Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Google Argue Against Web Censorship In India
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook and Google told the Delhi High Court today they cannot block offensive content that appears on their services. The two Internet giants are among 21 companies that have been asked to develop a mechanism to block objectionable material in India, and the Indian government has given the green light for their prosecution. Although India is democratic (in fact, it's the world's largest democracy), many fear the country will resort to censorship."
Should be made to shut up.
We here in the U.S. know that our politicians aren't in the least bit technologically savvy (yes, I'm painting with a broad brush when I say that). Should I be surprised or comforted to know that politicians in any number of countries are also, apparently, luddites? India doesn't seem to understand that what they're asking to do isn't technologically feasible. It would require a gigantic staff of people round-the-clock, judging each and every post and video before they're allowed to be seen by the general public. I understand that India doesn't have much of an issue with having enough workers when your population is one billion, but the cost to implement censorship on such a level? Astronomical. Seriously, if India is really that worried about "offensive" content, then maybe it's time for Google, Facebook, and whoever else they have an issue with, to just pull out and leave India to it's own devices. Or, maybe, the Indian government can get a grip and realize that their citizens aren't all little children needing a Big Brother to protect them from the entire world. The world is too small for nations to be so xenophobic, unless they want to wall themselves in like China and North Korea (and I'm sure there are other examples).
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
With population over 1 billion people, it makes me wonder what kind of democracy is actually applied in that country. Even winning an election 51 to 49 (supposed it works that way over there too), it would leave over 500 million dissatisfied...
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
An analysis here suggests that the target of Internet censorship was against political blasphemy rather than any generic web censorship. Its worse than a state trying to censor the web as consistent with their national policies; in this case the 'ruling government' is molding laws as it sees fit to its political advantages. Only one of the so called complaints by the ministers was deemed a national security threat.
Why does anyone still believe that democracy means freedom?
I believe in freedom of speech. If some individual wants to stand up in public and say that he supports depriving every citizen of free speech and due process of law to help save the profitability of a 90 year old mouse cartoon - then I will defend his right to do that.
For an elected representative to not only do that - but to sponsor or support a bill which does that also - that's a different thing. That's a failure of citizenship, a neglect of your civic duty. These are essential liberties our nation was founded to protect. Such a representative should be removed from office as swiftly as the democratic process will allow, as he's a threat to the security of the Republic and the liberty of its People.
There is no Mulligan on this one, no middle ground. Either you are FOR freedom of speech and due process of law forever and always, or you're NOT.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
... the reason why the United States of America (may) remain the most powerful, prosperous country* in the world isn't because we aren't the best or most efficient or smartest.
It's because (it seems) invariably our competitors screw up in a big way. With China it's when their authoritarian government can't keep the lid on their repressed people, with India it's because their chaotic government can't promote effective policies. So let's hope that America's creatively destructive democracy hasn't wounded itself too much (thanks Bush) and will regain its balance. (Actually, hoping that the U.S. will outcompete China, a country 4x its population, is probably a bit much. How about a close second?).
As I've gotten (much) older, I'm wondering if I see a personal corrolary to this; I've seen people do well not because they've had spectacular successes but because they've managed to avoided catastrophic failures. Sort of like the tortoise and the hare I guess.
* prosperous BIG country; I know Switzerland, Singapore and Qatar are richer on a per capita basis but they don't have nukes. Or Facebook.
blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/01/16/meet-vinay-rai-indias-censorship-crusader/?mod=WSJBlog
Seriously, there isnt a single line said by him that makes sense
Reason that it is being discussed and is in court is good enough for not making it succeed. Courts in India have been much closer to western idea of individual freedom, so I hope that it would not get much further than govt. idea of getting cheap shot at conservative idea of censoring what it does not like.
The High Court has already given its go-ahead for the prosecution
Thats bad enough
It is a sensitive time in indian politics, the new generation (kids) of the current politicians are all set to make their splash into active politics. And if there is free press, then their family scams will start haunting them as well. so, in order to neutralize this, the current government wants to muzzle the free press and internet. Follow the fate of the public lokpal bill to understand what i mean. Of course, that is just my opinion, and i could be wrong.
...land of the wise. How I yearn'st for peace from 'Here's some activity you may have missed on Facebook', as I gaze upon thy sun-kiss'd dunes....
