PJC Journal – Original

Could the form of website and blogger blocking in the story below happen here in the UK? Would the UK government filter the web to stop embarrassing or unwanted stories getting out? Another way for government to ignore the people.?

Read this, and then tell me Government sponsored censorship is not happening here. The Trawler Gaul.

As the site author Gadfly states in his comments section:
As far as I am aware, the Maritime & Coastguards Agency and its
parent: the Department for Transport have only recently introduced this
ban.
As I mentioned in my post, the Treasury Solicitor also
informed me, a while ago, of similar problems at his end which, I must
admit, I didn’t treat very seriously at the time.

The MCA
assured me last week that “there is no specific blocking of this
particular website” and stated that “like many other organisations” it
did not permit access to any sites categorised as ‘social networking’.

A blogspot site, it was also claimed, “falls into that definition
through its own self-categorisation”. (?!)
As such, Ian Dale’s
diary, Sandra Gidley’s blog etc. etc., all hosted by Blogger, can no
longer be viewed. Blogs published on different systems are, however,
still accessible.

Anyway, I don’t think that the way these
institutions filter web content is decided by their respective IT
departments, but by policy makers higher up the hierarchy scale.

Finally,
the fact that this ban may not be generalised is hardly any
consolation: if some parts of the government can do it, it may soon
become the norm. (After all, one would expect consistent IT policies
across government departments.)

The UK Government is blocking bloggers, so its a bit rich for them to berate the Chinese when they doing the same thing themselves.

Now this, spotted in an Australian newspaper.

Police in China's capital said they will start patrolling the
web using animated beat officers that pop up on a user's browser
and walk, bike or drive across the screen warning them to stay away
from illegal internet content.

Starting September 1, the cartoon alerts will appear every half
hour on 13 of China's top portals, including Sohu and Sina, and by
the end of the year will appear on all websites registered with
Beijing servers, the Beijing Public Security Ministry said in a
statement today.

China stringently polices the internet for material and content
that the ruling Communist Party finds politically or morally
threatening.

Despite the controls, nudity, profanity, illegal gambling and
pirated music, books and film have proliferated on Chinese internet
servers.

The animated police appeared designed to startle web surfers and
remind them that authorities closely monitor web activity.

However, the statement did not say whether there were plans to
boost monitoring further.

The male and female cartoon officers, designed for the ministry
by Sohu, will offer a text warning to surfers to abide by the law
and tips on internet security as they move across the screen in a
virtual car, motorcycle or on foot, it said.

If internet users need police help they can click on the cartoon
images and will be redirected to the authority's website, it
said.

“We will continue to promote new images of the virtual police
and update our internet security tips in an effort to make the
image of the virtual police more user friendly and more in tune
with how web surfers use the internet,” it said.

China has the world's second-largest population of internet
users, with 137 million people online, and is on track to surpass
the United States as the largest online population in two
years.

The government routinely blocks surfers from accessing overseas
sites and closes down domestic websites deemed obscene or
subversive.

(source)

Could the form of website and blogger blocking in the story below happen here in the UK? Would the UK government filter the web to stop embarrassing or unwanted stories getting out? Another way for government to ignore the people.?

Read this, and then tell me Government sponsored censorship is not happening here. The Trawler Gaul.

As the site author Gadfly states in his comments section:
As far as I am aware, the Maritime & Coastguards Agency and its
parent: the Department for Transport have only recently introduced this
ban.
As I mentioned in my post, the Treasury Solicitor also
informed me, a while ago, of similar problems at his end which, I must
admit, I didn’t treat very seriously at the time.

The MCA
assured me last week that “there is no specific blocking of this
particular website” and stated that “like many other organisations” it
did not permit access to any sites categorised as ‘social networking’.

A blogspot site, it was also claimed, “falls into that definition
through its own self-categorisation”. (?!)
As such, Ian Dale’s
diary, Sandra Gidley’s blog etc. etc., all hosted by Blogger, can no
longer be viewed. Blogs published on different systems are, however,
still accessible.

Anyway, I don’t think that the way these
institutions filter web content is decided by their respective IT
departments, but by policy makers higher up the hierarchy scale.

Finally,
the fact that this ban may not be generalised is hardly any
consolation: if some parts of the government can do it, it may soon
become the norm. (After all, one would expect consistent IT policies
across government departments.)

The UK Government is blocking bloggers, so its a bit rich for them to berate the Chinese when they doing the same thing themselves.

Now this, spotted in an Australian newspaper.

Police in China's capital said they will start patrolling the
web using animated beat officers that pop up on a user's browser
and walk, bike or drive across the screen warning them to stay away
from illegal internet content.

Starting September 1, the cartoon alerts will appear every half
hour on 13 of China's top portals, including Sohu and Sina, and by
the end of the year will appear on all websites registered with
Beijing servers, the Beijing Public Security Ministry said in a
statement today.

China stringently polices the internet for material and content
that the ruling Communist Party finds politically or morally
threatening.

Despite the controls, nudity, profanity, illegal gambling and
pirated music, books and film have proliferated on Chinese internet
servers.

The animated police appeared designed to startle web surfers and
remind them that authorities closely monitor web activity.

However, the statement did not say whether there were plans to
boost monitoring further.

