Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Argentina Censors Over a Million Blogs

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-cry-for-them dept.

Censorship 170

In his first accepted submission, bs0d3 writes "A judge in Argentina ordered ISPs to block two websites — leakymails.com and leakymails.blogspot.com. According to Google, many ISPs have simply blocked the IP 216.239.32.2 instead of using a targeted DNS filter. Over a million blogs are hosted by Blogger at this IP. Freedom of speech advocate Jillian York wrote, 'IP blocking is a blunt method of filtering content that can erase from view large swaths of innocuous sites by virtue of the fact that they are hosted on the same IP address as the site that was intended to be censored. One such example of overblocking by IP address can be found in India, where the IP blocking of a Hindu Unity website (blocked by an order from Mumbai police) resulted in the blocking of several other, unrelated sites."

cancel ×

170 comments

Wrong headline (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37156852)

Wrong headline: a judge ordered two websites blocked, not "over a million blogs".

Re:Wrong headline (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#37156874)

But in effect a million blogs were censored in Argentina. The headline is correct.

Re:Wrong headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37156916)

By "some service providers" as per the activepolitic.com website - not mine one neither any of the major ISPs in the country as far as I know.

Re:Wrong headline (2, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37156928)

Yes but it doesn't seem like it was malicious, i.e., they were censored for content. They were censored because the ISPs are fucking retarded. Still worthy of getting angry about, for sure, but it's certainly not the government's fault, and the headline certainly comes across like it's the government doing the censoring.

Of course, if the government is involved for some reason in some shadowy way, then by all means, burn that mother down...

Re:Wrong headline (3, Funny)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37156968)

But I heard the government is smart and should be trusted to run everything for me. Clearly no government would ever be involved in something like this.

Re:Wrong headline (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157068)

*sigh* Yes, you're right, all governments are purely evil and in for your blood, or soul, or whatever ambiguous Evil(tm) the comics you read say they're up to this generation. We get it already, smartass. Don't trust anyone, anywhere, for any reason. You go do that, we'll catch up later.

Stop watching Fox News (0, Flamebait)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157110)

Perhaps you should stop watching Fox News.

Re:Stop watching Fox News (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157496)

Don't fool yourself. CNN, FAUX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS are all f@cking complicit.

Re:Wrong headline (3, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37156978)

Um.. censorship is ALWAYS malicious... And the authorities are always willing to sink an entire ship to get one guy.

Re:Wrong headline (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157358)

Yes but the headline is written in such a way as to imply that the Argentinian Government is censoring a million blogs. That's not true, the AG is censoring two blogs, and the idiot ISPs just said fuck it and shut down everything, not because they were trying to kill a "million blogs", but because they're stupid asses and either didn't know what they were doing or didn't care to do it right. The headline is deliberately written to make it seem like a Great Firewall of Argentina just went up or something, which is what I was saying...the fact that the headline is deliberately sensational.

Re:Wrong headline (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157610)

No, you don't understand.. I don't care if the Argentinian Government (or any other pirate) censors a million blogs, or just one, the other 999,999 are just collateral damage.. So what? It is still malicious... regardless of the damn numbers. Don't be distracted by fanciful writing..

Re:Wrong headline (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157900)

The government didn't censor the other blogs, though, the stupid ISP did when they put up the blanket filter that blocks a million websites in order to comply with an order to block two. That being said, the courts didn't say block a million blogs, they said block two blogs. The only people censoring the other 999,998+ blogs are the ISPs, not the government, and the government never told them to block those blogs, either. They're not even censoring those 999,998 blogs for content reasons, obviously. Those 2 blogs that are being censored are a different matter.

I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm not even really talking about censorship at all...my original post was in response to someone saying that the headline was accurate, i.e., the Argentinian Government is censoring a million blogs. That's not true at all, that's a headline being spun to make it look like Argentina is pulling an Egypt or something. Censorship is always wrong, but the AG didn't censor a million blogs, and I'm not arguing about censorship at all, Argentina's really fucked up, ok, I get that. I'm arguing that the headline to this story is fucking retarded and sensationalist. It should read "Argentina judge orders two blogs censored, ISPs censor a million" not "Argentina Censors Over a Million Blogs" You can see the difference, right? Unless, of course, the ISPs are government run. TFA certainly doesn't make it seem like they are.

Re:Wrong headline (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158104)

"Argentina judge orders two blogs censored, ISPs censor a million"

That doesn't fit into the banner. However, since now I'm playing this game:

"A Million Blogs Blocked in Argentina" would fit and avoid being such a diversion. Feel better?

Re:Wrong headline (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158128)

"A Million Blogs Blocked in Argentina" would fit and avoid being such a diversion. Feel better?

Yes, that headline would actually be representative of the situation. Much better.

Re:Wrong headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157656)

I can absolutely guarantee Arnet doesn't know what it's doing and doesn't care because it has a monopoly.

Re:Wrong headline (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157850)

The headline is deliberately written to make it seem like a Great Firewall of Argentina just went up or something, which is what I was saying...

Yes, the Great Firewall of Argentina did just go up. That's what censoring means.

