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.'"
The internet could be used to hatch plans. So could the USPS. So could telephones. Granted, not with the same sort of ease, but they could be used. Do we allow the government to track those, also? Do we allow our mail to be searched?
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.
...that all of these changes in copyright law, and collection of personal information is really just some giant, and perversely evil scheme designed to make marketing easier?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
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.
" ... 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
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.
"considering that the Internet could be used to hatch plans"
Well, why not install listening devices in all houses & apartments then, since plans could be hatched there as well. I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind.. much.
My sig left me for a younger user id.
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!
Yes, but the point is that there are legal hurdles to go over to do this. At least there used to be. You had to get search warrants and the like, and go through an actual judge. Now things like the DMCA exist and give private entities subpoena and search/seizure powers, as well as things like the Patriot (gotta love naming things to get them through... patriot my ass. Should've been called the 1984 act...) lowering the barrier for law enforcement to do these things. It's a new development for the most part. These abilities exist, and always have, but the ability to use them indiscriminately is the new bit.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
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?
So could telephones
So could paper.
This amply demonstrates the huge flaw in the so-called "patriotic" measures to ensure "national security". They are neither patriotic, nor do they offer a solution to any terrorist threat, either real or imagined. The only thing they have done is turn the American government into the next big threat, where the source of terror could very well be an inside job.
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
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 United States is not the source of the world's problems! I'm getting really sick and tired of "editorial journalists" who are so eager to dump on the USA that they don't bother to focus on the areas of the world where there are REAL problems:
"The report notes numerous instances where Internet users have been jailed by authorities for posting or hosting political material. Such countries include Egypt, China and a number of Middle Eastern countries where the Internet is tightly controlled and heavily monitored."
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.
Last time I checked, noone in the united states is prevented from legally acquiring any information they desire... you can get government records, money trails, electronic information, anything. We cry that there "might" be some infringement, yet we can't seem to find any evidence of some widespread conspiracy that the government is tracking our interests. But that doesn't stop our own media from trying to tear it down. It just saddens me that the Slashdot staff can't seem to separate their personal beliefs from "news".
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
Ironic, but entirely predictable. Like many expansions of government, the name or slogan is designed to suggest a "feel good" attitude for the victim (taxpayer). It's simple propaganda, but obviously it works, because the tactic has been used over and over again throughout the course of history, not just in the USA.
In this case, who would oppose the "patriot" act but a non-patriot, i.e. someone who stands in the way of national pride?
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
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
What I found more interesting at the end of the article was the link to the Stupid Security Contest winners. My favorite winner is the Gunpowder Tea one because you think you know the outcome, but then it becomes even more baffling.
That has to be one of the most frustratingly vague article I've ever read; it's far below normal post-to-slashdot standards, and that's saying quite a bit.
The development of the Internet has lead to more horizontal and less vertical communication
Huh? What does this mean, and how is it relevant?
This study has found that censorship of the Internet is commonplace in most regions of the world.
Exact definition of censorship? Can I get some sort of quantification of "commonplace" and "most regions" please?
It is clear that in most countries over the past two years there has been an acceleration of efforts to either close down or inhibit the Internet.
Apparently it's so clear no examples of such accleration are necessary.
Some American cable companies seek to turn the Internet into a controlled distribution medium like TV and radio, and are putting in place the necessary technological changes to the Internet?s infrastructure to do so.
Who are 'some american cable companies?' How? What sort of technological changes?
Technological developments are being implemented to protect a free Internet
Examples?
I'm not disagreeing with their overall point, mind you, but the article reads like some people sat around creating a bullet point list of ways they've heard the internet being censored, and then handed the list to their 16 year old intern to fill out. Research? Journalism? The writers know not these things.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Meanwhile, on the left, advocates for the right to privacy, etc., usually lose their enthusiasm for those principles once they've used the advantages of those rights to gain power and want to maintain control, er, "enforce laws".
I think, the wish to maintain once gained control is a general trait of most of the human cultures (though there are certainly many enlightenend and balanced individuals in every population). So we need a form of government that makes it easy to replace its representatives peacefully and efficient, if they misuse their power, while on the same time it should be hard to change the general framework (e.g. decide to become a dictatorship). Democracy seems to be a relatively good implementation of this idea, but it works only if people can obtain information freely and discuss them freely, without fear of prosecution. These freedoms are threatened by the powerful propaganda machineries of TV and mass media, which report very selectively and biased, and by the attempts of governments worldwide to control the new channels of information and discussion that were made possible by the internet.
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.
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
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.
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.