Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

Bloggers Who Risked All In Burma 338

An anonymous reader sends us to the UK's TimesOnline for a story about dissident Burmese bloggers, who, with the Internet shut down in the country, are no longer posting live stories. Some of them are on the run and fearing for their lives. "Internet geeks share a common style, and Ko Latt and his four friends would not be out of place in cyber cafes across the world. They have the skinny arms and the long hair, the dark T-shirts and the jokey nicknames. But few such figures have ever taken the risks that they have in the past few weeks, or achieved so much in a noble and dangerous cause. Since last month Ko Latt, 28, his friends Arca, Eye, Sun and Superman, and scores of others like them have been the third pillar of Burma's Saffron Revolution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bloggers Who Risked All In Burma

Comments Filter:
  • by goldspider ( 445116 ) <ardrake79@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:30PM (#20818869) Homepage
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    Indeed. Eerily ironic, no?

    This travesty in Burma is a good chance for all of us living in luxury to get a little much-needed perspective on what real censorship looks like.
    • by Knave75 ( 894961 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:39PM (#20818939)
      The question is though, have the bloggers (or Burma) actually gained anything through their risky activities?

      The world has noticed the situation in Burma, but we have not actually done anything to stop the oppression.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        From what I hear, countries such as China are preventing sanctions. The other option is to invade.

        Except for saying "pretty please don't supress your own people."
      • by mikael ( 484 )
        The success of any revolution is motivating the general public that is is worth them putting themselves at greater risk in the short term for greater security, safety and happiness in the long term. Look at the

        The revolution wouldn't have gained momentum if everyone hadn't known what was going on.

        A similar thing is happening in Burma. They are more or less in the second day:


        The morning of December 18, the centre was being guarded by soldiers and Securitate-agents in plainclothes. Mayor Mo ordered a Party g
      • by computational super ( 740265 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @09:08AM (#20821785)
        have the bloggers (or Burma) actually gained anything through their risky activities?

        Well, I hear their ad revenue is through the roof.

    • Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geoffrobinson ( 109879 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:41PM (#20818955) Homepage
      While debates go on about the balance between security and freedom, this helps put things into perspective.

      This is what real repression and censorship looks like. And there are countries standing behind Myanmar preventing economic pressure to be brought to bear.
    • by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:07PM (#20819103) Journal
      "get a little much-needed perspective on what real censorship looks like."

      Yeah, and instead of going "see it's not so bad here" we should go "we better ensure this sort of thing won't happen".
      • Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:30PM (#20819217)
        Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW so we will not have to face a situation similar to their's TOMORROW.

        Bitch loudly and fight for even the smallest of your Freedoms because there ARE people who want to take them away from you.
        • Re:Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:41PM (#20819291)
          Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW

          Which censorship is that, exactly, anyway? You certainly seem able to say whatever you'd like here, without fear of political actions being taken against you. Now, certainly there are plenty of university professors that don't want to hear certain perspectives in their classrooms (or have to grade papers expressing them), and there are workplaces where some actions and attitudes simply aren't tolerated... but there is no central authority preventing you from dealing with those situations yourself (if by no other means, then by simply choosing another school or job). I don't have to listen to what you have to say, but that's not the same as censorship. And I can't call up the government and have you silenced (which WOULD be such).
          • Well, I said what I liked, and Bush turned me into a newt!
          • Re:Exactly. (Score:5, Informative)

            by soren100 ( 63191 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @12:46AM (#20819645)

            Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW

            Which censorship is that, exactly, anyway? You certainly seem able to say whatever you'd like here, without fear of political actions being taken against you. Now, certainly there are plenty of university professors that don't want to hear certain perspectives in their classrooms (or have to grade papers expressing them), and there are workplaces where some actions and attitudes simply aren't tolerated... but there is no central authority preventing you from dealing with those situations yourself (if by no other means, then by simply choosing another school or job). I don't have to listen to what you have to say, but that's not the same as censorship. And I can't call up the government and have you silenced (which WOULD be such).

            It's the corporate censorship where stories that harm a corporation's relationship with the government are spiked. Do you really think a multinational corporation will pay lobbyists millions of dollars to get beneficial legislation, and then jeopardize those invested millions by criticising the government? For exaample, Rupert Murdoch's NY POST refused to print any stories that were critical of the Chinese government because he had business deals pending with that same Chinese government. He wasn't about to screw that up. Was that censorship? Sure it was.

