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.'"
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.
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.