Slashdot Mirror
NYT Editorial Slams ISPs Over Online Freedom
Erris writes "The New York Times site is running an opinion piece from last weekend which lambasts Yahoo! (and other US ISPs) for cooperating with China and other repressive governments. 'Yahoo's collaboration is appalling, and Yahoo is not the only American company helping the Chinese government repress its people ... Last January, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey reintroduced the Global Online Freedom Act in the House. It would fine American companies that hand over information about their customers to foreign governments that suppress online dissent.'"
From TFA: "Last January, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey reintroduced the Global Online Freedom Act in the House. It would fine American companies that hand over information about their customers to foreign governments that suppress online dissent. The bill would at least give American companies a solid reason to decline requests for data, but the big Internet companies do not support it. That shows how much they care about the power of information to liberate the world." Really? The companies don't support the law? Gee that's strange. Why wouldn't they want to be stuck between a legal order to hand over information, and a fine if they do? That law may be a good idea, but it drastically cripples American companies.
The US ISPs also frequently co-operate with the US authorities, whose attitude towards people's online rights is hardly respectable.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
No such thing as a $country company, they are trans-national. if the country where their headquarters passes a law they don't like dispite their lobbing efforts to stop it they will just move their headquaters to another country.
You know, that's odd, an Internet Service Provider is a company that provides access to the Internet. A company that provides an online service is not called an Internet Service Provider.
Why don't we say IAP, Internet Access Provider, instead of ISP?
Very illogical.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Freedom of Speech is the First Defense against Tyranny
Tyranny is the unrestricted or arbitrary use of power and is preferred by thugs of every feather.
when people are arrested for simply saying they don't like their government, then that is a bad thing. especially if some of them are then executed so their organs can be "harvested" ( sold to selected "important" people )
I think the hardest part of defending freedom is in accepting the extent of evil that develops if unchecked.
the freedom of speech that has developed as a result of electronic communication over the last 15 years may be the best thing that has happened to humanity in the last 15 centuries
Why can't we get a law passed that says companies can't do that here?! I mean seriously, not to be cold, but I don't give a crap about Yahoo or anyone turning over data on chinese dissidents to chinese authorities when there is nothing stoping them from turning over the data on US dissidents to US authorities. Christ, they are even trying to grant the telcos immunity for doing that here in the US while trying to prevent it in china. WTF? Can I please get a little more concern for the rights, privacy, and freedom of our own damned citizens before we go off pretending to be dudly do right elsewhere? This world police shit is what keeps getting us in trouble in the first place.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
But of course, American companies that hand over information about their customers to domestic governments that suppress online dissent are just doing their patriotic duty, and do not in any way, shape, or form need to be investigated or prosecuted. In fact, let's give them explicit legal protection!
I can has "double standard"?
The word "right" is an absolutist word. Relativists coherently can't believe in rights, as the word "right" implies a standard of correctness outside of one's own perspective. The best you can do, as a relativist who wishes to remain coherent, is to say "I think Yahoo can do whatever it wants." And Congress can then reply "I don't think it can!" And because you're a relativist, you've got no way to mitigate these two claims, because you certainly don't have access to the language of "rights."
I suppose you could just have no desire to be coherent. But if you're incoherent, you shouldn't really be too surprised when people don't respect your opinions.
My personal belief is that trading with countries will have and end positive result as the population eventually will see their Government for what it is and change will occur. I don't care how oppressive a government is, if you have 1,000,000,000+ people of your population rising against you, you'll be running for the exit while your head is still upon your shoulders.
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
Where is the outcry when ISP's and the government restrict communication in the U.S.?
Everyone is up in arms about Yahoo cooperating with the Chinese government, but Yahoo and other companies bend over backwards to help the U.S. Government, often with nary a question. The telecom's cooperation with the NSA with the warrantless wiretapping of citizens is an obvious example (and there the Times did an admirable job getting the word out), but as most on Slashdot realize, there are two magic phrases which suddenly causes First Amendment amnesia... terrorism and child pornography. Mention one of those terms and you'll have Yahoo employees jumping through hoops of fire to hand you customer records, regardless of how substantiated the claim may be.
