Slashdot Mirror

And you all know about browser addons like noscript & adblock. But where is the 'proper' place for such content blocking?

If you're talking about adblocking, the 'proper' place is at your visual cortex where images are processed -- and I know I'm alone in that unpopular view. Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly. But if everyone does it, it ruins the very thing you're enjoying. I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.

I've clicked on ads and purchased something twice in my life from ads on a site. Once it was cheap shirts with funny designs on them (I needed new gym shirts) and the other was an eBay auction with a Buy It Now price lower than what I was looking at on that site (not sure how that works). I consider myself a pretty sophisticated person who is "above" advertising but anecdote-wise it's worked on me twice that I can think of. Removing that rare occurrence completely ruins the revenue model.

Whistle-blowers would do well to stay far away from their "Anti-Censorship Shelter" or they may find themselves in Mannings boat.

When the government doesn't approve, it stops the press from speaking. Check it out.

Thank you for answering my original question : your source is Reporter Without Borders

We have a lot of documentation now that suggests this particular NGO is not neutral, and had lied about Venezuela in the past. Use your favorite search engine and search for RSF (french acronym for Reporter Without Borders), NED (US propaganda agency giving money to RSF) and Venezuela.

That source is tainted. Do you have another one?

What are you talking about? Did Soviet Russia have numerous private owned press and TV that criticized the government?

You seem to have trouble understanding, so I'll spell it out: the press is free to criticize the government, when the government approves of the criticism. When the government doesn't approve, it stops the press from speaking. Check it out.

You are trying to say that the USSR and Cuba had better democracy than the USA, and you expect the rest of your points to be taken seriously? Really?

Reports Without Borders explains some of the problems with Venezuelan freedom of the press. If you don't have freedom of speech, then you can't have a good democracy.

"Was" is a key word there. Read here if you are interested.

The United States has been downgraded. Reporters Without Borders has released its annual World Press Freedom Index and the United States fell 27 points to No. 47 on the list.

The US tie with Argentina, Romania and Latvia at âoesatisfactoryâ levels of freedom.

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2011-2012

The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation

So some journalists and probably many "journalists" were mixed in with the "Occupy" crowd and didn't comply with orders to vacate? Not going to sweat that too much without evidence of actual wrong doing.

I often wonder why people still refer to the USA as 'the land of the free' or even to their president as the 'leader of the free world'. Don't get me wrong; As a non-American I have great respect for the tradition and history of freedom of the country

The issue I think Americans should be concerned about is the fact that countries Poland, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, United Kingdom all have something in common (well, the list is quite long and can be found here )
  They are ALL ranked higher than 'The land of the Free' when it comes to freedom of press... and without press freedom, and journalists calling you on your shit - instead of just dishing out celeb gossip and reality TV updates - you are on a slippery slope.

Some people read 1984 and Brave New World and think either one would be horrible. People in power read both and decide, hell, why not have the best of both worlds? Totalitarianism and apathy?

I often wonder why people still refer to the USA as 'the land of the free' or even to their president as the 'leader of the free world'. Don't get me wrong; As a non-American I have great respect for the tradition and history of freedom of the country

The issue I think Americans should be concerned about is the fact that countries Poland, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, United Kingdom all have something in common (well, the list is quite long and can be found here )
They are ALL ranked higher than 'The land of the Free' when it comes to freedom of press... and without press freedom, and journalists calling you on your shit - instead of just dishing out celeb gossip and reality TV updates - you are on a slippery slope.

Ecuador (which opposes freedom of information)

What is the source for this assertion?

Admittedly it's a bit of hyperbole. They aren't as bad as real dictatorships, but Reporters Without Borders has quite a file on Correa:
http://en.rsf.org/ecuador.html

He's got a tendency to find reasons to shut down any media critical of him, including ridiculous fines and jail-time.

Reporters without borders has a good summary in English.

And where does it tells about nationalizing TV stations one after another?

I guest the treatment for a US TV station supporting a coup in the US would be much more harsh.

Why would you think that?

I am not sure freedom of speech can really trump national security in the US nowadays. But I agree this is just my own feeling

I guest the treatment for a US TV station supporting a coup in the US would be much more harsh.

Why would you think that?

citation 1
citation 2
citation 3
citation 4
citation 5
citation 6
citation 7
citation 8
citation 9
citation 10
Okay, there's 10 citations for you. Begin your spin, denouncements, deflections, justifications, and outright lies.....

Here, there's an AP story on Chavez recalling a governor for speaking against his policies.

