Slashdot Mirror
India Joins China in Censoring Websites
cpatil writes "On the directions of the government of India, Indian ISPs have started censoring and blocking web properties. This was first noticed by Indian bloggers and upon inquiring with their respective ISPs, the actions are confirmed. Unfortunately, Blogspot and TypePad are the targets till now." There's an ongoing discussion of the censorship on GoogleGroups. The rediff.com coverage linked above indicates that the blocking is based on a list issued by India's Department of Telecommunications.
Interesting thought. I'm curious to hear what you think about organizations that push/support the state censorship though. And then they pursue those who seek alternative measures to bypass it.
"I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes" ~ Laughing Man - GITS:SAC
The problem with what you suggest is that eventually physical violence will be necessary in order for individuals to exercise their rights. You're encouraging the state to do its worst, which makes me think you need to go back and read some Solzhenitsyn to see just what the "worst" looks like.
Advocating such a policy seems irresponsible, especially since we haven't yet figured out how to convince the so-called "progressive" elements of society that self-defense is, in fact, a basic human right. You're basically saying we should turn a bunch of wolves loose in a pen of sheep.
I'd just as soon rather have the government not pester me in the first place as opposed to engaging in the cat and mouse game that you seem to prefer.
They stole from me, now I get to take it back.
Actually, you just get to stop them from stealing from you now . They still have the money they taxed away last week.
The problem with what you suggest is that eventually physical violence will be necessary in order for individuals to exercise their rights.
So it would seem, but I don't think that is true. In the old days, the State had their local enforces: people who spied on others for the State. Today, the State seems to rely more and more on technology. As many of us geeks know, logs are very hard to maintain. Even with NSA-level search algorithms and routines, it is likely that the State will only try to watch over more and more, and eventually it will be ineffective except against the few that the State already is watching directly. Even the US' own internal spy agency is more targetted to watching political enemies than common people. Most common people that smoke pot do so without much concern. Most common people who own unregistered weapons also do so without fear. This means that the State doesn't work, and we can only hope that the blackhats will continuously find ways around the restrictions and regulations.
So far, freedom is winning in more circles than the media will let on. In my area there are already groups that barter and trade in bullion rather than in fiat paper currency. There are already a few private restaurants, almost a dozen farmers who sell better quality and lower priced produce and dairy than the grocery store, hundreds of day laborers that you can hire for a few dollars an hour (hit up any Home Depot in the morning), and the like. There is likely no way for the State to enforce even 1% of its laws -- they're only bound to use them against specific enemies. Don't be that enemy.
Who is the real enemy of the State? Any individual or group which attempts to create a competition cartel that competes directly with the State's income. Just look at any war on "_subject_" and you'll see that it is always about the State being in control of the distribution or manufacturing of some product or service.
Bearing in mind that we call such free marketeers "pirates" and "terrorists" and toruture and shoot them.
For now. Give it 5-10 years and there will be more than enough anonymity devices to protect anything the State considers deviant thought or action.
Thank you for your patronage and enjoy your Soviet style "free market." We couldn't do it without you.
The difference between the Soviet Union and today is that the USSR had no Internet, technology worldwide wasn't very advanced and the ability to communicate beyond 7 miles of your home was either too costly or too slow. All of these things have changed thanks to the free market entrepreneurship that continues to advance technology and the Internet.
India isn't China. Never attribute to malice what is explained by incompetence, especially in India. Some bungling bureaucrat had this bright idea, but the sites will be accessible again in a short while. It's happened before. (In fact, right now I can access them from my home account though not from my work account.)
And people here call me nuts when I suggest slashdot is crawling with Austrian-School anarchist whackjobs.... /me rolls eyes.
Take all these "anarcho-capitalists" and put them on a desert island for a week ... the one left alive after that week probably wont be an anarcho-capitalist anymore... /me is center-seeking and dislikes all extreemes.
