a few folks also responded by asking what law, and the answer might be none.

In an article about how different parts of the government have been warning government workers that these documents are still considered classified and to treat them accordingly, the White House officially stated that it is not advising government agencies to block Wikileaks. In other words, it sounds like someone at the Library of Congress is overreacting -- interpreting rules about dealing with classified documents to mean that it needs to block access to the website, when that doesn't appear to be the case.

Either way, the whole thing is pretty silly. It's about time the government stops using a reality-denying definition of "classified" documents. In the business world, something is no longer considered a trade secret once it's out there. If the government wants to respond to actual conditions out in the world, it should do the same. If a classified document is leaked like this, it's downright silly to still consider it classified or confidential. Just admit that it's now public info and move on.

Filed Under: blocks, censorship, library of congress, white house, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Why Is Verizon Wireless Blocking OpenDNS?

from the this-won't-go-over-well... dept

The Washington Post recently ran an interview with OpenDNS founder David Ulevitch, where he notes that Verizon Wireless appears to be blocking OpenDNS, such that users cannot easily route around Verizon Wireless' own DNS services. This seems like an odd decision for Verizon Wireless -- especially at a time when the government is seriously considering network neutrality regulations. You would think that the company would recognize that blatantly blocking a competing service from being used might attract some attention. Perhaps Verizon Wireless is hoping that people won't care because "OpenDNS" sounds boring? Or perhaps they're still working on this belief that "wireless" plays by different rules?

Filed Under: blocks, net neutrality, opendns
Companies: opendns, verizon wireless

If Google TV Has To Pay To Make Hulu Available To Viewers, Will Mozilla Have To Pay To Access Hulu Via Firefox?

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Ah, Hulu. The online TV streaming service has been leading a life of contradiction from day one. It's been trying to build a service that can successfully "compete with free," while being owned by the TV companies, who are scared to death of cannibalizing their own business. We've discussed in the past how this puts Hulu in an impossible position. The fact that it regularly has to have its engineers block access to any device or software that surfs the web over a TV is just one ridiculous example. Danny Sullivan perhaps sums it up best in his review of Google TV, after discovering that Hulu is (of course) blocking access to anyone using Google TV:

Hey Hulu -- you kind of suck. I'm not trying to access you from Google TV. I'm trying to access you using a web browser, which just happens to run through Google TV. Explain to me again why if I hook my computer up to my TV, and navigate to Hulu to watch the shows you offer for free, that's OK. But if I use my Google TV computer, that same free content is verboten -- and the only way for me to get to it is if in the future, you decide to make the free content available through your not-so-free $10 per month Hulu Plus service that's not even available beyond special invites on your own site.

Here's a thought. Enough of blocking Google TV and apparently other services like Boxee. Either block EVERYONE on the web or block no one, because in the end, you turn people who love you when they reach you on their computers (like me) into people who hate you when they're blocked in other places (like me).

Admittedly, Hulu is apparently getting pressure from the TV companies to do these blocks, but it still makes no sense. All things like Boxee and Google TV are doing is providing a browser. As Danny notes, if I just hooked up my laptop to the same TV, I could watch Hulu just fine. Why is it a problem if it's using a different piece of hardware? It makes no sense.

Of course, Google is now negotiating with the networks to "allow" their content to be viewed on Google TV. Is it just me or is this extremely troubling? How would people react if, say, the New York Times suddenly announced that it would not be viewable on Dell computers or in Firefox, unless Dell or Mozilla paid up? People would go nuts. Yet, that's exactly what is happening here.

In the meantime, we've already covered Hulu's ridiculous paywall plans, which even the company admits completely suck. Rumors are now spreading that so few people are interested in getting pretty much nothing for $10/month, that Hulu is now planning to cut the fee in half. Of course, if they're blocking access to random browsers for whatever ridiculous reason (and still not going ad free), then why would anyone pay?

Filed Under: blocks, browsers, google tv, internet, tv
Companies: google, hulu

French Court Orders ISPs To Block Gambling Websites

from the hello,-censorship dept

While there's a lot of attention being paid to the French "three strikes law," and the organization, Hadopi, that is planning a system for implementing it, it appears that another form of internet censorship is happening via the courts in France. Reader JJ sends over the news that ISPs in France are being ordered to block access to certain "unauthorized" gambling websites. The country's gambling regulator, Arjel, ordered the ISPs to block certain gambling sites, and after a court battle, it appears Arjel has won. Effectively, the court has ruled that the French government can order ISPs to censor the internet, which seems like the sort of story that should be getting more attention.

