SOPA

Jacob Appelbaum videos


Publicado el 11/09/2012 por 

In this Surveillance Teach-In, award-winning filmmaker Laura Poitras is joined by computer security expert and privacy advocate Jacob Appelbaum and National Security Agency whistle-blower Bill Binney to present an artistic and practical commentary on living in the contemporary Panopticon.

@

Publicado el 04/06/2012 por 

Jacob Appelbaum shares his views on privacy, government surveillance and the current state of democracy with YASSSU at the Re:publica conference 2012 in Berlin

Jacob Appelbaum is an independent computer security researcher and hacker. He is currently employed by the University of Washington, and is a core member of the Tor project. Appelbaum is known for representing Wikileaks at the 2010 Hope conference. He has subsequently been repeatedly targeted by US law enforcement agencies, who obtained a court order for his Twitter account data, detained him 12 times at the US border after trips abroad, and seized a laptop and several mobile phones.

@

@

Publicado el 22/05/2012 por 

Re-contextualizing our social interactions in the face of privatisation of data leads us into a space of social responsibility. The impact of our permissive data sharing habits and the economic models that incentivize it is not yet fully understood. How may we ensure that we’re fully informed and consenting to information released or sold about us? How may try we ensure that consent is required? How can we re-contextualize and better come to a shared understanding about transitive risks posed by the surveillance state?

@

@

 

EXCLUSIVE: Jacob Appelbaum (Wikileaks/Tor) on SOPA


Jacob Appelbaum of the TOR anonymity network project, wikileaks and the University of Washington speaks about his opinions of the SOPA legislation which was recently put forth to the American Congress (and subsequently caused massive online protests and swiftly pulled from consideration.

He talks about the dangers of such censorship and government power, the issues of the recent Megaupload takedown and how to bypass censorship and state surveillance.

This speech took place at Occupy Melbourne when Jacob Appelbaum came down to speak before the “War on the Internet” conference at Trades Hall.

FURTHER READING:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum

@

ACTA explained – Animation


What is ACTA: https://www.eff.org/issues/acta

This was started in 2008. Behind our backs the governments of the world have been meeting in secret to craft this international agreement. President Obama even refused to release documents concerning this agreement. so much for Freedom of Information.

Three Strikes and a Global DMCA:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-three-s…

2011 in Review: Developments in ACTA :https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review-developments-acta

ACTA and the Overblown Threat of Piracy:http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2010/5/8/2280/-ACTA-and-the-Overblow…

Comprehensive list of ACTA articles from EFF:https://www.eff.org/search/site/acta

@

English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout


To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012 

 

T

oday, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate – that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:

It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.
Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.
On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.

In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.

But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,

We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.
But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it

Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.

That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place – many do! – but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.

My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States, don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?

The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we’re seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.

 Make your voice heard!

Bookmark with Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Digg.com

On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.

Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

@

NETCOALITION


http://www.netcoalition.com/

Join our fight! Visit www.ProtectInnovation.com to find out how!

NetCoalition represents leading global Internet and technology companies, including Google, Yahoo!, Amazon.com, eBay, IAC, Bloomberg LP, Expedia and Wikipedia, providing a platform from which members can engage legislators, through active dialogue, on public policy that raises important and fundamental issues involving NetCoalition’s primary agenda.

At the core of our values, NetCoaltiion seeks to preserve the vitality of the Internet that exists today – an open and consumer-oriented competitive environment – which inspires global innovation and trade. We support strong and meaningful initiatives to protect intellectual property – which are, for many companies, among their most valuable assets – and enforce these voluntarily and vigorously

@