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.
For some, it seems odd that a radical anarcho-capitalist would support ANY State action, especially censorship. There is usually only one anti-State camp: the people who want to dismiss the State through some means (voting, bloody revolution, non-violent revolution, black market lifestyle, etc). I don't see ANY way to get rid of the State and any of its forms of coercion (including censorship) through any of the previous means. Every time a right is taken away by a State, every time the State steals from you in the form of taxation and every time the State decides it can help large groups, it does so at very little cost to the individual. You and I won't do anything to prevent US$1 a year from being taken from us, or some fringe right that we don't really see heling our existence. Yet when you combine all those little US$1 fees taken from each individual in the US, someone is earning billions. That person will work extra hard to protect that income, but the millions won't work extra hard to fight a US$1 fee annually. The same is true with rights -- most people won't worry about their basic rights because they feel mostly free. When 10 million people are harmed by an infringement, 290 million residents aren't. Why should they care about 0.3% of the population?
The reason I support State censorship of all media is the same reason why I support the State in all of its madness: the more they do to harm us, the more the free market will provide means for entrepreneurs to find new ways around the madness.
Many of the towns near me have increased their sales tax: up to 9% in some towns! The free market provided loopholes around sales tax for years, and the Internet is the ultimate form of working around the local madness. I don't buy very much locally anymore, and I get to save a huge amount that the State would usually get. It makes me laugh when the local politicians argue about what they're losing to the web. They stole from me, now I get to take it back.
Many of the towns near me are starting to create smoke free "public places" which exist within private property. You can't smoke in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, anywhere. The free market is opening up amazing private property venues for me -- I've already visited 4 private dinner clubs -- the houses of famous and strong chefs in the region who gave up their jobs in order to provide exceptional meals to private consumers. They don't charge a fee, they ask for a donation. For US$50, I can get an amazing meal that gets around most of the regulations of the restaurant-restrictions placed. I can smoke, the chef can cook foods in ways that restaurants often can't, and I pay less than 1/3rd of the usual fee. Some dinner clubs include great wine, and the service is top notch. The chef doesn't worry about income taxes or permits or paying off the local zoning authority and health agency -- and I have yet to hear of anyone getting sick or the like. Good for me, good for the chef, bad for the State.
Let the State censor all of us -- it will only give entrepreneurs more reason to find anonymous replacements of the publicly regulated web. Give it time and who knows what will happen. If every device will be State-required to have some sort of "control" mechanism or DRM or who-knows-what, someone will develop a private hive network on our cell phones or PDAs or old hardware. As long as the State restricts, the market will find ways to provide.
The State: let it grow, let it restrain, let it fail to provide and let the imbeciles that support it think they're doing good for others. I've already found my ways to ignore it in 70% of my life. Eventually I'll extend that more, and not be concerned with what the mad majority wants to do this year that will harm people for generations.
First they came for the political dissidents. I was not a political dissident.
Then they came for the religous prosthelizers. I was not a religous prosthelizer.
Then they came for the pornographers. I was not a pornographer.
Then they came for the bloggers. That day I got religion and began standing up for my right to sell p0rn.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
India has always been a censoring country (although not as much as China). Usually, anything sexually obscene, or anything else considered highly controversial with the general population will be censored/banned (ie, movies such as 'Water').
However, censoring blog sites is a step down, why would they do this?
"The list [of censored sites] is confidential and I can't make it public"
It seems like they are trying to push some sort of hidden agenda.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
This is very sad. The reason lies not only with dumb politicians but also dumb implementation of policy. Basically, the Indian govt. had sent a list of 22 blogs/sites that it wanted blocked and the ISP's just blocked the entire domain. I hope this will be corrected soon.
Not that I condone the blocking of the 22 sites. Opinion, no matter how counter culturalistic, or hard to swallow must be allowed to be expressed.
The good out of this is that Indian bloggers have filed an application for release the list of the 22 sites blocked. I am very interested to know which sites were officially blocked and why? I have a suspicision that this could have something to do with recent bombings in India. For now, I guess its wait and see.
I saw Indiana Jones in that headline. I need more coffee....
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.- Douglas Adams
The State has only one intention in mind: create criminals. Nothing the State does can be considered otherwise. This means that people will suffer when some non-violent act is considered criminal. Look at drug laws: they don't work, but they're a great way for the State to expand its income. The same is true of any action that is non-violent in nature (drugs, prostitution, home schooling, gambling, selling, buying, etc).
When the State decides to censor people, it comes in two ways: direct censorship ("You can't talk about subject A") and indirect censorship ("You can't talk about subject B that someone else already talked about"). Subject A is the type of censorship that China and now India are doing. Subject B covers copyright and patents -- both are censorships against words and actions a person wants to perform with his own time, on his own property, using his own body and tools.
There is only one reason for either type of censorship: to protect the interests of an elite individual or group. Subject B censorship (copyright and patents) protects distribution cartels -- the few who control the distribution of content or specific items. Subject A censorship (direct prevention of talking about a certain subject) protects the State itself -- giving major power that is usually used against "enemies" of the State. Both States are corrupt -- if you go to jail because of a corrupt system, there is little that can be done to protect your interests.
We'll hear cries for our own State to work against the States that are censoring others, even though the State we live in is no better. I guess the best defense for my black-market support around censorship is that some eggs will break in order to make the best omelet. Some people will go to jail or will just disappear -- these are those who are directly harmed by the State. Yet millions more will be given more freedoms in whatever the free/black market provides to get around the restrictions and regulations. Over time, this will make us more free in the shadow of the State -- eventually technology will get to the point that no restrictions will be possible on anything the State does. This is a _good_ thing and it is why I consider the "Internet" the most anarcho-capitalist society in existence.
Do I want to be the one to disappear in a cell (or a ditch)? Absolutely not. I was recently in China, and everyone there already has good ways around the State. The government can pretend that their censorship is working, but most Westerners are completely ignorant of the reason behind censorship by China (and India, where I also just visited for almost a month) -- jailing political opponents. The censorship has nothing to do with real topics or anonymous groups -- it is just another tool for the State to get rid of their opponents. It is no different that the "Watch your neighbor" tactics of the USSR, and the US decades ago.
"Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism."
They can't block 95% of 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.
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
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.
what about state sponsored health care? road/sewer/water/electricity maintence? I fail to see how any of these create criminals.
State sponsored health care kills thousands if not millions of people every year. Try releasing a much needed experimental drug to people who are willing to try it -- you'd go to jail. Try charging less to a poor patient than you charge the State -- you'll go to jail (the US government has an entire office dedicated to finding doctors that charge less than they charge Medicare). Try bringing more doctors to the market than the AMA/US wants -- it is illegal.
Try providing alternative water or electricity in your neighborhood -- you'll go to jail. In my previous town I spoke with various neighbors about uniting together to get a large generator installed on our block (this was pre-Y2K, and some people were concerned). We received various competing bids but were told that the local town wouldn't allow it. When we asked for a variance we were told we couldn't do it, and when we tried to do it anyway we were threatened with fines. When we asked what would happen if we didn't pay the fines we were threatened with court and jail time. True story.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"
- Pravin Lal
Technoli
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.