Sell Out: Blocking an Open Net
Governments in Muslim nations, as well as China, have repeatedly made overtures to and done business with Net-filtering companies. But no nation has used blocking software as vigorously as Saudi Arabia, according to the New York Times. By royal decree, virtually all public Internet traffic to and from the kingdom has been funneled through a single control center outside Riyadh since the Net was first introduced there three years ago. If the Riyadh center blocks a site, a warning appears in both English and Arabic: "Access to the requested URL is not allowed!" Saudi Arabia blocks sex and pornography sites, as well as those relating to religion and human rights.
Now nearly a dozen software companies, most American, are competing for a hefty new contract to help block access to even more sites the Saudi government deems inappropriate for its country's half-million Net users. In fact, the Saudi government is helping to pioneer something once thought impossible -- a sanitized Net for an entire nation and culture.
American software companies are only too happy to help them do it. Software executives say they are only providing politically neutral tools. "Once we sell them the product, we can't enforce how they use it," Matthew Holt, a sales executive for San Jose's Secure Computing, told the Times earlier this week. Secure provides filtering software to the Saudi government under a contract that expires in 2003. The Saudi government is also reportedly talking with Websense, SurfControl and N2H2 of Seattle.
The Saudi government has already spent a fortune to design its centralized control system before permitting Net use a few years ago, selecting Secure Computing's Smart Filter software from four competing U.S. products. SmartFilter came with ready-made blocking categories like pornography and gambling and was also customized to exclude sites the Saudis perceived as bad for Islam, the royal family, or the country's political positions.
This is a radical assault on the spirit of the Net, of its open, point-to-point design, its great promise to democratize information. By allies, no less. And don't for a minute think there aren't plenty of fanatics and zealots in the United States who won't love the idea as well. Remember that the Harry Potter series is now the most banned book series in American libraries.
The Saudi government, along with other non-democratic countries, are notoriously technophobic. They are eager to participate in the emerging global economy, but desperate to stanch the free flow of information that might provide diverse information to their citizens. And they have no problem finding software companies, including American ones, that are happy to help extend censorship. The corporatist rule is simple -- maximize profits at all costs under virtually all circumstances.
Countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China have been surprisingly successful at wiring up certain segments of their societies while controlling information deemed insensitive for political or religious reasons. The Net can, in fact, be used to make money and suppress freedom. These governments have undercut the great promise of globalism, prosperity, technology and democracy, allowing corrupt and anti-democratic governments to prosper, in part by censoring information -- something many of us thought the Net would make impossible.
This highlights the menacing way corporatism exploits technology, undermining the most basic American values.
"We have a really serious problem in terms of the American free speech idea," says Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in the politics of Internet filtering. "But it is very American to make money. Between anti-censorship and the desire to make money, the desire to make money will win out." This is a profound blow to the whole idea of using technology -- especially the Net -- to force a more open society.
That's a bitter indictment of a nation that purports to be advancing democracy throughout the world, that's supposedly fighting a war to protect freedom. The reason money will always win out is corporatism, which subverts almost every other value in the name of profit, and which has made globalism a dirty word.
News flash for ya, Katz...
corporatism != humanitarianism.
Of course American companies are going to jump on the opportunity to make a few million from the Saudi government. That's why they exist - to make money. They don't care if they're limiting the content that a bunch of people half a world away can access. Why is this such a big deal? Because a single country won't have access to the internet in its full, uncensored form? They should be happy - no porn popup ads, no Microsoft Approved content, no CRAP!! If anything, it sounds like this will limit the "Saudinet" to being *gasp* and INFORMATIONAL RESOURCE!!!!
Dear god, the humanity!!!
After this disgusting display of the worst kind of irresponsible journalism, I can't condone JonKatz writing for Slashdot any longer. I realize that Slashdot is a private organization, and can publish whatever it wants. However, the article "Message from Kabul" was at best exagerated, and at worst an outright fabrication. Katz never responded to the numerous requests on Slashdot for evidence supporting his claims -- this makes me question his journalistic integrity.
Sure, I can just filter his posts. But I am offended that a site like Slashdot would let him get away with this.
Mod me up if you agree (I'm at the cap anyway). Mod me off-topic if you want. Mod me a troll, whatever. This is my first public flame of anyone, anywhere. I'm that disheartened by his apparent dishonestly.
heh, at least he's posting unlike you just fucking moaning like a sissy. If you disagree, just skip the article you fuck.
Now picture yourself as the technically knowledgeable person you are, except that you're making ph@t bux under contract to one of these scum multinationals, helping to censor the Net in China or Saudi Arabia.
If you're not repulsed by that, you should be up against the wall with these traitors to humanity come the revolution.
Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag
Don't get off blaming the US for Saudi Arabia's treatment of its people. They have been doing this for many years before we needed their oil. Its common throughout the Islamic world for the people in power to thwart any freedom for their people. Its not OUR fault, it is not the West's fault.
We don't prop up Syria or Iraq yet they do the same as Saudi Arabia...
Its very politically correct to blame America for the worlds woes, but sometimes, just maybe, you have to blame those other countries for their own plight. In fact, dare I say it, Shirah is the primary source of Saudi Arabians oppression - its implementation has nothing to do with our oil or capitalistic needs but everything to do with THEIR culture and religon.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Hah!
What is good for Westerners is good for the Chinese, the Arabs, the Inuit, and everyone.
Remove a crackpot religion (ie, any religion) and any dictator that will shoot or torture them for voicing an opinion.
If the Saudis don't want say they want religious freedom it's either because a) They don't know such a thing exists or b) They know they'd be punished for saying it.
Religion is complete bullshit. To give it or any supporter of it any credibility is to do a terrible disservice to the billions of people enslaved by it.
Show me a country with a state-sponsored religion and I'll show you one with an opressed, unhappy people.
I include the Western world in this. If GW Bush wasn't religious (in his case christian) he wouldn't force his stupid values on anyone else.
Who's banning Harry Potter books? Who's stoning women who leave the house without a male relative? Who's perpetuating what is essentially the slavery of certain "castes"?
Religious nutcases, that's who.
I don't demand people have my morals. I demand that they be allowed to pick their own and discuss them freely.
Nobody chooses to be governed by religious monsters. You have a strange form of racism though, where you assume that it's good for them, because they're different. I believe everyone needs a life free of painful indoctrination where they can live freely, despite their race or birth rank.