Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'dfighter news tech'.
Found 2 results
-
Facebook has controversially removed the iconic image of a girl fleeing a Napalm attack during the Vietnam war from a post, on the grounds of nudity. The editor of Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten said the entire post, which was about iconic war imagery, was later deleted and the account of the reporter behind it suspended. Espen Egil Hansen has accused Mark Zuckerberg of "an abuse of power". Facebook said it has to restrict nudity for cultural reasons. Mr Hansen said the image of Kim Phuc, then aged nine, was removed less than 24 hours after the newspaper received a request from the firm to either take down the image or pixelate it and before it had responded. "While we recognise that this photo is iconic, it's difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others," Facebook said in a statement. "We try to find the right balance between enabling people to express themselves while maintaining a safe and respectful experience for our global community. Our solutions won't always be perfect, but we will continue to try to improve our policies and the ways in which we apply them." Several Norwegian politicians, including Prime Minister Erna Solberg, also shared the image but within hours it had been removed again, Aftenposten reports. Mr Hansen has written an open letter to Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg. 'Promoting stupidity' He described Mr Zuckerberg as "the world's most powerful editor" but added that he was restricting Aftenposten's own editorial responsibilities. "I am worried that the world's most important medium is limiting freedom instead of trying to extend it and that this occasionally happens in an authoritarian way," he wrote. The letter goes on to state: "If you will not distinguish between child pornography and documentary photographs from a war, this will simply promote stupidity and fail to bring human beings closer to each other. Who is the girl in the photo? Kim Phuc was nine years old when she was photographed running for her life following a Napalm attack north of Saigon in June 1972. She suffered horrific burns. Photographer Nick Ut and ITN correspondent Christopher Wain took her to hospital. They were told she was not expected to survive the day. "There was a blast of heat which felt like someone had opened the door of an oven. Then we saw Kim and the rest of the children. None of them were making any sound at all - until they saw the adults. Then they started to scream," Mr Wain recalled in 2010. After 14 months in hospital and 17 operations, she was able to go home. Today Kim Phuc is 53 and lives in Toronto with her husband, children and parents. She is still in constant pain from her injuries but says she has found peace. She said at first she hated the photograph but now it informs her work as a UN goodwill ambassador and with her Kim Phuc Foundation to support child victims of war. To pretend that it is possible to create common, global rules for what may and what may not be published, only throws dust into people's eyes." He ended the letter saying that Facebook had opened up a lot of positive opportunities and he wanted to see them used "in a better way". Aftenposten is the largest newspaper in circulation in Norway and Rolv Erik Ryssdal, chief executive of its parent firm the Schibsted Media Group, said Facebook's actions were "not acceptable". "Independent media is the foundation for democracy," he said in a statement. "Facebook's censorship is an attack on the freedom of expression - and therefore on democracy." The social network said it had to have the same rules for everybody. Editorial responsibilities Social media consultant Sue Llewellyn said she believed Facebook's actions were heavy-handed. "I understand what they are saying but I think they are over the top," she said. "It's ridiculous when everybody knows that image, and it is such an iconic image, to ban it." She also disagreed with Mark Zuckerberg's comments last month that his company is a technology firm, not a media organisation. "You can't be a distributor of news without having editorial responsibilities," she said. "They can't keep washing their hands of it and then censoring content." Video + source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37318031
-
Julian Assange founded Wikileaks and remains its spokesman and figurehead Whistle-blowing site Wikileaks has been criticised for not doing enough to screen sensitive information found in documents released via the site. An investigation by the Associated Press has found the names and addresses of teenage rape victims, people who have suffered sexual abuse, and information about individuals suffering mental illness in documents on Wikileaks. Now some are questioning whether the site should be more careful with the information it publishes. What is Wikileaks? The website was set up in 2006 by Julian Assange to help whistle-blowers publish secret information, classified documents as well as stolen and leaked data. In early interviews, Mr Assange said it was intended to be a "giant library of the world's most persecuted documents". It has now published more than 10 million documents including: US military logs and field reports from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq US State Department