How Burmese Dissidents Crack Censorship 154
s-orbital writes "According to a BBC News article, "Images of saffron-robed monks leading throngs of people along the streets of Rangoon have been seeping out of a country famed for its totalitarian regime and repressive control of information. The pictures, sometimes grainy and the video footage shaky, are captured at great personal risk on mobile phones — but each represents a powerful statement of political dissent."
The article goes on to tell the stories of how Burma's bloggers use proxy servers, free hosting services, and other technologies to overcome Burma's "pervasive" filtering of internet access and news."
In tomorrow's news (Score:4, Insightful)
Usenet (Score:2, Insightful)
I suppose this is why the ISPs in the US and Europe have been pressured into shutting off their Usenet access. Of course systems that ship without Usenet are an active part of the problem.
With all that is happening in the world, I see a greater need for a distributed, decentralized, asynchronous message service, not less. Of course centralized systems like myspace and facebook are the antithesis and a boon to surveilance and restriction, as are DRM'd communication and broadcasting.
Control the flow of
Thanks for the info (Score:1)
now we know what else we have to add to our filters
security by obscurity doesnt work right ?
your friends
Junta
Re: (Score:1)
What about inside Burma? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, and I'm sure that the Burmese authorities would sooner the word not get out. But the principal role of censorship -- and one for which it is effective notwithstanding a few workarounds -- is to control widespread dissemination of the information within the population.
Consider China, for example. Sophisticated computer users can find foreign news and commentary. But the masses have successfully been kept in the dark about, say, Tiananmen Square. This ignorance helps shape public opinion and marginalize those few who have access to the information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed.
Re:What about inside Burma? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I believe so, too. It's just that the news outlets are run by people who often have their own agendas. It is not hard to imagine that, in a political system where everything is either Republican or Democrat, and the Republican policies tend to coincide with the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, the news outlets the masses get their news from (large corprorations run by wealthy people) would be
America DOES have a free press (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not an illusion. America does have a free press. There are a few corner cases where weird laws like DMCA do chill a bit, but there's really no speech about politics that you can't get into or that you'll be punished for. (Ok, here come the replies with counter-examples.. ;-)
Our biggest problem is just that most of the press just doesn't bother to exercise its freedom, because entertainment is more profitable than news or political discussion. And when some of the press does take advantage of its f
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's certainly true to a point. I wasn't suggesting that we have actual legislation that destroys the freedom of the press. It's more an effect of having most of the media outlets in very few hands. The heads of media outlets aren't going to wreck their profits by harshly criticizing their sponsors. They also have to be carefu
Re:What about inside Burma? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about inside Burma? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The dispute has now been settled, IMHO the 1974 Indonesian invasion of E. Timor was undertaken to boost Indonesian claims to the resources.
East Timor has not had an effective goverernment for a long time and was recently on the brink of anarchy, the junta in Burma is very effective at what it does - there is no way you can possibly see the two situations as ev
Re:What about inside Burma? (Score:5, Insightful)
In some ways media self-censorship is worse than state censorship, since with state censorship the populations often know they are being routinely lied to and are not getting all the facts. In countries with a free media like the US or UK, people have the illusion that they are getting all the facts and are more likely to trust what they are told. It's not always total censorship either. Sometimes the media will give a tiny mention to something that deserves an enormous amount of attention. That way they can always say they covered it when challenged. An example of this is COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]. You're likely to have to look that up, yet if I said Watergate, which is a story which broke around the same time, you are likely to know all about it.
Language is important too. For example, if these protesters in Burma were to take up arms, they would be correctly described as insurgents, since the definition of insurgency (in all the major dictionaries) is about trying to overthrow your own government. Insurgency is completely the wrong term (again in all the major dictionaries) for armed groups attacking an occupying force, as in Iraq. With Iraq the media desperately tries to avoid using the term Resistance (despite it being the correct term) because it reminds people of the French resistance, who were clearly the good guys. Another example is the term "Private Security Contractor". Under the Geneva conventions there is no such thing as a Private Security Contractor. There are soldiers, civilians and mercenaries. The technically correct term for these "hired soldiers" is mercenaries, yet the media almost unanimously avoids the term. Talking about Private Security Contractors sounds ok, whereas if the media kept talking about mercenaries, people might not accept their deployment so readily.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I probably shouldn't go i
Free Burma (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.freeburma.org/ [freeburma.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Shave Burma (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's all the proof you'll ever need that geeks have got NO sense of humor
Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am all for freedom and a well armed public but a sudden change like that might get more people killed than deserve it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See...that's the problem. That would take years, and a lot of individual, personal, risk. This would have had to be done 50 years ago to be effective today.
