BAN THE BURQUA!!!

In the clash of cultures between the West and Muslim world, few battles have been more fiercely fought than the one raging in Europe today over the burqa. The burqa, or full-face veil, was the law for women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and is still worn these days in the more conservative parts of the Middle East, as well as in Europe, raising questions about how far liberal democracies should go in tolerating such dress codes.

Belgium gave an answer Wednesday when parliamentarians backed a draft law that would ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee voted unanimously to endorse the move, which must now be approved by parliament for it to become law. Such a vote is expected by the end of April, which would make Belgium the first European country to implement a ban. Because of the support for the measure among all the main political parties, it is likely to pass. (See a story about Europe's "veil wars.")

The draft law would make it illegal to wear clothing that covers all or part of the face, which would also include the facial veil known as the niqab. Defying the rule could lead to nominal fines of $20 to $35 or possible imprisonment for up to seven days. Proponents say they're targeting the burqa not because of its religious symbolism or even because it is widely seen in the West as a sign of male oppression, but rather for safety reasons: they say that people who hide their faces represent a security risk. In that light, the law also seeks to target potentially violent demonstrators who cover their faces, backers say.

But the bill's chief sponsor, Daniel Bacquelaine of the liberal Reformist Movement party, admits that cultural considerations have also come into play. "In an open society, we need common values and we need equal rights and duties," he says. Bacquelaine estimates the burqa is worn by only a few hundred of Belgium's 630,000-strong Muslim population, but the numbers have been rising in the past decade. "It has become a political weapon," he says. "There is nothing in Islam or the Koran about the burqa. It has become an instrument of intimidation, and is a sign of submission of women. And a civilized society cannot accept the imprisonment of women." (Read an argument against the veil by Azadeh Moaveni.)

Other European countries are enacting similarly strict laws when it comes to burqas and headscarves. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is pushing for a ban on the burqa to follow a 2004 French law prohibiting students and staff from wearing headscarves and any other "conspicuous" religious symbols in state schools. Headscarves have also been outlawed in schools in the Netherlands, Britain and in many German states, and the Italian government has just started a debate on whether to ban them. The European pushback against Islam has gone even further in Switzerland, where the public last year approved a referendum making it illegal to build minarets on mosques, a move that outraged Muslims in the country. (Read a study on why European Muslims feel shut out.)

In Belgium, however, the burqa bill has the cautious support of much of the Muslim community. "Nobody likes somebody covered," says SaÏd El Khadraoui, a Belgian Socialist member of the European Parliament. "It is wrong to say the burqa is part of Islam - the vast majority of Muslims do not wear it. And it's not a bad idea to give a signal that we need some rules to live together." His sentiments are echoed by Emir Kir, who was born in Belgium to Turkish Muslim parents and is now the Secretary for Public Sanitation and Monument Conservation in the Brussels region. "I don't like the burqa. Every person should be visible. In most cases, it is not a religious act, but macho one," he says. "But I wonder if we need a law on it. If we do this, we could make it a symbol and reinforce extremists on all sides. And in the middle of this economic crisis, where everyone is concerned about their job, this is not the number one problem."

Kir also wonders whether the bill would be compatible with the Belgian constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, legal concerns led France's Council of State to warn this week that a similar proposal working its way through France's legislative system could be unconstitutional. French politicians are still mulling their options. The leader of Sarkozy's Union for a Popular Movement party has said that while he respects the council's conclusions, the parliament is not bound by them. (Read an argument against the veil by Azadeh Moaveni.)

The lower house of Belgium's parliament is set to vote on the bill on April 22 and it could enter into law in June or July. But even if the measure is delayed by court challenges, it is still hugely significant for Belgium and its relationship with its Muslim community, according to Carl Devos, a political scientist at Ghent University. "The Muslim community is not yet well-integrated in Belgium. The difference between them and us is still there," he says. "This law draws a line, saying we in western European democracies accept Muslim beliefs, but in order to live together - and even communicate - we have to be seen."

Comcast cable internet users across the country can now keep track of their data usage to make sure they don’t go over their 250GB a month data allowance, thanks to bandwidth meters deployed to customers nationwide Thursday.

Comcast will send users an e-mail with a link to the meter, which can be found on their Comcast.net user page. As of Thursday, the meter is now available more than 25 states including all or parts of: Oregon, Washington, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri , Colorado, Utah, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

Comcast, which was dinged by the FCC for throttling peer-to-peer traffic, instituted its 250GB per month cap in August 2008 — as a way for it to cut down on its heaviest bandwidth users without picking on specific kinds of net usage. It still sells its internet based on a connection’s speed, not the amount of data used.

Time Warner Cable, among others, have tried testing metered broadband pricing plans, where users paying for the amount of data rather than the throughput. Time Warner canceled its tests after massive user outrage, and a revolt that eventually got New York’s senior senator involved in the backlash. Satellite internet providers, as well as most mobile broadband providers, also charge overage fees or penalize users when they go over 5GB per month.

By contrast, Comcast’s cap is high enough that few users will ever reach, mainly those who download large torrents or stream many movies or share their connections with others. A typical movie on a peer-to-peer network is about 1 GB.

It remains unclear whether metered broadband — rather than cheap and unlimited service — is the wave of the future, but Comcast cares enough to institute them. Certainly, if many people start getting cut off or charged extra based on these meters, you can expect that you’ll have a chorus of geeks calling for third-party certification (if not an outright ban) on the meters.
Read More http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/comcast-broadband-meters/#ixzz0jtcpdP1X

Death Of The Internet: Unprecedented Censorship Bill Passes in UK

“Wash-up” process used to rush through draconian legislation as a pitiful handful of MPs attend debate

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, April 8th, 2010

A draconian Internet censorship bill that has been long looming on the horizon finally passed the house of commons in the UK yesterday, legislating for government powers to restrict and filter any website that is deemed to be undesirable for public consumption.

The “Digital Economy Bill” was rushed through parliament in a late night session last night after a third reading.

In the wake of the announcement of a general election on May 6, the government has taken advantage of what is known as the “wash-up process”, allowing the legislative process to be speeded up between an election being called and Parliament being dissolved.

Only a pitiful handful of MPs (pictured below) were present to debate the bill, which was fully supported by the “opposition” Conservative party, and passed by 189 votes to 47 keeping the majority of its original clauses intact.

The bill will now go back to the House of Lords, where it originated, for a final formal approval.

The government removed a proposal in clause 18 of the bill, which openly stated that it could block any website, however it was replaced with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill which essentially legislates for the same powers.

The new clause allows the unelected secretary of state for business, currently Lord Mandelson, to order the blocking of “a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”.

Opposing MPs argued that the clause was too broad and open ended, arguing that the phrase “likely to be used” could be used to block websites without them ever having been used for “activity that infringes copyright”. Other MPs argued that under the bill, whistleblower websites, such as Wikileaks, could be targeted.

The legislation will also allow the Home Secretary to place “a technical obligation on internet service providers” to block whichever sites it wishes.

Under clause 11 of the proposed legislation “technical obligation” is defined as follows:

A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service.

A “technical measure” is a measure that — (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

In other words, the government will have the power to force ISPs to downgrade and even block your internet access to certain websites or altogether if it wishes.

The legislation is part of an amplified effort by the government to seize more power over the internet and those who use it.

For months now unelected “Secretary of State” Lord Mandelson has overseen government efforts to challenge the independence of the of UK’s internet infrastructure.

The Digital Economy Bill will also see users’ broadband access cut off indefinitely, in addition to a fine of up to £50,000 without evidence or trial, if they download copyrighted music and films. The plan has been identified as “potentially illegal” by experts.

The legislation would impose a duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers by keeping records of the websites they have visited and the material they have downloaded. ISPs who refuse to cooperate could be fined £250,000.

As Journalist and copyright law expert Cory Doctrow has noted, the bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes, without Parliamentary oversight or debate.

This could include the authority to appoint private militias, who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files in addition to the blocking of websites.

Mandelson and his successors will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any digital transgression he deems Britons to be guilty of.

Despite being named the Digital Economy Bill, the legislation contains nothing that will actually stimulate the economy and is largely based on shifting control over the internet into government hands, allowing unaccountable bureaucrats to arbitrarily hide information from the public should they wish to do so.

Mandelson began the onslaught on the free internet in the UK after spending a luxury two week holiday at Nat Rothschild’s Corfu mansion with multi-millionaire record company executive David Geffen.

Over 20,000 members of the public have written to their MPs in the last week to lobby against the bill being rushed through, however, their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and the government has been allowed to deal a devastating blow to the last real vestige of free speech in this country.

The Wider Agenda Of Internet Control

The Digital Economy Bill is intrinsically linked to long term plans by the UK government to carry out an unprecedented extension of state powers by claiming the authority to monitor all emails, phone calls and internet activity nationwide.