So true. I used to use the word "government" which is derived from the Latin gubernare -- to restrain, restrict, control the action or behavior of. Just like a "governor" in your car restricts the speed at which you can drive, a government is there to restrict your actions.
I can see the reason behind using government to maintain physical property lines and to punish those who harm the property of another (land, body, or tools). I don't see why government is needed to protect a person's actions or opportunities -- when we try to use government for this reason, we end up with what we have today -- tyranny.
while I see your point, it breaks down as the state continues to grow.
the state does NOT want people working around it, and left unchecked it will flex it's growing muscle to PREVENT those who do work around it - with manipulation, increasing force, and eventually simply locking up, toturing and killing those who rebel.
This is simply a question of some people thinking it's OK to control other people. To a small degree, it works - and keeps order, to a larger degree, it still works, but people start to get unhappy - to an extreme degree, people are harmed by extreme levels of control.
I also go around stealing things left unattended, like books, backpacks, and small children. This increases people's motivation to pay attention to their private property, which is good because you never know what sort of unsavory people might be around.
Anyhow, I'm doing my part to make the world a better place. What about the rest of you?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Take that, you idiots who wring your hands about "losing your democracy." Democracy and freedom are not the same thing, and the one does NOT by default lead to the other. In fact, the only major accomplishment of democracy has been to grant legitimacy to the Fascist state. It allows the masses to throw their weight in behind every violation of the rights of the minority.
What India has proved is that democratic states have no inherent moral authority. It has landed itself in the same mass of political crap that China and Saudi Arabia are in. There is no moral difference between states that censor, even if it is "benign." Either way, a state that practices official censorship of anything except for media that requires violence or fraud to be created, is a regime that directly or indirectly uses the threat of loss of life, liberty or property to silence others. There is no moral difference between a threat of prosecution and simply shooting someone in the head, when the offense is speaking out with an unpopular idea.
And by the way, has that rubbish about the Internet detecting censorship as damage and routing around been relegated to the trash heap of history where it belongs? It seems that for citizens of China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India and Britain (with its hashed list of "bad sites" as if we even know whether they're all illegal under British law.) that the only routing that is being down is getting in trouble or sent to prison for non-compliance.
Censorship in India is inconsistent and haphazard to say the least.
Local and Central governments will ban/reject a book/film on the pretext that it will be dangerous to religious sentiments or social harmony. An example is the James Laine's book - An Epic on Shivaji, books by Salman Rushdie, the Peter Seller's comedy 'The Party', and even the innocuous (though a bit silly) documentaries made by Louis Malle in the late 60's.
Most of the Anand Patwardhan documentaries were banned/not cleared and his battles with the Indian censor boards show the tolerance level for the overlords are very low. One of the documentaries (if my memory is correct 'Father, Son and Holy War') had footage of the chief minister of the state of Maharashtra and later the speaker of Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) - Manohar Joshi - seen extolling Hindu women during a rally in a remote Maharashtrian town to give birth to more children to offset the rise in Muslim population (typical FUD by hardliners). If such utterances can be made at a political rally, I have no idea what banning the documentary will prove.
The same time, the most vulgar, sexist and reactionary Hindi (Bollywood for you), Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Malayalam or other popular cinema pass the censors with absolutely no problem.
Also the Indian Government is yet to relax its hold on radio and licenses to operate a station - which actually reach the 100% of the Indian population (compared to 10-20% reach of the mostly urban satellite/cable.)
