本文网址：http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2017/11/blog-post.html
脸书法律总顾问Colin Stretch在国会作证时回应参议员卢比奥的提问时说：
“准确地说：我们确实收到了中国政府代表关于这个帐号的报告。我们分析了那个报告，就象我们分析我们收到的任何其它类似报告一样。我们所采取的行动完全是根据我们自己制定的政策。”
"Facebook声称，郭的表面页面必须删除，因为它收到了一个投诉，该账户张贴了某人的个人信息。"
郭文贵应准确理解脸书的回应。脸书法律总顾问的这段回答，明显地是说明脸书暂时禁止郭文贵的脸书账号，是依据脸书制定的相关规则，而不是屈服于来自中国的压力。看到卢比奥参议员在国会听证会上提及郭文贵的名字，以及问询郭文贵脸书账号被查封一事，郭文贵和众多的郭文贵粉丝立即欣喜若狂，认定卢比奥参议员是力挺郭文贵，甚至认为脸书是被蓝金黄。这就是一厢情愿地单相思了。
我多次提醒郭文贵，不能随意在网上爆料他人隐私，这包括公开他人的银行账号、证件信息，不能随心所欲地侮辱女性。这是法制国家的基本法律常识和道德规范。即便是罪犯的隐私，或是公众人物的隐私，也不能随意上网公布。
下面是我早在六月间反复警告郭文贵不要轻易将他人的银行账号、证件发到网上的一个推文：
https://twitter.com/kwokmiles/status/8898602412198464
美国的赔偿可不是根据原告受伤害的程度，而更多的是根据你的赔偿能力。美国的药厂，一般每年的赔偿额要几十亿美金。这是美国很多律师赚钱的很大生意。老郭这样搞下去，最后就成为美国律师们的大肥肉了。老郭至少在爆料中应该避免提及女性的名称，不要发布任何人的证件、银行账户，避免提及隐私。
脸书、推特这些社交媒体，虽然允许网友自由发表言论，但也要制定相应规则保护他人隐私。有人会说郭文贵公布的都是公众人物的隐私，公众人物的隐私不受保护。不妨设想，有哪家网站会允许你随意公布美国总统川普的银行账号信息吗？
郭文贵在网上多次公开他人的银行账号和护照截屏。这至少是违反了脸书、推特的相关规定。如果有人举报，脸书、推特当然应该按律当斩，封掉这种账号。
郭文贵既然要上推特和脸书，就要遵守这些媒体的相关规定。如果违反，脸书和推特自然有权禁止你使用他们的网站，否则，这些网站也会给自己惹来官司。
这就同足球比赛一样。既然上场参赛，你就要遵守规则，减少犯规。你也可以采取技术犯规。但你要准备好接受惩罚。而不是一味地指责这些网站被蓝金黄。
西诺发推声称是他向脸书和推特举报郭文贵上网公布西诺的护照影印件和其它隐私。下面是西诺发在推特上的相关照片。
刘刚
2017年11月2日
答网友问
监察委大轮胎 @Alphabeticad：刘大师你到底是何方神圣？
刘刚：如果是川普总统上网发布他人银行账号或护照号码，我也同样要坚决谴责。
监察委大轮胎 @Alphabeticad：换作是你又该如何检举公权力及其家族成员和白手套呢？
刘刚：川普总统及其家族成员或许也有腐败或蓝金黄。你是否可以将川普的银行账号公布到网上，还要对川普及其家人的性事大讲特讲呢？
笑看人世間 @zhouning1960：脸书，推特，油管好像都不是美国政府的媒体平台，这个议员管到人家家里去了。百货商店，卖什么是不是都要听你什么什么议员的？刘大湿托你一件事，问问议员先生，今天吃药了吗。
刘刚：就是政府媒体平台，也不能让人在上面公布他人银行账号和护照！
Rubio Presses Facebook On Special Relationship With China
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/01/rubio-presses-facebook-on-special-relationship-with-china/
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida pressed a Facebook executive Wednesday to answer how the decision to remove the page of an exiled Chinese expatriate came about, while implying the act of censorship may have been carried out due to a desire to get into the massive foreign market.
