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!

The Coming Censorship Wars

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the just-go-around dept.

Censorship 197

KentuckyFC writes "Many countries censor internet traffic using techniques such as blocking IP addresses, filtering traffic with certain URLs in the data packets and prefix hijacking. Others allow wiretapping of international traffic with few if any legal safeguards. There are growing fears that these practices could trigger a major international incident should international traffic routed through these countries fall victim, whether deliberately or by accident (witness the prefix hijacking of YouTube in Pakistan last year). So how to avoid these places? A group of computer scientists investigating this problem say it turns out to be surprisingly difficult to determine which countries traffic might pass through. But their initial assessment indicates that the countries with the most pervasive censorship policies — China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia — pose a minimal threat because so little international traffic passes their way. The researchers instead point the finger at western countries that have active censorship policies and carry large amounts of international traffic. They highlight the roles of the two biggest carriers: Great Britain, which actively censors internet traffic, and the US, which allows warrantless wiretapping of international traffic (abstract)."

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

to paraphrase a quote (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282549)

Eventually the internet will treat the USA as damage and route around it.

Re:to paraphrase a quote (3, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282649)

then what of Britain or Australia or france, which already use censorship on it's people.

Soon there won't be places to route the damage around.

Re:to paraphrase a quote (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282767)

So what? Here's another quote:

As Confucius said, if rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it.

Re:to paraphrase a quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282777)

which already use censorship on it's people.

One day the Internet will censor bad grammar. :)

That'll probably be the day Yahoo Answers (the new AOL) shuts its doors for good.

K THX XOXOXO~

Re:to paraphrase a quote (4, Informative)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283555)

Australia doesn't _yet_. The govt is trying to set up a system, but hasn't got there yet

Re:to paraphrase a quote (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283801)

really they have a blacklist that has been blacklisted itself.

if you have a list and are actively adding sites to that list. then your simply waiting for the hardware updates to enforce said list.

Re:to paraphrase a quote (2, Funny)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284205)

Australia doesn't censor the internet.

We still have the right of free-speech for now.

skibaldy (5, Insightful)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282555)

A society that uses Censorship must have something or someone to hide.

Re:skibaldy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282665)

Typical USA thinking... you're either with us or against us. In politics, two parties with opposite views. Same goes for military vs civilian, religion vs science, etc. The list goes on.

Except that in real life the world isn't binary, my friends.

Re:skibaldy (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282903)

So wait, tell me where this censorship is going to stop?

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Have you not seen throughout history that those who censor end up censoring *everything*? Sure, first everyone can agree that child porn is bad, but if we don't speak out against this who knows what will be next.

Re:skibaldy (-1, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283283)

That's the problem. Some censorship is critical to national security, or other types of security. Right now nuclear devices are too hard to build for any single idiot. Fusion research may change that. Would you want THOSE plans public ? Or censored ? Should the U.S. publish nuclear transports so that the next time some "allah"-massacrers feel like attacking something they can really do some damage ? Perhaps the plans to the brooklyn bridge should be made public, including a little booklet "blow these 2 bars up if you want to make sure lots of people die" ? Perhaps skyscraper plans, in order to encourage "flaw finding" in skyscrapers like in software programs. The next time muslims feel like massacring they could bring down a few 100 buildings instead of 2, by exploiting these "security holes" ?

In DNA manipulation, some procedures aren't all that difficult, even to do in your own garage. Preparing a bioweapon isn't hard (it's not killing yourself in the process and delivering the weapon that are the problematic parts), perhaps it should be published how it's done, with extra emphasis on those parts where the terrorists that have tried had real trouble with (e.g. an ineffective delivery device for sarin gas was the only thing that prevented the tokyo subway from being filled with that gas. Can't have that ... let's publish a few DIY plans).

Child porn stimulates abusing children sexually for financial gain. Censorship can prevent the financial gain, thereby lowering child abuse. Of course this is a good thing.

Let's face it, censoring some things should be done. Basically anything that crosses a certain threshold of criticality and cannot easily be modified should be a secret, and it should be a crime to divulge such information to anyone who does not need to know. Everything from building weaknesses to certain scientific results ...

And obviously a country's government gets to spy on "transit" traffic. Even ISP's, which are private companies, get to do that (and they *have* to, at least somewhat, if they want to keep the network operating).

Whether censorship is allowed or not, should depend on the intention of the censorship. Whether spying is allowed, should depend on the intention (certainly there can be little argument that there's nothing against defensive spying). Censorship to prevent crimes from creating truly major consequences should be done.

If we don't ... all it takes is 1 (ONE) lunatic. And I do believe we have more supply than just one.

Re:skibaldy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283403)

Child porn stimulates abusing children sexually for financial gain. Censorship can prevent the financial gain, thereby lowering child abuse. Of course this is a good thing.

Yes, because those who produce child porn obviously doesn't like doing it. Cash stimulates the selling of said porn, but is unlikely to affect the motivation.

Re:skibaldy (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283503)

That's the problem. Some censorship is critical to national security, or other types of security. Right now nuclear devices are too hard to build for any single idiot. Fusion research may change that. Would you want THOSE plans public ? Or censored ?

There is a difference between non public or under a NDA than censored. For example, is an author's work that he never published censored? No. Its simply not published. While nuclear blueprints would certainly be non-published, and in the contract to which you sell your soul to a country when you become a government officer, they may forbid you to release such documents. That is not censorship, that is just not publishing them.

Now if, someone were to write "How to make a weapon of mass destruction for under $200" and the government forbid people to buy the book or the book to be published and the creators did not sign a contract that forbid such action, yes, that would be censorship.

And for your comment on flaw finding, you assume that the average person can simply find a flaw by looking at detailed blueprints that an entire team of architects could not find. That is unlikely, most terrorists are average people having little to no specialized skills, they aren't a professional architect, they aren't going to be able to find these said flaws. Give a script kiddy the source to the Linux kernel and tell them to find a buffer overflow, they won't be able to do it. Similarly, an ordinary terrorist isn't going to be able to find these magical faults in buildings with the blueprints.

In DNA manipulation, some procedures aren't all that difficult, even to do in your own garage. Preparing a bioweapon isn't hard (it's not killing yourself in the process and delivering the weapon that are the problematic parts), perhaps it should be published how it's done, with extra emphasis on those parts where the terrorists that have tried had real trouble with (e.g. an ineffective delivery device for sarin gas was the only thing that prevented the tokyo subway from being filled with that gas. Can't have that ... let's publish a few DIY plans).

Exactly, so what though? It is improbable to impossible that an ordinary person could successfully make a devastating bioweapon. Even a skilled biochemist would have much, much, difficulty. Its equivalent to saying that an ordinary person could somehow make effective weapons that took a large team of scientists many years to do, and even then it rarely worked.

You assume that someone could, and would publish "How to make a bioweapon 101" and assume that the average terrorist could read, comprehend, and carry out the steps if they were in fact correct. You can't buy Anthrax at your local store, you aren't going to find old bottles of smallpox in an abandoned warehouse, etc.

Child porn stimulates abusing children sexually for financial gain. Censorship can prevent the financial gain, thereby lowering child abuse. Of course this is a good thing.

Sure, lowering child abuse is a good thing, but censorship is not the way to go. Already, child porn has been elevated to a thinkcrime. Where by not doing any action that directly harms anyone, you are committing a crime. You are, in effect making information illegal. Now, non-free governments always start by restricting things that are "bad", but soon "bad" encompasses more, and more things until you get a situation like China. What do you think that the Chinese think that their government is censoring? Not free speech, but immoral, and generally "bad" things.

Let's face it, censoring some things should be done. Basically anything that crosses a certain threshold of criticality and cannot easily be modified should be a secret, and it should be a crime to divulge such information to anyone who does not need to know. Everything from building weaknesses to certain scientific results ...

No, no, no. It should be a crime to break a contract, for example, if you are a CIA agent, it should say that divulging secret information may be punishable by a treason charge. For most things that really need to be secret, just don't publish them. That is not censorship. For example, am I "censoring" various drawings I have made in school notebooks over the years? No, I simply am not publishing them. Same thing.

And obviously a country's government gets to spy on "transit" traffic. Even ISP's, which are private companies, get to do that (and they *have* to, at least somewhat, if they want to keep the network operating).

No, no, no. How do ISPs need to know what websites I am visiting? They don't. All that can easily be done anonymously.

If we don't ... all it takes is 1 (ONE) lunatic. And I do believe we have more supply than just one.

Show me a case in which one single lunatic has brought down a massive amount of people due to the lack of censorship.

Re:skibaldy (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284239)

There is a difference between non public or under a NDA than censored. For example, is an author's work that he never published censored? No. Its simply not published. While nuclear blueprints would certainly be non-published, and in the contract to which you sell your soul to a country when you become a government officer, they may forbid you to release such documents. That is not censorship, that is just not publishing them.

There's only a difference between non-public/nda/non-published and sensor as long as there are no leaks and no traitors. After that, it's censorship.

Unless you'd agree that under your definition of censorship killing off wikileaks.org would not be censorship. Once the information is out, it requires censorship to bring it back in. Contrary to what idiots will claim, this has a good chance of success.

Also, in the case of a scientific discovery, it may become dangerous and worthy of being out of "easy" reach of the average joe.

And for your comment on flaw finding, you assume that the average person can simply find a flaw by looking at detailed blueprints that an entire team of architects could not find.

Really ? 9/11 rewrote the book on fire safety. It would be trivial to use what was learned in that incident to bring down countless buildings, none of which are going to be rebuilt because of the new information being available.

This is an example of information that is dangerous, since it can easily be used to bring down many buildings without much warning, yet it is information that only became dangerous after a demonstration (it has something to do with asbestos and insolution installations). It used to be public information, in fact it used to be touted to anyone who wanted to hear it.

No, no, no. How do ISPs need to know what websites I am visiting? They don't. All that can easily be done anonymously.

Ever notice how cisco has "LAWFUL INTERCEPT" software for it's routers ? Juniper has the feature involved on all it's devices.

Read the docs.

Show me a case in which one single lunatic has brought down a massive amount of people due to the lack of censorship.

I only need to find stuff that could have been prevented by censorship. And finding one is not that difficult [wikipedia.org] .

