Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

India Joins China in Censoring Websites

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the keeping-up-with-the-wangs dept.

303

cpatil writes "On the directions of the government of India, Indian ISPs have started censoring and blocking web properties. This was first noticed by Indian bloggers and upon inquiring with their respective ISPs, the actions are confirmed. Unfortunately, Blogspot and TypePad are the targets till now." There's an ongoing discussion of the censorship on GoogleGroups. The rediff.com coverage linked above indicates that the blocking is based on a list issued by India's Department of Telecommunications.

cancel ×

303 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I support State censorship of all media (3, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732441)

For some, it seems odd that a radical anarcho-capitalist would support ANY State action, especially censorship. There is usually only one anti-State camp: the people who want to dismiss the State through some means (voting, bloody revolution, non-violent revolution, black market lifestyle, etc). I don't see ANY way to get rid of the State and any of its forms of coercion (including censorship) through any of the previous means. Every time a right is taken away by a State, every time the State steals from you in the form of taxation and every time the State decides it can help large groups, it does so at very little cost to the individual. You and I won't do anything to prevent US$1 a year from being taken from us, or some fringe right that we don't really see heling our existence. Yet when you combine all those little US$1 fees taken from each individual in the US, someone is earning billions. That person will work extra hard to protect that income, but the millions won't work extra hard to fight a US$1 fee annually. The same is true with rights -- most people won't worry about their basic rights because they feel mostly free. When 10 million people are harmed by an infringement, 290 million residents aren't. Why should they care about 0.3% of the population?

The reason I support State censorship of all media is the same reason why I support the State in all of its madness: the more they do to harm us, the more the free market will provide means for entrepreneurs to find new ways around the madness.

Many of the towns near me have increased their sales tax: up to 9% in some towns! The free market provided loopholes around sales tax for years, and the Internet is the ultimate form of working around the local madness. I don't buy very much locally anymore, and I get to save a huge amount that the State would usually get. It makes me laugh when the local politicians argue about what they're losing to the web. They stole from me, now I get to take it back.

Many of the towns near me are starting to create smoke free "public places" which exist within private property. You can't smoke in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, anywhere. The free market is opening up amazing private property venues for me -- I've already visited 4 private dinner clubs -- the houses of famous and strong chefs in the region who gave up their jobs in order to provide exceptional meals to private consumers. They don't charge a fee, they ask for a donation. For US$50, I can get an amazing meal that gets around most of the regulations of the restaurant-restrictions placed. I can smoke, the chef can cook foods in ways that restaurants often can't, and I pay less than 1/3rd of the usual fee. Some dinner clubs include great wine, and the service is top notch. The chef doesn't worry about income taxes or permits or paying off the local zoning authority and health agency -- and I have yet to hear of anyone getting sick or the like. Good for me, good for the chef, bad for the State.

Let the State censor all of us -- it will only give entrepreneurs more reason to find anonymous replacements of the publicly regulated web. Give it time and who knows what will happen. If every device will be State-required to have some sort of "control" mechanism or DRM or who-knows-what, someone will develop a private hive network on our cell phones or PDAs or old hardware. As long as the State restricts, the market will find ways to provide.

The State: let it grow, let it restrain, let it fail to provide and let the imbeciles that support it think they're doing good for others. I've already found my ways to ignore it in 70% of my life. Eventually I'll extend that more, and not be concerned with what the mad majority wants to do this year that will harm people for generations.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2, Insightful)

DarkDragonVKQ (881472) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732469)

Interesting thought. I'm curious to hear what you think about organizations that push/support the state censorship though. And then they pursue those who seek alternative measures to bypass it.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2) (5, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732557)

The State has only one intention in mind: create criminals. Nothing the State does can be considered otherwise. This means that people will suffer when some non-violent act is considered criminal. Look at drug laws: they don't work, but they're a great way for the State to expand its income. The same is true of any action that is non-violent in nature (drugs, prostitution, home schooling, gambling, selling, buying, etc).

When the State decides to censor people, it comes in two ways: direct censorship ("You can't talk about subject A") and indirect censorship ("You can't talk about subject B that someone else already talked about"). Subject A is the type of censorship that China and now India are doing. Subject B covers copyright and patents -- both are censorships against words and actions a person wants to perform with his own time, on his own property, using his own body and tools.

There is only one reason for either type of censorship: to protect the interests of an elite individual or group. Subject B censorship (copyright and patents) protects distribution cartels -- the few who control the distribution of content or specific items. Subject A censorship (direct prevention of talking about a certain subject) protects the State itself -- giving major power that is usually used against "enemies" of the State. Both States are corrupt -- if you go to jail because of a corrupt system, there is little that can be done to protect your interests.

We'll hear cries for our own State to work against the States that are censoring others, even though the State we live in is no better. I guess the best defense for my black-market support around censorship is that some eggs will break in order to make the best omelet. Some people will go to jail or will just disappear -- these are those who are directly harmed by the State. Yet millions more will be given more freedoms in whatever the free/black market provides to get around the restrictions and regulations. Over time, this will make us more free in the shadow of the State -- eventually technology will get to the point that no restrictions will be possible on anything the State does. This is a _good_ thing and it is why I consider the "Internet" the most anarcho-capitalist society in existence.

