Slashdot Mirror
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.
Hopefully someday we will live in a world were everyone has the same freedom we have here in the states. I always here people around me complaining about how bad it is here, they just are uninformed of how bad some other people have it.
--
FearLinux.com
Here's the solution. Have Microsoft sell the Arab nations the security software. That way, we guarantee security holes and people will then get around the software, allowing them to get to anywhere they want on the internet.
Do these filtering companies block traffic to other companies that make filtering software?
The question is: is there a limit/border and if so, where is it? If it's wrong to sell to Saudi Arabia, is it right to sell to city librarys? To parochial schools that block contents? To parents that block content from their children? It seems pretty obvious to me that the parents one is OK (before you flame, wait! let me put my flame retardant on. OK, proceed). Selling to the Saudis is morally dubious at best, so where is the line?
By the way, morality in many other aspects has never stopped old time American companies in the past. Need examples? How about Phillip Morris: is it moral to sell something to people that will harm them for sure and shorten their life span almost surely? Still, people have no problem investing in this company.
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!!!
This is a nice rant but it goes to show off the egocentricity of most U.S citizens. Just because you think you have the right to free speech in the states doesn't mean thats true elsewhere in the world.
You apply your values and morals on everyone from around the world because you can't imagine someone unlike you.
These are different people from a different culture. If there way of life curtails free speech then so be it.
Ask yourself this though, how many violent crimes were there in China vs. the states last year?
There are a million ways to compare two countries. In some cases the US looks better and others China.
My point is that you cannot just openly apply what you think of as "the norm" to other cultures and then belittle them when it doesn't match.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
> Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality
/want/ to give up some of that power and wealth for the benifit of all. On what planet do you think a power/wealth weiling CEO is going to admit to shareholders that they are allowing competition in weak foreign markets for the overall health of the global economy.
.. it really means corperatized america turning every other country into a strip mall and a community of blue collars operating the latest opening of Starbucks or BestBuy.
A word (ie, globalism) doesn't mean shit until the people who wield power in the economy actually
Globalism is as buzzy a word as 'democracy' is; China is communist, and you don't see the US (or anyone else?) embargo'ing them. Hell, now they're in the WTO! (With the worlds fasted growing GPD at 7% annual growth.) The US can throw around the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' all they want, but those who are in need are not fooled one bit. Globalism is the same
"Old man yells at systemd"
The FCC routinely blocks all sorts of content from American TV with little resistance. I don't see how Americans can be shocked when other governments do the same thing in other mediums.
well, the only arhcitecture i can think of fo this system is easily circumvented .. just like your average high school gateway
it would, of course, require someone in a free country to help..
the way saudi arabia must have their internet set up is that _everything_ goes through a massive gateway, which filters content on port 80 (and probably a few others)
of course, they can't block any content thats encrypted
so, someone sets up a website that will display any other website, but encypted.. and write a browser addon to read the encrypted info
kinda similar architecture to those sites you used to see that allowed for anonymous browsing - excpt with the encryption layer in the middle
just a thought..
Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
Jon Katz is right!
Corporate Corpratists are jerks! I think we should attack all countries that do not share our views on free speech and expression. We can replace the gov't of Saudi Arabia and China with truly democratic regimes.
Before we take on nations, we need to take the fight to the Elitist Global Corporate Entities like Websense. It's about time!
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
So...
What's the difference? I think it is an often-missed point that freedom of expression is severely limited by freedom to experience that expression.
Even in the US, the free access to information and expression is limited. I think we need to focus on that, make it a constitutional right!
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Not so what so much for the oppressed citizens of Saudi Arabia, but this is just the logical conclusion of the US's policy towards the country. This is just the corporate world getting their cut of the profits out of the situation.
After all the US has been happy to prop up a corrupt, undemocratic and brutal regime there just to ensure the free flow of oil to fuel SUVs and cheap fuel. Every time a USian moans about the price of fuel they're helping to keep the citizens of Saudi Arabia under oppression. And since our country is all about money, money, money at the expense of little things like decency and human rights, why shouldn't our corporations get involved in helping? It's not like they don't have enough practice at oppression themselves.
Sorry, but if you're getting upset about this I suggest you first take a long look at what our government has done in Saudi Arabia first. Whining about censoring the net when these people lack even a pretense at human rights just shows you're hopelessly naive.
Read it here China's Dot-Communism
and read about the restriction of innovation on the internet here: The Internet Under Seige by Lawrence Lessig
tcd004
"Take, for example, the corporatist American and European companies happily selling blocking software to countries like China and Saudi Arabia so their governments can pervert the Net to deny their citizens basic freedoms."
Or, look at them as providing the necessary obstacles to encourage entire legions of new hackers. There is no better way to motivate a person, especially a young person, into doing something than by telling him/her that s/he can't do so.
The Americans/Europeans get to profit from these oppressive governments while simultaneously and surreptitiously undermining those very regimes.
Perfectly brilliant plan, in my opinion.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
I don't know any details about the Saudi firewall, but why doesn't someone set up a publicly accessible http tunelling system that gets around this? You could have a (moving?) node in the US which accepts http requests for 3rd party web pages and then "encrypts" (rot13?) them so that they aren't recognized in transit through the Saudi system. Then client software is accessed by the browser (at localhost) as a proxy and connects to the central node, doing the translation work and returning the page to the browser. There is always a way, using technology.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
I don't think that there is any selling out going on here. There is a difference between globalization and communism.
The fact that people are selling the software to China and elsewhere is proof that globalization is occuring, we are all seeing each other as neighbors, and business partners now. That means if I don't sell them my software someone else will.
It is not up to us to judge our neighbors, we may or may not like how they do things, we may even use other methods to try to "encourage" them to change but Im not going to let my competitor sell them my legitimate product because I disagree with how they use it; thats up to their government.
Business is business, and business in a global economy as in any "free enterprise" economy means you supply the consumer what they want, because if you don't someone else will. This does not mean that business is relieved of any moral obligations; however in this case the businesses are not supplying weapons to terrorists; the business is merely respecting the governments attempts to "protect" (and yes I agree its not the best way to protect) their citizens from outside influences. But what China is doing is not really that much worse than what Australia has been doing in recent years.
I hate to say this, but all corporations, American or otherwise, are in the business of making money, not setting global policy.
Sometimes these interests come close to each other, a little too close, and it's up to the government and citizens to do our part. We can vote, and not just with our political right; with our dollars, our euros, and our pounds.
However, globalization does NOT necessarily include thrusting the American way of life onto nations that do not want it. No wonder globalization's become a bad word in the eyes of many.
If Saudi Arabia wants to block content from its people, that's their problem and it needs to be discussed in the forum of human rights. The government does need to be enlightened as to how the free flow of ideas is helpful. But don't criticize the US companies trying to make a buck off of this. Whether or not they sell a solution or the Saudi government creates their own solution for filtering, the filtering will still be done nonetheless.
JK> Remember that the Harry Potter series is now the most banned book series in American libraries.
Is this actually true?!?!
I haven't read the series (yet.) What's *so* bad in the books, that they must be banned?
What's the world coming too, when ideas must be repressed by a minority.
Judging by how Americans break out in a cold sweat at the mention of words like "Socialism" I would say that Capitalism is the preferred way of doing things around here.
And as we all know things like "morality" or "ethics" do not figure into business decisions a system driven by profits - that's what makes it work.
I am actually not trying to pass judgement one way or another, just pointing out that this is the way things work around here. And I believe that under the PATRIOT Act (or was it the ATA?) criticizing the way the US does things, justifies you getting drawn and quartered (I am not sure about this one though, I'll have to check).
Seriously though (and I've been told this many times) - this is Capitalism, if you don't like it, go to Romania.
sic transit gloria mundi
...is that the same people who constantly bitch and moan over "American cultural imperialism" and how American media corporations pollute other cultures with their Hollywood produced "intellectual fast food" and yadda yadda, the same people get up in arms when the same American corporations just want to sell a product and NOT bundle American morals with it. Make up your minds already, people...
they can fight for it, just like the US did, after all, a people that gives up freedoms for security deserve neither. The Saudis have the power to change, *IF* they want to change, thats *their* option...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Which really is quite staggerringly hubristic, really. The Net delivers everybody freedom? Well yes, but only if that freedom is American-defined freedom.
And isn't corporatism the most basic American value of all? Who invented the large world-spanning corporation anyway?
However, the countries in question are NOT the same as the countries with such declared freedoms. They do not have a Bill of Rights or the freedoms many of us have been given. It is the declaration of the US Government that the people of the United States have these freedoms. If the governments of other nations choose not to give those freedoms, that is their concern. It isn't any more right or wrong, it is just their way of ruling. I agree it isn't always fair, but that is my US-centric view.
If this occurs in the US, it will be because the censorship will be of a popular morality. It doesn't matter who is 'correct' in these matters--the majority will rule. This very well might cause problems for those who want a more limitless freedom, especially in the wake of a post 9/11 hysteria over anonymity and freedoms.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
I was hoping after the last article, you'd be gone, I didn't expect it, since slashdot seems to have zero accountability.
Nope, but here you are again, presenting the exact opposite thesis. And almost as poorly.
In fact, the Saudi government is helping to pioneer something once thought impossible -- a sanitized Net for an entire nation and culture.
Not thought impossible by the Chinese or even the Australians (a western democracy even!). Did you just get a copy of Lawrence Lessing's new book or something? I mean, it's always possible to excerpt some measure of control over something, if the internet's structure 'routs around' censorship, then all you have to do is change the structure.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Before you tag this as flaimbait for the title, consider this. Without any blocking, there may be no access at all. With blocking, stuff will leak. To see what I mean, think MP3 file trading. No access at all will kill trading. (think computer with no modem or NIC) Blocked access is not 100%. Stuff will get in. (think cyber patrol) Don't expect the leaders to freely open the doors just because it is there. There is lots of stuff out there to be afraid of. Getting a foot in the door is a step in the right direction.
The truth shall set you free!
How about Phillip Morris: is it moral to sell something to people that will harm the for sure and shorten their life span almost surely?
:(
I sure hope to God you're not referring to Kraft's "Macaroni and Cheese", though I have my fears you are...
creation science book
"This is a radical assault on the spirit of the Net, of its open, point-to-point design, its great promise to democratize information."
I'll agree with some of what you write, but, I can't agree with all of it. We look at other governments and their policies through our own set of lenses, which paint things in terms of democracy, liberty, and all sorts of other American ideals. Now while I'm not saying the censorship certain nations apply should be aplogized for or encouraged, those nations have their own set of ideals and therefore, may not see things the way we do when it comes to certain civil rights. Take Saudi Arabia for example. You have a monarchy which has a strong fundamentalist religious belief system. So Saudi Arabia prevents its citizens from seeing porn and subversive material. We take offense. Did it occur to you that the majority of the Saudi Arabian citizenry may actually WANT those things blocked so their children or family cannot see the things which may offend them? Just as there are southern baptists who rant and rave over the local Rock and Roll concert and demand that it is banned, I suspect there are those in Saudi Arabia who do the same thing. The big difference is that for the most part, those rabid baptists get ignored. In Saudi Arabia, they are the majority and cannot be ignored. Certainly, there may be citizens in Saudi Arabia who don't like the censorship, but there is probably an equal or larger number who are glad that it is there. If the majority of the citizens don't want that information available, then they have the right to ask their government to block it.
Since different cultures have different belief systems, and put emphasis on different values, their version of the Net will be different than ours, and therefore, blocking certain information makes sense to them. So this isn't a radical assualt on the whole Net, just the American Centralized view of it. If the Internet is supposed to be the great democratizer, then no wonder it is viewed as a threat to a government or nation's culture. We already do a wonderful job destroying world cultures with our consumer-based culture, and now we have a method to send it out as fast as possible. Since a majority of the world's internet sites are US based, and designed by those with US values, the Net therefore looks like an American value-based highway of information. Perhaps the censorship, while not always good, may allow for the creation of local culture-based website, un-inspired (untainted perhaps?) by American-based web/net culture. Then they can send this information back out to the Net and we can learn about their unique point of view.
Let me say again that I don't support censorship, but I also don't agree that our value system should be shoved down other people's throats. For that matter, I don't think anyone's value system should be forced upon anyone else. Make the information available, but don't shove it. If they don't want to hear it, fine. Go pass it along to someone else then.
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
Terrorism is an alternative for of communication. People who feel they have no effective means of expressing their concerns about the government, etc, get frustrated and try to find a way to get their message out. When communications channels are closed down in a heavily censored state, it drives people to the only means they have available, getting guns and bombs (and germs?) and wreaking havoc.
One of the reasons this country has had a consitent government and relative stability despite the dramatic changes we've made over the last 200 years is the freedom of speech. We don't feel as compelled to resorting to violent revolution, etc, because for the most part we feel we have a voice for our grievances. It is only when people feel powerless that they start resorting to to terrorism.
So, interestingly by promoting existing powers in certain countries who are oppressive we are sowing the seeds for more future terrorism. Of course that terrorism won't stay within their borders because we are acting as backers and are thus guilty by association.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Would you be willing to filter out his articles so you don't have to read them? Or is it easier just to complain every time?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I both detest the Saudi govenment and would love all Saudi's to have unfiltered Internet access.
So, following JK's logic (well, there's none really. Notice no real suggestions, it's just a well-intentioned rant), "we" (the West) should maybe stop the sale of any filtering software to the Saudis. And what have we achieved then? We've ensured that Saudi's then get NO Internet, filtered or not.
Filtering is undesirable, but in practice is, in the best possible sense, the thin end of the wedge: i.e. give them some access and it will improve their society just a little. Then maybe the filtering will ease just a little. And so on... Iterate until sanity achieved.
Sure, it's not certain to work, but what else should we do?
Like it or lump it, the natural order of things:
1. Money
2. Power
3. Freedom
crazy dynamite monkey
of course, they can't block any content thats encrypted
.zip files or other binary data though.
Actualy the can quite easily. They just have to block all encrypted data. Might cause problems with
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
then why do Brits get to see tits on the telly & we don't?
The Net can, in fact, be used to make money and suppress freedom.
I'm not sure quite what Jon means here. Sure some companies make money by restricting information, but that's been true for a long time. Most school districts in the U.S. have some sort of filtering software in place and there are plenty of firewall companies out there, some are even Open Source.
But suppressing freedom? I think that even heavily filtered Internet access is better than nothing. How are Saudis less free by having 90% of the Internet available to them than by having no Internet?
Finally, if I'm reading it correctly, even the Open Source Definition wouldn't prevent companies from doing business with Saudi Arabia, so I'm not sure how critical we can be of companies doing business as usual.
Read the topic.
End of story.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
I've heard this argument quite a few times, which essentially boils down to "when a country censors the net, the citizens become less free, thus the emergence of the Net has reduced freedom, not encouraged it". But perhaps a little perspective? If Saudi Arabia restricts the right of its citizens to use the Net, how are they less free than if the Net never existed at all? This isn't a step backward for these people, it's at worst the status quo.
Plus, it's just a matter of time. Saudi Arabia's restricting of the Net certainly doesn't help the country; look at the US. Any country which does this kind of stuff will have to pay the piper down the road.
Come on, give it up, that's
Well, obviously there's a huge diffrence between controlling what a child sees at home, and controlling what an entire population sees in a nation. When the kid growes up, or the patron leaves the library, they can get the internet unfiltered.
And the fact that they our censoring out political speach is also a Bad Thing.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The US has been aiding the oppresive Saudi regime for years. Hell, the US went to war for the Kuwaiti regime - one of the most backwards and repressive in the already repressive Middle East.
You can bet that if the dollars dictate, the US will prop up China too. Look at how we have already backed down on Taiwan.
Look at Chile back during the cold war - the US wasn't beyond toppling an elected leader to put a US-friendly dictator in charge when it suited their purposes.
How naive are you Katz?
as far as he goes. Yes, corporate interests will sell out ideals for cash. Is this news?
/. is for tech issues, too. OK, Net access is blocked outside of Riyadh with US corporate help. The way I see it, that creates a market hungry for porn, South Park, Salman Rushdie novels, and Britney.
Yes, the Net is being throttled in some places. This is simply an instance of the far more pervasive and damaging censorship that has always gone on. (Compare newspaper-reader-years to net-surfer-years in China.)
But, to Katz' argument, are corporations under some obligation to export US rhetoric re: free speech? I don't think so. Do corporations do anything within reason to make a buck? Sure.
Let's look at how they will make a buck next. I like to see politics here, but
Here is the incentive for other companies to throw up another satellite and bypass the chokepoints. I understand that two-way (no phone line req'd satellite-based net service is just over the horizon.)Illicit sat dishes have been a feature of Iran rooftops for years.
That is just the first idea off the top of my head. The point is that companies are motivated by cash. Governments are motivated by a whole lot of things, including paranoia. One corp will sell blocking software, another will sell tools to get around it somehow. Sell to both sides.
Does this solve the problems with governments everywhere poking around where they don't belong? No, but it is a start. Remember the power of technology to subvert governments has a long track record.
On a final note, more insidious is the bastardization and dumbing down of culture. Katz mentioned Harry Potter. What the hell is a Sorceror's Stone? Last time I checked it was a Philosopher's Stone. Why must the US public continue to put up with corporations blocking access to the real goods to line their pockets...?
Sig?
Sigue Sigue Sputnik!!!
Maybe you'd even go as far as change your settings to check Exclude Stories from the Homepage:JonKatz rather than post adolescent rants...
This is a significant blow to the notion that technology will forge a more open world.
I have to ask, but since when is technology developed to promote freedom(directly). In our history, most technological advances have been developed to control, in fact, the military and their wars have been the biggest influence in technology developement.
Take, for example, the internet. Sure, now we regard it as one of the biggest freedoms in the world, the freedom of speech in one of its purest forms. I don't see why the military would have helped develop it for that purpose!
Really, if you look at current projects, you'll see more control-centered than freedom-centered development, with the possible exception of the OpenSource Movement. Encryption, Remote Administration, Standard OSes, Backdoors, Firewalling, Blocking, National ID, X-ray machines at every door, network monitoring....
These are technologies ment to control elements of society, not promote freedom. However, some may make freedom easier in time.
Take, for example, the corporatist American and European companies happily selling blocking software
That's called capitalism... our 'free' enterprise. Sell what can be sold were it can be sold. Otherwise to prevent companies from selling blocking sofware to companies, you'd hafta have a government that controls the enterpise. Sounds suspiciously like communism.
Don't bitch about something unless you consider it's alternative!!!
Under capitalism, we are controlled buy the currency and consumers, under communism, we are controlled by the government and the whims of its leaders. There is no true freedom in economics, if there were, we would have no need for economics.
I am really starting to get utterly sick of Jon Katz's evangelism masquerading as news. I'm tired of being told what I should think about globalism, corporatism, and technology's impact on the world. Katz spews his rhetoric with no balancing viewpoint (with the exception of some replies that do not carry the same legitimacy or weight as a slashdot article).
Yes Katz, tell me how evil America is and why anything but unbridled selfish freedom unbalanced against the common good is the ultimate goal of society and why I'm some mindless glutonous drone in this capitalist evil that is the US. Tell me again how spoiled and rotten I am. Tell me all about the "wholesome" nations of the earth who lived in undeveloped, backwards, and repressive regimes when in America I am some evil person for living here and having a dollar in my pocket.
Could you please shut the hell up Katz? You're hardly representative of the views on slashdot and you paint us all as zealots.
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
What we need to do in response to this is to keep pointing out publically that this type of behavior is morally repugnant. When it gets bad enough that reporters start stalking the CEO's of these companies (and any domestic governmental officials supporting the sales, as they often do) THEN we will see a change.
Though lesser in magnitude, it is the same negative sign on the morality scale as selling extermination chambers and torchure implementations.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Just go to your user prefrences/homepage/exclude stories from homepage/ and check the box next to Jon Katz. On the one hand, that means you can't flame him any more, but on the other you can at least pretend he got fired like he should have.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Yes, it's good that people have their beliefs. But I wish people would realize that not everyone shares in them. I also wish for a Beatles reunion tour, but that's not likely either.
If there's something that offends you terribly, don't look at it. It's as simple as that... I mean, there's no reason for the Harry Potter books to be banned in libraries. If people see the series as being evil because it promotes witchcraft, ignore it. Don't force your beliefs upon others through actions like banning books and deprive the people who have different beliefs than you of something they may like.
Unfortunately I don't think many people share this view. History's rife with force-fed beliefs and morals (read: Taliban - and that's the last I'll mention them). I disagree that it would be a (Insert-deity-name-here)-given right.
Governments also don't seem to share this view.
My comments here may seem a little pointless since things are unlikely to change overall, but it is an open net and hopefully opinions and thoughts of all kind are still welcome.
There is no escape from The Muffin.
I think you're missing the point. The major factor in advancing democracy throughout the world is the same thing that you are so harshly criticizing. Our capitalistic ideals are what caused the fall of the Soviet Union and others and continue to plague oppressors world-wide. Free enterprise begets democracy because one cannot exist without the other. If we compromise the principles of our own profit driven economy by chastising corporations that would profit for providing a service or solution that is useful to others - whatever their intentions - would be detrimental to the spread of democracy throughout the world. Look at China - they know they are playing with fire as they become more capitalistic and try to participate in world trade on a free enterprise system, but they can't resist! The government's interest in the financial growth of their country is the only reason the internet is in China today and the only reason that Chinese citizens have a connection to the outside world. Remember, that is the only reason the internet is in Saudi Arabia. Do you think internet use would be allowed at all if the government was not provided with a means of filtering it by companies with the resources to create these solutions? And the little view of the rest of the world these people DO have would be closed up because of how awful it is to profit from giving a government software that they can use. What we need here is for American individuals and companies alike to stand up and support an example of Free Enterprise to the world. Its the only example they have. Don't be fooled by the socialistic views that dominate the globe today. Americans are different. That's why we're better. And yes, by the way, we are BETTER or everybody else wouldn't be trying to BE like us. I think by compromising these values and disallowing American corporations to participate in worldwide trade with international governments would be more harmful in the long run and a bad example for the world.
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
Possibly even more repressive than the Saudis are the Kuwaitis, which of course enjoy our full and total support.
Would it be better for subjects of dictatorial goverments to have no access to the internet at all, rather than having a somewhat constrained window to the global community?
Is'nt freedom an organic idea which grow from having a small foothold in any form of free communication (e.g. the church in the DDR). Eventually it later blooms in a fullblown Democracy, but first when the society has matured to a level where the powers that be won't abuse the freedom given to the people (e.g. Russia and also the USA where Corporations have been given the rights of human beings, but not the duties that follow).
You are of course, quite right to raise the question of free speech in countries where it ought to be taken for granted, such as the US and UK.
Freedom of speech has long been under attack from all directions, from copyright law to national security, trade secrets, libel law, and even the new "intent to incite racial hatred" laws.
As most slashdotters know, one of the worst offenders has been the american DMCA act, which effectively outlaws encryption research, and even the mentioning of safety/security flaws.
Ed Foster wrote an excellent article on this at which I suggest is readable enough to use as an introduction to the subject for outsiders.
And if international summits have their way, each country's law will be enforceable in any other. Never mind the arrest of Russian Skylarov, or of the Norweigan kid for breaking US law in their respective home countries, we shall soon be officially subjet to Chinese, US, French, German, and Arabic copyright laws in our own countries. (Read about it here)
We in the G8 take so much pride in our countries' laws, that we are such knights in shining armour that we can legitimitely tell other countries what is right and what is wrong, that we often lose sight of how far our countries have strayed from the ideals we expect from them.
How long until someone can be arrested at Speakers' Corner, for talking about encryption research?
When it comes to the DMCA, Katz correctly argues that a tool must be separated from its use when it comes to the law. The fact that some people use the tool Sklyarov's company wrote to infringe copyrights should not mean that the tool should be outlawed and its authors jailed.
Why, then, is it different now? A company writes software that can be used either for "good" or "bad" purposes, and all of a sudden it's wrong? What is Katz trying to say?
In my opinion, it's clear that Katz does not really believe the tool/use argument, it's just rhetoric. He believes that information should be free, and takes the appropriate position at opposite sides of the "can a tool be intrinsically bad?" argument in order to further his views. There's nothing wrong with thinking that, but he is being dishonest by arguing both sides on the same question depending on who the protagonists are.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Does anyone out there actually belive that the US takes it's stance towards other nations because of the pride in their laws and not because of economic power? Sriously.
sic transit gloria mundi
...has any clue of how the world works.
I mean, a company's goal in life is not preserving freedom and liberty, it's making money.
He really, really tried to make a good argument, but that is useless when your basic premise is stupid. Hopefully Jon's next essay will be on eating mud; that's something I can get behind.
Go ahead, call me a troll. It's still a dumb essay.
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
I'm just wondering how this qualifies as "asinine, faux-intellectual adolescent bullshit".
The points he makes are interesting (in this article anyway) and true. Yes, other countries do infact use software and control centers to deny their peopel freedom ot access information that the govenrments themselves find distasteful. Yes, there are american software companies that wirte teh software that makes this possible. Yes, the notion of censorware is fundamentally at odds with the our notion of freedom to access (almost) any information we feel we should have access to.
Just because you may disagree with previous articles, or the opinoins (or facts) presented therein, that doenst make the points made any less valid or truthful.
----
One of us needs to stick ones' head in a bucket of ice water.
- Hobbes
This highlights the menacing way corporatism exploits technology, undermining the most basic American values.
I thought that one of the most basic American values was Free Enterprise.
Give me a break. Attack the policy of the restrictive nations; don't attack the software makers.
Notice how most business and Windows software boxes say "Not for Export". Microsoft sells special localized software to regions such as the Middle East. And guess what, it's more expensive. Big surprise there. And because of this, piracy is a really big problem. Nobody (except the rich princes) is going to spend almost twice as much on their operating system. This is unfair, really. It's the same sort of control that the MPAA has over movies distributed internationally, with price-fixing and such.
If anything, this should end up promoting open source to these parts of the world. I'm sure there are plenty people who said: "Screw paying Windows, I'm installing Linux." We already have this widespread sentiment in the U.S., where Windows is cheapest. This sentiment is probably amplified elsewhere.
There are some real serious underlying issues not mentioned. Basically, is the value of culture relative, or is there some absolute standard? The Saudi people (as mentioned by some other posters) are currently accepting the restrictions placed on them by their government. Theoretically, they could revolt over this issue or any of a number of others, and replace the government with one more appropriate to their desires. In practice this takes a long, long time. Globalization/Globalism (not the same things), may eventually be a force which "helps" this process of building a revolution. It is kinda like potential differences in electrical charge: if the potential gets large enough it breaks through the dialectric and zap - sparks fly! Anyway, in the West, we put a very high value on freedoms. The fact is that I don't feel there is any conclusive evidence that these extreme freedoms are much different philosophically from extreme restrictions: both have some pretty harmful effects and both seem to be okay for the majority of people (note: by extreme restrictions I don't necessarily mean violent oppression). As for the companies selling to the Saudis, if you really don't like it, start a revolution: that's exactly the sort of attitude we often have towards those who are somewhat restricted. Don't forget: you can't have it both ways. Either you have extensive freedom which means that people can support "immoral" goals, or you have restrictions which are going to bug some people.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
I lived in Saudi Arabia from the age of 9 until I was 20 years old. My father lived there for an additional 7 years. That is from 1977 to 1997. We know Arabs and they are some of the most loving, gracious, and hospitable people in the world. As long as you don't try to change their culture. They are happy to do business with outsiders but the will not allow them to attempt to change their society. You and I agree, freedom is the natural state of humans. Oppression is not moral. However, if you demand that these people to change overnight then they will react violently. The internet would not even be in Saudi Arabia today if it were not for this filtering technology. And keep in mind, it is just technology, the determined mind can find a way around it.
Corporations exist solely for the production of profit for their shareholders. There is no other reason for their existence. A corporation is like a farm that is owned by several people, they will not continue to operate the farm if it does not produce crops. Likewise corporations. The very fact that a corporation has chosen the internet filtering sector as its market means that the people investing in the corporation and the employees working for it have no compunction against this technology and railing against their attempts to perpetrate that business is useless.
The NET in it's current form would not exist if it were not for "corporatism". I was on the internet in 1993. I had a shell account, no fancy PPP or SLIP connection, and got my first taste of the Internet's power. But the internet didn't really turn into what it is today until corporations decided it would be a good way to make money by providing internet access to "the masses" and then selling on the internet. Most of the internet users out there got access so that they could access information, mostly provided for profit, that they wanted.
Idealism is a nice thing as long as it stays out of the real world. As soon as you attempt to apply your idealistic ideas to the real world they break down. No, your morals are not necessarily right for everyone and No, corporations have no other obligation than to make money, and No the internet has not defined purpose, only the purposes we use it for. It is a tool and not an end.
Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality.
Why even state this? There is no global plan for a world economy. No government has even bothered to write anything resembleing a human rights law with regards to so called Global Trade. In fact, in Quebec earlier this year, between beating, gassing, and shooting students from across the U.S.A. and Canada - the G7 liars club rejected a human rights clause they originally put in to silence the protests from outside. Behind the fences, the dogs, the guns, the gas launchers. Talk about two faced.
Remember, this was before 9.11.
For Katz to begin his article with the implication that there is anything but a policy against human rights within the rich halls of international trade, shows an ignorance of the facts.
This is the second time I've called Katz on facts. I'm getting annoyed. Stop writing about things you don't understand Katz.
At first I thought the word 'corporatist', a label that Jon Katz liberally peppers his articles with, was just a way to add glitz to his editorializing. However, the more I think about it, the more fitting and usefull an adjective I find it to be. Take the root word, corporate, and then ad the 'ist suffix to it and voila!, you've got a handy word that pigeonholes a certain group of people. Individual people I might add, and that's an important distinction because corporations are really just fictional creations used to describe the relationship of certain groups of people to each other and the rest of society. A comparison between corporations and countries would yield the surprising results that many corporations are by far the wealthier and influential of the two in some cases. The more I think of countries and corporations as fictional entities set up to secure the interests of groups of individual people; the more I realize that corporations by design will attempt to make an end run around the democratic principals of nation states.
Seconded. Where's the mail Jon?
Oh, you made it up? Why are you crying? Oh, you wanted people to be impressed so they'd stop posting the petition to have you fired?
Somebody please supply petition link
Oh, and can I just say how brave it is for Jon Katz to write an article on Troll Tuesday.
I'm off to rip a dvd to divx using the C64 I dug up from where I stashed it when the Taliban took control. Honestly - I never joined in the Katz bashing until that story. Sheesh.
Seriously though, instead of looking at things from the "Information wants to be free ... or else." perspective, let's start with no access as the reference point. Ok, so these governments are so insecure that they don't trust their people with information about bombs or the water supply or... Oh, sorry, wrong country. Where were we? Right, Saudi Arabia and that bunch. So these governments don't like new ideas. Like it or not, these are independent entities outside the US (or whatever country you are associated with). We can't just go around trying to enforce our laws inside their borders. Wait, sorry about that, apparently we can... Ok, this is getting confusing. The point here is that if a government wants to block information from its people, that's an internal matter for that particular country. We can't force every country to allow access to all information any more than you can demand that your neighbors teach their children all about homosexuality, witchcraft, or Linux. As for American countries selling the tools to block information, they sell the tools that allow your neighbors to block similar information from their children. In both cases, these are areas outside your control, regardless of your opinion on the matter. If your hypothetical neighbors (different ones this time) were forcing their children to participate in the creation of child pornography, you can't just go over there and start beating them up - only the proper authorities can intervene. You can forbid your children from visiting them, you can stop inviting them to your backyard barbecues, and you can refuse to buy those overpriced candy bars that their kids keep selling, but that's about all you can do directly, just like the US isn't in a position to force other governments to treat their people fairly (not that this has ever stopped the US government, but in theory...) - that's a job for a global governmental body.
On the bright side, at least the people in these countries have some access to the internet. Without these "filtering" systems, there might just be a Taliban-style ban (of course, that could be on the way, but taking things away tends to upset people more than not giving them something they never had in the first place). Whether or not that is acceptable is up to the people in those countries, not us. We can't just force our way over there and impose our values on them (well, we could, but that sort of thing doesn't usually go over too well), and we can't ban companies from helping other countries do something we allow our citizens to do to people under their control (again, we could, but that wouldn't make much sense, not that export controls have to make sense). What was the question again? Was there even a point in the first place other than the whole misguided "information wants to be free" type of complaining about limiting access to information?
The only really effective way to handle all of this is to get through to people on a one by one basis. This makes it difficult as the task is enormous.
There are also the subtle points made in this article I cames across on Jefferson and his slaves
Jefferson, looking at the history of Revolutions and the later confirming experiences of the French revolutionary disaster, understood well with his contemporaries the subtle danger. A serf's idea of freedom is not to sit at his homestead, polishing his gun, saving his wealth while his son read Milton. His idea of freedom was to enslave someone else. His idea of democracy was the government as feudal lord, providing all needs, just nicer and with an occasional say.
the article is providing me much food for thought on many levels.
Because this precise issue is what we are encountering in the internet around the world, where some people's idea of freedom = they can be the dictator.
Because they have never figured out what it is to be a truly free person. They do not know what a true culture of freedom is.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The reason corporations aren't suffering from people voting with their wallets is so simple you can say it in one word: apathy. Most people don't care enough to stand up for themselves. Those who do are a vocal minority, and I am proud to be one of them.
I agree. Now as far as the "filter katz posts", well, lemmie just point to an AC comment that hits the nail on the head when it comes to Jon Katz and his articles.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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
Hate to say it, Jon, but technology is value-neutral. It has no master plan. It has no ideology. It is created, used, adapted, modified, deified, and villified by humans.
Perhaps some of those humans place too little credence in the democratizing powers of technology, perhaps some place too much ;-).
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
One could make a quite convincing argument that, were it not for companies selling censorship software, governments like those of PR China and Saudi Arabia would not permit internet access at all. Indeed, I find that an argument along these lines can be made just as convincing as Katz's take on this.
This failure to discuss more than one side of an issue is not uncommon in Katz's postings. Perhaps this why many consider him to be more of a muck-raker than a respectable journalist.
Opinions are not Informative, though they may be Insightful or Interesting.
Here is a pretty good discussion of why this claim is false. Read it and gain ammunition to use next time you hear this garbage.
On a personal note, it amazes me that anyone who has simply read the Constitution could come to a conclusion like this. I can only assume that it's something like an urban legend...
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
The poor poor "globalism" horse. Its been beaten, shaven, racked, hung, torchered, beheaded, quartered, and the various body parts buried in unmarked gravies in various countries around the globe (no pun intended).
Now the important question. Since when is globalism (and most of politics, for that matter) news for nerds? Seriously, this isn't your average slashbot katz bitch. Can we switch to something more technical? Between globalism and the infamous "email from kabul" (that Katz STILL hasn't proven is real), there isn't much. I'd like to hear something along the lines of the From the Hellmouth series, but, Jon, you're starting to venture off into the non-nerd areas.
That's not what we want here. You aren't getting many pro-active posts like you usually do, which should prove that you are venturing into the danger zone of journalism.
Lets talk about something technical next time(with links, so we can see your background and were the info and facts are coming from).
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
To see a more thorough argument read some of Samuel P Huntington's work
managers...why god invented purgatory
But anyway, the company behind this is Nixu OY. Feel free to /. their servers to oblivion!
yush
Although it may seem counter-intuitive and it certainly offends the sensibilities of social libertarians, filtering software actually encourages the use of the net.
Without filtering technology to make the internet a little more palatable, many countries might be tempted to ban it altogether.
I'm curious to know what values AREN'T subverted by corporate greed?
I certainly can't think of one.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
I never have mod points when I need them.
Best Slashdot Co
- secret military tribunals for civilians;
- arbitrary search and seizure in utter disregard of the Fourth Amendment, without notification, warrant, or probable cause;
- over 1000 people being arrested and held incommunicado without benefit of counsel or even being charged of any crime;
- all businesses now drafted as spies for the Feds; and
- torture being seriously considered as an acceptable means of extracting information from detainees.
So what is Katz worried about? U.S. businesses selling filtering software! It seems that Katz is only capable of seeing evil committed by corporations, and utterly incapable of seeing the far greater evils committed by the good ol' U.S. government....until he comes clean on the fraud he perpetrated in his last missive.
Fried ice cream is a reality. - George Clinton
Paraphrased: "I don't believe people should enjoy the rights I enjoy unless they risk their lives for them-- in a way we'll never have to, of course. Bye now, I'm off to the mall."
Ignoring the silliness of the comment, do you really want to encourage a rebellion in Saudi Arabia? Does it make sense for us to say to them "hey guys, the only way out of this is to start a civil war" when that outcome is very much against our own interests?
I'm curious, though. What would the US's role in a Saudi insurrection be, exactly? SA is an ally, we have troops there, and the people rebelling might not exactly share our view of the world. Would the US stay out of such a situation, or would we feel compelled to intercede on behalf of the monarchy? Even if such a situation doesn't come to pass, one might argue that just by being there, and supporting the Kingdom politically and militarily, we're significantly reducing the Saudi people's ability to rebel and create a free government (I mean, really... don't you think the fathers of the American revolution might have thought twice had they been facing the threat of massive air strikes from an international coalition?)
Anyway, it's amusing at best to hear somebody casually recommending that unarmed, or lightly armed civilians throw themselves in front of a well armed military force, when people in this country can barely be troubled to go to the voting booth.
..forcing American values on other countries, and looking at other countries with American eyes without disclaiming oneself appropriately. (Are you a Muslim living in Saudi Arabia? Did you put any effort in to researching the Saudi opinion?)
..assuming that the Internet is some sort of automatic purveyor of your personalized notion of freedom. (It isn't, in fact it can be quite repressive - heck, you don't even have to look much further than this site, what with all the people right here who are far more qualified to have their opinions posted on the front page but are continually ignored in favour of this kind of rubbish)
..calling any perceived 'misuse' of the Internet a 'perversion'. (Is there some kind of manual on the proper use of the Internet? You know, the American and Saudi definitions of 'perversion' might also vary. Who are you to dictate how people are to use the Internet? By doing so, aren't you guilty of contradicting yourself when crying out for a 'free' Internet?)
..demonstrating complete and total lack of cultural sensitivity and/or awareness. (Not everyone wants to have access to porn or American propaganda. Some cultures want to shield themselves from certain elements, who are you to dictate how said culture should operate?!)
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.
How much $$ is enough?
First, our society is much more capitalist than democratic, but it is still the best system out there.
Second, while we are built on the idea that anyone can succeed, no class limitations, success = money, etc., how much is enough? At what point should ethics or other considerations weigh upon a decision to do business? I would argue much sooner than they do now, but that is the price of freedom in the US. We allow the KKK, etc. to exist and print their nonsense in the name of freedom. Same for the companies. While I don't like it, it's their right in the US. If our companies don't sell the software, someone will.
Now is this against the NET? The NET is about freedom and an exchange of information, IMHO. However, there are things that we all would like censored. I don't want my kids seeing pornography, drug promotions, or even items that promote violence. I (government) am choosing to censor the rights of my kids (citizens) in my house (country). I have that right and so does the government of other countries. You can protest and urge those citizens to change their government, but it IS UP TO THEM, not you.
The US has a rich, well documented, and well known history of fu******-up other countries by interfering in their affairs. Remember the contras in Latin America? Iran? Iraq? Vietnam? The list can grow longer and longer. We can seek to influence others, but we should not directly assist them. I think we are making a mistake in Afghanistan that will come back to haunt us. Let that country deal with itself. We should not be playing God.
Am I torn here? Yes. On one hand our capitalist society dictates that we should allow companies to make their own decisions. On the other hand, should they support an oppresive regiem? Don't know. I don't like it, but if we do not then someone else will. I think it's a lost cause either way.
ha ha ha... corporatism is the most basic American value.
sigs are for suckers
Thoughts On Winning An EFF Pioneer Award
I discuss a similar theme, but from the perspective of having been on the Internet for since the early 1980's (that's 1980's), and having done quite a bit against censorware.
There's an interesting contrast from my programmer/activist writing, and Katz's journalistic style.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Countries like China and Saudia Arabia are going to filter internet content whether we in the USA like it or not. If American companies can make money off that, that's more money coming into the USA, and I'm all for that.
I remember the days of the Tienenman Square massacre. I worked in an international scientific research institute at the time. Some of the people who worked with me were Chinese and spent a lot of time FAXing pictures of the massacre to their friends in China. People in China, of course, couldn't get press.
I've been hearing a lot of pretty outraged people griping about us western imperialist pigs and how we want to force things like democracy down other countries' throats. It's bothered me for a long time. However, I've heard so much of it that I no longer care.
You think other countries have the right to live in the Middle Ages? Fine. But independence means accountability. I don't want to hear a bunch of boo-hoo-hooing the next time a bunch of them kill each other or die of famine.
Yeah, "democracy" is pretty buzzy, but in the UN context, it has a pretty clear definition. After WWII, professor Arne Næss, whom I've met several times, lead a committee appointed by the UN to define exactly what was meant by democracy. They presented a huge report, but the definition hasn't stuck, because none of the superpowers liked it a lot....
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I wouldn't have a moral issue if I was offered a job make a program that blocks users from acessing information on the internet. Although I beleave that people have the right to read the information. But it is not nessarary good for every country. The First Admenment only aplies to the laws of the United States not for other countries. Other may choose free speach and others may not. And their are logical political desisions for choosing one or the other. Free Speach has its benifits and the concequences. Other countries have goverment with more restriced free speach that allowed for a different set of Beneifits and Concequences. The most basic function of a government is to protect its citizans. And full access to the Internet gives people information that is or could become harmful in their own opionion. So they choose to block the information in an attempt to keep the population safe and the government stable. Free Speach worked great in America but giving it to cultures that is not use to all the information could be harmful. To put it in more geeky terms it is like the decisions you make when setting up a network. for a school enviroment. Do you want the network to have tight security and only allow the students to do what they are expeced to do on the network thus reducing the chances apps being broken and easier long term administration so the computers are available to more people because of less downtime for resintalling the system. Or have the systems in a more open type where the students are allowed to explore and learn past what is expected of them although it risks higher chance of your network being hacked or programs breaking on you and a bunch of silly apps installed on the system filling up space. It is all about choosing the benifits over the conquences.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why, then, is it different now? A company writes software that can be used either for "good" or "bad" purposes, and all of a sudden it's wrong? What is Katz trying to say?
In this case, the companies writing the tools are actively trying to get their tools used for this purpose. They're seeking contracts with the Saudi government to support or even operate a system that has mass-censorship as its purpose, and they know it.
So the solution to your dilemma is: a company shouldn't be blamed if people use their net-censoring software to do "bad things"-- and certainly, the software should not be outlawed. On the other hand, if a company is actively supporting an particular immoral use of their tool they should be credited with at least some complicity in that particular incidence of wrongdoing.
Now, this sort of behavior isn't against the law. For better or for worse, the corporations are legitimately doing what corporations do-- trying to improve their balance sheets-- and the Saudi government is just doing what oppressive governments do.
Now all that said, even if it were possible to prosecute the American companies involved, I still don't think that would be a proper reaction to the situation. And I really don't think that would be a good enough excuse for the government to ban distribution of the tool, and ride roughshod over anybody's First Amendment rights.
Why not make up a new award and give it to companies , individuals and politicians? This new award would be a reward those Americans who have done the most to prevent basic human rights and freedoms abroad.
In this case, if an American company gets the contract they would get the business category award. We could call it the "Americans Helping Others to Step on Their Citizens." I'm sure that there's someone out there though that could think up a better name.
James
Money is just a convenient unit of measure for power.
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
I think USA should not try to force every country to be like US. You see, Thats why people like bin laden hate us, not because we are free, but because we try to force other countries to be like us.
I say let China be China, eventually they'll find an identity, and become a more free nation, yet presure their culture.
You see, China thinks Culture is more valueable than freedom. Sometimes the cost of freedom, is the destruction of culture.
Chinas Culture according to older Chinese government people, is becoming too American. They dont want China to become like America, They want China to be China. I respect them for that, If they want to censor the internet, and seperate the internet so they have their own Chinese internet, They have a right to do this, This is the kinda freedom that they want. They want to be independent, not depend on the USA for ANYTHING.
When you understand this, You'll have respect for China even if you may not want to live in their country, you can look at China and see the culture wasnt completely ruined by American Capitalism like some other countries we can take a look at.
Such as Africa, Japan, a few places in the middle east, If you look at these countries, they are slowly morphing into a smaller version of America.
Perhaps some country dont WANT this?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I agree with most points (up to a point :-), but I have some small caveats.
... employees working for it have no compunction against this technology ..." Friendly bulletin - some of us accept employment at corporations whose policy we do not entirely agree with. Family obligations come first, and we can't all write our own ticket. So yes, to an extent, most of us do compromise some principles.
...". On the contrary, they have an obligation to abide by laws promulgated by the government for the common good. Should they renege on this latter obligation, they are in a HEAP of trouble.
1) You say "... freedom is the natural state of humans". Well. In a sense, it is quite to the contrary. Liberty requires careful culturing, a never-ending vigilance, and an occasional nourishing with the blood of heroes. The entropic state is for a society to lapse into despotism.
2) You say "The very fact that a corporation has chosen the internet filtering sector as its market means that the
3) You say "... corporations have no other obligation than to make money
BZZZT! Please visit your local library.
The US bankrolled Saddam Hussein. He wouldn't be in power if it wasn't for the US backing him during the Iran/Iraq war.
No, there has been plenty of "overnight change" in the Middle East, most of it for the worse. If you lived there then surely you have read of the region's rich history, when once it was seen as the light of the civilized world. The Middle East has only recently (in thast 100 years or so) turned into such a hotbed of opression, and it all has to do with oil and foreign involvement.
Idealism is a nice thing as long as it stays out of the real world.
Where but if not for the real world???
This is another classic feint of totalitarian regimes - the notion that basic freedoms aren't pragmatic
Saudi Arabia is going to censure their citizens whether we help them or not. US companies are just being Johnny-on-the-spot by supplying a demand. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no hidden conspiracy here.
Maybe there is not a call for us to impose our standards, culture, and languages upon them. It is even possible that we are not right.
-michael
Or did you just not read my post? I'm really not sure...
Do you suggest that if all americans drove econoboxes it would change anything?
Hmm, let's see. Being less reliant on foreign oil would mean less impetus for meddling in the affairs of oil-producing countries and propping up dictatorships. And history has shown that before US interventions much of the Middle East was heading towards greater democracy. Without US-planned and funded overthrows of elected governments, the region would undoubtedly be much more stable.
What's the most democratic country in the region? Iran. Sure they have their problems with the Ayatollahs, but being free from US meddling has let them re-establish democracy. Their government has a greater percentage of women in it than the US does you know.
Think of it this way, if not for their oil, Saudi Arabia could support (as in FEED!) only part of their population. Aside from a destination for pilgrimage to all Muslims they would be NOTHING.
Did I say stop Saudi Arabia selling oil? Oh no, that's right, I didn't. Idiot.
BS!!! STFU!! Go to europe and live there for few years. Europeans are just as money motivated, corrupt and dependant on the technologies, oil and other "goods" of globalization as is US of A.
*yawn* Yes, I know Europe is as advanced as America. But if you look at the history of the region for the last fifty years, it's not Europe that has been constantly meddling is it? They were too busy rebuilding after WWII (and being gouged by US companies) to be stomping on countries across the globe.
What do you suggest? embargos? Nothing that America will or will NOT do, can help average Saudi.
Stop propping up the corrupt and hated regime in charge, and change will come naturally. I don't expect the US to do anything else. The problem is not that the US doesn't meddle, it's that it does! Without such outside influence the people will determine their own path.
BTW it was american companies "helping" restrict flow of information and not _evil_ american government! Grow up, get involved, don't invest in companies that YOU find morally questionable.
Wow! Really! Thanks! I know that, read my fucking post you moron. Until you start learning basic reading comprehension, why should I listen to a word you say?
Don't get off blaming the US for Saudi Arabia's treatment of its people.
I'm not saying that the US is directly responsible for the treatment of Saudi Arabia's people, but I am saying that the US ensures that the status quo is maintained without being concerned about what this entails. Morality just doesn't come into it at all, it's all strictly business.
We don't prop up Syria or Iraq yet they do the same as Saudi Arabia...
LOL! The US supported Saddam Hussein for years and funded his regime when it was convenient for the US to have someone to fight Iran. Up until he invaded Kuwait he had our full support in whatever he did, and indeed he thought we would support him invading Kuwait!
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.
No, I'm blaming the US for adding to these countries woes. Although in many other cases they are directly responsible - helping to overthrow a democratically elected government in Chile and installing a dictatorship that murdered thousands for instance. For the US, this is pretty tame.
Also your argumentation really hides behind ideallistic rhetoric without even seriously considering practical consequences: Saudi Arabia has been a truly Islamic monarchy for centuries, with their system of beliefs based on a very austere way of life, and very conservative values. This is not wrong or right. It's just the way THEIR society is structured. Are their people happy? Hard to tell. Probably not. Then again, define happiness? I won't go there. But what do you think would happen if you were to open the flood gates and, overnight, grant all citizens of Saudi Arabia full unrestricted access to the Internet??? Are you out of your f*cking mind? "Click here for HOT XXX TEENS!!!" "Wet and Horny". "YOU HAVE A MESSAGE WAITING, CLICK HERE " . To a Muslim who's only supposed to look at his Wife? Who are YOU, who are WE to cause such a revolution overnight?
The Internet was built and developed by FREE countries. The material that lives on the Internet is simply an extension of our system of beliefs.
We, as a people, are trained, to not look at inappropriate material, we *know* to not let our kids watch HBO late at nite, we *know* we must establish a dialog and a relationship of trust with our kids, so they'll listen to us when we tell'em to not go surf for porn instead of doing home-work. We have a legal system in place that allows us to sue companies putting inappropriate content on-line without prior "over 18" warning. Because all of our countries in the free world have pretty-much agreed that you gotta be 18 or older to look at smut and have wild steamy sex with whomever you want.
Saudi Arabia could not be any more radically different from our "free societies". Their religion happens to be the Religion of Islam. The people of Saudi Arabia happen to have been raised in a society where just about everyone is a devout Muslim. It is their way of life. Unlike Muslims who live in the United States and other democratic countries, they are not yet part of a society where information flows freely, yet allows you to remain faithful to your Religion. Hence the inherent compatibility with unrestricted access to the Internet.
If a revolution must happen, it shouldn't happen by opening the flood-gates of the Internet onto their society. It should happen by reforming their entire socio-political structure FIRST. They, as A People, should clearly define the democratization path of their society.
And that may mean overthrowing their government. But this is where it's got to start. This is where fingers should point. THAT, is the root of the problem, and the only solution to the problem. Those American Corporations you are blaming are merely helping enforce a current system of beliefs while offfering a far softer and more promising alternative to more totalitarian measures Saudi Arabia leaders would otherwise resort to.
Jon, by saying, "let's completely open the Internet to the people of Saudi Arabia", you're basically saying "Let's impose our system of beliefs onto them and cause chaos in a society that is not YET prepared for it".
And your repetitive and very poorly argumentated snides at American Corporations merely point out the fact that they are indeed making money off of the whole situation, thereby implying that making money off of the leaders of a non-democratic country is wrong, because this makes those American Corporations "part-of-the-problem-by-association":
- Saudia Arabian Leaders are the root of the problem.
- We make business deals with them.
- ==> We're part of the problem too!, Hence we make things much worse.
This, in a nutshell, seems to be your rhetoric. You are pointing out problems and not offering any decent, more researched alternative, while not acknowledging the depth of the problem and considering potential roots of the problem.I'm simply a geek, and frankly, writing is so far from being part of my job description, it's not even funny, it's not even a hobby, heck I hate reading or writing. Yet, I stil believe your rant sucks more than mine.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Oh sure, their behavior is not a result of our policies, but our policies (governmental and corporate) do enable their behavior. Doing business with Saudi Arabia is like doing business with apartheid-era South Africa. Sure, maybe we're not responsible for their system, but it takes a pretty morally bankrupt person (or nation) to reward them for it.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
I don't see what the afghan people have got to do with it. The northern alliance got air support, weapons and intelligence to conquer the taliban. To civilians the taliban are bad, but still better than a lot of the northern alliance. Now that the warlords are in control of the cities , It is going to take a lot of power to keep(start) them behaving decent on their own territory. More than a conference or a resolution.