Still, who cares? All countries will censor the Internet, for all countries have their own lies to defend; and their citizens will get around that censorship and access whatever content they desire. And in the end, the content actually accessed by said citizens will be mostly circuses. Thus a country that censors the Internet is simply hastening its own downfall.

Re:Wrong headline (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158068)

Yes, the Great Firewall of Argentina did just go up. That's what censoring means.

I'll hardly call two blogs being ordered shut down the "Great Firewall of Argentina" going up, but you describe it however you want.

Can we agree that the headline is misleading at least, or is two now equivalent to a million?

Re:Wrong headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158220)

Still, who cares? All countries will censor the Internet, for all countries have their own lies to defend; and their citizens will get around that censorship and access whatever content they desire. And in the end, the content actually accessed by said citizens will be mostly circuses. Thus a country that censors the Internet is simply hastening its own downfall.

You and your apathy remind me of this character from a children's fantasy [youtube.com] .

Re:Wrong headline (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157022)

The censorship of anything is alarming. Especially government censorship. Censorship of anything, no matter how much you disagree with the content should be tolerated in any society. Now, of course there should be laws to prevent the leaking of information, and any government employee who leaks information should be fired on the spot and perhaps subjected to a fine or imprisonment based on the contract they signed, but the actual websites that post the leaked information should be 100% protected.

Re:Wrong headline (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157370)

Yes, I know, but Argentina didn't censor a million blogs, Argentina censored two blogs and the ISPs censored the rest because they're either incompetent or negligent. I feel that there is a distinction to be made there. The headline is deliberately misleading to make it seem as if the Argentinian Government just went on a million blog banning spree, and that's not at all what happened.

Re:Wrong headline (3, Insightful)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157802)

They were censored because the ISPs are fucking retarded.

You wouldn't say that had you ever worked as a network engineer at a large ISP.

First, you'd have to route IP packets for the impacted address to an internal filtering machine. What filtering machine? Well, that's a rub too... you'd have to build one and while it's possible with open source, it isn't easy or particularly cheap.

Then once you've "transparently proxied" the HTTP requests you want to block, you have to somehow send those packets merrily on their way... except the route for that IP address leads back to you. So, you have to tunnel it out to an system beyond your routing domain. Which means you'll need to NAT the source for anything that isn't outright proxied. That's more money.

And then you have to very strongly log the proxied and/or NATed packets because any abuse is going to lead back to your filter machine instead of back to the customer and when the policia come knocking, by God they're going to want to know who did it and they're not going to accept the answer that the Judge-ordered filtering obscured the activity near the site ordered filtered.

The ISPs aren't retarded here. The judge ordering an ISP to filter on a criteria ISPs aren't equipped to filter on is the retarded one.

Re:Wrong headline (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37156944)

Which isn't feasible to do without impacting performance and wrecking havoc. IP blocking is the only thing that won't impact performance. However minor it may be to you I don't want that order to negatively impact my connection and I also certainly don't want other web sites blocked. The law should forbid blocking. Period. That may lead to users having access to undesirable information or other resources. I can accept that. People will be hurt. What the government does to rectify that should be more along the lines of what Britan did with setting up independent non-profit news organisations. I'm referring to the BBC. Ideally these outlets would be the primary source of information for the general population. Those outlets should have ethical guidelines which bar them from reporting certain things. They should not be barred from reporting on government even where the country or people running and/or defending the country are harmed. Soldiers should accept that they are fighting for freedom and anything that requires censorship should be frowned upon. The government needs to take a proactive approach and prevent governmental employees and contractors from leaking damaging information. Once it is leaked anyone who it has been leaked to should not be negatively impacted regardless of what they do or don't do with that newly obtained information. Individuals may be negatively impacted by the revelation of information true or untrue. It is unfair to completely censor that bad information. It is better to offset it with better news entities not reliant on commercial and ideally even government money. Reporting incorrect information or having a plug-in preloaded on computer which notify users of bad information would be better. Then users could judge for themselves the merits of this negative or false information. Such a warning might read "Some or all of the information contained here is in legal dispute and may not be accurate or true."

Re:Wrong headline (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158378)

Right headline, I say.

Argentina has censored "over a million blogs". That is the de facto occurrence. They ordered two to be censored, correct. However, the article is about how two were targeted and massive overkill was done. The ISPs saw it fit to block the best and most certain way they could to minimize their own headaches.

Bullshit (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37156914)

I'm from argentina. I've lived here all my life and I'm in Buenos Aires as I write this.

If the state is guilty of something regarding internet and new technology here, is barely knowing of its existance. This is not the result of "censorship" as this dumb summary claims.

This is a fuckup, nothing more.

Of course, emos and other trash from Taringa will blow it out of proportion claiming it's wide-spread censorship, and try to politicize the hell out of it.

Re:Bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157036)

DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA!

lighten up, Francis, it's only a million blogs

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157060)

Taringa is doing a remarkable job in the face of overwhelming odds. It sounds like Democratic Underground. Making mountains out of conservative shit since 1999. Taringa, making mountains out of socialist victims...oh never mind.

