Slashdot Mirror
Some Countries Want To Ban 'Information Weapons'
DrgnDancer sends in an NPR piece on recent efforts to control so-called "information weapons" on the Internet. What's interesting is that the term "information weapon," as defined by many of the countries trying to limit them, doesn't mean what you would think. It's closer to the old Soviet term "ideological aggression." "At a UN disarmament conference in 2008, Sergei Korotkov of the Russian Defense Ministry argued that anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government — even in the name of democratic reform — it should qualify as 'aggression.' And that, in turn, would make it illegal under the UN Charter. 'Practically any information operation conducted by a state or a number of states against another state would be qualified as an interference into internal affairs,' Korotkov said through an interpreter. 'So any good cause, like [the] promotion of democracy, cannot be used as a justification for such actions.' The Russians, and a lot of other countries such as Iran and China, apparently consider the free exchange of information to be an information technology threat. One that must be managed by treaty."
My mom and other relatives are always giving me shit on Facebook about getting a job, and pointing out how my cousin is doing so much better than me. So while we're making it illegal to criticize governments, can we also make it illegal to criticize individuals? I really feel like a lot of people are being ideologically aggressive towards me, and I would appreciate it if the UN would step in and put a stop to it. Thanks in advance for any protection you can afford me as a sovereign individual.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Countries that do not like freedom of expression will do a lot to prevent it, including going into conflicts or trying to push treaties and international agreements that conflate freedom of expression and terrorism.
They have been doing this since people had ideas to argue over. Look it up.
If you don't want to hear of all the wonderful ideas the rest of the world has, stop using the communications medium they use to spread them. It is not the problem of modern nations to ensure your citizens are not exposed to ideas that you don't like. Be warned that some of them may object rather strongly when their own government rips it away from them.
So Germany isn't reunited, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Russia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic don't have free multiparty elections now?
The pushing of democracy in the Cold War, along with a healthy cultural push from film, tv, radio and music helped spur the end of one party rule in Eastern Europe.
So in effect what the Russian Minister said the VOA and BBC in the 60s through 90s was an act of aggression.
If that can be illegal under international law, we will slid quickly to ideological and religious islands with physical and idea walls around. It is censorship for sure. Not unlike the laws against circumventing content protection schemes. Thats illegal.. When I saw we had done that then I knew we were going to see more tightening and control of information, for profit and in this case for political control (well that is a different kind of profit that controls profit). Years before there were laws passed that made it illegal to listen in to certain radio frequencies or transmissions. That I think may have been one of the first steps in this control of information slide. They acually passed laws that Short wave radio's in this country could only tune to certain frequencies, but of course the fix to open that up to other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that bathes us all with its sunsine was easy and provided.
When will it stop, those that want to control and profit? Ya need to vote.
So you're annoyed that your carefully crafted message on your state owned media is being undercut by the free flow of ideas on the Internet? Yeah, I'm just not seeing what is in this for me. Do you have some treaty concessions you would be willing to make in exchange for keeping your stranglehold on what your populace sees and hears, because I'm not seeing how this is my problem.
I read the internet for the articles.
This is a nonsense issue. Last I heard the US and Britain were on the Security counsel and would veto any attempt to get it though. This is just a way for those countries to say "we don't censor people, we protect them from attacks"
If this passes we'll finally GTFO of the UN.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Sorry, but Moms and "other relatives" have an inalienable right to criticize. Moms in particular.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Yes, and the UN is also contemplating a ban on Defamation of Religion.
Sadly ever ass-hat oppressive regime who doesn't like to be criticized, and every stupid idiot who believes in the tooth fairy wants to remove my right to criticize them or point out that they're idiots. People who embrace living in the stone age want to make it illegal for me to say that they're stupid for doing so.
So, allow me to preemptively say ... your country sucks if it takes away people's freedoms, your religion sucks if it confers an obligation on those of us who don't believe, your government sucks ... well, your government probably sucks no matter where you are. I retain my right to give offense, and if you don't like it, too damned bad.
Any religion or government which can't stand some criticism should be banned.
I'm all for the UN, but increasingly the backwards and the stupid are pushing an agenda that wants to wipe out the last thousand years of progress in human endeavors.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Yeah, it's not like they turned into a Democracy when the government finally collapsed.
Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Georgia, etc did.
The cold war was not waged exclusively against the soviet union. It was also waged against the soviet "client" states throughout eastern europe, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact. Much of the info campaign was directed at these states.
Just because Russia propper isn't the most shining example of a Democracy, it doesn't mean that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan aren't.
Sure, I'm sure there's corruption in some of those too, but by no means all of them.
for some reason my control-v is broke right now, but looking at wikipedia it's showing a positive outlook on Latvia, Lithuaia and Estonia, and a 'very serious situation' in Turkmenistan.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Just goes to show you that some societies (and apparently their "leaders" more so) just can't wrap their minds around the concept of freedom after so many years of oppression and state-sponsored censorship. I even hear some Russian ex-pats speak of how the people there have just come to expect oppressive government and even go so far as to embrace it now. As an American I can't wrap my mind around that, but I guess I understand the underlying reasons for it. Despite what some think about my government and some of it's people, I feel so very fortunate to have been born in the US and I remind myself - and stories like this also remind me - how truly fortunate I am to live in a free society. And dumb comments about how the US isn't really a free society will fall on deaf eyes. I love my country for better or worse, and not just out of blind patriotism, but because the ideals set forth to create this country are the best we've come up with yet. I truly feel for the people of oppressive regimes and hope that one day they get to bask in the warmth that is freedom of thought and expression.
Countries have complained for years about shortwave radio broadcasts doing the same thing. They just got around to noticing this "internet thing."
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Air America, the radio network, was a left-wing radio network in the US.
It was a CIA fronted aviation company in the 1960s.
I think you are looking for Voice of America.
Just because you came up with a new name for it, its still "censorship".
Maybe they should call it "High Fructose Information Sugar" and people won't notice.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Second, if he posits that the internet should not be a permitted avenue for propaganda, how is this suddenly a threat to information technology?
There are three different ways you can use propaganda to destabilize an opponent:
When one country is trying to destabilize or take down another country's government, the most effective approach is to use a blend of truth, lies, and mixed statements. The government attempting to resist outside propaganda will declare that all incoming propaganda are sheer lies, but the danger there is that the public will realize that at least some of the propaganda is true, which will make them suspicious about government statements about the false information.
But consider recent comments from Iran about America's use of the death penalty. The statement that we are putting a woman to death are completely true, even though the Iranian government is making the statement in order to cast America in a poor light. It would be easy under a system of rules designed to prohibit outside subversion, to classify such a statement as subversive propaganda.
Thus facts, lies, and mixtures of facts and lies can all be considered subversive propaganda. Is there any other form of discourse left after these three are removed?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Hell, if these guys are anti-Twitter, where do I sign up? I've had to stop watching CNN thanks to their inane reading of random Twitter posts. All the networks seem to be headed that way. It's the ultimate "man on the street" routine. So much information, so little intellect.
Let's have a closer look at them one by one:
Estonia and Latvia have fascist apartheid laws, denying citizenship rights to one quarter and one third of their respective population.
Lithuania has democratically voted back the commies right after they got a taste of democacy.
Belarus is Europe's Last Dictatorship
Moldova's main export is white babies, prostitutes, slaves and human organs. A European country with a GDP per capita of Sudan.
Ukraine is marginally richer than Moldova, with a similar export profile. The worlds busiest slave port is Odessa, Ukraine.
Armenia is slightly poorer than Moldova (after being one of the most prosperous republics of the USSR).
Azerbaijan is a hereditary absolute monarchy with no democracy in sight. Also, an oil- and gas-emirate.
Georgia is a Stalinist dictatorship with a largely impoverished population (after being THE most prosperous republic of the USSR). A police officer makes about five to ten times as much as a university professor. Nuff said.
Kazakhstan is happily ruled on by the same dude that was the first secretary of the Communist Party. Without interruption, mind you.
Kyrgyzstan is on the brink of civil war and would be by far the poorest post-Soviet state, were it not for
Tajikistan, which is already in the state of civil war.
Turkmenistan is a shining democracy and has always been, no doubt. Google for Turkmenbashi, if you need any proof.
In Uzbekistan, the situation is largely the same as in Kazakhstan, minus mineral wealth plus a huge impoverished population.
So?
The 24 hour propaganda radio was highly effective. Same with the 24 hour propaganda movies and satellite TV broadcasts.
Wait, you're not talking about Warner, MGM, Michael Jackson, and Levi Jeans?
The ______ Agenda
Lets see, in the decades after the US became a democracy, it had no votes for women. Had legal slavery based on color of the skin. Denied citizenship to asians and the natives. Slaughtered millions of the natives and deported the survivors to concentration camps where they were expected to slowly die with no natural or mineral resources.
The former USSR nations are not doing great, but most have NOT yet slipped as low as the past of the US of A.
Why do you compare the US after 2 centuries of freedom with newly freed states?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You don't get it. If you say "I think that dogs shouldn't wear hats", I can say "PETA engages in violence and arson and thinks dogs shouldn't wear hats. Therefore any expression supportive of hatless dogs is implicitly supporting violence and arson and cannot be allowed." That sort of shit happens all the time in the UN, and all the time in opressive regimes. The very governments who would abuse this employ staffs of hundreds of very smart people who's only job is come up with a nearly reasonable interpretation of any statement such that it can be seen as breaking the rules. And since the decision will be inevitably be made on a political basis, not any sort of neutral basis (since we're talking about the UN), nearly reasonable is all that's needed.
This is the fundamental problem with allowing any sort of government to outlaw any sort of speech - it creates a weapon to be used by the people who judge the merits of speech to attack anyone who says anything. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" wasn't theoretical, it was what Cardinal Richelieu did for a living.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.