India Blocks Yahoo Groups Over Political Content

Ryan Barrett writes "In an attempt to shut down the Yahoo Group of a separatist political movement, the Indian government's CERT organization ended up blocking its country from accessing Yahoo Groups as a whole. China's censorship of the Internet in the past few years has been unsettling, but most people have accepted it as a by-product of China's form of government. Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling."

Comments

Re:Good!

[dreadnougat]

That's a little self centred thinking there...

Irony

[(54)T-Dub]

This obscure seperatist group is no longer so obscure. I'm interested to see how this pans out in a democracy. Will the people be so mad that they can't use yahoo that they will demand change? Will this actually increase the interest in this seperatist group?

Re:Irony

[Lawbeefaroni]

You know, the funny thing is how easy it would have been to end the group. Instead of blocking it, they could have just had a crew of about 10 or so people (outsourced to the US of course) sign up to the group under 100 or so names and just crap it out. Make it all noise and no signal and just kill it. With 24 legit users and 80 fake, government users, 20 government trolls it wouldn't last long. At the same time they would be monitoring it.

What they did do was about the worst thing they could.

Re:Irony

[(54)T-Dub]

Wow, that's a very good point. Makes you wonder if they have a political motivation behind their method. Maybe multiple idea's were propsed (including yours) and they decided for a more brute force method? You would think that at the point where they figured out that they would have to block the entire yahoo groups section somebody would have spoken up and said it was a bad idea. Maybe the people who were involved from a techinical standpoint didn't like the idea of censorhip and therefore choose to push the method that would make the most noise. Therefore working to defeat it in a covert way.

Odd That

[Stargoat]

India is a democracy, and has the most "free" government in the Indian Ocean, East Asia region. It has a real democratically elected government, and an economy that will become very strong one day.

This is definitely a chilly article. It does not bode well for the region at all.

Re:Odd That

[jmccay]

I find it funny that India did it considering their blooming tech outsourcing industry. What's next blocking the internet? That'd be good...for American jobs. ;)

Re:Odd That

[mrscorpio]

I was under the impression that Pakistan was much more free, despite being a dictatorship.

Being a democracy does not ensure a freer populace, that is for sure.

Chris

Re:Odd That

[exhilaration]

You're kinda right, but it's more a matter of resources. You can criticize the government as much as you want in Pakistan, but they don't really have the resources to go after you (unless you're in any way connected to Bin Laden - that's a different case).

In India, with their thriving economy and huge cash reserves, it's a different deal. Some journalist got one of the defense ministers on video while taking a bribe - they shut him down, put some of his colleagues in prison, and used any means they could to harrass him.

Re:Odd That

[t0ny]

The only difference between an American democracy and an Indian democracy is their leadership- one focuses on enabling job growth in their country, while the other torpedoes it in favor of driving down costs for big business.

You can decide which is which, but here is a hit- the US lost 3.3 Million jobs since Bush took office.

Re:Odd That

[BSD Yoda]

You can decide which is which, but here is a hit- the US lost 3.3 Million jobs since Bush took office.

Nice try. Might also blame the domestic policy of the Soviet Premier for the "Departure of 26 million men from the workforce" in the USSR between 1941-1946.

Re:Odd That

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Claiming India is a democracy is an insult to democrats everywhere. India is a kleptocracy, a govt HIGHLY corrupt and serves only the elites. If India is a democracy, Zimbabwe is too...

India is one of the least democratic countries in Asia. This is a country that would let millions starve to death while implementing policies helping the wealthy. This is a country that will lock up political dissidents, censor films, and ban anything threatening to the establishment.

The only reason anyone even considers India to be a "model" democracy is because of US propaganda during the Cold War. USA spent tens of millions--if not more--initiating propaganda campaigns in order to battle the Communists. Needless to say, the "brainwashed" population of the world actually believed it. Now that the Cold War is over, very few consider it to be a democracy. It wouldn't suprise me if the US govt considers the Chinese govt to be more "democratic" than India now.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Odd That

[Goth Biker Babe]

India has traditionally been isolationist with both business and politics. From what I've read of Indian politics over the years it doesn't surprise me. It's similar with business. It is very hard for a foreign business to set up there because they wish to protect their own burgoning industries. Don't forget the modern Indian nation is only 60 years old and is showing the signs of insecurity that most new nations show. Paranoia, isolationism, protectionism etc. In fact very similar to a slightly less young nation over the pond.

Re:Odd That

[jmccay]

You forgot the importing of foriegners to take American jobs through H-1Bs & L1s. Clinton didn't do much to help out during his term in the office of President. I didn't see him stopping in influx of foriegners through visa programs.

Re:Odd That

[jmccay]

Maybe not one person, but you can place some, if not all of the blame, on Corporate executives who are outsourcing the jobs to India (and other such countries). In the past, late 1980s & 1990s, exporting of jobs was done for economic reasons, like it is being done today, but there is a major difference. The earlier economic savings were passed on to the customer, but this is not happenning in most cases today. In most cases, the savings is used to boost up profits giving a false sense of an economic upturn in the economy. In addition to this, the money is used to give bonuses, salary increases, and extra incentives to the top executives of companies.
The only way we can make a difference is to bring to light those companies that do outsourcing to foreign companies because it will be a huge negative public relations disaster.

Re:Odd That

[Stargoat]

India was more closely aligned with the Soviet Block during the Cold War than with the US Block. Nevertheless, when compared to its neighbors, India is a stellar republic. That's not to say that India doesn't have a long way to go, but compare India to Pakistan, China, Singapore, Vietnam or Malaysia.

Plenty more to block!

[thedillybar]

This government is doing nothing more than trying to please people. Many people will be pleased, and many will be displeased. They have blocked Yahoo Groups, but there are plenty other sources of criticism, probably many much worse, that will remain uncensored until they go to the extreme of blocking everything by default and only allowing the sites of their choice.

This is not only ridiculous, it's not feasible. Good try.

Re:Plenty more to block!

[NanoGator]

"This government is doing nothing more than trying to please people. Many people will be pleased, and many will be displeased."

Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Re:Plenty more to block!

[s20451]

This may come as a surprise to some Americans, but many democratic nations have laws restricting certain kinds of speech. For instance, in Canada and most European nations, there are laws against speech which promotes ethnic hatred. Some nations, such as Germany, have good historical reasons for such laws. In a country like India with lots of religious and ethnic separatist groups, many of which are violent, it's perhaps not surprising that there are laws against speech promoting separatism.

Re:Plenty more to block!

[ibpooks]

The U.S.A. has these too. So called "fighting words" are prohibited speech when the intent is to incite racial/ethnic violence or rioting.

Re:Plenty more to block!

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."

Whoah whoah whoah. Hold on here, you're not supposed to use fresh Simpsons quotes. Slashdot law clearly states you may only use the overlords joke.

Re:Plenty more to block!

[NanoGator]

" Slashdot law clearly states you may only use the overlords joke."

Don't blame me, I voted for Kang!

Right, but...

[setzman]

What exactly is supposed to be done about this? True, the current methods of censorship are not perfect and can't stop word getting passed around in some form, but will our governments and corporations find better ways to hide information and ideas they don't like?

Re:Right, but...

[AyeRoxor!]

"Vote for ? in 2004. "

Heh. You've inspired me.

"Vote for !Bush in '04!"

Guy 1: Shouldn't that be "Bush!"
Guy 2: Nope.

Quickly mirror the groups everywhere...

[codepunk]

We can totally remove india from the internet just mirror the groups everywhere...

Re:Quickly mirror the groups everywhere...

[Greyfox]

All the Indians have to do is look at their system logs, assuming they're running an intrusion detection system, and they'll find millions of compromised systems scanning for CodeRed or whatnot. Plenty of systems to bounce a TCP/IP connection off of. Writing a relay server is about 15 minutes of Java coding assuming you can't remember the exact syntax of ServerSocket and have to look it up.

More.

[CGP314]

Over the past two weeks, India's dozens of Internet service providers have been notified by the government to block access to a Yahoo discussion group called "Kynhun - Bri U Hynniewtrep." The group, which has about two dozen members...

I bet they get more after this amount of news attention.

Re:More.

[RIAAwakka_nakka_bakk]

Yep. I joined up with my yahoo user id. Good thing I have one of those for my "activities"...

Freedom of speech

[Tar-Palantir]

"Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling."

This is going to happen, sooner of later, in any nation which doesn't have some analogue of the First Amendment. Even in democracies like India, either the government will do it unilaterally or they will scare the people enough to push it through.

A Constitution like ours (US), however flawed, is a wonderful thing.

Re:Freedom of speech

[LamerX]

Yeah too bad it's all going to hell. The Patriot Act has already taken away a bunch of our rights. And the Patriot Act II is still being thrown around. People are being scared into giving up thier rights, and as long as they are being told that they'll get more 'security' then everyone is going to keep giving up thier rights. They'd rather live in a secure little perfect world, than a world that is full of limitless possibilities.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Wordsmith]

But you're still free to say the Patriot Act blows, and to vote for people willing to overturn it or its most dangerous provisions - and there are quite a few legislators out there speaking up against the act.

In addition, we have courts that have overturned provisions of the patriot act, and states that have refused to enforce parts of it.

Our system isn't perfect, and it requires consistent vigalance on the part of hte governed, but at least the avenues for change are built into its core.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to happen, sooner of later, in any nation which doesn't have some analogue of the First Amendment.

I call BS.

The US Constitution is nothing more, nor less, than a piece of paper that still relies upon human beings doing their part to uphold its ideals. Equally all it takes is a collection of people in power to completely ignore or remove any perceived "protection" that it creates. This is already happening to some extent in the US under the guise of "anti-terrorism" activities.

This is not more, nor less, than any other country has the potential to do, with or without some piece of paper to tell them.

The key to avoiding censorship issues is not some piece of paper that (comparatively) still has wet ink. The key is education and ethics, neither of which can be effectively legislated and neither of which will happen in the short term.

The US Constitution is a nice piece of paper, but that's all it is.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Saeger]

But you're still free to say the Patriot Act blows, and to vote for people willing to overturn it

Sure, technically you might be free, but in practice if you piss off the wrong people John Asscroft will tell the russians that your wife's a CIA agent, and for kickers have the IRS audit you too. :)

--

Re:Freedom of speech

[gcaseye6677]

Would you care to list some rights that you personally used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act? If 'a bunch' of your rights are gone, I would think you could at least name a couple.

Re:Freedom of speech

[kettlehead]

I think India has a analogue of the first amendment.Roughly from what I learnt in school Free speech is a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the constitution.

However India has the same problem as that of the US. Because of "terrorist" attacks leaders are empowered to pass Draconian laws. Indias equivalent of the Patriot Act is POTA(Prevention of Terrorist Activities). The government can simply brandish all dissent as terrorism To be fair i side with the government in this case since I think the group is upto no good. But free speech issues remain !

However I cannot figure out why it is so difficult to shut down one group within Yahoo?

Also why is the story appearing so late. I cannot access Y Groups for a week now which included a crucial peroiod when all my assignments ( okay solutions ) were distributed through the group. The good news is that I still recieve the emails but web access is so important esp the facility to search archives

Re:Freedom of speech

[Shamashmuddamiq]

The only problem with the US Constitution is that it lends itself too easily to interpretation through the lens of contemporary culture. Instead of predicting the malicious intent of greedy and insecure people centuries into the future, the forefathers naively assumed that their intent would be upheld; that it would rise above the letter of the law.

Unfortunately, instead of upholding the Constitution, greedy politicians and corporate shills are finding as many ways around it as possible, for petty and temporary personal gain.

Re:Freedom of speech

[2nd Post!]

If that's the personal price for collective freedom, then so be it. Nothing libre is free, and nothing free is libre :)

IE, you can't fight any battle without being willing to suffer the consequences; if you can't stand an IRS audit and being questioned by the FBI to the point that you would give up your political and social freedoms, then that is exactly what will happen; you will be spared inconvenience in exchange for the loss of freedoms.

So we suffer through the idiocy of the RIAA because we know we also have the power to destroy the RIAA, economically. We suffer through the Patriot Act because we also know we have the political power to scrap it; it is all a complex game of negotiation and communication, and the minute one side concedes or decides not to play, then the other side wins.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Eloquence]

This is absolutely true. I'm certainly no fan of the United States foreign or domestic policy, but the courts have usually filtered out the most idiotic legal proposals. The United States Supreme Court has even declared that a ban on virtual child pornography is illegal -- a decision like that would never have been made in Europe (German law, for example, explicitly prohibits virtual child porn). Regular porn is widely available -- there are tons of porn websites without any adult verification system. In Germany, on the other hand, institutions like jugendschutz.net keep a watchful eye on websites and warn those which are too explicit.

Germany has laws against distribution of nazi propaganda, of violent imagery, and even against blasphemy (most people don't know that -- it's the 166 StGB, and rarely enforced, but it does have demonstrable chilling effects). In the German state of Northrhine-Westphalia, there is currently an ongoing experiment to block sites like that of neo-nazi Gary Lauck and rotten.com on the ISP level! Depending on which data you use (purchasing power parity corrected or not), Germany is the third or fifth largest economy in the world. The political system itself is more democratic than that of the US -- there are multiple parties, coalitions, some direct democracy mechanisms, and most importantly, secure ballots (pencil and paper based). Where the Greens would have no chance to be in the goverment in the US, they are actually part of it here. (And got a lot more corrupt in the process.) Yet in terms of free spech, the United States retain the upper hand.

