Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

India Blocks Yahoo Groups Over Political Content 441

Posted by simoniker from the brute-force-embargo dept.
Ryan Barrett writes "In an attempt to shut down the Yahoo Group of a separatist political movement, the Indian government's CERT organization ended up blocking its country from accessing Yahoo Groups as a whole. China's censorship of the Internet in the past few years has been unsettling, but most people have accepted it as a by-product of China's form of government. Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India Blocks Yahoo Groups Over Political Content More

India Blocks Yahoo Groups Over Political Content

Comments Filter:

  • Irony (Score:5, Interesting)

    by (54)T-Dub ( 642521 ) * <tpaine@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:01PM (#7088509) Journal
    This obscure seperatist group is no longer so obscure. I'm interested to see how this pans out in a democracy. Will the people be so mad that they can't use yahoo that they will demand change? Will this actually increase the interest in this seperatist group?

    • Re:Irony (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lawbeefaroni ( 246892 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:25PM (#7088753) Homepage
      You know, the funny thing is how easy it would have been to end the group. Instead of blocking it, they could have just had a crew of about 10 or so people (outsourced to the US of course) sign up to the group under 100 or so names and just crap it out. Make it all noise and no signal and just kill it. With 24 legit users and 80 fake, government users, 20 government trolls it wouldn't last long. At the same time they would be monitoring it.

      What they did do was about the worst thing they could.
      • Wow, that's a very good point. Makes you wonder if they have a political motivation behind their method. Maybe multiple idea's were propsed (including yours) and they decided for a more brute force method? You would think that at the point where they figured out that they would have to block the entire yahoo groups section somebody would have spoken up and said it was a bad idea. Maybe the people who were involved from a techinical standpoint didn't like the idea of censorhip and therefore choose to push th
    • Will this actually increase the interest in this seperatist group?

      Absolutely!

      Just look at what rock 'n roll music was in the USSR back in the 60s and 70s. It was a "politically subversive cultural influence" and therefore banned at the government level. But that only served to make groups like the Beatles ever more popular and mysterious.

  • India is a democracy, and has the most "free" government in the Indian Ocean, East Asia region. It has a real democratically elected government, and an economy that will become very strong one day.

    This is definitely a chilly article. It does not bode well for the region at all.

    • Re:Odd That (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jmccay ( 70985 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:23PM (#7088729) Journal
      I find it funny that India did it considering their blooming tech outsourcing industry. What's next blocking the internet? That'd be good...for American jobs. ;)
      • The only difference between an American democracy and an Indian democracy is their leadership- one focuses on enabling job growth in their country, while the other torpedoes it in favor of driving down costs for big business.

        You can decide which is which, but here is a hit- the US lost 3.3 Million jobs since Bush took office.

        • Re:Odd That (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jmccay ( 70985 )
          You forgot the importing of foriegners to take American jobs through H-1Bs & L1s. Clinton didn't do much to help out during his term in the office of President. I didn't see him stopping in influx of foriegners through visa programs.

      • Re:Odd That (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Goth Biker Babe ( 311502 )
        India has traditionally been isolationist with both business and politics. From what I've read of Indian politics over the years it doesn't surprise me. It's similar with business. It is very hard for a foreign business to set up there because they wish to protect their own burgoning industries. Don't forget the modern Indian nation is only 60 years old and is showing the signs of insecurity that most new nations show. Paranoia, isolationism, protectionism etc. In fact very similar to a slightly less

    • Re:Odd That (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrscorpio ( 265337 )
      I was under the impression that Pakistan was much more free, despite being a dictatorship.

      Being a democracy does not ensure a freer populace, that is for sure.

      Chris

      • Re:Odd That (Score:4, Interesting)

        by exhilaration ( 587191 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:41PM (#7088899)
        You're kinda right, but it's more a matter of resources. You can criticize the government as much as you want in Pakistan, but they don't really have the resources to go after you (unless you're in any way connected to Bin Laden - that's a different case).

        In India, with their thriving economy and huge cash reserves, it's a different deal. Some journalist got one of the defense ministers on video while taking a bribe - they shut him down, put some of his colleagues in prison, and used any means they could to harrass him.

    • Claiming India is a democracy is an insult to democrats everywhere. India is a kleptocracy, a govt HIGHLY corrupt and serves only the elites. If India is a democracy, Zimbabwe is too...

      India is one of the least democratic countries in Asia. This is a country that would let millions starve to death while implementing policies helping the wealthy. This is a country that will lock up political dissidents, censor films, and ban anything threatening to the establishment.

      The only reason anyone even conside

  • Plenty more to block! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thedillybar ( 677116 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:02PM (#7088523)
    This government is doing nothing more than trying to please people. Many people will be pleased, and many will be displeased. They have blocked Yahoo Groups, but there are plenty other sources of criticism, probably many much worse, that will remain uncensored until they go to the extreme of blocking everything by default and only allowing the sites of their choice.

    This is not only ridiculous, it's not feasible. Good try.
    • "This government is doing nothing more than trying to please people. Many people will be pleased, and many will be displeased."

      Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
    • This may come as a surprise to some Americans, but many democratic nations have laws restricting certain kinds of speech. For instance, in Canada and most European nations, there are laws against speech which promotes ethnic hatred. Some nations, such as Germany, have good historical reasons for such laws. In a country like India with lots of religious and ethnic separatist groups, many of which are violent, it's perhaps not surprising that there are laws against speech promoting separatism.
  • What exactly is supposed to be done about this? True, the current methods of censorship are not perfect and can't stop word getting passed around in some form, but will our governments and corporations find better ways to hide information and ideas they don't like?

  • Quickly mirror the groups everywhere... (Score:4, Funny)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:04PM (#7088535)
    We can totally remove india from the internet just mirror the groups everywhere...
    • All the Indians have to do is look at their system logs, assuming they're running an intrusion detection system, and they'll find millions of compromised systems scanning for CodeRed or whatnot. Plenty of systems to bounce a TCP/IP connection off of. Writing a relay server is about 15 minutes of Java coding assuming you can't remember the exact syntax of ServerSocket and have to look it up.

  • More. (Score:5, Funny)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@NOSpAM.ColinGregoryPalmer.net> on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:04PM (#7088545) Homepage
    Over the past two weeks, India's dozens of Internet service providers have been notified by the government to block access to a Yahoo discussion group called "Kynhun - Bri U Hynniewtrep." The group, which has about two dozen members...

    I bet they get more after this amount of news attention.

  • Freedom of speech (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tar-Palantir ( 590548 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:05PM (#7088548)
    "Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling."

    This is going to happen, sooner of later, in any nation which doesn't have some analogue of the First Amendment. Even in democracies like India, either the government will do it unilaterally or they will scare the people enough to push it through.

    A Constitution like ours (US), however flawed, is a wonderful thing.

    • Re:Freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LamerX ( 164968 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:08PM (#7088581) Journal
      Yeah too bad it's all going to hell. The Patriot Act has already taken away a bunch of our rights. And the Patriot Act II is still being thrown around. People are being scared into giving up thier rights, and as long as they are being told that they'll get more 'security' then everyone is going to keep giving up thier rights. They'd rather live in a secure little perfect world, than a world that is full of limitless possibilities.

      • Re:Freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Wordsmith ( 183749 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:18PM (#7088684) Homepage
        But you're still free to say the Patriot Act blows, and to vote for people willing to overturn it or its most dangerous provisions - and there are quite a few legislators out there speaking up against the act.

        In addition, we have courts that have overturned provisions of the patriot act, and states that have refused to enforce parts of it.

        Our system isn't perfect, and it requires consistent vigalance on the part of hte governed, but at least the avenues for change are built into its core.
      • Would you care to list some rights that you personally used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act? If 'a bunch' of your rights are gone, I would think you could at least name a couple.
        • Would you care to list some rights that you personally used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act? If 'a bunch' of your rights are gone, I would think you could at least name a couple.

          Basically *all* my rights are no longer protected. All the authorities have to do is claim that I'm (or you are, or that guy over there is) a suspected terrorist (mind you, not *prove* it in a fair trial, just *claim*) and *bingo* all the accused's rights disappear. Just like suspected thoughtcriminals in Orwell
      • "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    • Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) * on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:21PM (#7088707)
      I agree with the parent. Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare. For example, in France it is against the law to disparage the Prime Minister. The English newspaper the Sun had to pay a fine when it recently called Chirac a worm. There are other examples in the democracies of Europe.

      Just one more reason why maintaining freedom of speech in the U.S. requires constant vigilance.

      • Right. And imagine it wasn't Chirac compared to a worm but someone calling Microsoft products crap on the front page of a newspaper. Then we'll see who has freedom of speech in the US.

