The Empires Strike Back 446
Alien54 writes "Back when the Internet was young - oh, say, eight years ago - there was a school of thought that held that cyberspace was its own sovereign nation. For one thing, 'The Net perceives censorship as damage, and routes around it.' What government could control what was said on the Net? [...] Maybe it's time to change that into, 'Governments perceive the Internet as damage, and gang up on it.' So says Net War columnist Wendy Grossman in an article discussing the recent raids on Indymedia. She makes an interesting case."
First post? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First post? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem arises when people like you and I don't agree with the lengths to which the government(s) go to secure us. Personally, I put a premium on my freedom so I perceive the government as taking away too much of it. Others don't see a problem with this situation because they value security a little more than I do (or freedom a little less).
"Free" governments rarely act against the wishes of the people as a whole. When the vast majority wants something, the appointed representatives are likely to listen (it's in their best interest). Unfortunately for you and me, Slashdot doesn't constitute a majority (yet).
Re:First post? (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to increase your security, you will be giving up some of your freedoms.
This is patently false. There is no correlation between security and liberty. I suggest you check out Bruce Schneier's book Beyond Fear [schneier.com] for a start on re-educating yourself on this issue. You've fallen for the propoganda.
Besides, those that are taking the freedoms don't really care that much about security. Just look at airport security. Its all show and no substance. There are methods for airport security that work (those used by Isreal for example), but they decided not to go with those. Instead they decided to expand government and harass its citizens in a nice dog and pony show that will do nothing to stop another 9/11 type incident.
Re:First post? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another metaphor: Your house can be secured with locks and bars and key codes and so on... but it's going to take longer for you to get inside. It's more likely that you'll trip your own alarms by accident. You'll probably forget your keys and be locked out one day. But it's also harder for an intruder to sneak in. Not impossible, but it's harder. It also makes it less likely that they'll even try to break into your house.
I'm curious as to why you don't agree with the notion that security and liberty are related.
Re:First post? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would break though your wall. Ditto for aircraft security. What's to stop 6 guys with AK 47's driving onto the runway and then boarding an aircraft? Given 3 years to prepare and 20k of supplies I could probably nock down 60% of the eastern seaboards power grid for 24 hours and not get discovered. Granted I feel no need to do so but you gain security though redundancy not giving up freedoms.
Re:First post? (Score:4, Informative)
Blatantly untrue. Bruce Schneier talks about it constantly.
"The proper question to ask is whether the trade-off is worth it. Is the level of security gained worth the costs, whether in money, in liberties, in privacy or in convenience?"
from his site [schneier.com]
Also check out this [schneier.com] article, all about the costs of security, liberties being one of them.
I also recommend subscribing to his Crypto-Gram newsletter.
Re:First post? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First post? (Score:4, Interesting)
I couldn't agree more - in fact every time this quote is trotted out (happens a lot here on /.) I feel compelled to remind the user that what Ben Franklin felt were essential liberties was probably quite a bit different than what the poster thinks they are, or should be.
Frequently the example of airline travel restrictions comes up in the same general vicinity, as if Ben Franklin could ever have concieved of a 300-passenger jet-liner being used as a weapon by death-seeking psychotics.
Perhaps I'm alone, but to me, the fact that I'm free to travel about the country, and that the existence of air travel allows me to be anywhere within 5 or so hours, is my essential liberty. The extra hassle at the airport is not of concern to me and if it was, there are multitudes of more anonymous modes of travel.
If you don't like the scene at airports, don't fly, you're welcome to take the very anonymous horse-drawn carriage to get where you want to be - thats how ol' Ben would've had to do it!
Re:First post? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perception is reality.
Therefore we have gained more security.
You are right of course, we have gained little in actual security while we have lost l alot in freedom. The flaw in a democratic society is that perception and not reality are what politicians are judged on. How the people of that country percieve things is what is important to their leaders, not the actual situation.
Re:First post? (Score:3, Informative)
No. Perception mediates reality, but the real is not entirely out of grasp.
Kant figured that sucker out a few hundred years ago.
