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.
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.
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.
Hopefully we will live in a world where we have far more freedom than exists in the States; where the president isn't awarded god-like power (at least in terms of persuasion), and where the rights of natural humans EXCEED those of juristic persons (companies).
OTOH ... the States is still vastly better than most places on earth ...
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
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.
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
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.
...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...
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
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
untill i can do whatever i want that does not hurt others in my own home, and at some point in public places i will not be truely free.
The ability to smoke weed does not make you free. You need some priorities. How about the ability to criticize laws that you don't agree with? How about the right to worship any God (or anything else) you want to?
Think about this big picture here--those are things you've obviously taken for granted. You obviously *are* free, if you can sit home, smoke weed, and post on slashdot, whereas many other people in the world are murdered for simply not having a long enough beard.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
Nope. Just because you don't understand a packet on mathematics doesn't mean you get to drop it. That kind of firewall would break, well, everything really, in subtle and not so subtle ways.
Don't forget that pictures can be embedded into executables, and encrypted; even if it wasn't encrypted there's currently no reliable way to filter for porn automatically; even the courts can't decide what constitutes it!
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"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.
some christian fundamentalist groups seem to have a problem with it promoting 'the occult', which is a tool of satan(the devil, not the portscanner). And the US is bordering on being a christian fundamentalist country.. no european leader would end every speech with 'god bless '.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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?
Maybe you'd even go as far as change your settings to check Exclude Stories from the Homepage:JonKatz rather than post adolescent rants...
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.
You can't block every bit of encrypted data unless you block all of the data flow. Steganography allows one to embed in virtually any data stream which has some amount of "white noise". Countrary to the popular belief that you need a binary format for that, you don't. It's easy to do steganography in plain text (OK, you need lots of text for that), say, using blanks (spaces/ tabs/CR/LF/FF/etc), punctuation or whatever else. Of course, it is quite hard to disseminate information among a wide audience using steganography - because if everyone knows where it is embedded, the blocking authorities also will, but the really persistent guys won't fear any firewall :)
VKh
Possibly even more repressive than the Saudis are the Kuwaitis, which of course enjoy our full and total support.
While I agree that Americans have it pretty good, I have to say I don't think it's a case of misguided priorities to consider the freedom to smoke weed an important barometer of freedom in general (and therefore indicative that Americans are less free than they ideally could be).
In fact, smoking weed is a religious and perhaps a medical freedom that we should all have-- there are religions in which smoking weed is as important as wine and bread are to most forms of Christianity (and quite frankly, as an atheist, I'm hardly interested in trying to decide which religious sacraments are valid based on the underlying religion and which aren't-- I consider them equals no matter what the derivation, as long as the adherents are sincere). And there is a growing body of evidence that, while marijuana may not be curative, restorative, or preventative, it is a source of relief-- and winning the mental battle is an important part of recovering from any illness or medical event.
But more importantly to the topic at hand, Jon Katz has asserted that Harry Potter is the most banned book in America! Prove it Jon!
I do not have a signature
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.
And its probably the same people bitching about Harry Potter that bitched about Alice in Wonderland.
To this day, I have yet to hear of one single story of a person influenced by Alice in Wonderland practicing some sort of evil satanic witchcraft. Something tells me I won't ever hear of Harry Potter influencing anything like that, either.
Disclaimer: No I have not read the Harry Potter books, nor do I intend to. It just strikes me as funny that books sold as childrens books (and lets get real--a book that truly promoted something so heinous as satanic witchcraft would never get out as a childrens book) could be turned around so easily and looked at as manuals of evil. Some people really do just need to get a life.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
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.
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.
I submit that yours is mob-mentality.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to practice religion, view porn, own guns, and say what we like, are specifically not controlled by the majority.
There is nothing wrong with morality as a concept, and as a goal for life, but it cannot be enforced by the majority. Not in my country.
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
I want to be able to to stupid things without the government getting paternalistic and throwing me in jail.
I can agree with that. I'm not saying that smoking marijuana should be illegal--but the whole "I'm not free cause I can't toke up in public" just comes off so juvenile and self-centered sometimes (er, often).
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
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
no european leader would end every speech with 'god bless '.
No, they just end their speeches with "God save the Queen", or "Sieg Heil", or whatnot; European countries are no different in that regard, you apparently just don't recognize the common sayings of the European leaders as having some "higher meaning" that you infer must be there in the speeches of non-European leaders.
Every country has its rituals, its sayings, and its pageantry: think of the guards marching outside the Tomb of Lenin in the Soviet Union, or the daily changing of the Palace Guard at Buckingham, or the Independence Day celebrations in the US, or Bastille Day celebrations in France, or the printing of the Queen's image on Canadian currency. These things don't necessarily have the literal meaning to the citizenry that an "outsider" might attach to them; concluding that the US is a "fundamentalist Christian country" because the sitting Presidents (of both parties!) for the last fifty or so years have traditionally ended speeches with "May God bless us, and may God bless America" is a batty as me concluding from their coinage that all Canadians worship the Queen of England.
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.
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)
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.
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
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
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?
Take drugs, practice witchcraft, hell, kill someone for crying out loud.
The point, as I guess it obviously wasn't clear enough, was that there's always gonna be a small group of people out there claiming that something, -anything-, is evil and harmful in some way and it must be stopped because of it. Whether its Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland or whatever story is next in line for some extremist rants, theres always going to be someone or some group thats going to chastize and comdemn it. But you ask the typical, level-headed person and they'll be regarded as classic, quality children's stories.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
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
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)
Yes, but as I pointed out- is an executeable good?
There is no way to know that. Unless they block ALL executables (yeah right, that would imply no packages for Linux, no patches etc.) then they can't block the bad stuff.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"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?
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
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."
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
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!
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?
Actually, Somalis can't surf an uncensored Internet; the US shut it off like a light switch.
But, the rest of your comment's sarcasm is enjoyed, thanks.
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
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
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.
>My view is that white americans generally have two religions, both of which they pursue with utter blind faith; Christianity, and the Constitution.
just listen to the NRA (National Rifle association), and their 'God-given' right to bear arms. Ofcourse, that right is or isn't given in the constitution (please.. no gundiscussions on what the founding fathers meant and all that.. I'm not interested, and I'm not american)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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.