Uganda Said It Would Ban VPNs To Prevent Users From Dodging Its Absurd New Social Media Tax: Guess How That Worked Out?

from the OK,-we'll-just-tax-everything-instead dept

Three years ago we wrote about African countries that thought taxing blogs and social media was an easy way to raise money -- and to muzzle inconvenient voices. A year later, Techdirt was reporting on a sudden boom in VPN use among Ugandans keen to avoid that country's levy on social media use. As Karl Bode reported, back then the authorities were pressuring ISPs to ban the use of VPNs. A post on the Rest of the World site has a useful update on how things have worked out since then. First, the money:

after three years, the tax, which amounts to about 5 cents (200 Ugandan shillings) per day to access any of more than 60 social media platforms, has failed. It has neither helped the government raise significant revenue nor curtailed lively online discussions by young Ugandans.

In its first fiscal year, the Ugandan government was projected to collect about $77.8 million (248 billion Ugandan shillings) from social media tax. Instead, it raised only about $13.5 million (49.5 billion shillings). In the next fiscal year, Uganda lowered its expectations and projected to collect $16.5 million but only just slightly beat its target by raising $18.7 million.

The reason, as expected, is that people are turning to VPNs, often the free ones, despite the intrusive pop-up ads and questionable security. It turns out that it's harder to ban VPNs than the government thought. So the Ugandan authorities have come up with Plan B:

Thanks to VPNs users have found a way around the social media tax. That's why, on April 29, the government replaced the social media tax with a 12% excise duty on internet data that will likely hike the cost of internet access in the landlocked country that already has some of the highest internet costs in the region.

The idea here is presumably that even if people use VPNs, they will have to pay the data tax. That will probably work, but the move brings with it a huge problem. It will make using the Internet for any purpose in Uganda more expensive, which will not only discourage ordinary people from taking advantage of it, but will also throttle Ugandan online startups. However much the new tax brings in, it is likely to be far less than the deeper economic harm this short-sighted move will inflict.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: blogs, commentary, free speech, internet taxes, social media, uganda, vpns

Tumblr's New 'No Sex' Rules Show The Problems Of FOSTA And EU Copyright Directive In One Easy Move

from the intermediary-liability-protections-matter dept

As you may have heard by now, on Monday, Tumblr announced that in just a couple weeks it will be banning porn from its platform as part of a change to its rules. Now, of course, Tumblr has every right to run its platform however it sees fit, but it does seem notable that it wasn't all that long ago that Tumblr openly defended the fact that Tumblr hosts a bunch of "Not Safe For Work" content, explaining that they supported free speech, and didn't want to be in the business of carefully determining whether or not something was "artful" photography or just porn.

Of course, that was before Verizon bought Yahoo (which had previously bought Tumblr). And it was before FOSTA became law. As Wired points out, this move to ban all porn comes just weeks after Apple banned the Tumblr app from the App Store over some illegal images (even after Tumblr was alerted and took those images down). It's not hard to see how some execs at Verizon might have looked at all of this as a headache that just isn't worth it -- especially given the potential criminal liability that comes from FOSTA. Remember, a few months back, we noted that a bunch of online trolls were deliberately targeting women they didn't like on various platforms claiming (often without evidence) that they were engaged in prostitution. Many of those targeted used Tumblr. It's not difficult to see how Verizon just decided to rid itself of this whole headache.

But, beyond demonstrating the censorship problems of FOSTA, this move by Tumblr is also doing a bang up job demonstrating why mandatory filters, such as those pushed for in Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive will be so harmful. Filters are notoriously terrible at accurately taking down only the content they're supposed to take down. Amusingly, one of the key talking points of Article 13 filter defenders is that "well, these platforms do a great job stopping porn, so clearly they can stop infringement." This is wrong on multiple levels, starting with the fact that the determination of what is "infringing" is entirely different from what is "porn." But, more to the point: the porn filters don't work very well at all.

Buzzfeed has a hilarious list of Tumblr posts that have been flagged as being adult content, that clearly... are not. Here are just a few:

Some are even claiming that reblogging Tubmlr's own announcement resulted in flags:

But for examples of flags that are perhaps even more relevant for those of us here on Techdirt, law professor Sarah Burstein, who runs a Tumblr and Twitter feed all about design patents (often highlighting how ridiculous those design patents are) found that a bunch of her design patent images resulted in flags as inappropriate content. I am not kidding:

Believe it or not, those are just a few examples from a much longer list of flagged posts about design patents for apparently violating Tumblr's "porn" filter.

While this is a complete travesty on a variety of levels, it demonstrates the utter futility of believing that filters will work and won't make a huge number of mistakes, pulling down perfectly reasonable content. Those working on laws (especially over in the EU) such as the EU Copyright Directive's Article 13 would do well to actually heed this message.

Filed Under: adult content, article 13, blogs, copyright, filters, fosta, porn, sex
Companies: tumblr, verizon

Judge Tosses Woman's Lawsuit Brought Against Google Because A Blogger Said Mean Things About Her

from the SUE-BETTER dept

Because even some lawyers can't seem to understand the legalities of Section 230 of the CDA or third-party liability, the courts are frequently burdened with stupid defamation lawsuits that can't survive a motion to dismiss. DC lawyer Harry J. Jordan lobbed one of these lawsuits into court late last year on behalf of Dawn Bennett, who felt she was defamed by a blog run by Scott Pierson, an SEO specialist who apparently failed to make Bennett's less-than-flattering history with the SEC disappear.

While there may have been a legitimate complaint against Pierson for some of the statements he made, Jordan and Bennett formed a legal suicide pact and decided to sue Google, which did nothing but provide hosting for the blog. The deadly duo pursued this theory in an attempt to hold Google responsible for something a user said:

As Google was aware of plaintiffs’ complaints that Pierson’s blog was factually false and a malicious vendetta against them and meant to cause crippling financial damages, it is therefore equally responsible and liable for the damages plaintiffs’ have suffered.

It doesn't matter whether Google was aware or not. Short of a court order, Google has no responsibility to kill off a blog simply because someone else doesn't like its contents. Bennett's lawyer appeared to be completely unfamiliar with Section 230 because it's not even addressed in the complaint. It does, however, get discussed in the court's dismissal of the case [PDF link], as quoted by Eric Goldman.

To salvage their claim, Plaintiffs attempt to argue that a novel issue is presented in this case which requires the court to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs state “[b]ut what courts have not fully addressed is where a service provider, such as Google, adopts definitive prohibitions regarding the content of third party user material, and does not enforce them … [what is] the impact of such failure on Section 203(e) immunity.” Simply, “… does it create such an obligation for itself if it adopts guidelines of what it deems objectionable content and fails to follow through by enforcing such standards?” The answer is “no,” and thus Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss must still be granted. See Klayman, 753 F.3d at 1359–60 (discussing that the CDA bars claims arguing that service providers must be held to a heightened duty of care based on adoption of any statements allocating rights and responsibilities between interactive computer services and their users). “It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems.” Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 331 (4th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, holding Google liable for establishing standards and guidelines would ultimately create a powerful disincentive for service providers to establish any standards or ever decide to remove objectionable content, which the CDA was enacted to prevent.

It's an old argument, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. The plaintiff tried to convince the court that Google taking any actions at all to moderate content it hosts makes its legally liable for anything found defamatory. The final sentence of this quote makes it clear any ruling finding moderation efforts by third parties somehow erases their Section 230 protections would only make things worse by forcing every platform provider to take an entirely hands-off approach to user-generated content.

This is basic Section 230 stuff, as attorney Harry Jordan should know. But as we've seen before, even lawyers providing education classes for other lawyers don't seem to have a firm understanding of Section 230 protections, which is why this sort of thing happens far more often than it should. A person representing himself may not fully understand the intricacies of the CDA, but lawyers definitely should. Otherwise, this sort of embarrassment awaits them in court, and they'll have inverted the old saying by making it possible for someone to retain counsel, but still have a fool for a lawyer.

Filed Under: blogs, cda 230, dawn bennett, defamation, first amendment, free speech, harry jordan, scott pierson, section 230
Companies: google

Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates

from the fuck-you,-riaa dept

Last month, we were actually the first publication to report that Homeland Security had very quietly "returned" two domains that it had "seized" five years ago based entirely on totally bullshit claims from the RIAA. We focused our story on the search engine torrent-finder, but also mentioned that it appeared that DHS had returned OnSmash.com as well. As we had noted, back when the domain was first seized, OnSmash was a popular hip hop blog that many in the industry purposely sent their music to, because it was great for marketing and publicity. In fact, Kanye West had been known to promote OnSmash himself. That doesn't sound like a site "dedicated to infringement" as Homeland Security's ICE division claimed in the affidavit used to seize the website.