Assuming all is working as it should, you still have a quite capable logical aparatus between yer ears to figure out whats going on from all that jumble data coming thru your senses.
Re:First post? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have laws designed to provide security from murder, theft, harassment, etc. In fact, at one time you may have had the freedom to take justice into your own hands. Instead, you are forced to rely on the government to deal out justice. You can't simply kill someone because you think they deserve it.
So you've lost a tiny little freedom which was dangerous and gained some security in that vigilante killing is no longer a commonplace means of justice.
On the larger scale, who do you blame when a terrorist attack happens? The terrorists, of course, but you also want to know why they were able to do it in the first place. You want to prevent it from happening the next time. And the responsibility for this falls upon the shoulders of the government. They respond by passing as many laws as they can to perform the duties that you, as a citizen, are demanding. After 9/11, was your response "well, that happens?" It shouldn't happen - and making sure it doesn't happen again is something that the government is trying for. Maybe not successfully, but considering that we're three years out I think that it's unreasonable to expect a perfect resolution right away.
Re:First post? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's called the electoral process, in a true democracy you can do exactly that. Perhaps the question is do you live in a true democracy or a two party state.
Re:First post? (Score:3, Insightful)
And as to looking to your government for protection from war and terrorism... THE GOVERNMENT IS THE CAUSE of the wars and terrorism.
Re:First post? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Interesting note: Al Qaeda is a small group of
> people, not the population of a country.
A small group of people, who's leader has family interests in line with your current president's interests.
Kinda scary.
-gus
Re:First post? (Score:3, Insightful)
These extremists also don't attach Democratic countries because they can, they do it because something these Democratic countries have done have deeply angered these extremists. The US and Britain have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in countries that never
Re:First post? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, I'd like to see a publicist rescue their image from the whole 'crashing a plane into a civilian target' debacle.
Re:First post? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First post? (Score:4, Informative)
# of Americans killed on 9/11: 2,819 [newyorkmetro.com]
# of Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq: ~10k [iraqbodycount.net]
Maybe these numbers are wrong, if so perhaps someone can find a better reference.
In other words, I'd like to see Bush's publicists rescue him from the whole 'killing tens of thousands of civilians to gain control of Iraq for dubious reasons' debacle.
Hundreds of millions of people (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you get past a few tens of thousands of individuals, a genuinely representative democracy is no longer a realistic possibility because you lose the ability of every member to directly address the forum deciding the issues. What is fucked up is that we still refer to the US's government as a democracy when that's really no longer an appropriate term.
A true democracy would be based on referrendums on issues which people would vote on directly. Real democracy does not requi
Re:First post? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's naive to think that the beliefs of 250,000,000 people can be represented by two parties and two sets of policies, at best they are huge compromises.
The two party state is the direct result of a winner take all electoral system. Proportional Representation electoral systems remove these duopolies.
Re:First post? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many "subnets" on top of the internet that has the true information flow without fear of attack. Freenet is one example, and there are many others mostly private.
Hell many old technology and no longer "used" systems of ye-olde-internet can be considered a silent subnet capable of subverting the policies of the world order of the day.
did you know there are gopher services still running and ar
Re:First post? (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole "routing around censorship damage" is late 20th century romanticism. No link with reality whatsoever.
Neuromancer (Score:3, Informative)
True Names (Score:2, Informative)
Naturally governments want to control everything (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin (Score:3, Interesting)
To expand on this, people who seek positions of real power (meaning the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, i.e. government) are those who wish to control others through coercion, not those who wish only to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.
Really, what other reason does one have for seeking a position in government? (I know there are a select few who actually work to reduce the powers of government, but those are the very r
Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin (Score:5, Interesting)
It is, but you also have to consider not only Indymedia, but other cases as well.
In the Indymedia case it is interesting how Swiss (or Italian or whatever else) governments can simply go to any MLAT partner and seize anything they want for their "investigation." Were Indymedia or Rackspace in violation of the U.S. or U.K laws? I don't know, but it doesn't look that way since neither British law enforcement, nor FBI initiated this action. So, by the magic of the MLAT, you, as an online service provider or entity, are subject to the laws of other countries where you don't even operate or have anything to do with. Want to express your frustration with EU, World Bank, WTO, etc.? It only has to be "illegal" in one country, and your speech will be suppressed for all the rest.