Since when is Internet access is a "basic freedom"? By your reasoning, would cell phones would also be a basic freedom? No! The concept of the ability to freely communicate doesn't lie in technology, it lies in people.
Technology is not necessarily a means to your open utopia. Like any other object, it brings with it its own problems and burdens. The world is not governed by technology, it is governed by humans, who in turn are governed by greed, fear, and the emotions that have governed them for thousands of years. Do not think that the existance of some gadgets will bring about your open world. If it does happen, it will be brought about by people.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
While I would personally agree that this is 'wrong' (as arbitrary a word as that is), just who do you think you are to think that your view is any more right than these governments'? By your own words above, you're now just as guilty of "perverting the Net" to your own views.
- Z
There's a fine line between genius and stupidity. Genius has limits.
Please tell me how you know so much about China? From American TV? YOU know as much about China as Bin Ladens Followers Know about America.
Some people PREFER communism. Sure a few million Oppose, but Billions in China prefer it. The older population in China, the population which controls China Prefers Communism.
Just like the older white male population who controls the USA, Prefers this style of government.
Theres flaws in this style and flaws in Chinas style.
Capitalism exsisted before the USA, but the USA is built on capitalism, Capitalism is the center of society in the USA. Capitalism and the Economy.
Communism works too, give China some time.
Before you talk about how bad Communist countries treat their people, Look back at how Capitalist America treated people for the first few hundred years, Slavery, Forcing Natives to build railroads, etc etc, The USA was built on the backs of slaves, China has no slavery, so while communism is rough at first, Capitalism is just as bad if not worse.
In order for a country to be built, people must suffer, in Capitalism, the poorest people in the country are the ones who build it up.
In communism, everyone equally builds up the country.
Theres benifits to both ways but fact is, to build up a country, things like this happens.
Why dont you ask someone whos Chinese what Chinas about, It pisses me off to see Americans assume they know what other people think about their countries.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
> The opposite is true. Its interventions over
> the years have stopped and prevented
> imperialism. The US has been in strong support > of the only democracy there.
>
What? The US's interventions in the Middle East
(including as I said) overthrowing elected
governments are imperialism by any reasonable
definition. Additionally the 'only democracy'
can't possibly be a democracy since it excludes
from voting a large part of the people living in its claimed territories.
Which is very unlike the Somalis which can
1. Play DVDs on their choice of equipment.
2. Smoke dope.
3. Kill American soldiers.
4. Kill fellow Somalis.
5. Die out of hunger.
6. Surf on an uncensored Internet.
7. Do all this and still be a law abiding citizen.
Wow such are the freedoms of the third world (slightly exaggerated).
Anyway WHAT THE HECK IS ALL THIS ABOUT:
Mr KATZ : The Saudis had to choose between a censored Internet or NO INTERNET AT ALL (well I had too much coffeine - nicotine is illegal in my county)
I remember the days of the Tienenman Square massacre. I worked in an international scientific research institute at the time. Some of the people who worked with me were Chinese and spent a lot of time FAXing pictures of the massacre to their friends in China. People in China, of course, couldn't get press.
I remember the day of Windows95 release. I worked in an international scientific research institute at the time. Some of the people who worked with me were UNIX devs and spent a lot of time sending pictures of Windows to their friends in Universities. People in Universities, of course, couldn't get Windows.
I've been hearing a lot of pretty outraged people griping about us western imperialist pigs and how we want to force things like democracy down other countries' throats. It's bothered me for a long time. However, I've heard so much of it that I no longer care.
I've been hearing a lot of pretty outraged people griping about us western imperialist pigs and how we want to force things like Windows down other competitors throats. It's bothered me for a long time. However, I've heard so much of it that I no longer care.
You think other countries have the right to live in the Middle Ages? Fine. But independence means accountability. I don't want to hear a bunch of boo-hoo-hooing the next time a bunch of them kill each other or die of famine.
You think businesses have the right to use any software? Fine. But independence means accountability. I don't want to hear a bunch of boo-hoo-hooing the next time a bunch of them kill each other or die of dotcom death.
Moral of the story? To large parts of Europe(and the world), The US is seen the same way slashdotters see Microsoft. The US/MS are both the big bullies of their respective schoolyard and don't mind cutting a few corners and dealing a few blows to make sure they stay on top. And neither really has to take competition into consideration, FUD is truly a universal tool.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
>That's a bitter indictment of a nation that purports to be advancing democracy
I cringe whenever I hear someone say that the US is a democracy, or that it advances democracy. Politicians say it a lot, but it is not true. The US is a republic.
For those who may be unfamiliar with the difference, in a democracy, people vote on laws directly. In a republic, people elect representatives, and those representatives vote on laws.
This is not an idle semantic distinction. A republic is more vulnerable to political action groups who "buy" representatives with "soft" money. In a democracy, those groups would have to "buy" a majority of the people, which would be much more difficult.
I don't know of any actual democracies today, but there is no reason in principle why the US could not be one, especially with the Internet. Of course, senators don't like to dwell on the fact that the US is not a democracy -- they would be out of their six figure jobs if it were.
I've often wondered what foreigners think of our two major political parties. Perhaps some might naively assume that the Democratic Party seeks to overthrow the republic and replace it with a democracy, while the Republican Party seeks to preserve the status quo.
Anyway, whenever someone uses the word democracy incorrectly, I feel the urge to set them straight.
The taliban were fighting the Northern alliance.
Until the last negotiation in august they were acceptable to the US, if only they would agree to US conditions, one of which was handing over Bin Laden.
We can either support a corrupt, oppressive monarchy that at least pretends to be our friend, or a bunch of religious fanatics, not much different from the Taliban, who are already yelling "Death to America", with vast oil reserves hanging in the balance. Talk about no-win scenerios.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
A country using blocking software to prevent its citizens from accessing a large chunk of the net is not perverting the net. It might be perverting their citizens rights, but not the net itself.
I think the question boils down to: To what extent does a sovereign nation have the right to determine what its population is exposed to? The answer probably changes when looking at it from a moral vs legal vs economic standpoint.
I'm a bit concerned that in banging the drum of a completely open net, might we not become, at least in part, the zealots ourselves?
If someone wants to write content filtering software should they be prevented from doing so, and by whom? If not, in a capitalist, free market system with free speech guarantees, isn't it logical that someone will fill a demand for such software to make a buck? Isn't this the way it is supposed to work?
So, which would you rather have, a society in which people are allowed to write whatever software they want, including content filtering software (and tunnels to circumvent them) or a society in which software development is regulated and controlled, and content filtering software is outlawed.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
The countries listed all have one other thing in common, besides censorship: They're not utilizing at least 1/2 of their populations (the female half). They really can't afford to waste this talent pool. They're not that deep in real brains anyway, 'cause the real bright sparks have already gone elsewhere, or are fixing to make a move.
"Politically Incorrect? Yep."
Umm, the Internet is a public utility. Like water. It's created and maintained by your tax dollars. You do have a right to go online. Governments are not obligated to give you equipment to access the Net, but they cannot legally prevent anyone from logging on.
This is true with any government. Really. Just trust me.
Hey..these are not the only countries where the net in blocked, in the UAE, the internet is completely blocked, ( or proxied is the term that is used) bcos, we have to go through a proxy server of the isp and the isp employs several people full time, just for blocking sites. and of course, there is a government monopoly which means the isp is government owned, and there can be nothing done about it.
I see a lot of arguments put forward here for the right of corporations to sell software in this way, because corporations exist solely to make money. That's true, and the logical arguments that follow are mostly pretty sound.
But what no-one seems to be questioning the underlying assumption that it's in our best interest for corporations to exist in this form, with no voluntary let alone legal definitions of social responsibility in place.
It's true that the US maintains some regulations to stop corporations from abusing human rights, commiting acts of environmental vandalism, etc. though sometimes only for US nationals and on US soil. Even these laws are increasingly being rolled back nowadays, but that's beside the point.
Nobody seems to be asking why corporations have rights which sometimes clash with the rights of citizens, when the US Constitution only explicitly talks about individual citizens. Why should we allow a corporate pseudo-person to exist, with rights, but with fewer responsibilities than we ourselves have? It might be perfectly legal, but is it really what we want?
Because crime is seen as an indicator of government failure, every level of the government has an incentive to understate the amount of crime that occurs in their jurisdiction. This accumulates as the information filters to the top and is reported. Consequently, we will never know how much violent crime there was in China last year.
If the individual people try to accumulate and publish their own statistics and details, they will be punished as subversives and spies.
Interestingly, the Economist magazine ran a cover story a couple issues ago highlighting the skyrocketing crime in China. Do you think that story was blocked by the Great Firewall of China?
Why is this information hidden? I don't think it's about cultural values or a way of life. I think it's all about control and power. When a government is not based on popular consent, a variety of tools must be used to maintain control. Information is the most powerful and valuable tool, and so is most controlled.
If you think the Chinese don't desire freedom of choice and information, why do you think the Chinese government must maintain its iron lock with force?
Don't you now that we will distort your words and the facts so that we never have to respond to the thrust of your argument? Also, we levy many charges against the US and accuse the US government of being Imperialist and domineering.
If you persist in this line, we will be forced to become shrill in our defense of our glorious Chinese system.
I'm a little fuzzy on the level of control the government has over newfangled things like TV.
You may not know this, but you can buy these collections of printed words in a variety of formats. A few different formats are called: newspapers, magazines, tabloids, and books. These words can communicate ideas and information. In some areas of the nation and, I hear, even in other countries, you can get these collections of words from a computer.
The revolutionary thing about these collections of words is that they aren't controlled by the government! Sometimes the government has tried to stop these words, but they let the law prevent them from stifling criticism! Fools!
The call of the raging fundie!
"I don't like what he says, quick, make sure nobody else hears it!"
I think you do more to prove my point than you could have if you tried.
Please. define immoral. Immoral according to whom? OUR system of beliefs? It is not OUR place to say what is immoral or not, it is up to the people of Saudi Arabia to define their own morality. The fact that these companies are actively pursuing business with Saudia Arabian leaders to enforce their censorship is highly irrelevant to the current situation. The point is that censorship software does not prevent or in any way limit the people of Saudi Arabia's ability to potentially overthrow their government. If anything they're offering a better alternative to more totalitarian measures their government would have to resort to without censorship.
And as I said in a previous post, *stop* hiding behind ideological rhetoric and assuming the way we currently live our lives is fit for any other country in the world. Remember that we got to where we are thru a painful evolution in our society, along with many other countries of what we consider "the free world". But not everyone is there. Not everyone is ready.