            Dan Rather got fired because he his employer wanted to suck up to the Republicans, and his story about Bush ditching his duty in the National Guard was not helping. He is suing CBS about it, and there's an interesting quote about the Internal CBS panel that reviewed Rather's story [salon.com] about the memo.

            As the panel called witnesses, Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom (CBS's owner), declared his interest in the 2004 election. "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom," he said. In fact, Viacom had a number of crucial issues before the Federal Communications Commission, including loosening media ownership rules. "I don't want to denigrate Kerry," said Redstone, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people ... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

            So Rather is looking to have his day in court, because the memo never was proven false, and he wants to be vindicated. But the case exposes how Viacom was more interested in supporting and promoting the current government than earning money through a sensational story.

            Censorship also happens when people get tased for using their free speech. Some Americans still think you can say whatever you want here, but you can't -- the guy who tried his "free speech" rights at John Kerry's lecture found that out when he got tackled and tased for merely asking a question and speaking out of turn. He was not doing anything except standing at a microphone and speaking freely, and got tased for his troubles.

            Censorship shows up in other ways, too. You think you might have right to free speech and criticise the government, but you might then find yourself on a no-fly list (like Senator Ted Kerry experienced 5 times until he made personal call to the head of DHS and get it stopped) or on the end of other governmental harassment like political analyst Naomi Wolf, who is now on the "get-searched-every-time-you-fly list".

            For serious censorship, look at the old FBI programs like "COINTELPRO" where trying to start a new party or being anti-war would get you harassed, beaten up, vandalized -- anything to stop you from being able to make a political change. Martin Luther King was surveilled by the FBI and blackmailed in an attem

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by _xeno_ ( 155264 )

              So Rather is looking to have his day in court, because the memo never was proven false, and he wants to be vindicated.

              Being created in Microsoft Word using the default settings in 1972 doesn't count as proven false? Granted Times Roman was created in 1932, but you expect me to believe that the Air Force was typesetting documents with identical kerning to Times New Roman as printed by Windows XP and using identical default paper sizes and margins as Microsoft Word 2003? I mean, come on, the words wrap at the exact place that Microsoft Word wraps them.

              The best you can hope to argue is that the contents are correct and th

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by wytcld ( 179112 )

                but you expect me to believe that the Air Force was typesetting documents with identical kerning to Times New Roman as printed by Windows XP and using identical default paper sizes and margins as Microsoft Word 2003?

                Yes. There was an IBM typewriter out at the date claimed for the documents that did just that. The default paper sizes and margins have been the default for American typewritten documents for many decades. Microsoft's Times Roman font was copied from the version used by IBM. The whole point was

            • Re:Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by huckamania ( 533052 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @02:20AM (#20820119) Journal
              "So Rather is looking to have his day in court, because the memo never was proven false"

              That's a bad way to run a news room. The onus is on Rather and Mapes to prove that the memo is real. Instead of doing that, they hid their source and ran the story any way. What is most telling, is that their source had plenty of other 'documents' that they didn't use. That is pretty damning, in and of itself.

              "Rupert Murdoch's NY POST refused to print any stories that were critical of the Chinese government because he had business deals pending with that same Chinese government....Was that censorship? Sure it was."

              If the NY POST was a government run newspaper, you might have a point. However, there are plenty of newspapers that do run stories critical of the Chinese. There are plenty of newspapers where any story that is embarrasing to the Democrats is front page news. Those same papers bury stories that cast the Republicans in a negative light. Is that censorship? No, because plenty of papers do the reverse.

              Has there been US government sponsored censorship in the past? Certainly, but no worse than any other country that has ever existed. Is there censorship going on now in the US? I don't see how it could be, with a 24 hour news cycle and the web.

              Doesn't seem to have stopped Naomi Wolf from criticizing the US, or the Dixie Chicks, or Sean Penn, or anybody. Even that kid that got tazed for being an idiot had a video up in a few hours. First he was told to ask a question, then he was told to put the mike down, then he resisted arrest and then he was tazed. Sorry, that is not censorship. If anything, he was preventing others from asking questions, which is censorship.

              • Has there been US government sponsored censorship in the past? Certainly, but no worse than any other country that has ever existed.

                And that is the standard we should hold our country to? No worse than anyone else? The leader of the free world is no worse than anyone else?

