Slashdot Mirror
Senate Bill to Subsidize Anti-Censorware Research
Senators Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kyl (R-Ariz.) introduced the
Global Internet Freedom Act
earlier this month, setting aside $60 million over two years "to develop and deploy technologies to defeat Internet jamming and censorship." Of course they don't mean libraries and schools in this country -- they're talking about countries like China, as Kyl et al. explain in a
National Review article
a few days ago. I guess it wasn't confusing enough to
(1) subsidize censorware
and
(2) criminalize researching it
-- we also need to (3) subsidize researching it. How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?
Update: 10/30 03:37 GMT by J : Here's the
Wired story
from early this month on the version that was introduced in the House.
(Sen. Wyden also teamed up last month with Sen. Cox (R-Calif.) on a little bitty resolution standing up for your fair use rights before the tank parade of the DMCA.)
This is just a few congressmen trying to CYA. Sixty million sounds like a lot of money to you and me, but to a government employee, its just a drop in the bucket.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
The contradiction comes from the fact that our government-- especially Congress-- is not a single-headed entity, but a multi-headed entitiy pulling in lots of different directions. As a result, lots of contradictory noises will get made.
Indeed, the more often it acts like a single-headed entity pulling in one direction, the scarier it is. We come in danger of "groupthink", and worrying things like expression divergent opinions become labelled as "unpatriotic", and scary laws like the DMCA (which passed without dissent) or parts of the US PATRIOT act (I'm thinking the library stuff here) getting passed.
-Rob
Watch the CEO as he wears a little US flag on his lapel while greedily counting th bucks he's made by supporting brutal repression in China. Better use for the research money- hire a crew of goons and a helicopter, then see if Cisco CEO can fly if he flaps his arms fast enough.
I'm just wondering what happens to the companies that invest in the child protection software?
Could the whole anti-censorware thing catch up the innocents? What is to stop a pr0n company from saying that it's a form of censorship to block the site (although you'd have to be a really sleazy person to argue it).
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Remember Petswarehouse? How about a bill to protect U.S. Citizens from companies that sue people for saying things they don't like?
Good point! And very true. But wouldn't it seem odd for some people in this country to make a living censoring Beijing and Riyadh in the name of profit, while others make a living getting around it in the name of democracy?
How would that look on the international scene?
If we did that, next thing you know we'd be doing all kinds of wacky things, like... I don't know... suing tobacco companies and giving the money to tobacco farmers...
A absolutely love the fact that we, as a country can, with a straight face, seek to prevent our own citizens from seeing certain things and at the same time subsidize methods to defeat such techniques in other countries ...all while maintaining a straight face.
But then, I guess if we can subsidize murder in other countries when it suits us and then have the chutzpah to call the same done to us as "terrorism," this shouldn't actually come as a shock, should it?
My
Limekiller
How about an interview with a normal everyday user in China (i.e. the chinese version of the average /. reader) asking what it is like to be a computer user/nerd over there
The inherent problem lies in the fact that your Senate and Congress members strongly disagree on this whole topic, thusly ensuring several competing acts, some for censorware, and the others totally against such information-reducing software methods.
I completely agree, the dichotomy of democracy is that is represents one of the least stable structures from the point of view of the people actually seen to be running it - presidents, prime ministers - people who can be voted out with relative ease. I'd imagine they look with more than a little jealousy at countries led by people who maintain a more rigid grip on the reigns of power using censorship to great effect.
The key to it all is the difference between good censorship and bad censorship - the good used to secure the powerbase of the government and keep the people ignorant, the bad used by other governments to do the same thing to their people.
A recent case this brings to mind is in the UK where the media was gagged from reporting on the details of a case (and in fact gagged from reporting on the gag). The case concerned evidence that the UK government had previously paid Al'queda (back in the 80's) to assassinate Gaddafi - something the government believed the people should not be allowed to know...
Now, is that because it's better for me not to know that the government used terrorists, or is it the government worried that the fact may reduce their credibility in the current 'war on terror'...
It's not that I'm Anti-American - I'm Pro-Freedom
How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?
That will work just about as well as forbidding the export of cryptography to rogue nations. It's assuming those governments are not capable of finding somebody that will either ignore the ban or just find somebody within their own ranks to write the software for them.
Geez, they could just have students write censoring proxy servers as projects and use the best one to censor the whole nation.
(1) ...These constitutional provisions guarantee the rights of Americans to communicate and associate with one another without restriction, including unfettered communication and association via the Internet.
They're talking about Americans and the U.S. Consitution, not Chinese and North Koreans, in the bill's very first point. A sign that the authors know what they're about, here?
(8) Since the 1940s, the United States has deployed anti-jamming technologies to make Voice of America and other United States Government sponsored broadcasting available to people in nations with governments that seek to block news and information.
The precedent: Because we've had this sort of arms race, jamming and anti-jamming technologies, over the Voice of America, we should also in principle try to disable jamming technologies on the Web? But apparently only when we're trying to reach the communists with our messages of freedom and light?
The Voice of America is a broadcast message. Big difference between broadcast and point-to-point media: you can control the VoA's programming, but the reason the internet is "powerful engine for democratization and the free exchange of ideas" -- that's the bill talking again -- is because it isn't a controlled state broadcast, it's a bunch of individuals making choices. That's not some detail about the mechanics of the Web, it's what the Web is. If congress simultaneously puts censorware in schools and passes legislation to defeat it abroad, they just don't get how that cuts both ways.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
(e) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY- Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to authorize any action by the United States to interfere with foreign national censorship for the purpose of protecting minors from harm, preserving public morality, or assisting with legitimate law enforcement aims.
"Preserving public morality." The United States Congress's definition of morality. Because if they mean the foreign countries' definitions of morality, that would counter the entire bill. "Legitimate law enforcement." The United States definition of legitimate law enforcement, which these days is being contested by the public. To China, restricting internet access is a legitimate act of law enforcement. As to morals, I don't know what the Chinese government is thinking, but I would think part of their objection to free internet access is their thought that democracy is immoral. Of course the Chinese government is also afraid of what democratic ideas would do to their careers. But I'm afraid this will be interpreted as yet another abuse by the US of its power in the world.
Developers: We can use your help.
Somebody please mod this up as funny. I almost split a gut over this one. More moral, oh god, oh god, there goes my gut. Bugger all, how can a group of men that deny their natural desires for sexual release be less sinful and more moral then me. The more you attempt to repress a normal desire the more it controls you.
How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?
You want to make the world a more free place by banning stuff? Thats wrong.
We are going to get freedom by making encryption freely avalible. Not by banning filtering systems.
This is a troll but I'll bite.
I am a Christian. I believe that porn is morally wrong (For reasons other than "God said so" but that's a discussion for another day.). I also believe it is wrong to censor porn because some people don't have problems with it. I would love porn to go away but that would require a change in people that view it and I understand that you can't legislate morality people have to be moral on their own.
Just like we can't bring morality by legislating a technology that can censor, we really shouldn't be legislating against that technology either. We have free speech in the U.S. and nothing should be allowed to come between us and that freedom. But people have the freedom to choose to censor things. I don't want to see porn so I don't go to porn sites. I don't need a technology to censor that because I can choose on my own and I've used the Internet long enough to make sure I don't accidentally do that. What about a child? If we ban censoring technology can parents still get software that that helps keep them from coming across porn? We do need better parents but buying such software should be a parent's choice and it shouldn't be legislated one way or the other.
That said I'm now going to say its not "right-wing Christians" that are producing or mandating censorware. The people who are doing that corporations which after they develop a technology they come on TV screaming "protect the children" which insites some people, including some Christians to demand it. If censorware is legislated then certain companies make lots of money. So it all comes down to money.
And finally I'm not rabid I've had all my shots.
The Anti-Blog
What's the big deal? Since this country has been founded we have both regulated porn and encouraged free speech, especially political free speech. You are seeking to make things like political speech=porn, which the Supreme Court already rejected years ago.
Also we are not "preventing our own citizens" from viewing porn (as if we are banning it altogether) but saying that you cannot view porn in a taxpayer funded library. You want to get off on porn, do it in your own house. But you have no right to demand it on everyone's dollar.
If your truely worried about speech, why not worry about something truly substantial like the Unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform that harms political speech.
Brian Ellenberger
The zoning laws etc. make no special distinction between a porn empire, and a second-hand bookstore, and indeed both kinds exist freely in the cities. Many shops carry pornographic magazines, just like they carry magazines about movie/music stars fine arts, and photography, without anyone trying classify the stuff into "obscene" and "decent". Those who don't want to purchase them are free not to. Those few who take offense on happening to see a bit of bare skin are tolerated with an amused smile, and mostly ignored, just like those who object to people eating meat or wearing furs.
In Murphy We Turst
Contradictions in government are nothing new. Does anyone else find it amusing that the government spends a lot of money to (1) Discourage people from smoking and (2) Subsidise tabacco farmers?
Brian_Ellenberger writes:
...trying to ...equate political speech with porn? What??
s e-you'd-be-doing-<insert-thing-here>-instead argument.
"What's the big deal? Since this country has been founded we have both regulated porn and encouraged free speech, especially political free speech. You are seeking to make things like political speech=porn, which the Supreme Court already rejected years ago."
I'm
"Also we are not "preventing our own citizens" from viewing porn (as if we are banning it altogether) but saying that you cannot view porn in a taxpayer funded library. You want to get off on porn, do it in your own house. But you have no right to demand it on everyone's dollar."
The hell I don't.
What qualifies as porn? How about Jock Sturges? Does his work qualify? Does this page make the cut? How about a website on breast reconstructive surgery for post-mastectomy patients?
