A Birds-Eye View of Online Censorship

Felipe Rodriquez writes "I've written a paper about online censorship, providing a bird's eye view of online censorship and the technologies that are used to implement censorship. My conclusion is that a limited form of online censorship is possible in repressive countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, but virtually impossible to implement in democratic nations. I'm interested in any lucid comments, ideas and criticism."

Comments

I Bet

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't censor this to any great extent. FP!

Re:I Bet

[Anonymous Coward]

People should put the following in their userContent.css file (or whatever the equivalent is for non-Mozilla browsers): /*
* Warn about malicious links
*/
a[href*="goatse.cx/"] /* prank link often seen at slashdot */
{
text-decoration: line-through ! important;
color: brown ! important;
}

Re:I Bet

[Ice_Balrog]

Thats GREAT! Thanks for that code.

Just in time. Thanks, Felipe!

[L. VeGas]

Now I don't have to write that book report on "Neuromancer". I can give my teacher this instead.

Excellent article

[Badger]

Thanks for doing this. You really enumerate the various issues without resorting to hyperbole or political attacks. An excellent and informative summary of the situation.

Be careful who you call democratic.

[Darby]

While America still acts like a democratic nation in many ways, it is a very dangerous thing to consider it one.

Your vote does not count. This was demonstrated absolutely in the last presidential election.

The recent laws (patriot act, homeland security etc) which have been passed by our congress have completely gutted the protections in our constitution. Do you really think the supreme court would strike them down (even if you were permitted to bring a suit which you are specifically not allowed to do)?

While they will certainly use the slow heat process used in boiling a frog, every single piece is in place to make Orwell's vision a reality.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[macdaddy357]

In the U.S., and several other allegedly free societies, censorship is practiced to protect corporate profits. Information on how to circumvent any form of copy protection or digital rights management is illegal in the US under the DMCA, and it has nothing to do with protecting children from smut, or stopping the spread of hate propaganda. Many so-called democracies are really oligarchies for sale to the highest corporate bidder. Democracy and capitalism are not synonyms.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[AdrianG]

• Many so-called democracies are really oligarchies for sale to the highest corporate bidder.

In the case of the US, this is utter nonsense. If money can be said to buy votes, and therefore buy power, who, exactly, is selling these votes.

Why do we allow ourselves, as voters, to be manupulated so easily by expensive political advertising. When we view these messages skeptically and critically, the messages will begin to reflect the intelligence we bring to bear on them. Whe we vote for polititians that act on sound principles rather than pandering to our own special interests, we will get polititians that don't pander to special interests. In any case, I am sure we will continue to get the governement we deserve. Perhaps, someday, we will try to deserve something better. But it's foolish to think that our problem is a failure in democracy rather than a failure in the voting population.

Adrian

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our government (U.S.) is in such a mess because people are stupid, misinformed, and apathetic. Do we hear even moderate outcry against the U.S. Patriot Act or Homeland Security Act or any other Big Brother legislation?

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[Darby]

In the case of the US, this is utter nonsense. If money can be said to buy votes, and therefore buy power, who, exactly, is selling these votes.

I think you misunderstood what he said. If not, and I did, I think my interpretation is more relevant.

The votes are not what is for sale. The elected officials are what is for sale. Whether it is straight bribes, or merely campaign donations, it would be a very difficult thing to argue that most if not all of our elected officials are not completely owned by corporate interests.

Now, given the rest of your post, this is arguably a merely semantical distinction. So once more into the breach.

Whe we vote for polititians that act on sound principles rather than pandering to our own special interests, we will get polititians that don't pander to special interests.

There is one incredibly huge obstacle to this to which I see no non horribly bloody solution.
I certainly hope there is a better answer, but I'm losing hope quickly.
That is the Republican *and* the Democratic parties.
Essentially, they choose who we are allowed to vote for. There are the primaries, but it's still a choice between pieces of garbage wrapped in very slightly different skin.
I personally will never vote for a major party candidate again (it's been years) . I would vote for a white supremacist, or a black supremacist or any other sick wacko long before I would vote for a Rep. or a Dem.
You saw it in the last election. Many more people than did would have voted for Nader or some other "other party" candidate if they weren't convinced (not by anyone in particular) that that would be throwing their vote away.
Now, of course, this is only part of the issue.

