Slashdot Mirror
Where Are You Publishing?
AndrewRUK writes "A reporter for The Guardian is being prosecuted in Zimbabwe for a report that appeared on the newspaper's website, the newspaper writes in this report. If the case is successful, it would allow Zimbabwe's courts to apply the country's draconian media laws to any online publisher, putting reporters and editors at risk of arrest if they go to Zimbabwe, or any country with extradition treaties with Zimbabwe.
Once again, we see a case which raises the question of which courts have jurisdiction over online publishing. Is a UK newspaper, with webservers in the UK, and a site accessable to anyone on the net, publishing only in the UK, or is it publishing everywhere where there's net access?" An issue that just doesn't seem to go away ...
putting reporters and editors at risk of arrest if they go to Zimbabwe
Sounds almost like the Dmitry Sklyarov case...
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
to travel to a country where they enforce their unjust laws against people who 'broke' them in a country where their actions weren't illegal . . . uh, never mind.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Zimbabwe prosecutes people outside of it's borders for breaking internal laws.
Sounds a lot like the US and the Skylarov case huh?
Or DeCSS? Or any of the forthcoming lawsuits?
We are no better. I hate to say it, but it's true.
-------------------------------------------------
simple:
the material is available in print in England and on English computers; it is therefore the fault of Zimbabwe's ISPs for connecting to the offending servers.
if nations want to censor the internet, they should do it themselves. it would be funny to watch them realize the futility of attempting to stop information.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
How many countries do you suppose have or will honor an extradition treaty with a country whose strongman president Robert Mugabe (and all of his staff) is currently banned from traveling in the United States (and also the European Union if I remember correctly)? Especially in a ridiculous case like this... The EU and the US have also invoked trade sanctions against this country. Clearly, everyone has great respect for it and its 'laws.'
Specifically, Zimbabwe's President Mugabe is virulantly anti-British. Following the recent 'elections', fixed according to all international observers, Mugabe has expelled any BBC reporters and most other British journalists.
This is because of the UK press' reporting of the 'War Veterans' issue, where Mugabe encourages members of his old revolutionary guard to simply take white farmers' land, usually by violence, quite often by killing the farmer in question.
Mugabe claims that this policy is Britain's fault, and that the farmers should look to Britain for compensation - indeed that they should leave Zimbabwe and go to Britain.
Now, the political rights and wrongs of these are outside the scope of this discussion. However, I think it important that people see this move for what it is - another anti-British move by the Mugabe regime, rather than a carefully thought out and well-constructed legal case.
Cheers,
Ian
Considering that Robert Mugabe is -- despite the stiff competition continent-wide -- the leading klepto-autocrat in Africa, is it any surprise? He's willing to steal elections and kill the only productive segment of his economy in the blantantly dishonest name of "land reform."
Why should it be at all surprising that he's willing to go after journalists who expose his regime? I suppose it is surprising to starry-eyed marxists who still buy into the collective bullshit of African anti-colonial revolution.
All the more shameful is Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and the rest of the putatively democratic ANC's refusal to speak out against Mugabe and his thugs.
Maybe now that western journalists are actually starting to get a firsthand taste of Mugabe-style government they'll wipe the haze from their eyes and start doing the kind of reporting that might help bring an end to the politically correct refusal to believe that an African govenrment can do no wrong, especially if it involves whitey getting his.
Nice long reply, but what the fuck man.
What the hell does US law and US supreme court rulings have to do with an issue between Zimbabwe and the UK.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Robert Mugabe, dictator-in-chief of Zimbabwe, is a pusillanimous pipsqueak. His male member is dwarfed in comparison to his cockroach-sized brain. The stench of his breath makes granite crumble. His moral integrity is challenged only by that of a Microsoft lawyer. He rapes newborns with curling irons.
His government is composed entirely of weak-willed wusses, totally incapable of thinking for themselves. This, combined with Mr. Mugabe's stunning intellectual shortcomings, clearly explains the entire fiasco.
Need I continue?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
To be honest, I think the Sklyarov case is bogus, too. But....
They had a (somewhat ersatz) physical presence in the US (through their E-Commerce server), and sold product in the US.
If the Guardian is not charging for content, has no physical presence (even an ersatz one), then the cases are different.
That said, FREE DMITRY!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
- Many countries have laws against libelling the government or the ruling party, which are infinitely abusable.
- Many British-derived legal systems don't do that, but do still make it easy for individuals to win libel cases.