The practice is becoming increasingly common - Yahoo! cannot list Nazi memorabilia in its auctions (the burden is on Yahoo! to make sure the French don't have access to them), Google cannot return advertisements for the words/phrases that are trademarked in the U.S., etc. So, the trend is that once you are online, you are subject to laws of all the nations that could potentially have access to your content or services.
I think it is premature to say that the Internet is doomed, but the beginning of this trend is troubling.
crying wolf? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:crying wolf? (Score:4, Insightful)
The very fact that they still haven't told us the reason behind the raid is censorship.
Re:crying wolf? (Score:3, Insightful)
One might equally well claim that the reason you posted as Anonymous Coward is because you are criminal scum who supports Intarweb terrrists.
Put another way: There exist valid reasons to not immediately publicize why law enforcement does what they do. It may turn out that none of them apply in this case, and the raids and seizures were an oppressive abuse of the process, but crying censorship in the absense of evidence
Re:crying wolf? (Score:3, Interesting)
yes. its indymedias property. what a silly assertion to make. And if it was returned early, its only because of an international effort to get it back , including some assistance from an international team of lawyers and a UK MP.
If it was just a nutty little website with two writers and ten readers, it'd probably be lost to oblivion. Thankfully IMC doesnt take shit from governments and has the muscle to back
Pending Investigation (Score:4, Insightful)
Nor should they..
How is there censorship? (Score:3, Insightful)
They take systems so that they can examine them at their leisure and make sure that they find whatever evidence that they are looking for. Also, it is pretty common practice for police play their cards close during an investi
Nonsense! This is a lie! (Score:2, Funny)
No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no. Having the government abscond with people's property without cause or justification, and stonewalling as to why, does not imply no cause for concern, nor is anyone "crying wolf" when they announce to the world that the government has seized their property and silenced their voices without announcing why and without proper due process (which, in case you were sleeping through twelve years of civics classes, includes being told what one is accused of doing wrong).
They might have had a perfectly legit reason or they may have been poltical tools
With no notification to the accused of what they are accused of, it is abuse of power and in violation of acceptable norms in every western liberal democracy. It is irrelevant as to whether the motive was political, legal, or personal
We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet.
Not surprising. You represent the school of thought that is primarilly responsible for these sorts of actions, and the erosion of our fundamental rights they imply.
But nevermind, I'm sure you'll scream loudly about how burying your head in the sand is "realistic" and "sophisticated," while those of us who point to such obvious abuses as these are dismissed as the "tin foil hat" crowd. This has happened numerous times in history, and is happening again, proving once more that those who ignore history are indeed doommed to repeat it. Unless, of course, IHBT.
Re:No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple (Score:3, Interesting)
In a criminal investigation, there are two ways evidence can be collected, first through application of the fourth amendment and a search warrant, and the second through subpoena for criminal investigation, specifically by a grand jury. Grand jury investigations are nearly always kept under wraps until charges are filed, becau
Re:No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think it's the right thing to do to tell everyone "Hey, we're investigating a sheep fucker over here!!!".
Do you think it's right to not even tell the accused that the accusation is sheep fucking either?
You're talking about not releasing information to the public. The problem is that they aren't even releasing information to the accused either. When the police come to mess with you, you have every right to know why.
Re:No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple (Score:5, Interesting)
When it comes to solving a crime, stopping terrorism, ect I'll gladly risk a single instance of "censorship" before I start whining
You need to understand that when it comes to individual rights governments must not be allowed to make exceptions. Not one, even in the investigation of a crime or terrorist activities.Some time ago GW Bush promised us that the new powers granted under the Patriot Act would never be used for anything but the investigation of terrorist activities. He even said "Trust me".
Yet those same powers have now been used to investigate college students who were alledgedly downloading mp3's from the internet.
