Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Saudi Arabia Requiring License For Online Media

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the license-and-registration-please dept.

Beetle B. writes "According to Saudi Arabia's leading English newspaper, Arab News, online newspapers, blogs and forums will now need to register with the Ministry of Information and Culture for licenses to operate, according to new regulations that the ministry announced Saturday it is to introduce. Abdul Aziz Khoja, minister of information and culture, said that the system is 'in line with the development moves that the media sector is witnessing.' He added that the rules do not include any clauses restricting freedom of speech and that the ministry is eager to ensure there is transparency. He also said that the rules will be made open to improvement in the future."

34 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Fairness by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Saudi Arabia's neat little version of the Fairness Doctrine. I'm sure the government will stick to its word that there will be no restrictions on free speech. What could possibly go wrong in having governments regulate the internet? Other than governments being the most corrupt organizations on the planet, I mean.

    1. Re:Fairness by devxo · · Score: 2

      What could possibly go wrong in having governments regulate the internet? Other than governments being the most corrupt organizations on the planet, I mean.

      Yeah, we should stop them from regulating anything. What could possibly go wrong?

    2. Re:Fairness by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The FCC, the same organization that freaked out over Janet Jackson's nipple, wants to regulate the internet.

      Your sig shows that you aren't qualified to comment on discussions like this. Fundamental failure to understand issues purely to take an anti-government stance draws into question your willingness to actually discuss issues.

      Not to say that Saudi Arabia won't abuse this, they will, but suggesting that the US is trying to "regulate" the internet just shows a complete (and willing) failure to understand the topic.

    3. Re:Fairness by jameskojiro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, we should limit their control over us at every turn in which they attempt to usurp more power for themselves.

      No Goverment = Anarachy = Bad

      Total Government = Totalitarinism = Bad

      Limited Government = A lot better than the above two choices.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    4. Re:Fairness by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but suggesting that the US is trying to "regulate" the internet just shows a complete (and willing) failure to understand the topic.

      Perhaps your definition of regulate is different from mine, but hasn't the FCC introduced "net neutrality" regulations? What, if not the Internet, do those regulations apply to?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Fairness by makubesu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Governments are the most corrupt organizations on the planet? Yes because everyone knows that big corporations are actually run by angels and bunnies, who would never do anything wrong...

    6. Re:Fairness by Microlith · · Score: 4, Informative

      The carriers, obviously, and how they handle your data. They haven't gone and dictated what content can appear on the internet, or any such nonsense like the GP was trying to imply by citing the "Fairness Doctrine".

    7. Re:Fairness by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but for what value of $Limited...?

      It isn't the idea of limiting government that's usually the issue, but the degree to which the limitation should occur.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    8. Re:Fairness by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      So, regulating the people who provide you with access to the Internet and how they provide you with access to the Internet is not regulating the internet? If that is not regulating the Internet, what exactly would constitute regulating the Internet?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Fairness by vegiVamp · · Score: 2

      Any power that any government proposes to assume because it "feels it needs them", "to combat mostly-unspecified public threats" et al should be cause for shooting the requesting politicians in the knee within half an hour of failing to produce founded and quantified justification.

      Any power that any government doesn't really want because it's "too complex to administrate" or "a drain on the budget that brings no tangible benefits" but the population will see actual benefit of in the near and/or remote future should be forcibly put upon them.

      Yes, I'm aware that that still makes it fuzzy as hell. It all comes down to those seeking power not being supposed to be allowed near it, really.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    10. Re:Fairness by Mia'cova · · Score: 2

      Well, only the 2nd paragraph in seems block a good number of people from even applying.

      "The regulations also specify punishments in case of violations. These include the obligatory publishing of corrections, fines and bans for various time periods, including total bans. Applicants for licenses need to be Saudi, no less than 20 years of age, have high school certificates in the least and documents testifying to their good behavior. Online newspapers also need to employ editors in chief who have been approved by the Ministry of Information and Culture."