US traditions are inherited from several cases in the British Colonies in North AmericaBill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The way this problem will ultimately be solved is by routing around it. Zimbabwe and other states of its ilk will find themselves cut off from the internet as customers demand that ISPs not route packets to jurisdictions that may prosecute based on their contents. We already do this for spam. It won't take many convictions before tyrant-blocking black hole lists start to appear and ISPs start marketing them as a feature.
Eventually (but don't hold your breath waiting) these repressive regimes will either bow to internal economic pressure or so impoverish themselves as to lose the means of maintaining their power.
-Tom Duff
http://www.radiofreenation.com/rfn_news_titlepage. html
Which, among other things, says :
3.17 You warrant that your access to this site is not a violation of local laws and regulations in force at the location where you are accessing these Web Sites, and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations.
3.18 You warrant that your access to these Web Sites is not a violation of local laws and regulations of the Country, province, state, county, city, town, or any other type of government jurisdiction of which you are a citizen and/or whose laws you are subject to; and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations.
[...]
4.15 You warrant that your contribution to these Web Sites is not a violation of local laws and regulations of the Country, province, state, county, city, town, or any other type of government jurisdiction of which you are a citizen and/or whose laws you are subject to; and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations, including obscenity laws as judged by local community standards, promotion of and/or access to child pornography, incitement to illegal acts and/or other crimes not specifically mentioned.
4.16 You warrant that your contribution to this site is not a violation of local laws and regulations in force at the location where you are accessing these Web Sites, and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations, including obscenity laws as judged by local community standards, promotion of and/or access to child pornography, incitement to illegal acts and/or any other crimes not specifically mentioned.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
...Robert Mugabe hangs out?
You know, murder, rape, and dispossess all the white farmers Robert Mugabe.
And people are surprised by this?!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Just don't go visiting there if you antagonize them. Same goes for pretty much any domain ruled with an iron fist.
If you visit, it doesn't matter if you shouldn't be held accountable, since you quite possibly would be. If life were fair, Mugabe would already imprisoned or dead for being a corrupt, incompetent, race-baiting dictator who cares more about crushing all dissent such as the MDC instead of, oh, averting famine associated with the dramatic drop in food production which just might possibly have something to do with the fact that ZANU-PF goons have been terrorizing the most productive farmers throughout his country.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
From now on, perhaps I should put a disclaimer on all my stuff that says:
The following article contains U.S. bits. Be sure to check with your local government(s) before importing the remaining bits. By agreeing to do this, you are assuming liability for compliance with local laws. This agreement also applies to the bits in this agreement, so if you already read the agreement and it is not in compliance with local law, you are SOL not me.
In all seriousness, this could work because the Zimbabwe ISPs would have to check to make sure that the bits were legal for import before importing them, since I can always disclaim that the bits are not intended for export. Faced with such a daunting task, their ISPs would soon shut down.
This seems only fair, since nobody forced them to start an ISP in Zimbabwe anyway.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are probably at risk if you go to Zimbabwe, no matter who or what you are.
When someone makes information from a certain locale, the "publisher" is bound by the laws of that locale.
When someone accesses information they are bound by the laws set in the locale from which they are viewing the data.
This is no different than a US publication (local newspaper, for example) being sent to someone in China. The publisher of the US newspaper is bound by US (and State, County, City) law. The person who reads the newspaper in China is bound by Chinese laws.
The fact that the delivery medium is virtually instant shouldn't matter.
Of course all of this is worthless when you're dealing with an unrational, unlogical, totalitarian, arguably evil government.
This Public Announcement alerts American citizens to the situation in Zimbabwe following that country's March 2002 presidential election. This Public Announcement supersedes the one issued for Zimbabwe on April 2, 2002, and will expire on August 1, 2002.
U.S. citizens in Zimbabwe should be aware of continuing conditions that could adversely affect their personal security. The political, social, economic, and security situation in Zimbabwe remains fluid. There continue to be incidents of land seizures, police roadblocks, political violence and intimidation in urban, and especially rural areas. The possibility of mass demonstrations cannot be discounted. Growing food shortages and increasing numbers of internally displaced persons have added to social and economic tensions. The Government of Zimbabwe has enacted the Public Order and Security Act, which makes it an offense to "undermine the authority of the President" or "engender hostility" towards him. This includes speaking negatively of the President in public. The bill also bars individuals from speaking negatively of the police and carrying weapons of any kind. The Government has also enacted the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act which, among other things, deals with the abuse of journalistic privilege. Journalists, including Americans, have been detained on charges stemming from this Act.