Do I want to be the one to disappear in a cell (or a ditch)? Absolutely not. I was recently in China, and everyone there already has good ways around the State. The government can pretend that their censorship is working, but most Westerners are completely ignorant of the reason behind censorship by China (and India, where I also just visited for almost a month) -- jailing political opponents. The censorship has nothing to do with real topics or anonymous groups -- it is just another tool for the State to get rid of their opponents. It is no different that the "Watch your neighbor" tactics of the USSR, and the US decades ago.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2) (2, Interesting)

DarkDragonVKQ (881472) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732616)

Interesting once again. To be frank, I agree :). The state was orginally, a long long long time ago was created to maintain order. To maintain order it needed money to enforce it. And to get money they use taxes, tarrifs, "friendly" donations when the tax man use to knock on your door. In the threat of losing their power, they may act even stricter. Even resorting to methods like jailing or making people dissapear to maintain their influence. But they can't catch everyone, and eventually (hopefully) the state would dissolve. Before another one is created and repeats the same damn ****ing mistakes. >.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2.1) (1, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732676)

So true. I used to use the word "government" which is derived from the Latin gubernare -- to restrain, restrict, control the action or behavior of. Just like a "governor" in your car restricts the speed at which you can drive, a government is there to restrict your actions.

I can see the reason behind using government to maintain physical property lines and to punish those who harm the property of another (land, body, or tools). I don't see why government is needed to protect a person's actions or opportunities -- when we try to use government for this reason, we end up with what we have today -- tyranny.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2.1) (0, Troll)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732837)

The only reason why you don't see the need, is because you are full of yourself. That is always a problem when one wants to look at various subjects and will always block any reasonable evaluation, as you clearly have shown.

Thank you for playing, please try again next time.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2) (1)

Burlap (615181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732776)

what about state sponsored health care? road/sewer/water/electricity maintence? I fail to see how any of these create criminals.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2) (3, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732866)

what about state sponsored health care? road/sewer/water/electricity maintence? I fail to see how any of these create criminals.

State sponsored health care kills thousands if not millions of people every year. Try releasing a much needed experimental drug to people who are willing to try it -- you'd go to jail. Try charging less to a poor patient than you charge the State -- you'll go to jail (the US government has an entire office dedicated to finding doctors that charge less than they charge Medicare). Try bringing more doctors to the market than the AMA/US wants -- it is illegal.

Try providing alternative water or electricity in your neighborhood -- you'll go to jail. In my previous town I spoke with various neighbors about uniting together to get a large generator installed on our block (this was pre-Y2K, and some people were concerned). We received various competing bids but were told that the local town wouldn't allow it. When we asked for a variance we were told we couldn't do it, and when we tried to do it anyway we were threatened with fines. When we asked what would happen if we didn't pay the fines we were threatened with court and jail time. True story.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2) (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732780)

How to spot an extremist ideologue:
  1. Refers to something in a way no one outside their subculture does (with bonus capitalization). The State. The Fascists. The Zionists. The Leftists. The Statists. Global Capital.
  2. There are no facts, only the idealogy
  3. If someone tries something inspired by the ideology and fails it isn't because the ideology is flawed, it is because they didn't do it right. (see neoconservatives and the Bush Admin, or communists and the Soviet Union)
  4. All issues and problems, no matter how complex, can be reduced down to a few talking points. ("its the WTO!" or "Taxation is theft!")
  5. Their user name is Dada21...
  6. They invest all their money in gold

Re:I support State censorship of all media (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732487)

The problem with what you suggest is that eventually physical violence will be necessary in order for individuals to exercise their rights. You're encouraging the state to do its worst, which makes me think you need to go back and read some Solzhenitsyn to see just what the "worst" looks like.

Advocating such a policy seems irresponsible, especially since we haven't yet figured out how to convince the so-called "progressive" elements of society that self-defense is, in fact, a basic human right. You're basically saying we should turn a bunch of wolves loose in a pen of sheep.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732539)

The problem with what you suggest is that eventually physical violence will be necessary in order for individuals to exercise their rights.

Um, yeah. That's pretty much how it's been for every single empire in history. Except India, maybe. But even then Ghandi had to die before they really got into it.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732602)

The problem with what you suggest is that eventually physical violence will be necessary in order for individuals to exercise their rights.

So it would seem, but I don't think that is true. In the old days, the State had their local enforces: people who spied on others for the State. Today, the State seems to rely more and more on technology. As many of us geeks know, logs are very hard to maintain. Even with NSA-level search algorithms and routines, it is likely that the State will only try to watch over more and more, and eventually it will be ineffective except against the few that the State already is watching directly. Even the US' own internal spy agency is more targetted to watching political enemies than common people. Most common people that smoke pot do so without much concern. Most common people who own unregistered weapons also do so without fear. This means that the State doesn't work, and we can only hope that the blackhats will continuously find ways around the restrictions and regulations.

So far, freedom is winning in more circles than the media will let on. In my area there are already groups that barter and trade in bullion rather than in fiat paper currency. There are already a few private restaurants, almost a dozen farmers who sell better quality and lower priced produce and dairy than the grocery store, hundreds of day laborers that you can hire for a few dollars an hour (hit up any Home Depot in the morning), and the like. There is likely no way for the State to enforce even 1% of its laws -- they're only bound to use them against specific enemies. Don't be that enemy.

