Reclaim The Net accepts no invasive advertising and is funded by the community. If you support free speech, the eradication of cancel culture, and restoring privacy and civil liberties, please become a supporter here and get exclusives.
Thank you. | Introducing our "Truth is Not a Crime" T-Shirt and Hoodie: a wearable testament to the power of honesty in a world filled with attempts at ambiguity.
This isn't just another piece of clothing; it's a bold statement, a conversation starter, and a declaration of your dedication to truth and integrity.
It's an emblem for truth-seekers and truth-speakers, a banner for those who champion facts in an era where truth is under siege.
Get $7 off with the coupon code: APRILTRUTH here.
Or become a supporter to get up to 50% off all merch as a bonus. | | CENSORSHIP AT THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVEL |  | EU DisinfoLab, a non-profit officially operating independently but regularly making policy recommendations to the EU and member-states, is now pushing for a security structure created by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to be utilized in the "war on disinformation."
EU DisinfoLab, which receives grants from George Soros' controversial Open Society Foundations, is now testing the water regarding "repurposing" of an ICANN security operation set up to combat malware, spam, phishing, etc., and turn it into a tool against "disinformation sites."
Attempting to directly enlist ICANN would be highly controversial, to put it mildly, at least at this stage. Given its importance in the internet infrastructure - ICANN manages domain names globally - and the fact content control is not among its tasks (DisinfoLab says ICANN "refuses" to do it) - this would represent a huge departure from the organization's role as we understand it today.
But now DisinfoLab proposes to use "the structure already created by ICANN" against legitimate security threats, to police the internet for content that somebody decides to treat as "disinformation." It would require "minimal amount of diligence and cooperation" from registries, a blog post said, to accept ICANN-style reports and revoke a site's domain name.
The justification for all this is that alleged "disinformation doppelganger" sites use domain names that are deceptively similar to "trusted news sites."
And, according to the group, who better to wipe out whatever domain name is deemed to belong to a "disinformation site" than a DNS registrar - and ICANN is the top authority for them all.
During the pandemic, ICANN's Domain Name System Threat Information Collection and Reporting (DNSTICR) was used to identify domain names that contained terms related to Covid, but the goal was to find out if the sites abused the keyword(s) to mask phishing or malware proliferating operations, rather than to "moderate" any type of Covid-related content.
Now DisinfoLab wants to use a system based on DNSTICR to allow for reporting of "genuinely open-and-shut (disinformation) cases" to registrars for removal.
But, what authority would decide what's a "genuinely open-and-shut case"?
DisinfoLab's idea: registries or registrars could "grant media trade associations 'trusted notifier' status."
No word on what methodology these "trusted notifiers" would use to perform their "arbiter of truth" role. | Reclaim The Net accepts no invasive advertising and is funded entirely by the community. If you support free speech, the eradication of cancel culture, and restoring privacy and civil liberties, get exclusive content, features, and more by becoming a supporter here.
Thank you for your support.
|  | The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has overturned a provision imposed against a January 6 defendant to have his computer surveilled and inspected for "disinformation," while on probation.
Late last month, the appeals court asked a district judge who issued the order, Reggie Walton, to remove the computer monitoring part from the decision, with a panel of judges stating that Walton "plainly erred" when he mandated the measure.
The defendant, in this case, is Daniel Goodwyn, sentenced to two months in prison last June by the district court presided by Judge Walton, who found that in addition to other accusations against him, Goodwyn was spreading "misinformation" (and "disinformation" - but the judge used two words as if they meant the same thing).
This refers to Goodwyn in March 2023 appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight and "spreading "dis(mis)information" when he "made no attempt to correct the record," i.e., argue with Carlson, who said that January 6 defendants had received unfair treatment relative to their actions during the incident.
Usually, controversial cases of surveillance involve a person being spied on for expressing an opinion; here, it seems Judge Walton went for the measure because Goodwyn did not express the opinion he wanted to hear.
It also looks like, since the judge couldn't get Carlson in the dock, he decided to throw the book at Goodwyn.
In addition to prison time and surveillance of his computer, Goodwyn's guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds (he spent 36 seconds inside the Capitol) also cost him a total of $3,000 in fines and restitution. Goodwyn had spent 13 months in home detention before his trial.
Goodwyn has welcomed the decision of the Court of Appeals, saying it was in line with US law and tradition, and adding in a statement to the Epoch Times, "It's unbelievable, in my opinion, that he (the judge) would unlawfully order Feds to spy on me in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, under threat of locking me back up in prison."
