Posts Tagged ‘Internet Control’


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 26, 2012

Sudden action on CISPA today signals that the House was instructed to pass the legislation despite overwhelming opposition. It was rushed to the floor a day early and quickly brought to a vote with additional amendments.

Alex Jones reports on the passage of CISPA. As of this writing, the corporate media has not bothered to post a video.

“Pushing the bill through is bad enough, but what’s worse are the amendments that Rep. Ben Quayle (R – AZ) managed to get added. These amendments make CISPA infinitely worse than it already was,” writes Game Politics.

The amendments converted the supposed “cybersecurity” bill into an outright Big Brother surveillance tool that completely nullifies Fourth Amendment protection online.

From Techdirt:

Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for “cybersecurity” or “national security” purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.

Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime”. Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power.

Dirty tricks were used to pass CISPA. The legislation allows the national security state to circumvent the Constitution and allow carte blanche surveillance of the internet – from computer networks to private computers and devices to the emerging “internet of things.” Passage of CISPA is a milestone for the high-tech surveillance police state now going in place.

The traitors in Congress threw up a wilted fig leaf to cover their posteriors. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said the bill was “needed to prepare for countries like Iran and North Korea so that they don’t do something catastrophic to our networks here in America,” Politico reports, while Speaker of the House John Boehner said the legislation will protect the economy and create jobs.

Rogers’ transparent excuse was is little more than a sick joke considering the fact the U.S. and Israel unleashed the Stuxnet virus on Iran’s computer network. North Korea is a convenient culprit and its ability to attack the United States is seriously in question, especially after another failure to put a satellite in orbit, something the former Soviet Union and the United States did over half a century ago.

Following the defeat of SOPA and PIPA earlier this year, Congress was told to sell CISPA as a bulwark against terrorism. Obama has promised to veto the bill but this remains to be seen and is likely yet another trick.

In December at the last moment Obama signed the NDAA after he said he would veto it. No doubt he will perform the same parlor trick with CISPA.

Call your representatives now and strongly voice your condemnation. Also call your senator and warn him or her that there will be serious repercussions if they vote this monstrosity into law.

 

Advertisements

RT America
April 5, 2012

‘After nearly unprecedented pushback against bills SOPA and PIPA, their apparent defeat cannot yet be claimed. Most skeptics presumed that the defeat of the aforementioned would only serve to offer a compromised “SOPA light” at some point to circumvent criticism over government censorship. Well, it didn’t take long. In addition to OPEN and ACTA to combat supposed piracy issues in the U.S. and Europe respectively, we now have been presented with a full-on fascist template for Internet control where government and private corporations will work hand in hand under the very broad definition of cybersecurity.’

 


Controversy underscores Google’s contempt for web freedom

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Following the revelation that Google had been tracking the surfing habits of iPhone users via a code that disables the Safari browser’s privacy settings, Microsoft has now discovered that Google is using similar methods to bypass privacy protections and spy on the browsing habits of Internet Explorer users.

“When the IE team heard that Google had bypassed user privacy settings on Safari, we asked ourselves a simple question: is Google circumventing the privacy preferences of Internet Explorer users too? We’ve discovered the answer is yes: Google is employing similar methods to get around the default privacy protections in IE and track IE users with cookies,” reports Microsoft on their IEblog.

Last week it was revealed that Google had circumvented Apple’s efforts to block third party cookies by default, allowing Google to track which ads Safari users clicked on.

The Internet giant, whose motto is “don’t be evil,” has now been caught using a similar process to disregard cookie preferences of Internet Explorer users, allowing targeted ads to be served based on browsing history.

“Google is trying to do is figure out things based on what you have looked at, figure out ways to serve you more relevant ads,” explains Henry Blodget. “Google intentionally circumvented some privacy protections that Apple put in place, now Microsoft is saying ‘hey wait a minute, they did the same thing to us.’”