        The fact is: no national newspaper in the US would dare to call the leader of an allied nation a 'worm'. Even the likes of National Enquirer wouldn't have the guts to do it - they reserve that kind of stuff for easy targets like Saddam Hussein. The UK has far more freedom of speech than the US because there is a strong cultu

        • Um, what about Fox News and their "Axis of Weasel" (Germany, France, and Brussels)?

          And the only reason "no national newspaper in the US" (not counting tabloids and weekly newsmags, we only have one, US Today, and nobody reads it except foreigners) wouldn't call the leader of an allied nation a "worm" on the frontpage is because that kind of thing isn't front page news in the US, it goes into the Opinion section. And you can find lots OpEd pieces calling Chirac much worse than a worm (you can also find some
        • Calling people names is an age-old tradition in the US. Although I agree with the other poster who says the vast majority of the name-calling occurs in the OP-ED section (where it belongs).

          As for calling Microsoft products crap - I don't know the page view statistics for Slashdot, but I bet it rivals the readership of major American newspapers. And Microsoft products are routinely called crap here.

      • IIRC, in the USA it's illegal to host a page describing how to make methamphetamines. Possibly other illegal drugs as well. I don't recall if that was ever challenged in court, not gonna google trying to find it in this country, heh heh.
      • It wasn't exactly that they called him a worm. They made a special edition of the paper with a huge worm spiralling out of a map of France with Chirac's head on the the top of it, and they gave it out for free in Paris. I'd say the fine was more of a way of England saying, "Sorry. We thought we had the hooligan problem under control."

    • I think India has a analogue of the first amendment.Roughly from what I learnt in school Free speech is a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the constitution.

      However India has the same problem as that of the US. Because of "terrorist" attacks leaders are empowered to pass Draconian laws. Indias equivalent of the Patriot Act is POTA(Prevention of Terrorist Activities). The government can simply brandish all dissent as terrorism To be fair i side with the government in this case since I think the group is up

      • I think the group is up to no good.

        Therein lies the problem. You only think they are up to know good. But are they? Now if they are a known terrorist group, then shutting them down would be reasonable. However, I prefer to see actual evidence before a government agency curtails the free speech of an organization, especially when it's from an opposing viewpoint.

        FYI, I'm not disagreeing with your other point about the people willingly letting the government impose draconian anti-terrorist laws. It'

      • "To be fair i side with the government in this case since I think the group is upto no good."

        That may be, but why would they cut off access to all of Yahoo! groups for something like 1 billion people because 24 were saying nasty things? Wouldn't it have been easier, and far more effective, to let them rant there and read what they were ranting? Now they'll just go hide somewhere else, but you and the rest of your countrymen are stuck not getting access to the groups you need.
    • The only problem with the US Constitution is that it lends itself too easily to interpretation through the lens of contemporary culture. Instead of predicting the malicious intent of greedy and insecure people centuries into the future, the forefathers naively assumed that their intent would be upheld; that it would rise above the letter of the law.

      Unfortunately, instead of upholding the Constitution, greedy politicians and corporate shills are finding as many ways around it as possible, for petty and te

    • This is absolutely true. I'm certainly no fan of the United States foreign or domestic policy, but the courts have usually filtered out the most idiotic legal proposals. The United States Supreme Court has even declared that a ban on virtual child pornography is illegal -- a decision like that would never have been made in Europe (German law, for example, explicitly prohibits virtual child porn). Regular porn is widely available -- there are tons of porn websites without any adult verification system. In Ge
      • The political system itself is more democratic than that of the US

        I would expect that, as America's form of government is not Democracy; it is actually Constitutional Republic. It is akin to Representative Democracy, but definatly not a "pure" or "direct" democracy. The republic form of government is good for the US because we have so many ethic, racial, religious, etc, groups, and they should all be represented. To understand the difference, I once heard democracy called "3 wolves and a sheep voting on w

    • In New Zealand, we don't have anything like the US Constitution. There is no founding document that says we will always have free speech, yet in recent times, it seems that we are more well off than the US in terms of rights.

      Documents don't hold much weight unless you have honest people running the place. Unfortunalty, it seems that the only thing your constitution can do is give people a clear goal to fight for.

    • After all, the leading companies in internet blocking are AMERICAN! US citizens are already willing to do this for forign govenments against their own people, as soon as the product is ready to play against US hackers, don't think that it won't be used here!