Who is the real enemy of the State? Any individual or group which attempts to create a competition cartel that competes directly with the State's income. Just look at any war on "_subject_" and you'll see that it is always about the State being in control of the distribution or manufacturing of some product or service.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732724)

Just look at any war on "_subject_" and you'll see that it is always about the State being in control of the distribution or manufacturing of some product or service.

Yes, I hear there's a lot of private support for poverty! So, what happened to the war on that?

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732812)


Yes, I hear there's a lot of private support for poverty! So, what happened to the war on that?


The State at every level in the US is the biggest producer of poverty. No State mandate, regulation or program has helped more people than it harmed, so why do we even bother with new programs?

Re:I support State censorship of all media (5, Insightful)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732495)

I'd just as soon rather have the government not pester me in the first place as opposed to engaging in the cat and mouse game that you seem to prefer.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732513)

They stole from me, now I get to take it back.

Actually, you just get to stop them from stealing from you now . They still have the money they taxed away last week.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (5, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732575)

The reason I support State censorship of all media is the same reason why I support the State in all of its madness: the more they do to harm us, the more the free market will provide means for entrepreneurs to find new ways around the madness.

Bearing in mind that we call such free marketeers "pirates" and "terrorists" and toruture and shoot them.

Thank you for your patronage and enjoy your Soviet style "free market." We couldn't do it without you.

The State

KFG

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732612)

Bearing in mind that we call such free marketeers "pirates" and "terrorists" and toruture and shoot them.

For now. Give it 5-10 years and there will be more than enough anonymity devices to protect anything the State considers deviant thought or action.

Thank you for your patronage and enjoy your Soviet style "free market." We couldn't do it without you.

The difference between the Soviet Union and today is that the USSR had no Internet, technology worldwide wasn't very advanced and the ability to communicate beyond 7 miles of your home was either too costly or too slow. All of these things have changed thanks to the free market entrepreneurship that continues to advance technology and the Internet.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

Burlap (615181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732784)

Cause China and Cuba have these and they are doing just great in terms of having a free market

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732836)

Cause China and Cuba have these and they are doing just great in terms of having a free market

Having visited both in recent years, I can tell you that both DO have a growing free market. China has one of the least resistant licensing/zoning/regulating bodies. Anyone can open a business in ONE DAY in most of China. I am repeatedly amazed at how far from sovietism China has come in recent years -- mostly because of the Internet and the opportunities that globalism provides.

Cuba isn't as bad as some would think. One of the biggest detriments to MORE free market expansion in Cuba is the US. Our embargo of the country is one of the prime reasons why the Cuban black market sees less expansion than most socialist/communist countries. Because of the US embargo, much of the world refuses to trade with Cuba. Here we see one State working with another to keep harming their people.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (4, Insightful)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732793)

All of these things have changed thanks to the free market entrepreneurship that continues to advance technology and the Internet.

And DARPA. For some odd reason, the participants in the free market never saw building a global packet network as an opportunity.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732882)

Ahhhhhhhhhh, an Internet Utopian. That explains why you overestimate the power of technology and underestimate the power of both the state and the free market.

A round a black marketeering across the Iron Curtain would likely have done you a world of good.

By the way, I haven't thanked you for my gift subscription, but it does put me in the rather Thoreauian position of someone else having paid my tax for me. :)

KFG

Re:I support State censorship of all media (2, Interesting)

crabpeople (720852) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732933)

"Bearing in mind that we call such free marketeers "pirates" and "terrorists" and toruture and shoot them."
For now. Give it 5-10 years and there will be more than enough anonymity devices to protect anything the State considers deviant thought or action.

Thats the most weak and naieve thing ive ever read. Have you considered the possibilty of you being shot or locked up long before such devices - which would certainly be illegal to produce, distribute, possess - come into exsistance? Not to mention the idea of retreating into a secret world where i have to closely watch my behavior in all public (and private?) places. The idea that you think of it being nessecary to carry around some sort of anonymous framework to protect yourself from going to jail is so stupid i cannot even comment any more on it.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732619)

You do realize, of course, that you're still supposed to report purchases made online, so that you can pay taxes on them, right? They've already closed that loophole. You're just breaking the law when you try to exploit it.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (5, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732647)

I *hiccup* came up with this swell drinkin' *hiccup* game. Every time the parent *hiccup* poster recommends the free market as the solution to *hiccup* everything, you take a shot.

I've made it halfway through his post *hiccup* and I'm still stan....

*THUD*
NO CARRIER

And I get told I'm crazy... (5, Insightful)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732660)

And people here call me nuts when I suggest slashdot is crawling with Austrian-School anarchist whackjobs.... /me rolls eyes. Take all these "anarcho-capitalists" and put them on a desert island for a week ... the one left alive after that week probably wont be an anarcho-capitalist anymore... /me is center-seeking and dislikes all extreemes.

Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (5, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732712)

What does "center-seeking" mean? There is no "center" between being a Statist and being Anarcho-capitalist. Either you think freedom requires the State or it doesn't. There is no "center" there.