The male and female cartoon officers, designed for the ministry
by Sohu, will offer a text warning to surfers to abide by the law
and tips on internet security as they move across the screen in a
virtual car, motorcycle or on foot, it said.

If internet users need police help they can click on the cartoon
images and will be redirected to the authority's website, it
said.

“We will continue to promote new images of the virtual police
and update our internet security tips in an effort to make the
image of the virtual police more user friendly and more in tune
with how web surfers use the internet,” it said.

China has the world's second-largest population of internet
users, with 137 million people online, and is on track to surpass
the United States as the largest online population in two
years.

The government routinely blocks surfers from accessing overseas
sites and closes down domestic websites deemed obscene or
subversive.

(source)

If the Federal Reserve is waiving a fundamental
principle in banking regulation, the credit crunch must still be
sapping the strength of America's biggest banks. Fortune's Peter Eavis
documents an unusual Fed move.

By Peter Eavis, Fortune writer

NEW YORK (Fortune) — In a clear sign that the
credit crunch is still affecting the nation's largest financial
institutions, the Federal Reserve agreed this week to bend key banking
regulations to help out Citigroup and Bank of America, according to documents posted Friday on the Fed's web site.

The Aug. 20 letters from the Fed to Citigroup and
Bank of America state that the Fed, which regulates large parts of the
U.S. financial system, has agreed to exempt both banks from rules that
effectively limit the amount of lending that their federally-insured
banks can do with their brokerage

affiliates. The exemption, which is temporary,
means, for example, that Citigroup's Citibank entity can substantially
increase funding to Citigroup Global Markets, its brokerage subsidiary.
Citigroup and Bank of America requested the exemptions, according to
the letters, to provide liquidity to those holding mortgage loans,
mortgage-backed securities, and other securities.

This unusual move by the Fed shows that the largest
Wall Street firms are continuing to have problems funding operations
during the current market difficulties, according to banking industry
skeptics. The Fed's move appears to support the view that even the
biggest brokerages have been caught off guard by the credit crunch and
don't have financing to deal with the resulting dislocation in the
markets. The opposing, less negative view is that the Fed has taken
this step merely to increase the speed with which the funds recently
borrowed at the Fed's discount window can flow through to the bond
markets, where the mortgage mess has caused a drying up of liquidity.

On Wednesday, Citibank and Bank of America said that
they and two other banks accessed $500 million in 30-day financing at
the discount window. A Citigroup spokesperson declined to comment. Bank
of America dismissed the notion that Banc of America Securities is not
well positioned to fund operations without help from the federally
insured bank. “This is just a technicality to allow us to use our
regular channels of business with funds from the Fed's discount
window,” says Bob Stickler, spokesperson for Bank of America. “We have
no current plans to use the discount window beyond the $500 million
announced earlier this week.”

There is a good chance that other large banks, like
J.P. Morgan, have been granted similar
exemptions. The Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan didn't immediately
comment.

The regulations in question effectively limit a
bank's funding exposure to an affiliate to 10% of the bank's capital.
But the Fed has allowed Citibank and Bank of America to blow through
that level. Citigroup and Bank of America are able to lend up to $25
billion apiece under this exemption, according to the Fed. If Citibank
used the full amount, “that represents about 30% of Citibank's total
regulatory capital, which is no small exemption,” says Charlie Peabody,
banks analyst at Portales Partners.

The Fed says that it made the exemption in the
public interest, because it allows Citibank to get liquidity to the
brokerage in “the most rapid and cost-effective manner possible.”

So, how serious is this rule-bending? Very. One of
the central tenets of banking regulation is that banks with federally
insured deposits should never be over-exposed to brokerage
subsidiaries; indeed, for decades financial institutions were legally
required to keep the two units completely separate. This move by the
Fed eats away at the principle.

Sure, the temporary nature of the move makes it look
slightly less serious, but the Fed didn't give a date in the letter for
when this exemption will end. In addition, the sheer size of the
potential lending capacity at Citigroup and Bank of America – $25
billion each – is a cause for unease. Indeed, this move to exempt
Citigroup casts a whole new light on the discount window borrowing that
was revealed earlier this week. At the time, the gloss put on the
discount window advances was that they were orderly and almost symbolic
in nature. But if that were the case, why the need to use these
exemptions to rush the funds to the brokerages?

Expect the discount window borrowings to become a
key part of the Fed's recovery strategy for the financial system. The
Fed's exemption will almost certainly force its regulatory arm to
sharpen its oversight of banks' balance sheets, which means banks will
almost certainly have to mark down asset values to appropriate levels a
lot faster now. That's because there is no way that the Fed is going to
allow easier funding to lead to a further propping up of asset prices.

Don't forget: The Federal Reserve is in crisis
management at the moment. However, it doesn't want to show any signs of
panic. That means no rushed cuts in interest rates. It also means that
it wants banks to quickly take the big charges that will inevitably
come from holding toxic debt securities. And it will do all it can
behind the scenes to work with the banks to help them get through this
upheaval. But waiving one of the most important banking regulations can
only add nervousness to the market. And that's what the Fed did Monday
in these disturbing letters to the nation's two largest banks.
(source)

We wonder how much assistance the Bank of England and the European Central Bank (ECB) has provided this side of the pond, and how much regulatory bodies have allowed the rules to be relaxed.