                Is there censorship going on now in the US? I don't see how it could be, with a 24 hour news cycle and the web.

                Are you serious? Here's a clue for you - if censorship is working then the average guy, aka YOU, isn't hearing about it. That doesn't mean the information isn't out there, its just repressed enough to keep the majority from learning about it, enough to marginalize those who actually do learn about it and thus step away from the herd. Just one out of thousands of

            • Your post is living proof just how far the US is from having any kind of real censorship issues.

              And ironically, a sad commentary on teh state of the educational system as well. A twofer!
          • by Optic7 ( 688717 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @01:51AM (#20819975)
            Look at how tightly any images of dead soldiers, soldier coffins, body bags, etc are restricted. If that's not real and clear censorship imposed by the government, then what is? Or do some people believe that censorship happens only when the police/army come knocking on your door because of something you said?
            • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @04:49AM (#20820673)
              Ask the families - if you can find one who is willing to go along with whatever death fetish you have in mind.

              The reason generally photography is not allowed is out of respect for the families, who are allowed to do as they wish once the body has been brought back. There was for example an award winning photojournaism column in the Rocky Mountain News some time ago that showed a weeping widow draped over the husbands coffin.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Xiaran ( 836924 )
                Perhaps. Or perhaps photos of American draped coffins are not shown because of some of the very powerful images of coffins circa the Vietnam war.
      • by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @02:42AM (#20820221)
        Actually, the way I see it is this:

        These people wouldn't be uprising if they had the NBA playoffs and Sex in the City to worry about. America is a perfect example of a society that can't be bothered with protecting our liberties and freedom against the infringing and encroaching government powers , because we're too busy worrying about whether or favorite video game will be released on time, what is happening with the girls on Sex in the City, how our teams are doing in the NBA playoffs and complaining about how "secular progressives" are ruining our precious little baby-jesusland.
    • Doesn't the Internet route around censorship?
  • Have the usual suspects, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Google, been turning over information about these people? Remember this as you help put "intelligence" into the internet there at home. There is no free speech without anonymity. When push comes to shove, tyrants murder people like you and me.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TapeCutter ( 624760 )
      "Have the usual suspects, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Google, been turning over information about these people?"

      Quoting from the first post - "This travesty in Burma is a good chance for all of us living in luxury to get a little much-needed perspective on what real censorship looks like."

      Think about that quote for a second and visualize the news reports of bloated monks floating face down in open drains. Do you really think the parinoid cult responsible for those murders sees AOL, Google, et-al, as any
    • Balls!

      These animals are NOT subpoenaeing information from MSN or Yahoo or anyone else. They have a much simpler criterion: If you have a computer and aren't blatantly supporting us, we'll murder you.

      This isn't about your special little fight against the horrid western government 'track everything' threat, it's about people being slaughtered en masse, RIGHT NOW!!! To quote Amnesty International's new campaign, "It's not happening here, but it's happening now."

      YOur fight IS important, but it's not the same fi
      • by Erris ( 531066 )

        Balls!

        Are you outraged by what I've said?

        To quote Amnesty International's new campaign, "It's not happening here, but it's happening now."

        There today, here tomorrow. That's what tracking dissidents is all about. The US government tried to blackmail MLK into suicide through an extensive program of wiretaps and bugs, and may have murdered him. Do you think the same government is any cleaner today? Do you think the US power structure will not resort to crimes to maintain power through the shift that

    • by weighn ( 578357 ) <weighnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @02:07AM (#20820055) Homepage

      Have the usual suspects, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Google, been turning over information about these people?
      I'm not aware of anything to suggest that this has happened. Burma wouldn't have the influence over corporate America that China does. Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald covered Burma's bloggers too [smh.com.au]. "The junta blocks almost every website that carries information about the country and bars access to email websites."

      The info will continue to get around these rudimentary efforts at censorship, but the pro-democracy movement is beginning to realise that the UN just ain't gonna show up, no matter how many are gunned down in cold blood.

      I submitted a story [slashdot.org] in March on the role of the intertubes in exposing tin-pot despots.

      Rather than OLPC, many in the third-world would benefit from the gift of a digital camera and a few dollars to outlay at the local internet cafe.

    • The article says that Burma licenses all computers to people, and that the government monitors all of the ISP's. That's how they apparently track these people down.
  • by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT com> on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:40PM (#20818951) Homepage Journal
    Some people talk about civil liberties while others risk their lives for them.