diplomatic cables Official messages sent between the Saudi government and its embassies Millions of emails from intelligence firm Stratfor Files and messages from the Democratic National Committee AP found sensitive medical information in documents shared by Wikileaks The news organisation combed through the site and found many instances where sensitive personal information was easily viewable in documents and files.In the worst cases the information revealed could put lives at risk or lead to people being jailed or harassed, it said. It is not the only risk involved with information on the site. Security researcher Vesselin Bontchev found more than 3,000 links to files that contained malware. The links were in a dump of emails from Turkey's ruling political party, the AKP. Wikileaks responded in a tweet calling the report "ridiculous" and said the information dated from 2015. However, it has taken some action to make it harder to fall victim to malware in the AKP files - though the dangerous links have not been completely removed. Is Wikileaks the only source for these files? Not always. Sometimes the original whistle-blower publishes the files themselves in other places. In some cases more information is released via that route than is available via Wikileaks. However, in most cases the majority of files are accessible via Wikileaks, and its decision to publish information can mean they get more publicity. Is harm being done? Human rights groups have asked Wikileaks many times to do more to censor information found in documents. They fear reprisals against aid workers, activists and civilians named in the leaked data. In addition, AP said it had evidence that fraudsters had used credit card numbers and other personal details revealed in some documents. Other leaks have lead to people losing their jobs, or have ended relationships. The US government has condemned Wikileaks several times, saying its work has harmed diplomatic relations and put the lives of staff in sensitive positions at risk. Direct evidence of harm has been hard to find, but in 2010 Julian Assange told the Guardian that Wikileaks' 2007 exposure of widespread corruption in Kenya influenced violence during national elections that lead to 1,300 deaths. He justified the release of the information saying Kenyans had a right to know the information. Has it done any good? "Yes," says Prof Christian Christensen, from the University of Stockholm who studies media and communication. "In the long run they have done a lot of good." Whistle-blower Edward Snowden worked directly with journalists rather than using Wikileaks The early leaks it oversaw gave insights into corporate and official abuse on a scale never seen before, he said, adding that it also made it much easier for whistle-blowers and activists to get information into the public domain. He said the organisation was now operating in a very different world than it did a decade ago when it was set up. To begin with, he said, there was much more competition for Wikileaks. Publishing quickly and doing less to curate documents was one way for Wikileaks to remain relevant, he said. However, he added, there had been a shift in the information it released. Now, the information was less about clear cases of harm or the abuse of power, and more to do with subjects that were much less black and white. There was a danger, he said, that Wikileaks was now part of the story rather than just the route through which information is released. "When that happens it really starts to muddy the waters," he said. US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning is serving a 35 year sentence for leaking information In the early days of Wikileaks, it took more care - thanks to working with newspapers that did the job of removing sensitive information from documents about the Afghan and Iraq wars. Spokesman Julian Assange has often said that the sheer amount of documents Wikileaks handles makes it all but impossible to censor or edit them if they are to be released in a timely fashion. In some cases it has no way to contact whoever handed over documents, making it difficult to find out what information might prove damaging. The lack of oversight has led to criticism about the release of almost 300,000 emails from Turkey's AKP, with some saying they contained more trivia than treasure. Wikileaks practices what it calls "radical transparency", said Prof Christensen, which leads it to believe that exposing corruption, malfeasance and abuse of power trumps the damage it might do to individuals. No. The "wiki" part of the name simply refers to its aim of letting people collaborate to edit documents and releases. The original idea was for Wikileaks to build up a large group of helpers that would censor and prepare information before publication. This changed in 2010 when the organisation became more centralised. The change in structure led to a split that saw some of its original co-founders leave and others ended their association with it. Ironically, for an organisation that preaches "radical transparency" it has never revealed how many people work for it, or who oversees the release of information. Many other whistle-blowing sites take greater care with documents they are passed to ensure that no more information than necessary is released. Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37165230