Thank god there WAS censorship on delivery systems (as in many people have been asked to keep certain kinds of gas dispensers secret, and they have mostly complied. As a result a few really simple tricks that could have put the death toll in the thousands were not known to the attackers)

Besides, let's not pretend it is difficult to make the western "freedom fighting" progressives shut up about something : simply kill a few.

There used to be quite a ruckus about the massacres, paedophilic acts, wars, thefts, raids and other crimes comitted by the founder of a certain religion. All it took was shooting a few journalists and now these followers of a man that's a paedophilic massacrer and thief are never again asked about which parts, exactly, of his behavior they follow. Especially since they have made it abundantly clear that the paedophilic acts ARE being followed.

Even mentioning them can get you in prison in Europe for "disturbing racial harmony" or some such idiocy. The same is happening in America.

Nit: (4, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284299)

... most terrorists are average people having little to no specialized skills, they aren't a professional architect, ...

You shouldn't make that assumption or use it in anti-censorship arguments. In fact a non-trivial number of the planners in terrorist organizations ARE such experts.

Osama, for instance, is/was a civil engineer and owner/operator of a major civil engineering firm. Not only is he such an expert but he had many more working for him aboveground and thus plenty of potential recruits for underground work.

It's pretty clear that the attack on the Twin Towers was well designed to take the building down, probably by experts working with the building plans: The building had a failure mode that could be exploited by heat (weakening the floor structures, which braced the supporting walls against buckling, so the floors would drop away and leave the walls unbraced) and the planes were fully fueled and banked just before impact so their fuel would be deposited on several consecutive floors.

Planners in terrorist organizations don't necessarily ever end up on the operations. Thus they aren't expended and a few of them can plan many attacks.

Re:skibaldy (3, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284459)

And for your comment on flaw finding, you assume that the average person can simply find a flaw by looking at detailed blueprints that an entire team of architects could not find. That is unlikely, most terrorists are average people having little to no specialized skills, they aren't a professional architect, they aren't going to be able to find these said flaws.

1. Many of the leaders in terrorist movements are (western) college educated engineers, scientists, doctors, or they received a practical education on the ground.
Here's two /. discussions about it
http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/01/29/1614206.shtml [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/03/1943247.shtml [slashdot.org]

2. The growing fear is that educated westerners (i.e. white people) are going to be radicalized and disrupt the :cough:non-existent:cough: racial profiling that exists.

So while "most terrorists are average people having little to no specialized skills", the reality is that the people planning attacks are educated people with specialized skills.

Re:skibaldy (1)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284503)

Lets me make one thing perfectly clear I am against Child Pornography or anything that takes the rights away from an individual.

That does mean someone can NOT!!! make someone do something in The United States of America unless they have a contract and a court agrees with the dispute.

That being said, my First Wife worked several years for Larry Flynt Publications, LLC (maybe inc ?) when I was a student at California State Polytechnic University Pomona during the years form 1987 to 1990.

It was refreshing to hear a progressive American businessman tell me how he started his business. A struggeling Engineering Technology student in 1989 needed some inspiration.

Chris Otos, Owner Otos Systems, LLC
http://www.otossystems.com

Re:skibaldy (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284641)

You know I have a question for you. I wonder about it, really.

Given your stance on censorship, and the general "progressive" (heh) stance on gun ownership. Do you believe in gun ownership ? Do you believe in assault weapon ownership ?

Any and all gun bans are a sort of "physical censhorship", or at least you can see where the comparison comes from. So I wonder.

Re:skibaldy (2, Insightful)

Zarluk (976365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283969)

Perhaps, instead of investing on censorship we should invest on eduction so that "the people" could understand a little better what "the game is about" ;-)

Re:skibaldy (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283569)

Sure, first everyone can agree that kittens is bad, but if we don't speak out against this who knows what will be next.

Who said anything about kittens being bad? What do you have against kittens?

Re:skibaldy (0)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283783)

Have you not seen throughout history that those who censor end up censoring *everything*? Sure, first everyone can agree that child porn is bad, but if we don't speak out against this who knows what will be next.

Child pornography is the rape of a child for the sexual entertainment of an adult.

Distribution of the video is an added kick for the rapist - a lasting hurt for the victim - and can be quite profitable as well.

You are not an innocent when you download and retain evidence of a rape.

You are not an innocent when you are a client - a customer - who is in the market for more of the same.

This not free speech by any intelligible definition.

It is a purely criminal transaction.

So keep Pastor Niemöller out of this.

Re:skibaldy (1)

Quantos (1327889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284149)

In British Columbia Canada they had a similar problem a while back.
The courts declared that it wasn't illegal to posses child porn. There was no crime in owning it.
I looked at it this way - I should then be able to own the judges stolen television. However it wasn't my opinion that got them to reverse that decision.
I'm just glad that they did reverse it.

Re:skibaldy (2, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284693)

Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between a digital copy of something and a physical object. That analogy is really bad, and by using it you only make yourself look like a fool.

Re:skibaldy (4, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284629)

Child pornography is the rape of a child for the sexual entertainment of an adult.

Child pornography may be documentation of said rape, not the actual crime.

Distribution of the video is an added kick for the rapist

How do you know this? And should something be a crime because a rapist enjoy it?

a lasting hurt for the victim

I'm not a psychologist, but I have a feeling a victim of child abuse have much worse things to worry about than searching the web for images of themselves.

and can be quite profitable as well.