Tat Tvam Asi
And DARPA. For some odd reason, the participants in the free market never saw building a global packet network as an opportunity.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
China's obvious censorship goal -- quasi-permanent suppression of the citizens' desire to be able to throw their rulers out of office. (Which is the one big advantage democracies have over other forms of government. Even if you usually replace the bums with guys equally bad, the fact that you can get rid of them certain limits how bad they can get.) This should be fought at almost any cost, both on moral grounds and for enlightened self-interest. And so I'll again shamelessly plus my proposal of how WE -- yes, WE -- can make a difference. http://www.monashreport.com/2006/04/17/how-to-beat -chinese-censorship-operation-peking-duck/
India's apparent censorship goal -- well, like the anti-Nazi free speech limitations in Europe, India's political censorship seems to be focused on defusing (and diffusing) racial, religious, or ethnic tensions, so that they don't erupt into violence or worse. This censorship is certainly something we should carefully monitor and worry about, but it could yet turn out to be relatively benign. E.g., as another poster suggested, it could be the work of an overzealous bureaucrat, or some incompetent ISPs panicking in the face of a sensibly limited directive and blocking much more than they were told to. Either way, the whole thing might and hopefully will soon be reverse.
And just to be clear -- I think ALL this censorship is stupid. I just think that some of it is bad enough to be my problem and yours, while some of it is benign enough it should be left to the people of the affected countries themselves to deal with as they see fit.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
I am guessing that it's most likely related to the recent Terrorist attacks in Mumbai. India's National Security Agencies have been reporting that Terrorists have started using blogs for provocative propaganda that could corrupt the minds of gullible youth. The Indian Government is under huge pressure to extinguish the activities of the terrorist groups that have in recent times started misusing technology for their malicious ends.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"
- Pravin Lal
Technoli
Interesting. What if not everyone on your block wanted the generator? Could they opt out? If so, could they opt out of the inconvenience of the installation, and increased risk of environmental damage that having a generator on your block would entail? Could they opt out potentially decreased home value? How about the surrounding blocks? That's the problem with democracy -- sometimes it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. It's an advantage and a disadvantage. The ordinances that you would have violated were likely in place before you moved in. That's why they call it a 'variance'. Variances are granted all the time -- I got one recently in my town for an extension on my house. Should one assume that the reason you weren't given one is that your plan was not considered a reasonable transgression of the ordinance in place? (Presumably you needed to change the zoning on your block from residential to some industrial-type of zoning.) Your Medicaid example is somewhat disingenuous. The issue isn't with doctors undercharging poor patients, it's with doctors overcharging Medicare. All doctors I've ever dealt with, if they waive any fees at all, do so by billing their standard amount and accepting as payment whatever they get. Still, it seems you've already made up you mind about everything and are unlikely to be dissuaded by anything or anyone, certainly not by someone on /., so good luck to you.
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
try moving to Canada where we do medi-care right, try moving to Europe where they do medicare right... hell, just do it right yourself and those problems go away. you mentioned the regulatory process for drugs.... how many hundred, how many thousand drugs have been turned down because they were unsafe? how many thousands are saved every year because these dangerous meds are NOT on the market? call me a little selfish, but i want to make damn sure that the pills im taking arnt going to kill me faster then whatever it is im taking them for. Just cause you cant do something doesnt meen it doesnt work :P
your generator story is all well and good, but what would have happened to you after y2k when the lights stayed on and no one wanted to pay up their share of the maitnence costs? would you have been able to keep such a large generator in working order? doubt it, those things are pricey to keep. Also, what if one of your neighbours is from Australia and wants 240v/50hz power and wont buy any generator that wont provide their needs? Once again, i would rather pay my taxes on time and get quality power out of the plug then take my chances with whatever I, or any of my neighbours, can make. there is accountability this way... if im getting constant brown-outs, i know whos butt to kick. If a neighbourhood powersystem is on the fritz who's responcible? The guy who maintains the generator? the guy who maintains the wires? the guy who has the 72" TV and is sucking up all the juice? Everyone wants to controll their own system but doesnt want to take the problems when that system fails.
and what about water? clean, clear and healty water? would you trust some Joe down the street to keep their filter running? what if his kid was sick one day and he didnt get a chance to fix the filter.... after all, it's not his day-job right? he may make a little money for it but not enough to live on... one day wont matter right?... sorry, I want someone whos ass is on the line if my water isnt 100% safe, there was a case here in Canada where someone was lazy and didnt maintain the filter, people got sick, he is now in jail and wont be out for a long, long time... good incentive to do it right. You may trust Joe... i sure dont, not with my life, not with the life of anyone i love.