My reasons why the State shouldn't exist is proven every day -- just spend a day at your local courthouse, take note of every law that is violated, and think about what the person did that directly harmed a specific individual with that action. I do this about 3 times a year, and so far the best day for the State is when 9 out of 600 cases had to do with a specific crime against an individual's property, body or tool. 591 cases were "The People against ABC" and ABC didn't do anything that hurt anyone directly. This was on their best day!

I'd rather live in a world where those 9 people who were hurt are still hurt, maybe 27 people even, than in a world where 591 people go to jail or lose in court because of the State's desire for more power and money and the control of the expansion of both power and money.

Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (1)

protohiro1 (590732) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732814)

If someone calls you a "whack-job" and then you call them a "Statist" you just proved their point.

Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (1)

Burlap (615181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732820)

just cause you didnt see it doesnt meen no one was hurt. Say one of those 591 cases was someone who didnt want to pay thier property taxes... no on hurt right? What if because of low funds your town had to let a snow-plow driver go... then that winter someone gets in an accident that they wouldnt have if the town had just that one extra snow-plow on the road... someone was hurt, you just didnt see it in court.

Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732949)

just cause you didnt see it doesnt meen no one was hurt. Say one of those 591 cases was someone who didnt want to pay thier property taxes... no on hurt right? What if because of low funds your town had to let a snow-plow driver go... then that winter someone gets in an accident that they wouldnt have if the town had just that one extra snow-plow on the road... someone was hurt, you just didnt see it in court.

Wow, that's a stretch. Here's another scenario: let's say that person did pay their property taxes, and the town ended up with a budget surplus, and because of that they hired an extra snow-plow driver, but that snow-plow driver turned out to be a bit off in the head, and he likes to run over little puppies and small children with his snow plow, and he runs someone over. Someone was hurt because the other person paid their property taxes.

Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732861)

There is no center but there is a balance. Sometimes you have to give more to the left than the right and sometimes you have to give more to the right then you give to the left. The problem we face in the current U.S. political sphere, and I'd wager in other western democracies as well, is that neither side wants to budge from their position an d whichever political party dominates the government pushes their parties agendas. The people do not enter the equation in any significant manner except to vote. We don't need to reboot the entire government, we just need to kill the two party application that's hogging all the CPU and memory.

Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (3, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732922)

But the Left and the Right are almost identical all over the world -- both sides are just vying for personal power of the politician. Neither side has any ideology that differs much from the other in the long run.

I remember when the Right in the US was against public schooling, public health care and welfare. That is no longer true. I remember when the Left in the US was against Big Business, internal improvements and war. Again, no longer true. By "center" you just mean "center-Statist." There are two sides of the political coin: those who believe in the market of competition and those who believe in the monopoly of force. Center/Left/Right-ists are aligned on the monopoly of force side of the coin.

Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (4, Insightful)

jsm (5728) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732964)

... because of the State's desire for more power and money and the control of the expansion of both power and money.

Large businesses do the same thing. The difference is that the government has to at least pretend to be acting in the interest of the voters. With private industry in power, there is no voting them out.

I'm sure you can name a few large corporations whose fiercely-guarded monopolies and influence on our governments makes them more resemble Soviet-era state-owned industries than a "free market".

Re:support State censorship of all media (2, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732737)

while I see your point, it breaks down as the state continues to grow.

the state does NOT want people working around it, and left unchecked it will flex it's growing muscle to PREVENT those who do work around it - with manipulation, increasing force, and eventually simply locking up, toturing and killing those who rebel.

This is simply a question of some people thinking it's OK to control other people. To a small degree, it works - and keeps order, to a larger degree, it still works, but people start to get unhappy - to an extreme degree, people are harmed by extreme levels of control.

Re:support State censorship of all media (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732765)

It helps a great deal that the idea of dissent versus authority is very uncommon
in India.

Indians, by and large, have a very strong culturally motivated tendency to embrace authority and to support the people being regulated.

Of course there are exceptions, but the norm in India definitely tends toward acceptance of authority.

Re:support State censorship of all media (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732889)

the state does NOT want people working around it, and left unchecked it will flex it's growing muscle to PREVENT those who do work around it - with manipulation, increasing force, and eventually simply locking up, toturing and killing those who rebel.

Of course it doesn't, but when the State gets too aggressive, it falls apart. The USSR fell apart because communications were growing, technology was freeing people from the State's monopoly over them, and the government got too big to spy on everyone. I was in the USSR as a teen before the collapse and there was a HUGE black/free market in any good you wanted (clothing, food, toilet paper, sex, drugs, cigarettes, even cars and homes!). My last visit to India showed me a HUGE black market in the housing market. When I wanted to buy a house, I was told to pay 20% of the cost in "white money" which the State taxed. The rest (80%) was paid in "black money" under the table.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (5, Insightful)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732755)

The reason I support State censorship of all media is the same reason why I support the State in all of its madness: the more they do to harm us, the more the free market will provide means for entrepreneurs to find new ways around the madness.
You're absolutely right. This is the same reason I go around sucker-punching total strangers. I figure that the more often I sneak up behind someone and ram my fist into their kidneys, the more motivation they'll have to ummmm.... avoid getting sucker-punched in the kidneys?

I also go around stealing things left unattended, like books, backpacks, and small children. This increases people's motivation to pay attention to their private property, which is good because you never know what sort of unsavory people might be around.

Anyhow, I'm doing my part to make the world a better place. What about the rest of you?

Re:I support State censorship of all media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732786)

The reason I support State censorship of all media is the same reason why I support the State in all of its madness: the more they do to harm us, the more the free market will provide means for entrepreneurs to find new ways around the madness.

Dude, you're insane. How many entrepreneurs did you see in Stalinist Russia?

Re:I support State censorship of all media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732835)

I like to think of that as our backup plan. Until then, why not bitch and moan about all the bullshit and hope it will have some effect.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732841)

The reason I support State censorship of all media is the same reason why I support the State in all of its madness: the more they do to harm us, the more the free market will provide means for entrepreneurs to find new ways around the madness.

And here I thought "free market entrepeneurs" bribing public officials was part of the problem with the government. Silly me.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732844)

As others have said, your ideas are stupid. You're a spoiled rich brat who's lived in the lap of relative luxury and freedom and cannot comprehend a truly despotic state. A 9% sales tax and no smoking would be laughed at by my grandparents; they'd have probably given their lives for that kind of "oppression." Even China is paradise compared to what a state can do when it really wants to.

I doubt you'd be owning that a non-state sanctioned (and controlled) cell phone if the punishment for owning it was 50 years in a labor camp (read: 1 year in a labor camp as you'd be dead by then). Get caught at the dinner club? Everyone involved including your children and relatives are about to go on a one way trip to said work camp if you're lucky.

It takes one madman to cause all that, and you want to give him all the tools he needs to gain unopposed power. Not much opposition when he uses that spy network to its full extent (which no one knew about of course) and 90% of his opponents end up dead within a weak.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732869)

Serious question here...I've always enjoyed your libertarian rants on many topics. Have you just finally cracked?

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

sfjoe (470510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732921)

It makes me laugh when the local politicians argue about what they're losing to the web. They stole from me, now I get to take it back.

Republicans are nothing if not entertaining. But I wonder why they continue to live here. If they hate paying for roads and schools and libraries so much, why not just move to a country that doesn't have those things? Then the taxes they hate so much would be nonexistent.

Re:I support State censorship of all media (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732958)

The reason I support State censorship of all media is the same reason why I support the State in all of its madness: the more they do to harm us, the more the free market will provide means for entrepreneurs to find new ways around the madness.

This kind of economic reasoning strikes me as crypto-religious: the free market is a kind of stand in for a benevolent, loving and personal God who will make everything come out right in the end.

The problem is that it ignores two important facts:

(1) "Society" may benefit in the end, but that doesn't mean "us". In other words, if you and I pay the price, it may be some lucky descedent of somebody we don't know reaps the benefit. This always bothers me in any triumphal depiction of horrible social dislocations like the Enclosure Movement, or romantic depictions of Medieval chivalry. You always picture yourself on the receiving side, but that's not necessarily how you are positioned.

(2) Entrepreneurs don't labor to supply our wants. They labor to get our money. The two are related, but not inevitably linked. You are assuming that government is not only nonsensical, but insensible altogther, which it is not. Snce the government knows it is being defined, it will crack down. Legal pressure and increased costs will result in suppliers leaving the market, causing price rises. What you end up with is an equillibrium, where the government can't be bothered to do more, yet a few suppliers who have adapted make a good deal of money. And consumers of course are left with inferior, shoddy and dangerous goods.

You get the War on Drugs.

Pursuing hare brained social ideas like "starving the beast", "Marxist historical dialectic" or in this case "encouraging the state in its madness" doesn't produce social progress. It produces long term stalemate and stagnation.

So, you oughtn't encourage the State to do wrong, for the reasons I cited above: (1) Because doing so it victimizes others who are not in position to benefit from the coming historical dialectic and (2) the historical dialectic isn't coming.

I guess slashdot would be on the blacklist (2, Informative)

crummyname (977083) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732479)

Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism.

My, that's awfully broad.

Re:I guess slashdot would be on the blacklist (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732594)

My, that's awfully broad.

Contemptuous speach of hate defaming women, and thus pornography. Out of the pool.

KFG

Re:I guess slashdot would be on the blacklist (1)

9x320 (987156) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732666)

I guess they joined Pakistan [wikipedia.org] in censoring the exact same blogging services, which was done to make sure no one in Pakistan could see the Mohammad cartoons. They even reportedly blocked Wikipedia for about two or three days, before it was decided that block should be lifted. (Pakistan blog headline: "Pakistani Supreme Court goes and pulls a China on us")

Let's see if India does the same thing.

Re:I guess slashdot would be on the blacklist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732717)

Broad: n. Contemptous word for "woman."

Bang bang, you're banned.

Good for innovation (2, Interesting)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732485)

Maybe this is good:

Censorship in a technically savvy, non-repressed country, will spur censorship-circumvention technology by leaps and bounds.

Re:Good for innovation (1)

AchiIIe (974900) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732542)

I think this is excellent news for developers and IT workers in the western countries. The more bad news comes from India, the less likely companies will outsource there.