Reporters Without Borders, also considered a liberal organization, reports several instances of censorship, including blocking entire topics from discussion. It lists Venezuela as 117 out of 179 in overall press freedom.

For me, Chavez is one of the less harmful dictators, but a populist dictator remains a dictator, and anybody who blocks freedom of speech and requires media to carry his opinions is a dictator.

Here, there's an AP story on Chavez recalling a governor for speaking against his policies.

Reporters Without Borders, also considered a liberal organization, reports several instances of censorship, including blocking entire topics from discussion. It lists Venezuela as 117 out of 179 in overall press freedom.

For me, Chavez is one of the less harmful dictators, but a populist dictator remains a dictator, and anybody who blocks freedom of speech and requires media to carry his opinions is a dictator.

To measure political speech, I would use a list like this, which is much less subjective than your opinion. It looks to me like the dividing line is somewhere in the middle of that list, but that is obviously IMHO. The bottom of that list is straight out.

To measure democracy, I'd try something like this (sorry about the PDF). They have a category called "Authoritarian regimes", and I think those countries should definitely be excluded.

I'm not trying to rig the game in favor of the US, I'm trying to rig the game in favor of human rights.

the organization's http://en.rsf.org/beset-by-online-surveillance-and-12-03-2012,42061.htmlEnemies of the Internet report.

For those who can't use copy/paste - Enemies of the Internet report.

the organization's http://en.rsf.org/beset-by-online-surveillance-and-12-03-2012,42061.htmlEnemies of the Internet report.

For those who can't use copy/paste - Enemies of the Internet report.

They are under the 'surveillance list' by reporters without borders. It's not like in the US, they don't care about copyright violations because it doesn't hurt them, they are more after political speech.

http://en.rsf.org/web-2-0-versus-control-2-0-18-03-2010,36697: "Turkey and Russia have just been added to the “Under Surveillance” list. In Russia, aside from the control exercised by the Kremlin on most of its media outlets, the Internet has become the freest space for sharing information. Yet its independence is being jeopardized by blogger arrests and prosecutions, as well as by blockings of so-called “extremist” websites."

Beating/killing reporters that are making successful companies or politicians look bad is the standard operating procedure in China. It doesn't just happen sometimes, it happens all the time. If you are arguing that it doesn't happen, or is just random, isolated incidents, it shows that you are completely ignorant of how bad the situation is in China. Go ask any Hong Konger how frequently Hong Kong reporters or beaten. Hell, just go ask any Chinese person how frequently Mainland reporters are beaten, tortured, or killed. Everybody knows it happens like every American knows that corporations bribe our politicians frequently. A quick Google search comes up with 8.8 million results for "China reporter beaten." China is not at the bottom of the Press Freedom Index for nothing. Chinese society and the common man does not like it, but there is little they can do about it but document it on social networks.

Many are also not aware that media clampdown during occupy wall street reporting dropped USA from 20th to 47th spot in yearly Reporters without Borders study. It's officially a third world country in terms of press freedom now, stuck somewhere between Ghana and Haiti.

It's quite sad how USA still sees itself as a paragon of freedom, and often complains about other countries clamping down on their press.

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

Title should read, "Man arrested for possibly planning to become a terrorist". But still, arrested for criminal possibility.

His potential crime would have been a physical one. It needed bomb ingredients, guns, etc... He had none of the equipment, just the knowledge.

Everything about his crime is just conjecture. How do you prove that he WOULD have done anything. Were there dates of action?

I guess what it boils down to, if you're gonna have "evil" thoughts, don't write them down.

Pre-crime, here to protect you from yourself.

I'm feeling less special every day. I used to think I was a paranoid outsider. Nope, just observant.

Why do the countries witht the highest Press Freedom Index have to be so damned cold.

Update: Looks like Cape Verde has risen in the rankings... Hrmm...Might be worth the change of address.

The press freedom index is little more than a compilation of the opinions and beliefs of journalists across the world, based on questionnaires. There is no calibration for cultural differences, no verification or validation, no guarantee of unbiased sampling, little to ensure objectivity. Look at the questionnaire yourself:

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/quest_en.pdf

The very first question is "During [the last year], were there any cases of journalists 1. Being illegally detained (without an arrest warrant, for longer than the maximum period of police custody, without a court appearance etc)?" Now think about that. In what way are random journalists qualified to answer this question? How can they even answer that question? In most cases, legality hasn't even been determined in the courts by then. In countries in which the media are fully or partially controlled or operated by the government, "journalists" would have a strong bias in favor of the government and they would be unlikely to be detained, because anybody critical of the government wouldn't even get hired; yes, to some degree this is true even in Western Europe. And in countries with few legal protections for journalists, detentions of journalists would be much more likely to be legal.

Mostly, what this attests to is utter incompetence on the part of RSF and the journalists who sign responsible for it.

One thing I noticed is they didn't proof-read their press releases. I guess broken english is appropriate though, since they are representing journalists. "The United States (47th) also owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests." http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

that the country's following French leadership on this one.
If anything, that ought to show uninformed people that they're doing something very wrong.
No one here who knows what ctrl+c stands for will mind being used that way.

I don't know...

I saw this study by Reporters Without Borders on freedom of the press, and the U.S. wasn't in the top 10%. Then, I saw this study by Privacy International on privacy, and it wasn't pretty for the US. Freedom of speech must be correlated to freedom of press and privacy. And sure, you can find studies about everything with any result... these are mine. :)

My point is that maybe, not in theory but in practice, sharing governance is the way to go if freedom of speech is the key indicator.

It's an interesting article, and I find the subject of censorhip in China to be interesting in general, but can't you find a source a little more objective than the Epoch Times? You're quoting a story about a television show produced by the Falun Gong, and your source is a newspaper owned by the Falun Gong.

Here are some other sources:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2011/06/21/307009/Chunghwa-Telecom.htm
http://en.rsf.org/taiwan-taiwanese-tv-satellite-operator-24-05-2011,40343.html

From the Wikipedia article Epoch Times, it's hard to tell whether Epoch Times is owned by the Falun Gong or not. (Although I've read it, and I'd say that if it's not owned by the Falun Gong, it's certainly owned by people extremely sympathetic to them).

(e.g. see Simon Singh vs. BCA)

PS. RSF - Reporters Without Borders - place UK and USA at #19 and #20 respectively in the Press Freedom Index. ( http://www.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2011/GB/C_GENERAL_GB.pdf )

I've only skimmed the paper, but it looks like the same propaganda tactics that most countries have used during wartime, e.g. similar to the ones Sweden and UK used during WWII.

Since USA been at war since forever (when was the last time USA was at peace, 1850?), it is not surprising that the US government apply similar tactics.

USA already have the most secretive governments among the Western countries and it always ranks really bad in different censorship index (except those originating in USA), for instance it ranks 27 in Reporters Sans Frontières Press Freedom Index (that index only measure the censoring and security of news outlets and journalists, it does not measure other openness in government, or how restricted access to information the public have, or how censored the public is (USA is not the only country that differentiate between the rights of the "real" press and the common citizen)). According to this index, only six countries in the world have real Freedom of the Press, coincidently (or not), these six countries also have very open governments, where the public have access to most government documents and can attend as spectators to most government functions, the documents and functions that the public can't access them self their elected representatives can access (this is not the case in USA, where some elected representatives have restricted access to information about the government of US or the state), it is also peaceful countries that haven't been at war since WWII.

If you citizens of USA want less censorship and a more open and democratic government, you have to see to it that USA isn't at war all the time. USA is the sole aggressor in almost every military conflict it gets involved, or it is the sponsor of the sole aggressor within a region (often very small groups with little local support, that given a lot of financial backup, propaganda means ( they usually don't grow much even with better access to propaganda means then other groups in the region, but they appear to be one of the larger groups within the region to the rest of the world). and a supply of military training, information and material grows in power), until a military conflict starts and USA can get involved more directly (sometime against the group it sponsored to power, like in Iraq or Afghanistan).

Will Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland do? Just for starters?

Sure... as soon as Reporters Without Borders is able to put up some information on how they score the countries. Oh, sure, they show what the questionnaire they sent out was, they say how many points each questions is worth, but they don't actually show how each Nation got the score it did. If you look at their "country files", they don't even offer any information on most of the top scorers (well, bottom scorers, I guess).

You'd think a group dedicated to a free and transparent press would at least give the background on their ratings for people interested. But I guess it is enough "freedom and transparency" to assume they know what they are doing, assume they received an adequate number of responses from their anonymous sources to be valid, and to assume that their reported scores aren't biased by different expectations in each of the nations they sent questionnaires to.

Again, I'm not saying their rankings are wrong... they do point out some valid problems in the U.S., for example, which definitely keeps it out of the running for the top spot... but they really don't do a very good job of supporting their rankings in any meaningful way. They are essentially saying, "Trust us. We are Reporters Without Borders... we must be telling the truth."

Actually when it comes to press freedom, the US still looks better than most countries. In fact, even after 230 years of the US example, I don't know of any other governments whose core founding and/or legal principles include the explicit recognition of the citizenry's inalienable right to freedom of speech, it seems to genuinely be something exceptional. Oh sure, many governments have begrudgingly given a nod to what they see as "granting" of similar rights (and in fact even that much is due to the positive influence of the US historically) - but saying "OK, we grant you freedom of speech" is actually fundamentally vastly different to inalienable rights, which are not considered granted, but exist independent of government and cannot morally be taken away. Sure, in practice lawmakers pee on the constitution with abandon, as lawmakers will do, but I'll take the US any day. Trying to block citizens' practice of liberties such as free speech is something all governments do anyway, but only one government in the world at least formally recognizes this as wrong (and gives the citizens other rights, such as the 2nd amendment, in order to enforce the 1st amendment).

I'm definitely not saying it's perfect, or that we shouldn't strive for better. On the contrary, we should continually strive for better. We have to.

Press Freedom Index 2010: US at #20. With the Nordic countries, Netherlands and Switzerland at the top.

Will Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland do? Just for starters?

The state has been dubbed the world's worst violator of press freedom by the media rights body Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Huh, you must be referencing an older report. Allow me to bring you up to date on 2010's assessment of the illustrious Democratic People's Republic of Korea!

Internet: Nothing but a vague rumor

A very limited Intranet has developed, consisting of an email inbox, a few news sites relaying regime propaganda, and a browser providing access to the databank Web pages of the country’s three biggest libraries: the Grand People’s Study House and those of the Kim Il-Sung and Kim Chaek Universities. This Intranet is accessible only by academics, businessmen and high-ranking civil servants who have received special clearance.

Here's to hoping that once that intranet is connected to our internet we see those academics online :)

Oh, also, I like how one hour of internet usage in a cafe in North Korea will set you back $8.19 (high even by my cushy American standards) and yet the monthly wage in North Korea is a paltry $17.74. So yeah, go ahead and walk into an internet cafe and blow a month's salary in two hours. I almost feel guilty about bitching about Comcast's $40/month cable internet.

Furthermore Eritrea beat them out in 2009 leaving them at 174/175 on their worst violators ... there are nation states and there are sad states. I wish there was a non-detrimental way to help the people inside North Korea.

The state has been dubbed the world's worst violator of press freedom by the media rights body Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Huh, you must be referencing an older report. Allow me to bring you up to date on 2010's assessment of the illustrious Democratic People's Republic of Korea!

Internet: Nothing but a vague rumor

A very limited Intranet has developed, consisting of an email inbox, a few news sites relaying regime propaganda, and a browser providing access to the databank Web pages of the country’s three biggest libraries: the Grand People’s Study House and those of the Kim Il-Sung and Kim Chaek Universities. This Intranet is accessible only by academics, businessmen and high-ranking civil servants who have received special clearance.

Here's to hoping that once that intranet is connected to our internet we see those academics online :)

Oh, also, I like how one hour of internet usage in a cafe in North Korea will set you back $8.19 (high even by my cushy American standards) and yet the monthly wage in North Korea is a paltry $17.74. So yeah, go ahead and walk into an internet cafe and blow a month's salary in two hours. I almost feel guilty about bitching about Comcast's $40/month cable internet.

Furthermore Eritrea beat them out in 2009 leaving them at 174/175 on their worst violators ... there are nation states and there are sad states. I wish there was a non-detrimental way to help the people inside North Korea.

Open letter from RWB secretary general to Wikileaks founder

This is a good read, and pretty much sums up how I feel about it. Wikileaks has done a lot of good in the past, and can do a lot of good in the future, but they can't dodge the responsibility for their own actions.

Just throwing random stuff out there doesn't have anywhere near the impact nor the importance as the "collateral murder" video had. That stuff is good to expose; operational details and names of Afghan civilians who picked a side aren't.

When groups like Amnesty and Reporters Without Borders start warning you, it's really time to stop and consider whether what you're doing is really helping or hurting freedom.

that site is OK. Google around, do your own research. Here, I found this just searching for that title in quotes:

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html

Now think about modern day "embedded reporters". They won't be embedded very long if they don't pump out the official party line. That's just as corrupt, IMO. And if they aren't embedded, they just kill them, you must have seen that video of the apache video game gunner wasting those reporters and the civilians who stopped to help them. That's what militaries do to non tame reporters now, kill them if they feel like it. All belligerent/aggressive/totalitarian nations do it to reporters. You are on the payroll sub rosa or even above board, parrot the party line or disseminate the "big lie" disinformation, or you are a target they will get around to eventually if they feel like it, chose one.

Here ya go, another

http://en.rsf.org/

The NYTimes, Newsweek, and a host of human rights groups seem to disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29wikileaks.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/09/AR2010080903045.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews
http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html

Open letter from RWB secretary general to Wikileaks founder
At least it seems Julian Assange heard previous criticism.

What I'm saying in short is this. If China was serious about maintaining an iron fist, Google would have been kicked out long ago!

Google had initially agreed to filtered search results inside China. It wasn't until they vocally said they were planning to stop filtering that China threatened to kick them out. Google has played ball up to this point and that's why they haven't been kicked out. Your reasoning makes no sense.

In fact, China is trying to tell the world "read between the lines". We want freedom, but we're sure as hell not going to make it obvious.

Judging by the near constant stream of news from Reporters without Borders I'd have to disagree with you.

Not by accident that Reporters Sans Frontiers has launched an "anti-censorship shelter" online, consisting of VPN, onion routers and training docs. Sound familiar?

Wikileaks is essentially a pilot project. They have demonstrated the need. The day-to-day work will be picked up by long running groups with funding models and full time staff and a CEO who doesn't go out his way to piss off every anti-secrecy activist who so much as murmur reservations about their comprehensive lack of transparency.

http://en.rsf.org/reporters-without-borders-unveils-25-06-2010,37809.html

Most Venezuelans aren't too fond of Fox News either. Try Amnesty International (not much useful information - you have to dig a bit) and Reporters Without Borders instead. The part about compulsory broadcasting his half-day-long speeches is priceless.

Agreed. Free speech is not really in danger in switzerland:

Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index 2009

Freedom house

I'm sure you can find more evidence if you care enough.

Whether a human right has been dented with the minaret law is (potentially) still to be determined by some court. But I think it would sure be a tough case for the court. Determining whether towers in certain shapes can't be prohibited by a democratic and fair election isn't easy by itself, I bet. Add to that that these towers are not necessary, but only somewhat (modern-)symbolic for a certain religion...

Protests are largely useless here, 200,000 (unsure on the number, but a very significant number) people protested Australia getting involved in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars and we still went. I doubt 200,000 Australians even know the Rudd Government wants to filter their Internets.

The EFA is working on this issue. I'd urge all Australian's to sign the petition they will be tabling to the Senate.

Reporters Without Borders condemning mandatory internet censorship.

Google.au's views on their plan.

Many people and organisations are speaking out against this stupid idea, but the Rudd Government is actively ignoring them.

After a brief googling I couldn't find a decent study comparing the likes of human rights (or at least press freedom), and GDP (or at least economic freedom).

Anecdotally (from just browsing the individual indexes) however there appears to be a strong correlation - with various exceptions, some of which can be accounted for by e.g. natural resources. There are plenty studies showing strong correlation between economic freedom and GDP (even between US states), but that's not much of a substitute for human rights and freedoms.

Of course, correlation is not causation, although intuitively it makes a lot of sense - wealthier people seem to consider themselves more important, demand more power, education, have better communications...

My assumption is that the better a country's economy, the better the human rights. Anyone have a good study?

http://www.rsf.org/List-of-the-13-Internet-enemies.html

Reporters Without Borders might disagree with you. Though there has been a sharp improvement in ranking for the US this year, the US score eroded pretty badly during the Bush era. In 2006, the US ranked #53 in press freedom.

http://www.rsf.org/en-classement70-2006.html

Some more resources:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15083
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Bloggers_Handbook2.pdf
http://www.indymedia.org/

Does anyone know if the RSF anonymous blogging handbook is mirrored elsewhere?

Some more resources:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15083
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Bloggers_Handbook2.pdf
http://www.indymedia.org/

Does anyone know if the RSF anonymous blogging handbook is mirrored elsewhere?

Damn near all of them. Americans live in a police state, get used to it.

Most countries are functionally less free than the USA because they're poor and corrupt.

But there certainly are countries that are more free. I'd start with something like this list.

Unless you're a reporter in which case America is the 36th freest place on Earth. Well, the USA. Canada is 13th.

Calling yourself the "land of the free" doesn't make you any freer, implementing freedoms in practice does.