CENSORSHIP AND SPAM by Andrew Stergiou

CENSORSHIP AND SPAM by Andrew Stergiou

In the United States where threat of any major corporation being nationalized has not existed in any serious form for many years the dialogue of right wing politics centers on the Republican Party and to a lesser degree the Democratic Party not on a specifically nationalist political party. Nationalism discredited after World War II has not been the central focus of American policy because the central focus has been management, expansion, perpetuation, and use of the power and resources acquired at the end of World War II on behalf of the multi-national corporations which represent those interests.

Here in the US corporations face different degrees of regulation, taxation, inspection, even investigation but never nationalization whereas in other countries often rightist politics centers on some Nationalist Party platform and principles as the government is yoked allegedly for national concerns not international global corporate monopoly interests.

So the dynamics of American political interests often different is the product of a different experience.

Major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have often required subscribers to agree to binding terms which require such subscribers to comply with all laws federal, state, local, and foreign
in what is an impossible legal nightmare that can not every be complied with for to obey the laws of one local despot is to violate the laws of another. In times of war the problems only would get worse as the competition escalates into out right belligerency where such country often demand blind obedience under the harsh penalties of law (death by firing squad).

“intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law” (Yahoo Terms of Service governing subscriber conduct )

For years these Internet Services providers have been playing fast and loose in the United States with the average citizens rights just as they have aided in censorship of the peoples of other countries such the “Peoples Republic of China”. These ISPs impose demand and receipt of concessions as it suits their purposes regardless of the practical legal aspects they imply to average people but those double standards have been catching up to Yahoo and other ISPs:

Yahoo finally “Weighs in on Free Speech in China June 14, 2007 By DIKKY SINN

Associated Press Writer” not because they are in any real way altruistic but because of practical reasons that they were sued not in China but the United Stated in a prima facie comity of law that has grand international implications and respect but the matter will not end there.


Yahoo stated: that companies operating in China must comply with Chinese law or risk having their employees face civil or criminal penalties.” But then found itself in contravention of laws in others countries and sued in the United States


BUT YAHOO HAS NOT CHANGED ITS POLICY REQUIRING THAT SUBSCRIBERS OBEY THE AFOREMENTIONED Terms of SERVICE


“intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law”

Yahoo Terms of Service governing subscriber conduct

In whitewash and public relations Ploy to deflect criticism and legal complaints Yahoo insincerely lied in expressing its views when it said:

“China should not punish people for expressing their political views on the Internet” (APS DIKKY SINN Hong Kong)


When those statements resulted “a day after the mother of a Chinese reporter announced she was suing the U.S. company for helping officials imprison her son.” (Ibid.)


Yahoo criticized China in a brief statement that didn't specifically mention the case of jailed journalist Shi Tao, whose mother visited Hong Kong on Sunday. “(APS DIKKY SINN Hong Kong)

Though “The company has acknowledged sharing information about Shi with Chinese authorities” (APS DIKKY SINN Hong Kong)


Yahoo says it is dismayed that citizens in China have been imprisoned for expressing their political views on the Internet," the company said in the statement faxed to The Associated Press, which asked Yahoo to comment on Shi's lawsuit.”:


BUT The Internet company, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., also said it has told China that it condemns "punishment of any activity internationally recognized as free expression.


When in actually in the United States zealous yahoo administrators have used their administrative power under the guise of enforcing their terms and conditions of service to punitively treat some subscribers without explanation of that service providers actions beyond some vague references to chapter verse and fine print that they themselves can not comply with namely the aforementioned obedience to what they require subscribers to not:

“intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law”

“Companies operating in China have to satisfy a government that restricts what searchers on the Chinese Internet can see, and what information they have access to -- the trade-off for entry into a lucrative market of some 110 million users.” (APS DIKKY SINN Hong Kong)

“Contrary to this public misperception, however, the grim reality of censorship and deception by the regime has not improved; instead the regime has managed to battle this new era of information technology through building the world’s most sophisticated Internet firewall system and by further tightening its vice-like grip on all media outlets in China. “ (SARS: Unmasking Censorship in China Erping Zhang 8/11/2003)

ON THE OTHER HAND YAHOO AND ALL OTHER MAJOR INTERNET PROVIDERS SEEMINGLY CAN NOT CONTROL THE PROLIFERATION OF SPAM ABUSE FROM THOSE COMMERCIAL ENTITIES THEY CATER TO.IN WHICH CASE THEY VIOLATE US LAW BY FACILIATATING AND ACTING IN CONCERT WITH CRIMINALS.