Why do we allow ourselves, as voters, to be manupulated so easily by expensive political advertising. When we view these messages skeptically and critically, the messages will begin to reflect the intelligence we bring to bear on them.

Again, there is a large chunk of truth in this, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
The expensive advertising is not the only manipulation. It starts practically from birth.
"America is a free country"
This "freedom" we have is told to us as if it was our birthright and somehow inviolate. When, in school, were you taught that being a patriot does not mean trusting your government, rather it means never under any circumstances trust anything *any* government *ever* does.

"We have freedom of the press"
Where is the analysis of this statement in our education or in our society?
Most people, by my observation, think this somehow means that the press has a duty to tell us the straight unbiased truth. All it means is that the government can't pass laws restricting their freedom to print practically anything they want.
85% of all news you hear see or read (for an average value of "you" YMMV) is fed to you by 7 corporations. This is worldwide, not just in America.
What obligations do they have to the public they are supposed to be working for? Zero.
They havve one and only one obligation.
Maximize profits.
This works up to a point with other types of companies, but it should be painfully obvious to anybody with a minute to think about it that it is absolutely antithetical to the percieved purposes of a news organization.

Now, anybody who has bothered to inform themselves knows that George Bush lost the election. It was buried in a few major papers, but it wasn't made a big deal of. Their reasons? They thought it might undermine his presidency?!?
Well, yes.
That's their freaking job.
It was reported two weeks before the attacks that John O'Neill Resigned as Deputy Director of the FBI
for the specific reason that George Bush and US oil interests were the major block in their investigations of the Saudis. In particular, GB *ordered him to get off the Bin Laden family's backs*
Where was the analysis of this later?

Yes, these things can be discovered if you have the time, the means, and the inclination to dig for it. Given the incredible lack of free time we have compared to the rest of the civilized world, is it any surprise that more people haven't discovered these things?

Even "counter news" (for lack of a better word) sites aren't unbiased. You can find sites with this information next to pretty far out conspiracy theories and other merely bizarre stories with undetermined (by me) truth values.

So, while it is possible to do your most basic duty as a citizen of a free society and inform yourself, it is really difficult.

Can you point me to one source that is unbiased?

Yes, the American people are to blame, but given how completely the deck is stacked against us, how do you propose they do better?

But it's foolish to think that our problem is a failure in democracy rather than a failure in the voting population.

Democracy (or Constitutional Republicism) depends absolutely on a free flow of information (not copyrighted MP3s) and a transparent government.

So when it's in the best interest of the media conglomerates, who have massive wealth and vast knowledge of mass propaganda techniques at their disposal, to lie to us and manipulate us for profit what do we do?

When our government is creating an Uber Gestapo and specifically putting into the laws that we are not allowed to know what they do; even to the point of exempting them for the Federal Whistleblowers act (which says absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they *plan* on breaking the law), what is a good citizen supposed to do?

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[aminorex]

> In any case, I am sure we will continue to get the governement we deserve.

The problem I have is that I get the government
that the average American voter deserves.

Sorry, I'm off for Canada in January. Thanks
for all the fish.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[aminorex]

> They havve one and only one obligation.
> Maximize profits.

Not really. There are political ties between
corporate boards and the government in most
areas of endeavor. In the mass media the primary
points of contact are with the intelligence
community (aka the "shadow government"). The
documented infiltration of CNN by the CIA
is one characteristic example.

Really, the media corporations are a mix of
economic interests driving sensationalistic
pandering coverage of irrelevant personality
events and governmental propaganda a la Joseph
Goebbels. Both political power and direct
profit interests motivate the decision makers.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[Darby]

.... Both political power and direct
profit interests motivate the decision makers.


This is certainly true. The political aspects aren't legal obligations as is the profit though.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[/dev/trash]

Your vote does not count. This was demonstrated absolutely in the last presidential election.

My vote counted, my candidate won. Just because yours didn't, doesn't mean you showuldn't vote again.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[Darby]

My vote counted, my candidate won. Just because yours didn't, doesn't mean you showuldn't vote again.

I assume you mean you voted for Bush?

If you would actually take the time to research the subject, you would know that he was shown absolutely to have lost when the whole state of Florida was recounted.
Another fact you would come across if you took your responsibility to inform yourself seriously is that the only reason it was even close in Florida is that Jeb robbed 10s of thousands of citizens of their most fundamental right as a citizen of a democracy.

The fact that you don't know these things shows that you do not deserve the freedoms we are supposed to have since you can't be bothered take *any* responsibility for them.
The fact that you can, at this point, after he has demonstrated absolutely that he hates freedom and the constitution, defend the traitor Bush proves you to be a fool and a traitor as well.

With ignorant scum like you here, I have very little hope for this country's future.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[/dev/trash]

If you would actually take the time to research the subject, you would know that he was shown absolutely to have lost when the whole state of Florida was recounted.

If Gore would have won the whole state, why didn't he ask the whole state be recounted and not just the very heavily Democrat counties?

Another fact you would come across if you took your responsibility to inform yourself seriously is that the only reason it was even close in Florida is that Jeb robbed 10s of thousands of citizens of their most fundamental right as a citizen of a democracy.

You forgot to place a link or two here, backing up your claim Jeb robbed people the right to vote.

The fact that you don't know these things shows that you do not deserve the freedoms we are supposed to have since you can't be bothered take *any* responsibility for them.

Good god I hope you never get elected to an office with power, your opponents would be locked up and killed for not believing you.

The fact that you can, at this point, after he has demonstrated absolutely that he hates freedom and the constitution, defend the traitor Bush proves you to be a fool and a traitor as well.

Again I didn't see any references to Bush's 'hatred' of the constitution. In my world, Congress makes laws, not the President or John Ashcroft, so take your beef up with them.

If Bush was so evil and he's doing so much to hurt this country, why is for the first time in years, the opposing party lost the mid-term elections? Oh wait, don't answer that, me and 1000's of others didn't VOTE for Republicans, Democrats were just robbed.

With ignorant scum like you here, I have very little hope for this country's future.

Sticks and stones, my friend. But if I were you I'd read the Constitution. Look for things like "Congress makes the laws" and "Electoral College elects the President." You won't see "Popular vote is the way to elect the President."

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[Darby]

If Gore would have won the whole state, why didn't he ask the whole state be recounted and not just the very heavily Democrat counties?

The full recount wasn't done until long after the fact. Gore didn't know what the results would have been, so he attempted to pick and choose the method of recounting which he thought would give him the best chance of winning regardless of the actual will of the populace. Does this make him a scumbag as well? Damn straight. Does it change the fact that he won the election? Absolutely not.

You forgot to place a link or two here, backing up your claim Jeb robbed people the right to vote.

Since part of my point was that the ignorance and laziness of the American people is a major part of the problem, I'd hoped that you might actually show some small interest in doing your fundamental duty as a citizen and inform yourself.
Given this "spoon feed me" attitude far too common among Americans, I'm not surprised that you couldn't be bothered.
That said, here is one link. Rather than seeking out a way to discredit this one particular link, do yourself, me, and everyone else in the world a favor and take a look around for others. The information is out there, but you have to work to find it.

Here's one

Good god I hope you never get elected to an office with power, your opponents would be locked up and killed for not believing you.

That's quite an extrapolation from what I said. Did I say that you deserved to be locked up or killed?
It's especially disturbing given the fact that you are defending Bush who has done all of these things.
You have a fundamental responsibility as a citizen of a free society to take an active role in informing yourself. An informed electorate is essential to the operation of a democracy (or constitutional republic). You have demonstrated a lack of interest in doing this. Given that you are not willing to do your part to ensure our freedoms are not taken away how is it that you deserve them?
Again, I'm not recommending that you have your rights and freedoms stripped away for the crime of apathy just stating that you are not doing what is required to earn them.

Again I didn't see any references to Bush's 'hatred' of the constitution. In my world, Congress makes laws, not the President or John Ashcroft, so take your beef up with them.

Did I say that congress wasn't equally guilty?
Are you aware of the passage of the Patriot act?
What about the Homeland Security bill?
Congress passed them, but Bush pushed them very hard. Both of these laws are absolutely incompatable with a free society.

