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.'"
That's why I oppose solving the Spam problem using laws and politics. We should oppose those laws as we opose any law that tries to control or censor any other area of the internet. How long until any of the Spam laws are used against the Net?
The Spam problem is a technical one, and as such should be solved technically. Somebody once compared a political solution to the spam problem with the laws that make you use the seat belt, but this is not the same case. There are no rightful uses for crashing your car when not whearing a seat belt, but there are rightful uses for some mass e-mails (distribution lists, discussion groups, legally registered advertisement, etc).
The current system is flawed. Blame it on the SMTP protocol or the administrators that use it without knowing it. There lies the problem and there it should be solved. There are great proposals for solving this (digital certificates or pgp signatures at the transport layer, etc), and I (as many of us are) am willing to adopt any new technology that should solve this problem, if it is incompatible with the current email technology, well, bad luck, somewhere the first step must be taken. Look at IPV6.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Okay, so, I'm all for a call to arms to fight back and keep the Internet as free of restrictions, monitoring, etc. as possible. But this "report" is pretty factless and pointless. There doesn't seem to be a lot of connections between their points. I guess I feel the same way about this report as I did the propaganda about drugs I got from school - sure, I'm not particularly interested, so fine, I agree in principal, but why lie and mislead to make a point? I mean, I know WAY too many people who tried drugs because obviously the authorities were lying and so they were apparently trying to "protect" us against something good - so why not try it?
I'm not saying this report is lying, but I am saying that it exagerates, and misleads. And we shouldn't support that kind of crap - ESPECIALLY about things that matter to us.
first off, no i haven't read the thing yet, just felt the need to say something on the whole privacy on the net thing. There will always be a balance between safety and freedom. in this case that freedom being our privacy. with absolute privacy any number of bad things can arise that we didn't intend. for example truly anonymous file servers could distribute kiddy porn or credit card and social security numbers at will, after all with perfect privacy there would be no way to trace them. and also having no privacy is also a very bad idea for reasons to obvious to state. so the balance is somewhere in the middle and, as i understand it from the article summary, it is simplu shifting in the direction of less privacy. what we really have to ask is if we want this greater safty at the cost of some of our privacy? which is most definately not a cut and dry problem in and of itself. so sorry about not having a factoid about some part of the article but i just wanted a balanced counterpoint to the inevitable bashing of the loss of privacy on the net.
Remember, corporations only abuse the legal system because they can. The root of the problem is government, and the fact that government has the ability to continuously expand government year after year without limit. The bigger the government, the more complex, ambiguous, and exploitable the law. The solution is to eliminate the powers of government that make it possible -- not to expand government even more via regulation, taxing, etc (all of which are guaranteed to be exploited too). We need to impose strict limits on the scope and expense of government, or the system will continue to be exploited by its very nature.
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 [...]
What about communication channels that cannot be monitored? Do two (or more) people have the right to communicate through a secure channel of arbitrary bittage? If so, monitoring is doomed to failure; if not, expect a locked-down net where you can only use web and (non-encrypted) email, and HTTPS is reserved only for financial transactions where at least one of the sides is a commercial entity.
Makes the discussion a little out of date.
Anyone who wants to hide information or communicate securely can. Governments are trying very hard to keep up with the technological curve but IMHO they are falling behind, not moving ahead of it.
It's not so obvious for western countries because we're right in the middle of the action, but it's clearer when you look at regimes like China, Vietnam, etc. where Internet access is seen as subversive (goddamn right it is!) and tightly controlled. Well, every time they block one route, another few routes open up.
P2P illustrates the problem for controlling authorities fairly well. Technology is now so pervasive and powerful that any attempt to repress the flow of information simply generates multiple new communication routes. Human ingenuity is incredibly hard to suppress, and the more you try, the more it resists.
The only way governments can regain control of the Internet is to license every connection and shoot or imprison every programmer. This is kind of unlikely.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
While there may have been all kinds of laws enacted that are pretty ridiculous, there will eventually be an equilibrium reached that is close to fair, but never perfectly fair for those involved. What I mean to say is that the "Internet" and its use will be regulated, there's no if's, and's, or but's about it. Everything gets regulated. Which is why I think humanity is always pushing forward to explore the next frontier, be it in medicine, robotics, communications, travel, etc.
Think of some of the first automobiles. Flimsy, worked only part of the time, accident prone, unsafe, etc. and yet Americans and indeed the world embraced the new technology of the 'horseless' carriage with gusto once Henry Ford introduced a cheap way to manufacture and build them so that the masses could use them. The world economy benefitted from this new technology immensely.
Yeah, some of our "freedoms" on the Internet have eroded TOO much, but eventually some semblance of order will be acheived, and off us techies and 'explorers' will go to challenge the Next Big Thing.
I think this fundemental idea is why the Star Trek series has been so popular: it focuses on that "explorer" spirit. While most of the acting is corny at best, and some of the scripts downright absurd, we're drawn to "exploring the new frontier" theme.
I, for one, welcome our new regulatory overlords.
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.
I wonder what the right-wing people who praise the right to own guns as a means to overthrow an oppressive government do think about this. I disagree strongly with these people, but hadn't they to agree that the citizens would need weapons of information warfare, too? E.g. the right of absolute privacy through encryption to organize resistance against the government if this should be necessary?
ummm.. warrant? judge? 4th amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure?
If John Ashcroft wants to get a warrant every time he asks for my library records or to monitor my email, I'm all in favor. Let him.
The name Patriot Act is kind of ironic, since the American Patriots were the people who rebelled against an overly repressive regime.
The government inevitably wants to control information. Well, i should say everyone wants to control it (i want everything written/said about me to be glowing and wonderful, don't you?), the government just has the power to do so.
Today the 'free' western governmnets want to monitor people who visit web sites that encourage, or assist in 'terrorism.' (as defined by the government)
Tommorrow, in the instrest of national security those same sites will be 'restricted access only.'
After all, the leap from monitoring information (in this case those who view it) to restricting it is a short one.
And then we've started down that slipperly slope between free exchange of ideas and security, and with all that is happening in the world, the government might have the people just scared enough to follow them down it.
==============
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I don't remember ever clicking the EULA for the internet's privacy. I think that's because it doesn't exist.
Internet access is something you buy. You don't have any privileges except for the ones extended to you by your ISP. If your ISP agrees to monitor/share/provide information, well, its no different than the post office giving your address to the FBI, or the RMV. If I own a small business and the FBI/CIA/FDA wants to know if John Doe was there, and what he bought, I'll let them know. The same process is true of the net. Suspcious activity is reported. That's the way it goes.
Internet access is not anonymous. STILL.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
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.
I DO care if I don't know these things about anyone else, but some organization with goals I'm unaware of knows them about me and everyone else.
We don't need privacy, and frankly, we don't have it. What we need is transparency. Transparency leads to knowledge, wisdom, justice and tolerance. Monitoring by secret organizations, however, leads to ignorance, injustice, control, and fear.
If you're fighting for privacy, you're fighting the wrong fight.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The problem is two fold. Media trying to comoditize the internet, control content and aggregate as much data on you as they can. Goverments wanting to aggragate all info they can get on you. Governments wanting to out right block your access to certain information. It's about being in control. They are are all ready in control.
What are you going to to about it? What are you doing about it? I read this yesterday on the Register and though about it. I see this as a issue that as usual will resolve it's self in favor of those in control. The reason fo this is many "citizens" don't give a damm and all those in business only want to make money.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.