Slashdot Mirror
Thousands Marched Against Censorship
funfail writes "Thousands of Turkish demonstrators poured into central Istanbul yesterday to protest against the government's Internet censorship. New regulations from Turkey's Internet Technologies and Communications Authority set to come into effect on Aug. 22 will require Internet service providers to offer a choice of four filtering options: family, child, domestic or standard. Many websites are expected to be blocked as a result of the filtering measures."
I love how slashdot runs these "oh no! evil censorship" stories as if people around the world have the same values or customs as it relates to free speech or censorship.
The fact is that our Western norms doesn't make it the right one and people in more conservative or traditional countries in the world have a right to decide for themselves what is appropriate or not. Who knows if the Turkish demonstrators represent the majority or whether its just a small section of the population?
The fact is this should be none of the readers concern here. Leave these internal domestic matters to the Turks or whoever else.
"Turkey's prime minister is threatening to sue over the recently released diplomatic cables on the website WikiLeaks. A cable written by former U.S. Ambassador Eric Edelman that alleged Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had eight Swiss bank accounts, struck a deep nerve."
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Turkish-PM-Threatens-to-Sue-Over-Wikileaks-Claims-111388889.html
That's what you get with democracy. People vote for things you don't agree with. If you don't like it, too bad. You still have to give them your tax money anyway.
At least the Turkish government is taking responsibility for the censorship. Here in the UK, the Internet Watch Foundation basically has a free hand to censor the internet; the IWF has the blessing of the government, but it's not a government agency, so there's no parliamentary oversight, they're not required to answer to anybody as to what they blacklist, and unless they fuck up spectacularly, nobody actually knows what they're censoring. We just have to hope it's only actually nasty kiddie porn, but as the aforementioned fuck up illustrates, their judgement is open to question. Our government likes it this way because technically the government isn't censoring anything.
Oh no... it's the future.
...Internet Surveillance Protocol
Watch what you say, or they will be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical a CRIMINAL.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
There used to be a very primitive way of enforcing blocking of sites: ttnet DNS's were not correctly resolving names. This lead to public aphaty on censorship issue, as anyone and their dog knew how to use alternate DNSes or if all else fails, TOR. The prime minister himself said "I can access the banned sites, you can too." The blocked site list (which must be constructed by internet users, as there is no transparency about the process at all) is absurdly long but most didn't care - they didn't even notice. Most sites are banned without a court order (not that those banned on court orders are more sensible) and on grounds of "obscenity" defined by middle aged religious conservative bureaucrat men. Now that the institutions, mechanisms and laws are in place, they are making the next step: trying to bypass filters becomes a crime. Moreover ISP passwords will be tied to RW ID, so you will use the same login if you are the same guy. No, thanks. Current situation is less than ideal, but the proposed one is a disaster.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Democracy is not about just just the majority deciding(as your comment incline). If 90% of US voters decided that is legal to kill someone just because they looked funny in your direction, that wouldn't make it a democracy, or if they voted that only professed Christians can hold any job. Democracy is about preserving your rights against the tide of the majority. - Or that's how I see Democracy.
Actually, that's pretty much how pure democracy works-- which is why the Constitution was written to form a republic, which does a better job of protecting the rights of the minority.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So were the rights of the poor western Pennsylvania farmers being protected when Hamilton enacted his excise tax on whiskey in 1791? Or how about those wonderful Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798? Seems to me like the Constitution never really did what was expected of it...