Loi Hadopi : 52 artistes soutiennent la riposte graduée - PC INp Étienne Daho, Christophe Maé, Kery James, Sinik, Francis Cabrel, Patrick Bruel, Jean-Jacques Goldman, Jenifer, Stanislas, Raphaël, M Pokora, Keren Ann, Thomas Dutronc, Eddy Mitchell, Isabelle Boulay, Maxime Le Forestier, Martin Solveig, Marc Lavoine, Calogero, Gérard Darmon, Pascal Obispo, Jacob Devarrieux, Elie Seimoun, Alain Bashung, Bernard Lavilliers, Rachid Taha, Bob Sinclar, Psy4delarime, Abd Al Malik, Anis, André Manoukian, Charles Aznavour, Alain Souchon, Mademoiselle K, Soprano, Arthur H, BB Brunes, Liane Foly, Emmanuelle Seigner, Ridan, Renan Luce, Zita Swoon, Johnny Hallyday, Empyr, Kenza Farah, Shine, Camaro, Diam's, Renaud, Romane Cerda, Cali et la Grande Sophie. Ces artistes se disent « inquiets, très inquiets » car « aujourd'hui, de bonnes âmes essaient de faire croire que la liberté de tout faire, donc de faire tout et n'importe quoi sur Internet est un droit de l'homme que rien ne saurait contrarier sauf à tomber dans une forme de dictature préhistorique. Eh bien non !
China Widens Net Censorship; Google Exile Looms | Threat Level | The Chinese government is imposing new internet restrictions demanding personal-website operators to acquire central-government permission to operate their sites. The latest censorship measure, which covers .cn domestic domains, comes as Google is trying to convince Chinese censors to ease up. Google said 43 days ago it would undertake a self-imposed exile from China if the government does not back off from requiring it to censor search results. The government said the latest move — which also requires site owners to submit a photograph and to show identification — was targeted at tackling pornography. Critics, though said it was based on silencing political dissent. China did not say when the rules would be enforced. The plan underscores that China is not likely to blink in its confrontation with Google, at least not anytime soon. Google declined Wednesday to directly address negotiations surrounding its China announcement. Illustration: TheG See Also:
Can Someone Please Tell This Italian Judge What YouTube Is? Sometimes I despair of Europe, even though I’m proud of what can be achieved here. But really, guys, can we get it together? At the same time the European Union is investigating a pretty flimsy anti-trust complaint against Google, it’s conspiciously ignoring a case in Italy where three Google executives have been found guilty on a ridiculous charge. Here is the bizarre story. An Italian court yesterday convicted two current and one former Google exec in a trial over a video showing a teenager being bullied. Despite the fact that Google removed the video within hours of being notified of its existence, Judge Oscar Magi (pictured) absolved the three of defamation but convicted them of privacy violations. Google has responded in a justifiably vociferous blog post calling this a “serious threat to the web in Italy”. As Google explains: In late 2006 Students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. Hello?
ISP Filtering is happening in Australia, don't let it happen her A friend pointed me in the direction of a little piece of code behind the official site for the Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy, Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. This is a screenshot of his website today (click for a larger version): Notice on the right hand sidebar a "tag cloud" with the most discussed topics on that site. Now let's look behind the scenes on the code used to create that "tag cloud": Oh, look... Now you understand why I think we shouldn't have a national Internet filter in New Zealand. (By the way, I hope using the website as an example don't put me on a "persona non grata" list in Australia...) Other related posts: Testing the Kingston DataTraveler Locker+ G3 Telecom enforces SSL email, uses wrong name in certificate Windows XP end of support: 8 April 2014
Olivier Henrard Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Biographie[modifier | modifier le code] Olivier Henrard est diplômé de l'Institut d'études politiques d'Aix-en-Provence[1] et de la Faculté de droit d'Aix-Marseille III[réf. nécessaire]. Il a exercé, à la direction des affaires culturelles de la mairie de Paris, des responsabilités dans les secteurs de la musique et de l'art lyrique (1993-1996) puis des bibliothèques et du livre (1996-1999), dans les domaines budgétaire, juridique et des ressources humaines[réf. nécessaire]. Il a par ailleurs été, dans le cadre du Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique, rapporteur de la commission sur le statut juridique des œuvres multimédia[3] (novembre 2004 - octobre 2005) ainsi que de la mission sur la Rémunération pour copie privée et les mesures de gestion électronique des droits (mai - octobre 2006). Il passe dans le privé en mars 2013, devenant secrétaire général de SFR[7]. Bibliograhie[modifier | modifier le code]
Internet censorship Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations at the behest of government, regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.[1] The extent of Internet censorship varies on a country-to-country basis. Support for and opposition to Internet censorship also varies. Overview[edit] Many of the issues associated with Internet censorship are similar to those for offline censorship of more traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, books, music, radio, television, and film. Views about the feasibility and effectiveness of Internet censorship have evolved in parallel with the development of the Internet and censorship technologies: Content suppression methods[edit]
Reporters Sans Frontières Reporters Without Borders marks the World Summit on the Information Society by presenting 15 countries that are “enemies of the Internet” and pointing to a dozen others whose attitude to it is worrying. The 15 “enemies” are the countries that crack down hardest on the Internet, censoring independent news sites and opposition publications, monitoring the Web to stifle dissident voices, and harassing, intimidating and sometimes imprisoning Internet users and bloggers who deviate from the regime’s official line. The “countries to watch” do not have much in common with the "enemies of the Internet." The plight of a Chinese Internet user, who risks prison by mentioning human rights in an online forum, does not compare with the situation of a user in France or the United States. Yet many countries that have so far respected online freedom seem these days to want to control the Internet more. The 15 enemies of the Internet (in alphabetical order) Countries to watch (in alphabetical order)
How Internet Censorship Works" One of the early nicknames for the Internet was the "information superhighway" because it was supposed to provide the average person with fast access to a practically limitless amount of data. For many users, that's exactly what accessing the Internet is like. For others, it's as if the information superhighway has some major roadblocks in the form of Internet censorship. The motivations for censorship range from well-intentioned desires to protect children from unsuitable content to authoritarian attempts to control a nation's access to information. Internet censorship isn't just a parental or governmental tool. While there are some outspoken supporters and opponents of Internet censorship, it's not always easy to divide everyone into one camp or another. In this article, we'll look at the different levels of Internet censorship, from off-the-shelf Web filters to national policy. We'll start off by looking at Internet censorship on the domestic level.