This is anonymous I don't want a visit in the night by DU fanbois

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157078)

FWIW, there are guides out there for those do want to get around censorship such as this.
Tor project [torproject.org]
Defeating censorship [quillem.com]
etc.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157116)

Since you're an Argentinian, just out of curiosity, do you know what the blogs are being blocked for? With a name like 'leakymails' I'm guessing it's another whistleblower distribution attempt, but actual details would be appreciated.

Re:Bullshit (1)

mruizcamauer (551400) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158638)

precisely, it's a release of thousands of emails showing the goverment has been spying on citizens, illegally, and harassing oponents sometimes with made up charges. The blocking is stupid, it took me 2 minutes to download it all via a proxy...

Re:Bullshit (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158978)

I'm living in Argentina. The blogs were blocked by the CNC (like the FCC) because of a court order (no specifics, just that). The site itself contains links to RapidShare with a huge tar.gz of emails to/from the former president Néstor Kirchner, among other Argentinian politicians.

Even though there's a clear element of censorship, I still can't decide about the ISPs. Maybe it was stupidity from the people involved in the blocking. One of the three domain names that were banned was up again. Hooray for IP banning :P . An alternative explanation is that, like the people in Iran, they did a sloppy work on purpose as a "private" way to protest.

Re:Bullshit (2)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157218)

wasnt the order to stop leakymails a form of censorship

Re:Bullshit (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157268)

It was, indeed. Censorship in pure form. The website is a whistleblower distribution site, and it contains many documents which go against the current government.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157650)

Bullshit, this is not censorship. The "documents" are private emails from private email accounts, some from government officials, some written to government officials. This is the same as publishing private correspondence of any other citizen. The government's order is right. ISPs are morons.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157890)

Eat shit and die fascist cunt.

Re:Bullshit (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157982)

Well, it would still be censorship even if you think that it's "right."

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158526)

Did you read said docs? I suggest you do. Use google cache to go around the "ban".

Complete shit.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158182)

If the state is guilty of something regarding internet and new technology here, is barely knowing of its existance. This is not the result of "censorship" as this dumb summary claims.

So Argentina is not censoring its citizens?
I felt compelled to share this comment that i read on schneier blog 3 days ago:
Well in Argentina (under internet censorship by the way :-x)....
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/08/alarm_geese.html#comments

As an argentinian... (1)

bmuon (1814306) | more than 2 years ago | (#37156934)

I can't believe I found out first on Slashdot.

I'd like to thank my very smart representatives, courts, lawyers and public prosecutors who made this happen. Apparently Google will be investing in solving the situation, otherwise those of us technologically not challenged will be doing what we can.

As an American... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157172)

You sure do speak good American! Real fancy American, that's for sure!

Were you taught American by an English teacher or was it another Argentinian?

Re:As an American... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157576)

It probably was the internet + American TV series & other culture that modified it's grammar and writing style just like it did to me.

Re:As an American... (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157886)

... that modified it's grammar and writing style just like it did to me.

Um, no. bmuon's grammar is correct.

Re:As an American... (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158464)

... that modified it's grammar and writing style just like it did to me.

Um, no. bmuon's grammar is correct.

"modified" != "incorrect".

In other words, the grammar is technically correct, but the syntax and grammatical structure is not congruent with typical American usage.

More's the pity... most Americans have such a poor grasp of the only language they speak that they couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag if their opponent were a wet sock. I wish it weren't so, and I am quite concerned about my country's future. Don't think I'm just bashing Americans. We're already well on our way to overthrowing ourselves, thank you very much.

Bread and circuses, indeed.

Re:As an argentinian... (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157444)

This was on Infobae, which failed to mention that the site existed at all...

Only Clarin reported it. Front page, print edition. But, you know, you aren't supposed to believe Clarin.

Probably not intentional (2)

lavagolemking (1352431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37156990)

This is probably a screw-up more than censorship. Given the popularity of Blogspot, I suspect the people who did this just simply entered in a website, got an IP address, and added an iptables rule or equivalent, without looking or realizing what they were blocking. Hell, that could even be scripted, and I could easily see an intern or low-level staff having just entered "leakymails.blogspot.com" into a script without knowing what happened behind the scenes. I know ISPs hate net neutrality, but it's really not in their best interests to completely cut off access to blogspot.com; even if they have a monopoly they're just going to get flooded with complaints, with real competitive advantage in return to justify the added cost.

Barring a simple but stupid mistake like this from someone routing traffic, IANAL but it should not be the ISP's responsibility to not only screw with people's internet access at the request of the government, but go the extra mile and cut off access to the entire service provider. If we allow that kind of action, then we'll see a whole array of other sites getting blocked at a national level. Then, in an effort to keep themselves accessible around the world, we'll see hosting providers around the world bend over backwards to censor themselves and their users just because somebody, somewhere in the world, might object to some kind of political content one of their users posted.

Re:Probably not intentional (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158170)

If you want to block an individual website without blocking everything else on the IP you have three main options

1: Make your DNS server act as authoritative for that websites hostname.
2: Redirect all web requests for that IP to a proxy which can then decide whether to forward them or not.
3: Perform deep packet inspection and drop packets that look like a request for the banned website.

The first of these is relatively easy to implement but is also very leaky (the clients can just use another DNS server). The other two have nontrivial costs both in time and money to implement.