American citizens should avoid public demonstrations or large gatherings and refrain from taking pictures or videos of political events of any kind. Americans should also monitor the local and international media for developments that may affect their safety. Additionally, American citizens should exercise caution when traveling anywhere in Zimbabwe, should travel with reputable tour operators and are urged to register with the U.S. Embassy, located at 172 Herbert Chitepo Ave., in the capital, Harare, telephone (263)4-250-593/4.
For additional information on travel to Zimbabwe, please consult the Department of State's latest Consular Information Sheet for Zimbabwe, as well as the World Wide Caution Public Announcement, available via the Internet at http://travel.state.gov.
----
Department of State travel information and publications are available at Internet address: http://travel.state.gov. U.S. travelers may hear recorded information by calling the Department of State in Washington, D.C. at 202-647-5225 from their touchtone telephone, or receive information by automated telefax by dialing 202-647-3000 from their fax machine.
-----
I tried to highlight the important parts. Point is, Zimbabwe isn't exactly a haven for personal freedoms.
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
IIRC, usually extradition only applies for crimes that are recognized as such by both countries. Clearly that would be rarely true in the case of these particular laws.
I'm a nature photographer.
No, but if the guy on the other side of the border shoots you in the head with an AK-47, what're you gonna do about it?
Controlling public access to information is a much more resource-effective means of social control than direct military/police action, so it's especially serious for people like Mugabe, but it's a serious problem for governments everywhere. They have enough trouble dealing with effective postal systems and telegraphs, which can often communicate faster than censorship can react, but pre-Internet broadcast media such as traditional newspaper publishing and radio/tv cost enough that most broadcast news is local or at least controllable
- Newspapers cost enough and carry enough local news that most people read local papers, which can be censored or bullied, and occasional issues of wide-market papers like the NY or London Times or South China Morning Post can have their local distributions squelched for a day if needed
- Local radio and TV stations have been government-regulated in most jurisdictions, either as government-owned monopolies or at least licensed in ways that control content
- Short-wave broadcasting had largely been restricted by treaties, and mostly out-competed by television.
- The growth of satellite television in the last decade or so is a serious threat to government opinion control, but at least it's run by a few big corporations that tend to push hierarchical homogenized values and ignore local issues outside their owners' main markets, so it's a slower-moving threat that it could be - the real impact is often on cultural and economic values rather than directly rocking the boat.
But the Internet is just there - once you've got it, you've got access to everything and tools for finding the things you want, and language differences may fragment it somewhat, but not only does much of the world speak English, Chinese, Spanish, or French, but the expatriates that you most wish would stay away and leave you alone now have a much easier time reaching your subjects, speak your local languages, and care about your local issues.Even in more liberal countries that don't have vicious totalitarian-wannabee governments, the Internet is still disruptive to the cultural status-quo and sometimes to the government. Back during one of the Internet-rumormongering flaps (I forget if it was a Matt Drudge thing or a Who Shot Down TWA Flight 800 or some conspiracy thing), somebody asked Esther Dyson about the Internet encouraging this sort of thing, and she said that yes, it did, but that television was better for propaganda. We've seen a lot of resistance to Internet openness focused on cultural-value conflicts like pornography. In some places like the US, the issue might really *be* concern about pornography (e.g. Ashcroft covering up naked statues), but it's being used by other governments as an excuse to grab control of the Internet distribution before it totally gets out of hand - the Great Firewall of China and similar efforts are doomed in the long run, but it's about the only thing they can do if they want to keep any control over the information their people see.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I've been saying this for many years but nobody really seems to listen...
Governments of the world need to wake up and realize that cyberspace (I hate that word) is just as real as the USA, Britain, Australia or any other country on the face of the planet.
What's needed are some "cyberspace treaties" that would work in much the same way as the various treaties that cover issues such as copyright, trademarks, patents, etc.
These treaties need only lay down the basic framework of laws needed to restrict users actions and preserve their rights while in "cyberspace."
If a country's right to connect to the Net was conditional on signing to such an treaty then we'd have a method of producing and enforcing consistent laws related to the Net and its (ab)use.
Stomping on spam would be a great start -- imagine if there were a set of basic anti-spamming laws to which all Net-connected countries had to agree to be bound (under threat of excommunication). When you got a spam from Korea -- you report the offense and if the Korean authorities were found to not be enforcing the law, they'd be in jeopardy of having the entire country disconnected.
Other important issues such as kiddy porn, defamation, etc could also be covered by such a treaty -- making it far easier to track down and arrest or extradite offenders.