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
It makes no sense to throw in the line about India being the "world's largest democracy".
All that that means is that India holds elections, and that it has a lot of people.
It doesn't mean that (as in other 3rd world democracies):
-India has a guarantee of freedom of speech like in the US
-India has constitutional protections for "life, liberty, and property"
-You can refuse to testify against yourself (an important protection against torture)
-The government doesn't censor (plenty of stories on RIM, etc., on Slashdot re: that)
The word you're looking for is "liberal democracy", i.e., a democracy in which an emphasis is placed on liberty.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Since the court said that Google/FB/others must filter their content or be blocked, these sites should go along with the latter option and block all requests coming from India. It shouldn't take long for India to be clamouring to be let back in and offering that judge's head on a platter as a peace offering.
Its working out pretty well for them.
Today the many Chief Ministers (like Governors in US) and MPs (like senators in US) are from "untouchable" class which would not have been possible without "that democracy".
Just so that you know, "Untouchable" in India could vote before blacks could vote in Home of the free.
ah, but you forget the "special" courts that the political class can setup, if it suits them. they can then be staffed with pliable judges, and then it is anybody's guess as to the result. the Supreme court is the only place where there seems to be a modicum of impartiality, for now. National security, those magical words can do some terrible things.
how's that democracy working out for the Utouchables?
Now you just HAD to drag Chicago politics into this...
#DeleteChrome
Remember the story about the three bears and their porridge? (one was too hot, the other too cold...)
Well the only countries large enough to challenge the U.S. are the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). So in the spirit of the three bears...
China's government is too authoritarian
India's government isn't authoritarian enough
Brazil's government/society isn't focused enough on the future (education)
and Russia's government is too corrupt and they're facing one hell of a demographic problem maybe because "without a vision the people perish.". It seems there is no visionary leadership in Russia, just everyone grab whatever you can.
Just more late night musings. (I'm back in the U.S. now, no longer in Vietnam talk about a f-up government).
Free speech is not a liberty, it is a reality.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Just plug in "India" instead of "Canada" or "United States" or "America" in any of a bazillion opinion pieces on censorship posted to slashdot over the years.
i.e. Just search it.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Occasionally high courts go crazy. Usually, either the bench rules sensibly, or it goes to the Supreme Court, who do the right thing in about 99% of cases.
Besides, this is only the Delhi High Court, who's writ extends to the whole grand National Capital Territory, all of 1500 square kilometers. A ruling in this case shouldn't be binding on the rest of the country. And finally, the court really has no power to make this happen. That power is with the government, who probably won't this being an election year, their backs being against the wall in several corruption cases, and that's before considering that enforcement of any such thing would rank next to impossible.
I'm not particularly worried, except for the shameful scene of the Delhi High Court comparing us with China! Seriously, China?
hardly get beaten or raped at all, much, compared to fifty years ago?
Yes, actually... Things are improving, though there's a long way to go. It's a flawed process, but the point is, it's happening
At least we didn't continue with the practice for a good 90 years after independence, fight a civil war over it and then spend the next 100 years not actually granting civil rights to those who were supposedly "freed" by the civil war...
Not above the magistrates' courts. The judiciary in India are not really appointed by the executive; they' have to be selected by a collegium of judges, and it usually goes by seniority at the next lowest level (I think they can co-opt eminent lawyers at the high-court level too). They can be quite bullish and independent. Which means that sometimes they do stupid things (present case, for example), but at least it's not from government influence
We were badly burned by Indira Gandhi's tenure, and since then, there hasn't been so much influence peddling in these matters. Some corruption, yes. But normally they're quite jealous in protecting their independence from the government.
Democracy should not be "winner takes all" if you win with a 51% majority, you should take into account that the 49% have to be accounted for in your policies and not gloated over and made to regret voting against you. You are elected by 51% as the leader of all.
If as in the US, the parties are so evenly split, then the message should be clear, the populace as a whole wants neither extreme and therefor a middle ground must be reached. Abortion rights but with a strict process. Socialized health care but a sober one perhaps.
In Holland we are experiencing something far more extreme. The VVD (Liberal, pro-business or as Americans would label them, pinkos) is the current ruling party IN a coalition but the polls say that they are now sharing the largest party title with the SP (Socialist protest party (logo red thrown tomato), or as Americans would label them... lets not kid ourselves Americans would run screaming in terror at so much red)... so... should they rule together as the leader of the SP has suggested?
A few years ago, the killed Pim Fortyun and the now retired SP leader had a similar dilemma, both grown very large on the disatfication with the existing parties BUT showing that the dissatifaction lead people both to to the left AND the right. And not extreme right or extreme left either no matter what some extremists like to claim to further their own cause.
It is easy to go for "winner takes all" and ignore the other half but all that leads to is US style politics in which it is all out war between the parties and nothing gets done anymore because the next election might swing the vote in your favor so why agree to anything the current winner suggests?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Just as soon as we get a cast-iron definition of 'obscene' or even 'offensive' that applies to everything correctly for everyone.
It's okay, I'll wait...
Because, of course, language is never going to modify itself to route round censorship. No-one has ever invented entire new sub-tongues like polari, or thieves' cant to discuss dangerous or illegal subjects in plain sight without detection.
I wish these idiots nothing but the best with their endless game of Whac-a-Mole (TM).
The thing is our politicians are crackpots when it comes to technology (infact, in most of the areas where they can't "earn" their share). The leading whiner, Kapil Sibal, claims that the content on web may hurt communal feelings. But, most of the people who are backward enough to getting hurt by such content don't use web at all. Those who use are tech-savvy enough to ignore such contents. One reason behind this step was that contents abusing the politicians of the ruling party (mainly, the party head Sonia Gandhi) arose in the social networking sites and search engines. So, the most logical solution for these guys is to block the content. Of course, we Indians know that it is totally retarded. And India is a democratic nation for a reason. If people think what the government is doing is wrong, they won't let that happen. Indian citizens rallied against government in mid-2011 to stop it from introducing a crippled anti-corruption law. I am confident that the sites won't be censored in India, not until there is democracy. The current government has anyways done enough harm to the country so as not to get elected again.
Oh, and this step taken by the Indian government is negligible to what the US government was going to impose: SOPA.
Umm, how so? This legislation was intended to censor political speech. SOPA was intended to censor websites trafficking in pirated material. These are in no way comparable. Our worst fears are that SOPA might potentially be abused to do what this legislation expressly intends to do.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
I believe in freedom of speech. If some individual wants to stand up in public and say that he supports depriving every citizen of free speech and due process of law to help save the profitability of a 90 year old mouse cartoon - then I will defend his right to do that.
and then that individual will find/brainwash others like him, increase in numbers, become an economical/political power, and then really shut you up. democratically. all that will end up happening will be the irony of letting democracy be destroyed 'through democracy'.
that is what most of the islamist groups that are dubbed as 'mild islamist' by the west are doing by the way.
http://www.meforum.org/2045/fethullah-gulens-grand-ambition
Read radical news here
They're still a 2nd/3rd world country. It's extremely hard to to keep progression going let alone enforce a lot of issues in those countries because of the resources and how poor the people are. There's still a lot of corruption happening because of that. People have to understand that the US does not = the world. Yes censorship is bad but there's a lot of pressing issues in India they should be focusing instead of censoring people.
With this move the Indian government will deal a huge blow to the country's IT sector, the only thing that could save them from poverty.
The Indian Govt may have heard about the Google UMG & they are ready to employ their own staff to do the wiping.
It is probably a waste discussing the caste system -- it needs a degree of starting knowledge on the subject that you clearly do not have.
I mean even for flamebait the question is pretty stupid (Incidentally, The term Untouchable is considered to be in bad taste by most indians, particularly the dalits themselves).
There can be an argument that dalits have unfair disadvantages in today's Indian society (and also arguments that they have unfair advantages as well), adn it is true that for many of them life is terrible.
However, compared to pre-Independence India though, democracy has been working out really well for them. Dalits have had tremendous upward mobility in the last 50 years and a huge in political power. As for rape, if you are american, you should be embarrassed to even bring up the topic -- ahref=http://askville.amazon.com/top-10-countries-world-amounts-violence-women-children/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=58338882rel=url2html-15557http://askville.amazon.com/top-10-countries-world-amounts-violence-women-children/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=58338882>