      You may have free speech, but you don't own the network...someone else does. All Washington will have to do is pass an FCC ruling, or just make a few phone calls in the name of 'Homeland Security' to CEO's at the major ISPs and boom, instant censorshi

  • just use... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by herrvinny ( 698679 )
    Can't you just use the Java Anonymous Proxy or anonymizer.com and still access it? Or someone can just write a script to copy the particular banned Yahoo group and mirror it somewhere else...

    When are countries going to learn that the Internet can't be stopped?

    • Re:just use... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:26PM (#7088769)
      Java Anonymous Proxy was backdoored by the German government.

      http://theregister.co.uk/content/55/32450.html

      They posted an updated version which contained a backhole... they called it a 'crime tracking feature'... and then refused to indicate to users which site was being monitored and which wasn't.

  • New Headline (Score:3, Funny)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:09PM (#7088591) Homepage
    India Blocks Yahoo Groups: Sikh and Wrong

  • NNTP bittorrent news proxy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:09PM (#7088593) Homepage Journal
    I've been toying around with this idea for a while, basically all I have now is a hacked stupid ass script that decodes yenc encoded binaries from a paticular newsgroup, creates a .torrent hash on the message, then seeds the message with btdownloadheadless. (I did this so some friends on a different ISP that didn't carry the paticular group could reap it's rich rewards)

    Why can't the same principal with web boards be applied with bittorrent? Simply wget the page you want, create a .torrent hash, seed.

    (runs off to script)

  • Where to draw the line (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:11PM (#7088608)
    There's a wonderful quote (I'm not getting it word-for-word):

    If we don't believe in free speech for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all.

    It's very difficult to draw a line in the sand to divide what is and is not acceptible as free speech. And the most damage doesn't come from misplacing the line a little to the right or the left, but from placing the line to begin with.

    India will now be forever locked in a debate over what can and cannot be accessible to the public.

    On the upside, the more India is cut off from the internet, the better my job security.

    • Re:Where to draw the line (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre@@@geekbiker...net> on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:18PM (#7089258) Journal
      If we don't believe in free speech for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all.
      I agree 100%. Other countries do not understand why we tolerate publications by neonazis and other hate groups. We tolerate them because we firmly believe in free speech for everyone. Not just the "good" stuff. Not just what is politically correct. EVERYONE. Even when their very words make us want to puke.

      Free speech laws aren't there to protect popular speech. By its very nature, it doesn't need protection. It's to protect the unpopular view. Before anyone jumps on me for this, realize that not long ago in the deep south the popular view was that blacks were not really human. The unpopular view was that blacks deserved to be treated as equals.

      The cure to bad free speech is more free speech, not laws limiting what you can say. People with some degree of intelligence will figure out what is right. The stupid people have already decided so the amount of free speech won't affect them.

  • Stupid Stupid move - But its back on line (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cowboy Bill ( 118730 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:12PM (#7088619) Homepage
    The Honchos sitting up there have no idea of the power of the Internet and the repercursions of blocking such a widely used site like yahoo groups. I did contact my friends in India. They said it was back online after a day or so.
    Of course for a democratic nation like India free speech was taken for granted until today. The infamous declaration of Emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975 plagues the Congress party even today. Funny, a lot of the leaders in the ruling party found themselves at the receiving end of the stick back then. Time really does make one forget I guess.
    Anyway let us see how the "democratic process" pans itself out on this issue. The US found its own achilles heel in the Patriot Act. So moralizers beware.

  • I see the point about the freedom of speech and yadda-yadda. However, Yahoo groups (and - even worse - MSN groups) have never really been a healthy addition to the internet.

    I only wish the British government would do the same - perhaps people will make *real* groups and/or websites.

    h

  • Killing Flies with Nuclear Weapons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kefaa ( 76147 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:16PM (#7088669)
    Good grief,the country has over 840 million people and it is worried about a Yahoo group that has 12 members (now 188 thanks to this news story). While it is easy to say "remember 9/11", remember reality too.

    It is unlikely they need Yahoo in order to successful anti-government activists. If they do, then they are not much of a threat. It would seem this is like killing flies with nuclear weapons.

    Perhaps this should be a word to the wise, as American companies continue off-shoring development. What happens when the shut down incoming email? Your corporate site? Or your ISP? It appears they have no concern for the outcome of their action, merely that they follow it, as their duty demands. However, it is _their_ country and as it said, it is outside the control of US laws, and by direct connection US protections.