“What I want to be clear is, was there any pressure from the Chinese government to block his account?” Rubio asked Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch.
“No senator, we reviewed a report on that account and analyzed it through regular channels using our regular procedures,” Stretch responded. “The blocking was not of the account in its entirety, but I believe was a specific post that violated our policy.”
“So you can testify today that you did not come under pressure from the Chinese government or any of its representatives or people working for them to block his account or block whatever is you blocked?”
ADVERTISEMENT
Do You Suffer From Low Energy And Fatigue?
Ad By Gundry MD
“I want to make sure I am being precise and clear: we did receive a report from representatives of the Chinese government about the account,” Stretch clarified. “We analyzed that report as we would any other and took action solely based on our policies.”
The line of questioning came during a U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing Wednesday called “Social Media Influence in the 2016 U.S. Elections” — the second of three congressional hearings in less than two days.
It relates to Guo Wengui, a billionaire and adamant critic of the Chinese government who fled China after the country’s authorities accused him of bribery. Empowered by his remote safety, Guo levies his own accusations against China, claiming he has direct knowledge of its espionage operations abroad among other improprieties.
Facebook removed a page with apparent affiliations to Guo and blocked a profile under his name, citing transgressions against its terms and conditions. Specifically, Facebook alleges that Guo’s ostensible page must be removed because it received a complaint that the account posted someone’s personal details. Guo has been using Facebook to publicly condemn China for corrupt practices.
Now, Rubio wants to know if Facebook’s decision was purely based on considering its terms and services, or if it was a capitulation to a country that has blocked its platform.
“Facebook’s not allowed to operate in China, is that correct?” Rubio continued, seemingly already knowing that answer.
After Stretch answered in the affirmative with a minor caveat, Rubio gradually illustrated why he was going down this train of thought. (RELATED: Facebook Reportedly Sneaks App Into China In Unprecedented Move)
“There have been press reports that Facebook may have potentially developed software to suppress posts from appearing in people’s news feeds in specific geographic areas, and the speculation is it’s being done for the purposes of getting into the Chinese market,” said Rubio. “Is that accurate? Has Facebook developed software to suppress posts from appearing in people’s news feeds in specific geographic areas?”
Stretch said that since Facebook’s services are blocked in China, any software they may have is not available there.
However, he did explain that there have been many instances of foreign governments reporting content they deem illegal under their unique laws.
“A great example of this is Holocaust denial in Germany,” said Stretch. “In our position with respect to reports like that is if there is content that is visible in a country that violates local law and we are on specific notice of that content, we deploy what we call ‘geo-blocking’ or ‘IP [internet protocol] blocking,’ so that the content will not be visible in that country but remains available on the servers.”
Rubio points out that publicly criticizing a country’s officials is illegal in some nations, like China, so essentially Facebook has the capability to block certain users from censuring a government. He alleges that Facebook could conceivably do this to gain entry into a country, perhaps like China, which has more than one billion available users — an apparent imputation that Facebook removed Guo to capitalize on the country’s enormous market. (RELATED: Facebook Is Gunning For An Office In China, Says Report)
“We have the capability to ensure that our service complies with local law, that’s accurate. We take a very nuanced approach to reports of illegal content,” said Stretch “We believe our mission is to enable people to share and connect and we believe political expression is at the core of what we provide.”
Rubio quickly cut in and asked with a very subtle smirk: “What if political expression is illegal in the country.”
“So in … in the vast majority of cases where we are on notice of locally illegal content, it has nothing to do with political expression,” Stretch responded. “It’s things like blasphemy in parts of the world.” (RELATED: Pakistani Man Sentenced To Death For Facebook ‘Blasphemy’)
Rubio said he decided to address this course of questioning because a foreign influence campaign does not appear to be a specific part of Facebook (nor Google and Twitter’s) terms of service, and that maybe it should be since posting personal information, like Guo allegedly did, is prohibited.
“If you can prove that someone is doing it on behalf of a foreign government, is that a violation of the terms of service?” asked Rubio.
None answered directly in the affirmative, but said such conduct usually falls under other rules against violations.
Follow Eric on Twitter
Send tips to eric@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment