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.
" ... 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.
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.
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 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
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.
Oh yeah? Well how about the government's attempts to stop this happening: in this report you can see how John Ashcrofy has been trying to undermine the FOIA. Choice quotes, one from the reporter:
" In a memo that slipped beneath the political radar, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom of Information Act requests made by American citizens."
and a quote from Ashcroft's memo, which memo is the subject of the article:
"When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records."
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
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.