I have nothing but respect for the people who drafted the United States constitution -- it is a truly remarkable document. From things like the "limited times" restriction on copyright to freedom of speech, separation of church and state and many other issues, these were really smart people with a lot of forethought (they can be forgiven for the Second Amendment). So far, the attempts to pervert this document have mostly failed, and I am confident that this will stay so if the US gets a new government next year. Another 4 years under Bush and Ashcroft - I don't know. For us Europeans and for the Indians, the fact that we don't have something like the First Amendment means that we have to be even more cautious in defending free speech.

Re:Freedom of speech

[rossz]

I think the group is up to no good.

Therein lies the problem. You only think they are up to know good. But are they? Now if they are a known terrorist group, then shutting them down would be reasonable. However, I prefer to see actual evidence before a government agency curtails the free speech of an organization, especially when it's from an opposing viewpoint.

FYI, I'm not disagreeing with your other point about the people willingly letting the government impose draconian anti-terrorist laws. It's quite possible the U.S. has begun the journey down that slippery slope.

Re:Freedom of speech

[bladernr]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Re:Freedom of speech

[corbettw]

"To be fair i side with the government in this case since I think the group is upto no good."

That may be, but why would they cut off access to all of Yahoo! groups for something like 1 billion people because 24 were saying nasty things? Wouldn't it have been easier, and far more effective, to let them rant there and read what they were ranting? Now they'll just go hide somewhere else, but you and the rest of your countrymen are stuck not getting access to the groups you need.

Re:Freedom of speech

[bladernr]

The political system itself is more democratic than that of the US

I would expect that, as America's form of government is not Democracy; it is actually Constitutional Republic. It is akin to Representative Democracy, but definatly not a "pure" or "direct" democracy. The republic form of government is good for the US because we have so many ethic, racial, religious, etc, groups, and they should all be represented. To understand the difference, I once heard democracy called "3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

really smart people with a lot of forethought (they can be forgiven for the Second Amendment).

Whether or not the second amendment is appropriate in today's world, it was not put in for lack of forthought. If you read the writings of the founding fathers, you will learn that one of their paramount fears would be that the government would be more powerful than the people.

In the founding fathers belief, if a government became corrupt, it was the duty of the people to rise up and overthrow it. That principle was one of the justifications for the Declaration of Independance. How could the people change out the government if the government was allowed to have more weapons than the people? Remember, in their day, they owned weapons, including cannons, just as powerful as the government's and it was perfectly legal to do so.

Did they invision the kind of weaponry today? I don't know, but the priciple of always having the people as powerful as the government has some merrit. Would Tienemen (sp) Square Massacre have happened if the Chinese people had the same weapons the government did?

I government should live with a healthy fear of its populace. That keeps it honest.

Re:Freedom of speech

[1jpablo1]

Very well said.

The value of a Constitution depends on the value people are willing to give it, and that depends on social and historic trends, among other factors.

The same can be argued about police, state, and several institutions.

A good example is Mexico: its constitution seems ok if you read it, but in practice its application is very distorted by corruption, lack of education, people's apathy, etc. etc.

Anyway, give the choice I'd still prefer a constitution like US than that frome some other countries.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Redchrome]

> these were really smart people with a lot of forethought
>(they can be forgiven for the Second Amendment).

One cannot have an environment where people are allowed to freely express their opinions -- even unpopular ones, which are the most important to consider -- without the freedom to defend oneself. The lessons of history clearly show that 'dangerous' ideas tend to be suppressed if the people espousing these ideas have no way or will to defend themselves. Our forefathers fought a revolution against an oppressive and arbitrary government; and they codified the basic ideas they fought for, into the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment is there to let ideas be heard and discussed, before pressure builds up behind them and overflows into revolution. (Revolution is disastrous for everyone involved, make no mistake).

The Second Amendment is there to give tyrants both foreign and domestic pause, knowing that the American people are armed and therefore cannot be made to do anything they do not choose to do themselves. This is the essence of liberty; all our freedoms depend on it, and all our 'Inalienable Rights' are defended by it.

It should be pointed out that before the National Firearms Act of 1934, it was perfectly legal for anyone in America to mail-order heavy machineguns, modern artillery pieces (there were clubs devoted to the shooting of these weapons), silencers, and other military ordnance. This never posed a problem (how many bank robberies were committed with artillery pieces? I defy you to find one.); until some politicians were convinced that they could make some political hay by legislating against such things, imposing some 'reasonable' regulations, to counter a threat more percieved than real (the gangsters famed in newspaper and radio), which in any case had arisen as a reaction to government regulation (Prohibition of Alcohol).

One can take a lession about the decline of freedoms, and where the First Amendment might be going, by studying the infringements upon the Second Amendment over the past 70 years.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Jonathan]

Would you care to list some rights that you personally used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act? If 'a bunch' of your rights are gone, I would think you could at least name a couple.

Basically *all* my rights are no longer protected. All the authorities have to do is claim that I'm (or you are, or that guy over there is) a suspected terrorist (mind you, not *prove* it in a fair trial, just *claim*) and *bingo* all the accused's rights disappear. Just like suspected thoughtcriminals in Orwell's Oceanania.

I find it astounding that the same people who complained about the Clinton administration's occasional minor abuses of authority aren't up in arms against Dubya. With the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc, the "black helicopters" aren't just paranoid ravings, but rapidly becoming reality.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Jaysyn]

I'm glad you brought Germany up, when I was in high school, one of the exchange students was from Germany. Apparently one of our history or social studies teachers, had borrowed some Nazi memoraiblia from a museaum to show the class while they were learning about that era in history, and during a class change the exchange student happened to walk by & catch a glimpse of a Nazi flag carelessly drapped over a chalkboard or something in the classroom. He flipped the fuck out. He started ranting & yelling in German & English. He ran into the classroom pointing at the flag and screaming at the teacher, and eventually had to be restrained by a teacher & some students. We had to explain to him that the knowledge of history no matter how horrible isn't outlawed in the US. The teacher did end up returning the stuff soon afterwards, worried that the kid might destroy it more than anything.

Jaysyn

Re:Freedom of speech

[sdawara]

This is going to happen, sooner of later, in any nation which doesn't have some analogue of the First Amendment.

Freedom of Speech and Expression is already built into the Constitution of India. I forgive you for so thoughtlessly assuming that it should'nt.

However, as history has shown, every goverment in one way or the other, has exploited its qualitative nature to restrict those freedoms. The United States is no exception.

Re:Freedom of speech

[david_reese]

Would you care to list some rights that you personally used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act? If 'a bunch' of your rights are gone, I would think you could at least name a couple.

Ok, goatse6677...

Perhaps after you read this nice pdf, then you'll understand which of the rights have been taken away from even a good person like yourself (google HTMLized here. Take a look... maybe you'll recognize and mourn some lost rights.

Yeah, I know, IHBT and all...

Re:Freedom of speech

[sdawara]

Freedom of Speech and Expression is already built into the Constitution of India. I forgive you for so thoughtlessly assuming that it should'nt.

And here is the mandatory link:
Freedom of Speech and Expression

I would like to especially point out (from the article):

In the interest of sovereignity and integrity: This ground was inserted as a ground by the 16th amendment to the Constitution in the year 1963, to enable India to combat cries for secession from organizations and their activities which could not be restricted otherwise.

This was not part of the original constitution!

Re:Freedom of speech

[gcaseye6677]

Well, since you've lost SO many rights, it should be easy for you to at least list a couple of them here, instead of just linking to some page of an organization fighting for the rights of people in Guantanamo, etc. Remember, which rights did YOU PERSONALLY used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act? I'm not saying the Patriot Act is great, and I do think parts of it are going to be struck down as unconstitutional, but it comes far from taking away all of our rights. The post 9/11 detentions, btw, have nothing to do with the Patriot Act, as they occurred before it passed.

Re:Freedom of speech

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Remember, which rights did YOU PERSONALLY used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act?

That is the most idiotic way of looking at things. If you know ANYTHING about totalitarianism, you'll know that you personally hardly ever lose any rights. In fact, even through human progress over hundreads of years, you personally probably never again any.

You do realize that the Nazi regime, for example, had "zero" impact on most Germans. Yet here we are in a world that claims they were one of the worst. Let me put it another way... if VAST majority of hte people lost their rights, there would be a revolt overnight. So that never happens. Instead, totalitarians strip away a FEW rights for SOME people at a SLOW pace. If you understand anything about totalitarianism you would understand that. In other words, a typical person will not lose many rights. Those that lose their rights are almost always political dissients. Also, they don't lose ALL their rights or even a majority of them. Instead, they lose a few rights.

To put all this into practice... if *I* wanted to convert USA to a totalitarian govt, I would NOT go around stripping the rights of everyone. In fact, after I'm successful, most people wouldn't notice--that's perfection. What I would do is to strip a few rights from the left and right wings but keep all the centrists/moderates untouched. Most political dissenters are left of left (i.e. left to far-left) or right of right (i.e. right to far-right). Once you eliminate these guys, you are set. The moderates and those close to the center (eg. center-left) usually have weak opinions and can be brainwashed by initiating propaganda (or disinformation) campaigns...

So the question you should ask is not 'what rights did YOU lose?' but rather 'what rights did an American, any American, lose?'

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Freedom of speech

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

The only problem with the US Constitution is that it lends itself too easily to interpretation through the lens of contemporary culture. Instead of predicting the malicious intent of greedy and insecure people centuries into the future, the forefathers naively assumed that their intent would be upheld; that it would rise above the letter of the law.

Either you are a conservative, or mistaken. What you are referring to is called common law (judges interpret based on the modern environment). This is actually a good thing--a VERY GOOD thing!

If the US constitution and other laws were upheld as originally stated, women will not have equality with men, non-whites will not be equal, slavery would be totally acceptable (freeing slaves would be considered illegal since you are "stealing" the property of someone), etc...

Conservatives would prefer to live in a society like that (in fact many long for the "good old days"). But liberals would be totally against it...

The courts and laws MUST change over time. Humans are dynamic and having a static system will not work. If anything, I would prefer if modern day courts were even more dynamic and spent time deciding what is best rather than what someone wrote a long time ago with no idea of the state of the modern world...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Freedom of speech

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I have nothing but respect for the people who drafted the United States constitution -- it is a truly remarkable document.

Americans did two things right: one is the US constitution. I agree that it is good. However, I don't give it the same amount of praise as you. The constitution (as well as all laws) were radical at that time. That's why they seem so good. But there are major flaws, and things sometimes happened for unexpected reasons.

For example, if you went by the original documents, slavery would have always been permitted (since slaves were property, freeing them would be illegal). Similarly, it's not as if the original documents grant equality to women or to non-whites. On top of all these tradiontal static implications, don't forget that the US govt is not egalitarian. For instance, it stripped Japanese Americans of their property and sent them to camps, both of which are totally illegal under the Constitution. In fact, some people claim the detentions in Guantanomo are not in the spirit of the Constitution either (since people can be locked up forever without any evidence or trial).

Now, consider the seperation of church and state. What happened is a twist of the original intention (I consider this good but that's because I'm an atheist). The original Founders were HEAVILY in favour of religion. If anything, they were hardcore Christians. The reason they wanted to seperate church from state was simply because they didn't want the major religions oppressing the minor ones (like Quakers and stuff). If anything, the original Founders would have been heavily in favour of religion in schools, etc (although not controlled by a major religion perhaps). The people who benefitted from this seperation were atheists/agnostics and scientists. The modern wold has largely been shaped by these people. BUT the original intention was never to let atheism take hold. If anything, people like Jefferson would probably be mad at the modern world (kind of like how Christian Fundamentalists are unhappy). So it is a total fluke that the seperation of church and state turned out the way it did. I'm happy (since I'm an atheist) but I'll bet the original Founders would be quite unpleased...

The US constitution deserves credit... but like all static ideas, it is seriously flawed.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Freedom of speech

[peacelife]

"This is going to happen, sooner of later, in any nation which doesn't have some analogue of the First Amendment."

Hmmm... Just did some research on the net, and this is what I found.

First, it seems the first amendment does not guarantee you the right to say whatever you want. I quote from http://www.aclufl.org/body_legalissues1099.html:
The Supreme Court eventually adopted the "clear and present danger" test to analyze First Amendment protections, first espoused in dissenting views by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis. They argued that speech is only punishable if it presents a clear and present danger of imminent harm.
This test set the tone for future rulings until Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established a new standard: speech can only be suppressed if it is intended and likely to produce "imminent lawless action."
So there are restrictions on free speech in the US as well.

In India, rights to freedom of expression, religion, equality, etc are guaranteed as Fundamental Rights which are basic to the Constitution.But they can be constrained "in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence".
This seems reasonable to me, and is no more and no less than the tests of "clear and present danger" or "imminent lawless action" applied in the US.

Peacelife

Re:Freedom of speech

[danila]

But you know, if you take a banner and stand near the airport where Bush comes, trying to protest something, you are no longer free to say what you want. And there is a problem of groupthink, and corrupt media, and other stuff. So we can probabably say that democracy in the US is under attack and there is high risk that it might be destroyed soon.

Re:Freedom of speech

[mpe]

You do realize that the Nazi regime, for example, had "zero" impact on most Germans. Yet here we are in a world that claims they were one of the worst. Let me put it another way... if VAST majority of hte people lost their rights, there would be a revolt overnight. So that never happens.

A common first right to go is the ability of private citizens to be armed... Since a revolt by unarmed people against a well armed army is unlikely to be sucessful.

