Sell Out: Blocking an Open Net 515
Governments in Muslim nations, as well as China, have repeatedly made overtures to and done business with Net-filtering companies. But no nation has used blocking software as vigorously as Saudi Arabia, according to the New York Times. By royal decree, virtually all public Internet traffic to and from the kingdom has been funneled through a single control center outside Riyadh since the Net was first introduced there three years ago. If the Riyadh center blocks a site, a warning appears in both English and Arabic: "Access to the requested URL is not allowed!" Saudi Arabia blocks sex and pornography sites, as well as those relating to religion and human rights.
Now nearly a dozen software companies, most American, are competing for a hefty new contract to help block access to even more sites the Saudi government deems inappropriate for its country's half-million Net users. In fact, the Saudi government is helping to pioneer something once thought impossible -- a sanitized Net for an entire nation and culture.
American software companies are only too happy to help them do it. Software executives say they are only providing politically neutral tools. "Once we sell them the product, we can't enforce how they use it," Matthew Holt, a sales executive for San Jose's Secure Computing, told the Times earlier this week. Secure provides filtering software to the Saudi government under a contract that expires in 2003. The Saudi government is also reportedly talking with Websense, SurfControl and N2H2 of Seattle.
The Saudi government has already spent a fortune to design its centralized control system before permitting Net use a few years ago, selecting Secure Computing's Smart Filter software from four competing U.S. products. SmartFilter came with ready-made blocking categories like pornography and gambling and was also customized to exclude sites the Saudis perceived as bad for Islam, the royal family, or the country's political positions.
This is a radical assault on the spirit of the Net, of its open, point-to-point design, its great promise to democratize information. By allies, no less. And don't for a minute think there aren't plenty of fanatics and zealots in the United States who won't love the idea as well. Remember that the Harry Potter series is now the most banned book series in American libraries.
The Saudi government, along with other non-democratic countries, are notoriously technophobic. They are eager to participate in the emerging global economy, but desperate to stanch the free flow of information that might provide diverse information to their citizens. And they have no problem finding software companies, including American ones, that are happy to help extend censorship. The corporatist rule is simple -- maximize profits at all costs under virtually all circumstances.
Countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China have been surprisingly successful at wiring up certain segments of their societies while controlling information deemed insensitive for political or religious reasons. The Net can, in fact, be used to make money and suppress freedom. These governments have undercut the great promise of globalism, prosperity, technology and democracy, allowing corrupt and anti-democratic governments to prosper, in part by censoring information -- something many of us thought the Net would make impossible.
This highlights the menacing way corporatism exploits technology, undermining the most basic American values.
"We have a really serious problem in terms of the American free speech idea," says Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in the politics of Internet filtering. "But it is very American to make money. Between anti-censorship and the desire to make money, the desire to make money will win out." This is a profound blow to the whole idea of using technology -- especially the Net -- to force a more open society.
That's a bitter indictment of a nation that purports to be advancing democracy throughout the world, that's supposedly fighting a war to protect freedom. The reason money will always win out is corporatism, which subverts almost every other value in the name of profit, and which has made globalism a dirty word.
Re:Hopefully (Score:1, Insightful)
freedom? can i smoke weed in the privacy of my own home not hurting anyone?
untill i can do whatever i want that does not hurt others in my own home, and at some point in public places i will not be truely free.
the only reason im a criminal (and many many people i know) is because they smoke marijuana. Luckly i live in canada where there a bit more open minded.
is there a limit? (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, morality in many other aspects has never stopped old time American companies in the past. Need examples? How about Phillip Morris: is it moral to sell something to people that will harm them for sure and shorten their life span almost surely? Still, people have no problem investing in this company.
Nice rant... but it goes to show... (Score:2, Insightful)
You apply your values and morals on everyone from around the world because you can't imagine someone unlike you.
These are different people from a different culture. If there way of life curtails free speech then so be it.
Ask yourself this though, how many violent crimes were there in China vs. the states last year?
There are a million ways to compare two countries. In some cases the US looks better and others China.
My point is that you cannot just openly apply what you think of as "the norm" to other cultures and then belittle them when it doesn't match.
Free Speech in America? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the Saudi's really want that freedom... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets not forget the Net is International.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll agree with some of what you write, but, I can't agree with all of it. We look at other governments and their policies through our own set of lenses, which paint things in terms of democracy, liberty, and all sorts of other American ideals. Now while I'm not saying the censorship certain nations apply should be aplogized for or encouraged, those nations have their own set of ideals and therefore, may not see things the way we do when it comes to certain civil rights. Take Saudi Arabia for example. You have a monarchy which has a strong fundamentalist religious belief system. So Saudi Arabia prevents its citizens from seeing porn and subversive material. We take offense. Did it occur to you that the majority of the Saudi Arabian citizenry may actually WANT those things blocked so their children or family cannot see the things which may offend them? Just as there are southern baptists who rant and rave over the local Rock and Roll concert and demand that it is banned, I suspect there are those in Saudi Arabia who do the same thing. The big difference is that for the most part, those rabid baptists get ignored. In Saudi Arabia, they are the majority and cannot be ignored. Certainly, there may be citizens in Saudi Arabia who don't like the censorship, but there is probably an equal or larger number who are glad that it is there. If the majority of the citizens don't want that information available, then they have the right to ask their government to block it.
Since different cultures have different belief systems, and put emphasis on different values, their version of the Net will be different than ours, and therefore, blocking certain information makes sense to them. So this isn't a radical assualt on the whole Net, just the American Centralized view of it. If the Internet is supposed to be the great democratizer, then no wonder it is viewed as a threat to a government or nation's culture. We already do a wonderful job destroying world cultures with our consumer-based culture, and now we have a method to send it out as fast as possible. Since a majority of the world's internet sites are US based, and designed by those with US values, the Net therefore looks like an American value-based highway of information. Perhaps the censorship, while not always good, may allow for the creation of local culture-based website, un-inspired (untainted perhaps?) by American-based web/net culture. Then they can send this information back out to the Net and we can learn about their unique point of view.
Let me say again that I don't support censorship, but I also don't agree that our value system should be shoved down other people's throats. For that matter, I don't think anyone's value system should be forced upon anyone else. Make the information available, but don't shove it. If they don't want to hear it, fine. Go pass it along to someone else then.
Love the concept, now get real... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, following JK's logic (well, there's none really. Notice no real suggestions, it's just a well-intentioned rant), "we" (the West) should maybe stop the sale of any filtering software to the Saudis. And what have we achieved then? We've ensured that Saudi's then get NO Internet, filtered or not.
Filtering is undesirable, but in practice is, in the best possible sense, the thin end of the wedge: i.e. give them some access and it will improve their society just a little. Then maybe the filtering will ease just a little. And so on... Iterate until sanity achieved.
Sure, it's not certain to work, but what else should we do?
Re:Selling Out ? - I Don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice rant... but it goes to show... (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rob
You can block jon katz stories. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If the Saudi's really want that freedom... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Afghan people didnt care, they had no hope, they have hope now and are taking their country back
Re:Hopefully (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, smoking weed is a religious and perhaps a medical freedom that we should all have-- there are religions in which smoking weed is as important as wine and bread are to most forms of Christianity (and quite frankly, as an atheist, I'm hardly interested in trying to decide which religious sacraments are valid based on the underlying religion and which aren't-- I consider them equals no matter what the derivation, as long as the adherents are sincere). And there is a growing body of evidence that, while marijuana may not be curative, restorative, or preventative, it is a source of relief-- and winning the mental battle is an important part of recovering from any illness or medical event.
But more importantly to the topic at hand, Jon Katz has asserted that Harry Potter is the most banned book in America! Prove it Jon!
Katz: Contradictory (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, then, is it different now? A company writes software that can be used either for "good" or "bad" purposes, and all of a sudden it's wrong? What is Katz trying to say?
In my opinion, it's clear that Katz does not really believe the tool/use argument, it's just rhetoric. He believes that information should be free, and takes the appropriate position at opposite sides of the "can a tool be intrinsically bad?" argument in order to further his views. There's nothing wrong with thinking that, but he is being dishonest by arguing both sides on the same question depending on who the protagonists are.
Re:Nice rant... but it goes to show... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If the Saudi's really want that freedom... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:is there a limit? (Score:4, Insightful)
What does Mr. Katz suggest be done? Shall we declare cultural war on these countries and work openly to subvert their governments? Shall we make adoption of American cultural standards a requirement for participating in our "global" economy? No, of course not. We should take the usual liberal path (and this comes from an anti-conservative, mainly Green and Democratic voter, who is nevertheless sick to the teeth of ALL the empty rhetoric that defines our national dialog): wring our hands when we arent't sitting on them, point and shake our fingers at those who are merely playing by the world's rules as they currently exist, take the moral high ground and DO NOTHING. Shit or get off the pot, Mr. Katz: everybody knows it's a bad old world. If you don't have any more to add to the discussion than that then please just keep it to yourself.
Three reasons you are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
I lived in Saudi Arabia from the age of 9 until I was 20 years old. My father lived there for an additional 7 years. That is from 1977 to 1997. We know Arabs and they are some of the most loving, gracious, and hospitable people in the world. As long as you don't try to change their culture. They are happy to do business with outsiders but the will not allow them to attempt to change their society. You and I agree, freedom is the natural state of humans. Oppression is not moral. However, if you demand that these people to change overnight then they will react violently. The internet would not even be in Saudi Arabia today if it were not for this filtering technology. And keep in mind, it is just technology, the determined mind can find a way around it.
Corporations exist solely for the production of profit for their shareholders. There is no other reason for their existence. A corporation is like a farm that is owned by several people, they will not continue to operate the farm if it does not produce crops. Likewise corporations. The very fact that a corporation has chosen the internet filtering sector as its market means that the people investing in the corporation and the employees working for it have no compunction against this technology and railing against their attempts to perpetrate that business is useless.
The NET in it's current form would not exist if it were not for "corporatism". I was on the internet in 1993. I had a shell account, no fancy PPP or SLIP connection, and got my first taste of the Internet's power. But the internet didn't really turn into what it is today until corporations decided it would be a good way to make money by providing internet access to "the masses" and then selling on the internet. Most of the internet users out there got access so that they could access information, mostly provided for profit, that they wanted.
Idealism is a nice thing as long as it stays out of the real world. As soon as you attempt to apply your idealistic ideas to the real world they break down. No, your morals are not necessarily right for everyone and No, corporations have no other obligation than to make money, and No the internet has not defined purpose, only the purposes we use it for. It is a tool and not an end.
Re:And your point is? (Score:2, Insightful)
I submit that yours is mob-mentality.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to practice religion, view porn, own guns, and say what we like, are specifically not controlled by the majority.
There is nothing wrong with morality as a concept, and as a goal for life, but it cannot be enforced by the majority. Not in my country.
There is no universal right to internet access... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, instead of looking at things from the "Information wants to be free ... or else." perspective, let's start with no access as the reference point. Ok, so these governments are so insecure that they don't trust their people with information about bombs or the water supply or... Oh, sorry, wrong country. Where were we? Right, Saudi Arabia and that bunch. So these governments don't like new ideas. Like it or not, these are independent entities outside the US (or whatever country you are associated with). We can't just go around trying to enforce our laws inside their borders. Wait, sorry about that, apparently we can... Ok, this is getting confusing. The point here is that if a government wants to block information from its people, that's an internal matter for that particular country. We can't force every country to allow access to all information any more than you can demand that your neighbors teach their children all about homosexuality, witchcraft, or Linux. As for American countries selling the tools to block information, they sell the tools that allow your neighbors to block similar information from their children. In both cases, these are areas outside your control, regardless of your opinion on the matter. If your hypothetical neighbors (different ones this time) were forcing their children to participate in the creation of child pornography, you can't just go over there and start beating them up - only the proper authorities can intervene. You can forbid your children from visiting them, you can stop inviting them to your backyard barbecues, and you can refuse to buy those overpriced candy bars that their kids keep selling, but that's about all you can do directly, just like the US isn't in a position to force other governments to treat their people fairly (not that this has ever stopped the US government, but in theory...) - that's a job for a global governmental body.
On the bright side, at least the people in these countries have some access to the internet. Without these "filtering" systems, there might just be a Taliban-style ban (of course, that could be on the way, but taking things away tends to upset people more than not giving them something they never had in the first place). Whether or not that is acceptable is up to the people in those countries, not us. We can't just force our way over there and impose our values on them (well, we could, but that sort of thing doesn't usually go over too well), and we can't ban companies from helping other countries do something we allow our citizens to do to people under their control (again, we could, but that wouldn't make much sense, not that export controls have to make sense). What was the question again? Was there even a point in the first place other than the whole misguided "information wants to be free" type of complaining about limiting access to information?
Re:Funny... (Score:2, Insightful)
Filtering software (Score:2, Insightful)
Although it may seem counter-intuitive and it certainly offends the sensibilities of social libertarians, filtering software actually encourages the use of the net.
Without filtering technology to make the internet a little more palatable, many countries might be tempted to ban it altogether.
Re:Three reasons you are wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Another thing to keep in mind is that the majority of the people in Saudi Arabia are happy with the prosperity that the Kingdom has brought. Did you know that the "oppressed" people of Saudi Arabia are free to own businesses, have free college educations available to them, free dental and health care and live in an almost completely crime free society? Sure, to some people, cutting a thief's hand off is barbaric but on the other hand, it does not happen very often since very few people steal.
As for women, I do not believe that women should be treated any differently from men, but they do, and most of the women there are quite happy with the situation. This is not to say that there are not women that would like to be free and, in my mind, those women should have that opportunity.
As for the bombing in Afghanistan, which is what I guess you were refereeing to in your comment. We are not attempting to change Afghanistan's culture, we are trying to kill Osama bin Laden. That is entirely different.
Re:Amen (Score:4, Insightful)
This is also known as a "foreign policy that has no values".
We can't snap our fingers and make the middle east a democracy overnight.
Please. The US hasn't even made tacit overtures in this direction in fifty years. More accurately, the US doesn't care if Saudi Arabia ever becomes a democracy. As long as it keeps pumping gas.
Unfortunately, to short-sighted people, that makes the US look like we "approve of" regimes like that just because we support them against worse alternatives.
Well, there are always "worse" alternatives. There are always bogeymen hiding in the background. At some point you have to take a stand for some values. The US has never petitioned any of these governments to provide votes to citizens, support basic human rights, or in the case of Kuwait, make indentured slavery illegal.
If now isn't a good time to support democracy, when is????? All your "pragmatic" approach has provided is a stronger Iraq and Iran (yes, the US supported them when the "alternatives were worse").
Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you suggest that if all americans drove econoboxes it would change anything? Oh sure, Saudi Arabia would not be as wealthy as they are right now. Of course none of enlightened european powers are consuming Saudi's oil. Neither are they paying good money for the only resource which allows Saudi Arabia to be something more than just a spot in a desert. Think of it this way, if not for their oil, Saudi Arabia could support (as in FEED!) only part of their population. Aside from a destination for pilgrimage to all Muslims they would be NOTHING.
> And since our country is all about money, money, money at the expense of little things like decency and human rights
BS!!! STFU!! Go to europe and live there for few years. Europeans are just as money motivated, corrupt and dependant on the technologies, oil and other "goods" of globalization as is US of A.
What do you suggest? embargos? Nothing that America will or will NOT do, can help average Saudi. If Saudis want to change their system then THEY have to take the initiative. It will take time, maybe as much as two or three generations, but the results will be long lasting. Forcing our (american/western) ideals on Saudis will not succeed. Look at eastern european countries, there was very little blood shed when abandoning so called "communism". Eastern Europeans wanted their freedoms and rights, they risked their lives, proffesional carrers, opportunities to go to college and after five decades succeded. There is no chance that Poland, Czech Rep. or Hungary will go "back".
BTW it was american companies "helping" restrict flow of information and not _evil_ american government! Grow up, get involved, don't invest in companies that YOU find morally questionable.
--
That giant sucking noise you hear is my computer loading msnbc.com
Tienenman Square (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember the days of the Tienenman Square massacre. I worked in an international scientific research institute at the time. Some of the people who worked with me were Chinese and spent a lot of time FAXing pictures of the massacre to their friends in China. People in China, of course, couldn't get press.
I've been hearing a lot of pretty outraged people griping about us western imperialist pigs and how we want to force things like democracy down other countries' throats. It's bothered me for a long time. However, I've heard so much of it that I no longer care.
You think other countries have the right to live in the Middle Ages? Fine. But independence means accountability. I don't want to hear a bunch of boo-hoo-hooing the next time a bunch of them kill each other or die of famine.
Not really (Score:2, Insightful)
Why, then, is it different now? A company writes software that can be used either for "good" or "bad" purposes, and all of a sudden it's wrong? What is Katz trying to say?
In this case, the companies writing the tools are actively trying to get their tools used for this purpose. They're seeking contracts with the Saudi government to support or even operate a system that has mass-censorship as its purpose, and they know it.
So the solution to your dilemma is: a company shouldn't be blamed if people use their net-censoring software to do "bad things"-- and certainly, the software should not be outlawed. On the other hand, if a company is actively supporting an particular immoral use of their tool they should be credited with at least some complicity in that particular incidence of wrongdoing.
Now, this sort of behavior isn't against the law. For better or for worse, the corporations are legitimately doing what corporations do-- trying to improve their balance sheets-- and the Saudi government is just doing what oppressive governments do.
Now all that said, even if it were possible to prosecute the American companies involved, I still don't think that would be a proper reaction to the situation. And I really don't think that would be a good enough excuse for the government to ban distribution of the tool, and ride roughshod over anybody's First Amendment rights.
Maybe they dont want "OUR" Freedoms (Score:5, Insightful)
I think USA should not try to force every country to be like US. You see, Thats why people like bin laden hate us, not because we are free, but because we try to force other countries to be like us.
I say let China be China, eventually they'll find an identity, and become a more free nation, yet presure their culture.
You see, China thinks Culture is more valueable than freedom. Sometimes the cost of freedom, is the destruction of culture.
Chinas Culture according to older Chinese government people, is becoming too American. They dont want China to become like America, They want China to be China. I respect them for that, If they want to censor the internet, and seperate the internet so they have their own Chinese internet, They have a right to do this, This is the kinda freedom that they want. They want to be independent, not depend on the USA for ANYTHING.
When you understand this, You'll have respect for China even if you may not want to live in their country, you can look at China and see the culture wasnt completely ruined by American Capitalism like some other countries we can take a look at.
Such as Africa, Japan, a few places in the middle east, If you look at these countries, they are slowly morphing into a smaller version of America.
Perhaps some country dont WANT this?
Re:Oh what rich tripe! (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly do you mean? That there used to be Middle Eastern democracies before 100 years ago? That there was "free speech"? That Shariah was not the law of the land? That women had equal rights with men? That Muslims espousing "heretical" views were not put to death before 100 years ago?
The main difference between now and 100 years ago in the Middle East is that the countries there with oil have more money, which is being distributed in some amounts to the otherwise dirt-poor peasants (making them slightly less than dirt-poor).
As a side note, I will add that you were much better off as a Jew in an Islamic country than a Christian country in the past (esp. 1400-1600). Jews are probably better off in a Christian country today.
Re:Three reasons you are wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
If the Arabs are that dedicated to their own culture, give them unfiltered internet access and they simply won't look at material that is supposedly offensive or disruptive to their way of life.
The fact that the government needs to actively prevent people from viewing certain information that might encourage changes leads to the logical conclusion that a lot of people there aren't all that happy with the current state of their culture.
No one's demanding anyone change anything. Mere access to porno, religious criticism, and sociological commentary isn't by itself going to turn a society on its head. It takes a substantial portion of the population to ACT on that information to create such an upheaval. If the people in Saudi Arabia are as happy with the status quo as you say, they'll probably just ignore the "infidels bad-mouthing god," and not download the latest XXX vids.
The government has nothing to fear from content people.