U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Sure, stuff happens for crazy reasons. That's not because of the agenda of some mysterious weather god, or an elusive organization; it's because of a complex system of dumb entities bumping into each other. You can rationalize it as gods or Illuminate, but it's probably just random noise.
Sometimes stuff like the Patriot act can give a single actor a disproportionate amount of power, but they usually have no idea what to do with it; thankfully.
These are very separate sets of issues, and I think it's kinda sad that about half the comments in this thread are ignoring the issue this is about and jumping straight to whining about how the US Government won't let you pirate Battlestar Galactica.
Or perhaps you think Battlestar Galactica is actually a better reason to censor and oppress than, say, the threat of riots and political unrest. Not being snarky; I really can't tell from your comment.
Censoring an entertainment television show is not as oppressive to the general public as censoring political discussion.
If you censor political discussion, you can't even talk about how bad it is to censor anything---televisions shows included.
However, that's not to dismiss the oppressiveness of our current copyright regime, where the content industries are lobbying for even non-commercial infringement to be criminalized, and our government seems largely willing to go along.
As to the differences, yes, this is far from the piracy issues. But not from banning books or bypassing due process.
I guess the Internet should be free, as long as you don't violate copyrights...
These domain seizures are such a disturbing issue because there is no due process. They don't even attempt to pretend like it exists.
Since when has freedom ever meant violating the rights of others indeed.
I remember that a number of the rap blogs taken down in the first round, were claiming that the artists themselves (or their PR people) sent the music to them. Now maybe the industry person that told ICE about that site "just didn't know" that the music was legal, but isn't that the point of investigations and due process?
I agree. What I reject is the entirely different idea expressed in the previous post, to the effect that violating other people's rights is an essential component of the Internet being free.
And yes, I am suggesting with a straight face that some rights are more important than others.
Which I said nothing about in mine.
One might speculate that I omitted such reference because I found no particular fault with what was said about it. I might even agree that domain seizures have various bad properties. If pressed, I might even acknowledge that my objection stems from the same root assumption that people have rights and that having those rights violated is not cool, merely taken to the potentially heretical length that it remains not cool even when it's not a government doing it.
Alternately, one might conclude that because the banner I wave is not purest White that I must be the vanguard of an approaching army of Black, crusading enemy of freedom and probably no fun at parties.
I have no obligation to explain anything to you, nor you to me. Let's leave it at that.
Don't let me put words in your mouth, but your vague use of the word "right" in a discussion of a widely acknowledged inalienable right -- freedom of expression -- begs the question.
If you feel my interpretations are wrong, please tell me why.
Well yes, that actually sounds like a pretty reasonable proposition to me.
Folks, the abuses of governments and corporations trying to enforce copyright doesn't make copyright meaningless and/or evil, and you will not win your fight by embracing lazy e-rhetoric over reason.
Perhaps you have an actual objection to this statement?
Edit: For the record, I have no problem with my government actively undermining censorship in foreign countries, and in fact I heartily endorse it in this case.
Here, for instance, we have the opinion that not only is media piracy okay, but that any government attempt to stop it is not merely as bad as but worse than, say, the Chinese Government's ongoing attempts to censor anyone who dares to say "Hey, the Chinese Government kinda sucks".
I don't think existing IP law is ideal, by any means, nor do I think that it's what I think it should be (and I'm not so arrogant to assume that what I think the law should be and what the law really should be are the same thing, since copyright law is intrinsically a compromise between different types of people, and there's certainly no reason why my personal preferences should take precedence over anyone else's). And I'm happy to engage and argue with people who have extreme opinions, but the correct way to express an extreme opinion starts off with an acknowledgement "OK, this might sound crazy but hear me out..." rather than a bald-faced assertion that "wah wah, enforcing copyright law is like shovelling babies into gas chambers" or whatever.
I'll ask you the same question as cynicalkane: do you have a specific objection to the assertion that U.S. government is being hypocritical here?
The article is lite on exactly how communications within a geography link up with the rest of the larger internet but you need to forgive the poor reporters who are obviously in way over their heads technically. I give you nonsense exhibit A:
"Developers caution that independent networks come with downsides: repressive governments could use surveillance to pinpoint and arrest activists who use the technology or simply catch them bringing hardware across the border."
To the four cool dudes hanging out with briefcase gear on L street in DC: Pack those beasties with mesh wifi AND satellite uplinks. Make a few hundred and let uncle sam distribute them/pick up the bandwidth tab.
I agree. I would also add that in my book, "these regimes" includes the USA, UK, EU, Australia, etc.
This technology and equipment will find itself in the hands of Americans if the US government tries to shutdown the Internet Mubarak-style.
However, I think the difference is that, in America, I could walk down to Best Buy and build a reasonably effective "alternative Internet" today, at low cost.
"Oh yeah, it's a big problem that the house across the street is on fire. But it's also at least three degrees warmer in here than I'd like! It's important that we go get some hoses for the people across the street. But it's also important that we stop my housemate from turning the thermostat up so high. Let me tell you more about my annoying housemate..."
There's no reason that we can't help others and ourselves at the same time.