You are aware, are you not, that for even writing this I can be taken away in the night and shot in the head without a trial, without recourse to the law and without my family being allowed to even find out what happened?
This is also a fact. If you would read these laws, you would be aware of this.
Do I think this is at all likely right now? No.
But it absolutely is possible.
The fact that he pushed for this is clear proof that Bush hates everything this country claims to stand for with a passion since it was designed to remove all of these things.

If Bush was so evil and he's doing so much to hurt this country, why is for the first time in years, the opposing party lost the mid-term elections? Oh wait, don't answer that, me and 1000's of others didn't VOTE for Republicans, Democrats were just robbed.

What does the one have to do with the other? I don't think I have ever said that the democrats were anything but garbage wrapped in flesh either.
Well, like I said, an informed electorate is essential to the proper operation of an alection process. When people are not aware of all the facts, they will almost inevitably make bad decisions.
Incidentally, since you are (apparently) a Republican, how do you reconcile the Small Government plank with the Department of Homeland Security which is the worst type of Big Government possible?

Sticks and stones, my friend. But if I were you I'd read the Constitution. Look for things like "Congress makes the laws" and "Electoral College elects the President." You won't see "Popular vote is the way to elect the President."

I have read it, my friend. This is part of the reason that I am aware that it is currently being raped. I never said Congress was innocent. Bush pushed very hard for these laws though so he is hardly free of blame in this.
I am well aware that popular vote does not elect the president. Gore won on the popular vote regardless of the recount. This is a completely different issue though.

Here is another *fact* which I doubt you are aware of.

John O'Neill former Deputy director of the FBI resigned in protest stating that US oil interests were the primary problem with their terrorist investigations. Further, he stated that he was specifically ordered by Bush to lay off of the Bin Laden family.
Even if he was lying, which nobody has ever tried to show, don't you think this fact would deserve mention two weeks later when the attacks happened?

There are two things without which a free society are not possible.
One is a transparent government. If you are not allowed to know what your government is doing, then how can you possibly decide. Bush has done everything he can to remove all possibility of doing this.
He pushed to exempt the Homeland Security department from the federal whistleblowers act.
If you are not aware, this act protects people who come forward about criminal actions, from prosecution. This shows very clearly that this department fully intends to commit illegal actions. Why else would he be so desperate to have it?
He has completely gutted the Freedom of information act. Further, to prevent what is left of it from working, he ordered all government departments to fight any such requests to the best of their abilities.
The fact that other people, parties, and government institutions are also complicit in these things are irrelevant to the fact that Bush has done nothing to add to freedom and everything he can to remove it.

The other thing is an informed populace. A truly free press is part of this, but that is something we certainly do not have. Sure, Congress shall pass no law etc.
But does this imply some sort of obligation on them to report the important news? Of course not.
The only obligation the press has is to maximize profits for their parent corporations. If this means lying, misrepresenting, manipulation, and supression of stories which might decrease profits, then not only is it likely they will do this, if they are owned by a public company they could, in theory, be sued for not doing this.

Sorry for the sticks and stones, but when your lack of knowledge helps make my freedoms a crime, I think some anger is understandable though neither polite nor helpful.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[/dev/trash]

I see where this is going. I don't agree with you so you start accusing me of being ignorant and lazy and the such.

The full recount wasn't done until long after the fact. Gore didn't know what the results would have been, so he attempted to pick and choose the method of recounting which he thought would give him the best chance of winning regardless of the actual will of the populace. Does this make him a scumbag as well? Damn straight. Does it change the fact that he won the election? Absolutely not.

Here a link.....to a Liberal slanted news source that states that Gore would have still lost a full recount: Gore Lost

Given this "spoon feed me" attitude far too common among Americans, I'm not surprised that you couldn't be bothered.

I'm not asking to be spoon fed, I'm asking for a little proof of your accusations. you make them, YOU back them up. Here are so more links for ya: Linkx 1 Link 2 Link 3

You are aware, are you not, that for even writing this I can be taken away in the night and shot in the head without a trial, without recourse to the law and without my family being allowed to even find out what happened? This is also a fact. If you would read these laws, you would be aware of this. Do I think this is at all likely right now? No. But it absolutely is possible. The fact that he pushed for this is clear proof that Bush hates everything this country claims to stand for with a passion since it was designed to remove all of these things.

Anything is possible.

John O'Neill former Deputy director of the FBI resigned in protest stating that US oil interests were the primary problem with their terrorist investigations. Further, he stated that he was specifically ordered by Bush to lay off of the Bin Laden family. Even if he was lying, which nobody has ever tried to show, don't you think this fact would deserve mention two weeks later when the attacks happened?

The US is mired in conflicting interests with Oil? Get out of here! I suppose you'll agree with me when I say that we should stop importing oil and oepn up ANWR?

Incidentally, since you are (apparently) a Republican, how do you reconcile the Small Government plank with the Department of Homeland Security which is the worst type of Big Government possible?

Yeah I'm a Republican, but *gasp* I actually voted for some Democrats this last election, and when Ed Rendell won the governor's seat, I accepted it and didn't start crying 'voter fraud'. I have not read all of the Homeland Security Act, but I am under the impression that it consolidates existing departments into one. That seems like a reduction of government not an increase.

I heard a few days ago that even if the fears of people like you come true and every citizen is spied on, it'd still be a failure. Ever try to get your driver's license renewed? It's called bureauacracy. The CIA/FBI/Whatever is still made up of government employees.

One is a transparent government. If you are not allowed to know what your government is doing, then how can you possibly decide. Bush has done everything he can to remove all possibility of doing this.

Yeah well Clinton evoked Presidential immunity a few times as well. He also tried to redefine what the word "is" means. Oh wait, forget it, that whole thing was a witch hunt to expose the sex life of a private citizen, nothing more.

The other thing is an informed populace. A truly free press is part of this, but that is something we certainly do not have. Sure, Congress shall pass no law etc.

Aren't you disproving your point by postng here? try going to Nigeria, where hinting that Mohammed would have dated a Miss World winner, gets your business burnt down. Point me to something like that happening to the US press?

Sorry for the sticks and stones, but when your lack of knowledge helps make my freedoms a crime, I think some anger is understandable though neither polite nor helpful.

Again you call it ignorance, I call it: Back up your accusations.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[Darby]

Anything is possible.

The issue isn't one of what things are hypothetical possibilities, rather what is specifically coded into the laws of the United States today.

The US is mired in conflicting interests with Oil? Get out of here! I suppose you'll agree with me when I say that we should stop importing oil and oepn up ANWR?

There is also a difference between "conflicting interests" and a specific case where, according to the deputy director of the FBI, the interference by an oil man who is also president led directly to the worst terrorist attack in US history. Further these attacks were used as an excuse to pass the most draconian laws in the history of the country.

, but I am under the impression that it consolidates existing departments into one. That seems like a reduction of government not an increase.

It does indeed consolidate many departments in to one. Some of those departments were separated for very good reasons. The CIA was banned by law from operating inside the US for any reason whatsoever.
Why? Because people realised that a government spying on its own citizens is a bad thing, and contrary to our ideals of freedom.

I heard a few days ago that even if the fears of people like you come true and every citizen is spied on, it'd still be a failure. Ever try to get your driver's license renewed? It's called bureauacracy. The CIA/FBI/Whatever is still made up of government employees.

So if I decided to throw a baseball through your window you would be ok with it as long as you heard I was a bad shot?
Beauracracy has very little to do with this problem. It is largely dealing with computerized records and automatic cameras as well as other automated means of data collection. The very idea is totally broken. The fact that you seem to be ok with it only because it "can't work" is really frightening.

Yeah well Clinton evoked Presidential immunity a few times as well. He also tried to redefine what the word "is" means. Oh wait, forget it, that whole thing was a witch hunt to expose the sex life of a private citizen, nothing more.

Which has exactly what to do with Bush?
Have you ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?
You seem to think that since I'm against Bush, I'm for Clinton. I personally can't stand the Republicans *or* the Democrats. Few, if any, things in this world are right/wrong, black/white etc. This idea is created to some fairly large extent by the two party system. The fact is that there are very few real differences between the two parties.
They are all bought and paid for tools of major special interest groups. Often the same groups own people from both sides.

Why do you think that Bush has been fighting tooth and nail an investigation of September 11?
Isn't the possibility that John O'Neill wasn't lying when he gave up his life's work worthy of an inquiry at the very least? Lying about a blow job got an impeachment. Ordering the FBI off the back of the terrorist who the CIA trained to blow up our buildings doesn't even get a mention. That is an extremely fucked up set of priorities.

Personally, I think the whole Clinton thing was a witch hunt because a freaking blow job is totally irrelevant to his job. Yes, he lied, but that is what would be expected of a gentleman. No, I don't think that had a thing to do with why he did it though.
There are many other things about the Clinton Presidency and his prior Governership which I would much rather see investigated. Like the deaths of *a lot* of the people he was associated with and the evidence of his involvement with the cocaine trade in Arkansas.

Again though, the fact that he is a total scumbag doesn't mean that Bush isn't just because he's in a different party.

Aren't you disproving your point by postng here? try going to Nigeria, where hinting that Mohammed would have dated a Miss World winner, gets your business burnt down. Point me to something like that happening to the US press?

To make this example fit, you would have to get some of your friends together and come over and burn my house down because I said something you didn't like. Also, it isn't so much what they do print as what they don't.
For example, I saw a report the other day stating that there was some evidence linking childhood immunizations to the huge increase in autism in this country. I had seen many other such reports previously, mainly in European papers.
Now, the link hasn't been demonstrated absolutely, correlation not being causation and all of that.
The thing that struck me as very suspicious was that no mention whatsoever was made in this report (might have been CNN, but I'm not sure) that one of the riders put into the Homeland Security bill specifically prevents the company who made this vaccination from being sued.
Isn't that a critical feature of this story?
Yet it wasn't even mentioned.
That is the type of collusion that destroys any benefit from even having a "free" press.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[Sylver Dragon]

The issue isn't one of what things are hypothetical possibilities, rather what is specifically coded into the laws of the United States today

I've only had a chance to skim through the new laws, and am not very good at translating legaleese, can you provide a specific portion of the legislation that would allow the government to come and shoot you, without any recourse?

...according to the deputy director of the FBI, the interference by an oil man who is also president led directly to the worst terrorist attack in US history.

While I will grant that a president shoudn't go about stopping investigations for the purposes of profit, I think you are making a leap in logic here that is not really supportable. Yes, Bush may have insisted that the Bin Laden family investigation be halted; however, this does not mean that he caused the attacks, or thier success. First, the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia had already distanced themselves from Osama. Second, there is no garantee that continuing the investigation would have stopped the attacks. The US is a rather open society, it allows people to come and go mostly at will. There are also a number of people that are willing to die to attack the US. It was really only a matter of time until a terrorist group got lucky and killed a lot of people. Trying to blame this on anyone person is silly. Yes, Bush canceled an investigation that might have helped thwart this particular attack, but we will never know this. Further, the CIA did have information that might have thwarted this attack, but it had not been reviewed properly yet, so again we will never know. What you are doing is pointing out a maybe and trying to use it to assign blame. You seem otherwise logical, so please, get off the Bush bashing bandwagon, yes he's screwed up a couple of things but this is nothing more than an illogical personal attack.

...Further these attacks were used as an excuse to pass the most draconian laws in the history of the country.

I do have to agree with this point. I don't like the way that the government is using the attacks as a way to trample privacy. At this point, we can only hope that in a year or three, when the attacks are further behind, that the Judical branch will re-assert its constitutional powers and duty, and vacate these laws.

Personally, I think the whole Clinton thing was a witch hunt because a freaking blow job is totally irrelevant to his job. Yes, he lied, but that is what would be expected of a gentleman.

Yes, but he lied to a Grand Jury, for most citizens this would be called perjury. But this is really beside the point. And you are right, two wrongs don't make a right.

There are many other things about the Clinton Presidency and his prior Governership which I would much rather see investigated. Like the deaths of *a lot* of the people he was associated with and the evidence of his involvement with the cocaine trade in Arkansas.

Agreed, this is the sort of thing that should have gotten the air time.

For example, I saw a report the other day stating that there was some evidence linking childhood immunizations to the huge increase in autism in this country. I had seen many other such reports previously, mainly in European papers. Now, the link hasn't been demonstrated absolutely, correlation not being causation and all of that. The thing that struck me as very suspicious was that no mention whatsoever was made in this report (might have been CNN, but I'm not sure) that one of the riders put into the Homeland Security bill specifically prevents the company who made this vaccination from being sued.

Actually, I was somewhat suprised that CNN would print anything at all. If there isn't a firm link between a problem and a cause then it printing that a link might exist could have a determental effect. One of the problems we have in the US is that the majority of people are sheep, they will blindly follow what the media tells them, and are not usually inclined, or capable, of understanding the difference between causality and commonality. Somthing like this could cause people to try to stop childhood vaccinations, which, may carry an incresed risk of autism, but definatly carries a higher risk of diseases such as polio.
As for not mentioning the rider in the Homeland security act (again, I've not had a chance, if you could point me at the specific clause I would appreciate it.) The reporter may not have known about it. This report was probably written by a journalist specializing in medicine, not in law, and so he/she may not have even known about that particular clause.
As for making informed descions, are you implying that every person should hold a law degree? Because that's what it would truly take for people to know and understand the implications of every law that gets passed. Yes, it would be nice, but it is impractical. This is like arguing that every person that drives a car should be an ASE certified mechanic, if they use a computer, they must hold a BS in Computer Science, etc. There is a point at which we all have to rely on people that should know a certain subject. This is one of the advantages of a Republic, the people elect a person who has the time, drive, and education to fully understand a proposal before codifying it into law. Certainly the system can be abused, and the rise of the two party system doesn't help, though you can vote for anyone if you wish. Also, if I may interject my opinion, term limits on congressmen would help out a lot, by denying someone the chance to build a powerbase, and getting rid of carrer congressmen. But, its about as good as we are going to get. If you don't like how things are going, they start getting your opinion out there. Slashdot is a nice place to start, but it is hardly a widely read forum. You might try things such as letters to the editor of newspapers, maybe even starting your own news site, crying foul in a less than widely public forum isn't going to accomplish much. For an example of how to do this sort of thing, look a Limbaugh, you may not agree with what he has to say (hell, I rarely do and I'm mostly conservative) but he is a good example of how to start and run a sucessful political radio talk program.
I wouldn't say that I totally disagree with your overall point, the govenrment, as it stands, is a bit out of hand. Though I don't think I would quite call it a totalitarian state yet. The simple fact that we are able to discuss this sort of thing publicly seems to indicate otherwise. We are still able to decry our own govenment, and we are still able to try to enact peaceful change in our governemt. I agree that we should be worried about where we are headed, but it something that should be approced in a more thoughtful manner than name calling.

Re:Be careful who you call democratic.

[Darby]

can you provide a specific portion of the legislation that would allow the government to come and shoot you, without any recourse?

The part where it says you can be held without access to a lawyer and without any other communication if someone decides you are a "terrorist". This has been widely reported. If you have no recourse, the FOIA has been raped, and what's left Byush has ordered all government agencies to fight tooth and nail. Given this, they can do whatever the hell they want.

While I will grant that a president shoudn't go about stopping investigations for the purposes of profit, I think you are making a leap in logic here that is not really supportable.

This isn't the only piece of information regarding Bush's handling of the situation which logically leads to this conclusion. How about the fact that not a single fighter was scrambled? How about the fact that Bush was told about the first attack *on TV* and did nothing for at least another 20 minutes. This doesn't constitute "absolute proof", but it is certainly clear ythat if he was not acting maliciously then at the very least he was acting with criiminal neglect of his duties. When you throw in the fact that him, his administration and his business partners are the only people who stand to profit from the situation, the rational thing to do is suspect something very shady. You seem to have the attitude that until something is proven absolutely it isn't worth considering.
What has Bush ever done to inspire such blind devotion on your part?
You don't seem to understand your responsibilities as a citizen. Trusting your government is not patriotism. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Your job is to question *everything* your government does. Vote for who you believe will do the best job for our country but do not trust them at all. That, my friend, is what it means to be a patriot.

First, the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia had already distanced themselves from Osama.

Publicly sure. And you believe them?!? Why?

Second, there is no garantee that continuing the investigation would have stopped the attacks.

There is a guarantee that if Ashcroft had not *refused* to allow the FBI to search Massoui(sp?)'s computer that the attacks would have been known about. What did he know? Why has he prevented any investigation of it? Why, when he is finally being forced into allowing an investigation, did he put Kissinger, a scumbag wanted in several countries for crimes against humanity, in charge of it?

What you are doing is pointing out a maybe and trying to use it to assign blame. You seem otherwise logical, so please, get off the Bush bashing bandwagon, yes he's screwed up a couple of things but this is nothing more than an illogical personal attack.

I'm pointing out many many pieces of evidence and drawing a rational conclusion from them. You are saying that regardless of all the evidence, there isn't any call to suspect him? That is a failure of logic.

I do have to agree with this point. I don't like the way that the government is using the attacks as a way to trample privacy. At this point, we can only hope that in a year or three, when the attacks are further behind, that the Judical branch will re-assert its constitutional powers and duty, and vacate these laws.

So your solution is to wait, allow the draconian power structure to solidify, and hope that it gets fixed at some point? How do you propose getting the SC to even look at this case? They don't just look for bad laws and strike them down. They can't do this. Your optimism is nice among friends and family, but it is always foolish with respect to your government.

As for not mentioning the rider in the Homeland security act (again, I've not had a chance, if you could point me at the specific clause I would appreciate it.) The reporter may not have known about it. This report was probably written by a journalist specializing in medicine, not in law, and so he/she may not have even known about that particular clause.

Here
is one link
This was debated in congress and reported on NPR while it was going on.

As for making informed descions, are you implying that every person should hold a law degree? Because that's what it would truly take for people to know and understand the implications of every law that gets passed.

I'm implying that detailed analysis of all of the implications of the law from all points of view is the job of the news services. They have long since ceased doing anything even close to investigative journalism, and this is a critical problem. I don't think there is a solution to this. Freedom of the press is a two edged sword. The press can't be prevented from printing things, but neither can they be made to perform their role which is (largely) transparancy of the government.

This is one of the advantages of a Republic, the people elect a person who has the time, drive, and education to fully understand a proposal before codifying it into law
And then you watch them like a hawk. This is the part you're forgetting.

Also, if I may interject my opinion, term limits on congressmen would help out a lot, by denying someone the chance to build a powerbase, and getting rid of carrer congressmen.

Abso-freaking-lutely. As well as preventing *all* financial contributions from non-citizens (read corporations).

But, its about as good as we are going to get.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. I still hope and strive for something better. It's sad that you are so accepting of things.

You might try things such as letters to the editor of newspapers,

I do. They certainly won't print anything that might make their advertisers look bad or that might lower their parent corporations profits. This is basic economics. It won't stop me from trying, but given that 7 corporations control 85% of all news, it would be silly to believe this could work.

For an example of how to do this sort of thing, look a Limbaugh, you may not agree with what he has to say (hell, I rarely do and I'm mostly conservative) but he is a good example of how to start and run a sucessful political radio talk program.

Spout out drooling rhetoric, and uninformed opinions demonizing one party and canonizing the other? I don't want to lead a herd of sheep. I want people to start thinking critically and informing themselves.

Though I don't think I would quite call it a totalitarian state yet. The simple fact that we are able to discuss this sort of thing publicly seems to indicate otherwise.

Boiling a frog. The powers are in place. They aren't stupid though. It starts slowly. First you cut off the public from knowledge of what the government is doing. This step is in place.

I agree that we should be worried about where we are headed, but it something that should be approced in a more thoughtful manner than name calling.

Worry in one hand and shit in the other. See which fills up first. I'm not calling names. I'm looking at evidence and drawing a reasoned conclusion. You seem to be saying that without absolute proof of guilt, questioning motives is silly.
That, I find very sad.

I like the glossary

[hether]

Wish I could offer something more constructive, but I only had time to skim. You were very inclusive, covering all the major points I had thought of plus some. The glossary is a nice addition to the piece. Good work!

Thankyou, you'e saved me a comment so...

[The_Guv'na]

Yup, you only have to read the Wikipedia definition of Censorship given in the PDF. So I've written you a song:

Thoughtcrime Police
Arrest this man, He's not a drone
He's thinking what he wants
He's like an individual.

Thoughtcrime police
Arrest this girl, Her head's not ours
Her mind is on the loose
She found the truth about our rule

With apoligies to Radiohead.

Ali

Solution to the censorship problem found!

[Alsee]

My conclusion is that a limited form of online censorship is possible in repressive countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, but virtually impossible to implement in democratic nations.

Well then the solution is obvious, we just need a repressive government.

-