Some Countries Want To Ban 'Information Weapons'

DrgnDancer sends in an NPR piece on recent efforts to control so-called "information weapons" on the Internet. What's interesting is that the term "information weapon," as defined by many of the countries trying to limit them, doesn't mean what you would think. It's closer to the old Soviet term "ideological aggression." "At a UN disarmament conference in 2008, Sergei Korotkov of the Russian Defense Ministry argued that anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government — even in the name of democratic reform — it should qualify as 'aggression.' And that, in turn, would make it illegal under the UN Charter. 'Practically any information operation conducted by a state or a number of states against another state would be qualified as an interference into internal affairs,' Korotkov said through an interpreter. 'So any good cause, like [the] promotion of democracy, cannot be used as a justification for such actions.' The Russians, and a lot of other countries such as Iran and China, apparently consider the free exchange of information to be an information technology threat. One that must be managed by treaty."

NPR

[jschmitz]

Yeah this story was on NPR this morning - Some countries believe Twitter is an ideological weapon am sure that is just what Biz Stone had in mind........ fricken wackjobs

New World

[Nerdfest]

If you don't want to hear of all the wonderful ideas the rest of the world has, stop using the communications medium they use to spread them. It is not the problem of modern nations to ensure your citizens are not exposed to ideas that you don't like. Be warned that some of them may object rather strongly when their own government rips it away from them.

Re:Why would the US / EU want to broadcast Democra

[Wyatt Earp]

So Germany isn't reunited, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Russia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic don't have free multiparty elections now?

The pushing of democracy in the Cold War, along with a healthy cultural push from film, tv, radio and music helped spur the end of one party rule in Eastern Europe.

So in effect what the Russian Minister said the VOA and BBC in the 60s through 90s was an act of aggression.

1984 newspeak

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

If that can be illegal under international law, we will slid quickly to ideological and religious islands with physical and idea walls around. It is censorship for sure. Not unlike the laws against circumventing content protection schemes. Thats illegal.. When I saw we had done that then I knew we were going to see more tightening and control of information, for profit and in this case for political control (well that is a different kind of profit that controls profit). Years before there were laws passed that made it illegal to listen in to certain radio frequencies or transmissions. That I think may have been one of the first steps in this control of information slide. They acually passed laws that Short wave radio's in this country could only tune to certain frequencies, but of course the fix to open that up to other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that bathes us all with its sunsine was easy and provided.

When will it stop, those that want to control and profit? Ya need to vote.

Good News

[Jaysyn]

If this passes we'll finally GTFO of the UN.

I have never understood

[ThatsNotPudding]

the deep-seated Russian desire for an iron-heeled boot on the back of their neck. FFS, Solzhenitsyn seemed to despise 'The West' (even while exiled in New Hampshire).

Re:Why would the US / EU want to broadcast Democra

[h4rr4r]

I have friends in Kazakhstan and it is no shining example of Democracy. In one case a friend's parents had to vote for the last president or the university they worked for would have fired them.

Re:Why would the US / EU want to broadcast Democra

[radtea]

So in effect what the Russian Minister said the VOA and BBC in the 60s through 90s was an act of aggression.

Damn right. It was aggression against people who hate freedom, who want to rule, who sent tanks in Poland and quite a few other places as well over the years.

It was non-violent aggression, which is the kind that actually works.

Re:Why would the US / EU want to broadcast Democra

[Red Flayer]

Don't be so sure about that. I'd question whether the red-staters would remain happy if their cash cow dried up.

Why do the red states have the bulk of military bases? Stimulus/pork-barrel spending. As for energy and food... who exactly would the red states sell them to? Let's see what the red-state economies look like when they don't have the blue states to purchase their goods.

We're interdependent. Neither "side" would fare well independently without a sizable period of time to adjust.

What's indisputable, though, is the OP's point, which you failed to address. The red states are subsidized by the blue states, quite heavily in most cases.

Except in the US the rural states are the ones the East and South keep poor by controlling large percentages of land through the BLM, National Forest Service, National Park Service and DoD.

That's a bunch of whargarble. It's not federal or regional control of land that keeps the rural states poor. More arable land isn't going to help you get richer. Mineral extraction is a slightly different matter... but the mining companies know they can get minerals much cheaper overseas. It's not federal land management that makes the US a poor prospect for mining... it's labor costs and environmental/social regulations. As an aside, I think those regulations are a good thing.

As for strategic viability of red vs. blue states... Blue states have more and better ports. And the cash to buy things to get shipped into those ports. Can't say the same for the Red states. Short-term, food and power are issues. But money can overcome those issues. Not sure about the red states ability to overcome their issues... lack of capital. Lack of ports. Lack of infrastructure in general (especially once the blue-state subsidy is gone).

Re:Can you cover me too, bro?

[scosco62]

C'mon, you've tried everywhere....seriously, dude, I understand. I work hard, reasonably well educated, and not totally stupid ... and I realize that I am pretty lucky. Last time I was on the street, I sent our over a thousand resumes to a thousand different companies over six weeks - and only got 8 interviews, only one of which turned into a job.......

Re:Couldn't this just be a matter of altering...

[lgw]

You don't get it. If you say "I think that dogs shouldn't wear hats", I can say "PETA engages in violence and arson and thinks dogs shouldn't wear hats. Therefore any expression supportive of hatless dogs is implicitly supporting violence and arson and cannot be allowed." That sort of shit happens all the time in the UN, and all the time in opressive regimes. The very governments who would abuse this employ staffs of hundreds of very smart people who's only job is come up with a nearly reasonable interpretation of any statement such that it can be seen as breaking the rules. And since the decision will be inevitably be made on a political basis, not any sort of neutral basis (since we're talking about the UN), nearly reasonable is all that's needed.

This is the fundamental problem with allowing any sort of government to outlaw any sort of speech - it creates a weapon to be used by the people who judge the merits of speech to attack anyone who says anything. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" wasn't theoretical, it was what Cardinal Richelieu did for a living.

Why the two-party system in entrenched.

[HeckRuler]

There's a question of how one would form. In the past, the alternative took it's base from one of the other parties. All this did was to let the party that wasn't split in half. And there's really no where else to get voters from. There is the non-political block, which is sizable, but they're DEFINED by not voting. And the third-parties are all super-small.

So as it stands, the only way to get another party is to break off from one of the two and then devour it's base. Kinda like how the religious right took over and perhaps what the TEA-baggers are going to do. But this doesn't so much make a third party as transform one of the two. And sad as it is, if one party is for it, the other is against it by default.

Re:Why would the US / EU want to broadcast Democra

[shutdown -p now]

Seems like a giant waste of money to me. It certainly didn't accomplish much during the Cold war

It certainly didn't accomplish much during the Cold war

It accomplished a lot in the Cold War. Most notably, it gave millions of Soviet citizens the idealistic picture of a perfect life in capitalist states, so much so that, when perestroika came, large part of the population were actually pushing forward because they wanted to see heaven on Earth that would surely come once true democracy is established, and all industry is privatized.

These unrealistic expectations, by the way, are one of the major causes of why Russian democracy quickly collapsed the way it did. Way too much was promised, and way too little delivered, under the brand of "democracy and freedom", which is now firmly associated with that failure. Which makes it damn hard to push for actual democracy and freedom in Russia today - you will inevitably be referred to as "the follower of those bastards who raped the country in the 90s".

A true story reflective of all this. In early 90s, there were mass pro-Yeltsin demonstrations of miners. A video recording from one of them shows a miner telling to the camera: "I'm sick and tired of communists. I want a business owner, a master who knows how to run things right! I want to work for the master, get paid well, and have my vacation on the Canary Islands!". The guy got his master, for sure, but, unfortunately, not the pay or the vacation parts. He died a few years later from alcohol poisoning in his apartment - same one he had in the USSR.

Re:Why would the US / EU want to broadcast Democra

[mweather]

Why do you think that? I think capitalism was inevitable, but democracy is not something that would have come to Russia naturally. Someone else would have simply taken over. Even with Democracy they ended up with another strongman with an iron fist.