I guess this means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732486)

that America has retaken its rightful position as the largest democracy in the world!

U S A! U S A!

Re:I guess this means... (1)

thePig (964303) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732667)

I am not too sure.
See, it depends on the view on democracy.
In my view, it means that the country is ruled by people selected by its citizens, has a very stable constitution which can be used as a safeguard against any mismanagement of power.
i.e. all.

The remaining things, freedom, privacy etc is there in the package, but there can be _huge_ differences in how it is seen and viewed.
For example - if you see, individual freedom is given a lot of importance in India too, but not to the level which is afforded in USA. an average indian, in general, are very different from an average american. He doesnt view freedom as all-encompassing. Rather it is expected that freedom is all very important, but it shouldnt fly in the face of tradition or shouldnt be allowed to hurt the feelings of minorities or this or that.

So, do not judge another person by your standards, and everything is fine.

Re:I guess this means... (2, Interesting)

PenguinPirate (989430) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732965)

In this end, its probably just a moot point for more votes. Some moron (or smart guy in the parlance of politicians and lawyers) is probably using "censorship" in his campaign agenda, and of course, the real issues are too hard for the dude to take care of.... Politicians everywhere are just power crazy morons, far from being tech savvy, and none of them I'm sure has ever heard of slashdot.. In the end *any* form of censorship is bad.. Its just pointless. There are sites that are obligated to report the truth, such as BBC, CNN, IndiaTimes etc.. and there are websites that display random crap (porn, personal websites, blogs fall under that category) .. If Dick decides to burn a building cause one of the these websites recommends it, Dick doesn't have a brain and should be "whacked" (as in the Sopranos way), as much for stupidity as for recklessness... Its not censorship that they need to adopt but put more resources into a law and order system. And yeah, I'm from India..

In India's case it is understandable (0, Flamebait)

Pao|o (92817) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732488)

With all the flak they're getting from "outsourcing" it is understandable the Indian govt would want to protect their citizens from the nasty words of layed-off American employees whose jobs were sent to Mumbai!

Dont go to http://pinoyexchange.com/ [pinoyexchange.com]

All your TOR are belong to us? (4, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732491)

First they came for the political dissidents. I was not a political dissident.

Then they came for the religous prosthelizers. I was not a religous prosthelizer.

Then they came for the pornographers. I was not a pornographer.

Then they came for the bloggers. That day I got religion and began standing up for my right to sell p0rn.

Re:All your TOR are belong to us? (1)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732719)

Censor me once, shame on you. Censor me twice, *censored*.

not completely new (3, Interesting)

Coneasfast (690509) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732493)

India has always been a censoring country (although not as much as China). Usually, anything sexually obscene, or anything else considered highly controversial with the general population will be censored/banned (ie, movies such as 'Water').

However, censoring blog sites is a step down, why would they do this?
"The list [of censored sites] is confidential and I can't make it public"
It seems like they are trying to push some sort of hidden agenda.

Re:not completely new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732518)

Usually, anything sexually obscene, or anything else considered highly controversial with the general population will be censored/banned (ie, movies such as 'Water').

This from the country where the Kama Sutra originated?

Re:not completely new (1)

middlemen (765373) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732771)

India has always been a censoring country (although not as much as China). Usually, anything sexually obscene, or anything else considered highly controversial with the general population will be censored/banned (ie, movies such as 'Water').

You are totally right dude,... there is too much censorship of sexually explicit material/anything in India, so much that students and people like me work really really hard, so that we can come to USA and comfortably enjoy the entertainment agencies that are known as "strip clubs"...

India remains a basket case. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732496)

The U.S. needs to rethink whether the government is a reliable "ally". Pakistan stuck with us during the tough times and India's support of nuclear proliferation is dangerous to the world. India keeps trying to pull themseleves up by the bootstraps but keeps stumbling on their own shoe laces. I just don't think these guys understand the modern world. They need focus less on getting oursourcing contracts and nuclear bombs and concentrate more on treating their poor fairly.

Re:India remains a basket case. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732577)

While india isn't perfect, Pakistan is a complete basket case. The US's financial support of the current regime is madness.

Read more in the economist's special report [economist.com]

Cencorship sucks (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732499)

This is very sad. The reason lies not only with dumb politicians but also dumb implementation of policy. Basically, the Indian govt. had sent a list of 22 blogs/sites that it wanted blocked and the ISP's just blocked the entire domain. I hope this will be corrected soon.
Not that I condone the blocking of the 22 sites. Opinion, no matter how counter culturalistic, or hard to swallow must be allowed to be expressed.
The good out of this is that Indian bloggers have filed an application for release the list of the 22 sites blocked. I am very interested to know which sites were officially blocked and why? I have a suspicision that this could have something to do with recent bombings in India. For now, I guess its wait and see.

Re:Cencorship sucks (1)

George Beech (870844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732600)

Re-read the article ...
J Grewal, Spectranet's Delhi representative at the National Internet exchange of India, told this reporter that, on July 15, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) had sent ISPs a list of sites to be blocked. R H Sharma, senior engineer with MTNL, said the list ran into some 22 pages.