Four years ago, we were wondering whatever happened to OnSmash, as other sites that had gone to court over the seizures had had their domains returned -- and it was admitted that this was because the RIAA (which had told ICE about these websites) failed to provide any actual evidence. It appears the same thing happened with OnSmash, though it just took an extra four years to get the domain back, as OnSmash's operator, Kevin Hofman, chose not to take the riskier path that Dajaz1 took in going to court. But, the NY Times story about the return of OnSmash gets a quote from ICE admitting that they never had enough evidence:

When asked about the return of OnSmash and another site, Torrent-Finder.com, which was seized in the 2010 raid and also returned to its operator this fall, Matthew Bourke, a spokesman for the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said that after working with the Justice Department, “it was determined there was not enough evidence to seize the websites.”

Think about that for a second. The US government shut down a blog for more than five years and only after giving it back now admits that it never had enough evidence to seize the website.

I'm gong to repeat that:

The US government shut down a blog for more than five years and only after giving it back now admits that it never had enough evidence to seize the website.

Meanwhile, the RIAA, which told the agent in charge of the investigation that these sites were nothing more than dens of infringement, is so obnoxious as to now celebrate them being returned with some bullshit line about how they now "wish to be legitimate operators":

Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the recording industry association, said he welcomed the return of the sites, as long as they played by the rules. “If the managers of some of these sites now seek to have the domain name returned because they wish to become legitimate operators, that’s a success,” he said.

What a load of horseshit, Lamy. These sites didn't "now seek to have the domain name returned." They asked for it back almost immediately after they were seized on false pretenses based on false information provided by the RIAA. Perhaps, instead of some bullshit about these sites suddenly wanting to play by the rules, Lamy should walk down the hall to see his colleague Carlos Linares (who is still employed by the RIAA) and ask him what was up when he lied to federal investigators, helping to shut down a popular blog, violating the site's First Amendment rights?

This is from the affidavit used to seize OnSmash:
Now, Hofman is trying to rebuild the blog, having basically lost years of momentum due to the RIAA's lies.

Mr. Hofman, whose day job is managing digital accounts for musicians, has already restarted OnSmash, but he said he was aware of the challenges he would face. The site has lost most of its momentum, and blogs — once at the forefront of online music promotion — have largely been superseded by social media. He noted one advantage: By embedding links from sites like SoundCloud and YouTube, where artists and labels post songs directly, there is no more gray area concerning the source of the music.

“The plan now,” Mr. Hofman said, “is to do my best to pick up the pieces.”

Oh yeah, insult to injury: Homeland Security made him pay $7 to get the domain back.

I'm still amazed that these stories haven't gotten more attention. Again, if the federal government seized and shut down a print magazine people would be up in arms. But they do that for a bunch of online magazines and nobody seems to care? Again, they seized the domain based on false information and kept it for five years knowing that they didn't have enough evidence to have made the seizure in the first place.

And the guy who helped at the RIAA is still employed. Has anything happened to the ICE agent, Andrew Reynolds, who wrote the affidavit? How about the magistrate judge, Margaret Nagle, who apparently had no problem signing off on the seizures of internet blogs based on faulty evidence? Apparently, she recently retired and is now acting as a mediator. You know what might have been helpful? If someone had actually been able to mediate things back in 2010 before the RIAA, Homeland Security and Judge Nagle worked together to shut down an internet news website with no justification.

I've issued some FOIA requests to Homeland Security about both OnSmash and Torrent-Finder, and so far they've said that it would be "too burdensome" to search for any emails mentioning either site. I'm hopeful that more information will be exposed on what a colossal screwup this was.

Filed Under: andrew reynolds, asset seizure, blogs, carlos linares, copyright, dhs, first amendment, free speech, hip hop, homeland security, ice, jonathan lamy, kanye west, kevin hofman, margaret nagle, onsmash, riaa, seizure
Companies: riaa

Spanish Court Limits Scope Of EU's Right To Be Forgotten

from the more-clarity-needed dept

EU's 'right to be forgotten' is still relatively new -- the original ruling was made less than a year ago. Since then, the EU courts and companies have been trying to work out what it means in practice, which has led to some broadening of its reach. But an interesting court ruling in Spain seems to limit its scope. It concerns the following case, reported here by Stanford's Center for Internet and Society:

The claimant was a Spanish citizen who found that when typing his name on Google Search, the results included a link to a blog with information about a crime he had committed many years ago. While the official criminal records had already been cancelled, the information was thus still findable on the internet.

