Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Web Censorship Proposed For Norway

Posted by kdawson on Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:36 PM
from the great-firewall dept.
Aqwis writes "A Norwegian Web filtering system (link in Norwegian), comparable to the Great Firewall of China, has been proposed to the Norwegian legislature. It would, if enacted, block all Web sites and servers that contain hate material (racial hate, pro-Nazi sites, hate towards the government, etc.), most kinds of pornography (not only child pornography), foreign gambling sites, and sites that share copyrighted or other material that it is not legal to share (such as most BitTorrent sites and services such as LimeWire). Reactions have been mixed; however they are mostly negative."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Right (Score:5, Funny)

    by f_raze13 (982309) on Monday February 12 2007, @10:40PM (#17992668)
    If we block any obscene content, our people will become fine, upstanding citizens. And don't tell me to RTFA, because it's in Norwegian.
    • by President_Camacho (1063384) on Monday February 12 2007, @10:57PM (#17992852) Homepage
      If we block any obscene content, our people will become fine, upstanding citizens. And don't tell me to RTFA, because it's in Norwegian.

      It's a well known fact that Norwegian blue content is easily blocked. As a matter of fact, the only reason it even shows up on the internet is because it's been nailed there.
      • by EvilIdler (21087) on Tuesday February 13 2007, @12:59AM (#17993796) Homepage
        In short, they want to block everything with hate (hey, my private server would be blocked!),
        and everything else resolving to the same IP-address. So if you want to get the competition
        shut down, and they use a shared webhost, just buy cheap space from the same provider
        and post something really, really nasty. What is considered nasty? Well, that's up to them to
        decide. For the good of the people.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          If you're doing any kind of business over the internet, even just hosting a site, wouldn't it be wise to just spend the extra $3.95 (price from my shared hosting provider) for the dedicated IP address? If you're really worried about some IP getting blocked, then I don't think $4 is really going to take a big bite out of your budget.
      • by TheoMurpse (729043) <kylegoetz@gmail . c om> on Tuesday February 13 2007, @02:51AM (#17994406) Homepage

        It's a well known fact that Norwegian blue content is easily blocked.
        Owner: No no he's not censored, he's, he's timed out! Remarkable content, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful bits!
        Mr. Praline: The bits don't enter into it. It's stone censored.
        Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's timed out!
        Mr. Praline: All right then, if he's timed out, I'll contact the host! (shouting at the router) 'Ello, Mister Chrissy Content! I've got a lovely fresh hard drive for you if you show...
                  (owner hits the modem)
        Owner: There, he refreshed!
        Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you reloading from the cache!
        Owner: I never!!
        Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!
        • Blasphemy! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Hittite Creosote (535397) on Tuesday February 13 2007, @05:11AM (#17995076)
          On the Monty Python front - the Norwegians (initially) banned the film "Life of Brian". So in Sweden it was advertised as "the movie that is so funny, it was banned in Norway".
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            On the Monty Python front - the Norwegians (initially) banned the film "Life of Brian".

            Yes, what a tragedy that was. The Life of Brian was successfully censored under the blasphemy paragraph. Fortunately, the paragraph is now completely dormant, and there is talk of having it removed... TLOB was the last successful invocation of the blasphemy paragraph.
    • Re:Right (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13 2007, @12:11AM (#17993434)
      If we block any obscene content, our people will become fine, upstanding citizens.

      As obviously incorrect as it is, this is actually a common belief in the south eastern US.

      I grew up in San Francisco, but attended college in Alabama. As you might imagine, it took some time to get used to the degree of conservatism in the south east. After all, San Fracisco is a rather liberal place. When I grew up there in the 1970s, it was unusual for a day to go by when you didn't see a topless woman, some guy with his penis hanging out, or even a group of hippies performing their acts of "public love".

      At first I wasn't sure if people in Alabama were serious or not. I'd hear people talking about how evil pornography was, and how if a girl even thought of a scrotum before she was 25, she'd be completely damaged for life. At some convenience stores, some of the religious people would throw the porno mags on the floor while the store owner was watching. It was actually quite strange to see how anti-sexual people in the south east US are.

