YouTube refuses Lieberman request (re removing content attributed to "Islamust terrorist organizations")

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee today asked Google, the parent company of the popular online
video-sharing site, YouTube, to "immediately remove content produced by
Islamist terrorist organizations" from YouTube and prevent similar content
from reappearing. However, the company immediately refused to comply with
his request.
Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) made the request in a letter to Eric Schmidt,
the chairman of the board and chief executive officer at Google, in which
he said that YouTube "unwittingly, permits Islamist terrorist groups to
maintain an active, pervasive and amplified voice despite military setbacks
or successful operations by the law enforcement and intelligence communities."
...
However, YouTube in a response this afternoon, said taking those actions
was not so simple and refused to remove all videos mentioning or featuring
these groups without consideration of whether the videos were legal,
nonviolent or non-hate speech videos.
...

Lieberman's response to YouTube's statement:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9947500-7.html
Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Senate committee that Lieberman
leads, told News.com on Monday afternoon that her boss found Google's
response to be unsatisfactory and was troubled that the company "does
not appear willing to change its guidelines to prevent foreign terrorist
organizations (as designated by the State Department) from posting
videos used to radicalize followers and incite them to violence." She
declined to comment on the status of any pending legislation.


Lieberman isn't just manufacturing this concern.
shows that the US designates Harkat-ul-Mujahideen as a terrorist
group.

http://www.youtube.com/HarkatUlMujahideen is the youtube channel for a
group that at least allies themselves with HarkatUlMujahideen, if not
posted by the actual group.

Freedom of speech in the US (Google is a US company) allows terrorists
and their supporters to say what they wish - although freedom of
speech does not compel Google to give them a stage and audience.



2)
'Big Brother' database for phones and e-mails
Richard Ford
A massive government database holding details of every phone call,
e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public is being planned
as part of the fight against crime and terrorism. Internet service
providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies would hand over the records
to the Home Office under plans put forward by officials.
The information would be held for at least 12 months and the police
and security services would be able to access it if given permission
from the courts.
The proposal will raise further alarm about a "Big Brother" society,
as it follows plans for vast databases for the ID cards scheme and
NHS patients. There will also be concern about the ability of the
Government to manage a system holding billions of records. About 57
billion text messages were sent in Britain last year, while an
estimated 3 billion e-mails are sent every day.
Home Office officials have discussed the option of the national
database with telecommunications companies and ISPs as part of
preparations for a data communications Bill to be in November's
Queen's Speech. But the plan has not been sent to ministers yet.
Jonathan Bamford, the assistant Information Commissioner, said: "This
would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are
not aware of any justification for the State to hold every UK
citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a
measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable. We have
warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society.
Holding large collections of data is always risky - the more data
that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is
lost, traded or stolen."

<snip>



3)
 Charter tracks user activity even if users opt out

Via The Consumerist:

       UPDATE: Charter Will Track Your Internet Activity Regardless Of Whether You Opt Out
     
Excerpt:

       When a customer clicks a link, advertisement, or visits a
       page, Charter will capture the browsing data and send it to
       the third-party advertising provider.  If Charter wanted to
       offer a functional opt-out, it would be at this deep-packet
       inspection level.  The do not offer a way out of that service,
       however.  The only thing they offer is the cookie-based solution
       you've previously covered, which *merely tells the third-party
       organization not to match the machine with the DPI-harvested data
       or deliver the advertising*.  Customer browsing is still being
       captured and is still being turned over regardless of anyone's
       individual opt-out status, but the third party is just blocked
       from doing anything with it by the cookie.

       I might also point out that by doing this *Charter is explicitly
       requesting that their customers choose not to follow safe
       browsing best practices.* [...]

I'm not sure "the third party is just blocked from doing anything with
it by the cookie" is entirely accurate, however; I think "the third
party is supposed to honor the cookie and not supposed to use the data
and not supposed to match the data against the machine" may be more likely.


4)
Early termination fee 'deal' brewing
May 21, 11:28 AM EDT
Cell phone users may get break on fees
By JOHN DUNBAR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government is quietly negotiating to help cell phone customers avoid expensive fees when they cancel contracts with wireless companies, The Associated Press has learned.
Cell phone companies routinely charge customers $175 or more for quitting their service early. Under a proposal to the Federal Communications Commission, the wireless industry would give consumers the opportunity to cancel service without any penalty for up to 30 days after they sign a cell phone contract or until 10 days after they receive their first bill.
The proposal also would cap such fees and reduce them month by month over the course of a contract based on how long customers have left, according to people familiar with the offer speaking on condition of anonymity because the FCC has not accepted it. The plan would not abolish cancellation fees entirely and would not refund such fees to anyone who paid them.
In exchange for the government's approval, the agreement would let cell phone companies off the hook in state courts where they are being sued for billions of dollars by angry customers. If approved by the FCC, the proposal also would take away the authority of states to regulate the charges, known as early termination fees.
Lawyers representing customers who are suing over the fees are strongly opposed.
"It's Christmas in May for the companies," said Pamela Gilbert, an attorney with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, a Washington D.C.-based law firm working on one of the class action lawsuits against the industry. She said if the FCC agreed to the proposal, it would save cell phone companies hundreds of millions of dollars.
"The people left holding the bag are the millions of people who paid illegal ETFs (termination fees) and now will never get their money back," she said.
The nation's No. 2 wireless company, Verizon Wireless, offered the proposal to the FCC for its review after high-level meetings with senior FCC officials. It did so in consultation with other leading wireless companies, whose executives indicated they would not oppose its provisions, people familiar with the offer told the AP.
The FCC declined to comment.
...