". Just look at any war on "_subject_" and you'll see that it is always about the State being in control of the distribution or manufacturing of some product or service."
"War On Terror"
That is amazing! It works even for that!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Every ban Govt proposes is in the name of controlling terrorists. There are such unclarified reports this time too. It is very same as denying public water supply in the name of terrorists are used to drink it. This also shows that Govt of India & CERT-IN did'nt learn anything from the past experience of banning yahoo! Groups in the name of militant Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) of the Khasi tribe, started a mailinglist named kynhun. The popularity popularity and visibility went up by leaps and bounds instantaneously, despite it being blocked by all ISPs! Clearly, you can't ban anything on the internet. More than a censorship it violates Communication rights of the people. see full post at moving republic
I thought this was an announcemnt for a new Indiana Jones movie in China.
But seriously, I think this trend of web censorship is just the beginning. Blood sucking politicians enjoy having control over the prolitariat. Controlling the media, whether its newspapers, magazines, tv, news, etc are all signs of despotism. Isn't that right Rupert.
1) there is a huge difference between cosmetic and nessisary surgeries. your overwaight friend there would have a VERY hard time getting approval for a bypass if he is eating a pizza as a snack (as you said in a comment lower down). Contrary to popular beliefe, you cant just waltz into a hospital and say "hay, im not feeling good, give me a surgery"... there are checks and controlls as to what is covered and what is not.
2)yes, our taxes are higher, but not as much as you may think. IIRC even in Ontario (one of the highest taxed provences in the country) its only a few % higher then the american national average. but seeing as you need to buy private insurence youre not ahead anything.
3) peace of mind... My mother didnt need to re-morgage her house to pay for her cancer treatment, I dont need to pay all $400 of my money up front for my medications every 3 months, When my dad broke his leg it didnt cost him thousands of dollars out of pocket to get treated. Of course i DO realize that all this money does come out of our pockets sometime, but its a lot easier to swollow a few extra hundred dollars taxes a year then needing to shell out $50,000 in one sitting.
4) we take care of our own... One thing that has always grated me about american healthcare is that it's based on a system of greed. "Why should i pay for that person to get better?" well, because that other person over there will pay to help you get better if you cant afford it. I dont know too many people with $100k laying around to be able to afford a major health emergency.
I think zoning laws are some of the worst laws in existence -- private property should not be regulated as long as actions on that property don't harm another's property physically. I believe if my generator made noise that affected my neighbors, there should just be tort laws that cover it (and I believe tort can be provided for in a free market without the legal system!). If I pollute my neighbors property, fine. But if I want to paint my home pink with stripes, I should be free to. If I want to build it all the way up to my neighbor's property, I should be free to.
The Medicare thought of my is NOT disingenous. Look at this WashTimes article:
No Charity Allowed
And it never EVER does. Government is a permanent in society. Allow my to show a example. Let's say there is no government. Someone has a big gun (or other weapon), and you do not. You, on the other hand, have found a way to sustain you and your family off the land. The guy with the gun (lets call him Bob) figures out that if he threatens you, he can just steal your stuff. Bob does this to several groups over a period of time. The groups finally have decided that they have had enough, and they band together to stop the threat. They take out Bob, and also decide if anything like this threatens them like this again, they will band together again. They pledge to work together to stop stealing and murder in their groups.