Hey... the RIAA and MPAA seem to have been able to unofficially create just such a global network of enforcement -- so why can't the world's authorities and legislators watch and learn.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much opposed to the introduction of bureaucracy and regulation in respect to Internet use. However, I'm also a realist and I acknowledge that there are some areas (kiddy-porn, spamming, etc) where we simply have to do something because not to act is to endorse the action of those who choose to spoil the Net for everyone.
Possession is 9/10th's of the law anyway, so where the server resides governs.
Given what restrictions powerful nations like the US, the UK, and Germany are trying to impose on speech in other countries, they really don't have any reason to complain when other countries try to do this as well. What they can do and should do is criticize is Mugabe, his regime, and his policies, independent of how those policies spill over into the Interne.
Libel law in the US and UK is actually quite similar. Perhaps my point wasn't illustrated clearly enough, but at any rate, I highly doubt this case will be granted any merit given the current state of libel law in a first world nation like the UK.
And the trial is in Harare...so what do UK laws have to do with it? The whole point is that he ISN'T being tried in the UK, he's being targetted and tried in Zimbabwe for something he did in the UK.
Your point is as relevant as saying "Dmitri Skylarov can't be convicted in the US, because Russia doesn't have laws against the code he wrote"*. We only wish it stays that easy (and reasonable, and logical).
* - I know, Skylarov's software was sold in the US putting him at the mercy of US courts, but that wasn't the point of my analogy.
"A reporter for The Guardian is being prosecuted in Zimbabwe for a report that appeared on the newspaper's website"
Surely this is not the first time a tinhorn dictator has prosecuted someone for criticism of his government published outside his jurisdiction. How does the fact that it appeared on the Web make this case different?
"...or any country with extradition treaties with Zimbabwe."
Do you seriously believe that any halfway democratic government would honor such a request?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
what surprises (and saddens) me is that such a non-content hate-driven commentary is at score:4 (insightful)
can i ask where is the 'Insight'?
i have no love for Zimbabwe government, and really think their actions are a shame to all humanity, but this kind of comments only make things worse.
-Kz-
I hear he is migrating the country's 3 servers to Linux from Windows 3.1.
Interestingly enough, the story from the gaurdian turned out to be false. In some way I'm laughing because wouldn't it be nice if newspapers were held accountible for the truth. Anyway, I don't think speech should be a criminal case. Nobody should ever go to jail because they got the facts wrong. Liability via a lawsuit on the other hand ...
-Nuke the moon
It's completely obvious to me that a web site is publishing world-wide. Imagine you print a zine, and when people call you up, you send them a copy. You are then publishing your zine in all those countries that you sent it to. This is exactly what a website does. If you still don't get it: imagine the zine writer sits in the Netherlands, where pictures of nude children sunbathing are legal. He sends his nudist zine to the US. Is he breaking US law or not?
No, but if the guy on the other side of the border shoots you in the head with an AK-47, what're you gonna do about it?
Well, it depends - unless one has a very thick skull or the other guy has a really bad aim i suspect the what one does in such a situation is die.
Then again IANAPTGSITHWAAK47 ( I Am Not A Person That Got Shot In The Head With An AK-47 )
Look. I don't subscribe to everything /. says, but as far as rights issues, they are very in line with my own personal stance. Microsoft lawyers is a bit extreme, and I wouldn't say that myself, that's just worthless hyperbole.
/. showed up, and I will have them long after VA Linux sells out or goes under. This forum did nothing to shape me. If you feel you must lay blame, lay it on my parents and education, or even better, lay it on all of us for not standing up when we needed to to stop this kind of thing from happening.
I consider myself a Constitutional scholar. Not in formal education, but maybe in practice. I carry a copy of the Constitution with me in my car, and in my wallet. These are my unalienable rights as a citizen of this country. When I see other countries grossly abusing the power the populace has placed in them, I get upset yes, but it is up to that country to change it's ways.
But when I see my country doing no better, that's a shocking thing. And my country is doing no better.
I had these opinions long before
-------------------------------------------------
I find it hard to believe that the majority of the white farmers are a bunch of martini-sipping aristocrats that sit around all day while black workers toil in the field. I bet you their quality of life is typically middle class at best.
Mugabwe is currently isolated internationally. He is within a whisker of being kicked out of the Comonwealth. He has been given a public dressing down by Tutu and Mandela. Everyone knows that the recent election was stolen by fraud. Meanwhile Mugabwe is bankrupting the country by financing military expeditions in the Congo whose principal objective is to allow the military to enrich themselves through plunder.