The Spanish Data Protection Authority (DPA) made two rulings. One was that Google should remove the information from its search engine, and the other was that Google should remove personally identifiable information from a blog hosted on its Blogger platform. When these decisions were reviewed by Spain's National High Court, it confirmed the first ruling, and clarified that Google needed to remove the link to the criminal records information from its search results. However, it did not confirm the second ruling:

The National High Court reversed that and held that the responsible for the processing is not Google but the blog owner. It further held that the DPA cannot order Google to remove the content within a procedure for the protection of the data subject's right to erasure and to object.

This is significant, because it says the "controller of the processing" -- a key concept in EU data protection law -- is the blog owner, not Google, and so the latter cannot be forced to take down a blog post. The Center for Internet and Society post notes:

Arguably, under the rationale that the platform is not the controller of the processing, other user generated content sites such as YouTube or social networking sites might also fall outside the scope of the right to be forgotten.

Well, not entirely outside the scope: presumably, search engines could still be required to remove links to user-generated content, but it would be the creator of that content that would be asked to remove it entirely, not the hosting company. Clearly, further cases will be needed to clarify how exactly this will work in Spain, and whether it applies anywhere else.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: blogs, eu, right to be forgotten, search engines, social media, spain
Companies: google

Google Gets Prude: Says No More Adult Content On Blogger

from the paternalistic-nonsense dept

Apparently, Google is getting prude in its old age, suddenly deciding that it will no longer allow "adult" content on its Blogger platform, giving bloggers on the site just 30 days to find another home or have their content set to private. Here's the note that some bloggers received yesterday: Frankly, this is ridiculous. Yes, Google is a private company and has the right to do whatever it wants, but this sort of prudish, paternalistic role in determining what content is appropriate and what content is "artistic" or "educational" is a path with a lot of landmines that will lead to stifled speech on a platform that used to be celebrated for enabling free speech around the globe. On top of that, you have people who have used the platform to post this kind of information and content for over a decade suddenly being evicted with 30 days notice. Yes, this is always a risk that you take when you rely on someone else's platform, but it's a really unfortunate move from a company that one would hope would know better than to take such a hamfisted position on what content it "allows."

Of course, as Violet Blue notes, this is only the latest in a long line of moves by Google to stifle, hide or block any content that is sexual in nature. Here's just a snippet of a much longer piece by Blue, detailing the timeline of recent decisions by Google, all of which push content the company deems inappropriate further and further away:

It was one thing when Google Plus rolled out in June 2011 with a strict anti-adult, no sexual content policy for its troubled attempt at a social network; many of us just didn't bother participating, knowing how the content-policy ax always falls (not on the side of artists, writers, activists, LGBT people, or cultural outsiders who speak up).

But Google began its palpable aggression against erotic content in June 2013 when Google banned adult content from Google Glass apps, as well as enacting an affiliate porn purge across its Blogger platform.

December 2013 saw Android's Google Keyboard updated to exclude over 1,400 "inappropriate" words, returning no results for typing or swiping words including "intercourse," "lovemaking," "condom," "panty," "preggers" and "STI."

In February 2014 adult and erotic content was banned from Chromecast, followed by March 2014's ban and purge of adult and erotic apps from Google Play (Android's app and media hub).

April saw an ongoing series of Google Search algorithm updates that savaged existing adult website rankings, causing major disruptions in traffic and revenues for many websites.

So it's no surprise that many people believe that Google won't uphold its "freedom of expression" stance when it comes to organic adult search results.

I'm sure there are plenty of good business reasons why Google no longer wants to have this kind of content available on its site, but it's disappointing on multiple levels. It's not "censorship" in the classical sense, but it does seem like a really bad move by Google. It's a company that should know better, and often holds itself up as enabling more speech around the globe, and avoiding making any sort of "artistic" decisions on the worthiness of content. It is immensely troubling that this company now suddenly wants to determine which content it thinks is "appropriate" and which is not, not based on any legal requirements, but on a very subjective standard. Facebook did this sort of thing from early on in doing ridiculous things like banning "breastfeeding" images, and one would hope that Google would take a more reasonable stand. On top of that, giving people just 30 days to figure out where to go, when many have built up their blogs for over a decade just seems tremendously callous.

Google is a private company and can make its own choices, but this one seems like a particularly bad choice, which may have other consequences as well. For years, Google has pushed back on demands from copyright holders to magically monitor all its content, saying that it's just not possible. Yet, here it is now saying that it's willing to do exactly that, including making "artistic" judgments on the merits of whether adult content is purely prurient or done for a more artistic or educational reason. The company seems to be opening itself up to charges that if it can make such determinations for that type of content, it can also magically figure out what other content is "infringing" or not. This seems like a move that the company will regret.

Filed Under: adult content, blogger, blogs, prude, sexual content
Companies: google

Intel Turns Off Russian Forums, Blogs & Comments In Response To Russian Blogging Law

from the silence-all-of-you dept

Back in April of last year, we were among the first to report on a very dangerous new law in Russia targeting bloggers, requiring any blogger or social media user with more than 3,000 "visitors" a day to register their real name with the government. The idea, obviously, is to put a massive chill on free speech among popular bloggers and social media users -- making it clear that the government is tracking everything they do. Just recently we noted how various social media platforms were responding to Russian demands that they censor or take down accounts related to opposition politician Alexei Navalny, or other critics of the government.

But the blogger/social media law has now gone into effect, and it's having an impact in all sorts of places. For example, chip giant Intel has now announced that it is basically turning off all ways to contribute to its Russian Intel Developer Zone in order to comply with the law.

In order to be compiant with the Russian Internet Bloggers Law the following changes will be implemented to Russian Intel® Developer Zone community as of January 1st 2015:

• Blog post contributions will be disabled
• Forum contributions will be disabled
• All commenting will be turned off for russian content

While it's unlikely that those in power in Russia today think this is a very big deal, recognize that taking Russians out of forums and discussions concerning key technological developments could certainly come back to haunt Russian technology development. This also comes about a month after Google closed down its Russian engineering office, in response to a different regulatory shift: a "data handling law" that would require all information from Russian users be kept in Russia (making it more easily accessible by Russian officials and the intelligence community).

All of these moves may be designed to shore up the existing leadership's political power, but it seems like a fairly short-term strategy, given that the end result is likely to hold back technological expertise and talent at a time when staying on top of technology is so important.

Filed Under: anonymous, blogger's law, blogs, forum's, free speech, registration, russia
Companies: intel

Court Declares That, Yes, Bloggers Are Media

from the and-the-moral-of-the-story-is-don't-shoot-dogs dept

A few years ago, we wrote about the bizarre and quixotic effort by Florida businessman Christopher Comins to find any possible way to sue University of Florida student and blogger Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis for his blog post concerning a widely publicized event in which Comins shot two dogs in a field (video link). The story made lots of news at the time, but Comins didn't go after any of the major media -- instead targeting VanVoorhis for a defamation suit. The original blog post is "novelistic" but it's difficult to see how it's defamatory. Either way, Comins' case was shot down on fairly specific procedural grounds: namely that Florida defamation law requires specific notice be given to media properties at least 5 days before a lawsuit is launched. Specifically, the law says:

Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory.

Comins' lawsuit was dumped because he failed to give such notice. Comins argues that he did give such a notice (though the letter he sent did not meet the requirements of such notice under the law) and (more importantly for this discussion) that VanVoorhis' blog did not count as a media publication, and thus the law did not apply. The original court ruling rejected that pretty quickly, and now on appeal, a state appeals court has not just rejected Comins' anti-blog claim more thoroughly, but also highlighted the importance of blogs to our media landscape.

The full ruling does a nice job giving the history and purpose of the law above, as well as the importance of encouraging the media to report on difficult stories. And from there, it explains why VanVoorhis' blog is clearly a part of the media and why blogs in general are so important:

...it is hard to dispute that the advent of the internet as a medium and the emergence of the blog as a means of free dissemination of news and public comment have been transformative. By some accounts, there are in the range of 300 million blogs worldwide. The variety and quality of these are such that the word “blog” itself is an evolving term and concept. The impact of blogs has been so great that even terms traditionally well defined and understood in journalism are changing as journalists increasingly employ the tools and techniques of bloggers – and vice versa. In employing the word “blog,” we consider a site operated by a single individual or a small group that has primarily an informational purpose, most commonly in an area of special interest, knowledge or expertise of the blogger, and which usually provides for public impact or feedback. In that sense, it appears clear that many blogs and bloggers will fall within the broad reach of “media,” and, if accused of defamatory statements, will qualify as a “media defendant” for purposes of Florida’s defamation law as discussed above.