And just like that, there is government. Actually, if you paid attention, two states formed: first a dictatorship by Bob, they a group lead state (democracy-like) for the common good. And it isn't a far step to control other things. Lets say there is a drought. Groups realize that if other groups die, they have less protection, so they feed the group. Or they realize that the same thing could happen to them, and they help the other groups so the other groups will do the same for them one day. Now the government is a function of not just protection, but welfare. This highlights a few facts of government:
1. States are a constant. As long as we remain social creatures, they will always exist.
2. States can just be a community banding together for the common good. It is just a function of organized society.
3. States can be formed for the majority (the groups) or the minority (Bob). Your choice.
There is a great quote from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything we have tried so far." If state is a constant, as I have shown, then it is better to have a government run by the group then an individual. Now, you may argue that America is run by individuals, but they are elected officials. To get office, they must appeal to the people for support, so if they do something stupid, you can't remove responsibility from the people. Who you are really mad at are people that allow oppressive and/or stupid laws/individuals to remain. Don't like it, work to change it: educate people. Support better schools to teach people how the world works... Wait, you don't like paying taxes, do you. Then I guess your right: there is no hope. Sorry for disagreeing
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
But like 100% of their population is brown, right? And "from what I've heard", they've got Muslims in their movies and bodies of government. Besides, it's a "well known fact" that Muslims are all fascists, especially those who seek power, just India's president Abdul Kalam.
Seriously, I don't really know why you or I took the time to respond to the GP, except maybe to make sure that people reading his comment know that it has no basis in fact. India's Muslim population is undoubtedly increasing, but India has existed for a long time as a country where religions, in particular Hinduism and Islam, have lived side by side. (This is admitedly in part because many Islamic nationalist left in 1947 to form a Muslim nation.) Of course, there are religious tensions, but in fact they're at most moderately greater than the cultural tensions. (It may surprise people to know that India is not a big homogenous culture - I know it would surprise the hell out of Hollywood, where often characters of one cultural background are given Indian-sounding names of a completely different origin.) Remember - India is a predominantly Hindu country which elected a Muslim president and a Sikh prime minister.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Hindus have a legitimate claim to Kashmir. Kashmir is Hindu holy land. Kashmir was originally Hindu land before the muslims invaded and captured it. (Hinduism predates Islam by 3500 years). Are you going to deny us the claim to Kashmir, then justify the claim of Jewish people to Israel? It's the same kind of situation.
Plus, do you think us 'letting go' of Kashmir is going to change anything? You don't think mad mullahs with Korans and kalashnokovs will stop getting their terrorist-training there?
If India abandons Kashmir, things will only get worse, and eventually Kashmiri terrorists like LeT, together with their buddies in al-Qaeda will start mucking about in the rest of India (they're pretty close already), and all Hindus will be massacred and India becomes another Islamic theocracy.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
Censorship exists everywhere, and I don't think it is accepted more hypocritically than in the west, espesically the US.
Government censorship is considered to be a symptom of tyranny, yet the public as a whole readily accepts and expects corporate censorship, and has for decades. When it comes to television and radio, "you can't say that" or "you can't see that" have been used for decades to suppress words, ideas and images, and very few people seem to mind. I don't think that any US television network will deny the existence of network censors.
1968 "Sponsors go into an uproar and threaten to pull support after a television program shows interracial 'touching.' During the taping of a duet between Petula Clark and Harry Belafonte, Clark lays her hand on Belafonte's arm (Clark is white and Belafonte is black)."
"After being invited by the Smothers Brothers to perform his anti-Vietnam anthem 'Waist Deep in the Big Muddy' on their TV show, Pete Seeger is edited out of the program by the censors at CBS television."
1971 "Several radio stations alter the John Lennon song 'Working Class Hero' without the consent of Lennon or his record label."
1975 "Radio stations across the country refuse to play Loretta Lynn's 'The Pill' because of its references to birth control."
2001 "Producers of Late Night with David Letterman cancel an appearance by singer Ani DiFranco after she refuses to drop plans to perform the song 'Subdivision.' The song deals with racism and white flight to the suburbs."
Censorship is all around you. China and India did not invent it.
RTFM; please, I beg you.