A lot of things are profitable, most of these are legal.

You are not an innocent when you download and retain evidence of a rape.

Is it illegal to own a copy or image of every type of crime evidence?

You are not an innocent when you are a client - a customer - who is in the market for more of the same.

What if you're not a client or customer, but just get everything for free?

The feeling I get here is that you simply think it's morally wrong, and want to ban it because of that. Then inventing random arguments to support it.

Re:skibaldy (5, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284669)

Child pornography is the rape of a child for the sexual entertainment of an adult.

Child pornography is also a 15 year old girl recording herself nude on her mobile phone and then sending the video to her boyfriend in his 18th birthday.

Re:skibaldy (2, Interesting)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282927)

Except that in real life the world isn't binary, my friends.

Maybe it is all binary -- just a lot of bits.

Re:skibaldy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283571)

...if only one could digitalize everything.

Re:skibaldy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283163)

So we must EITHER choose your way of thinking OR use "Typical USA thinking"?

Also, I don't detect any dualistic thinking in that post. What are you talking about really? Do you just have an axe to grind?

Re:skibaldy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282689)

Political Science off the back of a box of Frosted Flakes!

Re:skibaldy (5, Interesting)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282787)

I'm kind of on the fence about my country's censorship (The UK, that is). As far as I know, it's only child porn that is actively censored, and whilst I don't mind it being censored due to what it is, it does spark the question "Where will it stop?"

The other problem is that they don't censor everything else that's illegal - so should they continue to censor child porn and nothing else, or censor everything illegal? Or abandon all censorship? It's a tricky conundrum once it starts to involve the law :/

Re:skibaldy (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282839)

Take a look at the USA constitution to see where will it stop. The answer is, it won't ever stop. Whenever a government manages to circumvent a freedom for some "great" reason, they continue, and continue, and continue. First they let wiretaps be admissible in court, today, the government via the "Patriot" Act allows any US citizen to be wiretapped to fight against "terrorism". Its a downward spiral, first its always something that most people agree with, then they start rapidly expanding and next thing you know you are living under tyranny.

Re:skibaldy (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283305)

By that standard, there are exactly ... 0 ... people who don't live under tyranny.

By that standard the US govt is tyrannical, the EU is tyrannical, and the rest of the world ... well you know the answer to that.

Since the US government in practice is not a tyranny, but there are governments that are (e.g. all muslim governments, dictatorships, ...). So your standard is of little use.

Re:skibaldy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283915)

You don't like the the truth, so you change the standard.

The US is a tyranny. No one can know the law or how it will be applied. Honestly pleading "not guilty" can be punished more than most felonies are. Anyone can be imprisoned indefinitely on the basis of unsubstantiated secret allegations. Financial transactions and private communications are heavily monitored. Property can be seized without due process - having more than $10000 in cash is considered prima facie evidence of guilt - you have no property rights, since they are suing the cash itself, not you. The ability to travel is no longer a right but a privilege contingent on showing your government-issued papers and not being on the "terrorist watch list", which is really just an alleged enemies list. No other countries except Russia and China imprison more people.

Your posts continually reveal further depths of moral bankruptcy and abject toadying to the lowest forms of parasitic usurping political scum. You have no place in this country, this world, this life. Your ugly idiocy befouls all that is good in mankind. I loathe your very essence and wish your evil spirit complete and eternal annihilation.

   

Re:skibaldy (2, Informative)

Quantos (1327889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284047)

I would like to see where you get your facts from. Could you perhaps shed some more light on your claims?

No one can know the law or how it will be applied.

There are quite a few excellent lawyers out there, they do know the law and how to apply it.

you have no property rights, since they are suing the cash itself, not you.

I don't think that it's possible to sue a stack of cash, no matter how big it is.

The ability to travel is no longer a right but a privilege contingent on showing your government-issued papers and not being on the "terrorist watch list", which is really just an alleged enemies list.

Travel is a right, within certain guidelines. True it has gotten worse lately, for some people at least, I know many people that travel without a problem at all.

No other countries except Russia and China imprison more people.

Check your figures again, I'm pretty sure that the U.S.A. imprisons more people per capita than any other country.

Your posts continually reveal further depths of moral bankruptcy and abject toadying to the lowest forms of parasitic usurping political scum. You have no place in this country, this world, this life. Your ugly idiocy befouls all that is good in mankind. I loathe your very essence and wish your evil spirit complete and eternal annihilation.

Finally, stop talking to yourself :)

Re:skibaldy (3, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284309)

Not that I agree with the other side of the argument, but there have been US cases where money (or other asset) was the defendant.

It's really weird.

Re:skibaldy (1)

Quothz (683368) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284631)

Not that I agree with the other side of the argument, but there have been US cases where money (or other asset) was the defendant.

It's really weird.

I've seen cases in which cash is the respondent, but not a defendant. Typically, these were property seizure recovery cases handled in administrative court.

So although I, personally, haven't seen property act as a defendant (which isn't by any means to say it doesn't happen), I can confirm that it can be a party to a case.

USA vs. $30,000.00 in US Currency (4, Informative)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284839)

> I don't think that it's possible to sue a stack of cash, no matter how big it is.

