Slashdot Mirror
Contrabandwidth
tcd004 writes "Kate Palmer writes in Foreign Policy Magazine that an international black market for Internet access has arisen in many authoritarian countries who keep their populations offline. Savvy black marketers in cybercafes, universities, private homes, and elsewhere are exploiting technological loopholes to circumvent government filters and charge fees for access. According to OpenNet Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks banned sites, visiting a single website in Saudi Arabia can cost anywhere from $26 to $67. And as censorship spreads, the prices are only going up." It's just a few paragraphs, but thought provoking.
I'm in the wrong business!
Better than Flickr - Manage, Share, Archive
In a sad way it really demonstrates how things we take for given are not all that given.
According to OpenNet Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks banned sites, visiting a single website in Saudi Arabia can cost anywhere from $26 to $67
I wonder if the price is because of the cost of the connection (probobly a satellite phone), or something else.... What do you guys think?
Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
How else could someone have a black market for Internet Site access? In our day and age, information should florish, not be stifled by fearful governments.
Exactly. When something is "banned", we have criminal activity,i.e. making money off giving the public whatever was "banned". Good example was alcohol prohibition in the USA.
...we have a black market in any molecules that might cause enjoyment.
Whenever there is a need, a supply will arise, regardless of any other factors. When gas/food/etc was rationed in WWII, black markets rose to fulfill the demand. That can also be applied to the sex industry in SE Asia, but I digress...
Question is, though, is visiting 'banned' websites worth the cash, or is it just for 'thrill' value? I don't think I'd pay $26 just to get to Maddox's site, despite it's inherent awesomeness.
How backward ? Yes, indeed try to travel to Cuba then...
MP3 Search Engine
In short, we can all look forward to a future where freedom isn't a right.
It's a service that's offered, for a price.
May the Maths Be with you!
It's funny how we're supposedly bringing freedom to the middle east, when one of our biggest "allies" is a nation so opressive that they lock girls in a burning school to prevent them from being seen without a burqa. The saudi government is much worse in many ways than Saddam Hussein's, yet we are not starting any wars for a "regime change" there? Saudi Arabia is openly hostile to our allies, treats their citizens worse than Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro, and publically criticizes both democracy and the US government and people. Not only do we not detest them, but the Bush family is friends with the oppressive house of Saud.
I fail to see how anyone can believe that this administration's goals are anything but getting Bush's friends richer.
Good post... but mentioning CNN and FOX as "factual" information was a bit of a stretch =D.
in a way the house of saud is the ultimate example of free market goverment, they have bought their power.
Your swipe at free market doesn't make sense. Where's the free market to elect new leaders?
Child pornography will be exchanged anyway (just like you can't stop people exchanging mp3s). Nobody is hurt by such an exchange. The actual child abuse occurs in the creation of child pornography. And, since payment through something anonymous like Freenet is pretty much impossible, there is no real incentive to create more child pornography. Plus, if childporn is available for free in this way, paysites for childporn on the normal internet will be less profitable, which should result in a decrease in such child exploitation. I really don't see any obvious way in which the childporn on Freenet can result in more child abuse.
Which is more important? Censoring child pornography or enabling general freedom of speech?
.sig gives my opionion away.
In any case, my
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
If the cost of supporting freedom of speech is supporting child pornography, I'd say it's time to find new ways of supporting freedom of speech.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I really don't see any obvious way in which the childporn on Freenet can result in more child abuse.
Well the first argument would be that exposing people to the child porn might encourage them to become paedophiles. I think that's false in the same way that gay pornograpgy doesn't make straight people gay, but it's an argument.
The main issue with the child pornography is that it so abhorrent that most people natural instinct is to do everything they can to stamp it out. You've taken an extremely rational approach to it that ignores this disgust, though you make a good case.
However, consider that these children are harmed not just in the making of the porn but in its distribution. I really don't know what we're talkig about with this stuff, if it's pictures of children being abused or if it's just nude children, but if it's the latter then the kid might be far more traumatised just by growing up knowing that people were using her picture. And imagine being the parent of that kid and knowing that guys around the world were using that photo.
As I say, you may have a valid point as far as Freenet is concerned that I'd have to consider further, but there definitely are arguments against it.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Freedom of speech is simply saying what you think and or feel, your opinion on any idea or concept. Child pornography is the "act" of using children for your perverted enjoyment. That is not speech, that is action that involves an unwilling participant and that actions is a threat to freedom loving people and should be delt with by those who you threaten.
It is important to keep the distinction between an idea, thought or speech from that of an act or action against others. The freedom to discuss anything, have opinions about anything is an inalienable right that all people have. It is not granted by the government nor can it be rightfully taken away by the government. We are all born with that right.
There is NEVER a legitimate reason to censor free speech, never.
I just find it hard to understand your viewpoint - It's throwing the baby (no pun intended) out with the bathwater.
Power to the Peaceful
Certainly. Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want, about anyone you want, anytime you want. But it does not mean you have to listen to other people when they get on the soapbox. ie, they can say it, but you can refuse to allow them to use your node, blow-horn or soapbox to say it with.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee that other people will listen to what you have to say. Nor does it guarantee that anyone will help you say it. Your node is still your node and you can dictate what does and does not go on with it.
The important thing is, as a society, we do not tell people what they can and cannot talk about by passing laws, rules or regulations. We leave the choice of what to talk about and listen up to each and every individual. That allows individuals to simply say, if you are going to talk about it, you'll have to do it on your own node.
And, as a society we say, you can talk about it all you want, but if you initiate or participate in a physical action against an unwilling participant, then you are a threat to our society and must be dealt with.
All that is simply an exaggerated example of "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm me". It may be a cute phrase to teach children to deal with confrontation. But it says it all. Unless someone picks up a stick or stone (or some other form of physical contact occurs), words, ideas and thoughts can never harm anyone.
(Though quite off topic)
Viewing child porn, and especially paying for it means that there is a market for it, which means someone has to produce it. Which means physically getting some poor kid to Pose for it.
So yes, viewing it, creates child abuse.
If the cost of supporting freedom of speech is supporting political dissent, I'd say it's time to find new ways of supporting freedom of speech.
B
Nota bene: I am NOT condoning child abuse.
I think the main objection people have to the distribution of Child Pornography is that it creates a market for the stuff. Freenet aside generally people actually pay for Child Pornography and in poorer countries the ammounts they are paying can be a great deal more then a monthly wage if they could get work at all.
Generally most child porn comming out of the former USSR is done purely for the money and not the sexual gratification of the perpitrator.
So by buying the stuff you are feeding the market meaning more child porn will be produced to meet demand. This means that more children will be molested.
However if you are getting the stuff for free off freenet then that argument kinda goes out the window.
This is what I see happening. I'm worried that, by the time I enter the workforce in several years, and almost certainly by the end of it, workers will be no more than a commodity. This seems to happen in capitalism just as much as communism, but with less concern for the people involved. Your conclusions seem interesting. I honestly think that, as far as communist nations go, Cuba has worked the best. Although one could argue that the USSR accomplished more, it was also done at a greater cost to the people, and it did collapse. Oddly enough, it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that shows how well Cuba is actually working. It, unlike most other communist nations, did not collapse, and has now been declared out of its "special period". Its economic hardship is a result, not of the communist government, but of the US embargo. I think that the US is just unable to accept that any system other than its own can work, and, in the case of Cuba, that one of these countries with a different system would dare to defend itself against capitalism!