Every potential for abuse by a government will be realized eventually. So the potential must not be allowed to exist. Governments around the world have repeatedly misled their own populations regarding the motivation for new powers, wars, censorships, etc.
Your previous military experience has no bearing on this subject. History however, does
Re: No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just about the police vs 'the bad guys' -- if the police don't follow due process, then they are the bad guys! (And a much more scary set of bad guys they make, too, with the full power of the state behind them.)
Anyway, what happened to 'innocent until proved guilty'?
Re:crying wolf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:crying wolf? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its despicable to exploit this loop hole, but at least some good comes out of it. It stops the government from needlessly hurting people sometimes. Can you imagine what the government would do if they had to accuse people of crimes in o
Re:crying wolf? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:crying wolf? (Score:4, Interesting)
Assuming that is the reason there are multiple cases of an out of control government here.
First off the Swiss undercover agents have apparently bestowed upon themselves the right to photograph protesters but the protesters can't take pictures of them back. These agents were in the public. There is absolutely no reason anyone doesn't have the right to take pictures of them and post them. If their identities are top secret then they should have sent some cops out to take the pictures whose ID's no one cares about.
Second, the photos were no doubt being used to identify and catalog protesters, most probably for law enforcement agencies inside and outside Switzerland. Anti globalization protestors are being tracked by all the countries who are pro globalization now. Since these protester were in public so they have to live with being photographed and should wear masks in the future. But those photos are no doubt going to be used to build files on them and label them in perpetuity as trouble makers so they are designed to strip them of their rights. They have basically been given criminal records without having been convicted of anything. There is potential they may be wiretapped, Internet use monitored, movements tracked especially as they move towards protest sites, and groups they belong to may be infiltrated by more undercover agents. If they were engaging in vandalism or assault then there is a basis for law enforcement action. If they are engaged in peaceful protest, even unlicensed peaceful protest, democratic governments should leave them alone unless they aspire to be the totalitarian governments they rail against so often.
Third, You have multiple nations and law enforcement agencies uniting to seize someone's property, and to suppress free speech, in this case internet sites who are very much about free speech. There was no basis to seize these photos to begin with since those agents were in public, but to deny people their free speech rights in the process is not something you expect from democratic governments. The fact that all these governments so easily united to do this across multiple international boundries and without laying any charges against IndyMedia suggests there is an international cabal that can shut down pretty much any Internet site on the flimsiest of evidence, and threaten free speech and dissent in the process. These are tactics very much designed to intimidate IndyMedia and to encourage them to be quiet.
Re:crying wolf? (Score:3, Insightful)
The other side of assuming citizens innocent until they're proven guilty is assuming governments guilty until they're proven innocent.
I hate to sound like the typical tin foil hat... (Score:5, Insightful)
While the "slippery slope" argument in itself is a logical fallacy against one particular instance, on the whole it seems to be very true and concerning.
Re:I hate to sound like the typical tin foil hat.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"slippery slope" is only a fallacy if you say beacuse of something something else WILL happen. It is not a fallacy if you say because of something something else COULD (or is very likely even) happen. I find that people that scream about the "slippery slope fallacy" are usually doing so because they have no other arguments to back up their position.
Young Eight Years Ago?? (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, even AOL had been plaguing the net for years at that point.
Well then.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well then.... (Score:2, Funny)
First Post + x (Score:2)
Wan't to access a London, have to submit to their laws.
Cyber passports eh...? (Score:2)
Five years ago, you could have been pooh-poohed (yeah, I read that phrase on slashdot this week) for suggesting that people could be made to use cyber-passports / visas to access content on the internet. I doubt too many pooh-poohers will be in e
re: indymedia server raid (Score:5, Interesting)
amatuer orbital server farms.
cut down on those pesky armed intrusions and silly warrant nonsense.
Mr Rutan, could you loft my rack? thanks.
Re: indymedia server raid (Score:2, Interesting)
It talks a bit about how there are colonies on the moon and mars where people aren't afraid to read books other people own, because they're so far away and the government can't punish them.