    Commendable, and I wish them well.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:51PM (#20819015)
    Burma falls within China's sphere of influence. China was supposedly preaching restraint to Burma, but in the shadow of the 1989 Tianamen Massacre of China it beggars belief that they'd really do this. Only way to force China to act against Burma and North Korea is to Threaten to Boycott the Beijing Olympics.

    It'd leave egg all over the Chinese Governments Face. This is the only thing they are scared of.
    • by QuantumG ( 50515 )
      Uhh, no. I call Titor [wikipedia.org] on that idea.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by karmatic ( 776420 )
      How about we don't go deliberately pissing off a nation with enough cash reserves (1.33 trillion) to bankrupt us overnight [telegraph.co.uk] (assuming it's a trading day - on the weekend, they would have to wait a couple days).

      Unless you like the concept of insane interest rate hikes (the wonderful thing about fiat currency is that it's worth pretty much what people think it's worth), which would be needed to attract people back to the dollar, this is a _really_ bad idea. Also, dumping currency on that scale would severely
      • We can't pay for Iraq and Afghanistan on our own now, how could we possibly be a threat to China with no money, no credit, and an insane cost on all imported goods?

        While much of what you say is true, there's at least two problems with China doing anything. One is if the US economy tanks not only would all those bonds and notes the Chinese are holding become just as valuable as toilet paper but China's economy could very well tank as well. The US imports a lot of Chinese goods, if Americans were no long

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by khallow ( 566160 )

        How about we don't go deliberately pissing off a nation with enough cash reserves (1.33 trillion) to bankrupt us overnight (assuming it's a trading day - on the weekend, they would have to wait a couple days).

        How effective will this tactic really be? Keep in mind that if China does that it'll be out more than half a year of GDP right at the start. And most of that debt is in the form of bonds to the US government. If it comes to a choice between bankruptcy and defaulting on debt to a hostile power, I'm

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jimmux ( 1096839 )

      I have seen various groups lately (one of which I am a member) advocating a boycott of the Beijing Olympics, each for there own reasons.

      I fail to see how this would have much effect. After all, it's not like many of us actually pay to `consume' it in any way to begin with. If I never intended to buy tickets or merchandise and my only experience of the Games is via free-to-air TV, then how would my protest even be noticed?

      Perhaps these groups are suggesting that I become a star athlete so I can defiantly

    • Burma falls within China's sphere of influence.

      China talks about restraint but they NEED the current regime in Burma. Burma allows the landlocked Chinese provinces of Yunnan and Sichuan to reach trading ports. China poured bucketloads into repairing Burmese rail routes and sold $1.4b in arms to Burma during the 1980s and 90's (source [smh.com.au]).

      Any consumer lobbyists out there may want to let the networks know that they won't buy stuff advertised as being associated with the 2008 Olympics.

    • Yeah, let me know if that helps Burma any more than boycotting the Moscow Olympics helped Afghanistan [wikipedia.org].
  • by loconet ( 415875 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:56PM (#20819033) Homepage
    Each day that passes I am reminded the disgusting state of our society. Thank God for the internet and its ability to deliver raw information. I turn on the TV and all I see is useless reality TV portraying the lives of rich kids and their "complex" love lives or news about Britney Spears. Mean while, stories about potentially thousands of protesters being killed go barely mentioned. Being killed for wanting the very thing the most powerful government in the world allegedly spent the last 4 years fighting for! Where is the outrage? Where is the day after day coverage the way we saw Ana Nicole Smith's death be covered? Why does our society care more about some washed up singer losing custody of her kids than thousands of peaceful anonymous demonstrators getting killed?
    • You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it.

      The whole point of this story (and others like it) is that the media has been completely cut off from these demonstrations and the violence that ensued.

      You dislike U.S. news media. That's great; here's a cookie. Try paying attention next time.
      • by loconet ( 415875 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:41PM (#20819293) Homepage
        > You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it.

        Oh I paid attention, however, I don't think you have. I understand the media has been cut off, but there are other sources of information. For example, The Daily Mail reports [dailymail.co.uk] that thousands of protesters have been allegedly killed, yet, I don't see any mention of that on mainstream media, I did see however two stories about Britney's problems tonight.

        > You dislike U.S. news media. That's great; here's a cookie. Try paying attention next time.