While Google’s actions are not illegal, they will only serve to underscore the fact that the company has a flagrant disregard for privacy, which is no surprise given Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s creepy 2009 warning, when he stated, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

Indeed, as we have documented on numerous occasions, Google’s actions are completely consistent with the charge that the company is in cahoots with the National Security Agency, America’s foremost spying operation.

Last year the Washington Post reported that Google and the NSA had formed an “alliance…to allow the two organizations to share critical information.”

After the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a FOIA request in an attempt to glean an insight into the relationship between the two, the NSA claimed it “could neither confirm nor deny” the existence of any information about its relations with Google, because “such a response would reveal information about NSA’s functions and activities.”

Charges that Google is merely the private arm of U.S. intelligence outfits stretch back years. As we reported in late 2006, ex-CIA agent Robert David Steele claimed sources told him that CIA seed money helped get the company off the ground. Speaking to the Alex Jones Show, Steele elaborated on previous revelations by making it known that the CIA helped bankroll Google at its very inception. Steele named Google’s CIA point man as Dr. Rick Steinheiser, of the Office of Research and Development.

Google’s attitude towards privacy also came under scrutiny when it was discovered that the company was spying on WiFi network data in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act as it gathered images for its Streetview program. Google insisted that the practice was a mistake, even though information published in January 2010 revealed that the data collection program was a very deliberate effort to assemble as much information as possible about U.S. residential and business WiFi networks.

 


Federal agency seeks to track “effectiveness of public affairs messaging”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, February 17, 2012

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has followed in the footsteps of the DHS in looking to hire a private contractor that will monitor news coverage of the agency’s activities on a 24/7 basis.


“FEMA is planning to award a 100% small business set-aside contract to a media monitoring firm that can monitor, archive and measure all local news in “major Nielsen markets,” all nationally broadcast news and all cable outlets for their news coverage of FEMA activities in the field across the U.S.,” reports Government Security News.

The program is similar in nature to a Department of Homeland Security monitoring effort that stoked controversy and a congressional hearing after it emerged that the DHS had hired an outside contractor, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, to monitor social media outlets along with a list of websites, on a “24/7/365 basis,” in order to uncover “any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government and the Department.”

This included monitoring remarks by residents of Standish, Michigan in “newspaper comment talkbacks, local blogs, Twitter posts, and publicly available Facebook posts,” to gage the response to a plan to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to a local prison.

Although the FEMA contract does not specifically mention the monitoring of blogs and comments made by Internet users, it does call for the program to “Monitor the effectiveness of public affairs messaging,” which implies that feedback from citizens regarding FEMA’s activities will be part of the process.

The FEMA contract for the monitoring service explains that the agency is looking for information on “media statistics including the audience exposure and publicity value” for news items related to FEMA.

Concerned about its reputation in the eyes of American citizens who are growing increasingly wary of big government, this is not the first time FEMA has reached out to try and massage its image following the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which “evoked some of the harshest criticism the agency has ever faced.”

As we exclusively reported in 2006, a story that was later confirmed by KSLA news agency the following year, FEMA has created ‘Clergy Response Teams’ trained by the federal government to “quell dissent” and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.

The program recruited pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

Even in the absence of such emergencies, the federal government has already announced that it is actively monitoring social media for signs of “social unrest”, in a bid to pre-empt any sign of civil dislocation within the United States.

Representatives from the Department of Homeland Security yesterday stonewalled a Congressional hearing into the DHS’ monitoring of news and social media by refusing to give specific answers on what measures were being taken to prevent the program creating a “chilling effect” whereby people would be afraid to leave negative comments in online forums for fear of retribution.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, who obtained 300 documents via a FOIA request detailing how the DHS was tracking websites like the Drudge Report, Huffington Post, Facebook and Twitter, submitted a statement to the Subcommittee Hearing arguing that “The DHS monitoring of social networks and media organizations is entirely without legal basis and threatens important free speech and expression rights.”

Watch a KSLA report on FEMA’s ‘Clergy Response Teams’ below.

 


Paying cash for a cup of coffee? Don’t let Twitter know…

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, February 17, 2012

Given the fact that the FBI has characterized the view that the U.S. should return to the gold standard as an extremist belief held by potential domestic terrorists, should goldbugs be concerned about the agency’s efforts to create a new app that tracks ‘suspicious comments’ made on social media websites?

Watch Video

A document posted online recently by the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeks developers to create an app that will have the capability to “rapidly assemble critical open source information and intelligence … to quickly vet, identify, and geo-locate breaking events, incidents and emerging threats.”

Critics of this new form of data mining fear that the FBI could follow the example of the Department of Homeland Security in monitoring social media websites for comments critical of the federal government.

“Information pulled from sites like Facebook, Twitter and blogs could be cross referenced with other databases to identify potential threats,” the ACLU told Fox News.

Prime amongst those potential threats, according to the FBI’s counterterrorism division, are Americans who “believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard”. People who hold this political viewpoint should be treated as “extremists” who “pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers,” the FBI warned earlier this month.

In addition, as part of the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism program, under which businesses are being recruited to spot potential terrorists, the agency characterizes paying cash for a cup of coffee, buying supplies of food in bulk, showing an interest in online privacy, and a myriad of other banal activities, as potential indications of terrorism.

Former FBI agent Mike German said comments made on a Twitter account deemed suspect by the FBI could create a “cloud of suspicion” over people merely using social media to express their First Amendment rights, warning that the feds could use the data to “increase video surveillance in a neighborhood.”

“Part of what we want to protect is the freedom to speak your mind, to criticize government policies without fear that the government will take it the wrong way and start treating you as if you’re a threat,” German told Fox News.

That chilling effect of Americans refraining from criticizing their government in online forums due to fears over reprisals was the subject of a congressional hearing yesterday.

A Department of Homeland Security monitoring effort similar to the FBI’s proposal stoked controversy after it emerged that the DHS had hired an outside contractor, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, to monitor social media outlets along with a list of websites, on a “24/7/365 basis,” in order to uncover “any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government and the Department.”

This included monitoring remarks by residents of Standish, Michigan in “newspaper comment talkbacks, local blogs, Twitter posts, and publicly available Facebook posts,” to gage the response to a plan to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to a local prison.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency also recently announced a plan to hire a private contractor to track news coverage of its activities in order to help “Monitor the effectiveness of public affairs messaging.”

 


Inalienably Yours
Wednesday, February 15, 2012

What if there was a little box that could be placed in your home that could…..

…. track every Google search that you ran?


…. see who you email?

…. see from whom you receive emails?

…. watch your keystrokes to learn all your passwords?

…. turn on a camera and watch you at any given time?

…. gather information about your likes, dislikes, political affiliations and religious beliefs?

…. dispense all of the above personal data to fusion centers, whose only purpose is to put together profiles of you and your family?

As it turns out, there is such a box, and if you are reading this, you’re on it right now.  You not only voluntarily brought this device into your home, you paid good money for it.  Your computer is spying on you.

The home computer is bar none the greatest information sharing device ever created.  We can study anything our little hearts desire.  We can meet other people anywhere on the globe who have similar interests to us.  We can be kept constantly up to date with news, communication with friends and family and updates to our inboxes about myriad topics.

Unfortunately there is a dark side to having a home computer.  A home computer means that someone else could have constant access to US.

Here are just a few little tricks that your computer may be up to, unbeknownst to you.

GOOGLE:

Google has the best reputation in the world as a search engine extraordinaire.  But the times are changing and Google is becoming less and less trustworthy.

First there is the Gmail scandal.  If you are a user of the free email service, you may have noticed that the ads running down the side of the homepage seem uniquely targeted to your current interests.  That is precisely because they ARE – Gmail scans every single email sent, gleaning information for “advertisers”.  That’s right, every single email you send through Gmail is read.  Apparently it is read by a computer, but the point is, your emails are not private.  Password, smassword.

Next there is the issue of censored searches.  Unless you specifically use keywords that will hook you up with alternative news sources, Google searches are now directing you towards the most politically correct answers.  Gone are the days when you can simply type in, for example, 9/11, and find information that is provided based on ratings – now you actually need to already have the source that you want the information from to get a clear picture…for example, “Infowars 9/11.  Some websites, like Infowars, are no longer coming up in Google searches unless you include them in your search terms.    At the end of 2010, Google blacklisted Infowars and Prison Planet from it’s search aggregates, despite the fact that those sites get more hits than many mainstream media sites that show up front and center.

Finally, let’s talk about Google’s new “privacy policy.”   As it turns out, that policy isn’t keeping very much private at all.  As of March 1, in an effort to its ads to the tastes of individual consumers, Google will integrate information from all of it’s services, including the search engine itself, Youtube and the aforementioned Gmail.  Google refers to this as a “more intuitive Google experience.”  Unfortunately for users who prefer more privacy, there is no option to “opt out” of this information gathering and sharing.  Check out THIS ARTICLE that recently appeared in The Washington Post for more information on the new lack-of-privacy policy.

YAHOO

Not to be outdone, Yahoo also “analyzes” the content of your emails. And according to their guide for compliance with law enforcement officers, Yahoo hangs on to your information for far longer than the privacy policy states they will.  Here are some alarming statistics, directly from Yahoo, wrapped up in a menu-priced
17 PAGE GUIDE

~  All IP addresses that you use to log into your Yahoo mail account are retained for one year, giving an excellent way to track your movements, find your workplace, or see who you visit.
~  Instant messages and chats are logged for a minimum of 60 days.
~  The information provided to law enforcement agencies is not a matter of civic duty – the major communications companies all have “price lists”. The US Marshall Service admitted to having PRICE LISTS FOR DATA INTERCEPTION SERVICES from Yahoo, Verizon, Cox Communications,  and ComCast.

FACEBOOK

Over half a billion people worldwide voluntarily provide information about their personal lives, their friends, their families, their religious beliefs and their political agendas on Facebook.

Nowhere can be found a bigger fountain of personal information.  As a way to increase the information Facebook learns about it’s users, when a person is logged into Facebook on a computer, a cookie tracks all other sites visited on that same computer.  If you are logged into Facebook, the door to your home computer usage is wide open.

Facebook uses facial recognition technology to “tag” people in photographs.  Facebook is also like the evil town gossips, making assumptions about you based on who your friends are.  Ads that are targeted to your “friends” can also make it onto your own page. Facebook figures you’ll have the same interests.

Facebook uses GPS technology to post the location where photographs have been taken and/or uploaded, making even your physical location public information.

Skype

Purchased in May of 2011 by MICROSOFT, Skype is the world’s #1 provider of VoIP services.  Two years before making the purchase Microsoft began efforts to patent technology to intercept VoIP calls.

The information can be used in many ways.  Criminally speaking, credit card numbers, social security numbers or other personally identifying information can be easily procured.  Information and keywords gathered from phone calls can be used in legal proceedings.  Data-mining techniques can be used to gear advertisments and marketing based on conversations that you think are private.

Even more alarming is the fact that once Skype is downloaded on your computer, it is possible to turn on your webcam from a remote location.  That’s right.  You might be sitting there reading the latest blog from your favorite afghan-knitting granny and somebody, somewhere, might be looking back at you.

You owe it to yourself and your personal security to learn as much as you can about how your computer, your home and even your thoughts, if you are careless enough to type them in somewhere, can be accessed.

FUSION CENTERS

Finally, know that fusion centers really do exist and they are the final clearinghouse for all of this information.  Sometimes loosely cloaked as “marketing research” facilities, they have systems for corralling the information gleaned from your computer usage that will provide a very complete profile of you.  That profile may contain information about your relationships, your sexual orientation and fantasies, your political ideologies, your religious beliefs, your family, your friends, your bank accounts, where your money comes from, photo recognition profiles….absolutely everything there is to know about you.