10 karma points to s/he who finds
Re: indymedia server raid (Score:5, Informative)
10 karma points to s/he who finds this story. It's perfect for this topic.
That ones easy, and I'm sure many here knows it:
"The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman. [gnu.org]
(No, I'm not expecting any karma)
Jedidiah
Re: indymedia server raid (Score:2)
Not to mention if your site ever gets slashdotted, the resulting radio energy being fired from all the different transmitter would have the same effect...
Re: indymedia server raid (Score:3, Funny)
Re: indymedia server raid (Score:3, Funny)
Brings a whole new meaning to "my server crashed".
Figure it out people... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Figure it out people... (Score:4, Interesting)
All of these sorts of functions have been necessary as long as humans have been social creatures, and they have been filled, by kings, tribal chieftains, religious leaders, or elected governments.
An ideal government is one that balances minority rights (i.e. the basic human rights and principles of equality that we believe in) and the interest of the many, and one that maximizes personal freedom. But this is a very complicated equation, not something easily solved in some optimizing equation. Yes, generally less intrusion into our personal lives is a good thing, but sometimes I want peoples personal lives intruded into (if they are beating their children severely, for example). Anytime my rights and somebody else's rights come into conflict, I still need some sort of intermediary to resolve the conflict, or else we just all end up shooting each other to resolve our conflicts.
Re:Figure it out people... (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got quite a bit of figuring o
Re:Figure it out people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, that's too wrong to let pass. In a Democracy, the government is controlled by the demagogues, the few who are able to get the many riled up. In a constitutional republic, such as the U.S. used to be, the government was controlled by the honest elected representatives, who were in turn controlled by the constitution (that's why I specified ``honest''). In a modern ``democracy'', the government is controlled by the apparatchiks, the people who are permanently
Governments don't have to control the net (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't often think of governments cooperating, but the one thing that is a bigger threat than another government is freedom. Anyone's freedom, anywhere, is a threat to the idea that nobody can be free anywhere.
You bet they're going to gang up on the internet. The more effectively the internet routes around damage, the more effectively they'll damage it, for their own survival.
I think it's the perceived attitude.... (Score:5, Insightful)
* We owe you no explanation
* Nobody holds us accountable
* You have no defense
* You are automatically assumed wrong
* We admit no wrongdoing
* We are above right and wrong
* Whatever we want to do is automatically justified
* We don't owe you an apology
* Go ahead and try to sue, we'll just do it again to teach you a lesson
* People with power are on our side
Re:I think it's the perceived attitude.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what "accountability" means. We need to keep pushing on accountability until we see stories like that.
Stop the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
-The media sells your eyes for advertising revenue.
-The Government ensures that the "public sphere" is in tune with what they want it to focus on.
-The corporations insist that their products and actions pose no danger to your environment and well-being.
As a result, having a medium that they can only
Freedom of speech (Score:4, Interesting)
FEC looking to quiet "dicent" on the internet regarding campaigning.
Indymedia attacked for pictures of police shooting innocent protestors..
The internet is a medium of hypocracy as much as a medium of truth - states don't deserve the right to control, police or determine what i read. If i can buy the BS in books, i can certainly read it on the net.
Is it past time to use digital certificates, ssl, keyfobs and encryption to protect ourselves from "evil doers?" (aka governments with something to hide..)
Tin foil hat? dunno.. all i know is media is so left or right and when independants are being busted for telling the truth it disgusts me.
Re:Freedom of speech (Score:2)
Dissenters should be quite safe then.
Matter of fact, so should the coalition of the willing...
It's worse than that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cyberspace cannot be sovereign nation ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cyberspace cannot be sovereign nation ... (Score:3, Funny)
You're right!!!!
I'm releasing myself from these shackles now!
Now where's the powercor-
This is the real reason (Score:5, Informative)
In the present matter regarding Indymedia, Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with offices in London, is acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner's subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.
What's an MLAT?
Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) are relatively recent development. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country which usually involve letters rogatory.