It's 22 PAGES of sites, not just 22 sites.

however even one site being blocked is too many

Hmmm (5, Funny)

Cisko Kid (987514) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732520)

I saw Indiana Jones in that headline. I need more coffee....

Re:Hmmm (5, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732566)

Democracy belongs IN A MUSEUM!

Re:Hmmm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732794)

So do you!

No kidding? (0, Redundant)

fury88 (905473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732873)

LOL you're not the only one who saw that...

How effective is it? (1)

in2mind (988476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732536)

While the block seems to have comewith the reasoning as 'Security',its still possible to access these blogs anyway.

http://www.pkblogs.com/ [pkblogs.com] is a very easy way to access blogspot page.
Opens any X.blogspot.com page.
Tried my own blog...opens fine....:)

The usual anonymizer.com also works...

Pornography, gambling, and the rantings of idiots (4, Funny)

lowy (91366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732558)

From TFA:

"Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism."

They can't block 95% of the Internet! :-)

Payoff (1)

eronysis (928181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732559)

I would expect to see some large network launch a large Weblog community intended for soley in country use and advertising. My dollar is this was a payout by the owners of the above mnetioned service. This just smells of dirty money.

Wow... (-1, Redundant)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732567)

Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism.

That's 99% of the web right now!

Optimism (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732578)

Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism.

Wow, what an ambitious task. Perhaps those Indian censors try to make the river Ganges flow up hill while they are at it.

What would YOU allow to be censored? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732579)

If you were making censorship laws, what would YOU allow a judge to order someone to not disclose? Yes, we are talking about prior restraint.

In the USA, judges have the power to issue prior restraint when the person who has the knowledge obtained in on the condition of non-disclosure. For example, a former employer can gag me from spilling corporate secrets. Ditto spilling state secrets if I have a security clearance, or spilling info form a Grand Jury investigation if I was in the hearing room.

In the USA, judges can also restrain you from posting obscene materials or child pornography, as those are illegal to publish under just about any circumstances.

In some countries, of course, the government has more prior restraint power.

So, Slashdotters, how much if any prior restraint would you allow if you were making the rules?

Huh? (0, Redundant)

Necronomicode (859935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732590)

Was it just me that read that as 'Indiana Jones China in censoring websites'?

I was thinking wow that was gonna be a poor fourth movie ;-)

Indian Jones? (0, Redundant)

Racher (34432) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732605)

Did anyone else read that as "Indian Jones Censoring Websites"

Throw me the laptop, I'll throw you the link!

Re:Indian Jones? (1)

asleepathemouse (836999) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732731)

you are not alone on that one..lol

Indiana Jones (0, Redundant)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732624)

Uh, looks like my English parser failed me again, from the first glance I assumed the headline said "Indiana Jones", until I realized the absurdity after reading the summary.

Why aren't they censoring Myspace though? It's a much more serious threat to any civilized society than Blogspot, porn, or terrorists.

Re:Indiana Jones (1)

donutello (88309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732711)

Well, you wouldn't be too far from the truth because India did ban "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom".

Re:Indiana Jones (1)

Anonymovs Coward (724746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732741)

Why aren't they censoring Myspace though?

Myspace isn't particularly popular in India, thankfully.

It won't last... (4, Insightful)

Anonymovs Coward (724746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732641)

India isn't China. Never attribute to malice what is explained by incompetence, especially in India. Some bungling bureaucrat had this bright idea, but the sites will be accessible again in a short while. It's happened before. (In fact, right now I can access them from my home account though not from my work account.)

Oh you brownies (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732673)

you're so awkward!

If you care enough, just protest here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732698)

BurntFlag.com [burntflag.com]

blocking web properties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732706)

It's about time! I suggest doing away with the "flash" tag and anything that re-sizes your browser window first...

This is a bad thing? (1)

gravyface (592485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732709)

"...Unfortunately, Blogspot and TypePad are the targets till now."
Oh no! No more blogs? Hrmm.. wait a second...

New Indian National Monument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732726)

The Taj-Mahalt

*groan*

Democracy sure does equal freedom (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732759)

Take that, you idiots who wring your hands about "losing your democracy." Democracy and freedom are not the same thing, and the one does NOT by default lead to the other. In fact, the only major accomplishment of democracy has been to grant legitimacy to the Fascist state. It allows the masses to throw their weight in behind every violation of the rights of the minority.

What India has proved is that democratic states have no inherent moral authority. It has landed itself in the same mass of political crap that China and Saudi Arabia are in. There is no moral difference between states that censor, even if it is "benign." Either way, a state that practices official censorship of anything except for media that requires violence or fraud to be created, is a regime that directly or indirectly uses the threat of loss of life, liberty or property to silence others. There is no moral difference between a threat of prosecution and simply shooting someone in the head, when the offense is speaking out with an unpopular idea.

And by the way, has that rubbish about the Internet detecting censorship as damage and routing around been relegated to the trash heap of history where it belongs? It seems that for citizens of China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India and Britain (with its hashed list of "bad sites" as if we even know whether they're all illegal under British law.) that the only routing that is being down is getting in trouble or sent to prison for non-compliance.

Censorship in India (4, Insightful)

bayankaran (446245) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732783)

Censorship in India is inconsistent and haphazard to say the least.