    11. Re:Fairness by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      How is regulating access to the internet realistically different than regulating the internet? Which is why everyone was up in arms over net neutrality.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    12. Re:Fairness by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      Well the standard libertarian argument is that the government should be limited to protecting citizen's rights. This means protecting them from physical force by others, which can take many forms, including theft, fraud etc. Many legitimate powers of the government then follow: legislature, courts, police, military and various supporting functions such as collecting taxes or finding some other means to fund them. To quote Ayn Rand: "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objectively defined laws". This is more or less in line with the US constitution (or at least they are both on the same side of the argument - far less government than we currently have). Any powers that we grant our government beyond the above should be viewed with suspicion and avoided if possible.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    13. Re:Fairness by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      What could possibly go wrong in having governments regulate the internet?

      Well, considering that the US government created the internet with taxpayer money using technologies developed at publicly funded institutions, it only seems fair that they should be able to regulate it.

      If you look at the history of the internet, I think it can be argued that things really started to go wrong when corporations started staking out claims on it. To the extent that these big corporations will exert increasing control over the internet, I predict that it will become less like world-altering communications revolution that it started out to be, and more like a cross between a shopping mall and cable television. As much as I like streaming video, it's not nearly as important to me as irc or nntp was, back in the day. I would trade streaming video for assurances that anyone can put up a website and they're not going to have their traffic prioritized downward in order to make sure that telcos can maximize their profits.

      In my own unscientific polling, it seems like people's desire to see Net Neutrality laws govern the internet goes up if they are old enough to have used the internet in the first decade of its existence. If all you know is Facebook and Hulu, you might not know why anyone's making a fuss about keeping the playing field level. And if the EFF thinks net neutrality is a good thing, that's good enough for me. I'm more inclined to believe their take on it than I am to believe that AT&T or Comcast have my best interest at heart.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Fairness by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      I have a question. How does regulating the company that provides you with access to the Internet differ from regulating the Internet?
      If the FCC were to require ISPs to throttle certain types of traffic (say bittorrent), would that not be regulating the Internet? That would be "regulations for the ISPs.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  2. No laws restricting free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They just revoke your license when you say something they don't like.

  3. Saudis today, the US about 5 years from now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because terrorists might run them, and we have to make sure there is accountability. We can't have an anarchy on the internet, it's too important!

    And we won't use it to restrict political views or leaks of embarrassing information.

    At first.

  4. Licensing and Freedom by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I was growing up my buddy's dad told us a story. He talked about how he and his dad used to go out into the woods and cut firewood, fish, and hunt without a license. They just took these rights for granted. Hell, he even told us about how he shot a buck in some guy's front yard when he was a teenager. That was life back then in the sticks. Anyways, when he was younger, his dad made the comment to him that, when he got older, one would need a license to fish, hunt, and cut firewood. He also predicted that, eventually, you would only be allowed to do these things in certain, designated parts of the wilderness, rather than anywhere the road ended in bush.

    Anyways, those predictions have come true, at least here in the California. That always stuck with me and got me thinking. I have ten bucks that says, when I am my roomate's dad's age, you'll need a license to upload most, if not all, content that you want to the internet. You might require a license to legally access the internet at all. You'll be required to get a license to allow you to consume alcohol, if it's not prohibited outright. And you'll need a license to run a wireless networking node, you know, so that you can't set up a shady mesh network that is not policed.

    So those are my predictions for the next 20 years. Every time I see a story like this from Saudi Arabia, China, or, hell, even places like Australia with their internet censorship boogeyman that their government keeps bringing up, I just figure that the U.S. will wait a year or two before enacting those same policies here. I'm so sick of this bullshit about living in the land of the free but continually watching our freedoms get sold to the highest bidder. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but mark my words, the internet will be licensed in the U.S. before long.