I don't remember the NYTimes writing an editorial admonishing AT&T for deciding to "filter" their network for copyrighted material.
People often ignore freedom of speech abuses in the U.S. because we have the First Amendment. Therefore, freedom of speech is guaranteed... right? But China's constitution guarantees the freedom of speech as well (article 35). You can't just deny that your house is burning down because you have a piece of paper that guarantees it's fireproof.
I mean, depending on how you look at it, I think "repressive" could also fit in the good ole USA...
If only the NY Times were saying anything about the "SAFE Act", that the House just passed to force all ISPs to take responsibility for all content they host or transport, even if they don't moderate it, in direct contradiction of the landmark CDA which let ISPs be like telcos always have. Lots of child molesters trap children in telephone conversations, but the telco has no liability, because holding them responsible requires tapping every conversation, which is what the SAFE Act (not the one with the same name that sanely deregulated crypto export) now does: forces ISPs to monitor and analyze the content of your every Internet communication. But the Times has said nothing.
--
make install -not war
"Corporations may be based in different countries, but they are truly international identities. They also possess no morality other than pleasing their shareholders..."
Right there, you've constructed the perfect argument in favor of this law. If they have no morality, then we must pass laws forcing them to be constructive members of society in general. Only by levying massive fines, and leveraging their amoral need to "please their shareholders", can we force them to be good citizens.
Once upon a time, corporations were required, as part of their state charter, to serve the greater good; if they failed to do so, their corporate charter could be terminated. A series of legal judgements removed that as an option, but I would certainly be in favor of bringing that back. See references to H. Glasbeak and Noam Chomsky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
For the same reasons that you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway. Internet Service is the facility that gives me an Internet connection to the rest of the world, and the ISP provides Internet Service. It is akin to Telephone Service and Electrical Service.
The only thing that would produce would be extreme isolationism and poverty for the US. If we essentially ended all trade with nations that have oppressive governments, we would cut off most of the world (including most of our oil suppliers, among other things). Even places like India or Brazil which are generally supportive of liberty do some terrible things and deprive people of human rights.
Could you imagine, on the other side, countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia refusing to trade with us because we are not Muslim? Or Latin American countries refusing to trade with us because we are not Catholic? Or Europe refusing to trade with us because we don't have national health care? That entire idea is ludicrous. It's a very naive and idealistic position to take that your views are correct and all other must adopt them or be shunned. The world doesn't work that way, nor should it.
It's necessary to trade with other nations, and most other nations are going to do things people from the US find objectionable. You just have to live with the fact that other people have different views than ours. If the Chinese people wanted complete liberty, they would overthrow the government. It's not our responsibility to force our ideas on those that don't want them.
if you have 1,000,000,000+ people of your population rising against you, you'll be running for the exit while your head is still upon your shoulders.
Don't be so sure, it is all a matter of perspective. If what you say is true then why are the old men of the Chinese politburo and even worse, Kim Jong Il of North Korea, still in power after decades of people not liking them (even within their own countries where they are to afraid to say anything publicly)? If one is willing, as a dictatorial ruler, to machine gun people in the streets for rising up against the government then one need only maintain a small elite around oneself (i.e. the army) to exercise a pretty good degree of control. Americans and Europeans forget that outside of the first world there is largely not a great tradition of personal freedom or self determination, those were ideas that came out of western philosophy and the enlightenment, not some oriental despotism. Thus, there are a lot of people in this world who would rather be alive than free and particularly so when things "aren't that bad" as they are in China right now (North Korea still uses more hard power to keep the populace in line). Combine that with all of the distractions of modern life and who in China would want to stand in front of a firing line for the chance that their children might be free? Probably not very many.