Pakistan Attempt to Block YouTube Video disrupts Internet

Service on Google Inc.'s YouTube Web site was disrupted around the world for several hours Sunday after a botched effort by the Pakistani government to block access to a video clip critical of Islam.

The story began unfolding Friday when the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, the nation's telecom regulator, ordered Pakistan's Internet-service providers to immediately block access to a specific YouTube video, which it said was so incendiary it could trigger riots. A senior official at the authority said it also contacted YouTube, requesting that the site remove the video. The authority argued the clip was a violation of YouTube's terms of service, which ban hate speech. YouTube has since removed the clip but says it doesn't comment on reasons for removing specific videos.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120395109205290503.html

Blogger Josh Wolf

Is Josh Wolf a journalist and should he be afforded the same protections as other journalists? - MT

Ex-USA Today Reporter Could Face Big Fines

Toni Locy, a former USA Today reporter, could face some tough and expensive decisions beginning next week.

Ms. Locy has defied a court order to reveal the sources she used in stories that named a government researcher as "a person of interest" in an FBI investigation into a string of post-9/11 anthrax attacks. A federal judge will decide as early as next week whether to fine Ms. Locy $5,000 a day for refusing to give up those names.

Courts in the last few years have been stepping-up pressure on reporters to identify sources used in politically sensitive stories, including pieces about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the steroids investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, or Balco.

What makes Ms. Locy's case different is that the judge may force her to pay the daily fines out of her own pocket. Ms. Locy now teaches journalism at West Virginia University, where she earns $75,000 a year. She says she has no savings to speak of. U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton has said he would raise the daily fine with each week that the dispute drags on -- requiring her to pay $500 a day for the first week, $1,000 a day in the second week, and $5,000 a day in the third week. (Gannett Co., which publishes USA Today, has been paying for Ms. Locy's legal bills.)

If Ms. Locy were to hold out for three weeks, she would owe $45,500, or about 60% of her salary. She said her journalism students have offered to hold a bake sale to raise some of the money, but she doesn't even know if the judge would allow that because the funds would be coming from someone else. "I'll be bankrupt in a matter of days," Ms. Locy said in a telephone interview this weekhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB120371390819286561.html

http://www.rcfp.org/news/2008/0219-con-judgef.html

China Eats Crow Over Faked Photo

HONG KONG -- It turns out that train tracks in Tibet aren't where the antelope play.

Earlier this week, Xinhua, China's state-run news agency, issued an unusual public apology for publishing a doctored photograph of Tibetan wildlife frolicking near a high-speed train.

The deception -- uncovered by Chinese Internet users who sniffed out a Photoshop scam in the award-winning picture -- has brought on a big debate about media ethics, China's troubled relationship with Tibet, and how pregnant antelope react to noise.

The antelope imbroglio began in the summer of 2006. The Chinese government was celebrating its latest engineering feat, and an enthusiastic wildlife photographer from the Daqing Evening News was camped out on the Tibetan plateau eating energy bars and waiting for antelope to pass.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120363429707884255.html

Attempts to Lock up Information

Recent days have brought two federal court decisions with disputed First Amendment legitimacy. In San Francisco, District Judge Jeffrey White acceded to a request by a Cayman Islands bank to shut access to the Web site Wikileaks.org, which "invites people to post leaked materials with the goal of discouraging 'unethical behavior' by corporations and governments," as the New York Times reports. In this case, the bank, Julius Baer Bank and Trust, accused "a disgruntled ex-employee" of giving stolen documents to Wikileaks in violation of banking laws and a confidentiality agreement. Wikileaks says the documents allegedly reveal structures the bank uses for hiding assets, tax evasion and money laundering. Judge White granted a permanent injunction ordering Wikileaks' domain-name registrar to disable its Internet domain name. But the Times says that action "suggests that the bank, and the judge, did not understand how the domain system works," since the site can still be accessed at its Internet Protocol address, http://88.80.13.160/, and its Wikileaks domains remain registered in other countries.