Blocking everything on an IP OTOH is trivial, you just add a rule to your firewall or a static route to your router that sends the packets to nowhere.

So if you are an ISP and a court orders you to block a site what do you do? deploy soloution 1 and hope the court doesn't blame you for the leakiness? build out infrastructure for options 2 and 3 and hope you can do it in time to comply with the courts demans? or just block the IP on which the domain is hosted?

Re:Probably not intentional (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158484)

...in an effort to keep themselves accessible around the world, we'll see hosting providers around the world bend over backwards to censor themselves and their users just because somebody, somewhere in the world, might object to some kind of political content one of their users posted.

Google got blocked in China, and they just moved their services outside the country. China then capitulated, due to the international backlash. Yay for Google? Sure, right up until you realize they own *everything*. Speaking of which, did you notice they just bought Motorola? I have a sneaky suspicion that my next android device will be made by Motorola...

Blocking with DNS does not work (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37156994)

A fake DNS record, or a NX domain for leakymails.blogspot.com would be easily circumvented simply by using opendns, the google dns, or any other DNS server out there.
Firewalling the IP is much more secure.
Sure, one could use a proxy, tor or an SSH tunnel to some box outside of the firewall, but that's much more work.
Not that I think that censoring sites is a good idea, just discussing the technical details.

Re:Blocking with DNS does not work (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157148)

Exactly. The whole reason the "Stasi 2.0" filter was blown off in Germany, was because the politicians and lawyers always talked about blocking "domains", and the ISPs knowing that this is technically absurd. There are so many things wrong... tons of false positives, false negatives, extreme bottlenecks since the government is always being cheap, etc, etc, etc.

But IP blocking is still retarded. I know a guy from the UAE, where they have massive China-level blocking and censorship. And everyone there simply has at least one VPN. There are companies specifically providing this.
He has three. US, UK, Germany. And since he pays money for it (about $5/month), the speed is better than what his ISP can provide. So the only difference he ever notices, is a bit of lag. Which means FPS online games with people from e.g. Europe is out of the question (2 seconds ping!). But that's the case when off the VPN too, since it's the filtering servers that cause nearly all of the lag.

Seriously, the ONLY way to effectively censor things, is a WHITElist. NOT a blacklist. And even that only works when there is no corruption, no people living close to each other with WLAN, nobody putting a large dish under his roof that goes to another dish outside the country (something that was normal for getting TV in the GDR), and no server in your whitelist being compromised or also not actually liking you.

Which, in practice, are more than delusional expectations.

So I don't see anything from
A) brainwashing people with social engineering to want to act like you want them to act, or
B) a 1984-like totalitarian control on the level of "chip in your head"
ever working.

And A is way more likely than B, since it's already successfully proven to work with hundreds of years of experience all over the world. (Hell, it's the whole damn purpose of lobbying, churches, politics, marketing and intelligence agencies' "public relations" sections, etc, etc, etc.)

Re:Blocking with DNS does not work (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157366)

I know a guy from the UAE, where they have massive China-level blocking and censorship. And everyone there simply has at least one VPN

But will they cut his head off if the VPN or downloaded content is found on his system?

Re:Blocking with DNS does not work (2)

Warwick Allison (209388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157152)

Indeed, it's one of the strengths of Blogger/blogspot that it's all-for-one-and-one-for-all.

On censorship, I'd rather rely on Google than my government. So far.

Re:Blocking with DNS does not work (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157486)

I believe you can actually register certain domain names (like .homelinux.org) and have the IP address defined to any address you like...
So blocking the DNS lookup isn't going to help. It would have been simpler just to lock the blog accounts and change the file permissions, but it's probably just easier pulling the power cable out of the wall.

Re:Blocking with DNS does not work (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157494)

Groupon was blocked the other day for offering travel discounts. You can't sell anything travel-related if you're not a registered travel agency in Argentina (you get a .tur.ar domain for your website). I'm not sure how they blocked it but groupon simply vanished off the net. NXDOMAIN even in other DNS servers... I was too busy to investigate further, but it was a bit surprising.

(it wasn't censor, they were sued by travel agencies and in the meantime the judge ordered them to be blocked - if they were a physical shop they would have been closed down temporarily)

Decisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157026)

"Well, we could talk a calm rational look at the issues, and seek ways to hide the truly awful stuff. This would generally allow us to be praised rather than condemned, as our strikes iwll be surgically precise with a minimum of casualties and dissent..."

"...F*** it. Just close your eyes and start firing. That will show us for the strong leaders we are." ...Seriously thats about the kindest way i could possibly imagine the meeting to plan this policy went.

What are they censoring? (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157048)

No Streisand effect? Come on I want to know what was it they wanted to block!

Re:What are they censoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157106)

Actually, the information intended to be blocked was emails stolen from politicians and important people. As far as I know there are no important information in those emails to justify private data being stolen. I don't like censorship, but I don't like messing with privacy either. If there's nothing of public importance in the emails, then I think is fine a block to that particular sites.

Re:What are they censoring? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157160)

If you're outside Argentina, go see for yourself: http://leakymails.com

If you're in Argentina, here are the official mirrors [leakymails.com] :
http://leakymails.tk
http://leakymails1.tk
http://leakymails2.tk
http://justiciainutil.tk

Here's an article about LeakyMails: Argentina: Judge orders all ISPs to block the sites LeakyMails.com and Leakymails.blogspot.com [globalvoicesonline.org]

Using the motto “Let’s stop lies and hypocrisy”, Leakymails.com was a project designed to obtain and publish relevant documents exposing corruption of the political class and the powerful in Argentina. The site was open to publish emails either from official or personal accounts, pictures, videos or any other document exposing misbehaviors or unethical actions of public figures in the Southern country, where corruption is rampant. [...]

The use of the past tense is strange. Leakymails seems very much alive.

Re:What are they censoring? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157766)

Todos los argentinos son ladrones, del primero al ultimo.

Re:What are they censoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158946)

No, but those that think so, think everyone is like himself.

Re:What are they censoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157170)

They were trying to block a site called Leakymails, which purports itself to be the Argentinean equivalent of Wikileaks. But rather than leaking official emails and documents, it leaked personal emails from minor government officials. As far as I know, it didn't uncover anything governmental in nature, but it did publish pretty private stuff such as conversations about sexual encounters...
I guess it's up for debate whether censorship is always reprehensible or not - me, I don't mind it being applied when it's about this sort of thing. Though if you're going to execute it as badly as this, it's better not to do it at all.

Re:What are they censoring? (2)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158144)

I guess it's up for debate whether censorship is always reprehensible or not

Censorship is always reprehensible. Taking legal action against an entity for publishing stolen personal correspondence is not censorship.

(I haven't read the article, I don't know what Leakymails has published, etc. I'm simply making a point based strictly upon parent.)

More than just a flash mob. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157058)

"...IP blocking of a Hindu Unity website ..."

I can understand the judge's reasons for trying to prevent a flash mob of Hindu fanatics wielding axes and swords.

IPV6 (3, Insightful)

the_rajah (749499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157098)

This makes a good case for IPV6 so every site/device will have their own IP instead of sharing one IP for a million blogs.

Re:IPV6 (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157248)

This makes a good case for IPV6 so every site/device will have their own IP instead of sharing one IP for a million blogs.

I'm afraid you came away from this story having learned the wrong lesson.
The fix isn't IPV6, the fix is to abolish censorship.

The only cure for bad speech is good speech, not no speech.

Re:IPV6 (1)

mmustapic (1155729) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157744)

Dude, this was not censorship. The blocked websites had private emails from private email accounts of government officials, journalists, celebrities, detailing such things as income (public for a government official, not for a journalist or celebrity), when they pickup the kids at school, etc. This is a clear violation of a citizens privacy, the equivalent of intercepting paper correspondance and publish it in a newspaper. Luckily in Argentina, and many other countries in the world, this is forbidden.

Re:IPV6 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157806)

It's also a case of trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Besides, it is still censorship, just because it is legal and you happen to agree with it, doesn't make it not censorship.

Re:IPV6 (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158508)

just because it is legal and you happen to agree with it, doesn't make it not censorship.

QFT, and /signed.

Waiting patiently to be modded into oblivion, even though "I hate censorship" is actually on-topic, and "you should hate censorship, too" is actually relevant.
Slashdot censors its own...

Re:IPV6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157930)

The blocked websites had

Really? You looked at all of the multiple million of different unrelated blogs by millions of different people, and determined that all of them have the exact same matching content?!

Considering one of those blogs I happen to know is a cooking blog, and another is a minecraft blog, those two examples prove that not every last blog contains the content you state.
It really leads me to not believe the rest of your statement, that even a single blog contained what you said, if you are just going to spout out that millions of them all say that instead of just the one.

Thankfully the court statements prove me correct

Re:IPV6 (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158882)

Dude, this was not censorship.

Of course it was. Cencorship is any time anything published by an entity is removed from the view of the general populace against the wish of the original publisher, regardless of whether the content itself is legal or not.

Re:IPV6 (4, Insightful)

Alsee (515537) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158896)

Dude, this was not censorship. The blocked websites had private emails

It's amazing how so many people always imagine "I agree with X therefore X is not censorship".

Imagine someone said "Bob's arm wasn't amputated, it was removed because it was cancerous". Ok.... cancer could be a very good motivation for removing an arm. However I assume you'd agree that the "Bob's arm wasn't amputated" part was wrong and ridiculous.

The motivation for removing the arm does not change whether or not it's an act of amputation. The motivation for blocking the website doesn't change whether or not it is an act of censorship.

If you want to make the case that it was justified and right under these circumstances, that's a very credible and reasonable position. However saying "it's not censorship" is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Basically everyone in history who has engaged in any sort censorship believed they had a good reason for it, considered it right and good, and virtually all of them have uttered the line "it's not censorship". The attitude "It's not censorship because it should be done, because it's a bad thing being blocked, because I'm the good guy with a good reason". Essentially "It's not censorship when I want to do it".

If you think it's right and justified in this case, then go ahead and defend it as right and justified. Don't do the "I agree with it therefore it's not censorship" garbage.

-

Re:IPV6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157768)

(At least in Argentina) everyone is so used to be censored and lied to by the government that it's not viewed a problem anymore.