Local and Central governments will ban/reject a book/film on the pretext that it will be dangerous to religious sentiments or social harmony. An example is the James Laine's book - An Epic on Shivaji [hinduonnet.com] , books by Salman Rushdie, the Peter Seller's comedy 'The Party', and even the innocuous (though a bit silly) documentaries made by Louis Malle in the late 60's.

Most of the Anand Patwardhan documentaries [patwardhan.com] were banned/not cleared and his battles with the Indian censor boards show the tolerance level for the overlords are very low. One of the documentaries (if my memory is correct 'Father, Son and Holy War' [imdb.com] ) had footage of the chief minister of the state of Maharashtra and later the speaker of Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) - Manohar Joshi [wikipedia.org] - seen extolling Hindu women during a rally in a remote Maharashtrian town to give birth to more children to offset the rise in Muslim population (typical FUD by hardliners). If such utterances can be made at a political rally, I have no idea what banning the documentary will prove.

The same time, the most vulgar, sexist and reactionary Hindi (Bollywood for you), Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Malayalam or other popular cinema pass the censors with absolutely no problem.

Also the Indian Government is yet to relax its hold on radio and licenses to operate a station [wikipedia.org] - which actually reach the 100% of the Indian population (compared to 10-20% reach of the mostly urban satellite/cable.)

Bypass the ban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732797)

Bypassing the Ban [wikia.com]

The government once again tries to make a fool of itself. They tried it in 2003, failed and now this. Also not all ISP's are blocking the sites. Btw, the new congress government is no longer any diffrent from the BJP. Yeah, they reacted POTO (equivalent to the US Patriot act) ...But they are not keeping up their word regarding freedom of speech etc ...They have become the represive govt that they promised to replace in the last election!

India and China are very different cases (3, Insightful)

CurtMonash (986884) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732798)

China's obvious censorship goal -- quasi-permanent suppression of the citizens' desire to be able to throw their rulers out of office. (Which is the one big advantage democracies have over other forms of government. Even if you usually replace the bums with guys equally bad, the fact that you can get rid of them certain limits how bad they can get.) This should be fought at almost any cost, both on moral grounds and for enlightened self-interest. And so I'll again shamelessly plus my proposal of how WE -- yes, WE -- can make a difference. http://www.monashreport.com/2006/04/17/how-to-beat -chinese-censorship-operation-peking-duck/ [monashreport.com]

India's apparent censorship goal -- well, like the anti-Nazi free speech limitations in Europe, India's political censorship seems to be focused on defusing (and diffusing) racial, religious, or ethnic tensions, so that they don't erupt into violence or worse. This censorship is certainly something we should carefully monitor and worry about, but it could yet turn out to be relatively benign. E.g., as another poster suggested, it could be the work of an overzealous bureaucrat, or some incompetent ISPs panicking in the face of a sensibly limited directive and blocking much more than they were told to. Either way, the whole thing might and hopefully will soon be reverse.

And just to be clear -- I think ALL this censorship is stupid. I just think that some of it is bad enough to be my problem and yours, while some of it is benign enough it should be left to the people of the affected countries themselves to deal with as they see fit.

Related to recent Terrorist attacks? (3, Insightful)

EqualSlash (690076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732807)

I am guessing that it's most likely related to the recent Terrorist attacks in Mumbai. India's National Security Agencies have been reporting that Terrorists have started using blogs for provocative propaganda that could corrupt the minds of gullible youth. The Indian Government is under huge pressure to extinguish the activities of the terrorist groups that have in recent times started misusing technology for their malicious ends.

At least there's a fightback (2, Informative)

nigham (792777) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732809)

Re:At least there's a fightback (1)

behindthecamera (964294) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732920)

Just as long as it doesn't come in Windows Media.

Its a crackdown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732831)

A political blog states that this is a crackdown and an operation is going on to track some terrorist sites IP addresses. Everything will be normal once this operation is over.

Link: http://mutiny.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/blog-blacko ut/ [wordpress.com]

Protecting themselves from American content? (1)

ickyellf (903367) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732851)

It looks like the Indian government is doing this under the umbrella of "cultural sovereignty." They're trying to favor homegrown content rather than the American sites like Google. The Net is blurring national borders, and a lot of people, both in America and abroad, are unhappy about it. They're trying to put a cork in the Net revolution, but it's not going to work.

Temporary? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732856)

One rumour about this is that it is a temporary ban. That there's some sort of government action happening in the next 48 hours to shut down a militant/terrorist group and this is to curtail their communications.

Another possibility is some sort of retaliation for the Mumbai bombing.

Regardless, only rumours at the moment. So take with as large a grain of salt as you choose.

Holy cow! (2, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732857)

This sounds like a job for Zapp Brannigan! Quick, Kif, to the shag mobile!

Other Banned Things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15732872)

Apparently India also bans toilet paper, preferring to wipe their backsides with their bare bands instead. Then they also seem to ban bathing with soap as standing next to one of these natives leaves one thinking they are standing next to a dumpster with a corpse in it.

Annoying story title (1)

tont0r (868535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732934)

I first read it as 'Indiana Jones in China Censors". Damn my simple brain.

Re: TFA (1)

slack_prad (942084) | more than 8 years ago | (#15732950)

India != China
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?