Slashdot Log In
Report Warns Against Well-Meaning Net Censorship
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jul 27, 2007 03:32 PM
from the happens-in-democracies-too dept.
from the happens-in-democracies-too dept.
athloi writes "A report entitled 'Governing the Internet,' was issued Thursday by the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The document, which highlights the increasing environment of internet 'policing' around the world, characterized the practice as 'a bitter reminder of the ease with which some regimes -- democracies and dictatorships alike -- seek to suppress speech that they disapprove of, dislike, or simply fear.' From the article: 'The OSCE report says Kazakhstan's efforts to rein in Internet journalism in the name of national security is reminiscent of Soviet-era "spy mania," and it says Georgian law contains numerous provisions curbing freedom of expression online. Web sites, blogs and personal pages all are subject to criminal as well as civil prosecution in Kazakhstan, and the country's information minister, Yermukhamet Yertysbayev, has vowed to purge Kazakh sites of "dirt" and "lies."'"
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Australia to Offer Widespread ISP-level Filtering 208 comments
Phurge writes "According to a Sydney Morning Herald article, the Australia government has decided to take the controversial step of having internet service providers filter web content at the request of parents, in a crackdown on online bad language, pornography and child sex predators. 'The more efficient compulsory filtering of internet service providers (ISPs) was proposed in March last year by the then Labor leader, Kim Beazley. At the time, the Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, and ISPs criticised his idea as expensive. Three months later Senator Coonan announced the Government's Net Alert policy, which promised free filtering software for every home that wanted it. She also announced an ISP filtering trial to be conducted in Tasmania. That trial was scrapped. Today Mr Howard will hail the ISP filtering measure as a world first by any Government, and is expected to offer funding to help cover the cost. Parents will be able to request the ISP filter option when they sign up with an ISP. It will be compulsory to provide it. The measures will come into effect by the end of this month.'"
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
Lots of this going around (Score:4, Interesting)
No kiddie porn, no copyright violations, not even libel. Critical of America over the war on drugs and Israel over the war on terror though? You bet.
The posts that triggered this orgy of censorship saw me positing the likelihood that Israel had nuclear weapons forward-deployed in other nations. Shortly after the second post in the series, Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli who blew the whistle on their nuke program, got arrested again. It would seem as though there are some subjects Israel would rather we didn't discuss. I guess I can understand that, but since when does Israel get to control what I can or can't say?
They want to pretend censorship like this is only taking place in places like China. That's bullshit. It's happening here in America and with ever increasing frequency.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- Johnn F. Kennedy
--
Censored [blogspot.com] by [blogspot.com] Technorati [blogspot.com] and now, Blogger too! [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We certainly know they censor content when China asks them to.
Why wouldn't they do the same when the U.S. Government asks the same?
--
Censored [blogspot.com] by [blogspot.com] Technorati [blogspot.com] and now, Blogger too! [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lots of this going around (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing about free speech, as protected by the US Constitution, is that it only protects you against the government (not private or public businesses) and it doesn't guarantee you a forum. If the US government chose to censor your blog, that's against the constitution. If Google decided that they don't want your blog on their Blogger service, that's completely within their rights to do and is not a violation of free speech. Without knowing why Google decided to remove your blog (did the Israeli government really pressure them?), there's not a whole lot you can do about it.
That said, you can still say what you want. You just need to find another forum. Find a web hoster that's sympathetic to your cause (meaning they won't drop you) and host your blog there.
Parent
Re:Lots of this going around (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, it only stops congress from passing laws against free speech. The constitution doesn't say anything about law enforcement officials enforcing laws not passed by congress - hello Gonzales loophole!
Parent
Better act now (Score:4, Funny)
...
Yet.
Parent
Re:Lots of this going around (Score:5, Insightful)
That reminds me of the infamous Bonsai Kitten Website fiasco where a university student did a farcical Website "selling" Bonsai Kitten paraphernalia. The site got banned from just about every hosting company that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) found out about, and the FBI even investigated the site and the people behind it. PETA actually wanted the people behind the site arrested.
It doesn't really matter what you publish; if it is popular enough and there is an Interest Group that doesn't like it then it will likely be censored. If a Website author is rich, then there will be more options, but most people would likely just give up. And if the site was political and controversial, then there may be government "hate crimes" to deal with, blocking from censorware, etc. There is no easy solution to dealing with censorship. If Google just decides it's easier for them to not list the site in their search engine then they will not list it, which makes the site unavailable to those who are not already aware of it.
One solution would be Freenet, but that too is only available to those who know about it and make the effort to install the software and find the proper "keys" to access the site. Freenet too can also be hampered by legislation in Western countries. The same with Tor and the Onion Network. Tor is rather easy to censor since the IP addresses of the proxies are easily available http://proxy.org/faq.shtml [proxy.org].
