New 'Enemies of the Internet' Listed In Reporters Without Borders Study 63
New submitter Warmlight writes "The BBC reports that 'Bahrain and Belarus have been added to Reporters Without Borders' annual list of "enemies of the internet." They join 10 other nations on the campaign group's register of states that restrict net access, filter content and imprison bloggers. India and Kazakhstan have also joined RWB's list of "countries under surveillance" because of concerns that they are becoming more repressive.' I wonder how ACTA will affect this in the next year? In their report, they say, 'Resistance to ACTA is stronger than ever and the treaty may not see the light of day. Vigilance must be maintained.'"
Re:Hm (Score:4, Funny)
The purest form of free speech allows censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
President Obama, don't you think that slogan of yours is a wee bit negative. Even if you end up going toe to toe with Santorum, you'll still need something that speaks more to your strengths.
Re:Hm (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah I think I understand now, if cash can be speech then why not bullets and tanks? They convey much more of a message IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah I think I understand now, if cash can be speech then why not bullets and tanks? They convey much more of a message IMO.
I think it depends on who you're trying to get the message to, and current conditions. A whisper to your wife in bed usually works, but King George, Muammar Ghadaffi, and Hosni Mubarak took a bit stronger amplitude.
The *AAs may be completely deaf from all indications so far.
Re: (Score:2)
doublethink r plusplusgood
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Product numbers are so 2011.
I have the new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new iPad.
> Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
Re: (Score:1)
Enjoy the Koolaid... You may be happy to spend your money on over-priced toys, for no reason other than your loyalty to the HOLY APPLE (a company INTERESTED IN MAKING PROFITS!)
While you're wasting money on Apple junk, I'm saving a fortune by sitting sobbing in a darkened room, my solitary sorrow punctuated only by brief posts on Slashdot, the hourly self-conscious wank, and checking outside my door to see if mother has left me some sandwiches.
Enjoy your walled garden!
Bahrain exempt under "But they give us oil" clause (Score:3, Insightful)
Bahrain and Saudi Arabia can do whatever they like as long as they keep that sweet, sweet crude coming. I've got an SUV to fill.
Re: (Score:2)
Not RTFA'ing is fair game, but it's clear that you failed to RTFS.
Re: (Score:3)
Sarcasm detector broke? He was making a quip about how the western governments turns a blind eye to these country's terrible actions to keep the oil flowing.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree!
More blood for oil!
I think we need another campain of crusades.
Mod this Down - WRONG (Score:1)
Anybody with a half a clue would know that Bahrain has little oil and it certainly isn't a factor the reason it is friendly with Western governments.
Thus, moderator, please mod the parent down to oblivion for being utterly and completely wrong.
Facts 1 - elrous0 0.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"enemies of the West" (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a subtle difference between "We're shutting you down because you're giving people free movies that you don't have the rights to" and "We're keeping you from accessing these websites because they say we are corrupt assholes." Or "We're going to kill you for saying things we don't like online."
Both are bad in my opinion, the US could easily slide into outright internet censorship, and the US is also hypocritical on this matter, but for right now I feel we're not in the same league as, say, Syria.
Re: (Score:3)
"We're keeping you from accessing these websites because they say we are corrupt assholes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks [wikipedia.org]
the US is also hypocritical on this matter, but for right now I feel we're not in the same league as, say, Syria.
Does the US order soldiers to open fire on protesters? No, of course not, we prefer to have our paramilitary police enter homes in the early hours of the morning and shoot people:
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/ [drugwarrant.com]
Here is the point where you say, "But that is still different, because those people died due to government mistakes!" At the end of the day, however, people were killed by militarized government agents.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the US order soldiers to open fire on protesters? No, of course not, we prefer to have our paramilitary police enter homes in the early hours of the morning and shoot people.
But not for the purposes of suppressing political speech. Perhaps only because law enforcement has learned not to make martyrs of people th
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
You sound like a Hitler apologist, in 1932.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I meant was, it's easy to get too busy analyzing what HAS happened, and how its impact hasn't been "that bad", and in the process ignore the direction things are going, and thus seeing even the present, seemingly innocent/explainable actions should be considered evil in light of the whole, bigger picture.