The fusion centers are the real threat – if personal freedoms continue to erode at the current rate, you may one day be deemed an enemy of the state based on your Facebook status updates.  Information compiled there could, potentially, make you a target of the government.

Personally, I have no intention of ceasing my usage of the internet.  The internet and the continuous access to knowledge make this a great time to be alive.  I will continue to do my research, I’ll continue to share my opinions and information.  But I will do these things knowing that nothing is private anymore.

Big Brother is not just watching – he’s making a scrapbook.

 


Editor’s Note: He used to be head of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009, and pioneered the naked body scanner roll-out in US airports and rolling back your liberties and rights with the USA Patriot Acts. Now he runs the Chertoff Group, a global security and risk-management firm that advises clients on cyber security, including cloud computing. So why is Michael Chertoff interested in cloud computing compatibility with EU online data privacy laws? It appears that he sees them as an obstacle to something – capturing your data across borders? Let’s see…

Cloud computing and the looming global privacy battle

By Michael Chertoff
Washington Post
February 10, 2012

… According to Viviane Reding, the European Union’s justice commissioner, cloud-based companies that collect personal data are violating fundamental human rights. “We . . . believe that companies who direct their services to European consumers should be subject to EU data protection laws. Otherwise, they should not be able to do business on our internal market,” Reding wrote in November. “This also applies to social networks with users in the EU. We have to make sure that they comply with EU law and that EU law is enforced, even if it is based in a third country and even if its data are stored in a ‘cloud.’ ”

A set of global rules will be difficult to achieve. International structures are notoriously cumbersome and slow-moving; this is a particular challenge in the context of quickly developing cloud technology. And international organizations’ governance structures are often universally inclusive, which means that countries with little interest in Internet freedom or accessibility may have a disproportionate influence on the rules adopted.

The alternative, however, is equally problematic. If development of privacy rules and regulations is left to individual countries, one of three scenarios is likely to result: Heralded by E.U. actions, more fragmented regulation may emerge as non-European countries try to impose their own privacy views on an unruly network. As a condition of access to a market, they will hold hostage providers who use cloud services — in effect, trying to balkanize the Internet. Another possibility is a rush to the bottom as countries compete to attract commercial cloud services by minimizing privacy protections.

The most likely result, however, is a privacy clash as the United States and the European Union compete to impose their will. This is the worst possible outcome, pitting natural allies against each other. U.S. diplomacy should urgently focus on dissuading Europe from unilateral action while developing a comprehensive “Western” approach to cloud privacy. That type of agreement on privacy principles would drive favorable policy development and set the stage for safe and effective expansion of cloud services.

Read Chertoff’s full article here

 


Friday, February 10, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently snagged a hefty $500 million forfeiture, one of the largest in history, from search engine giant Google for running advertisements on its AdWords service for Canadian pharmacies. The agency claims these ads, which were also viewable by Americans, facilitated the illegal shipment of prescription drugs into the U.S. in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as well as the Controlled Substances Act.

A trophy in the FDA’s trophy case of strong-armed regulatory enforcement actions, the $500 million forfeiture demonstrates the agency’s intolerance for the sale of any drug that is not officially FDA-approved. But what it also embodies is a whole new level of government reach into private business practices, which in this case did not necessarily constitute a violation of the law on Google’s part.

Since Google did not directly introduce or deliver Canadian drugs to U.S. customers, the company is technically not in violation of U.S. law. But according to the Justice Department, Google acted as an accomplice to the crime by “enhancing the ability of Canadian pharmacies to reach American consumers,” according to The New York Times (http://dealbook.nytimes.com).

But does allowing various advertising as part of its service constitute engaging in criminal behavior? This is a blurry zone in federal law that was recently addressed in the debates about SOPA and PIPA as well, concerning whether or not allowing links to diverse content that could be in violation of the law, rather than directly censoring them, is illegal.

In this case, Google chose to enter a non-prosecution agreement with the government, which is basically a formal way of saying that Google essentially paid off the federal government not to prosecute the company. Such an agreement can go both ways — on the one hand, the federal government gains protection against a countersuit for its potential overreach into Google’s activities, while at the same time Google gains protection from creating for itself a criminal record.