In closing it seems that Internet Services Providers are faced ironically with the paradox of either having to institute consistent policies that support users rights as user friendly in reverting back in policy to the dawn of the internet sans all the legal mumbo jumbo all to present today online which was drafted by their incompetent uncaring callous corporate legal counsel, or to accommodate every country in the world and or be found guilty of those same countries and policies that they cater to.

Andrew Stergiou An "internet pioneer" my passport is ready but who will call
universal copyright (c) 2004-2007 Andrew Stergiou


http://templeofreason.org http://zito.biz http://mplf.org http://ularts.net http://pushedpawn.org http://garagemusicstudios.com http://blog.360.yahoo.com/andrew_zito http://andrewstergiou.podomatic.com http://andrewstergiou.com http://springtimeforhitler.blogspot.com

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=84572706

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=110634662

When must I start to pray? By Andrew Stergiou

When must I start to pray? By Andrew Stergiou

When must or should, or will I start to pray?
When I am no longer free, when I am no longer strong, when I am no longer brave, when I am no longer able,
When I can no longer able to be kind, when I am no longer able to be human, when I can no longer struggle,
When I can no longer live, when I can no longer work, when I can no longer die, when I can no longer eat,

When I must pray to Jesus, when I must pray to Mecca, when I must pray to Buddha,
When I am required to pray to Hashem,

When I must pray to the state, when I must pray to the church,
When the state tells me how, where when or how to observe prayer,

When I must pray to lies, when I must to god or the godless, when I must pray to Satan and his minions,

When prayers are incantations of the supernatural, when prayers are to hallow idols,
When prayers are dictated, and prescribed, when prayers are of form without substance,
When I can no longer drink, when I can no longer run, when I no longer can walk,
When I can no longer have the heart and innocence of a child, When I no longer have joy,
When I can no longer see, when I no longer understand, when I no longer can speak, When I can no longer hear,
When I can no longer think, when I can no longer know, when I can no longer be,

When I can no longer hold a sword, when I am no longer able to hold a pen, when I can no longer reason,
When no longer I can make peace, when no longer I can make war, when I can no longer walk,
When I can no longer breathe, when I can no longer hope, when I can no longer be brutal,
When I can no longer be crude, when I can no longer lie, when I can no longer dream, when I can no longer laugh,
When I can no longer cry, when I can no longer love, when I can no longer live, when I can no longer test myself,

When no longer I can suffer, when I can no longer be as the almighty created me, when no longer I can be kind,
When I can no longer be as the almighty intended me, when I no longer can see truth,

When truth no longer sees me, when I no longer hear, when I can no longer speak, when no longer I can write,
When no longer I can create, when no longer I see, when no longer I am, when I no longer survive.
When they do not let me pray, when they tell me where to pray, when they tell me how to pray,
when I can no longer see the shadows, when I can no longer see the light I can no longer praise the light,
When I can no longer curse the darkness, when I can no longer be what is right,
When prayer and prayers impose and are imposed on me

Until then I will be a the almighty created and intended me,
Until then I will be free, Until then I will strong, Until then I will brave, Until then I will be able,
Until then I will be kind, until then I will be human, until then I will struggle, until then I will live, until then I will work,
Until then I will eat, until then I will drink, until then I will run, until then I will walk

Until then I will have the heart and innocence of a child, until then I will have joy, until then I will see,
Until then I will understand, Until then I will speak, Until then I will hear, until then I will think, until then I will know,
Until then I will be, until then I will hold a sword, until then I will hold a pen, until then I will reason

Until then I make peace, until then I will make war, until then I will breathe, until then I will hope,
Until then I will be brutal, until then I will be crude, until then I will lie, until then I will dream, until then I will laugh,
Until then I will cry, until then I will love, until then I will live, until then I will die, until then I will test myself,
Until then I will suffer, until then I will be as the almighty created me,
Until then I will be as the almighty intended me, until then I will see truth,
Until then truth will see me true, until then I will hear, until then I will speak, until then I will write,
Until then I will create, until then I see, until then I am, until then I will survive,
Until then they will not tell me when and where to pray, until then they will not tell me how to pray,
Until then I will see the shadows, until then I will see the light ,as I praise the light,
Untill then I curse the darkness, until then I can do what is right
Until then prayers will not be imposed on me or imposing.