MLAT Treaties in Force:
I. The United States has nineteen Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) currently in force: Argentina, Bahamas, Canada, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom (Cayman Islands), United Kingdom, Uruguay.
That's no reason (Score:3, Insightful)
acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.
The bits in bold - those are reasons for having personal property confiscated. I will remain skeptical until I see some government accuse IndyMedia directly of one of these charges.
Re:This is the real reason (Score:3, Informative)
administering ahimsa server in London
ahimsa-tech a lists.indymedia.org
Organization: Indymedia
To: ahimsa-tech a lists.indymedia.org, imc-legal a lists.indymedia.org
I just got this trouble ticket from Rackspace (the ISP hosting the server that hosts Nantes):
Wed Sep 22 10:59:56 2004
Hello,
We have received a complain from the FBI regarding some images and mate
Re:This is the real reason (Score:3, Funny)
If you're going to take the time to type a word in ALL CAPS, is it too much to ask that you type the right word?
I'll tell you what government (Score:5, Informative)
Q: What government could control what was said on the Net?
A: China. [newsmax.com]
What do you mean censorship? (Score:2)
Sincerely,
______
Let me try re-phrasing that... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Governments percieve free speech as dangerous". Still not quite it...
"Governments perceive free speech as dangerous to themselves". Yeah, I think that says it.
Cypherpunks (Score:4, Interesting)
Telecom choke points (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the problem with Neil Stephenson's "data haven" by the way: what happens when the US sends it cable-cutting submarine over and cuts all the lines leading into that island?
Anyone who didn't see this coming is naive at best.
sPh
Where will it end? (Score:2, Insightful)
8 years ago when the net was young? Wha...? Clearly the mid and late 80's didn't count... Stupid Archie...
Look, what did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is a double edged sword.
If we ask the Government to police spam, or if we ourselves don't keep copyrighted material off file sharing systems, we're inviting Government to come and police what we, the geeks, have not self-policied. What we will not govern, they will.
Nature abhors a vaccume, and The State abhors an anarchy.
And with good reason!
Re:Look, what did we expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone seems to love drawing this giant gap between government, and us. Governments are inhernetly us.
The real question is, what level of free will is the general populace willing to cede to the minority in exchange for that minority taking on the responsiblity of governance. Sure, the educated and independant (such as a decent chunk of /.) are unwilling to exchange a large portion of their free will for not having to worry about things, but the vast majority of people everywhere will gladly release a segment of free will for the comfort and safety of regulation. The nuanced balance that every government must tread in order to be long-lived, is that of imposing enough rules to maintain order while leaving sufficient free will to keep the majority happy. Too much rules, and there is revolution; too few and there is chaos.
The division of government and us lies more in the difference between those who will take on responsibility for governance in exchange for the many benefits, and those who would prefer to dispel with that responsibility and go about their day to day business, following the rules laid down to preserve this lifestyle.
I2P and Freenet (Score:5, Informative)
Sealand (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like Havenco [havenco.com] is still around...
I got my extra-strength tinfoil hat on (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sure," they drawl as they handcuff a webmaster and load his computer into the paddy wagon next to him, "Your site is protected Free Speech here in the USA, but we got a complaint from the Saudi Arabian authorities about it, so we have no choice but to take you into custody so that they can press charges against you. Sorry, but in accordance with Saudi Arabian law, you don't get access to a lawyer, your hands will be chopped off, and any women coming to visit you in jail will be enslaved."
Is this going to start happening? Sure would be a great way to keep private citizens off of the web.
The Tools Alread Exist (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this exactly the problem that Freenet [sourceforge.net] was designed to solve?
Speak softly and stab with a sharp stick. (Score:4, Funny)
Corps: "We must use the internet to expand our web of mindless consumers!"
RIAA: "Look, #103885439 just logged into Yahoo, Sue him!"
Microsoft: "..." (Bill Gates was unable to join chat, rumours state computer has been comprimised by a new trojan)
Users: "Finally, I'm online, now all I have to do is avoid the sticks, try not to buy anything and everything, not get dragged into court, all while trying to keep my computer secure."