Also, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the actual outcome of a course of action is death and destruction, it doesn't matter one bit what the initial intentions were.
Re: (Score:1)
Do I think all is peachy in Syria, hell no... but the one thing I do know is that the media represents the interest.
If there wasn't US interest, there wouldn't be US news covering the story like many other parts of the world where such genocide was occuring and not reported because nobody gave a shit.
See, it used to be (Score:5, Insightful)
the Internet was just "our little private world", like Second Life.
It wasn't "real life". It was just a separate little thing.
Nobody (especially governments) cared about since, mostly since they didn't even know about it.
Now that everybody's on it, they want:
-Nothing exposing misdeeds (US)
-Nothing about the Nazis (Germany)
-Nothing about competing brands (France)
-Nothing offensive (India)
-Nothing about how the rest of the world lives (China)
and so on.
If only there, there were another interconnected network ... hmm.
Re:See, it used to be (Score:5, Funny)
If only there, there were another interconnected network ... hmm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidonet [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I used to get Fidonet through my local BBS, but now I have no idea how to access it. (It's not easy like usenet which can be reached through google.)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with FidoNet is that it's explicitly non-anonymous by design. Also, since network topology is geographical, it's fairly easy to trace things, and for stuff that matters most of the time (e.g. correspondence between two citizens of the same country), falls entirely in the jurisdiction of a single government - so if it's oppressive, it can easily obtain evidence or wiretap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us are still running UUCP nodes over POTS phone lines just for the heck of it. Others are running various darknets on top of the main IP network (Freenet, RetroShare, and many, many others). There are also UUCP-based or even IP-based packet radio out there if you have a HAM license...
Re: (Score:2)
Not exposing the misdeeds of Nazis is offensive to the rest of the world; several different magazines have written articles on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet 2? :P
Another network (Score:2)
Homeless people with pirate boxes?
http://mxp.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/robin-meades-tuesday-morning-express-preview-controversial-scheme-pays-homeless-to-be-wifi-hotspots-at-sxsw/ [cnn.com]
+
http://torrentfreak.com/piratebox-takes-file-sharing-off-the-radar-and-offline-for-next-to-nothing-120311/ [torrentfreak.com]
Re: See, it used to be (Score:2)
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM [wikipedia.org]
Great list (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great list (Score:5, Interesting)
You know I tried to write a post describing how what these countries are doing is worse, but the only thing they do that's worse is put people to death in some cases.
Also:
Kazakhstan was added to the list after being said to have cut communications around the city of Zhanaozen during a riot
And what is routinely done in first-world countries in cities where the G8/G20 is being held?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of many (any?) developed countries that aren't currently struggling with issues like this.
So what you are saying is that governments in general have a problem with a network that allows cheap, fast, long-distance and hard-to-control communication between people? Yeah, I guess I cannot really disagree with that: governments want to control everything, and the Internet is a hard thing to control.
Re: (Score:3)
If for you killing is specifically shooting in the heart with a 9mm and not all the other possible ways, yes, the enemies of internet could be just the ones that restrict net access. But restricting net access to the citizens of one of your own cities or even your own country looks less severe than restricting somewhat internet (and free expression, and a lot more) to all the world.
Don't know what does Iran, Belarus, or Bahrain to you if you do in your own country (provided that is not one of them) somethi
If the U.S. isn't on that list (Score:5, Insightful)
along with other first-world nations like Australia and the U.K., then the list isn't honest or accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
With your asinine comment, you have just proven that you don't know what censorship, corruption, or oppression actually are.
Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
I was censored here too.
No, you were modded down. Anyone who wants to read at 0 or -1 can see it.
You'd need proof to convince me that your post was deleted. I've even bookmarked links that I've used the new flag feature to flag as spam, and checked on them (yep, still there).
Russia is there; why not U.S.? (Score:5, Informative)
"The 'under surveillance' list also includes Russia, which has used cyber-attacks and has arrested bloggers and netizens to prevent a real online political debate."
The U.S. has done the same (usually with a false claim of copyright infringement)
.
Every government (Score:4, Interesting)
Governments of Earth tend to view the Internet as a threat to their power.
Where's the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia (Score:1)
Enemies of border listed on internet!