YouTube Video Sends Guatemala Into Crisis

Several have sent word that a YouTube video of recently assassinated lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg has sent Guatemala into a tailspin. The video of Rosenberg claims that if you are watching, he has been murdered by President Alvaro Colom with help from presidential secretary Gustavo Alejos. "The video spread across the Internet after family members handed it out during Rosenberg's funeral on Monday. In the 18-minute tape, a seemingly calm Rosenberg, sitting behind a desk and microphone, alleges that Colom, the First Lady and two associates were involved in murder, corruption and money laundering. The group, he says, filtered public funds through a state-owned bank for personal gain and to finance drug traffickers. Rosenberg then claims that after Khalil Musa, a prominent businessman and bank board member, had learned of the Coloms' scheme, Musa and his daughter were shot to death in front of a shopping center in April. Rosenberg says the President signed off on the killings."

Comments

The Internet Has Its Merits

[eldavojohn]

Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?

Pre-Internet:
President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes!
Gustavo Alejos: Yes, sir ... well, there is one more thing ... they may have mailed a copy to the United States or a press outlet here.
President Alvaro Colom: Ahahahh, Gustavo, so naive. I suppose I'll have to make a phone call to the director of our postal system. He'll be quite cooperative with a little bonus this year ... paid for by the people, of course!

Post-Internet:
President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes!
Gustavo Alejos: Yeah ... see ... about that. Um, they kind of put it on the internet.
President Alvaro Colom: The internet?
Gustavo Alejos: Yeah ...
President Alvaro Colom: Very well, torture them until they take it down!
Gustavo Alejos: Uh, it's on YouTube. Everyone's seen it.
President Alvaro Colom: So ... we ... need to ... torture everyone?
*Gustavo Alejos shakes his head back and forth*
Gustavo Alejos: No, I think the order you are looking for right now is 'Prepare my escape helicopter and fake passport for Colombia.' The noise outside right now with the thousands of people yelling for your death is bad.
President Alvaro Colom: What did I do wrong, I was only trying to live up to Oscar Humberto Mejia's legacy!

How can you argue against something that makes it more difficult for asshat dictators to remain in power?

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?

How can you argue against something that makes it more difficult for asshat dictators to remain in power?

They are naive enough to believe that only "bad" things will be censored. They seem unable to grasp that everyone's definitions for bad aren't the same and they don't realize that by enabling censorship they are putting the controls into the hands of those with most to gain through censorship. Its almost as if they believe that power doesn't corrupt, it purifies.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[eldavojohn]

Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?

Um. Can you list an example of how this case is like another? In which the "censorship" (although, I think you and others are misusing that word) was demanded?

So you are saying you don't know of anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children from porn and swear words and terrorists?

I'm a bit confused, I seem to encounter these people daily in real life and the news. And that's just in the United States! Around the world, people are passively letting their government take this role.

85% of Chinese reportedly desire it. "Elected" governments keep pushing for it. Talk about a trap.

If we gave our government the right to censor our internet then it would be no surprise to see any other country follow suit. If the Guatemalan government had the legal right to control their content on the internet, well, I think you can see how this story might have been different. Restrict your people's ability to upload videos without them passing censorship!

I see this as a brilliant example why the internet must remain a horrible offensive waste of time instead of a government regulated squeaky clean educatin' machine. But I'm sure I'm part of the minority because people don't realize how powerful it is. It just saved Guatemala from being led by a murderer. Think about that.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[eldavojohn]

Sorry buddy, Colom is not a dictator. He was elected. I'm also pretty sure UN watchgroups monitored the election.

Sorry buddy, once you authorize the murder of an innocent person opposing you, you aren't elected anymore. You're a dictator ... even worse you're a murderer. Pretty sure the UN would back me on that.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Anonymous Coward]

You should start by linking to something, anything...

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Jhon]

So you are saying you don't know of anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children from porn and swear words and terrorists?

(boggles)

I'm speechless. How can you get the above from what I requested? You make some totally weird logical leap from "Can you list an example" of how this case is like another in which "censorship" is called for.

Perhaps *YOU* can tell me how this case is like your "anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children"?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting there should not be ANY limits on "free speech"? Should we do away with libel? Calumny? Slander? Allow people to yell "FIRE" in a theater? Because these limits on speech are NOT censorship.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Anonymous Coward]

It just saved Guatemala from being led by a murderer. Think about that.

I'm sorry I don't want to be too much of a tool but the fact is, this video does NOT prove anything. So far it's just a conspiracy theory - one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. It may sound stupid but, as a guatemalan, I wouldn't put it pass the right-wing radicals to fabricate this video, but this is just another conspiracy theory. Until there's been a decent investigation we really can't pass judgement on whether the president is a murderer. Btw, the president has asked for help from the FBI and international bodies, from the article.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[cduffy]

Perhaps *YOU* can tell me how this case is like your "anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children"?

The argument is that the tools put in place for the latter purpose can also be used for the former.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[MaskedSlacker]

Will be used for the former. ARE used for the former.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Xest]

Because power corrupts, and even in Western democracies like Britain the ruling party Labour have been pushing more and more of a totalitarian agenda over the last few years.

Labour in the UK is in ruins, the party is done, it has no hope now of re-election, yet the leader, Gordon Brown continues, he continues blindly believing in his own mind that he is doing the right thing not being willing to step down.

It's for this reason that they are against it, because the reality is that they know, eventually, it will be used against them as it goes against what they themselves want - more power, despite being corrupt to the core as the last week in British politics has shown.

Leaders who remain good throughout their entire term in office are rare- we've seen it happen in Canada with the corruption in their previous ruling party, we've seen it happen in the US under Bush, although from pretty early on, we've seen it in Australia. It happens time and time again - the longer a single leader or party is in power, the more complacent they get, and the more they forget they're there to serve the people, not control them.

I believe this is why the European courts have done a better job at preventing Labour's attempts at ever more draconian measures to control the population- because the European court of human rights has no direct explicit power over each individual country in the EU and the lack of any direct explicit power means their is less scope for them to become drunk with power.

It's also why I'm a big fan of minority governments, there's an argument it makes them more efficient, but I believe it realistically increase efficiency because such a minority government is kept on it's toes, it's being constantly reminded of what it's there for, and if it forgets that a coalition of opposition parties will remind it by forcing an election. The only laws that get passed are laws acceptable to all parties, rather than as we have in the UK and as the US had for many years under Bush - a situation where they can implement any policy changes they want regardless of what the population or opposition thinks of it. I believe that leadership terms should be shortened to 2 to 3 years to more frequently remind those in power that they can be removed and removed at any moment.

It is a dangerous situation in the likes of Venezuelan where the people have been dumb enough to allow Chavez to stand indefinitely and in Russia where Putin appears to be gaming the system to continue controlling the nation well past his constitutionally allowed maximum term. If history has taught us anything, it is allowing leaders this much power for this long without challenge that has allowed many of the cruelest dictators throughout history to achieve power and maintain it until it was finally lost nearly always through bloodshed.

I believe many politicians become politicians because they are phsycologically inclined towards a thirst for power in the first place, not that they're necessarily competent or intelligent and want to make a specific country better.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

They are naive enough to believe that only "bad" things will be censored.

Very few people are that naive. Most people, most people are completely in favour of censorship because it would stop videos like this one from being disseminated.

The sad reality is that the majority of humans on planet earth are perfectly happy to live under a dictatorship of some kind. They support any measure that will make society more closely resemble a police state or one party state. It is not the case that people do not understand the consequences of supporting government surveillance, censorship, draconianism, etc. They understand perfectly well, and that's the reason they support it.

Some people want to live in a free society with rights for all. But sadly most people want to live in rigid , closed and unfree society with rights only for the right people, and are perfectly contented when they find themselves in one.

The internet genie is being put back in the bottle. Ironically, the main effect of this video will likely be to accelerate this process across the globe, particularly in Latin America.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[liquiddark]

No. Not everyone has the power of censorship - it is inherently an asymmetric ability. Only those with a great deal of power can harness censorship, and often as not (in many cases, more often than not) the incentive will be towards using it for some other purpose than protecting innocents (assuming you believe the "protection" afforded by censorship is anything of the sort). Anyone can use a "hammer", even if the hammer in question is just a big hard rock, and the incentives are much more balanced between all users.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[lgw]

The argument is that you have to balance the cost of banning the tool vs the cost of misusing the tool.

This is why we remove government censorship: because it might be used for political speech. The usefulness of a hammer outwieghs the (dubious) usefulness of banning hammers, but the usefulness of free speech outweighs the (dubious) usfulness of censorship.

