Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia's 'Great Firewall'
securitas writes: "We've all heard about The Great Firewall of China (see this Wired feature) but many don't know about Saudi Arabia's version of the same. The New York Times reports on the challenges and problems of filtering the Internet for an entire nation. San Jose's Secure Computing has the contract but may lose it when it comes up for renewal next year."
Should the Saudi government be allowed to do this? Absolutely, there is no inalienable right to Internet access. On the other hand, I think it about as dumb an idea as there is to do it. Denying anyone free access to other peoples ideas is not beneficial to your citizens. At least if you are hoping they develop into thinking people. Of course, both the Saudi and Chinese governments seem not to have that in mind.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
For this to occur in a country where civil rights are minimal is expected. This is not the case with the new laws in the US.
In Saudi Arabia, the system is monarchy. If you think of it, it is not any worse from the UK where you are not allowed to have high grade crypto without giving a copy of your private key to the Gov.
I am not saying that they are doing the right thing, but at least they don't lie about it and they don't claim to be the fathers of democracy!
To critics of the sale of content filters, software company executives say that they are only providing politically neutral tools. "Once we sell them the product, we can't enforce how they use it," said Matthew Holt, a sales executive for Secure Computing (news/quote), of San Jose, Calif., that currently provides Internet-filtering software to the Saudi government under a contract that expires in 2003.
What a fine way to salve the conscience: "Once we sell them the product, we can't enforce how they use it." They're happy enough to take the money, just as IBM was happy to take the money from the Nazis for Jew-tracking systems, since no IBMers were actually involved in killing anyone.
US corporate and government support for this brutal dicatorship is a disgrace. Both GOP and Dem administrations are happy to allow trade with this vile regime to thrive as long as it pays, just as they were happy to arm and support Iraq as long as it paid, and just as they continue to profit handsomely from deals with China.
It still amazes me how Bush and pals can talk without a trace of irony about how they are fighting one gov't or another in defense of Freedom and Justice, then turn around and support the Saudis. Will Laura Bush be arguing passionately for the rights of Saudi women anytime soon? Of course she will, as soon as the pro-Western govt gets thrown out, and they transform overnight into America's Eternal Foe.
Saudi Arabia is a pretty nasty country in general, so this isn't a surprise. One only need read the articles that appear at the BBC's website. They're probably more oppressive than China, but since they're strong allies with the U.S., this is not a message you hear often. Also, U.S. magazines sell significantly less when they focus on world issues (if the talking heads on TV are to be believed).
An interesting problem with Saudi Arabia is that they hear of Western media trashing their country, so they make the "logical" conclusion that this is how the governments feel about them. Why? Because the press is 100% controlled by the Saudi Goverment, so this is what they expect.
Of course something can be done about it. Unless you've let the government take away your guns. In that case, you may have some problems pulling off your revolution without a lot of civilian deaths. But that's the price of freedom, I guess.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Now, I admit I'm not nearly as much of a networking geek as most of you /.'ers, so maybe I'm totaly off base here, but how would you freedom fighting, long haired hippies feel about the Saudi Govn't using free software to make this firewall?
I think the benefits would be enough to make them switch. They could drop their dependence on non-Saudi organizations (like American businesses) and depend only on technically minded Saudi nationals. I could here the Microsoft commercials now, trying to show how bad Linux or *BSD is for making oil prices go up.
When you get right down to it, setting up a firewall in Linux or OpenBSD is very easy. I've done it and I have only a basic knowledge of networking and by reading the documentation. Would you guys be able to sleep at night if Linux was used to keep the common man down?
Yeah, funny how that is. I'm willing to go across the street for a paper, but *still* to lazy to sign up for free reg for a free paper every day. If it's more than one click away, it's obviously not worth it.
Last post!
Who's "they"?
Islamic fundamentalists?
Don't you think that maybe, out of however many millions or billions of people in saudi arabia, there may be a small number who are not islamic fundamentalists? Or who, maybe, are not even muslim?
Or maybe it's possible some of the people are islamic fundamentalists who are not comfortable with the government being able to stealth-block the movement of information, or the abuses that could facilitate?
If 98% of the country is happy with the blocking and 2% is not, does the 98% that is happy have the right to determine what the other 2% can or cannot do behind locked doors?
[Insert anology here to the rights of the many to pass laws affecting the few, perhaps jews in pre-wwII germany or blacks in pre-1960s america, and note the vast majority in those situations "did not care".]
I would say if no one cared about the blocking in saudi arabia, people would not be dailing to other countries to circumvent the firewall.
Just a thought.
If what they're saying is true, that a US company is participating in limiting free speech in other countries, I've thought of some ad slogans for them:
"San Jose Secure Computing -- Participating In The Oppression Of People For Over Eight Years"
"Need To Oppress Your People? -- Call San Jose Secure Computing"
"Indiginous Population Learning Too Much? -- Call San Jose Secure Computing"
"What Is 'Truth', Anyway? Call San Jose Secure Computing, Now With New Under Your Thumb(TM) Technology!"
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the people who write censorware(*) -- the software itself, the software used to develop the "blacklist," and so on -- are generally members of the Western computing community. Some of them, and their friends, are Slashdot readers. They are members of user groups. They can be identified. They should be made persona non grata.
One might say that if person Z didn't work for the censorware companies, another would, so we can hardly fault person Z. Ridiculous. One might as well say that since there will always be people who write viruses, there is no fault in writing and distributing your own. Censorware aimed at choking off the free speech of an entire people is a damned sight more noxious than a virus. (I am reminded of Jack London's description of "scabs" (strikebreakers), which is perhaps extreme in the labor context in our day but may find some analogy here.)
(* Excepting people who write genuinely multipurpose software tools. And I'd except people who write software which is by its nature limited to filtering for a not-large number of machines -- i.e., for home or business use -- though perhaps not everyone would.)
In my book if you fund an act, then you are liable from the consequences of it. Bin laden paid for it and he actually formed the group who did it himself. He is therefor guility if he personally knew about it or not.
As in: the American taxpayers fund CIA, CIA funds the Pakistani ISI, ISI funds and trains "some" Afghan mujaheddins including Bin Laden?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Guess what pal? Secure Computing products are what are protecting our government networks that you never hear about . . . you know, the ones that DON'T GET HACKED! I, for one, am happy that we have such secure products protecting our governmental secrets, like nuclear blueprints, from organizations like Al Queda (sp?). When people in a society can't obey simple laws, and thus threaten many others in the world, steps must be taken to prevent those people from succeeding. Here's a couple more appropriate slogans for you:
"Need to protect nuclear secrets from terrorists? Call Secure Computing!"
"Terrorist hackers cracking your missile guidance computers? Call Secure Computing!"
You evidently thought about what you wrote . . . you just forgot what happened when _airline_ security in the United States became lax. Just think what would happen if _computer_ security became that lax in the US, or another country, like Russia . . . the results wouldn't be good.