Actually it is. I picked the first example I could find from a little Googling, but here's the docket for the United States of America v. Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) In United States Currency [justia.com] for your reading pleasure.

I also found this news article [thenewspaper.com] about how this works in another case, which is more than a little disturbing. You're simply not allowed to have too much cash these days. They think it proves you're doing something illegal. Even if they're right most of the time, I think it's terrible what they can do to the innocent.

Re:skibaldy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27284349)

[citation needed]

Re:skibaldy (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284719)

Your posts continually reveal further depths of moral bankruptcy and abject toadying to the lowest forms of parasitic usurping political scum. You have no place in this country, this world, this life. Your ugly idiocy befouls all that is good in mankind. I loathe your very essence and wish your evil spirit complete and eternal annihilation.

And you use imperfections in one thing (the US), to equate them with the utter abominations on the other side.

The US is not a "totally free" society by any stretch of the imagination. That doesn't mean it isn't a whole lot more free than any other society in the world, including the EU, any of it's members and certainly including the abominations like islamic governments, dictatorships and communist governments.

Worse you use the imperfections in the US government, equate it to the massive oppression of religion, personal deification, and blatant thuggery of the states that really, really do need to be changed ... you use these imperfections to ... fight the ONE government that is the most free in the world.

In effect, you're fighting FOR religious oppression, dictators and demagogues.

You are not on the side of freedom. You are merely painting a thin layer of lies over your hatred of freedom and democracy. In reality you are fighting one of the most important pro-freedom forces in the world, helping the many anti-freedom forces in the world.

Do you seriously expect anyone to buy that you do this because you're pro-freedom ?

Re:skibaldy (1)

worthawholebean (1204708) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284829)

I don't have mod points right now, but this AC is quite obviously a troll (re: last paragraph).

Re:skibaldy (3, Interesting)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284067)

Well you might go back to Lincoln or a bit later to the national fireamrs in the 1930's act or the 1968 gun control act or the 1986 out ban on new NFA registries or the go back to the era of the NFA and the tax on hemp which became a ban because you can't pay the tax.

Governments are made of two kinds of people, those that really serve the people and those that serve the system. Those that serve the system end up running it. That's Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2view/view408.html#Iron [jerrypournelle.com]

You can't change it, you can't steer it with any precision and you can't make it go away easily.

Re:skibaldy (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282995)

I'm kind of on the fence about my country's censorship (The UK, that is). As far as I know, it's only child porn that is actively censored

The trouble is with that "as far as I know". Even the government doesn't actually know what's being censored. It's been completely handed over to a self-appointed body, with no oversight, no accountability and no appeal process. And why do you think it's only child porn being censored? Because the censors say so. What's wrong with this picture?

Re:skibaldy (4, Informative)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283135)

We know for sure one thing that the UK tried to censor: the album cover image on Wikipedia. We only found out about that one by chance. Presumably they censor many more things like that, that we haven't found out about. And since the item in question had been openly on sale for many years, we know that it is certainly not illegal.

Re:skibaldy (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283233)

I found the Australian and Danish block lists on Wikileaks, and a random sample weren't blocked by my big-name UK ISP. I checked all the ones that looked like they shouldn't be blocked at all (shock sites, anti-abortion etc). I didn't want to look at all the child porn, but I tried about 5 and the home pages all loaded.

The censoring in the UK is at the level of the home user's ISP anyway, so there's no need to "route around" anything. It's inaccurate to say Great Britain (well, the UK) censors Internet traffic. The government has asked ISPs providing connections to home users to filter DNS requests for some websites. This is nothing like the Chinese Firewall, for instance.

Re:skibaldy (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284815)

And since the item in question had been openly on sale for many years, we know that it is certainly not illegal.

Yes, because we've never made something that was legal in the past be illegal now. Some of that good like say end of slavery, probably some of it bad but to deny it happening requires truly profound ignorance.

Re:skibaldy (5, Insightful)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283049)

As far as I know, it's only child porn

"Where will it stop?"

As far as you know, only child porn. What you don't know is the problem with censorship in the first place.

Chinese ninja censors vs suicide mullah censors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282569)

Who will win ?

Re:Chinese ninja censors vs suicide mullah censors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283005)

"The world will not accept domination."
  - World dominator Henry Kissinger

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283171)

Who will win ?

The pirates -- they have proxies in Canada, and their own galleon-based communications network.

tuBgirl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282653)

log on Then the to stick something in time. For all real problems that contact to see if that *BSD 0wned. to the crowd in but with Netcraft

Of Course It's the USA's Fault (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282669)

How does the US's warrantless wiretapping become the biggest issue in censorship when they don't actually censor anything? Wiretapping, for people who don't know, is the act of surveillance and there is no connection to censorship whatsover.

Typical left wing garbage when they excuse or minimize truly awful behavior of countries where they actively engage in internet censorship.

Re:Of Course It's the USA's Fault (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282719)

No doubt... Wiretapping is easier to beat that censorship as well. Encryption is fast, easy, and totally controlled by each end. Proxies relay on trust of a third party. But if you have trust, why is wiretapping such a problem? :)

Begun (5, Funny)

memorycardfull (1187485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282683)

these [censored] wars have.

Re:Begun (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284213)

Now the REAL war on terror must begin.

simply put (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282685)

In few years the Internet as we knew it will become a Frankennet made of closed bubbles that will talk each other only through heavily filtered pipes. Every nation will spy on its own citizen and impose filters to limit or stop connectivity when necessary.
Freedom of communication is simply a too dangerous weapon to be left in the hands of common people.
AFAIK, this process already started a few years ago.

Re:simply put (1)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282723)

If your so sure of your self tell us who you are :)

I may have British heritage...

Dude, I'm 100% American

http://www.otossystems.com/

Hah (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282779)

all you #### can #### my ####
#### is going to win this war

Not just the US, pretty much everybody (2, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282803)

Any country with an active sigint program is snooping international internet traffic coming through their pipes. After all, that is the job of an intelligence agency. Only questions are to what degree and sophistication. Oh, and here's a list of countries with SIGINT programme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGINT_by_Alliances,_Nations_and_Industries [wikipedia.org]

You think like a ReThuglican Jew (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283553)

You think like a ReThuglican Jew

spying = censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283715)

Just say that 100 more times and it will make sense.

Who needs to avoid these countries? (3, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282811)

I'm not sure who we are talking about. Who is it that needs to avoid countries actively censoring?

Considering the countries actively censoring or monitoring I'm aware of are: USA, UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Austria, Australia, China, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I'm sure there also many more.

Are we talking about Latvia trying to route to Luxembourg here? Who?

Surely... The sane thing to do is to actually stand up and stop governments censoring and monitoring, rather than talk about some small country re-routing to another. Look at the list above, that's probably 75% of the internet there (I'm guessing that figure).

Re-routing is a sin of commission. Lets actually fix the fucking problem, rather than step over it. Our Governments do not represent us any more. Get them out of office. Make your voices heard, while you still actually have them.

Or are you just going to sit there and take it? The time to act is now, not soon, nor when it gets really bad.

Re:Who needs to avoid these countries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283071)

Or are you just going to sit there and take it? The time to act is now, not soon, nor when it gets really bad.

I think I'll have to. The government men came and busted my knees, see.

Re:Who needs to avoid these countries? (0)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283101)

australia doesn't. Facts Fail.

Re:Who needs to avoid these countries? (1)

Radoslaw Zielinski (1378711) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283261)

Considering the countries actively censoring or monitoring I'm aware of are: [...] Poland, [...]

Would you mind providing a source for this statement?

Re:Who needs to avoid these countries? (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283805)

Considering the countries actively censoring or monitoring I'm aware of are: [...] I'm sure there also many more.

I'm sad to say that my country, Denmark, also belongs on that list.

Wikileaks has a list of 253 names^W^W 3863 sites (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008 [wikileaks.org] ), though I've successfully accessed some of those sites (just to test the censorship, mind you).

Also, an ISP has been ordered by the supreme court to not allow access to the pirate bay.

I'm not happy about that. At all :(

Re:Who needs to avoid these countries? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283935)

Considering the countries actively censoring or monitoring I'm aware of are: [...], Germany, [...].

Care to enlighten us on that one. Because I live in Germany, and follow such stuff very closely.

There was our Nazi-douchebag Schäuble together with some Bavarian politicians (Bavaria is our Texas), trying to put this into place. But he got beaten down after constantly coming up with even worse stuff.

So, because I saw others wondering why their country was included, I demand some source for this, other than your ass. ^^

Re:Who needs to avoid these countries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27284447)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany

troolk0re (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282819)

for a living got You don't nned to abysmal sales and minutes. If that. people already; I'm Me if you'd like, THINKING ABOUT IT. Same year, BSD

voluntary, domestic censorship only in GB (1)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282831)

I was under the impression that Great Britain does not censor the internet. ISPs operating within it can, and several do, choose to sign up to a voluntary scheme (which includes ISPs on the board [iwf.org.uk] ).

Regardless, to my (limited) knowledge filtering is done by blocking certain addresses to the consumer, nothing that would hit through-traffic.

As for snooping, wherever your traffic is passing through, either you have good encryption or someone can look in. Perhaps with varying degrees of (il)legality, as if that matters much.

Re:voluntary, domestic censorship only in GB (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282871)

How is that voluntary? In most cases you can only slightly "choose" your ISP, and even then you simply have to get the least evil. Voluntary for the ISPs, but that is not voluntary for the end user, not in the least.

Re:voluntary, domestic censorship only in GB (3, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283277)

How is that voluntary? In most cases you can only slightly "choose" your ISP, and even then you simply have to get the least evil. Voluntary for the ISPs, but that is not voluntary for the end user, not in the least.

In the UK, if you can get ADSL you can choose *any* ADSL provider. All the phone lines are owned by the ex-monopoly (BT), but BT are required to lease the line to any broadband provider the customer chooses.

At the moment, the ISPs that don't censor are the smaller ones, which tend to be slightly more expensive -- but also provide better customer service etc.

Re:voluntary, domestic censorship only in GB (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284607)

Here in Southern Ontario, you can get ADSL from Bell Canada resellers. The problem is that Bell is still the upstream for all of them. So while you may get different pricing and terms of service, when Bell decided to traffic shape, it did so for everyone's customers, not just their own. And, so far, there's not a damn thing we can do about it, except go to cable internet, which in my area means Rogers - I'll save that for another discussion

Re:voluntary, domestic censorship only in GB (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283895)

If it is voluntary for the ISP's it is voluntary for the user as he can choose which ISP he wants to use, and so ISP's which don't censor will thrive.

The problem is when it isn't voluntary, which is what Government does when its voluntary programs are seen to be a joke.

Australia had a voluntary program for ages, it was no problem, nobody used it, it wasn't valuable. So the Australian Government upped the ante by making it non-voluntary, which is when people get up in arms over it.

Re:voluntary, domestic censorship only in GB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27284507)

IWF censorship will be mandatory soon enough. 90%+ of ISPs use their list already, and the government are going to use legislation to force the rest to do so if they don't sign up "voluntarily". This intent has been explicitly stated in Parliament.

The IWF the worst of both worlds, a body totally controlled by the home office yet supposedly an "independent industry body" and thus totally unaccountable to the electorate ... actually the IWF was created because the police were threatening to prosecute major ISPs otherwise.

HTTPS anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282835)

OK, the source & destination IP will be known by the "bad guys", but everything else is encrypted. The old excuse of "it takes too much CPU" was valid...back in the 1990s, but no longer.
C'mon people! HTTPS *everywhere*!

Censorship NE WireTapping (1)

cluge (114877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282849)

They highlight the roles of the two biggest carriers: Great Britain, which actively censors internet traffic, and the US, which allows warrantless wiretapping of international traffic

Wire tapping isn't censorship last I checked. Censorship requires active suppression. Perhaps wiretapping may cause self censorship because one could think that they shouldn't say something?

That being said - the fact that traffic is monitored should be a given. Thus the raison detre for encryption. Anyone that worked in the ISP world in the early 90's will know that several of their upstream providers had rogue sniffers on their network. Why do you think telnet died and SSH came to be?

My reaction - use encryption as often as possible, assume everything is "wiretapped". Fight unwarranted active suppression wherever you find it. (FYI - I often black hole IP's that I see scan my network. I guess I'm censoring it ;)

-cluge

It'll never happen... (1, Insightful)

Vertana (1094987) | more than 5 years ago | (#27282875)

There will always be one ISP that does not monitor it's traffic. Why? Because that's where the business will lie once all the other ISPs have monitoring equipment in place (even if it is imposed upon by the government). Not to say this will be in the U.S., but there will always be that one country. And on top of this, who is to say that encryption techniques won't make this argument obsolete anyway? If monitoring does break out on a wide scale, I see many, many websites turning towards things such as IPSEC or HTTPS. Darknets will be thrown up and proxies from that one country that doesn't monitor its ISPs will spring up like weeds. The internet is on a global scale, and as such we've had the freedom as an international privilege for far too long to let it go now. Someone or something can try to bring down the internet, but I just don't see it happening.

Re:It'll never happen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27284709)

If you think that there might not be 2 free ISPs, then it's far more likely that there will be 0 than 1. The internet might survive as couriers carrying DVDs, but we are one terrorist attack or cyberwar away from losing the web as we know it. Encryption won't help if your ISP cuts off your connection permanently when it detects it. I'm sure people a century ago wouldn't be able to imagine that firearms would become illegal in many countries; and while guns are still legal in some countries and thus not even difficult for a determined person to obtain where they are prohibited, you enter the criminal class and lose your place in society if you arm yourself. The majority will gladly give up the internet rather than have their lives become intolerable.

What a load. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27282941)

I love how the countries with really harsh cencorship laws and actual history of censoring the internet are glazed over as not being a threat while the West is once again painted as the big bad guy.

Are they really this predictable?

Will they ever stop blaming us for everything and making us out to be an Evil Empire responsible for all injustice in the world?

Re:What a load. (1)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283023)

I'm Working to change that. Otos Systems, LLC

Re:What a load. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283039)

Isn't the US the one with half the nuclear weapons in the world?

Re:What a load. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283073)

and what's your point? That the richest, most powerful, mightiest country in the history of the world also have a lot of weapons?

Re:What a load. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27284479)

Yes, that is my point.

Re:What a load. (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283045)

None of the countries who censor the internet are ever portrayed as "free". Though the governments of those countries claim that they are free, even the media and the average Joe know that they are not free. On the the other hand, all the western civilizations try to claim that they are the most free nation on the face of the earth. Ever. And the mainstream media buys into that, all the while they are doing things that if they were taking place in another country would make that country seem more "non-free" by the media.

it's called encryption, you spastics (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283067)

encryption combined with a proxy outside of the filtering nation and you have just by passed their most advanced attempts. i can't believe this is even posted on slashdot (ok yes i can..)

you can setup encryption that's so strong they don't have a hope in hell of breaking it, and even if they started going after proxy providers (remmeber their in another country) it's a cat and mouse game they just can't win - you can change your proxy with a few key strokes.

Re:it's called encryption, you spastics (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284665)

...it's a cat and mouse game they just can't wi... *snip*

I'm sorry. What?

Wiretapping != Censorship (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283115)

Every government watches communications and Internet traffic. It's their job. But it doesn't constitute censorship if it just watches instead of filters or even modifies the content.