Re:IPV6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158134)

The cure is to know the difference. You have to allow both and criticize the bad while praising the good as much as possible. And sue where it is actionable.

Re:IPV6 (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158288)

The only cure for bad speech is good speech, not no speech.

So we all should counter crimethink with goodthink? Wouldn't it be gooder to get rid of crimethink altogether, so we would only have goodthink?

You are not thinkful enough. Crimethink is always doubleplusungood.

Re:IPV6 (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158930)

This makes a good case for IPV6 so every site/device will have their own IP instead of sharing one IP for a million blogs.

I disagree. I'd say it makes a weak case against IPV6. Making censorship easier and more efficient and less noticeable and less objectionable is not good.

But as I said, it's a weak case. There are many other strong reasons why we do need to replace IPv4.

-

BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157112)

They must have screwed up. Argentina is a shitty 3rd world country where justice doesn't exist. Nobody goes to jail. Maybe in an extreme case like multiple homicides, but they do they get a slap on the wrist and get released in a couple of years time. So, even if the blogs had illegal content there is no way they have been blocked intentionally.

bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157272)

Leakymails was posting bullshit about peoplel and that was the reason it gets closed. Its a looooooooot different from wikileaks, this site invents the material that post.

Re:bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157564)

To slashdotters unfamiliar with Argentina's politics:
OP is what we call a Kirchnerista, you can see his native language is not english. And by what he says you can see that he's clearly a supporter of the current government. They like to lie, all the time, blatantly. And even when caught red handed, deny everything.

One example is when they recently claimed that "people can buy more things now than in 2007 with the same amount of money". With a 25% annual inflation!

They are Peronists, and they apply the same ideas Peron did back in the 40s and 50s. Lots of corruption, spending, giving (too much) power to unions, and crushing the opposition.

We have to put up with this shit every single day. Their de-information apparatus is so big, they're installing TV towers all over the country and giving away HDTV receivers so people will watch the government's own anti-everything program, 6-7-8 (originally stood for "6 en el 7 a las 8", which meant "6 [people] on [channel] 7 at 8[PM]". It's a show with more than 6 people, on "tv publica" channel, at 10PM. LOL, even the name of the program is a LIE!)

Re:bullshit (2)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157738)

678 is to the Kirchner administration what Faux News was to Bush's.

I still can't believe the money they are spending on giving people free tv. It's the worst misuse of government money for political gain I've ever seen.

Worst part is, she just won the primaries with over 50% of the votes. wtf .. just wtf.

Title inaccurate (4, Insightful)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157412)

A judge in Argentina ordered ISPs to block two websites -- leakymails.com and leakymails.blogspot.com. According to Google, many ISPs have simply blocked the IP 216.239.32.2 instead of using a targeted DNS filter.

"Argentina" didn't do anything. The government didn't pass a law. A judge ordered two URLs to be blocked.

Idiot ISPs blocked an IP address that led to a million blogs.

The title should read: Inept Argentinian ISPs Block a Million Blogs Rather Than Blocking Two URLs to Satisfy Court Ruling

Re:Title inaccurate (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157568)

"Argentina" hasn't done anything to fix it either.

Re:Title inaccurate (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158186)

"Argentina" hasn't done anything to fix it either.

Umm, one can argue about the legality or effectiveness of the judge's order in this case, but I don't see evidence that Argentina has a general record of endorsing blanket internet censorship, as the ISPs have done here. In fact, quite the opposite. See the Wikipedia article on "Internet Censorship by Country" [wikipedia.org] where Argentina is included in the list under "No Evidence of Censorship":

Not individually classified by ONI, but is included in the regional overview for Latin America.

Technical filtering of the Internet is uncommon in Argentina. The regulation of Internet content addresses largely the same concerns and strategies seen in North America and Europe, focusing on combating the spread of child pornography and restricting child access to age-inappropriate material. As Internet usage in Argentina increases, so do defamation, hate speech, copyright, and privacy issues.

And...

Since the 1997 presidential declaration regarding "Free Speech on the Internet" that guarantees Internet content the same constitutional protections for freedom of expression, Argentina has become a haven for neo-Nazi and race-hate groups around the region.

Sounds like, if anything, they have a more open policy toward internet freedom than many European countries, for example.

I'm happy to be contradicted, but I don't see evidence that this is anymore than some ISPs implementing a stupid method of blocking that snagged a million blogs rather than the two requested. TFA even says "some ISPs," not all, suggesting that the problem is about a technical choice for a solution for a few private corporations.

It's as if an American court ordered ISPs not to provide internet service to a child molester in Cleveland with multiple clear cases of abuse that were initiated over the internet, and Comcast responded by shutting down the internet to the entire state of Ohio.

Then Slashdot runs a headline: "United States Censors Internet from Ohio."

In such a case, we could argue about the court ruling, but I think we would agree that the headline would be false.

Re:Title inaccurate (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158296)

Technical filtering of the Internet is uncommon in Argentina

I'm not sure what this actually means, is this supposed to include P2P? Because if it is, it's a lie.

Telecom Argentina actively filters the Megaupload site. You get to the download page, wait 45 seconds, get the download link, and your file starts downloading.... at 0.1kbps until it times out.