Meanwhile, the only things that were technically accomplished in the case is that Google had to sacrifice a small percentage of its profits, and the FDA became $500 million richer. The public, on the other hand, gained nothing.

Since there was no actual legal case or ruling, Google is now technically free to continue allowing Canadian pharmacy advertising as it was never determined whether or not this practice is considered legal. So when you really think about it, the FDA just wanted a piece of the pie that is Google’s profits, and really could not care less about consumer safety.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm276002.htm

http://dealbook.nytimes.com

http://www.dailytech.com


Linda Lewis
Boiling Frogs
February 6, 2012

The US government has developed massive surveillance capabilities to monitor communications, travel and financial transactions in this country and abroad. But, even the government cannot monitor everything Americans do—not directly, anyway.  Thus, it created the Communities Against Terrorism (CAT) program to enlist your friendly local businesses as spies for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The CAT program, funded by the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training program (SLATT) is described as a “tool to engage members of the local community in the fight against terrorism.” The program interprets “local community” to mean businesses, and only registered businesses may access the program’s flyers listing “potential indicators” of terrorist activity.

Each flyer is designed for a particular kind of business. For example, this list was prepared for owners of internet cafes. Unquestionably, someone planning a terrorist attack has engaged in one or more of the “suspicious” activities on that list. But so, too, have most of the estimated 289 million computer users in this country.

The government’s flyer designates people as suspicious if they “always pay cash” at an internet café. That’s a jaw-dropping assumption considering that we’re talking about businesses that sell $2 cups of joe, not $600 airline tickets. Good luck paying with a credit card for a purchase under $10.

Evidence that one has a “residential based internet provider” (such as Comcast or AOL) is another pretext for government snooping. If your home internet connection is unreliable, if you are on travel, or if you simply relish a good cup of coffee with your internet browsing, you run the risk of acquiring an FBI file. Trying to shield personal information on your computer screen from the prying eyes of others will mark you as a potential terrorist, also.

It is officially creepy to use a café hotspot to download “photos, maps or diagrams” of a stadium, metro rail stop, or any “populated locations.” To be safe, confine your travel plans to the Alaskan tundra. And, should there be another terrorist attack, do not demonstrate any “preoccupation with press coverage” of the attack. Just move along–nothing to see here.

If you engage in these or any other “suspicious” activities listed on CAT flyers, businesses are encouraged to “gather information” about you, including “license plates, vehicle description, names used, languages spoken, ethnicity, etc.”  At least 25 CAT flyers, collected by Public Intelligence, are known to exist.

The CAT list of “suspicious” internet café activities suggests appalling ignorance of the ways ordinary Americans use computers. Those who are computerless can become surveillance targets, too, if they own guns or precious metals, store a seven-day supply of food, buy a flashlight, believe in conspiracies or participate in peaceful demonstrations.

The government’s paranoia would be laughable were it not for the potential consequences for citizens who find themselves in its crosshairs.  Under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, the government may detain indefinitely any terrorism suspects–including U.S. citizens. And, since the government has created pretexts for arresting virtually anyone, no one is safe.

The consequences for public safety are no less grim. If the FBI cannot distinguish between legitimate computer use and credible evidence of terrorist activities, it cannot zero in on genuine threats.  So, what is the purpose of Big Brother and his business partners spying on millions of Americans if it doesn’t make us any safer?  Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

 


Brendan Sasso
The Hill
Thursday, February 2, 2012

Google quietly revealed earlier this month it will allow censorship in some countries of content on its Blogger service.


The move came shortly before Twitter announced it will allow foreign governments to censor specific Tweets.

On Jan. 9, Google said that users in some countries accessing the Blogger platform will be redirected to a country-specific Web addresses.

“For example, if you’re in Australia and viewing [blogname].blogspot.com, you might be redirected [blogname].blogspot.com.au,” Google explained.

Full article here