Meetings and discussions should be focused on one topic---say for instance stopping the abuses of power by a genuinely totalitarian government. If we want to talk about the encroachment on civil liberties in a social democracy, that is good and well but it should be held at a different time.
Conversation about the former shouldn't suffer from interjections by proponents of discussing the later simply because its an issue that's "closer to home".
The internet offers people an unprecendented ability to communicate with each other. This is causing big social changes, and big social changes always create winners and losers, so that some people who are currently powerful, but who these changes will make less powerful. For example, repressive regimes, or the copyright industry.
The attitude of the USA and other Western countries is inconsistent. They welcome the changes the internet is bringing when it hurts incumbents they don't like (e.g. repressive regimes except those ones allied to the West), and want to stop they changes when it hurts incumbents they like (e.g. major political donors such as the MAFIAA).
So on the one hand they're trying to make the internet more locked-down, and on the other hand they're trying to make it more free. It's obvious that they won't succeed in doing both, and it's also obvious that they are going to be more successful at doing anything if they have a clear goal of what they want to achieve.
My view is that the national interests of Western countries lie in making the internet as free as possible. Yes there will be costs -- e.g. Wikileaks will embarrass Western leaders from time to time, and file sharing will hurt political donors. But these are harms to the leaders of Western countries, not to their populations.
[0] Except for, of course, the Internet-in-a-suitcase itself.
WiFi-enabled smartphones are ubiquitous and dirt cheap - used shanzhai handsets cost just a few dollars. A smartphone's firmware is the ideal place to hide crypto.
I certainly don't oppose freedom, but willfully causing destabilization in foreign countries, even if that country has a brutal government seems to violate the concept of state sovereignty, at least a little bit.
http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2011/03/30/how-the-cia-used-rad...
... but supports censored internet within the US?
the "S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act" seeks to do exactly the opposite... within our own country
hypocritical? ... stunt to confuse public?
Only a despot would mess with DNS w/out due process.
How did revolutions occur prior to the creation of the TCP/IP stack?
Freedom must always come accompanied with responsibilities. In the West, we learn that early in school and (hopefully) life.
I have lived many years in countries where people have not learned that. As a consequence, they all still want freedom (for themselves), but when you start talking about responsibilities, you are not so popular anymore.
But it's very popular at home (i.e. in the West), so who cares about the victimes of all this simplistic "development aid"...
Btw: I have studied thic topic for many years and have lived half my life in the Third World to learn about this issue in practice. Who would have thought that the main problem is ideological ignorance in the West.
(And now, downvote me again for talking on topic and contibuting first hand information...)
1.) Downvoted comments never show as more than -4, -4 means "at least 5 people have downvoted, possibly a lot more"
2.) People thinking that you're talking nonsense doesn't equate to "censorship in the West".
With "censorship" I do not mean government censorship but self-sensorship. It's implated in the heads that certain things are "correct" and whoever dares to question one of these things gets punished.
That's what "Ideology" is all about. When the reality is ignored in favour of "the Truth".
I actually did the work and lived (and still live) in those places to have a look myself. Nobody cares, because everybody knows "the Truth" already.
Downvote me for it.
a) You think you're right about something and everybody else is wrong, and
b) You're being belligerent about it.
I stated my view of the issue, especially that I find the view "freedom of speech == always good" rather simplistic.
I also explained briefly (only one argument out on many) why I have this view (resposibility).
However, answers to my post where only presented in form of downvotes, rather than opinion or insight.
I may have gotten somewhat belligerent (I'd rather say frustrated) as a consequense. Understandably I'd say.
However, those dictatorships would have to be run by humans. That is a limitation of current technology, perhaps, but it is a constraint we have to live with now. Humans in power abuse the power they have; it is impossible to imagine otherwise. That is another fact of the human condition.
Asking for downvotes is infantile.
Thomas Drake had a responsibility to expose the NSA's massive waste. Elssberg had a responsibility to expose the Pentagon Papers. Assange and company have a responsibility to get the US diplomatic cables out there. Those forsenic economists (http://www.slate.com/id/2203121/, http://www.iies.su.se/~ekaplan/coups.pdf) have a responsibility to figure out who profited from knowledge of US-backed coups in Central America.
Freedom isn't free of cost. We all have a responsibility to spill the beans about immoral actions by secretive organizations.
However, we have learned to not abuse freedom for selfish profit, but to maintain and protect it. We learned that freedom is the freedom of speech for others. And to accept conflicting opinions peacefully.
This is not a given everywhere, though. Where Social Capital is lacking, freedom can easily become a trigger for a breakdown of personal and public security. Where loyalties are mainly based on family ties or group boundaries, freedom can easily lead to more hate and large scale physical violence. Where education is poor, even the most obvious lie will find people that get angry about it and look for "retaliation", often physical.
I am of course not saying that freedom of speech is bad. On the contrary. But is has to be dealed with carefully, and differently in differend societies, taking into account each societies values and development process. Otherwise it may easily (again!) destroy more than it creates. Just think of the "elections" desaster in Africa in the 1990s. A huge (and forseable) tragedy, but it sold well in the West.