Slashdot Mirror
'Hactavists' Get $3M for Internet Monitoring
raceface writes "The CBC is reporting that a group from the University of Toronto know as the Citizen Lab has received a $3 million grant. They intend to use the grant money to monitor and determine who is blocking information access on the internet." The grant, given to an international project that fights censorship, was given to the group by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, a Chicago-based institution.
I can't seem to connect to the site for some reason.
liqbase
I think this is a great project to keep the information flowing to censored places in the world, but I suppose the problem I've got picturing this set-up is two-fold.
First, how do you start receiving "blocked" information if the government blocks you first (which they're sure to do, now that you've just announced a $3M grant to fight censorship)?
Second, how do you know the information is going to the right people (activists and such, rather than just "the man")?
And on a third note - How much of this organization will be concerned with the truthfulness, usefulness, or goodness of the information being sent? It's one thing to be able to see the Tienamin Square results unfiltered by Google, it'd be another thing to be spending a $3M grant on ways to sneak porn (or illegal stuff) past the government proxies.
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
The last part of the linked article facinates me...the part about the opposition website servers being attacked. That story sounds like it could be much more interesting than TFA, IMHO.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
$3 million grant. They intend to use the grant money to monitor and determine who is blocking information access on the internet
heh u dont have far to go just GOOGLE IT!
I understand the waves of hatred towards Google for their chinese policy but I believe most people REALLY do take their liberty of access to information for granted.
Corporations do what they must to protect their intrests - see Ambrose Biere's "Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility." Google does it in China because they want a presence there as MSN and Yahoo and whatever-else-there-is-out-there.
Freedom of access to information is not an unalienable human right, in today's world, it's a privilege so enjoy it before someone comes and snaps it up from under you.
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul Ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Last month, Google said it would adhere to Beijing's censorship policies and limit certain search results in China to get broader access to the large market.
:D
Deibert and his team help dissidents access banned information, "assisting them in ways to get around censorship and surveillance, developing tools that will help them protect their privacy online and get around censorship," he said.
At to the first paragraph, it's been mentioned by a number of people here on slashdot that Google really doesn't have much choice about their decision to ban content Either they block the content that 1% of the population is interested in, or withdraw their service, which connects people with information , from everyone in China; the second option seems more evil to many of us than the first.
The second paragraph suggests that Deibert and his team want to use the funds to help people such as the people of China break the laws of their country. The Chinese government's track record seems to suggest that they have no problems holding a grudge (Falun Gong?). I know this is a somewhat controversial opinion, but would you want money donated by you being used in a way that is likely to piss off the Chinese government, given that you may want to deal with them in the future?
Now, before everyone downmods me for my "anti-free-speach" opinion here, keep in mind here that the donors may have more valuable services to provide to these people!
Finally, am I the only one who read that guy's name as Dilbert?
The results will of course be classified!
stuff |
Since these guys are all for freedom of information, and all that good stuff, do you reckon the research team would run Linux? ;)
It's only a matter of time before the Chinese government realises that free speech is no threat to a well-organized propaganda machine. The formula we've perfected in the west requires only four components:
1. Single-party rule, or dual-party rule provided there is no meaningful difference between each party.
2. Polarization of the citizenry such that members of each party are inclined to prefer gravitas-laden Spin-Alley journalism over fact-based reporting. The beauty of this is that market forces guarantee the creation of these entities at no cost to the taxpayer.
3. An efficient staff chartered with discrediting any voice that speaks out against the establishment. Again, very little money needs to be spent here -- talking points with which Spin-Alley journalists are free to clog the airwaves are simply published to the web.
4. Convenience. A comfortable citizenry is a complacent citizenry.
Item #4 will be the most difficult to implement as it requires a rich market infrastructure that China will likely not achieve for another 10 years.
$100 per correct answer?
-Google
-Microsoft
-China
-Saudi Arabia
-Iran
-North Korea
-Every other country in the world, to some extent or another.
----
Minus $100 for every OBVIOUS answer?
Where do I send the check?
----
M
While I laud the initiative, I do(at the risk of getting negative karma) wonder why we're so fixated with Internet access as the sole metric for global freedom?
Is the press free all around the world? Do undertrials or accused enjoy fair trials everywhere? Does corporate money/advertising implicitly censor what we see in the media? Do citizens in democracies have access to all information that concerns them? Can the poor ever have equal chances to attend universities and schools?
I'm from India, a democracy and a market economy(mostly). I can say confidently that my answers to most of the above questions are "no". I'm guessing the same is true for countries around the world, including the US and the west.
So lets strive for unrestricted Internet access around the world, but lets also figure out what else comprises freedom for the non-/. folks out there.
I could see Hactivists or Hacktivists, or even Hackervists.
... Hactavists? Why i -> a?
But
If you allow a free press, true local cultures and thoughts will spring up and things are much more difficult to arrange.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
... Canadian money, right?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
I believe a hacktivist is not one who simply monitors, but does something about the information which 'comes into their hands' ( ;) ).
So how can a government sponsored university which is simply monitoring the censorship without doing a thing to stop it hacktivist?
anyone?....
didn't think so...
It's one thing to be able to see the Tienamin Square results unfiltered by Google, it'd be another thing to be spending a $3M grant on ways to sneak porn (or illegal stuff) past the government proxies.
I don't know that it's "another thing" at all.
There's "free speech", and then there's "conditionally free speech" (which, arguably, China already has). You may be a supporter of the latter concept, just to a different degree than the government in power.
If we analyze the actual content of speech and judge it "worthy" or "legal" then we allow governments and powerful moral majorities to silence anyone that doesn't share their values by simply labelling certain speech illegal or immoral. We're still left living in a system where we have to be scared that what we speak or write or share might offend someone because of prevailing political and moral values, and those values can change overnight and be subject to interpretation to server greater agendas.
Spelling courtesy of Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 93 for hactavist.
Results 1 - 10 of about 187,000 for hactivist.
Results 1 - 10 of about 204,000 for hacktivist.
Personally, I'm partial to hacktivist, but take your pick of the last two. TFA spells it the second way. The way the headline spells it is definitely not right.