While appealing the computer monitoring mandate last June, Goodwyn's attorney Carolyn Stewart noted that the US does not have a law on "mis(dis)information.
"Computer searches for undefined 'disinformation' are not reasonably related to any crime," Stewart wrote. |  | The US House of Representatives is about to vote on yet another reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and "reform" of one of its most controversial components, Section 702.
Like FISA's name goes, the target is supposed to be foreign threats; however, the problem is that the act, with its original roots in the post-9/11 era - also infringes on what should be legally guaranteed rights of Americans.
And it's been 20+ years since 9/11 - so now some prominent conservatives are asking - might the next big terrorist threat actually be coming along with illegal immigrants?
For this, and other reasons, there's the perpetual talk of "reform" when FISA reauthorization time comes along. But somehow the results of these efforts have been lacking.
Section 702 has allowed for warrantless searches of Americans, contrary to the country's Constitution, and the new bill now under consideration, Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), is condemned by critics as essentially "reform - with no reform."
That's because RISAA still doesn't mandate that law enforcement agencies must have a warrant to get hold of what's phrased as "US person query."
All this is not sitting well with some well-known conservative figures, who are pointing the finger at House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, for this fiasco-in-the-making.
On top of not dealing with the obvious problem of the constitutionality of warrantless searches, the bill further allows both law enforcement and spy agencies to either buy (or continue buying - depending on who asks) personal data, again belonging to Americans (private phone calls, emails, text messages) from third-party data brokers.
Johnson opted to rush RISAA through the House, saying that a separate bill will deal with data broker issues - which may or may not be rejected in the Senate.
That's a lot of red flags already, but then in steps the CIA to make it just a little bit worse - the agency's justification for expanding Section 702 is that warrantless searches are now necessary to combat "the fentanyl crisis."
According to the US press, the CIA describes "intelligence collection allowed under Section 702" as "urgently needed to thwart transnational organized crime groups manufacturing and smuggling the lethally potent synthetic opioid from China to Mexico and into the US."
How about stopping the actual people who bring it in - opponents of illegal migration might ask, at this point. |  | The head of Germany's domestic spy agency, Thomas Haldenwang, has penned an op-ed for a German newspaper and provided some insight into the way he understands freedom of expression, and more importantly, its limits.
Haldenwang, who is at the helm of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), defended in the article published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung his policy of keeping watch on citizens, which includes things like "thought and speech patterns."
At the same time, Haldenwang didn't rule out that legal expressions of opinion might be targeted in this population surveillance effort, and made attempts to provide justification for such a stance.
Meanwhile, critics see this as a policy designed to advance restrictions on speech and economic freedoms, primarily aimed at political opponents. In fact, recent polls suggest that most citizens also believe that BfV has become a political tool, and this opinion is said to be strongly present among parties (other than, unsurprisingly, the Greens).
That seems to be precisely the reason Haldenwang felt compelled to publish his thoughts in the newspaper, noting the increased frequency of "headlines and articles" that question and criticize BfV's activities, some suggesting the agency is policing opinion, language, and even "mood" - and is morphing into German government's, basically, "bodyguard."
Haldenwang goes on to assert that "freedom of opinion prevails" in his country, and reminds his readers (less so, it seems, himself) that this freedom is what separates a democracy from an autocracy.
But, the BfV chief also seems to differentiate between "freedom of opinion" and freedom to actually express that opinion. And while in Germany one can have "offensive, absurd and radical opinions" - freedom of expression "has its limits," he writes.
"Even within the limits of criminal law, however, expressions of opinion, despite their legality, can become relevant for constitutional protection," the op-ed goes on.
This can be interpreted as yet another example of authorities in a declaratively democratic country trying to find a way to restrict speech they don't like regardless of its being formally legal - while at the same time being unwilling to legislate to outlaw it, either because of lack of political consensus, or fear of political backlash.
As for what is speech and opinion that the Constitution may need protecting from, the "definition" is broad enough to fit in a lot of things.
It includes "permissible criticism and democratic protest escalating and turning into aggressive, systematic delegitimization of state conduct" - and this may or may not include "calls for violence." There's also violation of "human dignity of members of certain social groups or political actors." | Reclaim The Net is funded by the community. Please keep us going and get extra benefits by becoming a supporter. Thank you.
| | Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net
| | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment