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."

Comments

First post?

[Wandering Wombat]

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.

Re:First post?

[lukewarmfusion]

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).

Re:First post?

[Colin Smith]

"Someone should bust them up for forming monopolies"

That's called the electoral process, in a true democracy you can do exactly that. Perhaps the question is do you live in a true democracy or a two party state.

Re:First post?

[Wandering Wombat]

I live in a, while not TRUE Democracy, a far more accountable one. We call it Canada.

And as to looking to your government for protection from war and terrorism... THE GOVERNMENT IS THE CAUSE of the wars and terrorism.

Re:First post?

[Lumpy]

the funny part is the truely free parts are hidden from view and only accessable by those that know how.

There are many "subnets" on top of the internet that has the true information flow without fear of attack. Freenet is one example, and there are many others mostly private.

Hell many old technology and no longer "used" systems of ye-olde-internet can be considered a silent subnet capable of subverting the policies of the world order of the day.

did you know there are gopher services still running and are a great source for information?

IRC is my favorite subversion network... as well as usenet.

the opressed and determined will always be able to "route around" the superficial damage that the governments try to cause.

and that is really all it is. RAIDS of warez servers and groups? they target the big flashy ones to make an example to show that "see we are doing something" yet warez has been unaffected one tiny little bit. same for p2p music sharing, and non-approved information and thought sharing.

will the general public think it has went away? sure, but it will never really go away.

Re:First post?

[lukewarmfusion]

As do I. But I believe he meant this to address the extreme (yes, 1984 extreme). On the other side of that spectrum of privacy to security, we don't want complete freedom without any security. It is exactly that point - to identify the essential liberties and freedoms that we hold above all else - which makes our declaration of independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights to be so powerful. Because they spell out the things that we value. It is necessary to re-evaluate those over time, of course...

Re:First post?

[hrm]

On the net, there is only the illusion of freedom because of the enormous scale. If you make big enough waves, you will be noticed and, if they want you, you will be found.

This whole "routing around censorship damage" is late 20th century romanticism. No link with reality whatsoever.

Re:First post?

[timmy the large]

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.

Re:First post?

[RangerElf]

> 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

Re:First post?

[lukewarmfusion]

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.

Re:First post?

[sakti]

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.

Re:First post?

[Wandering Wombat]

Well, yes, extremists are the terrorists. But they are extremists only by definition, and it is a definition written by your government. Where they are from, they are not extremests, they're probably conservative Republicans, or something.

These extremists also don't attach Democratic countries because they can, they do it because something these Democratic countries have done have deeply angered these extremists. The US and Britain have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in countries that never once asked for help. They block trade from countries in order to force their own ideals upon these smaller nations. All in all, these 'extremists' are simply trying to protect their freedom from the vicious foreigners who want to destroy their way of life.

They just don't have the publicists that Westerners can afford.

Re:First post?

[lukewarmfusion]

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.

Re:First post?

[NanoGator]

"They just don't have the publicists that Westerners can afford."

Yeah, I'd like to see a publicist rescue their image from the whole 'crashing a plane into a civilian target' debacle.

Re:First post?

[ahodgson]

The US government has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians throughout the Moslem world over the last 15 years, and yet their publicists seem to manage to spin that positively, at least internally.

Re:First post?

[|/|/|||]

Here's an interesting comparison - I just did some real quick searches and turned up these numbers:

# of Americans killed on 9/11: 2,819

# of Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq: ~10k

Maybe these numbers are wrong, if so perhaps someone can find a better reference.

In other words, I'd like to see Bush's publicists rescue him from the whole 'killing tens of thousands of civilians to gain control of Iraq for dubious reasons' debacle.

Re:First post?

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

There is no correlation between security and liberty

Blatantly untrue. Bruce Schneier talks about it constantly.

"The proper question to ask is whether the trade-off is worth it. Is the level of security gained worth the costs, whether in money, in liberties, in privacy or in convenience?"
from his site

Also check out this article, all about the costs of security, liberties being one of them.

I also recommend subscribing to his Crypto-Gram newsletter.

Re:First post?

[iSwitched]

I couldn't agree more - in fact every time this quote is trotted out (happens a lot here on /.) I feel compelled to remind the user that what Ben Franklin felt were essential liberties was probably quite a bit different than what the poster thinks they are, or should be.

Frequently the example of airline travel restrictions comes up in the same general vicinity, as if Ben Franklin could ever have concieved of a 300-passenger jet-liner being used as a weapon by death-seeking psychotics.

Perhaps I'm alone, but to me, the fact that I'm free to travel about the country, and that the existence of air travel allows me to be anywhere within 5 or so hours, is my essential liberty. The extra hassle at the airport is not of concern to me and if it was, there are multitudes of more anonymous modes of travel.

If you don't like the scene at airports, don't fly, you're welcome to take the very anonymous horse-drawn carriage to get where you want to be - thats how ol' Ben would've had to do it!

Re:First post?

[Colin Smith]

"Ever think the reason the two parties remain dominant is that the rest of the country agrees with them?"

It's naive to think that the beliefs of 250,000,000 people can be represented by two parties and two sets of policies, at best they are huge compromises.

The two party state is the direct result of a winner take all electoral system. Proportional Representation electoral systems remove these duopolies.

Re:First post?

[Retric]

Let's say you have a bank vault for a front door with 6 locks manufactured by different companies.., Yada Yada

I would break though your wall. Ditto for aircraft security. What's to stop 6 guys with AK 47's driving onto the runway and then boarding an aircraft? Given 3 years to prepare and 20k of supplies I could probably nock down 60% of the eastern seaboards power grid for 24 hours and not get discovered. Granted I feel no need to do so but you gain security though redundancy not giving up freedoms. AKA nothing you do will 100% secure the us power grid but if each home and office had backup power for 2 day's taking down the grid would be meaningless.

If you recall the DC area sniper incident you will recall he was discovered not through detective work but rather a lucky break in finding people sleeping in their car. Now what if you had 200 people doing this once each year on some random day until there demands are met. How many freedoms would you have to give up to find them? They stopped talking to each other years ago and they're just watching the news waiting for you to release some prisoner. Let's say you find a guy well the ballistics will not match his gun for 99.5% of the crimes. And even if you where to bust 50 of them their attacks are still going to continue so what do you do? You live with it or give in that's your only options. What are you going to search every home in the us looking to see if they have a gun in there flower bed's?

Re:First post?

[DavidTC]

What Schneier does talk about, and I think what the grandparent was talking about and people missed, is there is absolutely no corrolation between what liberty we're currently being asked to give up, and security.

I.e., while 'security vs liberty' may be a useful choice, what we're often faced with is 'control by authorities vs liberty', and the first part is just claimed to be secure.

For example, the adminstration recently said that people who are wrongly stopped at airports because their names are on terrorist watchlists should start using middle initials or Jr or III after their name. Which good for a great 'What the fuck?' moment after twenty seconds of thought. The watchlists have absolutely no relation to security at all.

If the news had broken last week I'm sure it would have gotten into the month's CRYPTO-GRAM.

Re:First post?

[sg_oneill]

Perception is reality.

No. Perception mediates reality, but the real is not entirely out of grasp.

Kant figured that sucker out a few hundred years ago.

Assuming all is working as it should, you still have a quite capable logical aparatus between yer ears to figure out whats going on from all that jumble data coming thru your senses.

Neuromancer

[2.7182]

She should try reading Neuromaner, by Gibson, which was amazingly published in 1984.

Naturally governments want to control everything

[Gentoo Fan]

but I think it is a little premature to suggest that the internet is doomed because of the Indymedia fiasco.

crying wolf?

[spacerodent]

until the goverment says why they raided the place everyone is really just crying wolf. They might have had a perfectly legit reason or they may have been poltical tools. 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. Now if they start raiding other media outlets give me a call but 1 case where we don't know any facts isn't a reason to panic.

Re:crying wolf?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:crying wolf?

[pilgrim23]

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. --

Re:crying wolf?

[Entrope]

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

One might equally well claim that the reason you posted as Anonymous Coward is because you are criminal scum who supports Intarweb terrrists.

Put another way: There exist valid reasons to not immediately publicize why law enforcement does what they do. It may turn out that none of them apply in this case, and the raids and seizures were an oppressive abuse of the process, but crying censorship in the absense of evidence really is no better than crying wolf.

But whiny liberal kiddies seldom want to work to substantiate their prejudices, so I expect you to dismiss me as a mindless sycophant to The Man. Unless you have actual facts to bring to the table, don't bother.

Re:crying wolf?

[James Turpin]

The problem in this case is that they were not accusing a person of a crime. They were accusing a person's property of a crime. It's the same loop hole the US government found during the war on drugs. Don't accuse the person of a crime - accuse his property of a crime.

Its despicable to exploit this loop hole, but at least some good comes out of it. It stops the government from needlessly hurting people sometimes. Can you imagine what the government would do if they had to accuse people of crimes in order to confiscate your property?

Owners of computer servers could then be accused of fictitious crimes if their servers were hacked and the government needed the server for evidence to go after the real criminal.

Landlords would be accused of fictitious crimes every time the government needed to temporarily bar people from some property to do an investigation.

It's not a perfect system, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it, even with a constitutional amendment. (I'm not talking about the Patriot Act, mind you. That should just be done away with.)

Re:crying wolf?

[LtOcelot]

Is the loophole in the law, or is it simply an invention of the courts? When a person's property is "accused" of a crime, that person is consequently deprived of property without due process for themselves. Any lawyers out there mind explaining how the courts explain this away?

Re:crying wolf?

[demachina]

Its hard so say why it was done, but until the governments involved stop gagging everyone you have to assume it was the for the reason everyone knows about, photos of Swiss undercover agents photographing protesters.

Assuming that is the reason there are multiple cases of an out of control government here.

First off the Swiss undercover agents have apparently bestowed upon themselves the right to photograph protesters but the protesters can't take pictures of them back. These agents were in the public. There is absolutely no reason anyone doesn't have the right to take pictures of them and post them. If their identities are top secret then they should have sent some cops out to take the pictures whose ID's no one cares about.

Second, the photos were no doubt being used to identify and catalog protesters, most probably for law enforcement agencies inside and outside Switzerland. Anti globalization protestors are being tracked by all the countries who are pro globalization now. Since these protester were in public so they have to live with being photographed and should wear masks in the future. But those photos are no doubt going to be used to build files on them and label them in perpetuity as trouble makers so they are designed to strip them of their rights. They have basically been given criminal records without having been convicted of anything. There is potential they may be wiretapped, Internet use monitored, movements tracked especially as they move towards protest sites, and groups they belong to may be infiltrated by more undercover agents. If they were engaging in vandalism or assault then there is a basis for law enforcement action. If they are engaged in peaceful protest, even unlicensed peaceful protest, democratic governments should leave them alone unless they aspire to be the totalitarian governments they rail against so often.

Third, You have multiple nations and law enforcement agencies uniting to seize someone's property, and to suppress free speech, in this case internet sites who are very much about free speech. There was no basis to seize these photos to begin with since those agents were in public, but to deny people their free speech rights in the process is not something you expect from democratic governments. The fact that all these governments so easily united to do this across multiple international boundries and without laying any charges against IndyMedia suggests there is an international cabal that can shut down pretty much any Internet site on the flimsiest of evidence, and threaten free speech and dissent in the process. These are tactics very much designed to intimidate IndyMedia and to encourage them to be quiet.

Re:crying wolf?

[Onan]

The burden is on the government to establish conclusively that their actions are legal and appropriate.

The other side of assuming citizens innocent until they're proven guilty is assuming governments guilty until they're proven innocent.

Re:crying wolf?

[sg_oneill]

For all their whining, Indymedia has not even shown that they owned the property that was seized

yes. its indymedias property. what a silly assertion to make. And if it was returned early, its only because of an international effort to get it back , including some assistance from an international team of lawyers and a UK MP.

If it was just a nutty little website with two writers and ten readers, it'd probably be lost to oblivion. Thankfully IMC doesnt take shit from governments and has the muscle to back it up.

I hate to sound like the typical tin foil hat...

[paranode]

...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.

Young Eight Years Ago??

[tm2b]

That's 1996. Maybe the *web* was young at that point, but a whole lot of us had been using the net for more than 10 years at that point.

Hell, even AOL had been plaguing the net for years at that point.

Well then....

[Anonymous Coward]

all we have to do is Wait for The Return of the Jedi and all will be good again.

Re:Well then....

[Megaweapon]

But heed the prophetic words of Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!

Nonsense! This is a lie!

[Mike Hawk]

Unacceptable. Your patience and reason are not tolerated in the sovereign nation of Internet. Go straight to the gulag for reeducation.

re: indymedia server raid

[mjolnir_]

four words:

amatuer orbital server farms.

cut down on those pesky armed intrusions and silly warrant nonsense.

Mr Rutan, could you loft my rack? thanks.

Figure it out people...

[IamGarageGuy 2]

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.

Re:Figure it out people...

[Fnkmaster]

If your statements were true, then we'd all just go pick up and live in anarchy somewhere. Face it, government serves a useful purpose and that's why we have it. Do the people in governments tend to try to overextend the reach of government into our private lives with cries of protecting the children, indecency, the common good, etc.? Yes, way too often. But we need a police force to enforce basic social rules, since the alternative is lynch mobs and chaos. We want a hospital and health care system that allows access to the benefits of modern science (whether you think we want the government to ensure that everyone gets access to healthcare or not is up for debate - if you are a coldhearted Randian bastard, maybe you think it's okay for people to die on the streets of curable illnesses because they couldn't afford treatment). We want paved roads that allow us to get around from place to place and do the stuff we enjoy or need to do. We don't want arbitrary groups of people (corporations) to freely dump polluting chemicals on the commons.

All of these sorts of functions have been necessary as long as humans have been social creatures, and they have been filled, by kings, tribal chieftains, religious leaders, or elected governments.

An ideal government is one that balances minority rights (i.e. the basic human rights and principles of equality that we believe in) and the interest of the many, and one that maximizes personal freedom. But this is a very complicated equation, not something easily solved in some optimizing equation. Yes, generally less intrusion into our personal lives is a good thing, but sometimes I want peoples personal lives intruded into (if they are beating their children severely, for example). Anytime my rights and somebody else's rights come into conflict, I still need some sort of intermediary to resolve the conflict, or else we just all end up shooting each other to resolve our conflicts.

Re:Figure it out people...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

You are the government, in a democracy. By your logic, in the US you are your own enemy, no exceptions. They are you and you are they. Quite trying to act like you don't have anything to do with the government, as long as there is equality under the law, you have just as many rights backed by the same authority as the rest of us. If good government was less government, we would have never developed the modern state. Good government is good government, size is irrelevant.

You've got quite a bit of figuring out to do on your own.

Re:Figure it out people...

[Trolling4Columbine]

"If good government was less government, we would have never developed the modern state."

You say that as if the "modern state" is so great; as if our government isn't trying to curb our rights and make us more dependent.

I'd say our standard of living has improved despite government, not because of it.

Re:Figure it out people...

[RealAlaskan]

You are the government, in a democracy.

Sorry, that's too wrong to let pass. In a Democracy, the government is controlled by the demagogues, the few who are able to get the many riled up. In a constitutional republic, such as the U.S. used to be, the government was controlled by the honest elected representatives, who were in turn controlled by the constitution (that's why I specified ``honest''). In a modern ``democracy'', the government is controlled by the apparatchiks, the people who are permanently part of the system, as the politicians and demagogues come and go. In the U.S. we call them bureaucrats. In every form of government, the government is the people who staff it. Only in an anarchy could your statement be accurate.

... as long as there is equality under the law, you have just as many rights backed by the same authority as the rest of us.

That's true, even as ``just as many rights'' asymptotically approaches zero. Therefore, I'd say it's irrelevant.

If good government was less government, we would have never developed the modern state.

The second phrase doesn't follow from the first. You seem to have assumed that ``modern state'' equates to ``good government'', or that the change in our government has been for the better during the last 100 years. Neither assumption seems defensable to me.

Good government is good government, size is irrelevant.

Again, too wrong to allow to pass unchallenged. Good government is unknown, a myth. All government eventually becomes bad government, though the better examples of government can be better than no government. Lord Acton said it best: ``Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' Small government, with little power, has little scope for the inevitable corruption and malfeasance. Every government will sooner or later go sour. It happened in Rome, and it is happening here. The difference between Rome and here is that (so far) we have enough social and legal checks in place to constrain the powermad[1]. Those legal and social restraints are definitely wearing thin.

[1] The powermad are mostly good, conscientious people, who have been given a job, like searching little old ladies at airports or looking for assets to steal for the government. Being good, conscientious people, they work hard to accomplish their allotted task, and they are tireless in asking for additional resources to do it better. If their task is destructive of a free society, we have an example of bad government, despite their good intentions and personal honesty.

Governments don't have to control the net

[RealAlaskan]

Governments don't have to control the net, they control you. They can simply outlaw anonymity if the net becomes a problem.

We don't often think of governments cooperating, but the one thing that is a bigger threat than another government is freedom. Anyone's freedom, anywhere, is a threat to the idea that nobody can be free anywhere.

You bet they're going to gang up on the internet. The more effectively the internet routes around damage, the more effectively they'll damage it, for their own survival.

I think it's the perceived attitude....

[Sevn]

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

Re:I think it's the perceived attitude....

[Animats]

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.

Stop the Internet

[cakestick]

The last thing that media/corporations/government want is an active medium that they don't have strict control over. Conspiracies aside, these sorts of things just aren't conducive to the way they do business.

-The media sells your eyes for advertising revenue.
-The Government ensures that the "public sphere" is in tune with what they want it to focus on.
-The corporations insist that their products and actions pose no danger to your environment and well-being.

As a result, having a medium that they can only try to control is unacceptable! Passive media ensures that their goals are achieved, while society just sits back and pushes the channel button.

We're free until their teamwork pays off to do something sinful to the internet.

Stop the Internet!

Freedom of speech

[cybrthng]

"Allies of the willing" cooperating in stings to shut us up.

FEC looking to quiet "dicent" on the internet regarding campaigning.

Indymedia attacked for pictures of police shooting innocent protestors..

The internet is a medium of hypocracy as much as a medium of truth - states don't deserve the right to control, police or determine what i read. If i can buy the BS in books, i can certainly read it on the net.

Is it past time to use digital certificates, ssl, keyfobs and encryption to protect ourselves from "evil doers?" (aka governments with something to hide..)

Tin foil hat? dunno.. all i know is media is so left or right and when independants are being busted for telling the truth it disgusts me.

It's worse than that...

[nebaz]

Since the internet has become 'privatized' it seems that there is not only cooperation between governments, but corporations as well. It seems that corporations have no consideration of freedoms and will sell out to the highest bidder. Witness the Great Firewall of China and the localized search features. It is scary because such governmental and corporate partnership indicates a possible rise of Global Fascism.

Cyberspace cannot be sovereign nation ...

[Leknor]

Cyberspace will never be its own sovereign nation as long as the endpoints are rooted in the physical world.

Re:Cyberspace cannot be sovereign nation ...

[zpok]

"Cyberspace will never be its own sovereign nation as long as the endpoints are rooted in the physical world. "

You're right!!!!
I'm releasing myself from these shackles now!
Now where's the powercor-

Re:Indymedia?

[IamGarageGuy 2]

Nobody seems to know - just different theories.

This is the real reason

[bigjnsa500]

This is the real reason behind the IndyMedia servers being taken:

In the present matter regarding Indymedia, Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with offices in London, is acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner's subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.

What's an MLAT?

Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) are relatively recent development. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country which usually involve letters rogatory.

MLAT Treaties in Force:

I. The United States has nineteen Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) currently in force: Argentina, Bahamas, Canada, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom (Cayman Islands), United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Re:This is the real reason

[bigjnsa500]

The servers were taken as a last resort. IndyMedia was contacted and was given the opportunity to remove the offending information. They chose not to:

administering ahimsa server in London
ahimsa-tech a lists.indymedia.org
Organization: Indymedia
To: ahimsa-tech a lists.indymedia.org, imc-legal a lists.indymedia.org

I just got this trouble ticket from Rackspace (the ISP hosting the server that hosts Nantes):

Wed Sep 22 10:59:56 2004

Hello,

We have received a complain from the FBI regarding some images and material hosted on your server on the page below.

http://nantes.indymedia.org/article.php3?id%20arti cle=3910

Please remove this material immediately and we understand that
it contains personal information regarding two Swiss police
officers as well as threats against them.

Regards,

Jennifer O'Connell
Rackspace AUP

Re:This is the real reason

[fizbin]

Second, I don't know anything about the threats, but names WHERE published.

If you're going to take the time to type a word in ALL CAPS, is it too much to ask that you type the right word?

Re:Indymedia?

[cybrthng]

They weren't told but its under the assumption that Italy protested about pictures of there police force shooting protestors at the G8 summit.

Apparently they don't want people to recognize them for the ***holes they are.

Re: indymedia server raid

[NardofDoom]

Reminds me of a story I read once but can't find right now. It's the future, and some college kid reads a book from a friend he needs for his degree but can't afford to buy. Reading another person's book is illegal, and he's stressed that the government will bust him and his girlfriend.

It talks a bit about how there are colonies on the moon and mars where people aren't afraid to read books other people own, because they're so far away and the government can't punish them.

10 karma points to s/he who finds this story. It's perfect for this topic.

I'll tell you what government

[Weaselmancer]

Q: What government could control what was said on the Net?

A: China.

Let me try re-phrasing that...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Let me try re-phrasing that...

[l0b0]

Seriously, it's the people who have been too lazy when things like the US coup of 2000 can happen without any reaction whatsoever. How about getting off your asses (and drag your neighbor with you) and vote? By the way, calling a two-party election "democratic" is just ridiculous. Look at Norway, where no party has had absolute majority in at least 20 years, and which has been at the top of the UN Human Development Index since 2001!</rant>

Re:I hate to sound like the typical tin foil hat..

[d34thm0nk3y]

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.

No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple

[visualight]

When it comes to solving a crime, stopping terrorism, ect I'll gladly risk a single instance of "censorship" before I start whining

You need to understand that when it comes to individual rights governments must not be allowed to make exceptions. Not one, even in the investigation of a crime or terrorist activities.

Some time ago GW Bush promised us that the new powers granted under the Patriot Act would never be used for anything but the investigation of terrorist activities. He even said "Trust me".

Yet those same powers have now been used to investigate college students who were alledgedly downloading mp3's from the internet.

Every potential for abuse by a government will be realized eventually. So the potential must not be allowed to exist. Governments around the world have repeatedly misled their own populations regarding the motivation for new powers, wars, censorships, etc.

Your previous military experience has no bearing on this subject. History however, does

Re: No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple

[gidds]

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'?

Re:No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple

[RocketScientist]

The government can always "abscond with people's property". That's what they're for. Otherwise, that FICA guy has got a lot to answer for after stealing bits out of my paycheck. :)

In a criminal investigation, there are two ways evidence can be collected, first through application of the fourth amendment and a search warrant, and the second through subpoena for criminal investigation, specifically by a grand jury. Grand jury investigations are nearly always kept under wraps until charges are filed, because they may be investigating something that turns out to be nothing. In that case, it's better that the grand jury's investigations remain secret to protect the privacy of all involved. It is believed, and this is all rumor and innuendo at this point, that the action against Indymedia was a subpoena, not a search warrant.

It isn't stonewalling. It's part of a normal criminal investigation. Let's say, for instance, someone is being investigated for...oh, I dunno, screwing sheep. A grand jury issues a subpoena for all of that person's clothing from the dry cleaners (the clothes that hadn't been washed yet) to look for fibers. Do you really think it's the right thing to do to tell everyone "Hey, we're investigating a sheep fucker over here!!!". Nope. That'd be more against the "acceptable norms in every western liberal democracy" than keeping it under covers. On the other hand, telling the guy he's being investigated for illicit sheep interfacing might lead him to destroy evidence, duck and cover, flee to (country where it's not illegal to screw sheep) or whatever. That's also an undesirable outcome. Telling people they're being investigated before you arrest them is not only not required, but very stupid in some cases.

For the purposes of a grand jury, from the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"

So, it's kinda obvious something's being investigated. Could be Indymedia, one of their posters, or someone totally unrelated (in my example above, the drycleaner was given a subpoena, but wasn't involved in the wrongdoing).

You do have the right to hear what you're being accused of, but nobody's being accused of anything yet. Grand juries happen to see if there's adequate evidence for the accusations to happen. At that point, the crap you're spouting about being told what you're being accused of kicks in, not before.

As another use of my sheep-playfulness example earlier, if the charges were not true, but the investigation was open, people would always remember and link in their minds some connection between the accused and sheep in a nasty way. Grand juries are secretive to protect people from bad accusations as well as to enable law enforcement to collect evidence without scaring away the perps. It's a balancing act that you don't hear about very much because it works, you very rarely hear about grand jury investigations until they are over.

Re:No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple

[DunbarTheInept]

Do you really think it's the right thing to do to tell everyone "Hey, we're investigating a sheep fucker over here!!!".

Do you think it's right to not even tell the accused that the accusation is sheep fucking either?

You're talking about not releasing information to the public. The problem is that they aren't even releasing information to the accused either. When the police come to mess with you, you have every right to know why.

True Names

[wavedeform]

Or even more amazingly read True Names, by Vernor Vinge, which was published a few years earlier.

Cypherpunks

[Ikn]

Whether you think the IndyMedia incident was a harbinger of things to come or not, bad things could easily, and probably are, on the horizon. This is why I support the movements true cypherpunks everywhere. The ability to be as anonymous as possible is arguably important these days, but I'm sure one day, probably more sooner than later, it will become an issue-I'd rather prepare for it now. You don't plan to succeed, you succeed to plan, better safe then sorry, etc, pick your cliche', but keep your eyes open and your movements hidden.

Re:Cypherpunks

[wintermute740]

" Whether you think the IndyMedia incident was a harbinger of things to come or not..."

It's just history repeating itself. Remember Operation Sundevil, Steve Jackson Games, etc? It was a scary time to be running a BBS, for sure. Especially if you ran one which covered the fringe topics, even without actively participating in them. I don't believe I made it through that time period without once having my equipment seized ;)

Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin

[ratamacue]

Naturally governments want to control everything

To expand on this, people who seek positions of real power (meaning the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, i.e. government) are those who wish to control others through coercion, not those who wish only to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.

Really, what other reason does one have for seeking a position in government? (I know there are a select few who actually work to reduce the powers of government, but those are the very rare exceptions.)

Telecom choke points

[sphealey]

I remember laughing out loud the first time I read that "routes around it" quote. Transatlantic cables don't just appear out of nowhere. The original design of the net was a mesh, but it rapidly got collapsed down to a backbone architecture. There are at most a dozen telecommuncation providers with global connectivity, and governments keep an iron hand around their throats.

That is the problem with Neil Stephenson's "data haven" by the way: what happens when the US sends it cable-cutting submarine over and cuts all the lines leading into that island?

Anyone who didn't see this coming is naive at best.

sPh

Where will it end?

[xasper8]

While I agree that we shouldn't start over reacting, it may be a harbinger of things to come. I'm not sure where the line will be drawn, but the net of 'old' was based on a free flow of information, clearly that has been lost. Who will make the stand?

8 years ago when the net was young? Wha...? Clearly the mid and late 80's didn't count... Stupid Archie...

Look, what did we expect?

[vkg]

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!

Re:Look, what did we expect?

[Ba3r]

Everyone seems to love drawing this giant gap between government, and us. Governments are inhernetly us.

The real question is, what level of free will is the general populace willing to cede to the minority in exchange for that minority taking on the responsiblity of governance. Sure, the educated and independant (such as a decent chunk of /.) are unwilling to exchange a large portion of their free will for not having to worry about things, but the vast majority of people everywhere will gladly release a segment of free will for the comfort and safety of regulation. The nuanced balance that every government must tread in order to be long-lived, is that of imposing enough rules to maintain order while leaving sufficient free will to keep the majority happy. Too much rules, and there is revolution; too few and there is chaos.

The division of government and us lies more in the difference between those who will take on responsibility for governance in exchange for the many benefits, and those who would prefer to dispel with that responsibility and go about their day to day business, following the rules laid down to preserve this lifestyle.

Re: indymedia server raid

[Coryoth]

Reminds me of a story I read once but can't find right now. It's the future, and some college kid reads a book from a friend he needs for his degree but can't afford to buy. Reading another person's book is illegal, and he's stressed that the government will bust him and his girlfriend. ...
10 karma points to s/he who finds this story. It's perfect for this topic.

That ones easy, and I'm sure many here knows it:

"The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman.

(No, I'm not expecting any karma)

Jedidiah

Re:Indymedia?

[djeca]

At the Genoa G8 summit in 2001, the Italian police shot a protester dead and assaulted a number of journalists including the Indymedia reporter Mark Covell. The Genoa police are currently defending charges brought by Covell and others.

It appears the Italian government hope that they can disrupt or compromise the case against them. Acting in concert with the Swiss, who want to get back at Indymedia for their coverage of the Evian G8, they went through the FBI (because Rackspace, Indymedia's London hosts, is a US company) under a MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) to ask the UK police to raid Indymedia's servers.

The UK Home Office was of course happy to comply, mainly because MLATs enable them to carry out police actions that would be judicially indefensible without the cloak of secrecy that surrounds MLATs.

That's no reason

[Neuracnu Coyote]

It's simply an attempt at justification.

acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.

The bits in bold - those are reasons for having personal property confiscated. I will remain skeptical until I see some government accuse IndyMedia directly of one of these charges.

I2P and Freenet

[Tracy Reed]

It is because of things like this that we need technology like I2P and Freenet more than ever. Freenet seems to be stuck in a morass and making no progress but I2P is useful now and would have prevented Indymedia's servers from being taken down.

I got my extra-strength tinfoil hat on

[The I Shing]

I hate the thought that the government might decide to enforce other countries' web content laws when it comes to American websites, but I could see it happening, slowly, bit by bit (no pun intended).

"Sure," they drawl as they handcuff a webmaster and load his computer into the paddy wagon next to him, "Your site is protected Free Speech here in the USA, but we got a complaint from the Saudi Arabian authorities about it, so we have no choice but to take you into custody so that they can press charges against you. Sorry, but in accordance with Saudi Arabian law, you don't get access to a lawyer, your hands will be chopped off, and any women coming to visit you in jail will be enslaved."

Is this going to start happening? Sure would be a great way to keep private citizens off of the web.

The Tools Alread Exist

[Nom du Keyboard]

IndyMedia appeared far more decentralized than it was...more than 40 percent of the collective's sites were hosted at a single location.

Isn't this exactly the problem that Freenet was designed to solve?

Re:Indymedia?

[rusty0101]

Someone in Europe got a court order allowing them to sieze the hard drives. The company hosting the servers was an American company (Rackspace) so the entity in Europe who instantiated the court order co-ordinated with the FBI to perform the raid and sieze the hard drives.

A subsequent court order has dicated that the drives be returned. The drives have been returned, however the people at IndyMedia consider their content compromized, and are working on getting non-compromized drives prepared and the site back online.

I leave it to others to report on whether IndyMedia is actually back online, or reporting on who the entity was who ordered the initial siezure of the hard drives to begin with.

My own suspicion is that someone in the EU's equivalent of the RIAA browsed the song selections and found a couple of file names that looked suspiciously like a song from a signed artist, and initiated court actions. However I don't know.

-Rusty

Re:Indymedia?

[mrchaotica]

You know, what's really scary is that nobody has told us yet!

Speak softly and stab with a sharp stick.

[Admiral Justin]

Governments: "Oh no, it's the internet, hit it with a stick and see if it goes away. Then file laws we have no idea how to enforce."

Corps: "We must use the internet to expand our web of mindless consumers!"

RIAA: "Look, #103885439 just logged into Yahoo, Sue him!"

Microsoft: "..." (Bill Gates was unable to join chat, rumours state computer has been comprimised by a new trojan)

Users: "Finally, I'm online, now all I have to do is avoid the sticks, try not to buy anything and everything, not get dragged into court, all while trying to keep my computer secure."

Pending Investigation

[nurb432]

They don't make it a habit of releasing information on pending cases..

Nor should they..

Re:Indymedia?

[jaaron]

Just why were the Indymedia hard disks seized?

Good question. It reminds me of a recent article here at slashdot (which I can't seem to find) about another set of seized computers from an ISP or hosting service. At first everyone yelled about the injustice. Then we found out the guys were being hired to do DoS attacks. Moral of the story: don't pass judgement too quickly.

Re: indymedia server raid

[PetoskeyGuy]

amatuer orbital server farms.

Brings a whole new meaning to "my server crashed".

Bug report:

[Thud457]

The troll :
MASTER CHIEF DIES IN HALO 2

Should read:
le chef principal meurt dans le halo deux

Please fix, a shoddily-constructed troll just makes slashdot suck even worse. thanks.

They didn't take indys servers!

[the-build-chicken]

The took rackspaces servers...it just so happened that indys data was on it...sheer coincidence and hardly the governments fault!

Seriously though...that's a loophole that needs to be closed...I would really really check with your ISP about who 'owns' the physical hardware when you buy space (i.e. do you 'rent' the property, or just use it to put data on). Very valid question for anyone looking into hosting something. At the moment I doubt that they have to tell indy anything, they already have told the property owners (rackspace) why they were taken...then hit them with a gag order, which is quite clever (diabolical?) really.

Anyway, host-er beware...check the legality...if they're actually renting you the hardware I would imagine that anyone wanting to take it would have to issue the seizure order to you, otherwise they can issue it to your ISP and tell you nothing...though IANAL.

Free Speech in Europe much more endangered then US

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a lot more to worry about from the European Union then the United States. At least here we have the first admendment.

See:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367, 56294,00 .html?tw=wn_story_related

(qoute from article)
Specifically, the amendment bans "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors."
(unqoute)
So that sets up the legality and justification for filtering out huge swaths of the internet and silencing "subversive" groups. Which is something that is wholesale illegal in the US for the government to do.

All you need is the justification. We all know how political correctness works.

So apperently Europe is heading towards the same direction as many middle eastern countries and communist countris (china in particular is very heavy handed in it's methods of censorship).

Of course some guy will argue how censorship in Europe is a GOOD thing, while the US is a huge monster against human rights. Oh well.

It's like the bible says (paraphasing it a bit):
before you point out the splinter of wood in another person's eye, first remove the beam of wood from your own eye.

Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin

[zurab]

I think it is a little premature to suggest that the internet is doomed because of the Indymedia fiasco.

It is, but you also have to consider not only Indymedia, but other cases as well.

In the Indymedia case it is interesting how Swiss (or Italian or whatever else) governments can simply go to any MLAT partner and seize anything they want for their "investigation." Were Indymedia or Rackspace in violation of the U.S. or U.K laws? I don't know, but it doesn't look that way since neither British law enforcement, nor FBI initiated this action. So, by the magic of the MLAT, you, as an online service provider or entity, are subject to the laws of other countries where you don't even operate or have anything to do with. Want to express your frustration with EU, World Bank, WTO, etc.? It only has to be "illegal" in one country, and your speech will be suppressed for all the rest.

The practice is becoming increasingly common - Yahoo! cannot list Nazi memorabilia in its auctions (the burden is on Yahoo! to make sure the French don't have access to them), Google cannot return advertisements for the words/phrases that are trademarked in the U.S., etc. So, the trend is that once you are online, you are subject to laws of all the nations that could potentially have access to your content or services.

I think it is premature to say that the Internet is doomed, but the beginning of this trend is troubling.

Back when the internet was even younger...

[CrazyTalk]

Say 15-20 years ago, any type of commercial activity, including advertising, was pretty much banned. If someone so much as tried to sell their car on the internet, they whole on-line community would come down on them for "spoiling" the sanctitiy of the free exchange of intellectual discourse. Now, of course, the exact opposite seems to be true - nothing but e-commerce and advertisements.

Re: indymedia server raid

[tedrlord]

I think we all take it as a given that these satellites will have antiballistic lasers, plasma shielding and, what the hell, let's throw in an orbital particle beam platform.

One man's terrorist...

[doormat]

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.

Corrections

[pvanheus]

Firstly, there are current 152 Indymedia websites, not 50 as reported. That means that the loss of ahimsa (the server that was taken down) caused 13% of the IMC (Indymedia Centre) sites to go down, not the "more than 40 percent" quoted.

Secondly, the article makes it sound as if there has been no progress on the cypherpunk front since 1996. While progress has been annoyingly slow, the growth of peer to peer technologies over the last few years has prompted a number of experiments - TOR, I2P, Freenet, etc. (see the I2P network comparisons page for a list), some of which seem to be getting pretty mature.

Thirdly, the bigger sites on ahimsa were up again in hours/days. They would have been up even quicker if a proper backup / mirror system had been in place, and in fact Indymedia techies have now been spurred into action by the ahimsa seizure to make sure the network is more robust. Think about this: the leftie scene is not particularly filled with technologically adept people. The Indymedia network runs on a shoestring budget (in terms of money / time). Despite this, the network was *still* able to respond and repair the damage fairly rapidly.

And finally, don't overestimate the competence of the FBI in this matter. Apparently when trying to do something about the picture of Swiss undercover cops on nantes.indymedia.org, one of the people they approached was from Seattle Indymedia, which has nothing to do with running either ahimsa or nantes.indymedia.org. And anyway, the disputed picture was quickly mirrored all over the place when it became "notorious" (just like the DeCSS code).

So, while I think Grossman's article is a good counterbalance to the mystical rants of people like John Perry Barlow, she leaves out a number of facts that show that the Internet can indeed be used to "route around censorship". Its all a matter of effort - in the 1970s and 80s, the ANC got around government censorship in South Africa by planting "pamphlet bombs" to scatter leaflets at busy rail stations (the cost: activists spending several years in jail). The Internet allows the subversion of censorship with far less effort, but of course it doesn't do it "by magic".

Republic != Democracy

[Local ID10T]

The US is a Replublic. Not a Democracy. In the US we elect representatives to make decisions for us.

Unfortunately power corrupts. Those representatives make decisions based not on the needs of all the people they represent, but based on their own personal needs. Of course the thing that anyone in power needs most is to stay in power.

The primary purpose of the beurocracy is to maintain itself. The larger it grows the more resources are required to maintain it. Thus we have regulatory panels, review boards, oversite commitees, and departments dedicated to managing communication between other departments!

