mid-devonian writes "Close on the heels of the temporary blocking of YouTube by a Turkish judge, a group of academics has published research showing that Web censorship is on the increase worldwide. As many as two dozen countries are blocking content using a variety of techniques. Distressingly, the most censor-heavy countries (which includes China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Burma and Uzbekistan) seem to be passing on their technologically sophisticated techniques to other areas of the world. 'New censorship techniques include the periodic barring of complete applications, such as China's block on Wikipedia or Pakistan's ban on Google's blogging service, and the use of more advanced technologies such as 'keyword filtering', which is used to track down material by identifying sensitive words.'"
I appreciate your rejection of all governments as self feeding power machines, but even en masse anarchists will not help the ills of society. Largely because anarchists are not very organized, but also because government is a necessary evil. Necessary if for nothing else to free us from more oppressive governments. So I ask you as your fellow countryman, to get personally involved in politics. No revolution was won by apathy. (pun only partially intended)
From Common Sense
government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
I was just reading about *CENSORED* on the *CENSORED*, when all of a sudden some guys *CENSORED* into my apartment and started *CENSORED* my stuff and *CENSORED* my wife.
Peter: Oh, Lois, you are so full of (BEEP)! WHAT?! Now I can't say (BEEP) in my own (BEEP)ing house?! Great, Lois. Just (BEEP)in' great. You know, you're lucky you're good at (BEEP) my (BEEP) or I'd never put up with ya. You know what I'm talking about, when you (BEEP) lubed-up (BEEP) toothpaste in my (BEEP) while you (BEEP) on a cherry (BEEP) Episcopalian (BEEP) extension cord (BEEP) wetness (BEEP) with a parking ticket. That is the best!
Government, please stay off of the Internet. Freedom of speech involves some risk. Let the people choose if they take that risk or not, but if you take it from us, you take our freedom as well.
The countries censoring the internet in this way don't want people to have free speech or those freedoms you speak of.
What makes you think that the people of other countries define freedom in the same terms as the Shashdot Geek? Not all forms of censorship are driven from the top down.
Umm. The Internet was created by our government. If people want Feds out of their lives, perhaps they shouldn't plug-in to a network created by our own military. Just a thought.
You can't protect society without controlling society. You can't control society without controlling information. In the land of ignorance, the informed man is king. True democracies don't have kings. Information is communism. Ignorance is patriotic. Oh shit, American Idol is on -- gotta go!
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday March 15 2007, @03:12PM (#18367009)
As a citizen of the People's Republic of China, I can only see this as good news. It is heartening to see that the people of the world are outgrowing their childish attachment to outdated notions like "freedom" and "individualism" and realizing that future progress of humanity depends on subordination of individual drives to the good of harmonious society and beneficial development of the motherland.
At this time in history, people all over the world are waking up to the damage that capitalism and "Democracy" have brought to the world. America and Europe and their nineteenth-century ideas of "rights" and "freedom" have brought little else but war, genocide, terrorism, environmental devastation, immoral depravity, exploitation, and chaos.
Small wonder that a recent Beijing Star poll shows that People's Republic of China is the most respected nation on earth. We move forward together harmoniously into twenty-first century, the century of Communism.
oh, if only the mods got your joke. It's okay, I think you're funny.
On subject: By blocking themselves off to educational parts of the internet these countries only make themselves more backwards. Web 2.0 has taught us that collaboration creates innovation and advances everywhere, in every walk of life.
The Bible says that God confounded language because man working together could achieve anything. It's interesting to see backwards nations removing themselves from a global community like this. Lets see how
Only 4 comments so far on the topic of censorship on slashdot? Damn, it's too late someone much have censored slashdot from most businesses! Oh, no, think of the productivity gains that just made.
It's too bad we didn't turn the Internet over to the UN like you guys all wanted...
Which UN? The one that continually turns a blind eye to human rights violations until their complicity shows up in the news? The one that can't do anything without the US' say-so? I fail to see how that would be useful.
Look into the freedom of speech (and press, and related) laws in the countries mentioned in TFA. Those are countries which prohibit (at least some forms of) government protesting, restrict television airwaves, and are generally unfriendly in the freedom of information department anyway. Why should the internet be any different?