There are many outstanding blogs on particular topics, managed by persons of exceptional expertise, to whom we look for the most immediate information on recent developments and on whom we rely for informed explanations of the meaning of these developments. Other blogs run the gamut of quality of expertise, explanation and even- handed treatment of their subjects. We are not prepared to say that all blogs and all bloggers would qualify for the protection of section 770.01, Florida Statutes, but we conclude that VanVoorhis’s blog, at issue here, is within the ambit of the statute’s protection as an alternative medium of news and public comment.

While it seems crazy that this kind of issue is still being debated in 2014, it's good to see a court make such a clear statement on the fact that blogs will often qualify as media properties.

Filed Under: blogs, christopher comins, defamation, florida, matthew frederick vanvoorhis, media

Former DHS/NSA Official Attacks Bruce Schneier With Bizarre, Factually Incorrect, Non-sensical Rant

from the anyone-can-publish-on-cnn dept

Over the years, at times, I've seen people criticize Bruce Schneier for perhaps getting more publicity than other security researchers, but it's rare to see people question his knowledge. The complaints often appear to stem more out of jealousy than anything else. But, I've never seen anything quite as ridiculous as this "CNN iReport" by Richard Marshall and Andre Brisson, which appears to be a blatant hatchet job attack on Schneier that is at times incomprehensible, at times factually incorrect and bizarre throughout. Marshall is a former NSA and DHS "cybersecurity" expert, but he's now the CEO of "Whitenoise Labs," (something not mentioned in the article). Brisson is the founder of Whitenoise Labs, and appears to have a beef with Schneier going back at least a decade if not more. Brisson and Marshall appear to not be particularly adept at explaining themselves, so the history is not clearly laid out anywhere. The short hand, as far as I can tell, is that Brisson thinks he's discovered some magic elixir security solution, which Schneier mocked way back in 2003. Brisson now feels that the security community gives him no respect and even Defcon ignores his pleas to present his own brilliance.

Last year, Brisson appears to have hired Marshall, and the two of them see this as an opportunity to attack Schneier. It looks like there are two main points to the article: (1) they don't like Bruce Schneier (2) they want you to know about their own solution, which even they admit Schneier dismissed as "snake oil." But here's the bizarre part. Even though it's clear that they're just trying to promote their own thing, pretty much the whole point of their article is that you shouldn't trust Bruce Schneier because he blogs and he's only trying to promote his own business. I'm not joking.

It appears that one of the sources of Mr. Schneier’s information are documents leaked by E.Snowden, fugitive American living in Russia and former contractor with Booz Allen Hamilton, and Glenn Greenwald, a journalist who worked with Mr. Snowden. Mr. Schneier’s intentions clearly have nothing to do with his convictions about privacy, as much as business and profit motives. It must be emphasized that blogs are not journalism: they are marketing tools specifically designed to try to sell a product, not to get to the truth.

Where to start? First off, it does not "appear" that one of the sources is Snowden, it is confirmed fact. Also, Greenwald did not "work with" Snowden. Greenwald is a journalist and Snowden was a source. Since then, the Guardian, whom Greenwald worked for, also brought on Schneier to help understand some of the Snowden documents. This is all public knowledge. Second, while Schneier does blog quite a bit, he's also been regularly published in all sorts of news publications that have significant editorial staffs, including The Guardian, the Atlantic, Harvard Business Review, Wired and more.

The suggestion that he's just some random blogger is obviously false, and pretty much everyone knows that. Furthermore, Schneier's experience in the field is pretty damn well documented. His own firm, Counterpane, was acquired years ago by British Telecom and Schneier has obviously done tremendous work in the world of computer security for many, many years.