      I think I got a better understanding of how things really are there when I was in my final year of college. A couple of years before we had had one professor who was extremely against pornography, anal sex, homosexuality, and atheism. During my final year, there was a bit of a scandal involving that professor. It turns out that he had been caught with three other men sexually molesting a farmer's livestock and each other. So we had listened to him rant on against "sexual deviancy" day in and day out, only to find out that he one of the sickest bastards out there, completely contradicting everything he said and supposedly stood for.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      You wouldn't need to, you pretty much nailed it.
      I'm norwegian myself, but if this goes through (and I doubt it), I'm moving away. To me, this would just make Norway into a China with higher taxes.
      The guy in charge of the comittee that made this proposal, Knut Rønning, is pretty much the Ted Stevens of Norway, he annoys the crap out of me. Here's a video with him (again, in Norwegian): http://tbtv.tb.no/player/nyheter/362-datakriminali teten-skal-til-li.html [tbtv.tb.no]
  • In the day of shared hosting and virtual hosts on the same IP address, this appears to have the potential for huge collateral damage.

    On the other hand, it might be a good time to create an ad-paid-for http proxy in Norwegian.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          (Sorry about my English, I am Norwegian)

          Your English isn't bad because you're Norwegian, it's bad because you're an idiot.

          You know, where the current administration are fighting private schools to avoid thoughts that are not socialistic enough.

          No, it's to avoid religious nutcase schools like Liberty University and the like in the US. And it's a good thing, too. And the recent school reforms are as unsocialistic as they get.

          Where the state takes most of what you earn by direct and hidden taxes.
  • This will work as well as the chinese one...
  • No, relli! (Score:5, Funny)

    by j_presper_eckert (617907) on Monday February 12 2007, @10:40PM (#17992676)
    So people won't be able to read my blog about how a moose bit my sister once?
    • So people won't be able to read my blog about how a moose bit my sister once?

      No, they'll be able to read that. The flickr photoset that goes along with it is another story. Møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
  • Come on, Slashdotters, curb your impulses! This law must be enacted! Won't anyone think of the fjords?
    • Uhh, what has President Fjord got to do with Norway?
    • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Monday February 12 2007, @10:54PM (#17992834)
      I agree. The Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big kringle. It's a series of fjords.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Oh dear, the attempts to control what travels through the Internet and into our brains. Is that what's hurting us? Can we put one ounce (28.349523 grams) of this effort towards nailing the bot nets, spam generators and Internet pirates with Phishing schemes instead of policing our minds? Maybe policing our minds is easier than the hard work of really fixing a dozen Chinese hosts throwing the dictionary at my servers all day long or absorbing 80% of the Internet's bandwidth with noise. Fix that, lawmakers.

        Y

  • Good to know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rolfwind (528248) on Monday February 12 2007, @10:42PM (#17992706)
    that the supply of idiots eager to babysit me and legislate morality isn't only confined to the US and China.
  • by Jarn_Firebrand (845277) <eurus103 AT gmail DOT com> on Monday February 12 2007, @10:46PM (#17992746)
    but it's in NORWEGIAN!
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Monday February 12 2007, @10:49PM (#17992784) Homepage Journal
    Norway censor porn? You're kidding, right?
    • by Graabein (96715) on Tuesday February 13 2007, @12:04AM (#17993394) Homepage Journal

      Norway censor porn? You're kidding, right?

      Nope. Norway is puritan country. Porn (people fscking) is illegal. Pictures of nekked boobies aren't.

      Even so, this has been blown waaay out of proportion (Slashdot, sensationalist?! Nah...) It's just a proposal by a panel so far and what's more, of the 6 members of the panel 4 were against. The minority, i.e. the remaining 2 members, have demanded that the Justice Department consider the proposal anyway and present it to Parliament regardless.

      Whether or not that will really happen remains to be seen. Needless to say, just about everyone else are up in arms over this.

      Democracy in action, folks. Nothing to see here, move along.

      IAAN (I Am A Norwegian) and IRTFA.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday February 13 2007, @02:30AM (#17994288) Homepage
      Actually, up to a ruling by the Supreme Court (ours, not yours ;) in december 2005, hardcore pornography was forbidden. Somehow, Norway never experienced the same liberalization as Sweden and Denmark, however, we do have a much more relaxed relationship to nudity than the US. For example in "Brødrene Dal og Karl XIIs gamasjer" which is a childrens/young teen series you get to see a female streaker in full frontal nudity - now show me that on US public television. Many were those who had satellite connections and set the texting to Swedish, goodbye censorship. Nevermind Internet when that got around.