Web censorship is not something that only happens halfway around the world in countries like Uzkbekistan and Burma. If you're from the UK, meet Cleanfeed [wikipedia.org], a soon-to-be compulsory system for blocking "illegal" content. Only a select group of secretive internet wizards [wikipedia.org] know how it works, and a circle of elders living deep in the mountains [wikipedia.org] are in charge of deciding exactly what is and isn't "illegal content". Not everybody runs it just yet, but its effects are already being felt [wikipedia.org].
Morocco blocks GoogleEarth access (though not GoogleMaps). The reason I heard is about security because you can load extra data that may be considered "dangerous". However, I don't think this is about the OMGTERRARISTSWTFBBQ!?!? so much as it is about "protecting the king."
Apparently, the government here is also known to block blogs and such that are critical of the king, as well as other sites that may be considered "unfriendly" to Morocco. However, in my surfing I have not come across any sites that have been blocked, but then again, I am mostly looking for news and information about other parts of the world, so I guess the sites I frequent aren't worth blocking.
Yeah - we think we're hot shit, but everyone else's Mom and Dad thinks we are vulgar and violent.
And when they aren't looking, all their kids try to get inside us, sometimes when we don't want it, but we let it happen anyway 'cause it feels so good.
Whenever I read words like "on the Increase" (as well as "corroded", "falling apart", "rapidly dwindling", etc.) I automatically wonder if I am being presented with "Saturday Night Live Syndrome", where people pull out the popular opinion that Saturday Night Live just isn't as good as it used to be.
The report seems to cover 13 countries, none of which are exactly bastions of civil liberties. Only Thailand and Turkey are countries that even have a medium record of civil rights. I think the fact that people in Uzbekistan can't access sites critical of their government is both one of the smaller concerns of both the internet, and of the civil rights of Uzbekistan's citizens.
If more countries that actually had long-standing traditions of free speech, or emerging traditions of free speech, were suffering censorship, that might be a story. But as it is, this hardly seems like dramatic news.
Putin media decree arouses press freedom worries Thu Mar 15 2007 11:37:07 ET President Vladimir Putin has decreed the creation of a new super-agency to regulate media and the Internet, sparking fears among Russian journalists of a bid to extend tight publishing controls to the relatively free Web.
Putin signed a decree to create one entity that will license broadcasters, newspapers and Web sites and oversee their editorial content.
Raf Shakirov, who was dismissed as editor of the Izvestiya daily after critical
Remember back in the good ol' days, when we could gamble for real money online? I do. I see nothing wrong with people who are capable of acting responsibly gambling online, nor gambling on sports. Yet for some reason, the government here has decided to become everyone's parent and prevent them from spending their money as they see fit. They claim it's because of possible addictions and the aftermath of said 'addictions', but we all know how the Prohibition fixed our alcoholic problem.
..would want to censor the Internet. Content provided by the United States represent a significant portion of the total content of the Internet. Now despite what we think, many topics are heavily biased towards the United States - for instance, look at all the uninformed opinions of other countries like France and China we have. Why would a government want their citizens to be exposed to the inadvertent propaganda? The United States has the luxury of being culturally dominant and it's citizens are less
You can go to http://greatfirewallofchina.org/test [greatfirewallofchina.org] and test if a specific URL is censored by China (they use a remote server and have it try to make an outbound connection). The site is up and down at the moment due to a mention on Fark.com, but I was able test a few URLs:
http://slashdot.org/ - not blocked when I tested, but periodically blocked
http://cnn.com/ [cnn.com] - not blocked at the moment, but periodically blocked
USA didn't make the list? What about a DMCA takedown? You don't call that censorship? Freedom of speech is an interesting idea, but does it actually exist anywhere?
So China and other governments block access to wikipedia and other such sites. With the growing importance of information, and the rapid migration of most of the world's information (and most of its foolishness;-) onto the Internet, what those governments are doing is shooting their own economies in the feet. It's all the better for those of us who (still) have uncensored access to the Net. People who are kept ignorant can't compete with us effectively.
Actually, I had an interesting case of this some year
"Distressingly, the most censor-heavy countries (which includes China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Burma and Uzbekistan) seem to be passing on their technologically sophisticated techniques to other areas of the world. "
Listen everyone: Censorship is a fact of life. You may not like the way some do it; but we all do it, and most think their kind of censorship is just fine.
No matter whether we think we believe in Freedom and all that, we all know that there has to be limits to what can be said. It is generally accepted that 'Freedom of Speech' doea not allow us to perpetrate crimes on the net - such as soliciting child pornography or teaching how to fly passenger planes into tall buildings, just to mention a few. The question is where should the limit go - should we allow hardcore porn on websites that target children? No?
A very big factor in what one thinks is suitable is culture - have you ever seen those adverts for HSBC (an international bank)? They are all about how some things are different in different countries (and how important local knowledge is); like eg. that showing your bare feet may be fine in USA or Australia, but is considered extremely rude in Thailand. What I am saying here is: You and I don't necessarily know what is an absolute no-no in other countries, and we should not be too hasty in condemning what other countries choose is not acceptable on the Net. Filtering in China is after all not denying Americans access to things they feel are OK.
On the other hand, I fully understand and respect that there are certain things that should never be censored - but I don't think freedom of speech as a fundamental right is something you can use as an excuse for not being able to show a bit of cultural sensitivity. One of the main reasons that freedom of speech is important is that democracy doesn't work without it - people must have the right to know all there is to know about the decision they make when they vote; it is not primarily there to ensure that everybody can pour all kinds of tripe out in the public space.
uh oh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)
I appreciate your rejection of all governments as self feeding power machines, but even en masse anarchists will not help the ills of society. Largely because anarchists are not very organized, but also because government is a necessary evil. Necessary if for nothing else to free us from more oppressive governments. So I ask you as your fellow countryman, to get personally involved in politics. No revolution was won by apathy. (pun only partially intended)
From Common Sense http://www.bartleby.com/133/1.html [bartleby.com]
Parent
XXXX XXXX! (Score:4, Funny)
xxxx xxxx Xxxxxxxx!
xxx... xxx!
XX XXX XXX XXXX XXXXX!!!!!!X!X!X!XXX
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
,
And they're in it with the Saudis, too. Check out what happens when you paste in Arabic text:
See?!?!? It all just disappears!
Re: (Score:2)
you can't stop me (Score:4, Insightful)
As the FCC has found out, people will just make up new words, that are worse than the old words. Like "Blumpkin".
Re:you can't stop me (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Frag off (Score:2)
Whereas... (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the web, Mr. Cheney!
Democracy, Freedom and Naked Babes (Score:3, Funny)
Just try and search for them, I dare you!
Re: (Score:2)
government (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:government (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What makes you think that the people of other countries define freedom in the same terms as the Shashdot Geek? Not all forms of censorship are driven from the top down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's necessary. (Score:3, Funny)
In Solviet Russia... (Score:2, Funny)
This is good news (Score:5, Funny)
At this time in history, people all over the world are waking up to the damage that capitalism and "Democracy" have brought to the world. America and Europe and their nineteenth-century ideas of "rights" and "freedom" have brought little else but war, genocide, terrorism, environmental devastation, immoral depravity, exploitation, and chaos.
Small wonder that a recent Beijing Star poll shows that People's Republic of China is the most respected nation on earth. We move forward together harmoniously into twenty-first century, the century of Communism.
Re: (Score:2)
On subject: By blocking themselves off to educational parts of the internet these countries only make themselves more backwards. Web 2.0 has taught us that collaboration creates innovation and advances everywhere, in every walk of life.
The Bible says that God confounded language because man working together could achieve anything. It's interesting to see backwards nations removing themselves from a global community like this. Lets see how
Hmm. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship on Slashdot? Nah! I mean I'm here at work reading away and...
[NO CARRIER]
Gee... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which UN? The one that continually turns a blind eye to human rights violations until their complicity shows up in the news? The one that can't do anything without the US' say-so? I fail to see how that would be useful.