  • look dudes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquar ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:17PM (#7088675) Homepage Journal
    democracy is nice

    but so is strong government

    a lot of people here come from cultural monocultures of western democracies with strong central governments

    we're talking about an organization with at most a few dozen members that want a sliver of land in the northeast of india to be independent, in a country that is as about as culturally varied as the entire african subcontinent

    this is serious stuff in a place where india and china still have serious border issues about sikkhim, kashmir, etc., not to mention active separatist groups like in assam

    this is not the border of canada and the us, across which most people here on slashdot are posting, perhaps the most historically peaceful border in the world

    this is serious stuff, this is not funny, this is not a simplistic civics lesson in sixth grade that is understandable in simplistic terms only

    india has to take serious steps to protect the integrity of its borders and internal cohesion

    blocking all of yahoo groups was a MISTAKE in trying to block this one small group

    everyone involved admits that

    germany/ france actively censors nazi interests, and we think of them as open democracies

    that's a group a lot larger than this tiny unknown group

    nobody's screaming bloody murder over that here

    so please, ket's have not have all the knee-jerk over-simplifying chicken littles cry the sky is falling in india

    let's have some perspective

    this really is no big deal, except for this minor practically unknown separatist group, which now has won more pr than they could have possibly dreamed of

    which is perhaps the real lesson here about censorship, after all is said and done: you often just wind up buying pr for the group/ work you are trying to censor
    • this is not the border of canada and the us, across which most people here on slashdot are posting, perhaps the most historically peaceful border in the world

      The border is quiet. Maybe a little too quiet. What are those sneaky canucks up to?

      • What are those sneaky canucks up to?

        Operation Take-over-Hollywood-and-thus-take-over-their-minds is in full swing. Let them think that Americans invented air conditioning, microwave ovens, microcomputers, etc. Let them think they rule. When the Manifest Destiny comes about, it will be North America under the Maple Leaf, not under the Stars and Stripes. Mwaa-ha-ha! Mwaa-ha-ha-ha! [/me puts pinky to lip]
      • The border is quiet. Maybe a little too quiet. What are those sneaky canucks up to?

        We can't take a chance - WE MUST STRIKE BEFORE THEY THREATEN OUR FREEDOM! Preemptory self-defense anyone?

    • More excuses (Score:3, Interesting)

      by swb ( 14022 )
      Gee, border integrity, cultural cohesion, other nations wrong-minded censorship, what's next, torture is OK, too, as long as someone else is doing it to?

    • Indians love trouble (Score:5, Insightful)

      by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:44PM (#7088920) Homepage
      India has border disputes with just about every
      neighbor. Indian political leaders are under a lot
      of pressure to not settle any of these disputes.
      Instead they have to fan these flames to win votes.

      Maybe one day Indians will wake up and elect leaders
      that will do something about feeding and educating
      their masses rather than bickering with neighbouring
      countries over land.

    • Re:look dudes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:46PM (#7088941)
      "this is not the border of canada and the us, across which most people here on slashdot are posting, perhaps the most historically peaceful border in the world"

      Not perhaps, definitely. It is the largest and longest undefended border in history (although there apparently were some issues between Minnesota and Canada during the 60's, IIRC)

      "a lot of people here come from cultural monocultures of western democracies with strong central governments"

      The US isn't a mono-culture. India is not a mono-culture either. It just happens that India's cultural differences currently tend towards violence more than the cultural differences in the US do at the moment.

      "this is serious stuff, this is not funny, this is not a simplistic civics lesson in sixth grade that is understandable in simplistic terms only"

      The purpose of the structure in the United States is not that something is best for country, but that it is right. That it is best for the country happens to coincide with what is right, on many occasions. Regardless of effectiveness and side-effects, some things are inalienable rights. The point is, if they can be abridged *at all* they are no longer inalienable rights.

      It's like the difference between getting genuinely no water, and getting a little drink of water every day. Stepping away from the absolute has a drastically different effect. It is not merely a change in the magnitude of a situation, it is change in the nature of the situation.

      If you wish to argue that some rights can still be restricted, feel free to. In some cases, I may even agree with you. However, once a right is reduced, it is no longer an absolute right, and cannot fit into the same category of absolute rights.

