Thursday 08-06-15

Just a taste of things to come

China to plant Internet police in top online firms

China’s control over the Internet is set to expand. In a bid to better police local websites, the country’s security forces are establishing offices at the biggest online firms in the country.
The country’s Ministry of Public Security announced the new measures on Tuesday, at a time when authorities have been increasingly concerned also about cyberthreats.

ADVERTISING

Websites based in China already have to abide by strict provisions for online censorship, and will often delete any content deemed offensive by government censors.
The ministry’s plan, however, will place China’s security forces at the offices of the country’s major websites, so that they can quickly respond to suspected online crimes, it said in a statement.
“Cyber attacks, the online spread of terrorist information, Internet fraud, and the stealing of personal information,” were among the biggest threats the ministry named. In addition, authorities want to crack down on online rumor mongering, pornography, gambling and drug-related Internet activities.
No specific companies were mentioned, but the country’s biggest Internet firms include Alibaba Group, Baidu and Tencent.
The announcement by the ministry comes at a time when the government is considering a new “Internet security law” that could increase China’s online censorship while addressing China’s online security concerns.
The draft legislation calls for the vetting of Internet products used in critical networking infrastructure, registration of Internet users by their real names, and greater online surveillance.

China has made cybersecurity a major focus, following leaks from former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that alleged that the U.S. has been secretly spying on the country. But the New York-based Human Rights Watch is concerned that the security legislation will stifle free speech.
“The law will effectively put China’s Internet companies, and hundreds of millions of Internet users, under greater state control,” the group said in an email.
The public comment period for the draft bill ends on Wednesday. In July, China passed another security law that also gives the government control over the country’s Internet infrastructure.
Although China’s online censorship has grown over the years, the Internet here can still cause controversy. Last month, a video of two shoppers at a Uniqlo store in Beijing engaging in sex went viral, through the help of local Internet services.
In response, a government regulator condemned the video, and held meetings with two Chinese Internet firms, Sina and Tencent, demanding they better manage their content.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/2957092/china-to-plant-internet-police-in-top-online-firms.html



NRA Fact Checks Politifact on Social Security Administration Gun Grab

A recent Politifact article attempted to fact check news reports about the Obama Administration’s effort to strip the gun rights of millions of Americans who receive social security and disability benefits who also have a representative payee – someone who handles their finances.
Politifact failed to consult the most relevant source of all for their story, federal law, as a result, they got it wrong.
Politifact’s website identifies the writer as a “Politifact intern.”
 The following Politifact claims are FALSE:
“The new policy would not ban all Social Security Administration (SSA) recipients from owning guns. Rather, it would only affect the small fraction who are deemed mentally incompetent, and who are thus are barred from purchasing guns under the law.”
 “The policy would not take away guns from people who already own them. There is no indication that this policy would take guns away from people who already own guns. Rather, the policy would affect the ability of some mentally incompetent people from buying new guns.”
 The facts:

• Social Security Administration recipients who have a representative payee have not been deemed “mentally incompetent.” That is not a legal term recognized in federal law as it relates to prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms.

• The federal prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms apply to those “adjudicated as a mental defective.” 

• Under the proposed new policy, individuals who have representative payees would lose the right to possess any guns they might currently own and would be prohibited from purchasing new firearms.

• The term “adjudication,” refers to a determination made after a judicial-type process that includes various due process protections. In no case does the federal law describe or contemplate the type of prohibition by bureaucratic fiat exercised by the SSA in developing its guidelines for those with “representative payees” assigned to their accounts.

• The SSA’s representative payee system is not the type of process envisioned by federal firearms statutes.

• Since 1968, federal law has barred the possession or acquisition of firearms by anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”[1]

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued regulations that define an “adjudication” as a “determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” This includes a finding of insanity or incompetency in a criminal case.[2]

•  “Committed to a mental institution” is defined as a “formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority.” The definition makes clear that “[t]he term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission.”  The Supreme Court has held that an involuntary commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that requires due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[3]

• Common reasons SSA beneficiaries request a representative payee include:

 Individual lives far from banks and grocery stores and may wish to have a family member or friend make bank deposits and grocery purchases for them;

 individual may not own a car and needs help with banking and shopping;

 individual may simply want help paying bills, or

 individual may not be good at balancing their checkbook.

 
 [1] 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(4), (g)(4).
[2] 27 CFR § 478.11.
[3] Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150805/nra-fact-checks-politifact-on-social-security-administration-gun-grab