        I hope that's a chocolate chip cookie ;)
        • Well then, your country sucks. :-)

          Seriously, the of a mass slaughter (still not confirmed publicly) are being picked up by the news agencies across the world. I was expecting it (just look at the '88 coup) and have been watching the ripple all day. First it was a lunatic site. Then something more respectable. Now the Daily Mail and here in Canada, CBC are taking the stories seriously--although cautiously. I expect a massive uproar late tomorrow or early Wednesday.

          Of course, access to live satellite images
        • 'The Daily Mail reports that thousands of protesters have been allegedly killed, yet, I don't see any mention of that on mainstream media'

          ? The Daily Mail is about as mainstream media as it gets.

          The UK press, TV and radio is *full* of reports about Burma. Is it not being reported wherever it is that you live?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drgonzo59 ( 747139 )
        You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it as well.

        That point was that when there was access to media, our media in US wasn't paying much attention. Now you are defending them. "Well, heck they shut down access, I guess they have to show news about Britney Spears, what do you expect a blank screen, sheesh!"

        The fact that the media access was shut off is enough to be news story and should trump news about American blonds being abducted in Aruba. But us Americ

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Wes Janson ( 606363 )
        So why isn't the media screaming bloody murder about that fact itself? The answer is obvious. If people cared, we would see attention focused on the issue, instead of being relegated to a blurb on page 12. Spice Girls concerts are considered to be more important than the lives of thousands of people living in a 3rd world shithole-that's the honest ethical viewpoint of our society.
    • Why does our society care more about some washed up singer losing custody of her kids than thousands of peaceful anonymous demonstrators getting killed?

      You pose a question that has puzzled us for ages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses [wikipedia.org]

      If you don't like it, don't consume tabloid media. Rather than bitch and moan, try to smile and sound interesting when convincing friends and family to adopt the same personal policy. For bonus happy feelings, you may con yourself that you are part of a social revolution when you see that a vague acquaintance has adopted the same attitude :-)

  • The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumRiff ( 120817 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:56PM (#20819035)
    Could you put Your Life on the line for an idea? I like to believe that I could, but if it really came down to hitting submit, or seeing my lady, family, etc again, would I hesitate? Would I do it? God, I hope I never have to find out. I can't explain how much thinking about people dealing with this makes me want to help them. I won't insult you by saying I salute you, it is not nearly enough..
    • I won't insult you by saying I salute you, it is not nearly enough..

      So do something. At least write to your political representative and ask them their position and if they'd be prepared to raise it as an issue next time they are in parliament/house of representatives etc.

  • by greenguy ( 162630 ) <estebandido AT gmail DOT com> on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:00PM (#20819051) Homepage Journal
    Having just perused the comments on the poll, I would like to propose a deliberately-designed Slashdot meme to honor IT workers or aficionados whose work puts them in direct, physical danger. It probably wouldn't save any lives, but it might be a way to express solidarity with those whose work makes a real difference. Even symbolic gestures take on importance if despots and dictators know that the whole world really is watching.

    I don't have any ideas beyond this in mind, but if ever there was a cauldron of collaborative creativity, it's the comments on Slashdot.

    • by Sneftel ( 15416 )
      "Sire! People posting on an internet tech forum have expressed solidarity with the protesters!"

      "They must have been watching us! Quickly, to the escape pods!"
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheLink ( 130905 )
      In Repressive Burma, its not just your connection that dies.

      Anyway, most of the soldiers doing the killing are probably the usual "just following orders" type, you have to find a way to switch their mode to: "WTF am I doing, I'm being the bad guy now!".

      Given the similarity in thinking of most of these sorts, if you find the right trigger I bet they'd all switch about the same time. The big bad bosses will still have their cadre of loyalists, but their power would be greatly diminished.

      Just make sure there's
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Demolition ( 713476 )
        It's rather fitting that, on the 10th anniversary of Slashdot, perhaps you've hit upon a new meme that highlights the risks that these bloggers are taking:

        In Repressive Burma, internet connection kills you.
        • by TheLink ( 130905 )
          Nope that's the soviet russia style meme - where in Soviet russia "B does A" in contrast to "A does B".

          Soviet russia would be "in soviet russia the bullet bites you".

          Whereas:
          In Repressive Burma, it's not just the blog that's removed... (unsaid: they remove the blogger too).
          In Repressive Burma, it's not just your home directory that goes up in smoke... (unsaid: your home does too).