In the other case, District Judge Reggie Walton in Washington ordered former USA Today reporter Toni Locy to pay $500 per day after finding her in contempt of court for refusing to identify sources who told her about a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks. The suspicions she reported indeed existed -- former Army scientist Steven Hatfill was publicly identified as a "person of interest" in the case by the attorney general at the time -- but Mr. Hatfill is suing the government and arguing his reputation was destroyed by media leaks. Judge Walton agreed that the sources of Ms. Loci -- now a journalism professor -- were important for Mr. Hatfill's suit, and he ordered her to pay the $500 a day until she names them and said the amount would soon escalate to $5,000 a day, as USA Today reports. She has declined to give up her sources, and Judge White postponed the penalty to allow her to appeal the contempt ruling.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120356120676681971.html

Journalism on Trial - New Ways to Silence Journalists

There are many ways to intimidate or silence journalists. One depressing tactic in this country is to jail them for refusing to divulge the names of confidential sources who have provided sensitive information for articles, or to turn over telephone logs, emails, memos or notebooks identifying those informants to whom reporters have pledged confidentiality. (I'm familiar with this approach, having spent 85 days in jail two summers ago for protecting such a source until he waived the pledge I'd given him.)

There may now be an alternative: bankrupting reporters who refuse to comply with subpoenas and court orders.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton -- the same Judge Walton who presided over the Scooter Libby trial -- found Toni Locy, a professor of journalism at West Virginia University and a former USA Today reporter, in contempt of court. She'd refused to divulge her sources for two articles she wrote about Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army scientist once at the heart of the government inquiry into the anthrax letter attacks of Oct. 2001, which killed five people.

Dr. Hatfill, long under suspicion but never charged with any crime, has sued the government for allegedly violating his privacy by leaking information about him and the investigation to the press. Ms. Locy is one of five reporters he subpoenaed to identify those anonymous government sources who he says ruined his reputation and career. (The anthrax case itself is unsolved.)

Judge Walton said he might fine Ms. Locy $500 a day for seven days, $1,000 a day for the following seven days, and $5,000 a day for the seven days after that if she continues to refuse to cooperate. In all, she could accumulate more than $45,500 in fines. What's more, Judge Walton may bar her former employer, USA Today, or any other individual or news organization from helping her pay, as Dr. Hatfill's lawyer has requested.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120356120676681971.html

Judith Miller Tells Her Story

Additional Feeds
No.1:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/8488486#8488486
No.2:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/8485046#8485046
No.3:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/8485047#8485047

NO.4:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/16888211#16888211

New York Times reporter Judith Miller faced up to 18 months of jail time for "contempt of court" after refusing to reveal her sources in the probe of who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the press.

Reporter Held in Contempt

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 (UPI) -- A federal judge in Washington held a newspaper reporter in contempt of court for not identifying sources who named a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attack. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said Tuesday he would begin fining Toni Locy of USA Today $500 per day, escalating to $5,000 per day, until she tells who identified former U.S. Army scientist Steven Hatfill as a possible suspect in the attacks that killed five people, USA Today reported Wednesday. Walton said he would consider postponing the penalty to allow Locy to appeal. Walton also delayed a decision on whether to hold former CBS reporter James Stewart in contempt for not disclosing his sources on the matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20anthrax.html?ex=1361250000&en=5b642bca7ebe21e0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/02/20/reporter_held_in_contempt_in_anthrax_case/2413/

USA Today Cuts Use of Anonymous Sources

Anonymous sources can play an important role in breaking an explosive story, but that anonymity requires trust -- in sources, but also the reporters themselves.

Last year, USA Today acknowledged that its former star reporter, Jack Kelley, fabricated quotes and entire stories. He hid some of his fictional anecdotes behind unnamed sources.Many newspapers have tried to tighten their rules allowing the use of confidential sources, but no major paper has taken a harder line than USA Today.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4815420

The Story of Judith Miller by MSNBC

No.1:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/8488486#8488486
No.2:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/8485046#8485046
No.3:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/8485047#8485047
NO.4:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/16888211#16888211

New York Times reporter Judith Miller faced up to 18 months of jail time for "contempt of court" after refusing to reveal her sources in the probe of who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the press.