I happen to have two internet connections at home. The other one, from Fibertel, downloads the same file, at the same time, just fine.

But in the other hand, Fibertel explicitly blocks torrent trackers. You can get to TPB, download a torrent, and then the file will never start downloading. You do the same over Telecom, and you soon get your torrent at line-speed (3Mbps in my case). As a curiosity, I added the Fibertel machine manually to uTorrent, so my machine directly contacted the Fibertel one. A couple of seconds later, my Telecom machine sent a few peers through peer exchange to the Fibertel one, and it suddenly started downloading.

Re:Title inaccurate (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158360)

I'm not sure what this actually means, is this supposed to include P2P? Because if it is, it's a lie.

I didn't write the Wikipedia article. I don't claim to have any special knowledge of the status of general censorship in Argentina, but even if your claim is true, it sounds like an argument about ISP policy, not about "Argentina." Perhaps the Wikipedia article is inaccurate regarding individual ISP policy. Perhaps you believe the government should work harder to restrict the freedoms of private ISPs in order to guarantee stronger internet freedoms. There are certainly arguments to be made in that line, which I haven't taken a side on here.

Nevertheless, even if that were so, I still don't understand how the government's neglect to require that ISPs allow transmission of free speech would be the same as "Argentina censoring" free speech. You might think that people should be able to express their positive opinions about Nazis, but a newspaper might decide not to publish letters to the editor that endorse such views: the existence of such a policy at a private corporation does not mean that the country has censored those views.

My point was simple: when I see "Argentina" in a headline, I equate it with the government or perhaps the will of a large segment of the population. My argument was solely about the Slashdot headline, which I still think is inaccurate.

Your story about denial of P2P is interesting, but unless you believe that is related to the policy of "Argentina" as a whole, I'm not sure what it has to do with the headline here.

Your initial reply implied the "Argentina" should be doing something about the censorship. Does that mean you think the government tacitly endorses internet censorship in general? (I really am asking -- I'm curious, since you seem to have first-hand knowledge.)

Re:Title inaccurate (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158450)

Let me put it this way. My grandfather had a store in the 50s. One of those small-town stores where they sold everything from food to paint. It was doing just fine until he refused to hang the president's picture in the wall (Peron). After that, things went shitty. First they stopped supplying him with beer. Then sugar, flour... until he had to close the store and leave town with his family. That's how it was in the 40s-50s.

The current government tries to pull similar tactics. If your company isn't "with" the government, they won't kill you or anything... you're just "more likely" to get thugs at your warehouses doors and keep trucks with your products from leaving your factory.

They are in a war against Grupo Clarin right now. Clarin owns a newspaper (Clarin), ISP (Fibertel), TV stations (Canal 13, TN, Volver, and a few others), Cable (Cablevision), AM and FM national coverage radios, and they also own a lot of shares of the (oops) only newspaper paper factory in the country (so they get paper at a discount price). Cristina Kirchner, the previous president's (Nestor Kirchner) widow is just a continuation of what Nestor initiated in 2003, until he died, Cristina was the president but Nestor ruled the country, so when I say "the current government" includes the previous presidency too. SO, the current government allowed Clarin to grow out of control. They even allowed them to merge with Multicanal, which was the only other competing cable company.
After a few years, things got rough, and now the government tries everything they can do to destroy Clarin:
* A couple of years ago, they tried to jam Clarin's satellite feeds and TN was forced out of the air for a while.
* The truck driver's union blocks Clarin's trucks and the newspaper can't be delivered that way (The government claims they don't have anything to do with that but they don't do anything to stop it. Oh, btw, the leader of the truck driver's union, Hugo Moyano, sits next to Cristina when there's a cabinet meeting. He's not a government official)
* Last year they tried to remove Fibertel's ISP license on a technicality (the license was granted to Fibertel, which was a part of grupo clarin, but they billed you in the same invoice as Cablevision, which the government claimed they couldn't do)
* They are trying to go after Ernestina Herrera de Noble (grupo clarin's head), claiming that her children were illegally adopted in the 70s under the military government. DNA testing found no match with any of the registered families.

So you can see pretty much how things work here, and get your own conclusions about wether the government tacitly endorses... "stuff".

Re:Title inaccurate (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158326)

I forgot to mention, there's no free speech protection in Argentina. You can't make jew jokes (Family Guy style) or pro-Nazi declarations. there's the INADI (National Institute against Discrimination) which sues anyone who does that. Except if it's against the catholic church: against them, everything goes.

A few years ago (I even submitted a story about this to Slashdot) they tried to pass a law requiring ISPs to log every website visit by every person for 10 years. It was so wrong, the president had to sign a decree giving internet communications the same protections as the Postal and Telephone service. Basically, you can't read your wife's e-mail and use it against her in your divorce case, and the government can't wiretap you unless a judge orders it.

Re:Title inaccurate (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158380)

Thanks for this. I didn't read this before I wrote my reply to your previous post.

Anyhow, this is interesting. But I still wonder whether you think the government is happy with over a million blogs being censored here? Surely some of those blogs held positive views about the government as well as negative ones....