Parent
This is unsurprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Not somebody else's problem (Score:5, Informative)
Web censorship is not something that only happens halfway around the world in countries like Uzkbekistan and Burma. If you're from the UK, meet Cleanfeed [wikipedia.org], a soon-to-be compulsory system for blocking "illegal" content. Only a select group of secretive internet wizards [wikipedia.org] know how it works, and a circle of elders living deep in the mountains [wikipedia.org] are in charge of deciding exactly what is and isn't "illegal content". Not everybody runs it just yet, but its effects are already being felt [wikipedia.org].
Morocco as well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently, the government here is also known to block blogs and such that are critical of the king, as well as other sites that may be considered "unfriendly" to Morocco. However, in my surfing I have not come across any sites that have been blocked, but then again, I am mostly looking for news and information about other parts of the world, so I guess the sites I frequent aren't worth blocking.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that bush doesn't like criticism, but has he really gone so far as to block blogs?
oh wait, you mean your king.
nevermind.
well, yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we be surprised here? I'm not.
Proud to be an American (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Proud to be an American (Score:5, Funny)
And when they aren't looking, all their kids try to get inside us, sometimes when we don't want it, but we let it happen anyway 'cause it feels so good.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you hadn't grabbed me by my ear & embarrased me in front of Tammy when I was 13, you'ld have grandkids by now !
Saturday Night Live Syndrome (Score:3, Interesting)
The report seems to cover 13 countries, none of which are exactly bastions of civil liberties. Only Thailand and Turkey are countries that even have a medium record of civil rights. I think the fact that people in Uzbekistan can't access sites critical of their government is both one of the smaller concerns of both the internet, and of the civil rights of Uzbekistan's citizens.
If more countries that actually had long-standing traditions of free speech, or emerging traditions of free speech, were suffering censorship, that might be a story. But as it is, this hardly seems like dramatic news.
Should have seen it coming (Score:2)
Phase 2: Internet is letting Jews do their Jew things more. Must stop this! How we do that? Oh? Wawawewa! Thank you, China!
need to add Russia to the list... (duh...) (Score:2)
Thu Mar 15 2007 11:37:07 ET
President Vladimir Putin has decreed the creation of a new super-agency to regulate media and the Internet, sparking fears among Russian journalists of a bid to extend tight publishing controls to the relatively free Web.
Putin signed a decree to create one entity that will license broadcasters, newspapers and Web sites and oversee their editorial content.
Raf Shakirov, who was dismissed as editor of the Izvestiya daily after critical
Don't forget, the US has increased censorship (Score:2)
I understand why other countries ... (Score:2)
Is your site blocked? (Score:2)
Missing out a major player (Score:2)
Holy crap (Score:3, Funny)
So what? (Score:2)
The answer is simple. End-to-end encryption of _everything_.
One wonders how the Chinese government would respond to that.
All the better for non-censored parts of the world (Score:2)
It's all the better for those of us who (still) have uncensored access to the Net. People who are kept ignorant can't compete with us effectively.
Actually, I had an interesting case of this some year
What quote fits best here... (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, information wants to be free!
Fact of life (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter whether we think we believe in Freedom and all that, we all know that there has to be limits to what can be said. It is generally accepted that 'Freedom of Speech' doea not allow us to perpetrate crimes on the net - such as soliciting child pornography or teaching how to fly passenger planes into tall buildings, just to mention a few. The question is where should the limit go - should we allow hardcore porn on websites that target children? No?
A very big factor in what one thinks is suitable is culture - have you ever seen those adverts for HSBC (an international bank)? They are all about how some things are different in different countries (and how important local knowledge is); like eg. that showing your bare feet may be fine in USA or Australia, but is considered extremely rude in Thailand. What I am saying here is: You and I don't necessarily know what is an absolute no-no in other countries, and we should not be too hasty in condemning what other countries choose is not acceptable on the Net. Filtering in China is after all not denying Americans access to things they feel are OK.
On the other hand, I fully understand and respect that there are certain things that should never be censored - but I don't think freedom of speech as a fundamental right is something you can use as an excuse for not being able to show a bit of cultural sensitivity. One of the main reasons that freedom of speech is important is that democracy doesn't work without it - people must have the right to know all there is to know about the decision they make when they vote; it is not primarily there to ensure that everybody can pour all kinds of tripe out in the public space.
Re: (Score:2)