CNN reports that, “[a]n apparent move by the Pakistani government to block YouTube, the popular video-sharing Web site, knocked out access to the site worldwide for more than two hours.”

The government “cited a ‘highly blasphemous’ video featuring right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders” as the reason for the blockage. Citing AP, CNN report continues: “The block was intended to cover only Pakistan but extended to about two-thirds of the global Internet population.”

In other Pakistan-shutting-things-down news: “[O]ne of Pakistan's independent broadcasters, Aaj Television, was taken off air for about two and one half hours, according to Talat Hussein, an Aaj newscaster and talk show host. The move came during Hussein's evening political talk show which featured discussions with Aaj management personnel who, according to Hussein, had been banned from appearing on air by the Musharraf government soon after emergency rule was declared on November 3,” reports the Committee to Protect Journalists.
[IFEX, CNN, AsiaMedia No. 1, AsiaMedia No. 2, RSF, Hat Tip – GigaLaw]

Federal prosecutors have withdrawn a subpoena that asked online retailer Amazon.com Inc. to identify thousands of buyers of used books, newly unsealed court records show.

The withdrawal came after a judge ruled the customers have a First Amendment right to keep their reading habits from the government.

“The chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America” when news of the subpoena spread, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker wrote in a June ruling. “Well-founded or not, rumors of an Orwellian federal criminal investigation into the reading habits of Amazon’s customers could frighten countless potential customers into canceling planned online book purchases.”

Not really, at least not yet. Unless, of course, your Web cam is near your toilet.

But, the New York Times reports, Facebook is sending “news alerts to users’ friends about the goods and services they buy and view online.” After tens of thousands of users protested, Facebook is now seeking users’ explicit permission before making the information available instead of, well, just doing it.

“Isn’t this community getting a little hypocritical?” one advertising exec moaned about the protest to the Times. “Now, all of a sudden, they don’t want to share something?”

The exec, Organic’s Chad Stoller, doesn’t get it. While some morons are comfortable putting their private lives out there for everyone to see, the point is they chose to do it. When they purchase gifts for friends or, more importantly, private items they usually are not choosing to communicate that information—at least until the gift is unwrapped.

In fact, the Times reports that some Facebook members have already found out what they are receiving for Christmas, Hanukkah, etc. via the new Facebook program. Maybe I should set up a Facebook account for my wife …  
[NYTimes]

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone (sic) companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.
. . .
"Most people don't realize it, but they're carrying a tracking device in their pocket," said Kevin Bankston of the privacy advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Cellphones (sic) can reveal very precise information about your location, and yet legal protections are very much up in the air."

A plan by the LAPD counterterrorism bureau to create a map detailing the Muslim communities in that city was reported Friday to be angering civil rights groups … "When the starting point for a police investigation is, 'Let's look at all Muslims,' we are going down a dangerous road," attorney Peter Bibring of the ACLU of Southern California told the [New York Times] in an interview.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press [on Nov. 6] urged the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston (1st Cir.) to reverse a decision holding that FBI agents did not violate the news media's First Amendment rights by intimidating and harassing them while covering a matter of public interest.

Journalists were kicked, punched, sprayed with mace and intimidated when an FBI agent pointed a rifle at them while trying to cover an FBI raid on a high-profile political activist in Puerto Rico in February 2006. The U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico held such acts were protected state action and did not violate the journalists' First Amendment Rights.

"The video of the attacks by law enforcement officials on the Puerto Rican journalists is shocking," said Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy A. Dalglish. "It was clear the FBI's search of the premises was over when the media came onto the property at the invitation of one of the residents. There was no justification whatsoever for the attack on the reporters and photographers."