Ultimately, there is very little that is worse that a government banning criticism of itself, for most other government-instigated atrocities can be stopped given free speech as a tool (not all, of course, as sometimes the people are happy with the atrocity, but most).

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[cduffy]

Usually, I've seen people cry "censorship" at any attempt to limit them from saying exactly what they want to say, when they want to say it and who they want to say it to. Thats why I requested an example. I don't think there is one that REMOTELY links to this youtube case.

There are plenty of them; look at China: Content posted to the Internet is proactively monitored, and substantial infrastructure is in place to tie activities to a Real-Life identity such that the jackboots can show up at your door if you (1) post such content as this to YouTube, (2) inform others of the existence of such content, etc. Further, infrastructure is in place to block access to locations known to host such politically sensitive content.

Now, let's back away from China, and look at Australia. A blacklist of sites is maintained by a government-affiliated organization with no oversight, putatively for the purpose of limiting access to content which is illegal for highly defensible purposes (ie. child porn) -- but that blacklist also contains sites which have posted legal correspondence with the entity overseeing the blacklist.

Now, let's move from Australia to the UK, in which legal and physical infrastructure is being put in place to record the headers of all electronic communications. In such a case, the party posting the YouTube video could be identified, as could those who inform others about its existence, those who repost it in the event of a takedown, etc. Even in the absence of jackboots -- an absence which cannot be guaranteed to persist -- are the chilling effects not clear, particularly in the case of content which purports to demonstrate that those in power will gladly resort to murder to cover up things they would prefer remain unknown?

Re:The medium is NOT the message

[couchslug]

"Wouldn't the word have gotten out just the same if it had been televised instead?"

Not as quickly or widely. A TV station broadcasts a video once or, in some cases a few times. A video can hit the internet within minutes of being shot.

On the internet it can be saved, forwarded, and dispersed beyond the ability of any central or commercial authority to stop it.

Re:The medium is NOT the message

[zeropointburn]

The fact that it was out and available all over the world as soon as someone posted it is important. It means the content can't be stopped by torture, mail inspection, border patrols, or a well-planned plane crash. The medium made the message possible to an extent that we could never have imagined a decade ago. THAT is the reason this story is here on /.

Re:The medium is NOT the message

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck to the average citizen trying to get an anti-government tape to be broadcast on what is probably a government run station...

Anyone can (And did) upload to youtube, which is the tech side of this story. A few years ago, this wouldn't have been able to happen.

Well...

[Toonol]

What's the over-under on Youtube taking this video down? I _think_ they'll keep it up, despite any demands to the contrary.

Now, if it was China...

Re:Error

[Chyeld]

That's prety much exactly what the president's supporters are claiming.

On the other hand, we have a lawyer whose clients were just before they could, as they claimed, blow the whistle on government corruption, is also killed just after he indicates HE knows the details of the first killings.

His killing, prior to the distribution of the tape, was passed off as just another random murder (meaning releasing the tape was pointless if you were doing it to cover your tracks).

Which do you think would be more likely:

A family member did it.
Said government did it.

Get that off YouTube NOW.

[DdJ]

By which I do not mean remove it from YouTube.

I mean, download it, copy it, ensure that it continues to survive even if YouTube is persuaded somehow to remove it. Help personally ensure that this is impossible to suppress by taking individual action right now to back it up.

Re:child pornography is bad

[MostAwesomeDude]

Child pornography is inherently offensive, which only limits its public display. It is not inherently dangerous, nor is it inherently harmful. It is evidence of a felony. Nothing more, nothing less. Would you say that a picture of an axe murderer's bloody implements warrants the same censoring? What about a picture of rape? A picture of a businessman hiring a hooker? Or that same businessman's expense account summaries, displaying his money laundering? Where the fucking hell is the line?

Re:child pornography is bad

[centuren]

censoring child pornography is nothing remotely like censoring political speech

and if country A censors child pornography, while country B censors political speech, they are not anywhere near comparable

How many times do we have to go through the reality that Internet censorship filters are improperly and often irresponsibly implemented, even to the point of showing a political slant. From their use in US schools, to the nation-wide Aussie plan that was recently discussed so much, we have seen again and again that tools like blacklists make the issues of A and B closer than we'd like.