~A~
P.O.Box 1615
Altoona, Pa, USA 16603

An "internet pioneer" my passport is ready but who will call
universal copyright (c) 2004-2007 Andrew Stergiou

http://templeofreason.org http://zito.biz http://mplf.org http://ularts.net http://pushedpawn.org http://garagemusicstudios.com http://blog.360.yahoo.com/andrew_zito http://andrewstergiou.podomatic.com

Britain: police given unprecedented arrest and surveillance powers By Chris Marsden 5 January 2006 WSWS

Britain: police given unprecedented arrest and surveillance powers By Chris Marsden 5 January 2006 WSWS

Britain’s Labour government has given police unprecedented powers of arrest for any criminal offence whatsoever, even minor misdemeanours. Civil rights groups have denounced the new law as akin to a police-state measure.

The elimination of the distinction between “arrestable” and “non-arrestable” offences is part of the Serious and Organised Crime Act of 2005 and came into effect January 1.

Previously police only had the power to arrest those suspected of committing an offence carrying a sentence of at least five years in prison. Now, police are able to hold anyone they suspect of any offence, even something as minor as littering—giving them the power to harass and intimidate virtually at will. Officers will merely have to satisfy themselves of “a person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence,” and that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.”

Additionally, police are now allowed to photograph suspects on the street where they have been arrested or issued with a fixed penalty notice, rather than taking them back to a police station. This can be used to build up a digital photographic database using the simple expediency of charging someone with a minor violation, or even giving them a fixed penalty notice. The photo can be kept on file even if the person is found not guilty in court. DNA samples and fingerprints can also be kept.

Last year, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act was used to mount a major attack on freedom of speech, when Maya Evans was convicted for having staged an unauthorised antiwar protest near the Cenotaph war memorial—reading out the names of British soldiers who died in Iraq. The law was described by the Telegraph newspaper as “the biggest expansion in decades of police powers to deprive people of their liberty.”

Opposing the new powers of arrest, Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said they represented “a fundamental shift” in power from the public to the police and the state. “We don’t need to give the police carte blanche to go around throwing people in cells for things like dropping litter,” she said. “Anyone who gives a bit of backchat now risks being hauled off to a police station. Given the history of powers such as stop and search, there will also be the perception among ethnic minorities that they are being targeted.”

As an example of the police abusing their sweeping powers of arrest, Chakrabarti recalled the ejection from last year’s Labour conference of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang and his detention under the Terrorism Act. But this is only the most notorious example. In fact, more than 600 people were stopped and questioned under anti-terror legislation during the Labour Party conference. None were charged with any offence, but some were detained for merely wearing anti-Iraq-war T-shirts.

More than 10,000 people were stopped and searched by the Metropolitan Police in just two months following the July 7 terror bombs in London, with no one being arrested or charged for offences related to terrorism, the Guardian has reported. The figure reflect a five-fold increase for white people and a twelve-fold increase for Asian and black people.

Other new powers contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act include allowing the police to apply for “multi-premises” and “all-premises” warrants, repeated entry warrants and for extending the lifetime of warrants from one month to three months.

The sweeping character of the new law again gives the lie to the claim that the ongoing assault on fundamental civil liberties is made necessary by the threat of terrorism. Rather the “fight against terrorism” is one plank of a campaign to instil fear into the population in order to encourage acceptance of ever more draconian powers for the state.

The other plank is provided by claims that crime is out of control and cannot be fought by using what Prime Minister Tony Blair decried as “Dickensian” legislation. Home Office Minister Hazel Blears used the same type of rhetoric in her attempt to justify the new powers of arrest, insisting that they were necessary to create “a modern, efficient police service equipping frontline officers with the tools they need to fight modern crime effectively.”

Whatever excuse is given, the real targets of the repressive measures are the millions of working people who are suffering as a result of the pro-big business agenda of the government and are therefore seen as a growing social and political threat to the ruling elite.

In the run-up to Christmas, the Independent newspaper drew attention to another grave threat to civil liberties that highlights this fact.

Science editor Steve Connor wrote on December 22 that Britain is to become the first country in which the movements of all vehicles are recorded. By March, a new national surveillance system will be set up using a network of thousands of CCTV cameras that will be equipped to automatically read every passing number plate. Records of all 35 million number-plated vehicles travelling on all main roads and motorways will then be held for years on a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London.

Connor writes that the scheme, which has never been subject to parliamentary approval, is being “orchestrated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and has the full backing of ministers who have sanctioned the spending of £24m this year on equipment.”

More than 50 local authorities have signed agreements allowing the police to convert existing traffic cameras to the new system and agreements are also being brokered with the Highways Agency, supermarkets and petrol station owners. MI5 will also be able to access the data.

British workers suffer the heaviest levels of electronic surveillance in the world. Britain accounts for one fifth of the world’s CCTV cameras, with well over 4 million in operation--one for every 14 people. City residents can expect to be captured on CCTV up to 300 times a day.

See Britain World Video Surveillance Capital