Weeks of research regarding Mr. Schneier’s claims have highlighted one of the most frustrating problems with the internet age. Because virtually anyone lacking serious journalistic credentials can, and often does, write or post freely on any subject, the resulting sheer volume of information available may lead people to believe that the reporting is even-handed and well-researched. Unfortunately, in many circumstances nothing can be farther from the truth.

Weeks? As noted: Brisson's feud with Schneier appears to go back a decade. And it took me all of about 3 minutes to find all those well known publications that Schneier writes for. Brisson and Marshall (two people!) couldn't find them in weeks? Also, I'm beginning to wonder if the above paragraph actually refers to the article by Brisson and Marshall a lot more than anything Schneier has ever done.

Because the very information analyzed and evaluated may result in policy, it absolutely demands that such information be subject to the highest and most stringent scrutiny and as such, deserves to be evaluated and vetted by verified experts, politicians, business leaders, and citizens with proven track records of integrity, honesty, and true concern for the public interest. It should not be done by those with a history of practicing self-interest over privacy and security.

Again, this is coming from people whose main purpose with this article appears to be promoting their own mocked security solution, and who regularly run silly promotional "contests" and "countdown clocks" designed to focus on their own self-interest.

For many weeks, it has been noted that volumes of proselytizing and dissemination of “opinion-as-fact” come from unverified information through Mr. Schneier’s self-promoting blog, other blogs and various online sites, such as gamer’s sites, of unknown, dubious reputation and/or expertise in the critical areas of cryptography and privacy and not from reputable publications as The New York Times or The Washington Post.

I'll let that sink in for a bit. Notice, of course, that they leave out "The Guardian" and "The Atlantic" -- two publications that Schneier does write for, with reputations that are at least on par with the two publications named. Also, it appears to leave out that both the Washington Post and the NY Times have been publishing stories quite similar to Schneier's, and both have (at least some of) the same documents from Snowden, which these two guys mocked Schneier for using as his source.

Mr. Schneier decries the NSA and mandated law enforcement agencies empowered by our laws. Yet, Mr. Schneier’s track record shows, significantly, that at least twice over the last decade he has turned a blind eye to workable security (but he complains about privacy.)

This bold claim is not supported anywhere in the article. It likely refers to Schneier ignoring or mocking their own "solution."

The article goes on to make some half-baked suggestions about how to deal with the NSA surveillance issues that suggest they don't even understand what's going on. Their solution? "using the improved security technology we have available to combat the fatal flaws of public key" technology -- which of course is what their firm has been pushing on the world for years, and which ignores the fact that the evidence so far from Snowden has shown that public key encryption, when done right, still works pretty damn well.

Reading the article, it's laughable. Nearly all of the attacks on Schneier are more accurately directed at the authors of that article. If the DHS and the NSA are looking to attack Schneier, they should at least try to find former execs who can write comprehensibly, and who didn't go off to work for a foreign "security" company with dubious credentials.

Filed Under: andre brisson, blogs, bruce schneier, cybersecurity, dhs, ed snowden, encryption, nsa, reporting, richard marshall, security
Companies: whitenoise labs

New Vietnam Decree Says Blogs And Social Media Must Contain Only Personal Information, Not News Reports

from the content-free-content dept

Around the world, we have been watching the gradual taming of social media, especially in countries where governments keep mainstream media on a tight leash. But even against that background, this news from the Bangkok Post about Vietnam's latest moves to censor online content is pretty extraordinary:

"Personal electronic sites are only allowed to put news owned by that person, and are not allowed to 'quote', 'gather' or summarise information from press organisations or government websites," local media quoted Hoang Vinh Bao, director of the Broadcasting and Electronic Information Department at the Ministry of Information and Communications, as saying.

The ban was approved by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung on July 15, communicated to Vietnamese press late Wednesday, and was due to come into force on Sept 1.

It also bans individuals from providing "general information" on their profiles or blogs.

That's even more extreme than China's approach, which may take down troublesome material as soon as it is put up, but at least allows the possibility of putting it up in the first place. Vietnam's rules mean that online news can only be carried by "official" channels, which are closely regulated. For everyone else, it seems, the Internet must by law become the realm of entirely content-free narcissism -- and pictures of cats.

In response, the US Embassy in Vietnam has released a statement expressing its "concerns" about this move:

Fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline. Decree 72 appears to be inconsistent with Vietnam's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as its commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Who says Americans don't do irony?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: blogs, free speech, independent journalism, journalism, news, social media, vietnam