And there are always the un-brave who just give up trying to say anything in the first place. When one has to worry about SLAPP (unjustified lawsuits to silence people), Law Enforcement (the war on terror, drugs, think-of-the-children, think-of-the-pets), Special Interest Groups, the PC (Politically Correct) crowd, employers data-mining their employees (or potential employees), even DDoS and "hackers" / crackers; self-censorship is probably more prevalent than people realize. Words, ideas, pictures, humour, and just about every form of communication can be seen as dangerous. The Internet was once a relatively easy way to express oneself, but it is getting harder all the time. ISPs are even finding ways to censor P2P traffic that is designed to obfuscate itself.
The only real solution to censorship is to change the attitudes of the people who have the authority and control to influence the Tubes. Since these people are mainly politicians (like Ted Stevens) who are largely ignorant of the technology they legislate and who could care less about the social dynamics of freedom (beyond their own narrow paradigms), the future does not look bright for an unbridled flow of (uncensored) information.
References:
http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/bkgallery.html [shorty.com] (Bonsai Kitten mirror)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai_Kitten [wikipedia.org]
http://freenetproject.org/ [freenetproject.org]
http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Lots of this going around (Score:5, Insightful)
You come very close to stepping over the line from "anti-Zionist" to fundamentalist racist in that sentence.
Parent
Re:Lots of this going around (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lots of this going around (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
M.A.D. R.I.P.
(If you haven't already done so, please read the Iranian nuke vs. Israeli nuke post [blogspot.com], you can consider this post to be a continuation and/or expansion of the points made therein.)
M.A.D. of course stands for Mutual Assured Destruction.
It is what passes for sanity these days in international affairs. That
said, it is also enjoying over a half-century of success. M.A.D. is the
policy that justifies the nuclear arsenals bein
"Well-Meaning" Net Censorship? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too specific (Score:5, Insightful)
Forcing people to act against their own interests is bad in general. Especially when it's sold as "well-meaning". Censorship is no exception.
Kazakhstan censoring negative reports (Score:4, Funny)
there's a machiavellian answer (Score:2)
therefore, it would be more cost effective to censor nothing on the internet, and merely coopt it for your own purposes. pump out your own rumors and lies anonymously, effectively swamping out any anonymous sources of the "truth" with too much noise to get a good signal. people won't know w
You think you get can-spam, net neturality... (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet was much better when it was the wild west. If fact, it is over. We are getting the do-gooders and know-betters running the show, and it is game over, either with dems or reps in charge (excluding Ron Paul who won't win). Our internet will be turned into a PC, child-safe surburb unless we move on to some new dark network.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I can guarantee that if I (or anyone else) popularizes MUPOTDP (My Ubiquitous Protocol Of The Day Protocol) and there's an Apache module and a client app ("browser") for it, the party is back on. And when the nannies find it, we'll just define YAANP (Yet Another Anti-Nanny Protocol) and an Apache module and a client and all is well and good.
The nannyists are driving the world toward protocol-spam. Sooner or later, they will have to concede defeat, as a means wil
As proverb would have it... (Score:2)
Increasingly common restrictions. (Score:3, Interesting)
Gimme a thug rather than well-meaning Big Brothers (Score:3, Insightful)
But the absolute worst nightmare is a bureaucracy of well-meaning weenies, always concerned about your own well-being, sometimes genuinely. Those won't stop harassing you, ever. They know what's good for you. They know you're too dumb to survive without them. And they know that they need to constantly babysit you from cradle to grave. There is no way to get them to stop. You cannot throw money at them to have them leave you alone, because they want you to be happy. Of course, they'll make you miserable. They are the nannycrats.
We are clearly in that case here. And you know the cinch? When nannycrats get ousted, they are surprised, nay, shocked that people don't want their overbearing, crushing attention.
Beware of people who want to make you happy in spite of yourself. Gimme a thug anytime over a nannycrat.
Tyranny (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been thinking... (Score:3)
I'm an athiest, and I used to think that it was religion that caused most of the trouble, pain, and suffering. But I have to admit that athiest regimes have just as much blood on their hands. Then I started chalking it up to human nature (which it may be) but that's not a very useful distinction, what with not being a distinction at all. Recently I've started thinking that it is the idea that we must "cleanse" or "fix" things that is the cause of most evil. The idea that if we could only rid the world of a certain type of person or activity then we'd be much better off. I think that is the flag that indicates trouble. And people of all beliefs and political positions can get into this mindset.
Of course, I have to watch myself as it becomes easy to want to rid the world of people who "vow to purge", which makes me another monster. Instead I try to remind myself I can stand up in opposition to such a thing without trying to purge it. I don't want to kill or dethrone the leader of Kazakhstan, I just don't want him to go after people or their expression in attempt to cleanse things. All things have muddy gray edges, and there are cases where I'm sure this yardstick won't work perfectly. But whenever I find myself saying "the world would be a better place if we could only rid the world of these people..." I stop and check myself.
Anyways, just thought I'd mention it. I think that the ideal world is achieved by not worrying so much about trying to make the ideal world, and just doing your best and enjoying life and letting others do the same.
Cheers.
Western Europe (Score:3, Interesting)