      The ruling came about after a reinterpretation of the law - there are only two things that are forbidden by Norwegian law. Child pornography and "offensive" (støtende) pornography. The courts gave them a run-around and said "people don't find this offensive, if you want the law to prohibit hardcore, say it". It's an odd variation of the Miller test, and it may still apply for vids that show rape etc. - nobody's quite found the new limits yet. In any case, the porn is flowing now but that is only in the recent year or so.
  • by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Monday February 12 2007, @10:50PM (#17992804)
    Here starts the slipperly slope of freedom of speech to criticize the government.
  • In the U.S., you say somethings and you get yourself fired, thrown out of office, ridden out on a rail, decertified what have you:

    • Niggardly - Thought I'd start out with Norway roots. Guess why this word is banned from most offices. Look it up. Only the the uneducated would become offended
    • Clinton was a dope smoking, womanizing, draft dodging President
    • Florida voters are senile and shouldn't be allowed to touch a ballot
    • English should be the official language of the U.S.
    • A whole bunch of words:
      • Nigger
      • Beaner
      • Boy
      • Kraut
      • Heimy
      • Mic
      • Dago
      • WOP
    • Global warming is caused by nature
    • I'd love to watch lesbians have sex, as long as one of them was NOT Hillary
    • Maybe DeGaulle was right
    • Patton was right (slap)
    • So was Truman
    • Israel has a right to exist
    • A culture that condones and/or embraces suicide bombers has no right to exist

    This post will be censored in Norway, but so will anyone who tries to argue the opposite of any one of these points. Is that freedom?

    • by Tore S B (711705) on Monday February 12 2007, @11:31PM (#17993128)
      This post will be censored in Norway

      That's so clueless I'm going to go ahead and assume you're an American here. I'm also going to point out that Norway consistently ranks in the top five in various agencies' ratings of press and speech freedom. The United States ...doesn't. How's that PATRIOT act working out for y'all?
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Stuff like the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo and the like are horrible and should be gotten rid of, but speaking in relative terms they really aren't that bad.

              I don't know enough about the PATRIOT act to speak for or against it, but I'm sorry, no: Guantanamo Bay is absolutely inexcusable. It really is that bad.

              We're still an extraordinarily free society...

              Actually, you're far below par for the course in Europe. You do seem to enjoy talking about it the loudest, though.
  • by troutinator (943529) on Monday February 12 2007, @11:01PM (#17992886)
    It was only a matter of time before a Western nation tried this. It is interesting that the press are not censored but instead adhere to self-imposed commandments of caution ("Vær Varsom-plakaten"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Politics [wikipedia.org] So now they wouldn't be blocking their own people from saying things but preventing any outside thoughts that were found disagreeable to find their way in. Or will this also go to cover the "hate towards the government" expressed by Norwegians themselves? And just how will such things like "hate towards the government" be determined? Will any discussion of a dislike of the governments actions be blocked, or will it be limited to blatant hate that threatens bombs and assignations? Lets just hope the US never tries that, or have they already?
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday February 12 2007, @11:10PM (#17992952) Journal
    First, there is another government that thinks they can regulate the Internet. We know that is stupid, but more importantly, they believe they can regulate the dissemination of hate speech. We might as well ban megaphones now. Worse than regulating the Internet, this is an attempt (seemingly) to regulate thought and speech. Can we all agree on how that will work out. Next thing you know Reporters Without Borders will be reporting on this story.

    There is way too much in the world to worry about besides what people view on the Internet. Lets not forget that it is the parents responsibility to ensure their kids don't torture animals, bully other kids, and learn a set of spiritual values.

    I am (mostly) a libertarian, but despite political leanings, I cannot fathom any political faction believing that it is their responsibility to remove all possible danger from the lives of citizens as to provide a blanket of security and safety for them. When ANY government feels this is their responsibility, it is high time to execute that government and move on to the next version.

    This is not so much an example of stupid government as it is a call for the citizens of that country to impeach and behead the leaders of that government... in any order that seems appropriate at the time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      GAH!, why was this modded Insightful....

      This is a suggestion by a panel of employees at a cybercrime commission formed by the previous, conservative government, and none of the people on the board have been chosen by politicians.

      As I've said in other posts, this does not stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
  • It has to be said! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by talornin (745646) on Tuesday February 13 2007, @01:17AM (#17993908) Homepage
    Ok! I am Norwegian and I just want it t be known that a _minority_ within this commiitee, which is composed of old and wery conservative people, is proposing this bill and just to inform you, there is no chanse in hell that this will ever make it past the Storting (Congress).


    It is a shame that when a a comittee is called upon to make a statement on something like the internet there are never any young people included. I am now 22 years old, internet has been a part of my life since I was 10 (and even more so for my 11 years old sister). I can tell these old guys and researchers so much about online culture, society, human interaction and etiqette that they will never ever get to know or learn because internet will always be something "new" and foreign in their life, not something that has been there from the beginning.

    • by WED Fan (911325) <akahige&trashmail,net> on Monday February 12 2007, @10:47PM (#17992758) Homepage Journal

      Before you get your Slashdot panties in a twist and get offended, note, I'm a libertarian (note the case) and can't stand the damned conservatives. They are as bad as our liberals, just intolerant of other things. With these two, we can't say a damned thing.

      • is nothing but a synonymn for selfishness

        if you understand what is wrong with selfishness, you understand what is wrong with libertarianism

        the only people who take libertarianism seriously are earnest philosophy majors in college with no real world experience, and 40 and 50 year olds behind on their alimony payments

        yes, liberals and conservatives are always trying to tell you what to do

        because they care. smothering you is a side effect of caring. of course that can do damage, but not as much damage as liber
          • is that if you watch a man fall, you will not stop to help him up. that if a man is dying of sepsis, you will not buy him 79 cents in antibiotics, that if a man is smart but can't afford an education, then you will deny him a future. etc

            of course, it is absurd for me to suggest that altruism and selfishness cannot coexist at the same time, in the same person, in the same society. this is, in fact, what most modern western societies are like: capitalism with social safety nets, or socialism with a capitalist engine. but notice how the agenda of libertarians is to remove those social safety nets. that's interesting

            what would happen without those social safety nets? you honestly can't imagine how they might be necessary, how they might, in fact, help you by removing the attractiveness of criminal acts that are sought after by the desperate? that is as actually cheaper to pay for the social safety nets then to pay for eventual negative effects of a growing poor underclass?

            oh: you thought libertarianism would do anything except shrink the middle class?

            sorry: selfishness compounds interest. what i mean by that is that, in a libertarian society, given a few generations, all power and money would be centralized in a handful of ultrarich. of course, libertarians say that their political philosophy is all about the little middle class man making it on his own, unburdened by the intrusions of a busy body government. what they don't understand is how their livelihood relies so much on those government hand outs, indirectly, they can't fathom seeing the worth for paying. this doesn't make a libertarian wiser, this makes him more shortsighted

            the only people who gain from libertarianism is not the hardy backwoods souls. it is the ultrarich in the penthouses of the urban centers. it is amazing how libertarians cannot understand how selfishness concentrates wealth into societies of rich and poor, and destroys the middle class. the little middle class guy in the woods who supports libertarianism supports the impoverishment of his children and grandchildren so that the ultrarich can get even richer

            which makes perfect sense, right? selfishness only cares about yourself... not the next generation

            there is nothing wrong with what ayn rand said about the many and varied benefits of selfishness. but there is everything wrong with thinking that those positive aspects of selfishness, in a vacuum of altruistic efforts and benefits, does anything but consume that which it creates, and then some

            life is balancing act on so many principles. when it comes to altruism and selfishness, especially

            you must have equal parts both concepts in your political philosophy, or you have a political philosophy that only impoverishes and makes miserable

            understand why both altruism and selfishness must be expressed in your political philosophy, or understand nothing at all
            • I know this is offtopic and that I'll probably be modded down as such, but heck, I'm going to burn my karma anyway and not post A/C.

              Look, you make some very good points, and I commend you for them, but god is your post hard to read. Maybe it is just me, but I find it downright painful; everything just runs together forcing me to read it more slowly than normal. A few extra seconds using the shift key and punctuation would save many minutes of total time of readers who are slowed down trying to read it.

              • you don't seem to have a good grasp of human nature. human nature is such that if you aren't forced to contribute to society, you won't. here's a primer for you on human nature:

                The Eyes of Honesty
                By CLIVE THOMPSON
                Published: December 10, 2006

                In the psychology department at Newcastle University, there is a coffee station where people can help themselves, so long as they leave money in the tray -- 50 pence (about $1) for a coffee and 30 for tea. It operates on an honor system.

                Alas, not everyone is honorable. "

    • by Tore S B (711705) on Monday February 12 2007, @11:01PM (#17992892)
      There's a thoughtful comment based on a complete view of the facts of the situation if I've ever seen one.

      If you'd RTNorwegianA, it says quite clearly that this is merely a suggestion by a panel at a cybercrime law enforcement agency, and has seemingly been universally panned by politicians, media, and the populace alike.

      Tore - The Norwegian Guy.
      • If you'd RTNorwegianA, it says quite clearly that this is merely a suggestion by a panel at a cybercrime law enforcement agency, and has seemingly been universally panned by politicians, media, and the populace alike.
        What are you doing? How can you bring up facts here? How do you expect us to have a proper Slashdot discussion if you bring facts into the discussion?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Unless I'm mistaken, Norway was the third or so country to be linked up to Internet, and has always been ahead of most other countries, both with understanding technology and using it for the benefit of the people. It would be a shame if Norway now is caught up in the neocon puritanism enough to implement something like this. Let's hope it's just a proposal from some radicals that won't have a chance of ever passing their house? senate?
      • by WED Fan (911325) <akahige&trashmail,net> on Monday February 12 2007, @11:39PM (#17993198) Homepage Journal

        neocon puritanism

        Actually, you have some of this wrong. Censoring for pornography and language is a conservative/neocon thing. Censoring for offensive ideas/language is a liberal thing. At least, thats the break down in the U.S.

        Between the two camps, we are losing our freedoms.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        We were the first, actually, using a Honeywell 316 TIP as the node. The node name was NORSAR-TIP, and we used a 2.4Kbit satellite link. 20 minutes later, London was on the ARPAnet, through us.
    • by orzetto (545509) on Tuesday February 13 2007, @02:05AM (#17994176)

      Ah, Norway [...]Who's in charge there? Liberals?

      The Liberal Party of Norway [venstre.no] is currently a small-sized party in opposition, together with the conservatives [hoyre.no] (check out what sort of ladies can be in politics in Norway: how many milliseconds would she last anywhere else?) and Christian democrats [www.krf.no]. The thing most closely resembling the Republicans is the Progress party [frp.no], a hate-spewing propaganda machine for the lesser mentally developed (yes, there is statistics showing Progress voters are less schooled than average; and yes, they actually bought the WMD bull back in 2003).

      Current government is headed by the Labour party [arbeiderpartiet.no], the Socialist Left party [sv.no] (more or less like Labour, only more environment-focused and anti-NATO, and generally more left-leaning) and the Centre party [senterpartiet.no] (farmers).

      I would not agree on the opportunity of using a link to Dagbladet to explain this issue (ok most people do not read Norwegian anyway), as Dagbladet is a low-quality tabloid focusing on flashy headlines. This article from Aftenposten [forbruker.no] indicates that censorship is a mindretallforslag, i.e. a minority proposition. The majority of the Datakrimutvalget (Authority for computer crime) actually voted against this proposal.

      • If indeed they make a friggin' firewall between "us and them", you've got to remember Norway is the home
        of many hackers *with attitude*. I'd expect circumvention mechanisms to be ready on the first day.
        That is, if the politicians are actually drunk enough to let this pass.
    • Re:Oh Look! (Score:4, Informative)

      by malsdavis (542216) on Tuesday February 13 2007, @12:12AM (#17993440)
      "Another government passing an idiotic and unenforcable law!"

      Ummm I take it you didn't RTFA.

      This is a proposal from a 6 member panel at the bottom end of the Norwegian Government. Thankfully, it's still unlikely the actual Norwegian parliament will even look at a bill based on the proposal (since it isn't yet even in bill form!!!), let alone make a law based upon it.

      Two major problems have occurred here:

      1) People should RTFA before posting!!!
      2) Slashdot should stop people from submitting extremely misleading summaries. (and FireHose just makes the situation 10x worse due to point 1).