The Telecommunication Communication Presidency banned 138 words and terms from the internet. The list also includes words used in everyday life. The number of access bans is expected to increase; also food home delivery sites or football supporters’ clubs will be affected.
Ekin KARACA, email@example.com
Istanbul – BİA News Center
29 April 2011, Friday
The list of ‘banned words’ is the latest outcome of a series of oppressive applications that day by day restrict internet freedom in Turkey more and more.
In a notification sent to all service providers and hosting companies in Turkey on Thursday (28 April), the Telecommunication Communication Presidency (TİB) forwarded a list of banned words and terms. Yet, this list also includes a number of ‘ordinary’ words that can be deemed indispensible in usual everyday life.
According to the list, names like ‘Adrianne’, ‘Haydar’ or words like ‘Hikaye’ (‘Story’) fall under the ban. Assoc. Prof. Yaman Akdeniz, lecturer at the Bilgi University School of Law, applied for the right to information to the Internet Department of the Telecommunication Communication Presidency as part of the Information Technology and Communication Council.
Internet expert Akdeniz requires information on controversial list
Akdeniz required information from TİB on several issues. The list comprises a total of 138 ‘forbidden words’ and is classified in three different groups. Akdeniz inquired why the first names ‘Adrianne’ and ‘Haydar’ from group II on the list were added in particular.
In the scope of Law No. 4982 on the Right to Information, internet expert Akdeniz also questioned who the names ‘Adrianne’ and ‘Haydar’ actually belong to.
Again in accordance with Law No. 4982, Akdeniz demanded to obtain the entire range of information and documents related to the preparation of the list.
In the same context, the internet expert requested information and documents regarding the execution of the new application.
Akdeniz put forward that the above mentioned information and documents were of immediate public interest and available at the Telecommunication Communication Presidency as part of the Information Technology and Communication Council. ‘The explanation of these documents is of public interest’, he stated and referred to Article 1 of Law No. 4982 that enshrines ‘the right to information according to the principles of equality, impartiality and openness that are the necessities of a democratic and transparent government’.
State forbids the word ‘forbidden’…
Several words on the list of ‘banned words’ are part of everyday life, e.g. the words Adrianne, Animal, Hayvan (‘Animal’), Baldiz (sister-in-law’), Beat, Buyutucu (‘enlarger’), Ciplak (‘nude’), Citir (‘crispy’), Escort, Etek (’skirt’), Fire, Girl, Ateşli (‘passionate’), Frikik (‘freekick’), Free, Gey (‘gay’), Gay, Gizli (‘confidential’), Haydar, Hikaye, Homemade, Hot, İtiraf (‘confession’), Liseli (‘high school student’), Nefes (‘breath’), Nubile, Partner, Pic, Sarisin (‘blond’), Sicak (‘hot’), Sisman (‘overweight’), Teen, Yasak (‘forbidden’), Yerli (‘local’), Yetiskin (‘adult’) etc.
According to the notification of TİB, domain names containing the words on the list will neither be assigned nor used and access to the existing ones will be suspended.
Sites of supermarkets or football supporters’ clubs affected as well
Considering certain supposedly ‘obscene’ words, the list is expected to cause a significant increase of censored internet sites.
Accordingly, words that overlap with two or three-word terms that are considered ‘obscene’ will be affected by the ban, too.
As reported by tknlg.com, also websites related to food home deliveries, online grocery shopping, IT, football supporters’ clubs or sites of advertising companies will be affected by the list of banned words. (EKN/BB/VK)
Wikileaks lists ‘targets for terror’ against US | The Australian: “Wikileaks lists ‘targets for terror’ against US
* Deborah Haynes, Alexi Mostrous and Giles Whittell
* From: Times Online
* December 06, 2010 3:45PM
WIKILEAKS raised the stakes in its battle with America last night by releasing a secret list of all the global industries and assets that the US most wishes to protect.
Security experts said that the cable, published by the whistleblower website as part of an unauthorised package of diplomatic correspondence, was a gift for terrorist organisations.
It spelt out hundreds of pipelines, undersea cables and factories across the world, including a number in Britain, that would cause most damage to US interests if destroyed.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former British Defence and Foreign Secretary and chairman of the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee, said WikiLeaks had made no credible attempt to find out whether the material could assist terrorists.
‘This is further evidence that they have been generally irresponsible, bordering on criminal. This is the kind of information terrorists are interested in knowing,’ he added.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
A spokesman for Downing Street condemned the unauthorised release of classified information, saying: ‘The leaks and their publication are damaging to national security in the United States, Britain and elsewhere.
‘It is vital that governments are able to co-operate on the basis of confidentiality of information.’
In Washington, Philip Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State, said: ‘There are strong and valid reasons information is classified, including critical infrastructure and key resources that are vital to the national and economic security of any country.
‘Julian Assange [the founder of WikiLeaks] may be directing his efforts at the United States but he is placing the interests of many countries and regions at risk. This is irresponsible.’
But WikiLeaks said that the document, approved by Hillary Clinton, provided further evidence that the US Administration was hoarding sensitive information on countries without their knowledge. The Secretary of State faced embarrassment after earlier cables revealed that US diplomats were asked to collect information on high-ranking UN diplomats and other individuals.
Kristinn Hrafnsson, a spokesman for the website, said: ‘This further undermines claims made by the US Government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence-gathering role.
‘In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors, though it does reveal the US asked its diplomats to report back on these matters.’
US embassies were told to update a 2008 list of critical infrastructure and key resources in their host countries whose loss would ‘critically impact the public health, economic security and/or national and homeland security of the United States’, according to the leaked cable.
The order was under the direction of the Department for Homeland Security in co-ordination with the Department of State.
The cable said: ‘Department is surveying posts for their input on critical infrastructure and key resources within their host country which, if destroyed, disrupted or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the United States.
‘Posts are not/not being asked to consult with host governments with respect to this request.’
The leaked document, written in February last year, gives Washington’s 2008 list of key infrastructure and resources overseas, naming each relevant country and its factories, railways, ports or other areas of interest.
The file identifies where the US is reliant on a range of substances, from smallpox vaccines in Denmark to bauxite in Guinea and liquefied natural gas in the Middle East. Several underwater pipelines are listed in Japan, China and Britain, while Indonesia is flagged up for its tin mines and Iraq for its oil.
The embassies are specifically asked not to include US government or ‘war-fighting’ facilities, but a number of defence-related sites are listed, including three in Britain run by BAE Systems.
A spokeswoman for the company said: ‘BAE Systems recognises its role as a custodian of key industrial and military assets. We would be concerned at any activity which comprises this.’
The British sites identified in the latest cable, which include a telecommunications hub in Hereford, and one end of an undersea cable that stretches from Cornwall to New York, were already in the public domain, but it was not helpful to have them listed as being of such importance to the US, added Sir Rifkind.
Colonel Richard Kemp, a retired army officer with experience of intelligence issues, felt that the revelations were highly irresponsible and could cost lives. ‘I think it’s obviously not a great thing to have that kind of information in the public domain. It just helps the terrorists to do their job. If terrorist groups are looking to attack the UK’s critical infrastructure then this has given them a big steer,’ he said.
But Mr Hrafnsson said that the cable – as with the rest of the quarter of a million documents that comprise the website’s diplomatic stash – was available to 2.5 million people, including civilian, military and private sector personnel.
‘[This is] a very wide distribution for information claimed to be of such high sensitivity,’ he said.
CyberLaw is also publishing a PDF copy of the Microsoft surveillance compliance document which is mentioned in the story below as the public has a right to know about Microsoft’s policy.
Visit and support http://cryptome.org/
By Ryan Singel Email Author, February 24, 2010
designedfor_emma_swannMicrosoft has managed to do what a roomful of secretive, three-letter government agencies have wanted to do for years: get the whistleblowing, government-document sharing site Cryptome shut down.
Microsoft dropped a DMCA notice alleging copyright infringement on Cryptome’s proprietor John Young on Tuesday after he posted a Microsoft surveillance compliance document that the company gives to law enforcement agents seeking information on Microsoft users. Young filed a counterclaim on Wednesday — arguing he had a fair use to publishing the document, a full day before the Thursday deadline set by his hosting provider, Network Solutions.
Regardless, Cryptome was shut down by Network Solutions and its domain name locked on Wednesday — shuttering a site that thumbed its nose at the government since 1996 — posting thousands of documents that the feds would prefer never saw the light of day.
Microsoft did not return a call for comment by press time.
The 22-page document (.pdf) contains no trade secrets, but will tell Microsoft users things they didn’t know. (You can read it directly on your own computer from the above link, or read it inline below.)
For instance, Xbox Live records every IP address you ever use to login and stores them for perpetuity. While that’s going to be creepy for some, there’s an upside if your house gets robbed, according to the document: ‘If your investigation involves a stolen Xbox console, if the console serial number or Xbox LIVE user gamertag is provided and the console has been connected to the Internet, IP connection records may be available.’
The Microsoft® Online Services Global Criminal Compliance Handbook (.pdf) also goes so far as to provide sample language for subpoenas and diagrams on how to understand server logs.
Other things you might not know and which Microsoft (sometimes oddly) doesn’t want you to know?
Microsoft retains only the last 10 login records for Windows Live ID. As for your instant messages, it tells police that it keeps no record of what anyone says over Microsoft Messenger – though it will turn over who is on your buddy list.
And if you like to use Microsoft’s social networking products — like its old-school Group mailing list or its Facebook-like Spaces product, be aware that it’s very social when it comes to law enforcement or court subpoenas.
As Microsoft tells potential subpoenaees, ‘when you are looking for information on a specific incident like a photo posting or message posting, please request all group content and logs. We cannot retrieve single incident data.’ The same holds for Spaces — if you are interested in a single picture, just request the entire thing. Call it Subpoena 2.0.
The compliance handbook is just the latest in a series of leaks of similar documents from other companies. Yahoo, like Microsoft, reacted as if its secret sauce had somehow been spilled by letting curious users know the hows and whys of how the companies deal with lawful surveillance requests. Google, for all its crusading for internet freedom, refuses to say how often law enforcement comes searching for user data.
The one company who has had a stand-up policy for years is the Cox Communications’ ISP, which has had this information and their price list public for years.
But hypocrisy is the name of the game for giant internet companies like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google that want us to entrust large portions of our lives to Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Buzz, Xbox, Hotmail, Messenger, Google Groups. When it comes to the most basic information about how, why and how often our data is subpoenaed and collected without our knowledge, these online innovators resort to lawyers, abusive legal process and double-talk.
ACLU Demands Eavesdropping, Torture Memos From White House: “The American Civil Liberties Union asked the Obama administration to disclose internal memos providing the legal framework for President George W. Bush’s position on warrantless surveillance and torture. The move comes a week after President Barack Obama pledged to spread sunshine on government.“
(Via Wired News.)
“Open Letter by Members of Global Openness Community welcoming President Obama’s Initiative on Transparency”
The undersigned organizations, which work around the world to promote the right of access to information, welcome the steps taken by President Barack Obama on his first day in office to reverse recent trends and to promote high standards of openness in government. We particularly welcome the call for a clear presumption in favor of disclosure of information, so that “in the face of doubt, openness prevails”. We also welcome the inclusion, within this presumption, of an affirmative obligation on public bodies to disclose information rapidly and in forms that the public can readily find and use. Proactive disclosure is recognized internationally as an essential element of the right of access to information, along with the right to request and receive information.
President Obama has demonstrated global leadership on this issue, signaling the fundamental importance of open government in a democracy. We call on governments around the world to take similar action to promote transparency and respect for the right of access to information.
We also urge President Obama to ensure that his executive orders are given full effect, in accordance with their language and purpose. Ensuring strong implementation of these standards will set a high benchmark to inspire governments around the world.
Access Info Europe, Helen Darbishire, Executive Director (Spain)
Access to Information Programme, Gergana Jouleva, Executive Director (Bulgaria)
Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association, Paul Schabas, President (Canada)
American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, Washington Legislative Office, Director (USA)
Arab Freedom of Information Network, Said Essoulami, Executive Director
ARTICLE 19, Toby Mendel, Senior Legal Counsel
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, Roberto Saba, Executive Director (Argentina)
Association for Freedom of Thoughts and Expression, Mohamed Omran (Egypt)
Bank Information Center, Chad Dobson, Executive Director (USA)
BilgiEdinmeHakki.Org, Dr. Yaman Akdeniz, Director (Turkey)
Campaign for Freedom of Information, Maurice Frankel, Director (UK)
Carter Center, Laura Neuman, Associate Director and Access to Information Project Manager (USA)
Center for Development and Democratization of Institutions, Ilir Aliaj, Executive Director (Albania)
Center for Independent Journalism, Ioana Avadani, Executive Director (Romania)
Center for Promotion of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Vasile Spinei, President (Moldova)
Center of Access to Public Information, Edison Lanza, Director (Uruguay)
Centre for Media Freedom Middle East and North Africa, Said Essoulami, Executive Director
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Reshmi Mitra, Project Officer, Access to Information Programme, (India)
DELNA – Transparency International Latvia, Inese Voika, President (Latvia)
Due Process of Law Foundation, Eduardo Bertoni, Executive Director
Electronic Privacy Information Center, Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director (USA)
Foundation Open Society Institute, Dance Danilovska, Project Coordinator (Macedonia)
Freedom Forum, Santosh Sigdel, Executive Director (Nepal)
Freedom of Information Center of Armenia, Shushan Doydoyan, President (Armenia)
Freedom of Information Coalition, Edetaen Ojo, Coordinator (Nigeria)
Freedom of Information Coalition, Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai, Executive Director (Sierra Leone)
Fund for an Open Society, Miodrag Milosavljevic, Project Coordinator (Serbia)
Fundacion Pro Acceso, Moisés Sánchez, Executive Director (Chile)
Fundar, Miguel Pulido Jiménez, Coordinator (México)
GYLA, Tamar Gurchiani, Project Coordinator (Georgia)
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Balázs Dénes, Executive Director (Hungary)
Information Commissioner of Republic of Slovenia, Natasa Pirc, Information Commissioner (Slovenia)
Institute for Information Freedom Development in Russia, Ivan Pavlov, Lawyer and Chairman (Russia)
Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Andrés Mejía (Colombia)
Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Javier Casas (Peru)
Jamaicans for Justice, Carolyn Gomes, Executive Director (Jamaica)
Media Institute of Southern Africa, Sampa Kangwa-Wilkie, Program Specialist (Southern African Region)
Media Rights Agenda, Edetaen Ojo, Executive Director (Nigeria)
Movement for Freedom of Information in Israel, Roy Peled, Executive Director (Israel)
National Freedom of Information Coalition, Charles Davis, Executive Director (USA)
National Security Archive, Tom Blanton, Director (USA)
New York State Committee on Open Government, Robert J. Freeman, Executive Director (USA)
Open Society Institute, Aryeh Neier, President (USA)
Poder Ciudadano – Transparency International, Laura Alonso, Executive Director (Argentina)
Pro Media, Klime Babunski (Macedonia)
PROETICA – Transparency International, Cecilia Blondet, Executive Director (Peru)
PROVIDUS, Linda Austere, Policy Researcher (Latvia)
Public Citizen, Adina Rosenbaum, Attorney (USA)
Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, Darce Fardy, President (Canada)
Society for Democratic Initiatives, Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai, Executive Director (Sierra Leone)
Statewatch, Tony Bunyan, Director
Sunshine Week, Debra Gersh Hernandez, Coordinator (USA)
Sustentia, Carlos Cordero, Executive Director (Spain)
The Canadian Association of Professional Access and Privacy Administrators, Sharon Polsky, National Chair (Canada)
Transparency International – Secretariat, Andrea Figari, Global Programmes Manager (Germany)
Transparency International Anti-corruption Center, Amalia Kostanyan, Chairwoman (Armenia)
Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina, Aleksandra Martinovic, Member of the Board of Directors (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Transparency International Croatia, Zorislav Antun Petrović, President (Croatia)
Transparency International Israel, Galia Sagi, CEO (Israel)
Transparency International Russia, Marina Savintseva, Programme Co-ordinator (Russia)
Transparency International Slovakia, Emilia Beblava, President (Slovakia)
Transparency Serbia, Program Director, Nemanja Nenadic, (Serbia)
Wobbing Europe, Brigitte Alfter, Editor (Europe)
Youth Initiative for Human Rights, Sarah Maliqi, Executive Director (Kosovo)
Francesca Fanucci, International Human Rights Lawyer
John Edwards, FOI Advocate (New Zealand)
Natalia Torres, MSc Public Policy (Argentina)
Ricardo Corcuera, Legal Advisor in Human Rights (Perú)
Richard Calland, Programme Director: Economic Governance, Idasa (South Africa)
Roger Vleugels, Lecturer and Legal Advisor FOIA (The Netherlands)
Susanne Tam, Ethics Consultant, (Israel)
Walter Keim (Norway)
The House of Commons was due last week to explain why, unlike the hundreds of organisations that regularly respond to Freedom of Information Requests through charity website whatdotheyknow.com, it has refused to do so.…
(Via The Register – Public Sector.)