Slashdot Mirror


The Empires Strike Back

Alien54 writes "Back when the Internet was young - oh, say, eight years ago - there was a school of thought that held that cyberspace was its own sovereign nation. For one thing, 'The Net perceives censorship as damage, and routes around it.' What government could control what was said on the Net? [...] Maybe it's time to change that into, 'Governments perceive the Internet as damage, and gang up on it.' So says Net War columnist Wendy Grossman in an article discussing the recent raids on Indymedia. She makes an interesting case."

19 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. First post? by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How the heck did that happen? But on an on-topic vein, cyberspace is the only place that is even remotely truly free anymore. Governments, who exist to 'secure our freedom' seem to want to limit the freedoms that they don't directly control. Someone should bust them up for forming monopolies.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    1. Re:First post? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As with any organization, nobody wants to take the blame for bad things that happen. When something bad happens to you, you wonder what could have been done to prevent it. In the case of wars, terrorism, privacy invasions, etc. people look to their governments for protection. It's called "security." In order to increase your security, you will be giving up some of your freedoms. As unfortunate as that is, people really do want it.

      The problem arises when people like you and I don't agree with the lengths to which the government(s) go to secure us. Personally, I put a premium on my freedom so I perceive the government as taking away too much of it. Others don't see a problem with this situation because they value security a little more than I do (or freedom a little less).

      "Free" governments rarely act against the wishes of the people as a whole. When the vast majority wants something, the appointed representatives are likely to listen (it's in their best interest). Unfortunately for you and me, Slashdot doesn't constitute a majority (yet).

    2. Re:First post? by timmy+the+large · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We have lost freedom and many people have gained the perception of security.

      Perception is reality.

      Therefore we have gained more security.

      You are right of course, we have gained little in actual security while we have lost l alot in freedom. The flaw in a democratic society is that perception and not reality are what politicians are judged on. How the people of that country percieve things is what is important to their leaders, not the actual situation.

    3. Re:First post? by RangerElf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Funny, I always thought extremists were to blame.
      > Interesting note: Al Qaeda is a small group of
      > people, not the population of a country.

      A small group of people, who's leader has family interests in line with your current president's interests.

      Kinda scary.

      -gus

    4. Re:First post? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Inconveniences and hassles in the airport are not the same as losing freedoms. But I agree with what you're saying as long as you're referring to things like the Patriot Act. Look at some of our basic laws, however, and you may rethink your statement about "true security."

      We have laws designed to provide security from murder, theft, harassment, etc. In fact, at one time you may have had the freedom to take justice into your own hands. Instead, you are forced to rely on the government to deal out justice. You can't simply kill someone because you think they deserve it.

      So you've lost a tiny little freedom which was dangerous and gained some security in that vigilante killing is no longer a commonplace means of justice.

      On the larger scale, who do you blame when a terrorist attack happens? The terrorists, of course, but you also want to know why they were able to do it in the first place. You want to prevent it from happening the next time. And the responsibility for this falls upon the shoulders of the government. They respond by passing as many laws as they can to perform the duties that you, as a citizen, are demanding. After 9/11, was your response "well, that happens?" It shouldn't happen - and making sure it doesn't happen again is something that the government is trying for. Maybe not successfully, but considering that we're three years out I think that it's unreasonable to expect a perfect resolution right away.

    5. Re:First post? by sakti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In order to increase your security, you will be giving up some of your freedoms.

      This is patently false. There is no correlation between security and liberty. I suggest you check out Bruce Schneier's book Beyond Fear for a start on re-educating yourself on this issue. You've fallen for the propoganda.

      Besides, those that are taking the freedoms don't really care that much about security. Just look at airport security. Its all show and no substance. There are methods for airport security that work (those used by Isreal for example), but they decided not to go with those. Instead they decided to expand government and harass its citizens in a nice dog and pony show that will do nothing to stop another 9/11 type incident.

      --
      "It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
    6. Re:First post? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Compare this to a computer system, then. The more security protocols you put in place, the harder it is for users to access it. The convenience goes out the door. If it's easy for your users to get in, it's going to be easier for unauthorized users to get in.

      Another metaphor: Your house can be secured with locks and bars and key codes and so on... but it's going to take longer for you to get inside. It's more likely that you'll trip your own alarms by accident. You'll probably forget your keys and be locked out one day. But it's also harder for an intruder to sneak in. Not impossible, but it's harder. It also makes it less likely that they'll even try to break into your house.

      I'm curious as to why you don't agree with the notion that security and liberty are related.

  2. I hate to sound like the typical tin foil hat... by paranode · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...but they really are looking to maximize your limits on free speech. The government already goes too far in my opinion in many arenas of free speech. It is looking to tighten its grip on every medium and expand existing holdings to new mediums.

    While the "slippery slope" argument in itself is a logical fallacy against one particular instance, on the whole it seems to be very true and concerning.

  3. Re:crying wolf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet.

    The very fact that they still haven't told us the reason behind the raid is censorship.

  4. Figure it out people... by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the government is your enemy - no exceptions. This was the reason the US was set up with the sole intention to limit the Governments power. They will always seek more power and control no matter how good their intentions. If we all start to realize that good government is always less government, the better the world will be.

    --
    Stay tuned for new sig...
  5. I think it's the perceived attitude.... by Sevn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of the authorities in situations like these that gets stories like these printed. It goes something like this:

    * We owe you no explanation
    * Nobody holds us accountable
    * You have no defense
    * You are automatically assumed wrong
    * We admit no wrongdoing
    * We are above right and wrong
    * Whatever we want to do is automatically justified
    * We don't owe you an apology
    * Go ahead and try to sue, we'll just do it again to teach you a lesson
    * People with power are on our side

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    1. Re:I think it's the perceived attitude.... by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes. What we need are news stories like "Former FBI agent Joe Smith, after his conviction for unlawfully seizing property under color of law, is now working as a night shift security guard at the Wal-Mart warehouse in Tupelo, Kansas."

      That's what "accountability" means. We need to keep pushing on accountability until we see stories like that.

  6. Let me try re-phrasing that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Governments perceive the Internet as dangerous". Hmm, a bit more needs to be said...

    "Governments percieve free speech as dangerous". Still not quite it...

    "Governments perceive free speech as dangerous to themselves". Yeah, I think that says it.

  7. Re:I hate to sound like the typical tin foil hat.. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the "slippery slope" argument in itself is a logical fallacy against one particular instance, on the whole it seems to be very true and concerning.

    "slippery slope" is only a fallacy if you say beacuse of something something else WILL happen. It is not a fallacy if you say because of something something else COULD (or is very likely even) happen. I find that people that scream about the "slippery slope fallacy" are usually doing so because they have no other arguments to back up their position.

  8. No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    until the goverment says why they raided the place everyone is really just crying wolf.

    Um, no. Having the government abscond with people's property without cause or justification, and stonewalling as to why, does not imply no cause for concern, nor is anyone "crying wolf" when they announce to the world that the government has seized their property and silenced their voices without announcing why and without proper due process (which, in case you were sleeping through twelve years of civics classes, includes being told what one is accused of doing wrong).

    They might have had a perfectly legit reason or they may have been poltical tools

    With no notification to the accused of what they are accused of, it is abuse of power and in violation of acceptable norms in every western liberal democracy. It is irrelevant as to whether the motive was political, legal, or personal ... abuse of power is abuse of power, regardless.

    We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet.

    Not surprising. You represent the school of thought that is primarilly responsible for these sorts of actions, and the erosion of our fundamental rights they imply.

    But nevermind, I'm sure you'll scream loudly about how burying your head in the sand is "realistic" and "sophisticated," while those of us who point to such obvious abuses as these are dismissed as the "tin foil hat" crowd. This has happened numerous times in history, and is happening again, proving once more that those who ignore history are indeed doommed to repeat it. Unless, of course, IHBT.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re: No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple by gidds · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, of course, there are good reasons for the authorities keeping as much information secret as possible. But there are also overriding reasons why they are required to observe due process. And that includes things like needing to tell you what you're being arrested for, showing you a warrant before searching and seizing goods, and so on.

      It's not just about the police vs 'the bad guys' -- if the police don't follow due process, then they are the bad guys! (And a much more scary set of bad guys they make, too, with the full power of the state behind them.)

      Anyway, what happened to 'innocent until proved guilty'?

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  9. Look, what did we expect? by vkg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Internet is just rowdy. Bruce Sterling's take on it: one of the few places the Average American is daily approached by criminals attempting to steal everything they own! [referring to 419 scams, and I'm paraphrasing]

    Freedom is a double edged sword.

    If we ask the Government to police spam, or if we ourselves don't keep copyrighted material off file sharing systems, we're inviting Government to come and police what we, the geeks, have not self-policied. What we will not govern, they will.

    Nature abhors a vaccume, and The State abhors an anarchy.

    And with good reason!

  10. Re:crying wolf? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I recall..... One of the great arguments the Founding Fathers had against the government of old King George was the issuance of the Lettre de Cache or open-end, fill-in in the blank warrant. This was a ready form signed by the Royal Governor and issued to the military commander. When they had a suspect, fill in the name and raid in the dark hours. I remember when I was in secondary school being told that the American system of a warrant mentioning the name of the person, WHAT HE IS ACCUSED OF, and needing to be signed by a judge for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE ONLY was far more just. --

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  11. One man's terrorist... by doormat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is another's freedom fighter. I thought this was a load of BS when I first heard it but now I'm beginning to understand why this statement is true.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.