Just *think* for a second about the consequences of suddenly opening unrestricted access to the Internet to all Saudi Arabian citizens? Social changes can't happen overnite without complete chaos, and granting unrestricted access to the 'Net has to come from a deep yearning from the population who *will* have to change their society first to be ready it, and censored Internet can be a good way to give'em an idea that there is something out there, to spark curiosity.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
If the Chinese government is truly loved and supported by its people, why does it use force to suppress and control its people? Is this the action of a government confident in their people's support and approval?
If the Chinese people, as a group, truly wanted their society to be "protected" from the outside world, there would be no need for the thugs in Beijing to crush kids with tanks, beat grannies for meditating, etc. and then try to hide it from their people with the threat of force.
That's the essential point here: all nations have flaws. Some are willing to use force to hide their flaws from their own people.
This is true with any government. Really. Just trust me.
Sure, I'll trust you just as much as I trust the Saudi Arabian government. Unless you have a link to the international law that guarantees the right to internet access for all human beings, I will be forced to write this off as a misguided attempt at humor on your part.
Although, this would explain a few things...
"Mr. President, the Taliban is guilty of numerous human rights violations, should we bomb them?"
"So is China, but we seem to be getting along fine with those fellows, let's just wait and see with these folks."
"Now they're destroying ancient statues of tremendous archeological and religious significance!"
"That could just be a misunderstanding, let's give them the benefit of the doubt for now."
"Oh yeah, and they made it illegal for their people to access the internet."
"What? Those bastards! Get the bombers in the air, I want to be watching stuff blow up on CNN by lunchtime."
From the point of view of the Americans, they feel like they are caught between the rock and the proverbial hard place.
After WWII, many in the Middle East saw the US as the country to emulate. They saw the US as a country that exuded freedom, wealth, and modernity and so on. We said great. Here is aid in the form of education resources, health resources, money etc. The various leaders in the Middle East squandered these opportunities. When their people began to rebel and complain, their leaders moved to suppress these dissenters. This powerless underclass was ripe pickings for the various religious leaders spewing hatred for the west.
The big mistake the US made? The mistake was being loyal to those leaders that had promised freedom. Always have been loyal...loyal to a fault.
It is happening again in Israel. They are getting funding from the US and preaching freedom, but they treat the Palestinians that work in Israel like crap. Arrested and detained without being charged for months at a time.
Israel is so close. They need to look to Ireland. Years of conflict that has gone quiet because the young male population that was throwing fire bombs, what else was there to do, are now employed and making money.
Oh well The greatest Evil
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Use of the internet isn't a freedom, you idiot. In its initial stages, it was only used by universities and the government. So what if other countries want to restrict access to it? Not having an email address doesn't mean that someone is going to starve, does it? Being unable to ftp the latest quake patch doesn't make someone homeless. These people still have the necessities of life. HAVING INTERNET ACCESS IN NOT A NECESSITY. Jesus.
See, here's the deal. If you want incredible wealth and prosperity, it seems the US is pretty much the model you want to adopt. When people are allowed to choose between:
A) Keep the old ways, but accept there will be less economic growth and the benefits that brings. In time, you'll feel poor compared to your neighbors.
B) Keep some of the old ways, but change some, too. This will result in significant economic growth and development, but some nations will be more wealthy than you are. You will have some social stresses.
C) Allow the old ways to whither. This will result in the fastest economic growth , but will also cause your society struggle with the changes. There will be internal dissent about this.
The US seems to have selected option C. Are there problems? Hell yes. There are inequalities and social unrest, but there has been phenominal economic growth.
Other nations have selected option B+ and C-. They, too, have experienced economic growth, but less social upheaval.
It looks like China is trying to impose option B- or B. And that's the problem. The Chinese government is not legitimate, so social unrest is very threatening to them. Legitimate governments don't like social unrest, either, but they don't fear it to the point they imprison and kill thousands of their people just to shut them up.
You aren't serious. The British Army is on the
streets of the six countries every day.
Uh, that didn't happen. Natives in America were treated poorly, almost as bad as Africans that were imported to be slaves, if not worse.
Natives were not forced to build railroads.
Also, America did not start as a "Capitalist."
America didn't even start as a democracy. It was a colony. It was a king's property. It rebelled to stop the king and become a democracy. Many Americans tried to remove slavery the moment America became a democracy. It took a Civil War and over one hundred years of fighting (stealing and releasing slaves by activists) to stop slavery in America. People owned slaves. The Government did not own slaves.
Please get your American History from American sources. I'll agree to get my Chinese History from Chinese sources to be fair. I am afraid that wherever you read that the Natives were forced to work on railrods might also be full of other facts and propaganda that you might accept as truth. That history is not correct. All history books from government sources (USA included) speak about their gov't speriority, and seem to speak of all the bad moments with other cultures. I am positive that my Chinese history is totally wrong. I am not Chinese. But I will not lecture you on Chinese history.
I understand your argument. The Chinese have the right to pursue their own future. All people do, as long as you don't go decide to attack anyone.
Please keep in mind that the Chinese and the rest of the world influence the US as well. We are pushing hard. So are the Chinese. They push right back. That is the nature of the world. But Americans do not feel that they intentionally doing it, we sometimes don't mean to cause the opinions and backlash that we cause. We are just a very proud people. Proud was a word the Chinese students that I have met use to describe the Chinese people as well.
I know that the Chinese see us as a younger culture. We are passionate about our beliefs and affect great change, and to us that is good. Sometimes like kids, we don't see the future so well. It is part of being an American. We move fast. We think fast. Often times that is not the best way to be. There are advantages to being young in spirit too though.
I see the truths of all people. I don't see the truths of all governments. I am sure that even if I met most people in China that they would be happy and friendly. I just think that they need better say in the future. This is not about morals. I believe that all people try to be the most moral.
After all... China is probably the most safe country in the known world to walk the streets on. That is a good thing, I think. Americans don't hate China. Some Americans (me) hate the idea of flying spy planes over China's coast when we are not at war, and unlike Russia, China has never said that they want to attack us. I would like all of our influences to be diplomatic. Besides, I'd rather visit China with my children some day, instead of sending them off to war because we couldn't get out of each others business.
However, I just don't like the idea that China shoots missiles over Taiwan when they hold democratic elections. That is as bad as the influences you speak to about the USA.
So we are both at fault. You'll never follow George Washington, I'll never follow Mao Tse Tung. Now lets start all over again.
Send some Chinese schoolkids over for a week to take pictures and see museums, and we'll send some kids over to do the same. We should do that as much as possible. And by the time they grow up, China and America might see each other as people instead of Communists and Capitalists.
> The US's now dusty "imperialism" in
> that area is now several decades old
>
It may be dusty to you but it's very
real for people living in the region.
> Remember also, that Iran under the
> Shah was not imperialist.
>
So by deposing an elected government
the US was preventing imperialism!
> Was the U.S. not a democracy during
> the years it occupied Japan?
>
That's quite right; a country which
denies democratic rights to people
living under its control is not
a democracy. Equally the US was
not a democracy when it denied
blacks the vote.
> Israel is anxious to get out of those
> territories,
>
That must be why it is building
settlements there.
> For example, you are allowed
> to practice your religion
> there. Israel's neighbors,
> in contrast, tend to have
> laws to punish people for
> being of the wrong religion.
>
What a singular sense of
humour you have; not only
does Israel punish
people for being the
wrong religion, it also
punishes them for having
the wrong parents or
living in the wrong
place.
Well, I guess the only thing to do is get the US government to ban the selling of such undemocratic software.
Globalism seems to be a codeword for a new industrial apartheid, in which there are three tiers:
- The rulers, whose interests transcend national boundaries.
- The first-world citizens, who have freedom, due process and health/environmental protections.
- The third world people, who do the manufacturing work.
Maybe I am too cynical, but it seems to me that the US government thoroughly approves Saudi repression, and wishes it could exercise similar tactics within the US. For example, the US threatened to deport suspects to countries where they would be tortured. Why not go all the way and legalize torture in the US, as it is legal in Israel?...so their governments can pervert the Net to deny their citizens basic freedoms.
Shouldn't that be "un-pervert the Net"?
If you haven't looked lately, "China" is a collection of over a billion different people, not some easily anthropomorphized overmind. And if the minority of those people who hold power think they should be preventing the majority of those people from freely accessing "disruptive" ideas, claiming that that is what "China thinks" is ridiculous. If "China thinks" that foreign culture shouldn't be examined, then nobody in China would be trying to examine it and so internet filters wouldn't be necessary!
I would rather the conservative nations of the world had access a filtered net than no net at all.
Filters can be gotten around. But a total ban on the Internet, as was once in Afghanistan, can't.
Internet access in China is filtered. At least that it the theory. In practice, you can still get to many sites on forbiden topics.
So it might be that the current politics in Saudi Arabia demands some filtering. Fine. These rules will be scrapped by the next generation.
Consider the old Soviet Union. During the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s, the govt had a real monopoly on communication media. They tapped the phones heavily. If you wanted to use a photocopier, you had to fill out a stack of forms. Why? Because that machine allowed you to easily communicate with many people.
Then in the 80s, cheap fax machines, modems & ethernet equipment flooded the world, including the communist world. And in 1989, when one soviet block counrty started allowing it's people to freely enter west germany, the authorities in neighboring soviet block nations couldn't keep this news quiet. 10 years earlier, they could have done so. That is how powerful communications tech is.
Tiennman Square was kept secret from most people in China for weeks. That couldn't happen again today.
So I say, give them a filtered Internet. It lets the old guard feel safe, while the horizons of the next generation broaden beyond anything that can be controlled.
=brian
> If one act of imperialism prevents 4...
>
So the people of South America (for
example) have your blessing to despose
the US government; if one act of
imperialism prevents another Chile,
Guatamealo, Nicaragua, Hati, etc.
Israel is an explicitly religious state with
laws to match. Furthermore freedom is
indivisible; the Israeli government may not kill
apostates but it does kill, tortue and deny
democratic rights to people for being born to
the wrong parents.
This post is a letter to the editor, not a reply to a news item.
My post will be modded down; Mr. Katz' will not. This is not fair. There is always room for improvement, and this points out two glaring holes in Slashcode:
Too bad there's no way to propose such an improvement... (despite what the FAQ says, they don't appear open to suggestions [have they ever answered your email?], so as far as I can see that's not a viable option)
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Is this actually true?!?!
According to the American Library Association, Harry Potter has been the most challenged book a couple years, including this one.
There's a subtle distinction, though: "Most challenged" means there have been the most attempts to get it removed from schools and libraries. "Most banned" would seem to imply that Harry Potter has been successfully removed from public access, which is so far from the truth it's scary.
Pathetic. Read a little about what really happened.
