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.
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.
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.
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
". 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.
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.
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.