Instead, totalitarians strip away a FEW rights for SOME people at a SLOW pace. If you understand anything about totalitarianism you would understand that. In other words, a typical person will not lose many rights.Combined with properganda that any rights lost by most people were valueless in the first place.

Re:Freedom of speech

[bamberg]

Actually, the idea that most of the founders were hardcore Christians is a myth. There were some Christians, but many of the founders were Deists, which is why you get things like mentioning a creator in the Declaration of Independence. People such as Thomas Jefferson they had some pretty harsh things to say about Christianity.

As for the government in general, article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which states "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...", proves that the founders did not intend to create a Christian nation. And since the Constitution gives treaties equivalent status to Constitutional law itself, there's no question that the US isn't a Christian nation, despite what people like Pat Robertson would like the public to believe.

But you're right about slavery and the attitudes towards women and minorities; it shows that although the founders had a lot of great ideas, they still had a long way to go.

Eric Bamberg
Fellow Atheist :)

Re:Freedom of speech

[hesiod]

> the minute one side concedes or decides not to play, then the other side wins.

Don't you mean the terrorists win? Or maybe they already have.

Re:Freedom of speech

[hesiod]

> I use to enjoy check out books from the library without worry about a list of names being provided to the government

Simple solution: steal the book and return it when done. End result is the same except the Government eyes... unless you get caught.

Re:Freedom of speech

[2nd Post!]

Hmm, what makes you think they've conceded or stopped playing?

Re:Freedom of speech

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I think they would have been shocked with the concept of atheism/agnostism (ie. lack of God). They may not have been in favour of religion that much (especially given that the Church was corrupt and many Amerians actually fled Europe to get away from the Church) BUT I doubt they would entertain the thought that NO God exists...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

just use...

[herrvinny]

Can't you just use the Java Anonymous Proxy or anonymizer.com and still access it? Or someone can just write a script to copy the particular banned Yahoo group and mirror it somewhere else...

When are countries going to learn that the Internet can't be stopped?

Re:just use...

[Bonker]

Java Anonymous Proxy was backdoored by the German government.

http://theregister.co.uk/content/55/32450.html

They posted an updated version which contained a backhole... they called it a 'crime tracking feature'... and then refused to indicate to users which site was being monitored and which wasn't.

Re:"Different" governments

[Anonymous Coward]

please go enroll in a 1000 level history and political science class at your local community college.

New Headline

[American AC in Paris]

India Blocks Yahoo Groups: Sikh and Wrong

Re:New Headline

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

And on that note, I'm just waiting for the deluge of "In Soviet India" jokes...

NNTP bittorrent news proxy?

[t0qer]

I've been toying around with this idea for a while, basically all I have now is a hacked stupid ass script that decodes yenc encoded binaries from a paticular newsgroup, creates a .torrent hash on the message, then seeds the message with btdownloadheadless. (I did this so some friends on a different ISP that didn't carry the paticular group could reap it's rich rewards)

Why can't the same principal with web boards be applied with bittorrent? Simply wget the page you want, create a .torrent hash, seed.

(runs off to script)

Re:Article text

[herrvinny]

Personally, I hope Yahoo doesn't deactivate the group. Not that I agree with them, but Yahoo deactivating the group would be a very bad precedent, maybe even opening Yahoo up to a lawsuit...

Re:You, you, you...

[dreadnougat]

Of course I'm unamerican, I'm Canadian :) (I'm not ANTIAmerican though :))

Where to draw the line

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

There's a wonderful quote (I'm not getting it word-for-word):

If we don't believe in free speech for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all.

It's very difficult to draw a line in the sand to divide what is and is not acceptible as free speech. And the most damage doesn't come from misplacing the line a little to the right or the left, but from placing the line to begin with.

India will now be forever locked in a debate over what can and cannot be accessible to the public.

On the upside, the more India is cut off from the internet, the better my job security.

Re:Where to draw the line

[rossz]

If we don't believe in free speech for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all.

I agree 100%. Other countries do not understand why we tolerate publications by neonazis and other hate groups. We tolerate them because we firmly believe in free speech for everyone. Not just the "good" stuff. Not just what is politically correct. EVERYONE. Even when their very words make us want to puke.

Free speech laws aren't there to protect popular speech. By its very nature, it doesn't need protection. It's to protect the unpopular view. Before anyone jumps on me for this, realize that not long ago in the deep south the popular view was that blacks were not really human. The unpopular view was that blacks deserved to be treated as equals.

The cure to bad free speech is more free speech, not laws limiting what you can say. People with some degree of intelligence will figure out what is right. The stupid people have already decided so the amount of free speech won't affect them.

Re:Where to draw the line

[mpe]

I agree 100%. Other countries do not understand why we tolerate publications by neonazis and other hate groups. We tolerate them because we firmly believe in free speech for everyone. Not just the "good" stuff. Not just what is politically correct.

In practice there are "taboo" subjects in the USA. Problem is that the least popular/PC speach is the easiest to censor, since very few people are likely to object. With any who do being easily classified as "evil" or protecting "evil".

Free speech laws aren't there to protect popular speech. By its very nature, it doesn't need protection.

N.B. popular can easily include "hate speach" and advocating all sorts of attrocities.

It's to protect the unpopular view.

especially where this unpopular view goes against the interests of powerful corporations or individuals.

Before anyone jumps on me for this, realize that not long ago in the deep south the popular view was that blacks were not really human. The unpopular view was that blacks deserved to be treated as equals.

Subsitute "Middle Easten Arabs" for "South US Blacks" and you could easily wind up with a contempoary example...

Stupid Stupid move - But its back on line

[Cowboy Bill]

The Honchos sitting up there have no idea of the power of the Internet and the repercursions of blocking such a widely used site like yahoo groups. I did contact my friends in India. They said it was back online after a day or so.
Of course for a democratic nation like India free speech was taken for granted until today. The infamous declaration of Emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975 plagues the Congress party even today. Funny, a lot of the leaders in the ruling party found themselves at the receiving end of the stick back then. Time really does make one forget I guess.
Anyway let us see how the "democratic process" pans itself out on this issue. The US found its own achilles heel in the Patriot Act. So moralizers beware.

Mods: Modified Article

[setzman]

Kynhun - BinU Hynniladenewtrep

Bin laden, huh? That's not his him.

, Google, or MSN

MSN isn't mentioned in article. Hynniebinwtrep

More modification.

and prevent other sites from disclosing information about the ban,

Not present in original article.

Reporters Without Limits

Should be Borders

Re:"Different" governments

[bombadillo]

Does it really matter what name the government is called? Wether it be socialist, communist, republic or democracy? Any form of government can be corrupt. Maybe we shouldn't be trying to bring democracy to other countries. Maybe we should be more intersted in governments that server the people. Any one notice that about 100 years ago people stopped refering to the US as a republic and started calling the US a democracy?

Re:Well gee.

[andy1307]

Access to news website blocked?

KARACHI, May 30: A Washington-based news website - South Asia Tribune - has claimed that the government has blocked access to its URL. A press statement issued by the Tribune on Friday said Internet access to their website, www.satribune.com, "has been blocked" by Pakistan Internet Exchange (PIE), the Internet backbone provider for Pakistan. But Federal Minister for Information Technology and Telecommunication Awais Ahmad Khan Leghari expressed his ignorance about the development when asked to comment about the alleged denial of access to the website.

Little known facts

[deadmongrel]

There was a time when hotmail was blocked just so that VSNL(then a govt sponsored ISP with monopoly) could get more people as customers of their email address.
judging from India's CERT(shouldn't the real CERT sue over the name issue?) ban we can see what kind of people run the IT sector(atleast on the govt side). Bad day for democracy.

Re:Little known facts

[The Cydonian]

First of all, neither is VSNL government-linked any longer, nor is it a monopoly. The last time I counted, there were about 30 or so ISP's in my hometown alone.

And then, Hotmail/Yahoo were never blocked per se. The ISP Association of India sent up a few test balloons some time last year, "suggesting" that Hotmail and Yahoo pay a toll tax, or be blocked. Nothing came out of it though.

CERT's, if you didn't know, now exist in all countries. If I'm not wrong, there's some international agreement for these to be put up; so the next time country X wants a "cyber"-criminal from country Y, their respective CERT's talk to each other. Or something like that.

As for "kind of people", well, you guys love FUD-ing against us, nothing new in that.

Re:Little known facts

[deadmongrel]

first of all CERT thing was a fregging joke man with all this sue you sue me going on. second hotmail was indeed blocked during early 1996 just to make sure people got their stupid shell accounts(remember giasmda.vsnl.net.in.blah.blah.blah). How would I know? go figure

Re:Little known facts

[The Cydonian]

I suppose we'll have to have it your way then; never used VSNL before 1997/98.

How slashdot can help

[UrgleHoth]

Well, with the number of slashdotters that like to mirror sites in the discussion, we can easily mirror this yahoogroup.

Hmm, Then India would have to block /. too. I wonder how that would bode for India's geeks?

Re:How slashdot can help

[portforward]

They would probably be able to get some work done.

Re:India nukes Yahoo Groups

[lcde]

When they meant to nuke just one. This is why they shouldn't have the bomb.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb...

Loosing Y! groups? Hardly a loss

[hajejan]

I see the point about the freedom of speech and yadda-yadda. However, Yahoo groups (and - even worse - MSN groups) have never really been a healthy addition to the internet.

I only wish the British government would do the same - perhaps people will make *real* groups and/or websites.

h

Re:"Different" governments

[bombadillo]

The poster has a valid question. I bet that 98% of the population can not tell the difference between socialism and communism. Do you care to enlighten us?

Re:Good!

[GuanoBoy]

what form of government does India have?

A democracy or republic or whatever you want to call it. Lots of nations are representative democracies.

Few , though, have a document equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Or, at least one that can be and is invoked as often.

Killing Flies with Nuclear Weapons

[Kefaa]

Good grief,the country has over 840 million people and it is worried about a Yahoo group that has 12 members (now 188 thanks to this news story). While it is easy to say "remember 9/11", remember reality too.

It is unlikely they need Yahoo in order to successful anti-government activists. If they do, then they are not much of a threat. It would seem this is like killing flies with nuclear weapons.

Perhaps this should be a word to the wise, as American companies continue off-shoring development. What happens when the shut down incoming email? Your corporate site? Or your ISP? It appears they have no concern for the outcome of their action, merely that they follow it, as their duty demands. However, it is _their_ country and as it said, it is outside the control of US laws, and by direct connection US protections.

Re:Killing Flies with Nuclear Weapons

[Unordained]

uhm, don't give them any ideas -- they have nukes now too, and they might have a problem with flies. they might be tempted ...

Re:Killing Flies with Nuclear Weapons

[ElGanzoLoco]

Good grief,the country has over 840 million people

Check your facts... India's population has exceeded 1 billion (+/-1 Gb) four or five years ago...

Re:Killing Flies with Nuclear Weapons

[Seahawk]

On the other hand, a company in india doesnt suffer some of the problems that a US based company has - like having 2 lawyers for every developer to check they arent using the "IP" of some other company.

And in the long term, I wouldnt think twice what i would bet on - the "new" democracy with problems defining free speech, or the supereconomy that are making more and more laws that makes it practicaly impossible to start up on your own.

So just because India has some problems with their free speech, they will probably solve it much sooner than the US will become "fair"

look dudes

[circletimessquare]

democracy is nice

but so is strong government

a lot of people here come from cultural monocultures of western democracies with strong central governments

we're talking about an organization with at most a few dozen members that want a sliver of land in the northeast of india to be independent, in a country that is as about as culturally varied as the entire african subcontinent

this is serious stuff in a place where india and china still have serious border issues about sikkhim, kashmir, etc., not to mention active separatist groups like in assam

this is not the border of canada and the us, across which most people here on slashdot are posting, perhaps the most historically peaceful border in the world

this is serious stuff, this is not funny, this is not a simplistic civics lesson in sixth grade that is understandable in simplistic terms only

india has to take serious steps to protect the integrity of its borders and internal cohesion

blocking all of yahoo groups was a MISTAKE in trying to block this one small group

everyone involved admits that

germany/ france actively censors nazi interests, and we think of them as open democracies

that's a group a lot larger than this tiny unknown group

nobody's screaming bloody murder over that here

so please, ket's have not have all the knee-jerk over-simplifying chicken littles cry the sky is falling in india

let's have some perspective

this really is no big deal, except for this minor practically unknown separatist group, which now has won more pr than they could have possibly dreamed of

which is perhaps the real lesson here about censorship, after all is said and done: you often just wind up buying pr for the group/ work you are trying to censor

Re:look dudes

[RevMike]

this is not the border of canada and the us, across which most people here on slashdot are posting, perhaps the most historically peaceful border in the world

The border is quiet. Maybe a little too quiet. What are those sneaky canucks up to?

Re:look dudes

[uberdave]

What are those sneaky canucks up to?

Operation Take-over-Hollywood-and-thus-take-over-their-minds is in full swing. Let them think that Americans invented air conditioning, microwave ovens, microcomputers, etc. Let them think they rule. When the Manifest Destiny comes about, it will be North America under the Maple Leaf, not under the Stars and Stripes. Mwaa-ha-ha! Mwaa-ha-ha-ha! [/me puts pinky to lip]

Re:look dudes

[Jameth]

"this is not the border of canada and the us, across which most people here on slashdot are posting, perhaps the most historically peaceful border in the world"

Not perhaps, definitely. It is the largest and longest undefended border in history (although there apparently were some issues between Minnesota and Canada during the 60's, IIRC)

"a lot of people here come from cultural monocultures of western democracies with strong central governments"

The US isn't a mono-culture. India is not a mono-culture either. It just happens that India's cultural differences currently tend towards violence more than the cultural differences in the US do at the moment.

"this is serious stuff, this is not funny, this is not a simplistic civics lesson in sixth grade that is understandable in simplistic terms only"

The purpose of the structure in the United States is not that something is best for country, but that it is right. That it is best for the country happens to coincide with what is right, on many occasions. Regardless of effectiveness and side-effects, some things are inalienable rights. The point is, if they can be abridged *at all* they are no longer inalienable rights.

It's like the difference between getting genuinely no water, and getting a little drink of water every day. Stepping away from the absolute has a drastically different effect. It is not merely a change in the magnitude of a situation, it is change in the nature of the situation.

If you wish to argue that some rights can still be restricted, feel free to. In some cases, I may even agree with you. However, once a right is reduced, it is no longer an absolute right, and cannot fit into the same category of absolute rights.

Re:look dudes

[exhilaration]

The border is quiet. Maybe a little too quiet. What are those sneaky canucks up to?

We can't take a chance - WE MUST STRIKE BEFORE THEY THREATEN OUR FREEDOM! Preemptory self-defense anyone?

Re:look dudes

[mantera]

what is the african subcontinent? i never heard of that

Re:look dudes

[bsharma]

But would US do this, say if MeCha becomes very powerful and demand Azatlan? I don't think so, if you go by the Quebec example in Canada. They faced the call for separation head on and went to vote. I think that is how a mature democracy should be have when the "band that unites the peoples becomes too weak".

Re:look dudes

[Sayan]

Just one fact i want to point out that India has not invaded another country in its last 1000 years of history. Sure there are sporadic violent acts but they reflect the activities of a tiny but vocal minority of the entire population... no different than the skinheads in europe or white right-wing in america, etc. The media in the west tends to show only those news from India which fit into the stereotypical western notion of its viewers and fails to even acknowledge the plight of the Indian people who have been suffering the burden of terrorism long before 9/11. If you want proof that India is still the land of Mahatma Gandhi look at how it has not gone and invaded another country inspite of extreme provocation. Unlike other countries which have done that on someones' whims and fancies.... Think about it.... maybe India should be the mascot of the peaceniks....

Re:look dudes

[The One and Only]

It's wrong to censor the Nazis too. This is a travesty of justice. Is it the greatest travesty of justice? No. But that doesn't change anything.

Re:look dudes

[mpe]

a lot of people here come from cultural monocultures of western democracies with strong central governments

Most European countries are quite varied both culturally and politically. Qne European political party recently announced it's intention to seek independence through democratic methods.

this is not the border of canada and the us, across which most people here on slashdot are posting, perhaps the most historically peaceful border in the world.

Actually the equivalent in US terms would be something more along the lines of part of California becoming an independent state. Whilst the US is quite diverse in terms of culture and geography when it comes to politics things are very much of a "monoculture".

Re:look dudes

[Jameth]

I was refering more to the fact that they do suffer more from terrorism, and often it is from an internal source. Although the US has many violent groups, terrorism is extremely rare here. Much of the rest of the world is not so lucky, and I suspect (but do not know) that India is a country that gets more than its fair share of hard knocks.

Re:look dudes

[dafollower]

The Southeners would've loved that..so would the Native Americans..or the Nazis..for that matter, even Saddam Hussein..

Re:look dudes

[Sayan]

Very few people in the west have Jameth's objectivity and sensitivity. I extend my hand of friendship to you and more like you.

Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[MyNameIsFred]

I agree with the parent. Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare. For example, in France it is against the law to disparage the Prime Minister. The English newspaper the Sun had to pay a fine when it recently called Chirac a worm. There are other examples in the democracies of Europe.

Just one more reason why maintaining freedom of speech in the U.S. requires constant vigilance.

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Right. And imagine it wasn't Chirac compared to a worm but someone calling Microsoft products crap on the front page of a newspaper. Then we'll see who has freedom of speech in the US.

The fact is: no national newspaper in the US would dare to call the leader of an allied nation a 'worm'. Even the likes of National Enquirer wouldn't have the guts to do it - they reserve that kind of stuff for easy targets like Saddam Hussein. The UK has far more freedom of speech than the US because there is a strong culture of such freedom in the UK and that freedom is stronger than the ability of the courts to fine. That culture is sadly lacking in the US where freedom of speech is just an empty phrase kids learn to recite at high school.

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[Greyfox]

IIRC, in the USA it's illegal to host a page describing how to make methamphetamines. Possibly other illegal drugs as well. I don't recall if that was ever challenged in court, not gonna google trying to find it in this country, heh heh.

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[corbettw]

Um, what about Fox News and their "Axis of Weasel" (Germany, France, and Brussels)?

And the only reason "no national newspaper in the US" (not counting tabloids and weekly newsmags, we only have one, US Today, and nobody reads it except foreigners) wouldn't call the leader of an allied nation a "worm" on the frontpage is because that kind of thing isn't front page news in the US, it goes into the Opinion section. And you can find lots OpEd pieces calling Chirac much worse than a worm (you can also find some calling Bush and Blair names, too, just using the same example you did).

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[William Baric]

Even in the worse dictatorship you are always free to say whatever you want as long as there is no one to listen to you.

You may think I'm cynical but I believe the US can have freedom of speech simply because no one cares about what other people say or think; because most Americans are so sure they live in the best country in the world that they refuse to reconsider any US institution or moral value (even when they must rely on food stamps).

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[easter1916]

This is the same UK where Margaret Thatcher banned the broadcast of Sinn Fein speakers, to deny them "the oxygen of publicity"? What was your point again? Oh that old argument about Sinn Fein/PIRA being the same entity -- then prove it in a court. And before you catch me on this one, I am well aware that successive governments in Ireland renewed the infamous Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, on which the UK legislation was modelled.

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[marko123]

It wasn't exactly that they called him a worm. They made a special edition of the paper with a huge worm spiralling out of a map of France with Chirac's head on the the top of it, and they gave it out for free in Paris. I'd say the fine was more of a way of England saying, "Sorry. We thought we had the hooligan problem under control."

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Thank you. I'd forgotten about that powerful example. It's an excellent example of what I'm talking about! What happened when it was illegal to broadcast Gerry Adams's voice? Every media outlet worked around the rules until they settled on playing the video with a dubbed voice in an Irish accent. The free speech tradition in the UK is far stronger than the ability of the UK government to suppress it without the need for a constitution. Unlike in the US where the news outlets merely toe the government line with voluntary self-censorship or whatever euphemism it's given these days.

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Even in the worse dictatorship you are always free to say whatever you want as long as there is no one to listen to you.

Yep... consider something like modern day China. It is totalitarian and wouldn't put up with political dissent. BUT the VAST majority of Chinese can openly criticize the govt. If you go to restaurants, or coffe shops, or online chat forms, people always criticize the govt. It's just that, these people are unimportant and can be left alone. If you were an activist (who are usually more poweful because they have skills to influence people) that criticized the govt, expect to be charged or jailed.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Unrestricted freedom of speech is rare...

[easter1916]

It was indeed utterly ridiculous. Sinn Fein's pathetic arguments and blatant gangsterism would have been dismissed much more quickly without the "cachet" of being proscribed. Let them live and die by the (lack of) strength of their arguments. My only point in mentioning it was to point out that even in the UK with that tradition of free speech (Londonistan, The Magnificent 19, etc.), there is still a tendency by legislators to attempt to control.

Not Sure

[DaytonCIM]

How this affects anyone outside of India? If Indians want the Yahoo groups back, then they need to takes steps, elect new leaders, etc...

Otherwise, this has little to do with anyone outside of India.

Re:No they didn't.

[pirhana]

US too is a democracy right ?

Two Words

[slappy_guru]

Anonymous Proxy

Times of India article

[jdunlevy]

The Times of India has an article, "Big Brother turns gaze on debates," about this (dated Saturday). From the article:

"The government has given itself sweeping powers to police Internet content and demonstrated it is willing to use them," said Somasekhar Sundaresan, a lawyer specialising in technology issues. "What makes it worse is that rather than acting with transparency and explaining why it was necessary, ISPs were ordered to block 'Kynhun' without being given facts or reasons. All of which creates fear of a police raj."

What has most alarmed freedom-of-speechniks is that this is not a random instance. Increasingly, Big Brother is turning his gaze from pornography to political debates and ideological differences.

Re:Times of India article

[easter1916]

There is always danger in electing nationalists to government... the BNP are no different from Sinn Fein, the British National Party, Joerg Haider's Freedom Party, the list goes on. Nationalism was the curse of the 20th century and looks set to do the same to the 21st.

Strange... India is usually quite tolerant

[SmilingMonk]

I know that the Indian Government has been fighting the Naxals for decades. Other separatist groups agitate from time to time. Other than that, I tend to view India as the most democratic nation in all of Asia. They are usually very idealistic and many times push these ideal into their implementation of democracy.

I wonder how long the block will last?

Re:Strange... India is usually quite tolerant

[easter1916]

Tolerant? Tell that to the Muslim minority in India.

A taste of context

[JessLeah]

Let's put this in context. Millions of Indians-- more than the entire population of the United States-- live in poverty. (Just because Fortune 500 corporations are outsourcing stuff there doesn't mean India is some sort of wonderful, prosperous Democratic playground. Jobs are outsourced to India because it's cheap.) And we're worried about which Yahoo! Groups they can read there? Many Indians are worried about how they'll feed their children next month.

So instead of ranting and raving on SlashDot about freedom of speech, write a letter to the appropriate ambassadors-- and then go and donate to a charity that helps poor Indians. It'll be more productive, and you'll help solve two problems, not just one.

Re:A taste of context

[The Cydonian]

I can't tell you how many grassroots organisations in India have taken to Yahoo Groups lately. Easiest thing for them to do; everyone has a free Hotmail/Yahoo account, so there's no better way of informing everyone and having discussions than this.

Really people, I'm tired of this oh-they-don't-have-food-so-let's-not-talk-about-fr eedom argument. Just doesn't wash; you need freedom of speech, you need clear channels of accountability to make a difference. Charity can't work under authoritarianism.

Re:A taste of context

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Speaking of which - let's put the previous PATRIOT Act article in perspective.

Millions of Americans -- more than the entire population of Sweden-- live in property (Just because a few Swedish countries are outsourcing stuff there doesn't mean America is some sort of wonderful, prosperous Democratic playground)...etc,etc,etc.

This is just another "murders are going on - why are we wasting time investigating rapes" argument.

IHBT

Re:A taste of context

[Jaysyn]

There should be a "what about the children" clause for Godwin's Law.

Jaysyn

Re:So does USA block sites according to content

[thedillybar]

I believe your public state owned librarys also block sites depending on their content right ?

This sounds reasonably accurate, although I'm not quite sure the result of some recent lawsuits. But are you aware of how few people use the library as the primary Internet resource? We may be attempting to censor porn (and in turn, censoring more sites) at libraries, but nothing has been done for involuntary censorship at the ISP level or anything else.

dont think that democracy means free anything, you give up your daily life for your boss no ?

Yes, but I am free to tell my boss to go F#$* him/her self and not show up for work tomorrow. It's not a very viable option for the people of India to get up and leave their country, if it's even possible for them to do so.

Re:NNTP bittorrent news proxy?

[Anonymous Coward]

creating the torrent won't generate bandwidth, you need a substatial population that actually receives it and is able to send it out. in these cases, where is your original source and population?

Al Jazeera wasn't taken down by the government

[MyNameIsFred]

Al Jazeera was a victim of a DDoS attack perpetuated by overzealous supporters of the war. The DDoS was illegal, and the perpertrators should be penalized.

So many people who scream first amendment forgot this crucial point -- the first amendment limits what the government can do. A DDoS attack against Al Jazeera by the GOVERNMENT is a first amendment violation. A DDoS attack by INDIVIDUALS is not - although it is illegal.

Re:Al Jazeera wasn't taken down by the government

[evilviper]

A DDoS attack against Al Jazeera by the GOVERNMENT is a first amendment violation. A DDoS attack by INDIVIDUALS is not - although it is illegal.

Yes, violating someone's rights is illegial, even if the act by which you do it (DDoS), isn't. In this case it just happens to be an illegial method as well.

Sure, you don't get jail time for violating someone's civil liberties, but you can get heavily fined, which is much more than can be said for what happens to political leaders that do the same things.

Re:Al Jazeera wasn't taken down by the government

[MMaestro]

I'm sure what he is trying to say is that the First Amendment protects Al Jazeera from DDoS attacks by the U.S. government on their web site. However, if that same DDoS attack was done by individuals then that was not a violation of the first amendment (in which case you get into an argument about online rights and political discussion regarding net crimes).

Re:Al Jazeera wasn't taken down by the government

[evilviper]

However, if that same DDoS attack was done by individuals then that was not a violation of the first amendment

But that's simply not true. It is still a first-ammendment violation if an individual (group of individuals, or a company) interferes with your freedom of speech, and those individuals will be charged as such.

Re:Al Jazeera wasn't taken down by the government

[MMaestro]

In the case of Al Jazeera, no the hackers would not have been arrested on the grounds of violating the first amendment. The hackers did not go and beat the Al Jazeera reporters in the streets telling them not to make anti-American reports. They went and attacked their web servers, thats a hacking issue (again online law). If hackers were to attack your computer and prevent you from posting on a blog where you put up anti-whatever messages, do you think the government will go after the hackers on grounds of violating the first amendment or for hacking?

This is seriously stretching the right to use the first amendment as a right. If you consider the hacking of the Al Jazeera webpage a violation of the first amendment, every time I get hit by a virus I wanna be able to throw the 13 year kid, who made the virus variant that killed my computer, into jail. My argument? I couldn't post my opinion on Slashdot as a result, (in your terms) thats a violation of the first amendment.

Re:Al Jazeera wasn't taken down by the government

[evilviper]

If hackers were to attack your computer and prevent you from posting on a blog where you put up anti-whatever messages, do you think the government will go after the hackers on grounds of violating the first amendment or for hacking?

NO. The Government wouldn't do so, because it is a Civil matter, not a criminal one.

If you consider the hacking of the Al Jazeera webpage a violation of the first amendment, every time I get hit by a virus I wanna be able to throw the 13 year kid, who made the virus variant that killed my computer, into jail.

There is NO jail involved. This is civil, not criminal.

A virus that attacks a workstation would not count, since that would be very indirect.

Also, anything that just happens to interfere with your right to speech, wouldn't count. Anything that was directly intended to prevent your free speech, would. Obviously, a DDoS is direct, and it's only likely intent would be to censor them.

(in your terms) thats a violation of the first amendment.

First of all, you are not talking about "my terms", becase you are distorting them to ridiculous proportions, far beyond where they apply. It's a straw-man.

Secondly, these are not "my terms" because I did not make them up, the United States court system did.

Re:Al Jazeera wasn't taken down by the government

[MMaestro]

'Obviously, a DDoS is direct, and it's only likely intent would be to censor them.'

Yes a DDoS ia direct, but like you said in the second part of your sentence. It's only -likely- intent would be to censor them. How likely is it that hackers would launch a DDoS against Al Jazeera to censor them yet stop after their first few actions against them? If this was a real world event outside of cyberspace, this would equate to maybe the firebombing of a specific empty newsstand. Censoring? -Likely.- But unprovable.

Re:great.

[KORfan]

Do you mean black hole as in hypermass, or black hole as in "Black Hole of Calcutta"?

Re:"Different" governments

[uberdave]

Who gave you the mandate to try to bring democracy to other contries in the first place? Maybe if the US stopped mucking around with other contries' governments, the rest of the world wouldn't hate them so much.

Re:Good!

[lightspawn]

>> I'm embarrassed to even admit this, proving my obvious US-centricness, but...what form of government does India have?

> Same as in the U.S.--Plutocracy.

I thought it was Mickey Mouse controlling the U.S. Congress, not Pluto?

Want to make something more popular? Ban it!

[kylef]

Will this actually increase the interest in this seperatist group?

Absolutely!

Just look at what rock 'n roll music was in the USSR back in the 60s and 70s. It was a "politically subversive cultural influence" and therefore banned at the government level. But that only served to make groups like the Beatles ever more popular and mysterious.

Bullshit sensationlist headlines

[Brahmastra]

The Indian government asked ISPs to block ONE specific yahoo group. Many ISPs had no idea how to block just one group and blocked everything. Bullshit headlines like "India blocks yahoo groups" are misleading. I know many people in India using various ISPs who are still able to access Yahoo groups.

Re:Want to make something more popular? Ban it!

[(54)T-Dub]

I should have phrased my question differently. Will it lead to more people joining seperatist groups?

IP & Yahoogroups (Slightly off topic.)

[Mir322]

But,... who owns intellectual property discussed on yahoo groups? is it public domain?

What if it's a closed members only who join & are invited discussion group held on the yahoo servers ?

Can an american company claim legal ownership of IP discussed on such kinds of yahoo groups?

I once tried to get to the bottom of it and ended up being politely told by some yahoo admins & their IP dept. to go find a lawyer and figure it out for myself.

Re:Before mentioning the First Amendment

[proj_2501]

i dunno, but i can watch aljazeera's headlines on the television every morning!

Jobs are temporary

[SparklesMalone]

If you really want to bring back American jobs long-term than we should try to increase trade in high-tech. Most of the programming jobs being taken by Indian programmers are the maintenance jobs on those old COBOL systems that no slashdotter wants to work on anyway. This is terrible news because of the chill to free speech, but it's bad news for jobs too: If India falls behind in technology that's a 1 billion person market our emerging tech sector can't tap. The old-tech sector backed by COBOL programmers from India and Mexico will keep 'em running but overall the whole world economy loses.

Re:Jobs are temporary

[Goth Biker Babe]

It's not just old languages and maintenance work that's done in India. Having said that my experience is that the Indian coders I've worked with have poor design skills. So I now design systems and provide frameworks and let the subcontractors do the code monkey work.

I don't see a problem with that. Anyone can code (regardless of language) but can anyone design and write good code? No. So you do the clever work and outsource the grind. And when you're in a competitive market you have to find some cost savings somewhere and salaries which are a third European ones are a saving.

Re:Jobs are temporary

[SparklesMalone]

That's almost exactly my experience. We used Indians to code from specs with moderate success but had problems when the starting point was business requirements. For us the bigest problem was the time difference (US Eastern standard). We did get a sale in Indonesia that was boosted by having programmers available closer to Jakarta's time zone, though I doubt that cliched the deal.

In defence of Indian designers I'll also say I'm now subcontracting for a company founded by an Indian database specialist and one of those American COBOL old timers. The design is quite elegant.

2 things

[aaandre]

1. There are ways around this. Like http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/http://groups.yaho o.com (you need to use the paid service in order to log in through yahoo's secure connection)

or, maybe, participating in the group via email only.

2. Governments are about control and lack trust in individuals. (And rightly so, too many conflicting interests!) The Internet is based on trust and freedom of speech/expression. It is the conschiousness of mankind starting to manifest itself in material (well, electronic) form. Which is an evolutionary step towards a revolution in human relationships.

Re:"Different" governments

[NanoGator]

"Maybe if the US stopped mucking around with other contries' governments, the rest of the world wouldn't hate them so much."

Yeah! Let them nuke each other as long as they like us!

Re:"Different" governments

[RevMike]

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to bring democracy to other countries. Maybe we should be more intersted in governments that server the people.

I wish I had some mod points to give you.

The right to govern derives from the consent of the governed. A handful of small states in Europe still have ruling monarchs. No one is campaigning for change because the rulers of these states are sensitive and responsive to the needs of the people.

I'm willing to offer them space, others should too

[Chatmag]

This is a classic case of "colleral damage" theory gone wrong. I'm willing to offer them some web space, and if a lot others would, then lets see India block the world.

From the Yahoo group, it looks like kyrmenlang may be the owner, at least thats the nickname that posted the first message on their board. I'll see if an email to that nick will get through.

Re:"Different" governments

[bombadillo]

Hey, I am opposed to what the US is doing now. To me it is imperialism. I am saying that the US should really rethink the policy of trying to make everything a democracy.

More excuses

[swb]

Gee, border integrity, cultural cohesion, other nations wrong-minded censorship, what's next, torture is OK, too, as long as someone else is doing it to?

Re:More excuses

[Jaysyn]

The U.S. - We let the Egyptians do the torturing for us.

Jaysyn

figures

[VS1]

The Indian political machine. they want one group blocked immediatly. so, to fullfill the demand, they block the whole thing.

oh, and India isnt as democratic as it seems. its really just a corrupt govt that says it was voted in.

remember, this is the country where ghandi's village has no running water but cola is widely available.

Re:figures

[BrainInAJar]

The same thing can be said of every democracy/republic that does a single thing you dissagree with...

"oh, and America isnt as democratic as it seems. its really just a corrupt govt that says it was voted in."
"oh, and Canada isnt as democratic as it seems. its really just a corrupt govt that says it was voted in."
"oh, and France isnt as democratic as it seems. its really just a corrupt govt that says it was voted in."

etc, etc.

Re:figures

[easter1916]

Whether (some) Indian legislators are corrupt or not is completely irrelevant -- they were elected by Indian voters. Corruption is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that every democracy with a handful of corrupt legislators ceases to be a democracy.

Re:figures

[VS1]

replying in general:

yea, but with america it was assumed the voter would be informed.

voters in India dont exactly read. at all. superstition is still prevelant and many of the people are misinformed. true, its getting better, but rather slowly, becuase the politicians are dragging their feet.

ill bet this minor opposition group has a link to someone who said something critical of a high ranking or influential person.

Hmm...

[patricksevenlee]

So let me get this straight. It's OK in India to surf the web and download as much porn as your hard drive can handle. But Yahoo groups is off limits.

Woohoo

[Timesprout]

I'm starting a Free Lamo group right now on MSN to see if the US blocks access to Microsoft

Freedom != Democracy

[mc6809e]

Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling.

Don't confuse individual rights with democracy. They are not the same thing.

In fact, the ideas oppose each other. Democracy is about giving the majority control. Individual rights are there to protect us from the excesses of democracy.

Re:Freedom != Democracy

[justaguy516]

Ummmm, giving the majority unconditional control
is not democracy, it is fascism. Democracy is
nothing if minority rights are not protected.

Re:Freedom != Democracy

[mc6809e]

Ummmm, giving the majority unconditional control
is not democracy, it is fascism. Democracy is
nothing if minority rights are not protected.

You wish.

Democracy just means majority rule.

Fascism is placing the nation above the individual.

These ideas are so similar it's frightening. They both make the individual secondary.

The idea of individual rights stands opposed to both.

Maybe you're thinking of republicanism (I don't necessarily mean the GOP).

Maybe India will outsource?

[gorfie]

With all of the work the Indian ISPs will be doing over the next few years censoring Yahoo groups and whatnot, perhaps they will need to outsource their IT jobs to other countries like the United States?

Re:Before mentioning the First Amendment

[subzero_ice]

Don Rumsfeld does have a right to voice his opinions but he can't voice his personal opinions when he is in his office. If you think that is wrong then I guess it is the people in the Government office that are excercing their right of freedom of speech.

On the Surface Different

[jazman_777]

Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling.

But at heart how different are states? They want control and to stay in power.

Indians love trouble

[linuxguy]

India has border disputes with just about every
neighbor. Indian political leaders are under a lot
of pressure to not settle any of these disputes.
Instead they have to fan these flames to win votes.

Maybe one day Indians will wake up and elect leaders
that will do something about feeding and educating
their masses rather than bickering with neighbouring
countries over land.

Re:Indians love trouble

[sdawara]

India has border disputes with just about every
neighbor. Indian political leaders are under a lot
of pressure to not settle any of these disputes.
Instead they have to fan these flames to win votes.

On what basis can you make such sweeping generalizations? Are you aware that Nepal, Burma, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Tibet all share borders with India (apart from Pakistan and China)?

- Santosh

Re:Indians love trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very illogical argument. If India or some other country has disputes/disagreement with 2/more countries, does that mean India or Indian Govt is Bad??? I disagree...

What if I generalize the same argument and say that since US is disliked by most arab countries, US and US govt is bad?? or US is irritating arabs for votes of US citizens?? :-)

Nobody becomes bad because they have issues... Do you know the fact that though India quarrels with pakistan, Pakistan was given the Most Favored Nation status in trade?? All you see in your newspapers is the quarrels between India and Pakistan or India and China... But, probably you will never read things like this... [Obviously, things like this are not sensational and don't fetch the big newspapers their much-wanted profits...]

Disclosure: I am an Indian. ---

Re:"Different" governments

[s20451]

Communism is form of anarchy in which all workers contribute according to their abilities, and all receive according to their needs. In theory it is preceeded by a state known as "socialism" in which everything is owned by the working class (i.e., proletariat), but the working class is represented and governed by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which completely plans and organizes all economic activities. In the socialist phase, democratic rights are not respected, because they run counter to the central planning of the economy. Eventually, the dictatorship is supposed to "melt away" to form true Communism, but this has never happened in practice.

Pre-Communist socialism is not to be confused with democratic socialism, which has been practiced from time to time in various western countries. In this form of government, all major industries and resources are owned by the state. However, private businesses are allowed, and democratic rights are respected. Examples: pre-Thatcher Britain, pre-1990 Scandinavia

A democracy dominated by hindu neofascists...

[Anonymous Coward]

... specifically the BJP, the political arm of the Hindu supremecist Hindutva movement. These ARE the same folks that shot Gandhi for advocating peace between Indian muslims and hindus you know.

In perhaps a more direct parallel, economic development in India was stifled by grossly excessive bureaucratic controls on private business, which despite some reform is still true today. Government approval was required to do practically anything.

Re:"Different" governments

[Zeinfeld]

How is a socialist government different from a communist one except by degree? For that matter, how is the current US government different?

You might as well ask how is Capitalism different from Fascism? The difference is that they are completely different. The difference is between democratic government and totalitarian government.

At this point the US has one true aly left in the whole world, Tony Blair's socialist government in the UK. I define a true aly as being one whose support does not have to be bought with foreign aid.

The one thing that totalitarian governments do have in common is that the guiding ideology turns out to be almost irrelevant.

Socialism is not a totalitarian ideology, nor is capitalism, environmentalism or libertarianism. But you can get people who will turn any ideology into the basis for a totalitarian movement. We have already seen eco-terrorism and until 9-11 the single biggest terrorist attack in the US by far was Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oaklahoma motivated by some right wing militia whacko ideology.

If like McVeigh you can't tell the difference between the US government and communism or Fascism then the most likely explanation is that you are the problem.

Of course, with Ascroft and Bush in power there could be an alternative explanation.

Re:"Different" governments

[RevMike]

I bet that 98% of the population can not tell the difference between socialism and communism. Do you care to enlighten us?

Socialism is an economic system based on the premise that government should control of industries and businesses for the betterment of the people. It is not incompatible with democracy. Real world experience with socialism is that it is not nearly as efficient at maximizing the economy as a properly functioning free market capitalist system. Most nations are moving away from applying socialist principles to the general economy, but they are still useful in certain niches, especially those where public policy dictates that it is more useful to optimize for some other factor than maximum efficiency.

Communism is a political system based on the principal that a small group should control political power in the name of the working class, and hold that power through authoritarian means, in order to implement a socialist economic policy.

Re:"Different" governments

[bombadillo]

Excellent, Mod this guy up!!

not the end of the world for third world

[gbvb]

Just because, India is attempting to close down one group , and, the inability of ISPs to actually managing to close down just that one caused the shutdown. Indian govt. did not ask for shutting down the whole Yahoo groups. While, we can debate whether or not a govt. has rights to shut down a group (which it definitely does in its territory) or close down the complete communication channel itself.. It just comes down to the fact that ISPs were unable to close down that one group.

It is not is a statement about india being less democratic because of this. The fact that that many newspapers and journalists are up in arms about this is statement about its fundamental philosophy being sound.

Once in a while, every country slips up.

Patriot act,DMA ..

Re:Before mentioning the First Amendment

[Jameth]

The first amendment was being ignored, slightly after the PATRIOT act kicked it in the balls and the government shat on its head.

We're currently hosing it down, and will try to get it presentable and fit to move sometime in the next few months.

al jazeera

[u19925]

how come we didn't see so much outrage when US banned al jazeera in Iraq?

Re:al jazeera

[easter1916]

Because a lot of Americans are hypocrits.

Re:al jazeera

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up the parent--unless the sentiment makes you uncomfortable?

al jazeera was formerly the BBC's Asian Office. They are independent journalists (the local gov'ts there have also attacked them for reporting the truth they don't want to hear), not some sort of sinister mouthpiece for islamic fundamentalism

Re:al jazeera

[manja mali]

Dude .. lay off the smack .. its gettin on ur 'patriot nerves' ... TROLL .. Tell me did u read what u wrote --- Governing Council in Iraq .. right .. the turds ( i dont mean kurds) right to self determination ??

Re:indeed

[cryptochrome]

... and many situations in which the majority is self-serving and infringing on the rights of minorities.

non-technical journalism strikes again

[lightspawn]

Web sites like Yahoo or Google allow users to create and subscribe to electronic discussion forums.

But it does raise an interesting point - are they going to block, say, NNTP traffic? What about other encrypted, non HTTP-based alternatives?

I can't believe these idiots. There they have a group of dissidents communicating out there in the open where they can be freely and easily monitored - and they're forcing them to use another (probably secure) alternative.

Re:"Different" governments

[mdvolm]

I think the idea here is that a properly run democracy does serve the people, since it by definition would be controlled by the people.

No other forms of government have demonstrated themselves to be superior to a democracy in this respect.

Constitution != free speech

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

In New Zealand, we don't have anything like the US Constitution. There is no founding document that says we will always have free speech, yet in recent times, it seems that we are more well off than the US in terms of rights.

Documents don't hold much weight unless you have honest people running the place. Unfortunalty, it seems that the only thing your constitution can do is give people a clear goal to fight for.

Re:Constitution != free speech

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Did you understand what the word "seems" meant in the context of my post? Obvously not. I was making a personal observation, not a claim.

Have you done any extensive research to claim that my claim is un-based?

As for the KKK, NZ is too small for groups like that AFAIK. I've never heard of them here anyway, and I doubt it's because they've been repressed by our governmet.

Stupid techies at the ISP

[TheWingThing]

Let me not discuss democracy or free speech, but what the ISPs might have done. Last time I visited Yahoo groups, which is about an year ago, the URLs were of this format. Example: 'Linux' group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linux So, the stupid idiots blocked the whole domain instead of a certain path. To block kynhun, block http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kynhun/ and not the whole domain. Idiots.

What about email ??? or webmail

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the site is blocked, what about emails from them, or what about if they have it sent to their Hotmail for example, cant they just check their hotmail

i barely actualy use the actual website for yahoo groups.

so all they have really done is made it a bit more difficult, but i dont see how they are going to stop people from checking webmail email accounts

and technicaly you dont really need to access the webpage to accept an invitation to the group

Indian Constitution

[shift82]

A quick google search for the Indian Constitution led me to this site Here (It's not the first one in google so don't feel lucky)

This type of behavior would appear to be blocked by the lines: "LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship," "Right to Freedom," and " Cultural and Educational Right."

Although, the line: "To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India," would appear to allow them to silence any opposition to their government.

Just some food for thought from a first time poster.

Re:Replies are a bit self centered

[Archangel_Azazel]

And here...

Re:"Different" governments

[forgetful_ca]

Right, only the US is allowed to nuke other countries.

That helps US how?

[mabhatter654]

After all, the leading companies in internet blocking are AMERICAN! US citizens are already willing to do this for forign govenments against their own people, as soon as the product is ready to play against US hackers, don't think that it won't be used here!

You may have free speech, but you don't own the network...someone else does. All Washington will have to do is pass an FCC ruling, or just make a few phone calls in the name of 'Homeland Security' to CEO's at the major ISPs and boom, instant censorship. Oh, Verisign is APPOINTED to be the domain registar by the US GOVT too. Again, just a phone call to drop you from DNS. ICANN is also a shell company..again at the USGvts will. Once we have working blocking software good enough, then they can use DMCA and TOS to prosecute you for trying to get around the "voluntary" ISP blocks.

If your going to be mad, be mad at the US companies and goverment that allow this to happen....Some symbol for world freedom hun?

Re:"Different" governments

[am 2k]

[socialist principles] are still useful in certain niches, especially those where public policy dictates that it is more useful to optimize for some other factor than maximum efficiency.

Factors like...uh...a working public transportation system, mandatory social security, healthly citizens, environment protection, outstanding public schools, cheap or free university for everybody, etc etc etc

But those aren't really important, right?

Re:"Different" governments

[mkldev]

There is a danger in wording it in the way that you did. By that standard, taking the traditional western legal definition of "consent" (which excludes assent due to coercion), any ruler who is in power as a result of force, threat of force, or oppression must therefore no longer have the right to govern....

I'm quite certain that this is not what you meant. :-)

Sure it does!

[mabhatter654]

Sure it does....the best blocking companies are US based! Yep, US citizens making a buck blocking other countries free speech. Sooner or later, that software will [already is to companies] be sold and enforced here.

Plenty of countries have this

[nnnneedles]

Plenty countries have freedom of speech in their constitution, Sweden where I live for one. And were quite proud of it too, just as much as you are with yours. Not that any americans would ever know. :)

Germany and their nazi problem seem to be an area in Europe where freedom of speech is not guaranteed though.

It's somewhat sickening constantly hearing americans patting themselves on the back and claiming their best, "the best hope for humanity" and so on when they know so little of other countries and their systems.

A country with a flaw != America is the best system.

Try to remember that.

Have fun modding this.

Re:Plenty of countries have this

[easter1916]

Hear hear.

Re:Plenty of countries have this

[Tar-Palantir]

I didn't mean to imply "America is the best and only system", and I apologize if that was the impression you got, as that is not my belief. I didn't know about Sweden specifically. Kudos to the Swede lawmakers for being so wise.

Re:"Different" governments

[NanoGator]

"Right, only the US is allowed to nuke other countries."

Yeah because that's been such a common occurance in the last 50 years.

authoritarians 1, technodeterminists 0?

[pangian]

A decade or so ago, many believed that the Internet would be the harbinger of personal liberty, free expression and democracy throughout the world--take any authoritarian regime, add the Internet, shake, and you'll come back to a thriving pluralistic democracy.

Since then, countries like China, Cuba and others have taught us that it isn't that easy (surprise of all surprises!) The Internet is a tool like any other that determined governments can circumvent and use to support their goals. As previous posters have mentioned this is not only true in authoritarian regimes but also in countries that are ostensibly democratic such as India and the U.S.

Your ad here

Re:"Different" governments

[RevMike]

[socialist principles] are still useful in certain niches, especially those where public policy dictates that it is more useful to optimize for some other factor than maximum efficiency.

Factors like...uh...a working public transportation system, mandatory social security, healthly citizens, environment protection, outstanding public schools, cheap or free university for everybody, etc etc etc

But those aren't really important, right?

I never said those things were unimportant. And none of those require state ownership of enterprise.

For instance, a working public transportation system is a key one for me. I live around NY, which has an excellent system. The problem currently with more widespread public transportation in the US is that gasoline is not taxed at levels that reflect its impact on society. If gasoline taxes were such that they would fund all road construction/maintenance as well as road safety law enforcement, with maybe a littel extra thrown in to cover the envirnmental costs, then people would choose public transportation as well as smaller cars and Vespa style scooters, etc. As more people ride public transportation, it becomes profitable. The government doesn't need to operate it because private concerns would be more than willing to do so.

Re:"Different" governments

[salesgeek]

At this point the US has one true aly left in the whole world, Tony Blair's socialist government in the UK.

I would consider Spain, Italy, Japan and Austrailia to be at the same level as Britain. Frankly, the US never has had a lot of allies - except in times of dire need, and then we are the greatest friend in history! (Until the war is won and so on)

The one thing that totalitarian governments do have in common is that the guiding ideology turns out to be almost irrelevant

Tolitarianism is nothing new - it's just the currently fashionable term for tyranny. The US was largely designed to be tyrant proof. To that end, we've made it 200+ years. That history of elected succession we have is in NO DANGER.

Of course, with Ascroft and Bush in power there could be an alternative explanation.

What's your point here? Bush will be gone in one or five years, and Ashcroft with him. Will be interesting to see how bad the People think Bush really is... Regardless, Bush is hardly a tyrant, or tolitarian dictator. Ashcroft is a little crusty and old school, but the courts do nicely in keeping him in check.

A Simple question to my Wise American Friends

[teetam]

Consider the following scenario:

1. Some country, say Elbonia, legalizes something that is illegal in USA. Say, child pron. I know it is a stretch but bear with me.
2. Should American ISPs block this site or not? If not, given that the Web is a big, linked document, an American citizen might land there and thereby, commit a crime!!!

What is the correct, free response to such a scenario?

Re:A Simple question to my Wise American Friends

[Dirtside]

Well, the obvious distinction is that child pornography is not generally recognized as political speech. You can't reasonably use the same response to both situations.

Re:A Simple question to my Wise American Friends

[forkboy]

Free political speech is just as offensive to some governments as child pr0n is to ours. Just some food for thought.

Re:A Simple question to my Wise American Friends

[The One and Only]

Child pornography is harmful and ought to be banned. Political agitation is protected by the Constitution. There's the distinction.

Re:A Simple question to my Wise American Friends

[danila]

Nice post, but it seems for most people the situation is very clear. The speech that we don't like should be banned. The speech that we like should be free.

Personally I think that all personal speech should be protected, including separatist Yahoo! groups and child porn, although standards should be a bit different for some organisations, such as advertisers and also for published speech (libel, etc.).

Re:A Simple question to my Wise American Friends

[toriver]

Child pornography is harmful and ought to be banned.

If the pictures depict real children, they can be harmful, and any sexual acts would likely be. But e.g. drawings etc. aren't. And apparently parents have been branded child pornographers just for taking pictures of their own nude children, pictures that wouldn't raise an eyebrow on my side of the Atlantic...

Political agitation is protected by the Constitution.

As long as they aren't labeled "unamerican", "unpatriotic" or "an act against the war effort".

Re:A Simple question to my Wise American Friends

[The One and Only]

Even if they are labeled "unpatriotic", they are protected by the Constitution. It's just that our overlords in DC don't always obey the Constitution.

You obviously don't read to many American papers

[MyNameIsFred]

Calling people names is an age-old tradition in the US. Although I agree with the other poster who says the vast majority of the name-calling occurs in the OP-ED section (where it belongs).

As for calling Microsoft products crap - I don't know the page view statistics for Slashdot, but I bet it rivals the readership of major American newspapers. And Microsoft products are routinely called crap here.

Re:"Different" governments

[RevMike]

There is a danger in wording it in the way that you did. By that standard, taking the traditional western legal definition of "consent" (which excludes assent due to coercion), any ruler who is in power as a result of force, threat of force, or oppression must therefore no longer have the right to govern....

I'm quite certain that this is not what you meant. :-)

No, that is what I meant, but one does have to take into account practical considerations as well. I'm guessing you are refering to the occupation of a country by American troops after those troops evicted an oppressive government. For the short term, pragmatic considerations rule. The interim authority needs to make steps as rapid as prudently possible to create conditions for the people to voice their consent/dissent.

Re:"Different" governments

[Gurudev Das]

Nope, I wasn't alive then.

yahoo groups or nuclear conflict? hmmm...

[ctpater]

the choice seems obvious. or india could just dole itself out to its neighbours, province by province.

Re:"Different" governments

[jazman_777]

But those aren't really important, right?

You make a straw man assumption that anyone not agreeing that only the state can provide these things must think these things not important.

Re:"Different" governments

[jazman_777]

Any form of government can be corrupt.

Being full of humans all governments will have corrupt elements. However, for example, communism is a fantasy which does not correlate with human nature. So it _is_ more corrupt than most other systems, because its assumptions about human nature are so wrong.

Re:"Different" governments

[jazman_777]

Right, only the US is allowed to nuke other countries.

Israel, too.

Re:"Different" governments

[squiggleslash]

In theory it is preceeded by a state known as "socialism"

No, it's just known as "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Socialism is a political and/or social philosophy that predates communism by many decades. Its original proponents didn't see it as a form of government, and two of the most successful creations of socialism - the cooperative and trade union movements - are either neutral towards governments or actively hostile. Socialism is ultimately about people cooperating with one another to achieve a better, more harmonous, society, not about "achieving communism".

For a better idea of how these ideas came into being, do a search on "Robert Owen", widely considered to be the "father of socialism" (father in more than one sense, he was a little over-paternatistic), and work from there.

Re:"Different" governments

[squiggleslash]

Socialism is an economic system based on the premise that government should control of industries and businesses for the betterment of the people.

Socialism is a philosophy that people who work together rather than selfishly can create a better society. Many socialists see government as a vehicle to bring this type of cooperation about. Others, such as those in the cooperative movement, do not care. And some, such as socialist anarchists, see the government as the enemy.

Re:"Different" governments

[InfiniteWisdom]

more intersted in governments that server the people
Yes! Yes!! Yes!!! Governments that server the people! And they should be Linux servers too!!!

i dont know if this ahs been pointed out...

[VS1]

but in the article, it says the indian govt asked it(the site) be blocked and the isp's just blocked all of it. someone tell me if ive read it wrong.

can we

[mattboston]

block indians from coming to america or taking our jobs?

Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing

[j0e_average]

I would say the current US government is borderline fascist.

Re:it was over there...

[Jaysyn]

I wish I had mod points.

Jaysyn

Primordial Human Right of Self-determination

[Baldrson]

It is increasingly obvious with the shrinking globe that the primordial human right is the right of self-determination. All other rights are null and void if that is violated simply because different people may differ profoundly on what they see as essential human rights.

Logic such as this could have resolved the conundrum of the Confederacy by stating simply that the north had a right to invade the south for the sole purpose of giving slaves the right of self-determination -- and that the right of the Confederacy to secede was not the issue.

Of course, as the globe shrinks there are opportunities to violate the self-determination of a lot more of the people than ever before. Hence the real test of a sovereign's committment to human rights is its committment to expanding the ecological range of Earth.

Job security

[aaandre]

On the upside, the more India is cut off from the internet, the better my job security.

I disagree. The more India is cut off from the internet, the more productive your competitors in the codefarms (no slacking!)

Actually

[whereiswaldo]

Given that India's form of government is clearly different, this is much more chilling.

Actually, this feels a lot better than forcing Yahoo to take it down. At least Yahoo is still free to host (almost) whatever they want.

Now if I was a citizen of India, I'd be pissed.

Canada/US wars

[metroid composite]

The border is quiet. Maybe a little too quiet. What are those sneaky canucks up to?

Oh, the border's quiet now (much like all of Europe these days) but America certainly tried (and failed) to invade on a few occasions. Most noteably the war of 1812 where Canadians stood strong against the entire American army (or most of it anyway). There was also the slogan "54 40' or Fight" which was used by an American president trying to get land straight through to Alaska, whereas Canadians wanted land right down through Oregon. Though, granted that dispute was settled peacefully in the end.

Realistically, the most quiet border is probably in South America somewhere. Then again I don't know any South America history further south than the Carribean so I'm probably way off. And yeah, Canada/US has certainly been quiet for a while now.

Re:Canada/US wars

[RevMike]

The land war did not go very well for the United States. US attempts to sieze the initiative and invade Canada failed miserably. The British burned Washington DC, but the US Army did much better at Baltimore, and eventually at New Orleans.

The amazing part of the War of 1812 is that the US Navy performed spectacularly, defeating the Royal Navy in the Americas, Africa, and in the Royal Navy's home waters.

Some of the US Ships that performed extremely well are the "Essex", the "Constitution", the "Wasp", the "Enterprise", the "President", and the "United States". It is no wonder the US Navy carried many of these names into modern times. The story of the Pacific in WWII is in many ways the story of the Essex, the Wasp, and the Enterprise. The Constitution aka "Old Ironsides" has never been decommissioned.

India is also really large

[metroid composite]

I do believe that India and China are the only two countries over 1 billion people at the moment. These incidentally happen to be the two countries who have banned IPs en mass (DISCLAIMER: this is based the other comments in this topic; I'm no expert on the subject, and there's probably some small governments somewhere which also bans stuff). So perhaps large countries are hard to manage, or at least their leaders are paranoid about managing them. Just a hypothesis.

There's a LOT of skeletons in india's Closet

[foghorn19]

Check this website for some seriously documented work on disappearances that make Pinochet look like an amateur: Report of the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab. Happened in Punjab in the 80s and early 90s, and is happening in Kashmir every day now.

Re:"Different" governments

[phliar]

Socialism is an economic system based on the premise that government should control of industries and businesses for the betterment of the people. ... Real world experience with socialism is that it is not nearly as efficient at maximizing the economy

Hmmm... a couple of questions come to mind...

What do we call it when businesses control the government for the betterment of the people?

Why should efficiency at maximizing the economy be the standard of a good government? (Not that I have anything against growing and/or efficient economies... but why should it be the primary job of the government?)

Re:You obviously don't read to many American paper

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

/.? I said 'media', not half-assed unedited blogging. Nobody cares about the opinions of /.ers

Re:Bullshit sensationlist headlines/meet the HNLC

[m0rphm0nkey]

I might add....


HYNNIEWTREP NATIONAL LIBERATION COUNCIL

The HNLC is closely linked with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland - Issak Muivah (NSCN-IM). It also has a front organisation called the HSDF (Hynniewtrep State Democratic Front), whose 'Commander-in-Chief' Dominic Kharpuli and three other cadres were arrested on October 20, 2001. The outfit is also reportedly maintaining some of its camps in Bangladesh. It also promotes the circulation of fake currency in the State, which was started at the behest of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's external intelligence agency, reports hold.

Hmm...okay well you gotta get your money somewhere.

Objectives
An important objective of the HNLC is to transform Meghalaya as a province exclusively for the Khasi tribe and free it from 'domination' by the Garo tribe. Another objective is to fight against the presence of 'outsiders', as the HNLC feels that Khasi youth are deprived of the fruits of development in the state.

Oh good, so it's "for the kids" apparently. Sounds great huh?

"April 2: Meghalaya Deputy Chief Minister D D Lapang says the government is unable to spell the terms and conditions for talks with the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) terrorist outfit as the latter failed to give any positive indication to the government's proposal
August 15: Security arrangements throughout Meghalaya are tightened to ensure the smooth celebration of Independence Day, following a 24-hour bandh (general strike) call given by the HNLC and the People's Liberation Front. Chief Minister F A Khonglam renews his invitation, on the occasion of Independence day, to terrorists groups in the State "to come to the negotiation table and sort out differences in a peaceful manner."

Sounds like they're not interested in negotiating...the following is an exerpt from one of their newsletters on yahoo.

"The HNLC sends its best wishes to all its members who are near and far away on their journey to complete their tasks as the Hynniewtrep Nation has bestowed on them, without them it would be meaningless to celebrate this anniversary."

Complete their tasks...since they're not negotiating with the government it seems safe to assume that these tasks are militarily oriented. The following facts seem to bear this out.
These items occured between 2001 and 2003. Mind you I'm only printing out the HNLC anti government activity, there listing of the government activity as well, but I'm not doing a post on the Indian government.

"August 6: Security forces in Meghalaya arrest eight HNLC terrorists from Mawlai, Shillong. The East Khasi Hills district police chief says those arrested are mostly teenagers and add that it confirms that the HNLC is recruiting teenagers into its fold."

For the kids, of the kids, by the kids....

"August 15: Police personnel killed and another injured when fleeing HNLC terrorists fire at security forces.
January 5: Five civilians killed and four others injured in an attack by HNLC terrorists on a business establishment in Shillong.
March 4: Seng Khasi leader Rijoy Khongshah, was abducted earlier on March 1, 2001, killed by HNLC terrorists.
January 9: Two security guards of a nationalised bank killed in an attack by HNLC terrorists at Mawsynram village.
January 19: HNLC terrorists attack a police outpost in Shillong and kill two police personnel
February 19: The outfit, in a statement, opposes Census operations in the State and threatens to eliminate enumerators participating in the process. "

me: uhhhh....cuckoo!! I guess they're afraid that the other 99.9 percent of the indian population might figure out they have them outnumbered. And they're willing to murder people to prevent that. Damn them revenooers!

October 23: HNLC Chairman Julius K. Dorphang discloses that Ching Thangkhiew, the 'Commander-in-Chief' o

Re:"Different" governments

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Any one notice that about 100 years ago people stopped refering to the US as a republic and started calling the US a democracy?

This probably has to do with the fact that USA wanted to be the opposite of "Communism". If I remember, USA introduced a whole hoarde of things, including adding the word 'God' to things that did not have it before, banning (or purposely changing) 'Labour Day', etc. This is probably also the last nail in the coffin of state rights (in favour of national govt)...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:"Different" governments

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

At this point the US has one true aly left in the whole world, Tony Blair's socialist government in the UK.

Whether you like him or not, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Countries have no friends; they only have interests". I would actually say that Isreal is the closest ally of USA. You can easily tell this by voting patterns at the UN, where Britain actually votes against USA quite often while USA and Isreal always vote the same. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Britain does not enter the next Imperialistic war carried out by USA (likely Iran)...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:"Different" governments

[RevMike]

What do we call it when businesses control the government for the betterment of the people?

Businesses never work for the benefit of the people. When functioning properly businesses work for the benefit of their shareholders. When functioning improperly, they work for the benefit of their management. The fact that a properly functioning business can benefit the people as a whole is incidental to the business.

Why should efficiency at maximizing the economy be the standard of a good government? (Not that I have anything against growing and/or efficient economies... but why should it be the primary job of the government?)

I never claimed it should be the primary job of government. Americans are fond of using the phrase from our founding national document "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The first job of government is providing security from external threats as well as internal threats - aka Defense and Criminal Justice - protect our life.

An efficient economy produces more wealth. More wealth can help foster the job of security - armies and criminal justice systems are expensive to operate. A wealthy state can afford to spend more on various services for the people - be it health care, education, social security, etc.

Here we get to the crux of the matter. An efficient economy generates wealth. That wealth can be used for the betterment of the people. It is in any state's interest to pursue a general policy of maximizing the efficiency of the economy.

That the general policy should be not be interpretted as laizze faire (sp?). An economy becomes efficient when it can operate on fair and open markets. Monopolies, deceptive business practices, unstable banking and monetary systems all serve to undermine the market. Government has a legitimiate duty to regulate.

I'm digressing - back to the point. Other things being equal, a government whose policies foster a more efficient economy is a better government. A government whose policies preserve life and liberty, and maintains such economic activity sufficient support life and liberty over the long haul, is superior to a government that is unable to support life and liberty, regardless of that government's economic policies.

Re:"Different" governments

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Socialism is not a totalitarian ideology, nor is capitalism, environmentalism or libertarianism. But you can get people who will turn any ideology into the basis for a totalitarian movement.

I STRONGLY disagree with you (it's a disagreement of semantics but important). Totalitarianism has a particular meaning and you are watering it down. The two closest systems that ever came to totalitarianism is Soviet Communism and Nazism. In particular, the most totalitarian society I can think of in recent memory is East Germany (under Soviet Communism).

I think a particular econopolitcal system can be said to BE or BE NOT totalitarian. I don't think you can say that a system can be turned into one. This is untrue because if you change a system so much that it is totalitarian, it isn't even the original system anymore. For example, liberatarianism is the opposite of authoratarianism (or totalitarianism to a large extent). There is NO WAY you can consider liberatarianism to be totalitarian!!! If liberatarianism is altered to to be totalitarian, it isn't liberatarianism anymore! Similarly, other systems are inherently totalitarian or not.

I don't see how you can consider "eco-terrorism" to be totalitarian. If anything, these guys DON'T want to control other humans! Similarly, I don't think McVeigh is a totalitarian. I am not clear on his ideologies but it just seemed like he was angry and seeking revenge, AND NOT trying to implement a totalitarian system.

Of course, with Ascroft and Bush in power there could be an alternative explanation.

The Bush regime is more interested in IMPERIALISM than TOTALITARIANISM--although most imperialist powers benefit from practicing totalitarianism (ever watch Star Wars? :) )

Sivaram Velauthapillai

W loves trouble

[Tablizer]

Instead they have to fan these flames to win votes.....Maybe one day Indians will wake up and elect leaders that will do something about feeding and educating their masses rather than bickering with...

Sounds familiar. Although in W's case, it aint winning votes.

Re:"Different" governments

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

So communism is more corrupt than fascism? Who wants to bet this guy is a right-winger dreaming of the "good old times"?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Oversimplification

[CyberDruid]

I agree. Free speech is certainly only free if you can freely express extremely unpopular views.

However, the reason many european countries ban certain types of "hate speech" is because there really is a fuzzy grey line of what we can tolerate. In USA you certainly don't allow me to make death threats to a single person, right? What if my deeply felt political view is that you and your family should be tortured to death by me and my buddies. Am I allowed to make these threats to you? How large does the group has to be, before it is OK for me to tell them that I plan to make soap of them?

Which First Amendment are you talking about?

[LuYu]

Do you mean the same First Amendment that has been whittled away by the COPA, the PATRIOT act, the CTEA (and all other copyright law introduced since 1980), and the RIAA's litigation? When we censor ourselves, is that not more like living in fear of the dreaded thought police?

In addition to this, if US citizens do not watch what they say, they risk being branded terrorists by the US government's new Department of Household Surveillance. How has the First Amendment (or the Fourth, for that matter) protected us from that?

Every government is afraid of criticism, and we are all (everybody on Earth) rapidly losing our ability to criticise.

ineffective

[Kilashaker]

Even though the Yahoo groups page is blocked, all mails and group lists are being recieved freely. An you can still subscribe to any list you like by mailing the list name....just shows that the Indian Govt is still in its infancy at using technology, and especially inept at mapping it to the real world..... There are already LUGs that are issuing cals for lawyers to take the issue to the courts.

Re:ineffective

[hesiod]

> There are already LUGs that are issuing cals for lawyers to take the issue to the courts.

Are you full of shit, clueless, or both? So, Linux User Groups (ignoring the fact that Linux has no part in this at all) are issuing calls to AMERICAN lawyers to sue the INDIAN government for censorship? Where (it seems) it isn't even illegal... Who's your dealer, man?

Re:ineffective

[Kilashaker]

Actually, the call in INDIAN LUGS (which are for the most part full of INDIANS, is for INDIAN lawyers, looking to challenge such laws in court. Judicial activism works wonders in India...in just about every sector.

Democracy ?

[AftanGustur]

I'm interested to see how this pans out in a democracy.

Well, the French don't allow anything "Nazi" to enter France. Both Yahoo and eBay have had to change the way they operate in France as a result..

You can't even operate a website discussing the things the Nazis belived at the time ..

Welcome to France ...

Re:Democracy ?

[Dyolf Knip]

You can't even operate a website discussing the things the Nazis belived at the time ..

Now that's really fucking brilliant. So in another 2 or 3 generations, when nearly everyone who was alive within 20 years of WW2 is dead, nobody in France will have any clear idea of just what these Nazi characters were all about? And if they ever get a schmuck preaching "National Socialism for the superior French race", nobody'll really have any idea what the eventual outcome of such demagoguery is.

I think the saying needs some work. "Those who make a point of not learning from history deserve whatever the hell it is they do to themselves."

Re:Democracy ?

[AftanGustur]

If everyone practiced Zionism, the world would be a lot better place.

Given the only example we have of a Zionist state,I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Just look at all the new "Settlements" they are building, the wall, the hate, etc ...

Re:"Different" governments

[Goth Biker Babe]

People with minimum wage jobs more than 10 miles from their homes might as well go on welfare at that point - it would cost them money to work. Nobody is going to risk their life for a 3 hour ride on a vespa from the suburbs into the city every day. The automotive industry would be destroyed.

Well duh! They catch a bus. The point is you don't want them to do the 3 hour trip whether on a vespa or in a car. You provide a bus service so that people can work in the city. You provide efficient cheap transportation system. You provide subsidised travel to those on welfare or cheap income.

I live five miles from my local city. Within five minutes walk there are two bus routes with a bus which leaves every ten minutes for the city centre. Fifteen minutes walk away is a train station which has a train every fifteen minutes during rush our and half our outside of rush house I don't work in the city, I work in another town ten miles away. I can catch one of these buses in to my local city and then there's a train every fifteen minutes to the town where I work. I travel in airconditioned luxury. I then either have a five minute walk or a two minute walk dependent upon which train I catch.

Cars are a luxury and not a necessity. This planet cannot afford to support everyone driving everywhere all the time, especially big capacity low economy vehicles. You must get people to pay for the priviledge of driving. The big and more thirsty the car, the more they pay. Use the punative tax to implement clean and efficient transport systems like LPG buses or tram systems.

The world must kill it's love affair with the car. Especially the western world as it sets an example for the rest of the world. How can we try and reduce polution in the third world when we aren't ourselves?

Do I practice what I preach? I've recently got a car after using public transport for two years. If I'm travelling alone I still use public transport, especially long distance (you can sleep on trains). I now drive to work because I car share but if I were to lose my passenger I would return to the buses and train. It's actually cheaper! (~$100 for a months path on the entire West Yorkshire transport system) And that's the whole point.

Provide decent transport that's cheaper than driving and people wont drive. The fuel and car industries wont like it and unfortunately they're the guys who run your goverment.

Re:You obviously don't read to many American paper

[TheOldFart]

Apparently you do, otherwise why bother responding?

Re:"Different" governments

[am 2k]

The state exists to take care about its citizens, not the industry. If nobody provides those things (which is the case in most parts of the USA), the state has to do it. That's the main idea behind socialism. There are some things private industry can't provide.

Re:"Different" governments

[am 2k]

In my country, the price you estimated isn't far off (it's about EUR1/liter), and people still go by car, the automotive industry is alive and well, the roads are ok. There's a great public transportation system (it takes 10 mins from my home to the center of the city, about 20-30 mins when you go by car). The farmers are actually financially supported by the EU, especially the poorer regions.
So, where's the problem?

Re:"Different" governments

[danila]

Marx' canon says nothing about socialism. Actually, he uses two terms - "communism" and "socialism" interchangeably. The distinction emerged when Soviet leaders didn't want to change to communism, because they felt the country wasn't ready. And then they were more concerned about maintaining status quo. Today, we can argue that it's impossible for almost any government to change into communism and thus voluntarily abandon itself - be it Soviet socialist government or American democratic one. A revolution, bloody or not, is usually required.

Re:"Different" governments

[Per Cederberg]

It is streching things quite far to name pre-1990 Scandinavia and pre-Thatcher Britain "democratic socialism". Some industries have indeed been state monopolies (as in most European countries), but the vast majority have always been in private hands. Indeed, these societies had (and still have) a free market, concentration of ownership and wealth to a few, and other typical traits of normal capitalism.

Indeed, some people have referred to the former "socialist" and "communist" countries with the term "state capitalism", as that is closer to what it was in practice. Compare to a war economy.

Of course this is bad, but...

[mazur]

Considering 90% of all spam I receive comes from Yahoo, I'd personally not be too upset if it happened over here. Apart from the one legit person mailing me from there, but perhaps I could persuade her to move her email then.

Of course, I currently drop everything from Yahoo except for the one person.

It would be so nice to be rich, so I could track and sue every SPAM sender, facilitator and SPAM relay to bits.

mazur.

Work Around

[thehive]

To access the groups one has to simple use one of the free proxies, that it. Now did the government really achieve what it wanted to. A better solution was to simply ask Yahoo! to remove the group in question.

Re:"Different" governments

[Dusabre]

Communism is a political system based on the principal that a small group should control political power in the name of the working class, and hold that power through authoritarian means, in order to implement a socialist economic policy.

You're mixing the Leninist heresy of Marxist Communism (an awful load of tosh) with fascism (authoritarian / socialist - fascism is itself a heresy of Leninism). Under the Leninist tosh, the Communist Party (revolutionary avantgarde), a 'democratic' representative of the working class, had a monopoly of political power (but was not mean to be 'authoritarian') in order to implement first a socialist economy and then to implement a communist economy once socialism was built. First socialism, then communism.

All tosh based on a load of stuff that Marx made up sitting in the British Library and then Lenin added to in order to legitimize the Bolsheivik power grab.

gun rights during a civil war

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

A common first right to go is the ability of private citizens to be armed... Since a revolt by unarmed people against a well armed army is unlikely to be sucessful.

I guess you are a gun-rights supporter. I personally don't think it helps. At one time, it may have helped (say 200 years ago). But nowadays, it is not very helpful. The reason is due to the massive difference in strength between the military and the people. Even the best armed militia in USA is no match for the US military, for example. How much would guns really help?



Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:gun rights during a civil war

[Zirnike]

"How much would guns really help?"

Compared to no guns?

Two words for ya... guerilla warfare. And one more word: Snipers.

Re:gun rights during a civil war

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

But the guns that are allowed under gun rights are usually weak, low-end ones. Guerillas would require more firewpower, which is probably forbidden by law (I'm not really familiar with weapons laws in any country though). Is there a country that allows people to own machine guns like AK-47 (#1 guerilla weapon)? Does even USA allow it?

Sniping could work although you would still be at a disadvantage. For instance, militaries can apparently detect people with their heat signatures. Not only do you have to camouflage yourself but also wear clothing that minimizes heat and stuff like that. Of course, guerillas still have a big advantage: they can hide within the population...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:gun rights during a civil war

[Zirnike]

Semi-auto works fine for guerilla work, really. Plus, you can capture weapons and modify semis to work as full autos.

The US allows you to own full-auto weapons only if you are willing to apply for a federal licence that comes with restrictions like 'BAFT is allowed to enter your home any time of day or night to check on them', etc. Never mind the checks you need, etc. The last crime in the US committed by a full auto weapon was in the 1940s, as I recall.

I can buy IR goggles, too.

Anyway, the point remains that this sort of thing is easier with access to firearms than without.

Re:gun rights during a civil war

[mpe]

But the guns that are allowed under gun rights are usually weak, low-end ones. Guerillas would require more firewpower, which is probably forbidden by law (I'm not really familiar with weapons laws in any country though). Is there a country that allows people to own machine guns like AK-47 (#1 guerilla weapon)?

This was the case in pre-invasion Iraq.

Does even USA allow it?

The US Constitution says so, but as with other things the US Government dosn't want to go along with it.

Re:Want to make something more popular? Ban it!

[timbloid]

The only Russian music group I can think of is "TaTu", so I'd guess the answer is no... ;)

Re:Good!

[hesiod]

> Or, at least one that can be and is invoked as often.

I think you meant "revoked." I wish it were the other way 'round.

Re:"Different" governments

[Zeinfeld]

I would actually say that Isreal is the closest ally of USA.

Sharon's support has to be bought. Sharon is no friend of the US, he merely milks the US for foreign aid.

Sharon is turning Israel into an apartheid state on the model of the US south during segregation. He is an aly that the US would be much better off without.

Re:"Different" governments

[jazman_777]

So communism is more corrupt than fascism? Who wants to bet this guy is a right-winger dreaming of the "good old times"?

_Two_ straw men in one sentence! Idiot...

Re:"Different" governments

[Tukla]

What do we call it when businesses control the government for the betterment of the people?

Bizarro World?

Re:"Different" governments

[hesiod]

> There are some things private industry can't provide.

Wrong. Not "can't," "won't." Companies can easily provide most things, but they won't make enough money quickly enough to be profitable & survive.

Re:Replies are a bit self centered

[gobbo]

I find it odd that so many replies here (I'm guessing from the US) are so shocked and find this so scary and such an affront to "freedom.

That just points out the effectiveness of propaganda in the USA.

The Land of the Free isn't really, as your excellent EFF link points out -- just opposition to a few key policies is enough to elicit a glare from the baleful ever-searching Eye of repression.

For reference, look up the word COINTELPRO.

Re:"Different" governments

[panda]

It was also about that time that people stopped writing and saying "the United States are" and started saying "the United States is." There's a world of difference between those two.

This all happened about the time of the War Between the States.

Too late, you lose!

[DrMorpheus]

If it comes to the point where you have to take arms against an oppressive government it's too late. You were asleep at the wheel while the totalitarians were raping the country. Ballots, not bullets!

Re:Too late, you lose!

[Zirnike]

Ballots can't always solve the problems. As is fairly obvious. No one votes for 3rd parties because of winner takes all. And no winner will change it because they benifit too much.

Sometimes, bullets are necessary.

Re:Too late, you lose!

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

There is nothing stopping anyone from voting for other parties. It's just that the main 2 parties in USA have been brainwashing everyone... Winner takes all doesn't mean a thing if the winner doesn't benefit you--a lesson that Americans should be taught...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Too late, you lose!

[Zirnike]

No, you're totally missing the point. A lot of people would LIKE to vote libitarian, but don't feel that they can because of the chance that the Republicans will get voted in. So while a large percentage (a lot more than voting percentages indicate) would, in fact, support a 3rd party as better, winner-take-all means they feel they CANNOT because they must, essentially, vote AGAINST the worse of the 2 candidates by voting for his opponent (the opponent who 'has a chance')

That's why, if I were rewriting the constitution, I'd make the senate/house more of a parliment style, where everyone actually does get represented.

Re:child pr0n = pol spch in Pornocracy

[Dirtside]

unless the government is some kind of pornotopia

Pornocracy? :)

Legislators do attempt control

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Fortunately a strong culture of free speech among the media makes for a good alternative to a constitution in limiting those controls.

It was a damn TECHNICAL issue

[immerrath]

I think if you read the article carefully, you will realize that the reason other Yahoo groups were blocked was because of a technical issue. The Indian Govt did not set out to cut off Indian citizens from the internet, or to ban free speech or anything like that. I am an Indian, I lived in India for 22 years, and I dont think "democracy is in trouble" or any such thing is true as far as India is concerned. The corruption in government or things like that dont make India any less of a democracy -- in a government of the people, the people are free to screw themselves over, if they want to. Name one democracy that is not corrupt to some degree. I'm not defending corruption or the corrupt officials, just saying that I've never felt more free than in India.

Re:Brainwashing?

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I will GUARNTEE you that if ALL the parties spent similar amounts of money, and have equal access, the other parties will get way more than what they get now. Unfortunately, as long as the two main parties spend tens of millions, while all the other ones combined spend less than that, I am brainwashed and you are living in a utopia ;)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:"Different" governments

[forgetful_ca]

It's got nothing to do with the frequency, it's a comment on the attitude.

Re:"Different" governments

[NanoGator]

I don't seem to recall the US threatening to nuke anybody.