Governments act to protect themselves just like any other organism. New segments (regulations and personell) will be formed to protect against any new threat -citizens having easy access to information which might make the government look bad, for example. This is a bad thing. Ergo government is bad.

We need government. That much is true. But only because we havent discovered anything better, yet.

Hundreds of millions of people

[ahfoo]

cannot have a true democracy.

Once you get past a few tens of thousands of individuals, a genuinely representative democracy is no longer a realistic possibility because you lose the ability of every member to directly address the forum deciding the issues. What is fucked up is that we still refer to the US's government as a democracy when that's really no longer an appropriate term.

A true democracy would be based on referrendums on issues which people would vote on directly. Real democracy does not require representatives to speak on issues. Anybody who wishes to participate in the congress may participate. Representatives in a real democracy only serve to organize the democratic institutions, not decide upon issues for the citizens. The citizens must decide on the issues for themselves in a public forum in a real democracy.

That's how a real democracy works. But, like I pointed out, you really can't use this system once your population grows too large because the possibility for direct dialogue that is an essential part of the decision making process becomes unmanageable.

Intriguingly, a forum system not unlike Slashdot could be used to modernize the ancient concept of direct participation in democracy and apparently can scale up to around a million users and still maintain some functionality.

So, Slashdot could become the replacement for the misused sense of democracy that we now have in the States. We'll just break the granularity down into sections of one million instead of States.

For some less populated states this won't be much of a change. But for places like California or New York it will create the issue of major legal distinctions between geographically close districts. You'll be able to traffic in kilos of Coke in Santa Monica, but be careful when you cross over into Orange County.

Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

In theory, they might want to fix some of the really broken laws that have been passed...

Depends on the country...

[J'raxis]

Freedom of expression on the Internet is still possible if you understand where to go to have your controversial content well-received, or at least tolerated. Indymedia, a leftist website that's made itself a fair share of enemies among the US establishment, was absolutely stupid to have their content hosted in England, a rather staunch US ally.

For example, HAMAS and similar Islamic militant/resistance organizations have sites hosted in the Netherlands and Germany. Most anywhere else and they'd be shut down and probably packed off to a Mossad dungeon.

Iraqi Resistance publishes Albasrah.net in the Netherlands, too. They've yet to be shut down or "disappeared" to Guantanamo.

NAMBLA found hosting in Germany, after they were repeatedly harassed and shut down in the US.

If you're Iranian or Chinese, you'd have to be pretty dumb to try and set up an anti-government site in your own country, but anywhere in the west you'd be received as a hero and a freedom fighter.

A Chechen website called Kavkaz Center was hosted in Lithuania, publishing news, essays, and communiques from their resistance fighters. (Until the Beslan attacks when Russia was probably finally able to exert enough pressure on the former SSR to get the site shut down.)

Of course, Germany is far from a "free country" -- try hosting a neo-Nazi site and you'll find yourself fined and possibly in jail. Same with in France. See how far you get with "hate speech" in Canada nowadays, too. But, you can set one up in the US and no one will touch it.

Re:FUD

[Peterkro]

NO!! they did not post anything other than the Photos and some completly inocuous titles.

How is there censorship?

[TiggertheMad]

As I understand it, law enforcement agencies raid ISPs for evidence, not to censor things. If their goal was to censor things, why wouldn't they take the backups? That Indymedia has backups to restore from pretty much shoots holes through any 'They are out to censor things argument'.

They take systems so that they can examine them at their leisure and make sure that they find whatever evidence that they are looking for. Also, it is pretty common practice for police play their cards close during an investigation. How is this case at all special in that aspect? What do you want from them, a nice flowery card that says, 'don't start destroying data, but we are investigating you?'

You can take off your tinfoil hats now.

Re:Indymedia?

[pjrc]

You seem to be saying that the Italian police were justified in using deadly force against a protester who was damaging property by hitting cars with a fire extinguisher...

AND that those Italian police are also justified in shutting down Indymedia's (likely biased) news coverage of their use of deadly force.

So sure are you that it's proper for the police to censor anyone who speaks critically of them and their portrays their actions unfavorably that your advise is to "Stop whining".

Re:Free Speech in Europe much more endangered then

[Craig Davison]

Wow, sweeping generalizations about other countries. I've heard this "no freedom in Europe because of the hate laws" line so much I'm convinced it's part of your public school curriculum.

They have laws against hate speech, and in the meanwhile you've got obscenity laws (like those middle eastern countries you mentioned), USAPATRIOT and the DMCA. Every country has restrictions on speech.

Also, China is not strictly communist. They have a rapidly growing capitalist economy based out of the cities where the worker has far less protections than the US (or, especially, western Europe). It has more in common with a fascist dictatorship. A better example would have been North Korea.

Re:Indymedia?

[winwar]

"You're assuming that the police did shut them down. Wouldn't it fit perfectly with an "independant" media group to have your stuff shutdown by "the evil government". No one seems to know why they were shut down."

Well, authorities (aka police) seized some equipment (hard drives at a minimum) using a legal document (warrant, supeona, etc) provided by a government. While they may have the equipment back, they would have to assume it is compromised (it was not in their possession) and it takes time to check. In any case, you can't run a server without data.

So, in review. The police acting for a government DID shut them down. Only their MOTIVES are in question....

Re:Now do you see...

[RTMFD]

It happened before back in 1776. The Vietnamese also kicked the arse of the US Military. Now, you assume that the citizen soldiers of the US Military would actually turn on their own citizens, which is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not advocating revolution, I'd rather vote as right now I don't feel like my rights are threatened.

Sealand

[bill_mcgonigle]

As long as servers stay on land belonging to a government

Looks like Havenco is still around...