Re: (Score:2)
And complete and total reversal of beliefs. In a predominantly Buddhist society, taking up arms against an oppressor isn't an acceptable way to express dissent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the approach we successfully employed in Afghanistan. We taught the mujaheddin how to resist the Soviet invaders and taught them the principles of insurgency, which they haven't seem to have forgotten yet. And in Iraq, we sold peace-lovin' Saddam Hussein the weapons to defend himself against Persian aggression, which he peacefully used to help the Kurds avoid an uprising, and peacefully used to liberate Kuwait... and now we're rearming the Iraqi police to defend against those same weapons.
So if at any point you continue to think it is a good idea for us to keep providing arms to other people, just start flipping through your history books or your newspaper. Seriously, I think a U.S. invasion would be better than a weapons deal, simply because we wouldn't leave the weapons behind after the fighting is done.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then groups of them will buy weapons from Russia or China (but mostly Russia and ex-soviet countries), and we'll have Iraq all over again.
Maybe the US should just leave everyone else alone, until perhaps they start asking for help? We don't see problems with Israel (though helping them has caused us other problems, but that's the price of taking sides in some
Re: (Score:2)
That's the approach we successfully employed in Afghanistan. We taught the mujaheddin how to resist the Soviet invaders and taught them the principles of insurgency, which they haven't seem to have forgotten yet.
Hmmm...So I guess "we" (assuming you mean the US) taught them this in the early 19th century. The Afghans were pretty effective at expelling the British in 1839. As a matter of fact they were one of the only aboriginal groups to expel the British from a Colonial occupation until the mid 20th century. A little historical knowledge pretty much shows "we" didn't teach the Afghans anything. At best "we" made them a little more effective by giving a small number some training and equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
just see Rwanda, Somalia, Congo, or just about anywhere else in Central Africa for a picture of what happens when you take an unpopular, corrupt and oppressive regime and add weapons.
Bonus points for describing how access to weapons helps people in Afganistan.
you mean like Iraq? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your ignorance is staggering. Those people are Buddhist, they won't touch your weapons. I really hope the US stay out of this.
no idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Those are mostly monks because the gov't is scared to bash a bunch of monks protesting. Despite being isolated from most of the world even the most hard handed regime is scared of pictures of monks getting beaten
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From CNN [cnn.com] :
The agency also reported officials as saying that two other monks had been beaten to death. A protester who was not a monk had died after being shot, it quoted Yangon General Hospital as saying.
This regime has no respect for life of any sort, just the maintanence of their power. Th UN doesn't care about the nation or people either, just that the protests are allowed. Nothing is mentioned of the fact that the Burmese rulers are totalitarian pigs. The UN just wants the problem to disappear, not fix the problem at the cause.
"Noting reports of the use of force and of arrests and beatings, the secretary-general calls again on authorities to exercise utmost restraint toward the peaceful demonstrations taking place, as such action can only undermine the prospects for peace, prosperity and stability in Myanmar."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:no idea (Score:4, Informative)
I imagine that they are more worried about what assaulting monks would do within the country, rather than outside. Within Theravada countries- Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc.- support for the Buddhist monastic institution is one of the traditional duties of government. As a result, it's also one of the most important ways that you can legitimize your power if you take over in a show of force. If you're taking care of Buddhism- building monasteries, sponsoring the ordination of young men, donating conspicuously to monks and temples- then you're fulfilling the role of a legitimate government. It's more important than making the trains run on time, and certainly more important than supporting human rights that have rarely been offered significant protection by any prior government.
In Cambodia, the Vietnamese-backed post-Khmer Rouge government started to face questions from locals about its legitimacy. It's response? Import Vietnamese-educated Khmer monks and re-establish the Cambodian sangha. Every government in SE Asia that has stepped away from its traditional role as protector and promoter of Buddhism has eventually reversed their decision in the face of unrest (except the Khmer Rouge, who were batshit insane). After a coup, there's almost always a conspicuous show of piety on the part of the new ruling party in order to help shore up their legitimacy.
Striking or shedding the blood of a monk- particularly if it's a senior monk, who might be popularly regarded as having achieved enlightenment- is one of the worst crimes imaginable in a Buddhist society. In scriptures, it's put on a level with murdering your own mother and father, or shedding the blood of the Buddha himself. It's certainly possible that Burmese police and grunts might refuse orders to fire on or otherwise attack monks. But just as importantly, ordering the killing of Buddhist monks means that the government is repudiating its duty to protect and promote the Sangha. Even if no pictures ever made it out to the West, knowledge of such attacks would spread inside Burma, and it will kick one of the legs out from under the ruling junta, which, despite previous abuses, has tried to position itself as a protector of Buddhism in order to justify its rule.
Misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I think that's a big part of the reason repressive politicians, in the West as well as in Burma, are shit scared of it's potential. The internet is genuinely democratic, in its packet routing algorithms at least. This is why we need to fight against the tiered, pay-per-c
How do you fight budhist monks? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Not if their government requires permission [slashdot.org] also
Re: (Score:1)
Oddly enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Radical Religionist... (Score:5, Insightful)
The radical Christian blows up others and buildings.
The radical Muslim blows himself up with others.
The radical Budhist sets himself on fire, after he makes sure that no living things are around him to get hurt.
Re: (Score:1)
To me it says a lot about the current state of Christianity and Islam....well the fringe but more vocal components of each of the two.
Re: (Score:1)
To add to your list, a Soka Gakkai Buddhist is willing to blow everyone else up, so long as IKEDA Daisaku gets good press from it.
Re:Radical Religionist... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the most loathsome form of missionary work is the "Bibles for bread" kind. That's why I wouldn't give the Salvation Army so much as a wooden nickel.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Radical Religionist... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's this this utterly blue-eyed view of Buddhists around that just doesn't tally with the facts.
Sure Buddhism preaches non-violence and enlightenment, and that's a good thing, but it's followers are as violent and judgmental as anyone else. Christianity preaches love and forgiveness while practicing violence, repression and judgment. I don't know the details of what Islam preaches but I assume it's the same story.
I have no problem with personal religion, but I don't have much time for churches of any ilk; giving any person the power to speak for God (or indeed the Buddha) is just foolish.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of this talk about Ashoka "evangelizing by the sword" is hot air that members of the Hindu nationalist movement started spewing in the 20th century
Well not all Hindu Nationalists believe in this stuff. I don't for instance, and I'm pretty much a solid neoconservative Hindu nationalist. Keep in mind that there is a lot of historical falsification in Buddhism though. Take the Ashokavandana for instance. It blames the decline of Buddhism in India on "militant Hindu king" Pusyamitra Sunga who "relentlessly burned shrines and beheaded monks", even though leading historians such as Romila Thapar and E. Lamonte dismissed most of the Ashokavandana as a total
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the Dalai Lama was the nominal head of a medieval regime in Tibet. Though regents ruled in his place for most of his life prior to exile.
Critics are right to point out that Tibet was no land of milk and honey before the Chinese invasion. It also wasn't nearly as brutal and repressive as the Chinese would have you believe- for one thing, there wasn't enough centralization o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I stopped at the same point. To see his entourage, his open mindedness to science and politics, and his spirit, I am convinced that this unenlightened one has done nothing more than read bumperstickers. Had he read even the chapter of any of the Dalai Lama's writing, he would be beyond posting as he did.
Radical slave master (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, it's a good that you didn't see the Dalai Lama's army of slaves then (when he was still lording it in Tibet), because if you did you would be seriously disillusioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/472155.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Power Does Not Corrupt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Re:Power Does Not Corrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
So the internet is NOT for pr0n (Score:2)
Sorry, I deserve to burn in hell/be reincarnated as a dung beetle for that one...
Is there something we can do to help....? (Score:1)
Is there anything we can do to help them? Anyone have any ideas?
Re:Is there something we can do to help....? (Score:4, Informative)
Governments won't help. (Score:2)
For three reasons:
Re: (Score:1)
In regards to your first point, Burma does in fact have a significant amount of oil and natural gas. This is sold by the Junta to China and probably the main reason for China's reluctance to do anything about the current situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Seriously though, the only way to get through to the Burmese leadership is through their (few) trading partners - India, China, and Russia.
India can hopefully be brought onboard to apply economic sanctions against Burma. Unfortunately the Indian government seems to place more importance on oil & gas resources than on human rights (just days ago they sig
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a good use for DRM (Score:1, Funny)
tpb does its part (Score:2, Interesting)
Call it Burma (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Call it Burma (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Understandable. The keys are right next to one another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC's "From Our Own Correspondent" (Score:2)
The Junta will open the switch, i.e. turn it off (Score:3, Interesting)
Easy Solution (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
sigh. (Score:2)
I just wish the democratically elected government would give in a little on this non-aggression stance they have. There's a time to be all Ghandi and MLK, but it's been over 20 years. Fight BACK.
What's all the fuss? (Score:1)
Burma? (Score:2, Funny)
You'll soon see 'em,
On a shelf
In a museum.
Myanmar-Shave.
Re: (Score:1)
These signs
We gladly
Dedicate
To men who've had
No date of late
Burma-Shave
Remember (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember this next time someone proposes to take this or some other security/anonimity technology (e.g. cryptography) away from you. These are important instruments of freedom!