    Oh, one more, if 3D printing becomes cheap and accessible, you'll be required to get a manufacturing license to produce anything. That one will get enacted under the name of that God-foresaken commerce clause.

    --
    Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    1. Re:Licensing and Freedom by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyways, when he was younger, his dad made the comment to him that, when he got older, one would need a license to fish, hunt, and cut firewood. He also predicted that, eventually, you would only be allowed to do these things in certain, designated parts of the wilderness, rather than anywhere the road ended in bush.

      Some of this is just population growth. Fishing licenses have always struck me as silly, at least for non-commercial fishermen using poles instead of nets. But when it comes to hunting and felling trees, if everyone was allowed unlimited access, we'd run out of trees and deer pretty damn quick, just like we did with the buffalo. Licensing just prevents (or at least delays) the tragedy of the commons.

      If there were fewer of us, as their were in our grandparents' day, we could probably go back to having fewer restrictions. Of course, to get there, we'd need to start licensing reproduction.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    2. Re:Licensing and Freedom by PhysicsPhil · · Score: 2

      You're comparing two different things.

      Hunting/fishing/wood chopping requires a license because humans have proven themselves pretty adept at hunting/fishing/chopping things to extinction unless artificial controls are present. There's no equivalent problem with the creation and distribution of digital media.

      Your fear of excessive regulation is not unreasonable, but the analogy with the protection of physical resources is.

    3. Re:Licensing and Freedom by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fishing licenses have always struck me as silly, at least for non-commercial fishermen using poles instead of nets.

      Non-commercial fishing licenses are more or less a tax, as are hunting licenses in places where limits aren't an issue.

      I'm happy to pay for a fishing license because that money is then used to stock the lakes I fish in and do research into keeping the areas I fish healthy for me to fish in down the road.

      Inland lakes are extremely overfished in the US these days. Florida has been destroyed by tourism from a fishing perspective.

      You also have to deal with the people who come out to the lake and use casting nets to catch fish to take home, if what they catch isn't big enough, they just let it die on the shore or dock, of course these guys aren't licensed anyway.

      The license fees help to pay people to keep the lakes, rivers and other waterways alive. They pay for some of the boat ramps I launch from. They pay for the educational services and kids fishing trips and outdoors events to educate our children about the damage they can do and how to prevent it.

      In short, fishing licenses are just like hunting licenses, they help slow down the damage being done by over population and waste, and I'm really okay with it as a fisherman myself, but that could be because I'm lucky enough to live in an area that cares a lot about its waterways. The last 6 times I've been out on the lake, 4 of those times I saw and conversed with researchers or wardens about the state of the lake and any problems I might have noticed or think of. The $35/year I pay for a fishing license is probably the most productive use of money I ever make ... well, short of buying Apple stock back when they weren't worth crap :)

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Licensing and Freedom by quickgold192 · · Score: 2

      At least you don't need a license to grow food in your backyard...

  5. So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    We are so eager to, um, impose absolutely no restrictions at all in a totally open and transparent manner that registration is now mandatory. If it weren't mandatory, we would be not imposing absolutely no restrictions at all, and you would actually be less free! Doesn't it all make perfect sense?

  6. We need to buy electric cars by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not because of the environment, but so we stop funding Saudi Arabia. If it weren't for oil, Saudi Arabia would be a few poor camel herders in the desert, and their children would look on their ultraconservative religious views and go "I'm outta here," and ultraconservative Islam would die as a force in this world.

    But we are artificially maintaining Saudi Arabia's Wahabbi beliefs every time we fill up our fuel tanks, and Saudi Arabia exports ultraconservative Wahabbism to Pakistan, to absolutely wonderful results, sarcasm clearly intended.