IN 2008, the government announced its intention to create a massive central database, gathering details on every text sent, e-mail sent, phone call made and website visited by everyone in the UK.

The programme, known as the “Interception Modernisation Programme”, would allow spy chiefs at GCHQ, the government’s secret eavesdropping agency, the centre for Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) activities (pictured above), to effectively place a “live tap” on every electronic communication in Britain in the name of preventing terrorism.

Following outcry over the announcement, the government suggested that it was scaling down the plans, with then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stating that there were “absolutely no plans for a single central store” of communications data.

However, as the “climbdown” was celebrated by civil liberties advocates and the plan was “replaced” by new laws requiring ISPs to store details of emails and internet telephony for just 12 months, fresh details emerged indicating the government was implementing a big brother spy system that far outstrips the original public announcement.

The London Times published leaked details of a secret mass internet surveillance project known as “Mastering the Internet” (MTI).

Costing hundreds of millions in public funds, the system is already being implemented by GCHQ with the aid of American defence giant Lockheed Martin and British IT firm Detica, which has close ties to the intelligence agencies.

A group of over 300 internet service providers and telecommunications firms has attempted to fight back over the radical plans, describing the proposals as an unwarranted invasion of people’s privacy.

Currently, any interception of a communication in Britain must be authorised by a warrant signed by the home secretary or a minister of equivalent rank. Only individuals who are the subject of police or security service investigations may be subject to surveillance.

If the GCHQ’s MTI project is completed, black-box probes would be placed at critical traffic junctions with internet service providers and telephone companies, allowing eavesdroppers to instantly monitor the communications of every person in the country without the need for a warrant.

Even if you believe GCHQ’s denial that it has any plans to create a huge monitoring system, the current law under the RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) allows hundreds of government agencies access to the records of every internet provider in the country.

In publicly announced proposals to extend these powers, firms will be asked to collect and store even more vast amounts of data, including from social networking sites such as Facebook.

If the plans go ahead, every internet user will be given a unique ID code and all their data will be stored in one place. Government agencies such as the police and security services will have access to the data should they request it with respect to criminal or terrorist investigations.

This is clearly the next step in an incremental program to implement an already exposed full scale big brother spy system designed to completely obliterate privacy, a fundamental right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Death Of The Internet In Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.

Similar efforts to place restrictions on the internet are unfolding in Australia where the government is implementing a mandatory and wide-ranging internet filter modeled on that of the Communist Chinese government.

Australian communication minister Stephen Conroy said the government would be the final arbiter on what sites would be blacklisted under “refused classification.”

The official justification for the filter is to block child pornography, however, as the watchdog group Electronic Frontiers Australia has pointed out, the law will also allow the government to block any website it desires while the pornographers can relatively easily skirt around the filters.

Earlier this year, the Wikileaks website published a leaked secret list of sites slated to be blocked by Australia’s state-sponsored parental filter.

The list revealed that blacklisted sites included “online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.”

The filter will even block web-based games deemed unsuitable for anyone over the age of fifteen, according to the Australian government.

In neighbouring New Zealand, the government has quietly implemented an internet filter and is urging the leading ISPs in the country to adopt the measure, in a move that would give the authorities the power to restrict whichever websites they see fit.

The New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) reportedly turned on the internet filter on February 1st without making any announcement, prompting critics to charge that the measure had been activated in stealth.

It was no coincidence that around the same time the government’s Internet filter went live, Infowars began receiving notification from readers in New Zealand that their access to Alex Jones’ flagship websites Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com had been suddenly blocked.

The broad attack on the free internet is not only restricted to the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

The European Union, Finland, Denmark, Germany and other countries in Europe have all proposed blocking or limiting access to the internet and using filters like those used in Iran, Syria, China, and other repressive regimes.

In 2008 in the U.S., The Motion Picture Association of America asked president Obama to introduce laws that would allow the federal government to effectively spy on the entire Internet, establishing a system where being accused of copyright infringement would result in loss of your Internet connection.

In 2009 the Cybersecurity Act was introduced, proposing to allow the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications.

The legislation, introduced by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in April, gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.

During a hearing on the bill, Senator John Rockefeller betrayed the true intent behind the legislation when he stated, “Would it have been better if we’d have never invented the Internet,” while fearmongering about cyber attacks on the U.S. government and how the country could be shut down.

The Obama White House has also sought a private contractor to “crawl and archive” data such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place online where the White House “maintains a presence” – for a period of up to eight years.

Obama has also proposed scaling back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites with “cookies” and other technologies.

Recent disclosures under the Freedom Of Information Act also reveal that the federal government has several contracts with social media outlets such as Youtube (Google), Facebook, Myspace and Flickr (Yahoo) that waive rules on monitoring users and permit companies to track visitors to government web sites for advertising purposes.

The U.S. military also has some $30 Billion invested in it’s own mastering the internet projects.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. All of the above represents stepping stones toward the realisation of that agenda.

The free internet is under attack the world over, only by exposing the true intentions of our governments to restrict the flow of data can we defeat such efforts and preserve what is left of the last vestige of independent information.

INTERNET EXPLORER IS MS WEAK SISTER! THEY SHOULD REVERSE ENGINEER IT AND START FROM SCRATCH!
XP users take note. Internet Explorer 9 will not run on your favourite operating system, now or when the software eventually ships.
by Gregg Keizer

Microsoft's new browser, Internet Explorer 9 (IE9), will not run on Windows XP, now or when the software eventually ships, the company confirmed Tuesday. The move makes Microsoft the first major browser developer to drop support for XP, the world's most popular operating system, in a future release. Although Microsoft excluded Windows XP from the list for the IE9 developer preview, it sidestepped the question about which versions of Windows the final browser would support. In an IE9 FAQ, for example, Microsoft responded, "It's too early to talk about features of the Internet Explorer 9 Beta" to the query, "Will Internet Explorer 9 run on Windows XP?" Related stories Most IT teams ready to commit to Windows 7 Windows XP, older IE users at risk from Microsoft ActiveX Control flaw That caused some users to demand a straight answer. "Please tell whether the final version will run on Windows XP SP3 or not," said someone identified as "eXPerience" in a comment to a blog post by Dean Hachamovich , Microsoft's general manager for the IE team. "If not, please be clear about it. Really, enough is enough of keeping users in the lurch about Windows XP support." Others bashed Microsoft on the assumption that IE9 would never run on XP. "Dropping Windows XP support is one of the worst decisions ever taken by [the] IE team, probably even worse than disbanding the IE team back in the IE6 days," claimed an anonymous commenter. Microsoft had offered up broad hints that IE9 was not in Windows XP's future, however. Tuesday, a company spokeswoman said the new browser needs a "modern operating system," a phrase that hasn't been paired with Window XP for years. "Internet Explorer 9 requires the modern graphics and security underpinnings that have come since 2001," she added, clearly referring to XP, which appeared that year. Windows XP's inability to run the Platform Preview or the final browser stems from, IE9's graphics hardware acceleration , which relies on the Direct2D and DirectWrite DirectX APIs (applications programming interfaces). Support for those APIs is built into Windows 7 , and was added to Vista and Windows Server 2008 last October, but cannot be extended to Windows XP. Some users worried that by halting browser development for Windows XP, Microsoft would repeat a current problem, getting customers to ditch IE6 for a newer version. "Those who choose to stay with XP will be forced to [then] stay forever on IE8, which will become the new IE6," said a user named Danny Gibbons in a comment on Hachamovich's blog. Tough, said Sheri McLeish, Forrester Research's browser analyst. "This is the stick to get off XP," she said. Windows XP users will solve the browser problem themselves when they upgrade, as most eventually will, to Windows 7. "What are they going to do, go to Linux or run XP forever?" she asked. Still, IE9's inability to run on Windows XP will prevent it from becoming widespread until the nearly-nine-year-old OS loses significant share to Windows 7. According to Web metrics company NetApplications' most recent data, if IE9 was released today, it would be able to run on just over a quarter -- 27 per cent -- of all Windows machines. No other major browser maker has announced plans to stop supporting Windows XP, but several have dropped other operating systems or platforms. Last month, for instance, Mozilla said it would not support Apple's Mac OS X 10.4 , known as "Tiger," in future upgrades to Firefox. Google 's Chrome for the Mac, meanwhile, only runs on Intel -based Macs, not on the older PowerPC-based machines that were discontinued in 2006. The IE9 Platform Preview can be downloaded from Microsoft's site. It requires Windows 7, Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 or Windows 2008 R2. Gregg Keizer covers Microsoft, security issues, Apple, Web browsers and general technology breaking news for Computerworld. Follow Gregg on Twitter at @gkeizer or subscribe to Gregg's RSS feed. His e-mail address isgkeizer@ix.netcom.com . Source: CIO

Kyrgyzstan moves to shut US-run Menas air base

Kyrgyzstan's new leaders have said they intend to remove a US military base, which currently serves as the premier air mobility hub for the US-led forces in Afghanistan, from their soil.