As for democracy, yes Kuwait is not one. However, the U.S. is not imperialist: it will not let others choose Kuwait's government for it (not even the U.S.)
Haha. How long have you been this dense?
The whole purpose of the post was to demonstrate the difference in behavior between two groups of people, both of whom stand accused-- by some-- of doing "bad things"; namely, the people who write file sharing programs, and the companies who are trying to sell net-filtering software to SA.
People will certainly disagree as to whether both sets of actions are right or wrong. For the purpose of the comparison, however, I assumed that both actions were wrong, or "immoral". Given that assumption, I believe that the net-filtering companies' direct involvement in their actions makes their act more severe-- had they simply produced legitimate net-filtering software that some third-party used for an "immoral" purpose, I think the companies could reasonably avoid blame.
Now, it so happens that I personally believe that an autocratic regime imposing its will on an un-democratically represented people is a bad thing. And I'm not going to move much from that view. As far as I'm concerned, there's a simple solution for those Saudis who don't want to be shocked by pornography or Western ideas: don't buy a computer. Or install your own net-filtering software on it.
I find it amusing that a certain percentage of the Saudi population has no problem sending their children to Western universities, where they can be potentially inundated by pornography and Western thought, while that same section of the population works so hard to prevent their less fortunate countrymen from accessing the same information.
It seems the only argument for Occidental countries selling software that limits others peoples freedom is the fact that it makes money. Sure there are other side arguments but some people feel they should be able to sell anything they want as long as it makes money. But really how different is selling software to limit ones speech or more to the point limit their knowledge of the world. Companies are instruments of Women/Men and are therefore accountable as such. People cannot hide behind the corporate veil violating peoples rights just because it makes money.
I'm not anti-corporate, but if a business practice or product clearly undermines other peoples rights we should scrutinize it very closely.
Briefly - 1. Blaming "corporatist" companies for selling censorship software / IT solutions to other countries is ridiculous. Foreign nations are sovereign, and that mean the US can't and should not shove our interpretations of our constitution, or any charter on human rights, down another countries' throat. If the government can't even sanction Saudi Arabia without UN permission (in theory - pay no attention to the Cuba behind the curtain), why should we expect companies to do so? Ahhh... before you flame, read on... 2. Right now, most of Saudi Arabia has no internet access at all. Once they have access, ask yourselves this (you pack of beautiful technophiles, you) - who is more likely to be successful, /.-ers who want to enable the population of SA to enjoy the free net, or the consultants, who bill by the hour, who will be trying frantically to patch "security holes" in their censorship system that turn up as a result of determined virtual freedom fighter/hackers? Let's face it - any solution proposed by any of the Big Strong Consultancies out there is liable to be buggier than Windows95. Saudi Arabia is trying to "protect" their population behind a gauze curtain. Let them try. Once opened, they will discover that the only solution to their "security" problem is absolute repression or US-style openness, and once the population sees the internet, even a little, well, the genie is out and stealing the silverware - repression will be much harder to enforce than it is now.
As an action item, I suggest waiting until the Saudi system is in place, give them a one month grace period, then hack the cr*p out of it.
> One problem is that Guatemala and Chile have
> chosen less than ideal governments
>
So the US decided to choose for them as is well
documented, and neither are these the only
examples. Of course for the US this was inbetween
being a champion of anti-imperialism and
democracy.
> The Palestinians are part of the problem
>
So you admit Israeli discrimination but
just like every kind of racism you
justify it by some threatening myth
about the target group.
Um, no. The parent post is pure flamebait. Any negative moderation is simply fulfilling its purpose of increasing the signal-to-noise ratio. You make several blanket statements ("religion is complete bs") with no supporting evidence. Sure, some religion is bogus, and yes, it has been used as a tool to oppress people through the years. Lumping all people with any religious inclination into one monolithic group though, is absurd. So yes, the post is flamebait. And I guess I just bit on it.
Saudi Arabia blocks sex and pornography sites, as well as those relating to religion and human rights.
No more of those damn sex site popups, not to mention those annoying advertisements for religion and Mother Jones Magazine. Now if they could only make a filter that stoped those damn webcam ads...
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
You can't possibly expect any rational person to accept that religion is anything other than a cultic delusion. It is the unreasonable explanation that requires proof. If it's not BS, prove it. If you can't prove it, explain why you believe it in absense of proof, try to sound rational while doing so.
Everyone with a religious belief can be lumped into the "irrationally gullible" category. Or if you object to being lumped with the sheep, you could be one of the "facist control freaks".
The basic fact of it is that religion involves believing in something which has no proof.
It is used to control people, plain and simple. Some of the control may be benign, but that doesn't change that it *is* still control.
I have no problem with what people choose to do and believe behind their closed doors. Hell, some people like the Fox network and watch Survivor... I do have an issue when people demand equal treatment for their delusions, alongside the rational and learned opinions of scientists and scholars. I have an issue with people practising mind control on children, with people justifying the mistreatment and murder of others through mystic mumbo-jumbo.
I wouldn't accept a nation of brunettes who killed blondes on sight. Or a nation of whites who killed blacks on sight. Why is it different for a nation of religious people who kill those of other (or no) faith on sight?
Why do we let people justify their insanity based on an old and obsolete label like "religion". We need to recognize it for what it is and treat these people as if they admitted that they think squirrels run the Illuminati. Moreover, we need to be especially wary of the ones who might be driven to action based on their unsupportable views.
If you find my views distasteful, I sugest you try to counter them. But the burden of proof rests with you, you're the one making the hard claims.
But don't go around easily dismissing my words because their tone stings. I simply can't be bother to mollycoddle people over this kind of crap and don't care if I hurt your feelings when I say what needs to be said.
"Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful." - Seneca
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." - Jefferson
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
Ok, first, I'm trusting that you wrote that post in all seriousness. It could be flamebait, but I'll take it in good faith and work from the supposition that it's not.
Many volumes have been written discussing precisely the topics raised here. I couldn't hope to cover the whole topic in one post. Also, it's late here and I'm not finding the mental energy to take on your whole post. I'd love to discuss this more, though, and I thank you for responding
First, I would posit that it is possible for a rational person to accept religion as something other than a delusion. I'm guessing that for this to be true, you would simply require some kind of evidence verifying the statements of the religion. As an example, let's look briefly at one of the common assertions of religion: There is a God. (I'm going to argue from the perspective of Christianity, since that is what I'm most familiar with, and also happen to believe to be true). I would argue that there is substantial evidence that there is a God. To start, there is a universe. One is left with two options: either the universe is a brute fact, or the universe has a cause. Brute facts are incredibly cludgy to deal with; therefore, the more elegant explanation (to be excessively brief) is that there is a God. Now, you will ask where did God come from? God is self-existent. So, we are left with either assuming a universe or assuming God. The universe, being entirely composed of matter and governed by the laws of physics, has no mechanism for creating matter/energy. God, on the other hand, being supernatural and working above the laws of physics, has mechanism for creating matter/energy. Hence, the assertion that there is a God is at least as rational as the assertion that there is not.
I'm wishing I could write more, and I thank you for your effort in responding. If you're interested in continuing the discussion, please reply, and if necessary we could move it to email. I'll try to take on some of your other points as I get a chance.
Take care,
Matt
"Certainly, there may be citizens in Saudi Arabia who don't like the censorship, but there is probably an equal or larger number who are glad that it is there."
....
But when do they get to say yes and how do they know that they disapprove of what's currently banned. Once you get basic censorship in as a principle then you'll never be sure that you have all or even any of the facts at your finger tips
A disaster. At the very minimum you would need a lottery to select a few (damned) souls who have to go watch stuff and then say ouch this stuffs baaad, keep it banned etc
You are correct that to make a belief rational there must be some proof. If not direct evidence, then it must fit in with a pattern you can observe to your liking. (For instance you don't know the Sun appeared to rise before you were born, but based on observational evidence now, and reports from before, you believe it to be likely that it did.)
The problem with the proof you offer is that supposing there is a god doesn't solve the issue, it just takes it back one step and asks the same question again.
All plausible models for the beginning of the universe explain how either the sum total of all matter and energy could have been created or released, or what the mechanism would be for creating more.
These are sketchy, but do fit the observable data of everything emanating outward from a small area at a fairly high rate of speed and the current state of the universe.
You can still ask how that starting condition got there, but I don't think it's simplified by calling it a god. Either way it leaves an unanswerable question, "what came before THAT."
If you examine only the issue of god existing without anything to make him, or the universe existing without an knowable cause, I suppose you could pick either and call it right with the same degree of certainty.
If you pick god as the answer, you tend to stop there.
If you pick that the universe had natural causes, then you not only explore as much of the universe as we could know directly (post-creation) but also by figuring out what could have caused the initial conditions that your theory requires.
Besides, proposing a theory is an integral part in testing it. While people might have instinctive feelings that one theory is more likely than another, neither will be accepted unless the theory is a more accurate and simpler way of explaining the experimental data, and can succesfully predict new data.
While there are no good explanations for how a universe could come into being, we have a few potentially good explanations for how we came into being after those initial pre-conditions.
So while neither "side" can offer what I feel is an acceptable answer, the scientific side is trying to discover the answer through observation and experiment. The religious side simply declared it unknowable, assumed a god, and declared it solved. This has been done before, where the religious side declares an answer to an "unknowable" question, one that fits their philosophy. Later this answer is proved wrong through observation and experiment, by the side who didn't propose a final answer, but instead offered many theories and set out to test them.
If you wish to continue, yes, you may want to move to email. Slashdot is such a pain for ongoing conversations. Email me your answer, if you wish.
After the pullout, the conflict didn't cease immediately. The overwhelming poverty in Ireland gave the IRA a large pool of unemployed young men to recruit. Border skirmishes, assignations and other acts of terror continued off and on for years.
Along the border they still hate each other, but there is less conflict today because so many people are working. IMHO if everybody keeps working long enough, the old hatreds might stand a chance of cooling off to the point that they can really get along.
The greatest Evil
Circus sideshows will not run into shortages anytime soon but they will be overrun with the freaks and there will be a glut, which will damage our sensitive throbbing economy even more.
You die too easily.
Do you believe there are viable business models for open source? Better set about proving that, because right now it's seeming like a pretty irrational belief. Everyone has their "religion" whether they call it that or not. This is not to say that all beliefs are equal - e.g. creationism has neither the evidence nor the explanatory power of evolution theory - but that one should not be too obnoxious about demanding rock-solid proof before you'll accept others' beliefs as valid (let alone true) lest you find yourself without a leg to stand on when your own pet beliefs are challenged.
Yeah, I'll probably get modded down for my choice of illustrative examples. That should put the last nail in the "mod points == reasonable" idea's coffin. Hey, maybe that canard would have made an even better example.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.