Total frickin encryption, all the time (2, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283161)

If these piss-ant dictators and foaming moralists won't leave well enough alone, we'll just have to encrypt (TOR) the lot of it.

I am really serious. If we don't start using encrypted traffic
routinely and by default on the Internet soon, then doing so
will without doubt be made illegal.

Re:Total frickin encryption, all the time (1)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283227)

I always say use it or lose it.

or was that...

Do what you know you need to do and ask for forgiveness if it does not work out.

Re:Total frickin encryption, all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283479)

Yeah total cryptoanarchy! Let's se how they will handle that. If the man continues like now, they will force a move to untraceable networks and cryptoanarchy. Fuck em. they can't win.

Re:Total frickin encryption, all the time (1)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283723)

Sir that is not an Artistic use of the word Fuck.

I think in this instance Screw-Em is better :)

Re:Total frickin encryption, all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283739)

Then the next shoe will fall. Governments will make TOR exit nodes responsible for any traffic that comes from them, so if a classified recipe for a new beer gets released via that node, the people who own the machine will end up going to prison for treason, or be hit by multi-million dollar civil lawsuits.

Of course, even though we won the battle against key escrow last decade, it is always waiting in the wings, with a Clipper Chip v2.0 mandatory on any computer that hooks up to the Internet.

An incident all right. (3, Interesting)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283363)

There are growing fears that these practices could trigger a major international incident

Just wait until the print newspapers are gone. When the only source of news is via the internet...

Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283599)

Not about the censorship, that is an issue if you live in a country that does it, but the monitoring? I mean really, do you assume your traffic is private? If so that's a really bad idea. I've always assumed that my traffic going over the net could be watched. Governments aren't the only people who could watch you. For example at work, we have a packet sniffer to help diagnose problems. Usually it sits idle watching nothing. However we can watch any traffic we like, and can do so invisibly. If I want I can mirror a port and watch everything someone does.

So you should always operate under the assumption that your traffic could be watched. Your ISP, another ISP, your government, another government, a crafty hacker, etc all could watch what you are doing. That means that if what you are doing needs to be kept secret, encrypt that shit. Don't send passwords. credit card numbers, etc in clear text. Use things like SSH/SSL for important stuff. Heck use them for non important stuff too if you like, it isn't as though encryption hits modern computers that hard these days.

Point is I don't see why as an individual you'd worry if a foreign country is monitoring your traffic. They could just be one of many. I can see concern if your government is monitoring your traffic, and especially if they are censoring your traffic, but in general, assume shit you do on the Internet is watched.

Re:Who cares? (1)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283765)

I take it one step farther, cameras are everywhere...

Cell phones and who knows what else creative people are doing to get photos and sound.

Comcast Censoring Conservative Voices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27283681)

The American Public and the FCC need to keep an eye on ISPs. Comcast has been censoring conservative message board posters in my opinion. Because dominant ISP Comcast is a gateway to the internet, they control many eyeballs. Comcast's systematic censoring of conservative opinions on their News & Current Events message boards needs to cease and desist. If Comcast gets tax breaks from local government, then they have a civic, ethical, moral and perhaps legal obligation to provide fair and balanced moderation of their message boards. This type of social engineering is an outrage. Please get involved. Silence is consent. Post a conservative response to a News or Current Events thread here and see for yourself.

http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board?board.id=news

This is America...Not CHINA

Re:Comcast Censoring Conservative Voices (1)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283797)

This is America, I am a proud Comcast Customer.

They know I can Show You the Write way.

In other words choose a different ISP if you don't like what they do.

However do to the way the Internet was designed at UCLA, Sorry Al, It is impossible to determine exactly the path your packets will take.

Let's look at it from this perspective... (1)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283755)

[This Comment Was Deletey By The Slashdot Censorship Moderation Panel]

Circumvention (3, Interesting)

thethibs (882667) | more than 5 years ago | (#27283789)

In the end, anyone with an IP address can act as a host or relay. If something wants to get through, it will.

There was an advantage to the uucp forwarding network, in that routing could be managed and the number of possible paths was immense. Anyone with a basic PC and a modem could install Waffle and become a uucp node. For two years when the wall was still up, I had an ongoing conversation with a mathematician/cryptographer in Minsk (no Tom Lear jokes, please). I was always concerned that the Soviets would find him out, but he never shared my concern. Messages between us usually took more than twenty hops, one of which was a diskette hand-carried between East and West Berlin.

A little-known fact is that the fall of the Soviet Union was in part coordinated via email carried on uucp and fidoNet [wikipedia.org] . Mainly this was because these networks ran "below the radar", from one phone to another and could change their locations at will. There also was an advantage in these networks' use of Zmodem for exchange. Zmodem's error correction, rate adjustment and pig-headed retry made sure the message got through in spite of the really poor state of Soviet phone service.

The Internet's biggest weakness right now is that most of the traffic ends up on a small number of backbones. The only thing standing between the current tree-structured internet and a true network is incentive. Censorship would probably stimulate a change in topology.

All Censorship Sucks (2, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27284285)

This article points to one very real problem with censorship. Once one party assumes the right to censor then all parties, everywhere assume the same privilege. The simple fact is that any censorship, no matter how seemingly innocent, is an attack upon the freedom of all people in all nations.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?