They didn't take indys servers! (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though...that's a loophole that needs to be closed...I would really really check with your ISP about who 'owns' the physical hardware when you buy space (i.e. do you 'rent' the property, or just use it to put data on). Very valid question for anyone looking into hosting something. At the moment I doubt that they have to tell indy anything, they already have told the property owners (rackspace) why they were taken...then hit them with a gag order, which is quite clever (diabolical?) really.
Anyway, host-er beware...check the legality...if they're actually renting you the hardware I would imagine that anyone wanting to take it would have to issue the seizure order to you, otherwise they can issue it to your ISP and tell you nothing...though IANAL.
Back when the internet was even younger... (Score:3, Interesting)
One man's terrorist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corrections (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, the article makes it sound as if there has been no progress on the cypherpunk front since 1996. While progress has been annoyingly slow, the growth of peer to peer technologies over the last few years has prompted a number of experiments - TOR, I2P, Freenet, etc. (see the I2P network comparisons page [i2p.net] for a list), some of which seem to be getting pretty mature.
Thirdly, the bigger sites on ahimsa were up again in hours/days. They would have been up even quicker if a proper backup / mirror system had been in place, and in fact Indymedia techies have now been spurred into action by the ahimsa seizure to make sure the network is more robust. Think about this: the leftie scene is not particularly filled with technologically adept people. The Indymedia network runs on a shoestring budget (in terms of money / time). Despite this, the network was *still* able to respond and repair the damage fairly rapidly.
And finally, don't overestimate the competence of the FBI in this matter. Apparently when trying to do something about the picture of Swiss undercover cops on nantes.indymedia.org, one of the people they approached was from Seattle Indymedia, which has nothing to do with running either ahimsa or nantes.indymedia.org. And anyway, the disputed picture was quickly mirrored all over the place when it became "notorious" (just like the DeCSS code).
So, while I think Grossman's article is a good counterbalance to the mystical rants of people like John Perry Barlow, she leaves out a number of facts that show that the Internet can indeed be used to "route around censorship". Its all a matter of effort - in the 1970s and 80s, the ANC got around government censorship [anc.org.za] in South Africa by planting "pamphlet bombs" to scatter leaflets at busy rail stations (the cost: activists spending several years in jail). The Internet allows the subversion of censorship with far less effort, but of course it doesn't do it "by magic".
Re:Indymedia? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Indymedia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Indymedia? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently they don't want people to recognize them for the ***holes they are.
Re:Indymedia? (Score:5, Informative)
It appears the Italian government hope that they can disrupt or compromise the case against them. Acting in concert with the Swiss, who want to get back at Indymedia for their coverage of the Evian G8, they went through the FBI (because Rackspace, Indymedia's London hosts, is a US company) under a MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) to ask the UK police to raid Indymedia's servers.
The UK Home Office was of course happy to comply, mainly because MLATs enable them to carry out police actions that would be judicially indefensible without the cloak of secrecy that surrounds MLATs.
Re:Indymedia? (Score:3, Insightful)
AND that those Italian police are also justified in shutting down Indymedia's (likely biased) news coverage of their use of deadly force.
So sure are you that it's proper for the police to censor anyone who speaks critically of them and their portrays their actions unfavorably that your advise is to "Stop whining".
Re:Indymedia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, authorities (aka police) seized some equipment (hard drives at a minimum) using a legal document (warrant, supeona, etc) provided by a government. While they may have the equipment back, they would have to assume it is compromised (it was not in their possession) and it takes time to check.
Re:Indymedia? (Score:3, Informative)
A subsequent court order has dicated that the drives be returned. The drives have been returned, however the people at IndyMedia consider their content compromized, and are working on getting non-compromized drives prepared and the site b
Re:Indymedia? (Score:3, Informative)
Good question. It reminds me of a recent article here at slashdot (which I can't seem to find) about another set of seized computers from an ISP or hosting service. At first everyone yelled about the injustice. Then we found out the guys were being hired to do DoS attacks. Moral of the story: don't pass judgement too quickly.