The interim government led by ex-foreign minister Roza Otunbayeva, has said it wants the US base, Manas, closed down for security reasons.

The remarks came amid growing uncertainty over whether the new Kyrgyz authorities would allow the US to use the base.

Russia, which itself maintains an air base at Kant, just 20 miles from Manas, has been keen to block US military presence in the region.

Moscow has been increasingly concerned about US military's prolonged presence in the geo-strategically important Region.

This is while the opposition has taken power and dissolved the parliament. Otunbayeva has promised a new constitution and a presidential election at some point in the next six months. She says a care-taker government will serve as both presidency and parliament for now.

The ousted president Kurmanbek Bakiyev has refused oppositions demands to resign.

Meanwhile, protestors in the capital Bishkek have demolished and burned the house of the toppled president.

The opposition claims to be in full control of the capital, the armed forces and the media. Earlier, the interim government allowed police to use firearms and shoot looters across the Kyrgyz capital.

Wednesday's unrest that toppled the government claimed at least 75 lives with over 1000 others injured.

Law "entirely symbolic," but Boulder County DA says he's paying attention to public sentiment

Nederland became the second municipality in Colorado to legalize marijuana within its borders on Tuesday night.

The mountain town's residents went further than Breckenridge, which last year legalized possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, and by a vote of 259 to 218, removed all criminal penalties against buying, selling, possessing, consuming, growing and transporting marijuana for anyone age 21 or older.

Nederland voters also chose Trustee Sumaya Abu-Haidar to replace incumbent Mayor Martin Cheshes, making Cheshes the fourth mayor in a row to not win re-election.

Marci Wheelock, appointed to fill a vacancy just a few months ago, won election to her seat, along with newcomers Kevin Mueller, Chris Perret and Rob Joseph. When a new trustee is appointed to fill the vacancy left by Abu-Haidar, that makes for four new faces on the six-member Board of Trustees.

Boulder County law enforcement officials said the marijuana vote was largely meaningless because state laws against the non-medical use of marijuana remain in effect.

“The issues we focus on are drug-dealing and trafficking, and we don't get very many cases like that involving marijuana,” Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett said.

Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle, whose deputies work closely with Nederland town police, said his department enforces state, not local, laws.

“Marijuana enforcement for small quantities and personal use is not a priority for our department or for our community, but we'll continue to investigate and enforce trafficking," he said.

For "Michigan Mike" Torpie, who gathered the signatures to put the issue on the ballot, such distinctions miss the point.

"It's entirely symbolic, but it gets people's voice out there,” he said. “As more and more communities do this, it sends a message to the state legislature that people believe this to be largely harmless."

Garnett agreed about the political ramifications.

“I'll pay attention if it passes,” he said Tuesday afternoon, before the votes were counted. “Marijuana enforcement is a sensitive issue, and it's important to gauge public sentiment.”

Abu-Haidar, the mayor-elect, said she favors decriminalization of marijuana, but she thinks the initiative was a bad idea.

"We don't need to take this on at a local level,” she said. “We're a statutory town, so we're still bound by state laws. We have more important things to worry about.”

Melanie Dougherty, a stay-at-home mother of two who voted to decriminalize marijuana, said she knows overturning local laws won't change anything, but she still wanted to vote her conscience.

"I just don't like all the hoopla around it," she said after voting. "What people do in their own homes is their own business."

Town Clerk Christi Icenogle said turn-out was high, with 482 people out of a population of a little more than 1,300 people voting. Votes were counted by hand, and results were not released until after midnight.

Abu-Haidar, a stay-at-home mother of two, said that as mayor she would focus on maintaining a positive vision for Nederland, promoting economic development and encouraging cooperation between various entities in the town.

She also said she'd be a more consistent presence on the board than Cheshes, a retired diplomat who has had several extended absences, one related to his wife's health and two others related to brief returns to foreign service.

IF YOU SEARCH FOR "Sumaya Abu-Haidar", YOU WILL SEE SHE IS A WEALTHY BENEFACTOR TO THE DEMOCRATS WITH HEALTHY DONATIONS TO THEIR CANDIDATES! IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HER - E-MAIL ME AT THE ADDRESS IN THE HEADER. PUT "POT" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OR I WILL IGNORE.