Re:Title inaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157626)

That's the way of the third world, where revamped fascism changes its name, provides a safe home for nazis for decades, and wins every election ever since. I've read that a former minister of finance was caught stealing thousands of dollar's, and she was not prosecuted. An undersecretary of commerce was taped while threatening shareholders of a semi-public company, and he's still in office.
  Censorship, rampant corruption, bribery. Nothing of value was lost.

Re:Title inaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157690)

It's what Argentina does, or does not. It's that Argentinians don't give a shit about freedom. They had this quasi dictatorship that changed everything, they took their local Mussolini and made a god out of him. Their main ideology, "peronism", is a very faithful copy of the first stage of fascism, with trade unions, substitution of imported goods for local goods, etc. Literally thousands of nazis were protected by the Argentinians, and they are happy with that. They talk very proudly about the jet-airplanes built by their Dear Leader, following German blueprints.

A former minister of finance was caught with thousands of stolen dollars, and was not prosecuted. Their current undersecretary of foreign trade was taped threatening to beat shareholders of a semi-public company, and he's still in office. If Argentinians are fine with that, they certainly don't care about the values of freedom and human rights.

Re:Title inaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37157760)

Wow, sounds like North Korea. I guess every able person is trying to flee the country.

Re:Title inaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158848)

Actually, it's not.

You have two partys and a really big media corporation, just like USA. You have pro-president, anti-president, and the big media against the president.
Here, as any other place, you will read pro-president and anti-president ideas, and each one affirms that what he says is the only true.

Go, find yourself who tells the truth.

Re:Title inaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158236)

The government didn't pass a law? So you're saying the judge's order to block those two URLs was illegal -- you do realize that's what you're claiming, right?

Re:Title inaccurate (2)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158284)

The government didn't pass a law? So you're saying the judge's order to block those two URLs was illegal -- you do realize that's what you're claiming, right?

No, I guess I don't realize what I'm claiming. Perhaps you should tell me.

Or perhaps what you're going to tell me is what you think I'm claiming.

In no sense was I supporting or arguing against the judge's claim. In fact, my remark about how the government didn't pass a law was superfluous. Let me be more clear about what I actually did claim:

THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ARGENTINA AS A WHOLE OR ANY PORTION OF ARGENTINA'S GOVERNMENT -- OR POPULATION SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO REPRESENT "ARGENTINA" AS A WHOLE -- HAS ORDERED, ENCOURAGED, OR ENDORSED THE CENSORSHIP OF "OVER A MILLION BLOGS."

The decision for this degree of censorship originates in decisions made by some ISPs located in a country.

Any other conclusion about what I was saying on your part about the judge's ruling, its meaning, or whether I agree with it, is your own opinion, not what I was "claiming."

Old saying (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157854)

Never attribute to malice, what you can attribute to stupidity.

Someone must've honestly thought that one IP = one site. One can only wonder how someone that stupid can work on ISP networking.

i used to try to tell this to IRC ops (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#37157950)

banning entire blocks of addresses is ridiculously overzealous, injust, and indicates laziness and ignorance on the part of the administrator.

that didnt make me any friends in the irc ops.

Re:i used to try to tell this to IRC ops (3, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158056)

banning entire blocks of addresses is ridiculously overzealous, injust, and indicates laziness and ignorance on the part of the administrator.

Or a crafty way to let make the whole country aware of the censorship.

Additional Problem: No more FTP with Blogger (1)

Vegan Cyclist (1650427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37158018)

I'm sure there are a few others on here who have Blogger-hosted blogs that had their own host and FTP, and had to go through the 'switch', where Blogger hosts the blog (and you have to re-point your DNS/folder/etc), and no longer allowing blogs to be posted via FTP.

This makes it that much more of a pain, if something as simple as this can block so many Blogger-hosted blogs, including many that might have been self-hosted previously.

it works with Arnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158082)

I have Arnet as ISP, I can ping the mentioned address without problems.

Re:it works with Arnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158580)

I have Arnet as ISP, I can ping the mentioned address without problems.

ok, sure, but can you view the site?

How else would they block it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158590)

There are a lot of talk from a couple of you saying this is because the ISPs are being stupid, but how would you recommend they implement the order?

THEY CANNOT JUST RETURN A NXDOMAIN. If they did, all someone would have to do is enter the domain name into their hosts file, or use an out-of-country server.

I suppose they could use DPI, but it is expensive and normally ineffective for encrypted traffic (I suppose someone could still VPN to another country, but that's another layer of difficulty). An IP block is the only reasonable action they could take to fulfill the order.

The ISP is taking the only reasonable technical measure they can. The judge should send an order to blogspot to shut down the sites, if they do, blogger is in compliance with Argentinean law, if they don't they are violating Argentinian law (making it not unreasonable to block the entire illegal site). When a server is found to have kiddy-porn in the US, we seize the whole server, without regard to if it is a shared server. While I may find the laws of Argentina offensive, ordering aggressive responses to violations of the law is not outside the purview of ANY judge.

KKs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37158690)

I see many (way too many) kirchneristas here. You're doomed. I don't care if your mother got 50%, I WILL KILL HER AND ANYONE IN BETWEEN.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...