  • Times of India article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jdunlevy ( 187745 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:25PM (#7088758) Homepage

    The Times of India [indiatimes.com] has an article, "Big Brother turns gaze on debates," about this [indiatimes.com] (dated Saturday). From the article:

    "The government has given itself sweeping powers to police Internet content and demonstrated it is willing to use them," said Somasekhar Sundaresan, a lawyer specialising in technology issues. "What makes it worse is that rather than acting with transparency and explaining why it was necessary, ISPs were ordered to block 'Kynhun' without being given facts or reasons. All of which creates fear of a police raj."

    What has most alarmed freedom-of-speechniks is that this is not a random instance. Increasingly, Big Brother is turning his gaze from pornography to political debates and ideological differences.

  • A taste of context (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:27PM (#7088779)
    Let's put this in context. Millions of Indians-- more than the entire population of the United States-- live in poverty. (Just because Fortune 500 corporations are outsourcing stuff there doesn't mean India is some sort of wonderful, prosperous Democratic playground. Jobs are outsourced to India because it's cheap.) And we're worried about which Yahoo! Groups they can read there? Many Indians are worried about how they'll feed their children next month.

    So instead of ranting and raving on SlashDot about freedom of speech, write a letter to the appropriate ambassadors-- and then go and donate to a charity that helps poor Indians. It'll be more productive, and you'll help solve two problems, not just one.
    • I can't tell you how many grassroots organisations in India have taken to Yahoo Groups lately. Easiest thing for them to do; everyone has a free Hotmail/Yahoo account, so there's no better way of informing everyone and having discussions than this.

      Really people, I'm tired of this oh-they-don't-have-food-so-let's-not-talk-about-f r eedom argument. Just doesn't wash; you need freedom of speech, you need clear channels of accountability to make a difference. Charity can't work under authoritarianism.

  • I'm starting a Free Lamo group right now on MSN to see if the US blocks access to Microsoft
  • Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling.

    Don't confuse individual rights with democracy. They are not the same thing.

    In fact, the ideas oppose each other. Democracy is about giving the majority control. Individual rights are there to protect us from the excesses of democracy.

  • al jazeera (Score:5, Insightful)

    by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:50PM (#7088970)
    how come we didn't see so much outrage when US banned al jazeera in Iraq?
  • Web sites like Yahoo or Google allow users to create and subscribe to electronic discussion forums.

    But it does raise an interesting point - are they going to block, say, NNTP traffic? What about other encrypted, non HTTP-based alternatives?

    I can't believe these idiots. There they have a group of dissidents communicating out there in the open where they can be freely and easily monitored - and they're forcing them to use another (probably secure) alternative.

  • Indian Constitution (Score:2, Informative)

    by shift82 ( 711939 )
    A quick google search for the Indian Constitution led me to this site Here (It's not the first one in google so don't feel lucky)

    This type of behavior would appear to be blocked by the lines: "LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship," "Right to Freedom," and " Cultural and Educational Right."

    Although, the line: "To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India," would appear to allow them to silence any opposition to their government.

    Just some food for thought from

  • A Simple question to my Wise American Friends (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teetam ( 584150 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:51PM (#7089522) Homepage
    Consider the following scenario:
    1. Some country, say Elbonia, legalizes something that is illegal in USA. Say, child pron. I know it is a stretch but bear with me.
    2. Should American ISPs block this site or not? If not, given that the Web is a big, linked document, an American citizen might land there and thereby, commit a crime!!!

    What is the correct, free response to such a scenario?

  • Primordial Human Right of Self-determination (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @07:17PM (#7090259) Homepage Journal
    It is increasingly obvious with the shrinking globe that the primordial human right is the right of self-determination. All other rights are null and void if that is violated simply because different people may differ profoundly on what they see as essential human rights.

    Logic such as this could have resolved the conundrum of the Confederacy by stating simply that the north had a right to invade the south for the sole purpose of giving slaves the right of self-determination -- and that the right of the Confederacy to secede was not the issue.

    Of course, as the globe shrinks there are opportunities to violate the self-determination of a lot more of the people than ever before. Hence the real test of a sovereign's committment to human rights is its committment to expanding the ecological range of Earth.

  • Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling.

    Actually, this feels a lot better than forcing Yahoo to take it down. At least Yahoo is still free to host (almost) whatever they want.

    Now if I was a citizen of India, I'd be pissed.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close