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
+(2).jpg)