Internet Freedom Wanes As Governments Target Messaging, Social Apps (npr.org) 60
Roughly two-thirds of the world's internet users live under regimes of government censorship, according to a report from Freedom House, a pro-democracy think tank. The report adds that internet freedom declined worldwide for a sixth consecutive year in 2016 with the governments increasingly crack down on social media services and messaging apps. From a report on NPR: "In a new development, the most routinely targeted tools this year were instant messaging and calling platforms, with restrictions often imposed during times of protests or due to national security concerns," the report says. WhatsApp emerged as the most-blocked app, facing restrictions in 12 of the 65 studied countries. The report's scope covers the experiences of some 88 percent of the world's Internet users. And of all 65 countries reviewed, Internet freedom in 34 -- more than half -- has been on a decline over the past year. Particular downturns were marked in Uganda, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ecuador and Libya. Facebook users were arrested in 27 countries, more than any other app or platform. And such arrests are spreading. Since June of last year, police in 38 countries have arrested people for what they said on social media -- surpassing even the 21 countries, where people were arrested for what they published on more traditional platforms like blogs and news sites. "Some supposed offenses were quite petty, illustrating both the sensitivity of some regimes and the broad discretion given to police and prosecutors under applicable laws," the report says.
If only "Freenet" existed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that was before you wanted every one to see your ducklip pics to gain some measure of worth.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to know what that is. Please don't tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to know what that is. Please don't tell me.
Think "breast implants" for your lips.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked you not to tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I just figured it was something disgusting or sexual in an extremely perverted way, like most things on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
something might actually happen (tech industry wise) if the govt came after the pron :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Freenet [wikipedia.org] is for the technological elite, not for normal people. If it ever becomes popular, it will be easy to squash by making it a crime to have the software installed on your device, or to forward messages. Governments can infiltrate Freenet just as easily as they infiltrated TOR. Most likely, they already have.
Re: (Score:3)
Collect it all is now policy on any network.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
. ICE-T still deserves jail time for his cop killer record in the 90s along with the other disgusting thugs who promote a culture of violence in our youth.
hasn't he been punished enough by being on Law and Order?
Re: (Score:2)
WhatsApp (Score:3)
I could see WhatsApp using this in advertisements to promote that they are so good at spreading information that repressive governments try to shut them down. They could advertise free speech. Wait, aren't they owned by Facebook? Nevermind.
Including the US (Score:3)
You have no idea how much we unconstitutionally spy on you.
No, it's worse than you even think you know.
Welcome to the Stasi of the 21st Century.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Corporations don't have the authority to send armed thugs to your house and throw you in jail.
.
.
(wait for it)
.
.
They have to bribe, er, lobby the government for that.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, surely, with for profit prisons, we only need to add for profit police to fully allow corporations the authority to send armed thugs to your house. Of course, the defense contractors that are currently suppling protective services to our military in the middle east (Black Water) would love to expand their market to the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
The corporations have been "spying" on you for decades and you never gave a shit then. Why start now?
When corporations spy on me, it means I am more likely to see advertisements for products I like.
When governments spy on me, it means men with guns are more likely to kick down my front door at 3am.
I can control which corporations I interact with. I have far less control over my country of citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
I can control which corporations I interact with.
That's not really true. They share info all the time. And if you look at their investment portfolios they share ownership also, so your money spreads far and wide. And strangers can post your name and picture on facebook or any other site.
We can vote in or out the government of our choice. We can choose politicians that aren't led around by the nose by a corporate master and stop reelecting the ones that are, if we so choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Except corporations sell their data about you to the government. And teh fact that it's their data about you, not your data, means there are no 4th amendment violations.
And you don't really control what data corporations gather about you. They've successfully turned so many people into willing informants that they primarily collect what other people post about you. Even if you're an avid facebook user, what you post is never going to give facebook as much data as your friend graph and the data it has on
Re: (Score:2)
"NSA Can Access More Phone Data Than Ever" (Oct 20, 2016,) http://abcnews.go.com/US/nsa-p... [go.com]
"As a result, the NSA no longer has to worry about keeping up its own database
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to fail to grasp that corporations are controlling most democracies, so, hmm, when the corporations are the government, where exactly do you go?
Re:Including the US (Score:4, Insightful)
You have no idea how much we unconstitutionally spy on you.
No, it's worse than you even think you know.
You mean to say they actually do keep a collection of videos solely dedicated to me changing my underwear that is broadcast nationwide in China? I KNEW IT! In your face psychiatrists! ;)
Internet freedom wanes as Facebook spreads (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sites require FB?
Re: (Score:2)
Please elaborate on his hostility to "free speech?" It was the democrats and biased media, along with the blindly faithful Hillary suppporters, who complained about his speech and wondered how to stop it.
Make no mistake about it, the democrats would absolutely love to start implementing speech laws to shut down non-politically-correct speech. The irony is that the word "fascist" is used to describe Trump and Trump supporters by the most fascist regime in the US: Liberals. In fact, how much more fascist can
The trend should pause for 8 years (Score:1, Flamebait)
Now that dissent is patriotic, once again (instead of being racist and sexist), efforts to criminalize "hate speech" and the like should stop for a while. Internet freedom — at least, in the US — should be Ok for at least one generation.
Re: (Score:2)
dissent rooted in bigotry is bigoted.
dissent rooted in opposition to bigotry is not.
take your false equivalence and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Freedom doesn't exist anywhere except Tor/Freenet (Score:1)
In order to achieve some level of real freedom online we need steganography and decentralized distributed anonymous systems. Even among countries / regions / areas which we seem to have more freedom it's not nearly adequate nor does it exist across the board for everyone.
Particularly in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, and similar certain groups are excluded, marginalized, and imprisoned who are a threat to no one. Those who've used or sold drugs are an excellent no-longer-as-stigmatiz
Hardly surprising (Score:2)
It's (not very) ironic that this article appears directly before the online cyberbullying article.
Even ignoring places like China which heavily censure what people can do online, it's becoming more clear by the day that giving people the freedom to say whatever they want online without accountability is a bloody nightmare.
Cyberbullying has become prolific. Twitter might as well be bought out by 4chan. One news outlet after another is shuttering their comments section because the discussions are basically
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Anonymity doesn't help the victim in any way at all unless the victim is trying to hide from *everyone*. That means not maintaining contact with *anyone* including friends and family.
Meanwhile, anonymity is great when you want to perform targeted attacks without getting caught.
You really didn't think this through, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's *not* easy for would-be victims to avoid. It is infinitely easier for a hostile person to find their victim, than it is for a victim to hide their tracks, especially when said victim can't or doesn't want to maintain total anonymity.
How is it acceptable that the solution to cyberbullying is to completely withdraw from all online life? Because that's the *only* way to limit it. And I say limit, because it *still* doesn't necessarily stop it.
Your constitution was invented long before the c
Pick one (Score:2)
1) free and open internet
2) government mandated web site fact checking
Slashdot? (Score:1)