In these circumstances the risk of extradition to Zimbabwe to stand trial for what you write in Slashdot is none too great. What is really going on here is a trial of strength. The problem with sending people to jail for criticism is that it tends not to work in the long run, as the dictators of eastern europe found out. Mugabwe can send critics to jail but in doing so he loses the thin veneer of democratic legitimacy on which his power ultimately rests.
The Skylarof case was completely insignificant on the scale of global politics. The issue in Zimbabwe is democracy or dictatorship.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Of course I'll just post this /. article + discussion for those interested.
8 25 5&mode=nested&tid=95
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/04/125
"The Washington Post's Tech site is running an interesting piece on geolocation technology and its increased use on the net. The article explains the technology as being able to locate an Internet user in the world, at least to their mother country, and then grant access based on their location. They note how television broadcasters are interested in this kind of technology to prohibit the loss of distribution rights to things like the Olympics."
Seems to me that we will soon be seeing this used for ip address block 'blocking' in countries who want to enforce their virtual 'borders'.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The Guardian didn't publish this information in Zimbabwe, the people who downloaded it did. By typing "http://www.guardian.co.uk..." into their browser, or clicking on a link that did it for them, those people imported the Evil Bytes into Zimbabwe's jurisdiction. Meldrum's attorney should question the police officers with respect to the chain of custody and determine definitively who actually sent the HTTP GET request to the web server, then turn to the judge and make a motion to dismiss, as by the Prosecution witnesses' own testimony someone other than his client is responsible for those bytes being in Zimbabwe.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Given than *everything* "The Onion" publishes is trumped up false, or just downright humerous, the fact that China (see previous article on slashdot) mistook a story from the Onion as real might mean that the staff of the The Onion could be looking at serious time if they every go to Zimbabwe. :)
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
It is possible to be guilty of stealing one's own work if one has transferred ownership of that work. One remains the creator of the work, therefore it is still one's work, but no longer one's property.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"I don't see any reason why one state's residents should be responsible for following the laws of another state if they're in their home state." Well, yes, but if the Supreme Court thinks its OK for a Washington State resident to be sued in California for a piece of software harming California industries, even if it was "only" placed on the web.
IANAL, but a state court will claim personal jurisdiction if a tortious act was commited against a resident of that state, even if the tortfeasor never entered that state.
Of course, between countries its slightly different, since the US is unlikely to have an extradition treaty with a country with barbaric laws (e.g. Taliban controlled Afghanistan), but we can't (shouldn't) go knocking on their door when they have someone who violated a US law.
BTW this is a stale news story...
Black Africans are unable to constitute good government.
This is the real story here.
There simply does not exist any tradition of large-scale benevolent leadership in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The current leadership in Ex-Rhodesia is incredibly corrupt. The people themselves are mostly illiterate and lacking in any civic virtue as we recognize it in modern Western democracies.
Are my comments flamebait? Definitely. Are they also entirely accurate? Sadly, yes.
evanchik.net
As an aside, it would perhaps be more accurate to call the Guardian an English and Welsh (rather than a UK) publication. I mention this because there have been a few cases recently of English papers being gagged and prevented from disclosing details on certain released criminals. The idiocy of this is highlighted in the last line of this Guardian article; publishing in England would be illegal, but take one step over the open Scottish border, and it becomes legal.
In that respect, the English courts appear to have little idea how to deal with the complexities of international jurisdiction. It's going to be very interesting when a Scottish newpaper finally does nail its colours to the mast and defy one of these English bans.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Female Prison Rape in NY
If you've kept track of the news for the last couple of years (the elections) or decades you know that Zimbabwe is really screwing itself.
Robert Mugabe is holding onto power using teen gangs to beat up opponents, blaming rural white farmers for his country's ills, bloating up the civil service with jobs for cronies, etc.
Believe me, freedom of the press is just one misery in big heap as far as Zimbabwe is concerned.
It was good and just that they threw off the shackles of colonial imperialism. But now they're finding out that home-grown rulers can be just as bad as their former governments, probably worse than Ian Smith ever was.
It's too bad that there hasn't been more of an international outcry at the abuses in Zimbabwe. I guess things will just have to degrade to the point where enough of the citizens start to get a clue that they have the power to change things, but only if they're willing to risk some more of their blood. Change will have to come from within and will cost dearly.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
No, there is no moral high ground. A country that can't or won't protect its own citizens from capricious tyranny is no country at all
This is so silly...
You propose this and yet the US continues to imprison citizens of other countries??
Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!