Filed Under: blocks, france, gambling

Afghanistan Follows Pakistan In Demanding ISPs Censor The Internet

from the not-so-inter dept

Last week we noted that Pakistan had chosen to start censoring a bunch of big websites, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Amazon. And now the EFF notes that Afghanistan has created new rules for the internet, saying that ISPs need to start filtering websites that fall under the following categories:

• Alcohol
• Dating/Social Networking
• Gambling
• Pornography

Because it's not easy to properly filter, reports coming out of the country suggest that ISPs are just choosing to block Facebook, Gmail, YouTube, and Twitter outright. It looks like more and more countries are deciding to censor the internet. This may not be a surprise, but it is a little upsetting if you believe in the importance of free expression.

Filed Under: afghanistan, blocks, censorship

Pakistan Orders Internet Ban On Google, Yahoo, Bing, Hotmail, YouTube, Amazon & MSN

from the have-fun dept

Perhaps Pakistan should just turn off its internet connection? We've already had stories recently about how courts have ordered that both Facebook and YouTube be blocked -- but supposedly both bans had been lifted. Then came the news that there were attempts to put Facebook's founders on trial, potentially for a death sentence, because some users had posted stuff people in Pakistan didn't like. The latest, sent in by Ali, is that a Pakistani court has ordered a whole bunch of popular websites be blocked from access. You may have heard of a few of these: Google, Yahoo, Bing, MSN, YouTube, Amazon and Hotmail. Who are they missing? Ebay? Twitter? I'm sure those will be blocked soon enough...

Filed Under: bing, blocks, hotmail, msn, pakistan
Companies: amazon, google, microsoft, yahoo, youtube

Pakistani Lawyer Apparently Seeks Death Penalty For Facebook Founders Because Of User Contest

from the overreact-much dept

You may recall that last month, a Pakistani court ordered that the entire site of Facebook be blocked from the country because a German woman using the site had created an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" page, in response to the recent "threats" against South Park's writers, concerning a recent episode of that show. We thought that was a bit extreme, though we got a surprising number of comments from people in Pakistan who strongly agreed with the ruling, and were rather quick with an insult for anyone who disagreed.

If you thought that was an overreaction, well, then you'll love the latest. Apparently a lawyer is petitioning the court for charges to be brought against three of Facebook's founders, Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. Neither Dustin nor Chris have worked at the company in quite some time. Apparently, the charges could lead to a death penalty request. According to the law:

"Use of derogatory remark etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet, whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable for fine."

I do like how after you are dead, you are then also liable for a fine. Pakistani law enforcement is apparently investigating the "crime," but no charges have yet been filed. However, the lawyer is confident that Zuckerberg and his two former partners will soon be arrested and shipped to Pakistan. I would have to imagine that's not actually going to happen any time soon.

Filed Under: blocks, chris hughes, death penalty, dustin moskovitz, mark zuckerberg, pakistan
Companies: facebook

And Now Pakistan Bans YouTube Again... Let's Hope It Doesn't Take Down Half The Internet This Time

from the maybe-don't-visit-sites-you-don't-like dept

So, just yesterday we wrote about Pakistan's decision to block all of Facebook, because some users had set up a page for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" (in response to the threats made to Comedy Central concerning an episode of South Park). Originally, just that one page had been banned, but apparently that wasn't enough, and a court ordered the entire site should be banned for allowing that sort of content to appear. In response, I asked if Pakistan would ban the internet if a page was put up advocating the same thing. It looks like the country may be trying to ban services one-by-one.

Now it's been announced that Pakistan is blocking access to YouTube over the same issue. Of course, Pakistan tried to block YouTube a few years ago, and it ended up taking down a large chunk of the internet -- so hopefully this time they've come up with a more sophisticated way of doing this. In the meantime, though, I'm still at a loss for how completely banning a site makes sense here, but it appears my original post somehow is being spread around Pakistan, because starting not so long ago there was a sudden rush of comments coming from people in Pakistan, defending the blocking decisions. Given that, how long until Techdirt gets blocked as well?

Filed Under: blocks, pakistan
Companies: youtube

Pakistani Court Orders All Of Facebook To Be Blocked Over Page It Doesn't Like

from the sledge-hammer dept

Remember back in 2008, when Pakistan ordered YouTube to be blocked and took down a chunk of the wider internet outside of Pakistan in the process? One hopes they've got the technical details worked out this time, because Mr. LemurBoy alerts us to the news that the Pakistani High Court is so disturbed by the fact that there's an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" page (hopefully you've already heard why that's controversial...) on Facebook that it has ordered all of Facebook to be blocked through the end of May. Originally, only that specific page had been ordered to be blocked, but apparently that wasn't enough:

Lawyers with the Islamic Lawyers Forum appealed to the higher court on Wednesday, saying the entire site should be blocked because it had allowed the page to be posted in the first place

Of course, that makes me wonder. If someone created a similar webpage just "on the internet," would Pakistan order that all of the internet should be blocked? If it was on a piece of paper, would all paper be blocked from import?

Filed Under: blocks, pakistan
Companies: facebook