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.)
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
I've been following censorware/anti-censorware issues for awhile now, both here in the UK and over in the United States.
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.
Unfortunately, it seems many of the more prominent members are in favor of censorware. For example, Senator John McCain from Arizona has proposed a bill that will force schools to implement filtering in order to receive a federal communications subsidy. This bill has raised awareness of the censorware situation, because many free speech advocates oppose it.
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Canada, B3H 3J5
Why should it matter if we sell them censorware or not? The people of China are hardly what one would think of as stupid... if we stopped selling them software they'd write it themselves. Developing ways to get around already established censoring techniques is more important than just not giving them the tools with which to censor
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!
If you refuse to deal with someone, you can retain a semblance of ethical purity, it is true. But if they don't *need* your business in order to survive, the embargo doesn't accomplish anything in real terms to effect positive change. Companies and nations that have no ethical qualms about dealing with countries that censor their internet will continue to do business with them, and then you run the risk of being the isolationist odd-man out.
Besides, with the amount of censorship that is allowed to happen in this country, it'd be fairly hypocritical if we refused to deal with other nations that practiced censorship.
We're #17!!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Remember Petswarehouse? How about a bill to protect U.S. Citizens from companies that sue people for saying things they don't like?
Judge: So who ordered you to perform this research ?
PhD: Err... the US Goverment
Judge: Are you aware that this breaks the DMCA ?
PhD: Not really, I mean the goverment asked me to do this, they wouldn't ask me to break the law would they ?
Judge: US Goverment did you ask this PhD student to break the law ?
US Goverment: I've never heard anything so ridiculous when would we ever do that ?
Judge: Nixon ?
USG: Apart from then
Judge: Iran-Contra ?
USG: Apart from then
USG: Anyway the Goverment never got convicted then, so that means we have a precedent...
Judge: Good point, Mr PhD Student I sentence you to 10 years in prison for violating the DMCA and 5 years for mis-use of federal funds.
PhD: ?!
USG: Nice touch.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The Vatican has one of the world's great collections of erotica (for research purposes), and you would be very hard pressed to find a more moral, less sinful group of men in the world.
A. Rightmann
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
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.
Forbid American Corporations?
What a stupid idea. This is just the sort of failed concept that was tried with all other sorts of technologies, be it NC Lathes (sold to the Russians by Toshiba), strong crypto (is the US the only country with good mathematicians) or chemical weapons technologies (sold to Iraq by German companies).
With the Chinese graduating twice as many engineers as the US, what makes you think they can't do this themselves??
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
... that the US government tries to censor the Net at home, if they're funding research like this. The fruits of this research will spread around the world at the speed of electrons. I can easily see a situation in, say, 2006 where a) the US has developed compact, easily distributed anti-censorware tools and got them into China, b) China has realized the futility of trying to control people's Net usage when such tools are available and given up, and c) US Net usage suffers from increasing restrictions that do nothing to slow down the h4x0rz but makes everyone else's life more difficult than it has to be. And then what? Why, then, the friendly folks in China start e-mailing innocuously named files ("vacation_pics_from_Beijing.zip") to their friends and relatives in the US, and ...
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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
How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?
Sure. Let's fight repression with repression. It'll be like a war for peace.
-no broken link
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Troll.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
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?
In the release statement of Freenet 0.5 on Slashdot yesterday it was noted that the project needs money. Am I the only one wondering about this coincedence? Since Filesharing is possible over Freenet (among many other anti-censorship uses) it will probabely get nothing.
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
LawMeme points out a glaring loophole in the bill.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion