Internet Censorship

Internet Censorship

To be fair, Google was the only actor who was in the Senate hearing that he was against the approval of SOPA and E-PARASITES few hours ago. The problem is that Google is only defending its interests, not all of us users. Google defends as the other "big" the refusal to which they become cops, defending its safe harbors. We could ever have thought that the company has been approved after the siege speech web sites across the cut financially. Worse, Google gives the example of the success with WikiLeaks After removing the economic pathways.

We've said it a few times, one of the great delusions of both SOPA and E-PARASITES is that it would give way for the entertainment industry to create lists of sites proposed believe offenders. With them just to be sent to the supplier or directly to the advertisers and they must cut any financial tie to economic strangulation.

This process would express, in just five days without trial through a website can be found without funding without being judged. Put another way, with these laws passed are guilty without presumption of innocence, then you can go to trial with costs included, and be able to prove your innocence. During this process, it eliminates any possibility of continuing to generate economic benefits even if you are innocent.

As far as Google is not interested and that benefits us is that they become judges, they can block sites required by the interests of the industry. Somehow defends freedom of expression and to maintain the network infrastructure as they are today. Instead, it seems inconsistent for Google to enter the lobbies supporting rag financial blockade, a veiled attempt to keep aside his defense while saying yes to a kind of censorship ever seen until a few weeks, WikiLeaks.

These were the unfortunate words of Katherine Oyama, Minister of Public Policy at Google, before the House Judiciary Committee Hearing of the Senate:

... Look at WikiLeaks. I think it is a good example confirming that the remedy is effective financial blockade. Choking these sites left out of their source of income. I think that sites are in the business violated because they can sell advertising or because they can get revenue from their subscribers.

If you can get the whole industry as a whole and to freeze their advertising choking payments to these sites, we may find the most effective way without having to enter collateral damage such as freedom of expression or the architecture of the Internet.

We support the legislation behind the Department of Justice, where a court determines the site in violation and gives the orders of cutting payments to providers in relation to advertising. If you cut financial incentives will not be able to pay for bandwidth, its servers and infrastructure.

Part of the international application of the law was behind WikiLeaks. Today, if you go to the WikiLeaks page and you could show that they are not operating because they have been blocked payment services

Unfortunate is an understatement. What Google said is the same type of censorship that the other conditions that typify the proposals. This law gives every advantage to the entertainment industry to bring down sites that have no room for defense. Google to compare what happened with Wikileaks as an example for the future is bad and unfortunate. Much worse is to support cutting these routes financially. In some ways makes it clear that your business is interested not so much by his defense of freedom of expression online. This is the same censorship and there is no difference.

Internet Censorship