          Anyway, I think it sucks and someone should come up with a better meme :).

          In Repressive Burma, the "printer on fire" takes a diff
      • Given the similarity in thinking of most of these sorts, if you find the right trigger I bet they'd all switch about the same time.

        Buddhist monks did have a trigger but it has since failed. The monks could withhold blessings for a better life when someone reincarnated. However while Burma is Buddhist, secularism has gained ground there.

        Falcon
      • by tftp ( 111690 )
        When soldiers see an angry mob they shoot. If the mob isn't aggressive the commanders make it aggressive. Perceptions can be managed.
      • What half-wit modded this as a troll?
        I think the In Repressive Burma it's not just your connection that dies describes perfectly the murderous intent of the regime and the means by which they shield their actions from outside scrutiny.

        Perhaps rather than the Olympics boycott suggested we could look at the western companies who deal with Burma [burmacampaign.org.uk] and apply what pressure we can where we can.

    • Having just perused the comments on the poll, I would like to propose a deliberately-designed Slashdot meme to honor IT workers or aficionados whose work puts them in direct, physical danger. It probably wouldn't save any lives, but it might be a way to express solidarity with those whose work makes a real difference. Even symbolic gestures take on importance if despots and dictators know that the whole world really is watching.
      x.x
  • by SlappyBastard ( 961143 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:35PM (#20819257) Homepage
    You can't have a decent revolution without at least one fax with a line to the outside world. The internet is just the next logical step.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @12:27AM (#20819549)
    To any skilled people reading and maybe remembering this

    http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/08/01/www.myanmar.com/mirror.html [attrition.org]

    Bloggers and other cyber activists within Burma risk their lives by publishing any information counter to the government line, but they still do it because they believe that freedom of expression is worth that sacrifice.

    You don't have to make such a sacrifice, but if you have computer skills, can breach firewalls, routers and web site security then you could greatly assist the people of Burma. By taking down official Burmese government propaganda and posting pictures, information about the protests, information about the lies of the Burmese junta, and news of the huge support being offered by the rest of the world - preferably in Burmese - then you could help free the people from this terrible regime.

    If the information is removed, do it again - automate the attacks, do whatever you can to ensure that the Burmese can see the truth about their government.

    You may have hacked for fun, or personal gain in the past - now you have a chance to hack for freedom.

    Regime sites:

    http://www.myanmar.com/ [myanmar.com]
    http://www.myanmar.com/news/index.html [myanmar.com]
    http://www.mrtv3.net.mm/ [mrtv3.net.mm] (blocked from external access)
    http://www.mofa.gov.mm/ [mofa.gov.mm] (blocked from external access)
    http://www.moha.gov.mm/ [moha.gov.mm] (blocked from external access)
    http://www.mpt.net.mm/ [mpt.net.mm] (blocked from external access)
    http://www.myanmar-information.net/ [myanmar-information.net]
    http://www.myanmar.com/myanmartimes/ [myanmar.com]
    http://www.mnped.gov.mm/ [mnped.gov.mm] (blocked from external access)
    http://www.myanmar.com/newspaper/kyaymon/index.html [myanmar.com]
    http://www.myanmar.com/newspaper/nlm/index.html [myanmar.com]
  • by arcade ( 16638 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @01:34AM (#20819885) Homepage
    Democratic Voice of Burma, located in Oslo/Norway got a gruesome picture sent to them yesterday:

    http://english.dvb.no/photo1.php [english.dvb.no]

    The result of dicatorship.

  • by quintesse ( 654840 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @05:18AM (#20820787)
    "They have the skinny arms and the long hair, the dark T-shirts and the jokey nicknames. But few such figures have ever taken the risks that they have in the past few weeks, or achieved so much in a noble and dangerous cause."

    I could just read this is "but few _persons_ have ever taken the risk..." because unfortunately that's always been true throughout history (and I'm not saying I would do any better).

    But I actually think the author wants to convey the feeling that somehow skinny, long-haired youngsters that like to sit behind a computer are not hero material. So what do heroes look like? The perfectly groomed playboys we know from US cinema?

    Gimme a break. History again shows us that most "heroes" are just people like you and me that "just do what they had to do" because they felt it was the only right option (and most probably didn't even think there _were_ any options to choose from).

If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields

Working...