Error Gave F.B.I Unauthorized Access to Email

WASHINGTON — A technical glitch gave the F.B.I. access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network — perhaps hundreds of accounts or more — instead of simply the lone e-mail address that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation, according to an internal report of the 2006 episode.F.B.I. officials blamed an “apparent miscommunication” with the unnamed Internet provider, which mistakenly turned over all the e-mail from a small e-mail domain for which it served as host. The records were ultimately destroyed, officials said. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/washington/17fisa.html?ex=1360990800&en=adb2c839abd93506&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Facebook makes it easier to quit as privacy fears rise

Aiming to address the privacy concerns of disenchanted users, Facebook.com said on Tuesday that it was trying to make it easier for people to delete their accounts permanently from the social networking site. Facebook modified its help pages to tell people that if they wanted to remove their accounts entirely, they can direct the company by e-mail to have it done.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/technology/13face.html?ex=1360645200&en=83c0863abc905815&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Internet Sex Video Case Stirs Free-Speech Issues in Hong Kong

Several arrests in Hong Kong for posting sexually explicit images of what appear to be some of Asia’s best-known pop stars has led to a debate over free speech on the Web.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/business/worldbusiness/13internet.html?ex=1360645200&en=41108d089de2d18d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Senate Votes to Protect Telecos from Privacy Lawsuits

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

After nearly two months of stops and starts, the Senate rejected by a vote of 31 to 67 a move to strip away a grant of retroactive legal immunity for the companies.

President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that it is essential if the private sector is to give the government the help it needs.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws.http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Terrorist-Surveillance.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login

How Sticky is Facebook? Try breaking free

Editors note: So what the privacy concerns here?

Are you a member of Facebook.com? You may have a lifetime contract.

Some users have discovered that it is nearly impossible to remove themselves entirely from Facebook, setting off a fresh round of concern over the popular social network’s use of personal data.

While the Web site offers users the option to deactivate their accounts, Facebook servers keep copies of the information in those accounts indefinitely. Indeed, many users who have contacted Facebook to request that their accounts be deleted have not succeeded in erasing their records from the network
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/technology/11facebook.html?ex=1360472400&en=c4124f08081c16b4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Copyright's Chokehold - What is a fair use?

By Joseph Nocera
The New York Times
On Friday, a lawyer named Anthony Falzone filed his side’s first big brief in the case of Warner Bros. Entertainment and J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books. Mr. Falzone is employed by Stanford Law School, where he heads up the Fair Use Project, which was founded several years ago by Lawrence Lessig, perhaps the law school’s best-known professor. Mr. Falzone and the other lawyers at the Fair Use Project are siding with the defendant, RDR Books, a small book publisher based in Muskegon, Mich. As you can see from the titans who have brought the suit, RDR Books needs all the legal firepower it can muster.

As you can probably also see, the case revolves around Harry Potter. J. K. Rowling, of course, is the creator of the Harry Potter series — “one of the most successful writers the world has ever known,” crowed Neil Blair of the Christopher Little Literary Agency, which represents her. Warner Brothers holds the license to the Harry Potter movies. Of the two plaintiffs, though, Ms. Rowling appears to be the one driving the litigation

It’s an odd twist that this dispute centers around a book, because ever since the recording industry first sued Napster, most of the big legal battles over copyright have centered on the Internet. The lawsuit Viacom filed against YouTube last year to prevent people from posting snippets of Viacom’s copyrighted television shows is the most obvious recent example. But if you look a little further back, you’ll see that for a long time now, copyright holders have made a series of concerted efforts to extend copyright protection and make it an ever-more powerful instrument of control.

More than a century ago, copyrights lasted for 14 years — and could be extended another 14 if the copyright holder petitioned for an extension. Today, corporate copyrights last for 95 years, while individuals retain copyrights for 70 years after their deaths. The most recent extension of copyright, passed by Congress in 1998, was nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, because Disney’s lobbyists were intent on keeping Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain — and on preserving billions in profits for Disney.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09nocera.html?ex=1360299600&en=292aa0332ba0ffb2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

China's Alternative Reality

China will soon boast more internet users than any other country. But usage patterns inside China are different from those elsewhere
ONE of the more striking end-of-year statistics pumped out recently by the Chinese government was an update on the number of internet users in the country, which had reached 210m. It is a staggering figure, up by more than 50% on the previous year and more than three times the number for India, the emerging Asian giant with which China is most often compared. Within a few months, according to Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, China will have more internet users than America, the current leader. And because the proportion of the population using the internet is so low, at just 16%, rapid growth is likely to continue for some time.

That such a big, increasingly wealthy and technologically adept country has embraced the internet is no surprise, but it has done so in a very different way from other countries. That is in large part the result of the government's historically repressive approach towards information and entertainment. News is censored, television is controlled by the state, and bookshops and cinemas, shuttered during the Cultural Revolution, are still scarce.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10608655

China's Alternative Reality

China will soon boast more internet users than any other country. But usage patterns inside China are different from those elsewhere
ONE of the more striking end-of-year statistics pumped out recently by the Chinese government was an update on the number of internet users in the country, which had reached 210m. It is a staggering figure, up by more than 50% on the previous year and more than three times the number for India, the emerging Asian giant with which China is most often compared. Within a few months, according to Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, China will have more internet users than America, the current leader. And because the proportion of the population using the internet is so low, at just 16%, rapid growth is likely to continue for some time.

That such a big, increasingly wealthy and technologically adept country has embraced the internet is no surprise, but it has done so in a very different way from other countries. That is in large part the result of the government's historically repressive approach towards information and entertainment. News is censored, television is controlled by the state, and bookshops and cinemas, shuttered during the Cultural Revolution, are still scarce.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10608655

Do school bans on cell phones violate free speech?

Most of the judges on a state appellate court panel seemed to be sympathetic on Wednesday to arguments by parents that a ban on cellphones in New York City schools trampled on their right to make decisions about the safety of their children.

During a hearing in Manhattan on the constitutionality of the ban, the five judges indicated that they were looking for a compromise policy. They asked lawyers for the city and the parents whether it would make sense for children to be able to bring phones into a school building as long as the phones were turned off, and they wondered aloud whether the schools chancellor was being insensitive to the wishes of parents.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/nyregion/07cell.html?ex=1360126800&en=37e80db5ae250e2d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Funny Legal Ads Draw Censure

Advertising by lawyers has long been controversial, with detractors saying it cheapens the profession and proponents asserting that ads foster competition and help educate people about their options. Most states prohibit false or misleading lawyer ads, but some states go further. Tighter -- and some say arbitrary -- restrictions are the trend. South Carolina is currently reviewing a ban on any ad "likely to attract clients by use of showmanship, puffery or hucksterism." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120234229733949051.html?mod=hps_us_pageone

White House attempts to gut FOI Act through the back door

There’s no end to President Bush’s slyness in subverting new Congressional law and clinging to the secrecy that has been the administration’s executive cloak. When a vital measure to strengthen the tattered freedom-of-information law won unanimous approval by both houses of Congress, the president was forced to soften his stand and quietly sign it into law on New Year’s Eve.But, of course, even as open-government groups celebrated, the White House had another trick up its sleeve.

A bit of fine print inserted in the president’s new budget proposal would gut a major provision of the law — the empowerment of a new ombudsman to mediate disclosure disputes and prod agencies to end disgraceful runarounds in which legitimate citizen requests have been deep-sixed without a trace for a decade and more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/opinion/07thu2.html?ex=1360126800&en=1fc98483becd664b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Great Firewall of China Faces Online Rebels

WUHAN, China — As an 18-year-old student with an interest in the Internet, Zhu Nan had been itching to say something about the country’s pervasive online censorship system, widely known here as the Great Firewall.

When China’s censors began blocking access to the popular photo-sharing site Flickr, Mr. Zhu felt the moment had come. Writing on his blog last year, the student, who is now a freshman at a university in this city, questioned the rationale for Internet restrictions, and in subsequent posts, began passing along tips on how to evade them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/world/asia/04china.html?ex=1359867600&en=aba0467cac42f7c8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink