Slashdot Mirror
Privacy International Internet Censorship Report
eric434 writes "The Register reports that Internet restrictions, government secrecy and communications surveillance have reached an unprecedented level across the world, from 9/11-inspired Patriot-esque laws to national internet filtering and corporate abuse of the legal system. Summarizing the Privacy International report, it's quite evident that we've not only approached but started down a slippery slope. In the words of Simon Davies (director of Privacy Intl.), 'The report sounds a warning that we must move quickly to preserve the remaining freedoms on the Internet before they are systematically extinguished.'"
It is only natural that there will be increased monitoring, considering that the Internet could be used to hatch plans. Monitoring is necessary at least to a limited extent, but there should be a lot more checks and balances on making sure these are not used for Orwellian purposes.
" ... it's quite evident that we've not only approached but started down a slippery slope.
... rather like the labors of Sisyphus. The bad guys keep making the slope steeper and slipperier ... and the damned rock heavier ....
I prefer to think in terms of approaching and starting up the slippery slope of liberty
-kgj
Let's see how long my free speech rights seem to last when, despite not acting or doing anything illegal, I get detained for detailing how to disable airport security.
It doesn't matter if I say it or write it for people to make corrections. Someone COULD use it, and hence my free speech will be nullfied.
China and Burma can't be leading an attack when they are maintaining the same policies they've had in place. The US and UK can when they start forcing other countries to crack down on such publications, both for security reasons, the MPAA, the RIAA, etc. Remember DeCSS?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
I have no problem with the government search websites and public areas of the internet. But, the line has to be drawn there. Without a warrant, the policing authorities should have the same right as an individual, as in looking into what is clearly visible. But, getting into snooping e-mail or hacking systems they must have a warrant, issued by a judge without rubber stamp.
This is clearly different from censorship which is the prevention of publication of materials. Of course, you have a potential for censorship where you allow for a non-checked police checking identities of posters.
Fight Spammers!
Whose ox is being gored? There is little consistency in the positions and posturings of those involved in the privacy debate. For example, we believe in freedom of expression on the Internet...except for those who promulgate hate speech (which is defined as speech I find offensive). We believe in respecting the privacy of those on the Net...except for those who I believe are abusing the Net (they're fair game for any abuse I choose to heap on them).
National sovreignty: There seems to be two approaches to this: national sovreignty applies to every nation, except, of course, those nations with policies I don't like; and national sovreignty applies to no one, except, of course, those evil transnationals (and any other organization I don't like) who need to be under the sovreignty of every country.
Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." It would appear that consistency of any kind is the hobgoblin of all of us. What this means is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, just as there is no one-size-fits-all ideologies. We are going to have struggle together to arrive at workable solutions. We're going to have to listen to those with whom we disagree and work together to create the best compromise we can.
Oh, I believe a great many people have that feeling. The current administration supports big business over all else, and the preservation of their assets and ability to make money is paramount. A large, docile population of people who just contentedly feed that personal information without becoming distressed is ideal.
Take a look at the new additions to the anti-spam legislation; the "direct mailers" are now responsible for "self policing." In other words, the wolves have been given yet another key to the fold.
We've had a "common enemy" created for us in Sadam Hussein while our actual enemy (Osama bin Laden) continues to elude us. I have no doubt this was done to induce patriotic feelings; no one, really, wants to make life harder for the soldiers or to appear to be comforting our enemies--even make believe ones. I suspect we'll queue up gladly to authorize airline security to pull credit reports--for example.
All this is going to go swimmingly until enough of us have lost our jobs that we can't keep the money-making machine going any longer.
As I read back over this, I'm surprised at myself. I'm your basic hardworking ordinary Boomer. Something in your short post must've struck a chord.
Anne
DUCT TAPE: The Election Supervisors' Secret Weapon
Don't misunderstand this, but the redistribution of kiddy porn is a minor problem and tracking down people distributing it does not realy help much.
The real big problem is the PRODUCTION of these things and regulation/monitoring on the net would have to be realy orwellian like, to help fighting the root of the problem for your example.
Are you willing to give up (almost) all of your privacy, to help in a successful fight against kiddy porn, that solves this problem in its root?
It is very difficult to find the right balance!
Terrorists do not hate this nation because it is so open and free (perhaps some individuals, but not organizations as a whole). Most organizations, include al-Qaeda, operate against the US in response to our policies overseas.
I'm still shocked at how shocked people wer on September 11, 2001, considering that four planes were hijacked under far more secure scenarios on September 9, 1970. Since then terrorists when from shooting and capturing to suicide bombing. It's called desperation, and when over a generation passes without anyone improving your lot in life and a large power continues to support dictatorships and power inequalities near your home, dialogue is lost and action is the only possiblity.
I hate the actions of the terrorists, but I hate more a government that creates no opportunities for dialogue in other countries and doesn't respect their original sovereignty nor their human rights.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Reducing government will solve the problem, but not in the way you think. Corporations won't exploit the law anymore, because they won't have to--they'll be able to exploit the people directly.
How much do you think your electricity, water, and telephone services would cost without government regulation?
We're making progress as long as we force them to spend huge amounts of time and money crawling through loopholes, which are finite in number and closed at very little cost.
The real solution is to return government to its original intended state: By the people, for the people.
The current policy of running using the government to further the interests of the rich and powerful has to end.
It's all well and good to legislate whatever your little heart desires. But, if the legislation is unenforceable, or a loose framework of loopholes...
As an example, when the FTC introduced the centralized DNC list, and introduced new legislation setting requirements for telemarketing. One company manufacturing servers for this activity re-coded their application to work through the loopholes in the law. Another company in the same industry worked to ensure that their equipment would operate within the law.
The point is this, without the legislation, neither company would likely have altered their products. The legislation did produce some action on the part of both companies. However, in all cases the reaction was not the intended or desired reaction.
Yes, this is a technological problem, and must be fixed that way, occasionally though legislation is the event which provides the impetus of change.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Government monopolies also ensure that services are distributed fairly and equally. The telcos only run line to rural areas because the government makes them do it.
If we're going to keep putting our chips in with the United Nations, maybe it's time for the United Nations to step in and start acting against these fascist governments, and demand some real reforms.
We aren't putting our chips in with the UN. Ever wonder why they weren't helping us in Iraq? We didn't want them there. Nations in the UN wanted equal jurisdiction over the reconstruction of Iraq in return for aid in the invasion, etc. The current administration, however, wanted full control and declared that it would go it alone.
That's what the UN is for, for governments to get together, come up with some common laws, and rule when some nations are in contempt of those laws.
Unfortunately, the UN will remain useless as long as the world's remaining superpower continues to rebuff any attempt at international consensus. The current administration has withdrawn or is violating numerous international treaties. One of these is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which sets up an international court to prosecute war crimes. In fact, the administration has announced that it will use means of force to "rescue" any American that is prosecuted before such a court.
What are you, a lawyer?
I feel sorry for people who believe that solutions to moral problems lie in the legal system. I don't think it's immoral to drive 16 mph in a 15 mph zone. I do cruelty is immoral, even when "legal." Please tell me, exactly how does the legal system solve moral problems?
The problem with spam on Simple Mail Transport Protocol is that the it doesn't require authentication (Read the Fine RFC). It's ridiculous to cry and ask the government for help just because somebody is using the protocol within specifications. We're never going to get rid of all the SMTP spammers.
If you don't like SMTP, don't use it. If you don't like spam, use a whitelist, get PGP, quit using e-mail, or, better yet, write a new mail transport protocol.
Now, it's time for the world to make a serious decision. If we're going to keep putting our chips in with the United Nations, maybe it's time for the United Nations to step in and start acting against these fascist governments, and demand some real reforms. That's what the UN is for, for governments to get together, come up with some common laws, and rule when some nations are in contempt of those laws. And we find the same nations are violating their citizens rights over and over, and the UN does nothing. Then we have nations crying "Why won't the USA step in?" See Monrovia, Liberia... But the US doesn't want to be "the policeman of the world", yet we seem to be drug into that role over and over.
Noble noble noble, until you start looking in the way for example the USA is acting in their own self interrest.
The problem with the UN is that it doesn't have any real power. It is not much more than an assembly hall, and the biggest bully of the all decides to ignore them at will. That's the problem. The only way the UN could work is if it had a military power of it's own. Troops that are not under the command of any specific country but at the disposal of the UN itself. That doesn't happen though and it won't happen. Where would you base them? Where would you get them from? How could you make certain that the troops would be loyal to the UN?
The (current) US Administration doens't care about the UN unless it gives the US some benefit, most countries don't want to put up with this anymore as can now be seen in Iraq.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
I doubt anything I can say will change your deeply ingrained worldview, but here are a few points for consideration:
1) An entirely free market tends towards a state of monopoly. Businesses will tend to conglomerate and use "unfair" tactics to keep their market share. Anti-trust is the only thing in this country preventing 100% monopoly. There is a wealth of evidence supporting this. Look at any major products/services...the majority of market share is usually dominated by two competing companies. By merging, they could create a monopoly and charge whatever prices they want. Their profits would go through the roof. Why haven't they done this? Anti-Trust. The Federal Trade Commission blocks numerous mergers yearly, preserving competition and protecting the consumer.
2) Utilities are unique in the sense that it is inherently difficult to compete in a utility market. Just consider electricity. To move in onto this market, a company would have to construct a separate power grid. Chances are slim that the existing electricity supplier would allow the use of theirs. Competing in the water/sewage utility market would require building another set of pipes. No one in his right mind would try to do this...it would probably be cheaper just to acquire the current company with the monopoly.
3) Utiliy monopolies are regulated by the local governments. They are prevented from charging the consumer exorbitant prices. In some areas, the company owning the telephone lines is forced to allow competitors to use their proprietary network at reasonable, compulsory rates. All to protect the consumer.
why do you hate America so much?
It's not that we hate America, quite the opposite. For many of us this is not the America of our birth anymore, and without ever leaving it we are grown homesick for the old country.
Government, Corporations, and other groups are using the September 11th attacks to further their agendas to restrict freedom. What of the now empty talk about Americans not changing - to continue doing what we would normally do? I guess the freedom to 'innovate' only applies to Corporations - only acceptable in ways that maintain the status-quo.
The most disturbing thing about this is that government and corporations, while removing freedoms for the masses, are retaining those same freedoms for themselves. The reason there hasn't been a strong backlash against it is that people, in general, don't really understand what is at stake - the once open internet is being re-made as a broadcast medium based upon old 'programming' based paradigms.
When networks are outlawed, only outlaws will have networks...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I laugh every time I hear GWB use the phrase "enemies of freedom" or "those who hate our freedom." Has anybody in the U.S. thought this through? How can you hate freedom? How could you hate somebody for being free? The concept of freedom is intrinsically good. Are they jealous of your freedom? No, they hate it. It doesn't make any sense.
Imagining that these people "Hate Freedom" - an abstract concept - is as moronic as declaring "War on Terror." Ockham's razor would suggest that their hatred has more to do with your despicable actions in their homelands.
Terrorists don't hate freedom. They hate America, and with good reason. That's what nobody wants to talk about.
qualification: they have good reason to hate america, but there's no excuse for terrorist acts.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
This argument, while popular with ideologists, is deeply flawed, for it assumes that corporations have no intrinsic power.
It has been proven time and again that, without government restraint, corporations will act to form cartels and monopolies that control the prices of goods and services. They can also control wages in a similar fashion. And the only thing stopping them from completely co-opting elected representatives through bribery is legislation (ineffective as it often is).
The proposed solution of free-market idealogues, of replacing elected power with purchased power is rotten to the core. It is the solution that Plato called 'oligarchy', and is nothing more than the rule of the rich. The problems with such a system should be obvious not only to students of history, but also to anyone currently living in the western world.
This sounds great, in theory. It would be wonderful if our entire society was based on the premise that we don't need to keep secrets, that we can trust everyone with the most basic information of our lives. Unfortunately, we don't. We live in a world of people who will use our information to benefit themselves at the expense of us.
It comes down to choice. I want to be free to choose to reveal what I want about myself. Eventually, we may all choose that we want to have total transparency, as you suggest. I agree, the world will be a wonderful place when that happens: it means that we will, by nature of mankind's maturity, no longer fear others doing harm to us.
But until we are all ready for such a world, I value privacy. What others don't know about me, can't harm me: what others do know about you, can harm you. Let's look at your example:
I don't care if everyone knows what I ate yesterday, or where I went, or who I fucked, or how much money I have.
Really? You don't think you will ever come into contact with someone who has power over you (boss, landlord, banker, cop, etc.) and is swayed by their personal biases?
- Someone who is a zealous vegetarian (assuming you ate a steak)?
- Someone who hates Asians (assuming you went to Chinatown)?
- Someone who is a prude (assuming you fucked someone who is not your wife)?
- Someone who thinks you spend too much money (assuming your savings are not in line with your income)?
You *really* don't care if these people know everything about you? You trust in your fellow citizens that much?
I agree with your comment of secret organizations holding your information, and how this is a bad thing. It is also a bad thing for commercial and personal interests to have the same access. For now, I prefer to do what is required to maintain my privacy from *all* of these sources!
I'll fight for privacy until we no longer require it!
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Government censorship is certainly dangerous, but I think the self censorship practiced by the media (including the U.S. media) is more insidious.
Consider the story that the BBC ran in early 2001 about the theft of the U.S. presidential election. The BBC is not some indie rag, but the story was not picked up by ANY of the U.S. media until almost a year later (too late to do any good).
Whatever you think about Noam Chomsky, his theory on media self censorship is worth hearing: The media doesn't make money by selling news to audiences. It makes money by selling audiences to advertisers. In other words, advertisers must be kept happy at all times. The media chooses which stories will be reported on, but more subtly, it chooses how issues will be framed. The choice between the "right" and "left" viewpoints on issues that we are given in our media is often a false dichotomy. Whole ranges of opinions outside the liberal/conservative framework are ignored.
So pay attention. Don't rely on the news media to filter things for you. Get your news from multiple sources, including sources outside the U.S. Try out The Agonist and TerrorWatch and some other samizdat news sites. Don't always believe what you hear about Arab news networks. It is your responsibility to educate yourself.