Saudi Arabia Requiring License For Online Media

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."

Comments

Fairness

[bonch]

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.

Re:Fairness

[Microlith]

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.

Re:Fairness

[jameskojiro]

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.

Re:Fairness

[Attila Dimedici]

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?

Re:Fairness

[makubesu]

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...

Re:Fairness

[Microlith]

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".

Re:Fairness

[Richard Steiner]

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.

No laws restricting free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Saudis today, the US about 5 years from now

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Licensing and Freedom

[BJ_Covert_Action]

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.

Re:Licensing and Freedom

[Angst Badger]

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.

Re:Licensing and Freedom

[BitZtream]

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 :)

We need to buy electric cars

[circletimessquare]

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.

Re:We need to buy electric cars

[0123456]

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.

So why do I need a license?

[commodore64_love]

"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).

Hardly Surprising

[UdoKeir]

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.

Re:You're taking too many meds, or not enough...

[GameboyRMH]

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.