Target Advertising Used to Censor NY Times Article

avtchillsboro writes to tell us The New York Times has adapted technology usually used for targeted advertising to censor a recent article from British viewers in an attempt to comply with local publishing rules. The New York Times explained that this move "arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial."

Comments

Cryptome

[Threni]

As always with this sort of thing, it's on Cryptome:

http://cryptome.org/nyt-ukterror.htm

Re:Cryptome

[Anonymous Coward]

Or here: http://steff.name/terror.txt Posting as Anon since the Powers That Be seem to have deleted my venerable slashdot_fool account, the bastards.

proud to be british

[eneville]

All us brits use public proxies anyways. Nothing to see. We can all read about it in the papers tomorrow.

Re:Expect to see this in Canada too

[Ignignot]

I know there is the whole "I don't consider myself British, now I'm Welsh or whatever" that's gone on - but Britain and UK are synonymous at least as far as wikipedia goes. Britain can mean either the island or the UK. And either one includes both Scotland and Wales. Maybe you are confusing this with people confusing England and the UK, which are actually not the same.

Online Proxies

[Anonymous Coward]

I use http://www.workfriendly.net/ (though not for /.!) when at work, so i could view the article no probs. http://www.workfriendly.net/browse/Office2003Blue/ http/www.nytimes.com//2006/08/28/world/europe/28pl ot.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Re:New York Times - LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!!

[Buran]

You are aware that pretty much every US web business with any presence in China does just that?

Their China-based sites have to follow local laws. That's what "presence in X" means -- operations in a given country. (or do you think I have a "presence in" China for just having a website? I don't have one, and Chinese law can stuff it.) But US-based sites do not have to. And the NY Times is a US-based site.

That's why a US court ruled that the US-based Yahoo auction site did not have to pull Nazi memorabilia, but the French Yahoo auction site does obey the law.

Netcraft confirms it: Site report for www.nytimes.com -- US address, and that IP netblock is owned by NTT America, Inc.

Re:Maybe now they know what it feels like...

[keesh]

Popular myth that they like to perpetuate. The way it really works is that they know who owns a TV because you have to provide a name and postcode when buying one (UK postcodes are far more specific than US ones), and they know who doesn't own a TV licence.

Those dishes strapped to the sides of their highly visible detector vans don't do anything except make people think they're infalliable.

Re:so what?

[SydShamino]

Americans get their freedom of speech, which apparently overrides all other rights in criminal cases
Not at all. The judge in a case can issue a gag order, and even seal indictments, evidence, etc., to prevent anyone involved from talking or leaking information.

On the other hand, if information is leaked, the papers usually have the right to publish it. The person who leaked it may be in contempt of court and headed to jail, but the paper or journalist won't get into trouble unless they refuse to name a source.

It is freedom of the press that is paramount in this example. Free speech can be curtailed if the judge feels that it would lead to the violation of another right, such as due process.