Global Internet Censorship On the Rise 185
An anonymous reader writes "State-led internet censorship is on the rise around the world. According to a study conducted by the Open Net Initiative and reported by the BBC, some 25 of 41 countries surveyed were filtering at least some content. Skype and Google Maps were two of the most often-censored sites, according to the article. 'The filtering had three primary rationales, according to the report: politics and power, security concerns and social norms. The report said: 'In a growing number of states around the world, internet filtering has huge implications for how connected citizens will be to the events unfolding around them, to their own cultures, and to other cultures and shared knowledge around the world.'"
Good a place as any to throw this one out... (Score:2, Interesting)
O Rly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good a place as any to throw this one out... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is important to note that the social norms of many cultures are not compatible with western ideals. This causes conflict when the west tries to use its power (economic and military) to force its ideals on the rest of the world. The irony is that one of the most powerful ideas expressed by the US constitution that has been adopted by the western world is the concept of freedom of choice (association, religion, expression are all choices we make). By forcing western values on the rest of the world we are in effect violating them ourselves by not giving other cultures a choice.
I always said it would become a weapon of tyranny (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good a place as any to throw this one out... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good a place as any to throw this one out... (Score:1, Interesting)
Wow, and you didn't even mean that ironically. There's your poster-child for American arrogance right there.
There is no need for any part of the U.S. constitution to be applied to citizens of the world when we've had a perfectly good Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] since 1948. Article 19 reads:
That's pretty unambiguous. Unfortunately, like most things the U.N. does, it's toothless and not taken very seriously even by its member nations. But it's still a visible, noble standard for any nation with a conscience to hold itself to.
Don't agree! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Big deal (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
It is *precisely* the "lawless" state of the internet today that makes it useful as a tool for freedom (and flexible as a basis for building things).
Spam is a technical problem with the design of the SMTP protocol, and a really interesting social issue re: the appropriateness of push marketing in any medium designed for 1 to 1 personal communication. But, rather than trying to fix technical problems with laws, let's let SMTP as it is continue to die it's slow death.
Defamation is nothing new to the internet. You could always distribute anonymous pamphlets about people. Sure, more people can participate in both reading and writing, but the effect will go down as more people realize that talk is cheap. More importantly, Defamation is in no way an important enough issue to consider restraining the essential liberty that is freedom of communication.
Phishing and other scams are no more interesting to me than pickpockets in open air markets (where that sort of thing is common). Sure, it sucks when you aren't prepared and lose your wallet - but all the locals will correctly just laugh at you and tell you to be more alert next time. There will always be people out to scam you / take your stuff - one of the key skills to operate in human society is to avoid being the victim. I give the pickpocket example for a very good reason - this isn't a new class of problem, it's been solved, and it isn't the government's responsibility to protect you from everything.
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
We disagree in two places then:
First, I think that if there are censorship methods in place all that stands between governments and restraining political speech is one legal restriction, we've already failed. They'll ignore that restriction without a second thought because all they have to do is use a tool that they have in place. If we prevent them from installing that set of tools, then we at least have a chance to see what they're doing and respond before it's too late. Currently, the architecture of the internet makes effective censorship very difficult - we, as individuals, should value that advantage over the the state very highly.
Second, I believe that anonymous speech is an essential element of free speech. By its very nature, the speech that needs to be protected will always be unpopular - no need to help the government identify "dissidents" too quickly.