    Value systems and cultural believe systems that work in this world create value for their societies and result in rich societies. And those values and beliefs are therefore furthered. Meanwhile, broken value systems and abusive cultural believe systems that don't work in this world result in impoverished suffering societies no one wants to be a part of, and so those societies change to seek out more prosperity. But if your society is sitting upon a giant vat of petroleum, and other societies pay you trillions for that, there's no reason to change, and so you keep these medieval belief systems, because you can afford to do that. We need to make sure Saudi Arabia can't afford to do that anymore.

    If Islamic extremism bothers you, then your next automobile purchase should be electric. There's very little you can do in this world as an individual to right horrible complicated wrongs. But here is one clear way you can.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:We need to buy electric cars by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not because of the environment, but so we stop funding Saudi Arabia.

      America imports twice as much oil from Canada as Saudi Arabia, and the Chinese will be more than happy to buy any Saudi oil that Americans don't.

    2. Re:We need to buy electric cars by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      you didn't notice all the fundamentalist madrassas and mujahedin saudi arabia exports to pakistan and afghanistan?

      with whose money is that made possible?

      with money that some soccer mom provided when she filled up her minivan

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  7. Coming Soon by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    to a [CENSORED] near you!

  8. Unoriginal Lie About Freedom Of Speech. by purplemecha · · Score: 2

    You would think they would have come up with a more original lie, as it is, it's a boring lie. Typical of governments around the world.

    "He added that the rules do not include any clauses restricting freedom of speech and that the ministry is eager to ensure there is transparency."

    --
    My Web Site
  9. So why do I need a license? by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Rules do not include any clauses restricting freedom of speech"

    So why do I need to get a license before I can speak on my blog? That alone implies a restriction (no licence - no blog permitted).

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  10. Uh... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    So how does this affect online media hosted _outside_ of Saudi Arabia? Isn't this move just going to drive all bloggers to offshore hosting?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  11. Be careful what you write... by digitaldc · · Score: 2

    ...or you might be the head of an article without any body.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  12. You're taking too many meds, or not enough... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Net neutrality is not about regulating the Internet. It's about regulating Internet connections. Your sig is wrong. Your..."understanding" of net neutrality is wrong.

    That "net neutrality = fairness doctrine" crap is a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory straight out of Glenn Beck's ass (that's literally where it came from...by "ass" here I mean "the bodily orifice that the most vile waste is excreted from"). By bringing it up, you've obliterated your own credibility on this topic.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:You're taking too many meds, or not enough... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't trust politicians, and you can't trust telcos (or any sufficiently large business), but you can control politicians to some degree.

      Can you control a telco? You can vote with your dollars - unsubscribe from the only Internet connection available in your area, or if you're lucky, switch to their only competitor who's no better...and that's about all you can do. Good luck convincing all your neighbors and nearby businesses to do the same. Even assuming there's another option, switching still costs money and often causes downtime, so convincing businesses to vote with their dollars is especially difficult - plus they don't have the same interests as humans in the first place. You can't vote to control the telco unless you own a certain percentage of shares, while any citizen can vote to control a politician. A telco is even less likely than a politician to respond to widespread public outrage. And they won't even toss you a doggie treat once every few years like politicians do around election time.

      Control of Internet connections can lead to control of the Internet itself. I'd just rather have a government regulation that says "don't fuck with this connection, keep it a dumb pipe" rather than the telcos having control and fucking with the connection in any way that could potentially make them more money.

      Government control is a threat to the Internet, but corporate control by the telcos is a more near-term threat. If we kill corporate control there is still government control to worry about right afterward, that's why I think we'll have to move to a community-controlled Internet infrastructure, but stopping corporate control will buy a little time.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  13. Hardly Surprising by UdoKeir · · Score: 5, Informative

    The content in Saudi Arabia's domestic mass media is under the control of the government, having to pass through censors before it makes it on air or in print. Furthermore, while the press is said to be privately owned, the editor-in-chief of each newspaper is appointed by the government.

    From: http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html

    Traditional media is already under government control. Thousands of people producing online media are less easy to control, so they're only handing out licenses to those individuals they approve of.