And I wouldn't be doing my argument justice if I didn't bring up the thorny but oh-so-necessary "who decides?" question. I guess the most pragmatic answer is 'the politicians' but is obscenity constant -- is a thing offensive by its very nature -- or does it shift with the political tide? Do we want what we can and cannot see be dictated by those who want to get re-elected? Are you prepared to have Fallwell make this decision for you? You can bet your ass that the aformentioned mastesctomy website qualifies in his book.
Finally, why is it that only your idea of offensive is truly offensive? To the Chinese, our entire view on individual freedom easily qualifies as offensive and probably more harmful to society than even the most strident Republican we have in office views Mr Goatsex.
The issue here is not mere pornography. The issue is the tacit assumption and enforcement of the notion that people should be entitled to say what they want BUT other people should not necessarily be able to hear it. The only way for you to get around this is by taking the position that photography does not qualify as speech. Good luck.
"If your truely [sic] worried about speech, why not worry about something truly substantial like the Unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform that harms political speech. "
Ah, the you-must-not-really-be-genuine-in-your-concern-el
My
Limekiller
Wrong kind of "freedom." The part of the U.S. government who is working on the project mentioned in this article wouldn't want anything to do with Freenet because:
a) They didn't invent it
b) They can't put backdoors in it
Besides, the government is a money-eating machine. Do you really think they would look at a decent pre-existing solution when they can burn money researching such things from scratch?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Is this any different from what the US demands of its ISPs? IIRC, the USAPATRIOT act gives the feds the ability to do all of these things should they believe that it would be "relevant to an ongoing investigation". They aren't even required to show probable cause that the victim is committing, or plans to commit a crime - only that the information would be useful to an "ongoing investigation..."
At least the Chinese are honest - they don't put up any pretenses about being a free country.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I understand that you can't legislate morality people have to be moral on their own.
Stated more strongly: Enforced morality is of no value.
We do need better parents but buying such software should be a parent's choice and it shouldn't be legislated one way or the other.
I also think the knee-jerk /. reaction on this issue is incorrect: The application of censorware at home does not automatically imply lazy/bad parents. Even good parents (I think I'm one, I know my wife is one) can't keep an eye on their children every second of every day.
Here's an anecdotal example that happened in my home on Saturday: My wife came out of our closet to see an explicit photograph of an anal sex act on the screen of her computer, with our five year-old son trying to figure out what it was (luckily it was an ad and words partially obscured things -- not the "key" parts but enough to make it difficult for my son to figure out what was what).
She had been in the room just moments before, and what he was doing on the computer was completely innocuous. How did he get there so quickly?
When she told me, I grabbed my laptop, ssh'd into my router/server, which is running a transparent squid proxy, checked the logs and reconstructed the events.
What my five year-old had done was:
I'm not sure if he clicked something else or if it was just a bunch of popups directly from sex.com (the log gets pretty busy), but a bunch of pretty raunchy stuff came up.
Elapsed time from the GET of dicney.com to the flood of sexual material, according to the squid timestamps: 18 seconds. Anyone who thinks that it's possible to supervise your children every second of the day has never been a parent, and particularly not a parent of multiple children.
Now, my older children know a little more about "things", but this one is not ready to deal with sex, and particularly not the raunch that came up. For that matter, the older ones aren't ready to deal with S&M and anal sex, but they've been taught at school that when such stuff starts to come up on the screen the correct response is to "crash" the computer -- meaning hit the power button (since popups spawn popups spawn popups and it's nearly impossible to close them all).
I'm not quite ready to install censorware yet, but I can certainly see how it would be helpful. At the moment I've just switched the kids from IE to Mozilla and disabled popups. And when they're on the computer and I'm working where I can't see their screen I keep an eye on the squid logs.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Most Congressmen still don't understand what the DMCA means in terms of restricting technological research. For them, the debate was framed entirely within the context of fighting online piracy, and as far as most of them are concerned, the DMCA fought online piracy very well.
So now a couple politicians realize that countries like China are using censorware to restrict the inherent freedoms of their citizens--freedoms which the US believes every man has, not just its own citizens--and they want to fund research to help political dissidents get around censorware. I'm willing to bet they have no idea that the DMCA, which they approved, prevents exactly this kind of research from being done in the US.
If anything, this sort of legislative contradiction is A Good Thing. It may help Congress understand why the DMCA is fundamentally flawed, in both conception and implementation.
I have an 12 year old and an 8 year old.
I don't monitor them.
I explain to the 12 year old that weird sex stuff may pop up on the computer. I've explained they may see things that are weird. It may embarass him/her. I've told them that everybody on the internet is usually lying. I only recently let the 12 year old have their own email account, but I certainly don't monitor it.
If they see a naked body, its not going to kill them. I don't encourage it, but I don't freak out about it either. I'm trying to give them the skills to understand and survive out there, not shield them so they really believe some herb will make their boobs or dick grow bigger.
I try to keep lines of communication open so that they aren't embarassed to ask about weird email web sites.
The idea that children are fragile eggs that will break if shown the wrong picture or words is a fairly recent one; children freak out when their parents make a big deal over stuff. In my view, you need to chill out and relax.