Internet Censorship Laws in Australia Last Updated: 31 Mar 2006 "It is not the function of Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." - Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge This section provides information about on-line censorship legislation in Australia, that is, the C'th Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 and C'th Classification Act, and State/Territory Classification Acts. Contents: Overview / Current Situation [Update 31 March 2006: See separate page for EFA's analysis of Labor's (ALP's) mandatory ISP filtering/blocking plan which was announced on 21 March 2006.] The Internet censorship regime in Australia comprises law and regulation at both Commonwealth and State/Territory Government level, apparently because the Australian Constitution does not appear to grant either level of government sufficient power to independently and fully regulate online content. EFA Reports, Analyses and Submissions
The Internet Censorship FAQ The Internet Censorship FAQ was created by Jonathan Wallace and Mark Mangan, co-authors of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace, a new book on Internet censorship from Henry Holt. Some of the material in the following is taken from the book. The Table of Contents and internal links were added by August Brunsman. Please redistribute this FAQ freely in relevant forums. What threats of censorship exist for the Internet? The principal threat of Internet censorship today is the Communications Decency Act, a law passed by Congress and signed by the President in January, 1996 which would apply quite radical regulations to speech on the Internet. What is the Communications Decency Act (CDA)? The CDA criminalizes "indecent" speech on the Internet. Is the CDA unconstitutional? Yes. Supreme Court cases, notably including Butler v. There is no justification for treating the printed and electronic word differently. What rationales are advanced by the supporters of the CDA? Not at all. Only in part. It's true.
Digital economy bill rushed through wash-up in late night sessio The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading – which means it will get royal assent and become law – after just two hours of debate in the Commons. However it was forced to drop clause 43 of the bill, a proposal on orphan works which had been opposed by photographers. They welcomed the news: "The UK government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed," said the site set up to oppose the proposals. But despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour MPs who spoke up against measures contained in the bill and put down a number of proposed amendments, the government easily won two votes to determine the content of the bill and its passage through the committee stage without making any changes it had not already agreed.
Week in review: Net neutrality neutered? | Business Tech - CNET An appeals court decision may leave many wondering whether an open Internet's days are numbered. The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled this week. The three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease-and-desist order against cable and ISP giant Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year. The decision could also doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. While the recent court ruling has indeed cleared Comcast's name, some consumer advocates say the consequence of this ruling is that it has also stripped the FCC of its power to enforce basic Internet openness principles.
Un ministre italien adoube le peer-to-peer et dénonce la stupidi Partager sur Viadeo Impertinences, Internet, Les Potins, Logiciels, Loisirs, Ordinateurs, Réseaux Par : La Rédaction - Jeudi 15 avril 2010 à 9:32 Roberto Maroni, ministre de l’Intérieur italien de son état, a osé déclarer qu’il était un adepte du peer-to-peer. Il a massacré la loi française « Hadopi ». Nos confrères toujours bien informés de PCInpact notent que le monsieur qui s’est exprimé dans différents médias sur le sujet, considère que s’adonner au téléchargement sur les réseaux P2P n’est pas assimilable à du piratage. Pour étayer ses propos, le ministre sait de quoi il parle puisqu’il est lui même musicien dans le groupe soul Distretto 51. Le gus estime que l’échange hors marché sur internet est une simple manifestation de l’échange entre amis et ne correspondrait en rien à un vol à l’étalage comme veulent le faire croire les majors et autres associations qui les défendent.
ID cards scheme to be scrapped within 100 days | Politics | guar The timetable for dismantling the national identity card scheme was spelled out today by the home secretary, Theresa May. Photograph: Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters The £4.5bn national identity card scheme is to be scrapped within 100 days, the home secretary, Theresa May , announced today. The 15,000 identity cards already issued are to be cancelled without any refund of the £30 fee to holders within a month of the legislation reaching the statute book. Abolishing the cards and associated register will be the first piece of legislation introduced to parliament by the new government. The role of the identity commissioner, created in an effort to prevent data blunders and leaks, will be abolished. The government said the move will save £86m over four years and avoid £800m in costs over the next 10 years that would have been raised by increased charges. More than 5.4m combined passport and identity cards were due to be issued when the scheme was started in earnest next year.