Slashdot Mirror


Study on Internet Censorship in Germany

An anonymous reader writes "There is a report on Germany forcing ISPs to censor the Internet by faking DNS entries. ISPs also seem to use this to steal mail and generally screw up the Internet. Next thing they plan is using BGP to break routing to unwanted webservers. Scary."

54 comments

  1. Good old Germany by Zamt · · Score: 1, Funny

    You vish to send un e-mail? Vere are your papers?

    --
    A day without sunshine is like, you know, dark.
  2. it sure works by agdv · · Score: 1

    Ever since /. published this story, German DNS servers inform that slashdot.org points to the aol server.

    1. Re:it sure works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So set up your own recursive DNS resolver. Guess which entity could still redirect Slashdot's DNS pointers: ICANN, a private company under californian jurisdiction.

  3. No no no... by FroMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They have it all wrong. It must be the US that is doing this. We know the US is the source of all censorship.

    </sarcasm>

    I love how everytime folks dislike a law (many of them bad) declare that they are going to move to Canada or Europe where freedoms really mean something.

    Well, lets see. Strike out Germany, they censor the web. Strike out France, they also prevent auctions on WWII artifacts. England with their video cameras and national ID cards are out.

    To tell the truth, I found I was able to get the the stormfront site that one of the links mentioned. Why? I live in the US. While we do have freedom issues here, I don't think they are quite the same as many other countries.

    Here, you are allowed to go against popular ideas. You can be a racist if you like. You can hate whites, blacks, anyone you want. You can hate the government or current administration.

    In the US you are able to create your own website and report any news you like. Infact, you can go to any website you wish, and you will actually get there (barring internet routing problems). The government isn't going to force ISPs to route around you.

    While many of the reactionary laws from 9/11 are causing problems, we have Ashcroft fighting to keep those laws on the books. You know why? Because, they are not permanent, there was a sunset clause put into the law. You know what else? Ashcroft isn't having an easy go at it.

    So, next time that you want to throw a temper tantrum that the US is removing your freedoms, keep in mind we could do much worse. We could be making it so you could not go to German sites or French sites or muslim sites or Christian sites.

    This isn't to say we should have these PATRIOT acts and such, but here we have the power and ability to fight laws like that. I think our energy is best used in that fashion, not whining how some other country that has a good law here or there but also has some other horrible laws.

    --
    Norris/Palin 2012
    Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    1. Re:No no no... by crow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do have some good points in your rant. But what about Canada, Denmark, Sweeden, and such? The USA isn't as bad as some make it out to be, but there are examples of where it could be better.

    2. Re:No no no... by FroMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any of those might be fine, as might Germany, France or England.

      Myself, I have other issues with many of those other countries. I am not a big fan of being taxed any more than I already am. I don't know the tax rates in any of those countries, but I'd bet they are more than the US. I don't like the idea of nationalized health care, as Canada has, and Denmark and Sweeden probably have (I could look it up, but not worth it).

      My point original point was that the US isn't this draconiam state where the government decides what you eat, where you work, what entertainment you are allowed. Folks seem to forget that.

      Its easy to rail against the US when you are sitting infront of your GHz class machine, in air conditioning, eating 2000 calories a day. A US citizen has it pretty easy over all. I just mainly think that a lot of the folks here (especially teens and mid twenties folks) don't really appreciate the history of the US and the foundations of the country. Sure, we cannot rest on our laurels of history, but we can draw knowledge and drive towards a future.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    3. Re:No no no... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, ignore that the US also blocks websites. Also ignore that i had no problem accessing stormfront.org from the largest german ISP - as if I would have missed something but American Nazi Scum. But American Nazi sites don't get blocked by King Shrubya and his merry dudes.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    4. Re:No no no... by dk.r*nger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The government isn't going to force ISPs to route around you.

      I think that is a very naive statement. I'm pretty sure that in august 2001 you'd have sworn that the government would never [insert power given to government by the patriot act here].

      Europe isn't perfect, either. In Denmark we are currently dealing with very xenophopic legislation - and it isn't even caused by post 9-11 panic, "we" just don't like other peoples. Add 50+% income taxes, and I wouldn't want to live here, had it not been my fathering country.

    5. Re:No no no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, this is the US you're talking about. The average person eats at least 4000 calories a day.

    6. Re:No no no... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      What sites? Its easy to make claims, tougher to back them up.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    7. Re:No no no... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      :-)

      Yeah, most can survive on 2000 though.

      I'm not saying most don't eat 4000, but 2000 should keep you comfortable with a relatively light amount of activity.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    8. Re:No no no... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Al Jadzira for one, among other non-streamlined news-sites during the war you keep getting lied to about. And the sites that Pennsylvania blocked but won't name.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:No no no... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      You are really overstating things... Most americans don't eat more than 3000.

      I eat 4500-6000 depending on how heavily I am training, and I am a marathoner. Most people exhibit looks of shock when I get our my lunch bag at work, it takes me about an hour and a half of slow steady eating for both lunch and dinner. This is far from the american norm...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    10. Re:No no no... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Uhmm...

      I think you are right on penn, but I could get to Al Jazeera during the war...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    11. Re:No no no... by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [US govt doesn't] decide what you eat,

      As long as it isn't one of the many forbidden herbs, in which case you could go to jail.

      where you work,

      Unless you want to work for a government contractor and happen to enjoy the aforementioned forbidden herbs. All government contractors are required to give drug tests.

      Or maybe you want to conduct business on Sunday, or sell alcohol, things that are still forbidden in many areas.

      what entertainment you are allowed

      Unless you want to:

      Have anal or oral sex (in most states)
      Have sex before marriage
      Be homosexual
      Hire a prostitute
      Watch porn on broadcast TV
      Smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home
      Crack a commercial DRM product
      Trade music online
      Light a bonfire (california emissions laws) ....

      I mostly agree with you, things aren't too bad here, things are a lot worse in some aspects in some other countries. That doesn't mean there aren't severe limitations on what is allowed and what is not.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    12. Re:No no no... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      As the other fellow said, who replied Al-J and these "other" news sites were not blocked on a national level. I think someone other than yourself would have mentioned something, or there is a much larger conspiracy out there to hide the fact.

      I did some looking on the Pennsynlvania stuff. Yeah, I guess there is some law that says you can't goto child porn sites. You are right there.

      I agree that the idea of censoring them is wrong. But wait, there's more! I disagree with censoring them because of the implementation. There does not seem to be a review process to see what sites are on the list. That is the wrong part.

      Now, as far as child porn versus nazi sites. Child porn is wrong since the children have not reached the age of consent. I'd consider child porn on the level of child abuse. What they (child porn sites) are doing is illegal in the first place. The nazi sites that are blocked the folks portrayed on those sites are doing so with their own consent. While they may have made a bad decsion (and be complete idiots) they have a right to.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    13. Re:No no no... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      As the other fellow said, who replied Al-J and these "other" news sites were not blocked on a national level.

      Oh, no, they were just really slow all over the world for no good reason.

      I think someone other than yourself would have mentioned something, or there is a much larger conspiracy out there to hide the fact.

      So the fact that you didn't hear about it in the streamlined media is proof it didn't happen.

      I did some looking on the Pennsynlvania stuff. Yeah, I guess there is some law that says you can't goto child porn sites. You are right there.

      Just like there is a law in Germany that you can't tell lies about how the Holocaust never happened. BTW the real issue with the "Pennsynlvania stuff" is that nobody can check what they actually block, because they won't list the sites.

      Anyway, there is no real problem visiting stormfront.org from Germany. Period.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    14. Re:No no no... by GiMP · · Score: 1

      Al Jadzira was legitimately down during some periods of the war simply due to the stress put on it by (the more intellectual) americans. I used proxy servers in various countries in attempt to reach Al Jadzira; however, from none of though countries could I reach it.

      I did notice that many countries *did* block Al Jadzira with warnings/notices that it wasn't allowed.

    15. Re:No no no... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      So the fact that you didn't hear about it in the streamlined media is proof it didn't happen.

      I guess the fact I haven't heard that aliens did an anal probe to Lars T means it happened too.

      Not only did I not hear about it from the mainstream media, I didn't hear about it from anyone else. I didn't scour the net for information, but I do read enough sources to get a general idea of what is going on. Had I read an even remotely credible source during the war, I'd have checked it out. Heck, even if just to say ha ha, you're wrong.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    16. Re:No no no... by GypC · · Score: 1

      Just like there is a law in Germany that you can't tell lies about how the Holocaust never happened.

      You just said a mouthful right there. There's a world of difference between outlawing child abuse and outlawing speech. That would not happen here in the US.

      Germany is walking right back into the Statist quagmire that spawned Hitler and you don't even know it. Y'all better start haulin' back on the reins of your bureaucrats real hard...

      The free people in the rest of the world also need to stay vigilant. We have a lot of work to do here in the U.S. to keep the government on its leash.

    17. Re:No no no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is resistance against censorship in Germany. Many respectable organizations and individuals have expressed strong objection on an abstract level, practical ways around this kind of censorship are discussed and tutorials are written to illustrate the futility of filtering methods. But we still have this stupid law and politicians in the regional government who work towards enforcement in their realm of influence. So yes, we're rightly accused of using inappropriate measures to further inappropriate causes. That doesn't mean you can lean back and use our failure as an excuse to reject all accusations against your society. An example: AFAIK, very recent deregulation will allow further concentration in the broadcast media market. That isn't technically censorship, but concentration reduces the diversity of opinions, which can have very much the same effects. Then there's the DMCA, etc. etc.

    18. Re:No no no... by Lars+T. · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hey, let's not talk about your sexual fantasies here.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    19. Re:No no no... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I know that even the President is allowed to tell lies. At least he does so. BTW the US forced us to do it.

      And don't tell me that the Astro-Turf campaigns to shut up people in the US are any better.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    20. Re:No no no... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      "As the other fellow said, who replied Al-J and these "other" news sites were not blocked on a national level.

      Oh, no, they were just really slow all over the world for no good reason. "

      You must be new here. This is called the "Slashdot effect." Most likely, more people were trying to go to Al Jazeera's servers than they could handle.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    21. Re:No no no... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well, if it had just been "regular" excessive traffic, yes. But then why did the DNS servers get swamped, not the web servers? Nope, then it's a DOS attack. But that wasn't all.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    22. Re:No no no... by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's xenophobic, it's an attempt to avoid this mass immigration that other countries are facing. Let's face it, at the rates some of these undeveloped countries spit out kids, a lot of us are going to be in the minority real soon. And there isn't enough resources to go around. I think immigration should be allowed only in extreme cases, and where one can prove that they will benefit the society that they wish to join.

    23. Re:No no no... by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      I've never heard any teens and mid twenties complain about the history and foundations of the USA. I think most appreciate the history (remember, teens have heard the history and brilliance of our founding fathers more recently than their elders).

      What they don't appreciate is, like you say, the current state of some things, like the corruption of state officials, and the Bush administrations failure to stand up to the standards of our forfathers, for instance rallying against freedom of religion (one nation under god), against the 5th amendment right to due process (Patriot act), against privacy, against anyone not rich (voodoo economics), against freedom of speech (Bush trying to shut down websites critical of him), and PRO-dictatorship (the loss of democracy and freedom of speech/press in the Iraq war - incidentally, while provoked in part by Bush's comments, primarily enacted by those who claim to be patriotic Americans).

      The problem isn't teens and mid-twenties, it's the older people who don't remember how important the foundations of this country are. They try to overthrow seperation of church and state (many of whom claim our country is founded on christian principles, despite our founding fathers in reality being atheists and deists), hurl insults at anyone questioning the government (would they prefer a dictatorship over democracy? how very patriotic!), and generally display apathy and denial in response to our country's problems in the guise of patriotism.

      The problem isn't activists and similar people who are trying to better our country - it's the "patriotic" people who stand in the way of progress preferring to sit on the couch watching American Idol and Joe Millionaire.

  4. Not only is the method idiotic and broken... by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...But the cause is idiotic as well Censorship never accomplished anything of value except perhaps limiting little boys' access to likenesses of the human body, if you see that as valuable, and stopping reporters from giving out so much information about troops that the enemy starts watching CNN for combat intelligence. Everything else that censorship has done was destructive.

  5. scary. but bad example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this article and research would be MUCH more interesting if the website being blocked where not a bunch of fucking white supremesist nazis!

  6. US blocked web sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are some of these blocked web sites in the US?

  7. Re:scary. but bad example. by FroMan · · Score: 1

    Just because you dsagree with them does not mean that you should desire for their site being censored.

    How would you like it if the US decided that slashdot was just a bunch of liberal idiots and incited folks to be anti America so they decided to censor it.

    Its easy when you are in the majority to say that other people are unreasonable. Heck, 150 years ago in the US these white supremacists would have been able to say you were bing unreasonable and tried to censor you.

    A couple hundred years before that Galileo (sp?) was censored by the Church of the time because they were in the majority.

    Consider next time you want to mod someone down because you disagree with what they say. Will history laugh at you for being so foolish?

    Censorship of ideas is a bad thing (TM). Censoring disidents seems to histoically lead to the oppression of them. Look at China for instance (Maybe Godwin's Law needs to be updated to add China).

    --
    Norris/Palin 2012
    Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  8. Re:scary. but bad example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were: W-E-R-E.

    Supremacist: S-U-P-R-E-M-A-C-I-S-T.

    Idiot: I-D-I-O-T.

  9. Re:scary. but bad example. by mattrix2k · · Score: 1

    this article and research would be MUCH more interesting if the website being blocked where not a bunch of fucking white supremesist nazis!

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
    H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

  10. Nazis aren't that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they don't mess with the Holy Internet.

  11. Have you checked your priorities lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh come on, the fucking web isn't what matters in life.

  12. What's all this then? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This whole discussion has me scratching my head. I can't find any reference to this alleged DNS-censorship that isn't online gossip. Nothing on an actual news site. I've found reports that German companies want to implement this kind of censorship and of course all these claims that they've already done it. But I just don't see it. Why isn't the German equivalent of the ACLU raising a stink? Why is there no actual news?

    Perhaps somebody who actually understands how DNS works could convince me this isn't just a black-helicopter urban legend. Until then, I'm inclined to put this with that guy that "proved" that whitehouse.gov was registered in the U.K.!

    1. Re:What's all this then? by amorsen · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You should not necessarily be surprised that the Germans accept blocking of neo-nazi sites without much discussion. I may be wrong since I am not from Germany but from Denmark, but anything related to nazism seems to be almost as offensive to a German as child pornography is. Imagine that there were sites with child-pornography operating openly in some other country. Do you think the US providers would be told by the government to block access to those sites? And do you think any civil rights group would raise more than a murmur over this, apart from perhaps issuing a report about how badly the blocking is implemented?

      In any case, such blocking is interesting from a technical viewpoint. Doing it in DNS is easy and it scales well, but it is also easy to circumvent. Doing it by inserting a black hole route in BGP is easy for the first couple, but routers will not be able to handle an unlimited number of /32 blackhole routes. As long as the router does not melt, it is a pretty effective method. There are other methods, but they all suck in at least one way.

      And then someone invented Freenet. Practically impossible to block. It will be interesting to see which country that will be the first to make it illegal.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:What's all this then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WDR (Radio+Television), WDR, Heise Newsticker, Bezirksregierung Düsseldorf (Regional Government), Chaos Computer Club Duesseldorf (many more links), CCC's anti censorship tutorial (and more links)

      There are protests, but the regional government has chosen its first targets wisely: Only nazi sites are to be blocked even though the law applies to a much wider range of content (The law doesn't really afford this censorship in my opinion, but if one thinks it can be used against nazi sites, then it could also be used against many other sites.) Since there is a broad consensus against nazis, protesters are easily discredited as nazi sympathizers.

    3. Re:What's all this then? by alvar-f · · Score: 1

      Oh, Anonymous Coward, you must be joking? ;-)
      The WDR is the organisation, who deleted a critical online article after pressure from the master of censorship.
      For more infos about this see ÂEine Zensur findet doch stattÂ.

    4. Re:What's all this then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I listed the WDR (and this website) as an official outlet which offers factual information concering the existence of technical measures, not "gossip". It seems that the parent had doubts that web censorship is real. These links prove it. Some sources are in favor of this kind of censorship, some are against it, some are to loyal to be against it, some aren't sure which opinion hurts their business more. The picture is complex. Someone who's interested in all aspects has a lot of reading material to go through. My intention was simply to remove doubts about the situation. It's not a fictional debate.

  13. Dose of their own medicine by queenb**ch · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why don't we repoint the core DNS servers that server the German IP space to the Hollocaust Center's web site? or maybe www.remember.org (another hollacaust site with graphic photographs)? or maybe http://www.gfh.org.il/? I think that any of those sites would be a fine choice until the German ISP's choose to allow the internet to function properly. Since they seem to be up to their old tricks, perhaps they should be reminded....... My 2 cents, Queen B

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
    1. Re:Dose of their own medicine by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Because that will get nothing useful accomplished. And who are you talking about when you say we? So you suggest WE provide equally corrupt information? Oh that makes sense. If we all listened to the old adage "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," we would all be blind and toothless.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
  14. This VS the spamhaus project by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    I'm sure i'm going to be slapped down many points for saying this. But in many ways, I don't see this as being much diffrent then the spamhaus project, among other sources of blacklisting spam sites.

    Now don't get me wrong, I use spamhaus my self. But make no mistake, it is a form of censorship. I use it specificly to censor sites that have had prior evidence of sending spam.

    The only key diffrence here is that Germany seems to be taking a stand on hate groups. In america there are a vast number of ISPs that wouldn't host white power groups. The key diffrence here is it's not a violation of free speech to let some other joe host it.

    I don't condone what they are doing. Germany clearly has made a choice as to content they deem unacceptable, that's no excuse for screwing up the with. If they really want to censor groups that promote violance and hate, I would propose they do it on a proxy server instead.

    I personaly wouldn't support a sensor stormfront.org. After visiting the site, it made me physicaly ill esp after seeing kids.stormfront.org. "I am only thirteen years old and I really do not need your hateful thoughts in my head." Yep, and providing a nice link to the freal story on marten luther king, with nice info on how somehow jewish run companies are responcible for rap lyrics promoting the killing of white people. [white powder... white powder]. While I hate this crap, it's part of free speech, the inalienable right for people to make total asses out of them selves.

    Meanwhile, i'll just censor spam.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:This VS the spamhaus project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blocking spam is YOUR choice, censorship is not.

    2. Re:This VS the spamhaus project by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's my choice to block spam. I do not want my users exposed to it. I choose to censor spam. while I use spamhaus's service, I am the final censor. I consider spam to be most objectionable. I engage in censorship.

      It's clearly Germany's choice to *block* access to www.stormfront.org. They don't want their nationals exposed to objectionable material. They choose to censor it. They are engaging in censorship.
      It's both censorship, the choice to remove material that is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

      And you know, I object so spam, it's among the most objectionable material i'm exposed to, according to me and countless others objecting to it.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    3. Re:This VS the spamhaus project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you block spam for others and don't give them the option to turn that blockade off, then you are indeed doing something wrong and your users should raise a stink. It's still not censorship, technically speaking, because your users can go to other providers. BTW, you didn't mention any users in your first comment. You did however liken the Spamhaus project to censorship, which is wrong: The spamhaus list provides information, it doesn't block any. You block.

    4. Re:This VS the spamhaus project by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Nope, spamhaus doesn't censor, I do. I use their list but I am the censor who actually engages in the censorship.

      Technically speaking it is censorship in it's purest form. When one person or a group acts as a censor to block objectionable material from larger group of pepole, this is the version defination of censorship. The diffrence is I was asked to take such measures, I was asked to protect people from material they had no wish in seeing.

      Is it any less censorship in Germany because people can choose to either move to other countries, or choose an ISP not governed by German law? Hell no!

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    5. Re:This VS the spamhaus project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must say that I think that spamhaus is a bad example. Censorship in some causes is just, and Spam is one of those examples. Spam has become so prolific that it can be damaging to servers and networks. My college just recently had a major mail server crash due to a massive amount of spam coming through. Therefore, the right of the spammer to free speech is negated by it's violation of another fundamental right, namely the right to property. Same arguement for not letting PETA spraypaint slogans onto McDonalds windows or such.

      There, go forth and block spam without guilt.

  15. Censorship and Conspiracy by fm6 · · Score: 1

    I know about censorship in Germany. I've even ranted about it. My puzzlement comes from this notion that there's some dark conspiracy to censor the German internet, and all we have to prove it are some strange DNS logs.

  16. Online Petition, more material, and experiment by alvar-f · · Score: 1

    Hi,
    at ODEM.org we provide a lot of stuff to this topic:

  17. There IS action against this by alvar-f · · Score: 1

    There is a lot of action against this, but most of it is, of course, in german ... :)
    At ODEM.org (english) we have a lot of material and infos and so on about this -- but the most are in german.
    We have an online petition (Link to the english version) with more then 17000 signers, including the "internet experts" of the big political parties, the "reporters without frontier", Ian Clarke, Richard Stallman and others. You are invited to sign also ... ;-)

    But, yes: in the public outside of the net community you hear very rarely about this. The filtering/blocking is -- if you only have a fast look on it -- against nazis! And in germeny, nearly *everyone* is against nazis.
    And this is the danger: At first, they choose some Nazis. But later, there will be thousands of web sites blocked, see some quotes and infos, but the text and MP3s/OGGs are only in german.

    1. Re:There IS action against this by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Great, you've got 1700 people to sign your petition. And some of them are famous! That proves that your information is correct? No, it just proves that it's very easy to get a lot of names on a petition.

      You seem to be saying that somebody is tweaking the German internet, and nobody's raising any fuss about it because it's anti-Nazi censorship? You're going to have to offer a lot more than a few ambiguous DNS listings to make that convincing!

  18. BGP is NOT gobernement censorship by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Quote " Some german Companies fiddle with a techniqe of using routing protocols to block unwanted web content. "

    Hate to break it to you, but using the web within a corporate environnement is a perk, not a right. And they CAN , have the RIGHT, to censor what they deem an abuse like looking for porn, gambling, whatever.

    As for the other stuff "blocking stormfront", 1) I dislike to break it to you, but some web site are contrary to german law. I see nothing wrong in blocking them. You are american and dislike it ? Tough luck. We dislike some of the US law but can't do sh*t against that and should not even. 2) The biggest provider in germany block none of those stuff. I wonder how much is due to bad configuration. DID those guy not only test the positive result (blocking stormfront) but ALSO the negative result (blocking of web site on the same dns block or beside) ?? Can't seems to find info on that. 3) The people within germany are perfectly agreeing apparently that some stuff needs to be censored. Racism site/book. And so on. There are specific law on that (try to go in a german city and make a conference about "negationism"... Good luck on your prison time).

    Bref, IMO, no news here. Instead of mounting the US-lens and seeing everything through your world, wake up and realise that other countries have other law, other culture, and other history. The PEOPLE of those country should decide if they agreee with their governement practice not the US citizen.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org