Chinese, U.S. Condemn Censorship

More reactions both at home and abroad to the censorship issue. picaro writes "According to the BBC, 'party elders' in China released an open letter decrying the current state of censorship in China, and suggesting that 'history demonstrates that only a totalitarian system needs news censorship, out of the delusion that it can keep the public locked in ignorance.'" LWATCDR writes "The US government is upset over restrictions of freedom of speech on the Internet. The United States, has 'very serious concerns' about the protection of privacy and data throughout the Internet globally, and in particular, some of the recent cases raised in China."

Comments

Re:hm

[B. Pascal]

Hello J.B.:

There is a difference between protecting privacy and censorship. Privacy protection involves stopping the dissemination of personal information. On the other hand, censorship involves stopping the dissemination of public information.

For example, protecting my medical records, making it inaccessible to others without my permission, is protecting my privacy. Stopping news report of an earth quake, for another example, would be censorship.

Cheers.

B.Pascal

Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005

[MyNymWasTaken]

Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland all tied for 1st place.

The USA ranked 44th. (Fell more than 20 places)

China ranked 159th.

The Index also refutes the theory frequently advanced by leaders of poor and repressive countries that economic development is a vital prerequisite for democracy and the respect for human rights. The top portion of the Index is heavily dominated not only by rich, but also by very poor, countries (the latter having a per capita GDP of less than $1,000 in 2003).

Re:hm

[Dashing Leech]

"The data for that cure would be my intellectual property and, therefore, private."

Sorry to go slighly off topic, and to do some lecturing myself, but I find it incredibly sad that we've (rather, the influence of the MPAA/RIAA and similar) have created a society that actual believes your statement above. That the absurdity of owning an idea as if it were tangible property is not apparent to everyone, but rather embraced by many if not the majority, almost brings me to tears over the future of civilized society. The really sad part is that this concept of private ownership goes well beyond existing IP laws. People don't actually "own" IP; the laws allow a limited (in time and extent) right of denial for copying, distributing, or implementing the IP depending on it's form. This limited monopoly is not an inherent right of ownership, but rather an incentive to publicize the IP so that others can learn from it and use it in the long run, thus benefiting society.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."