×

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!

Online Law Banning Discussion of Current Affairs Comes Into Force In Vietnam

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the watch-what-you-say dept.

Censorship 140

another random user writes in with news about new internet restrictions come into effect in Vietnam. "A controversial law banning Vietnamese online users from discussing current affairs has come into effect. The decree, known as Decree 72, says blogs and social websites should not be used to share news articles, but only personal information. The law also requires foreign internet companies to keep their local servers inside Vietnam. The new law specifies that social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook should only be used 'to provide and exchange personal information.' It also prohibits the online publication of material that "opposes" the Vietnamese government or 'harms national security.' Last month the US embassy in Hanoi said it was 'deeply concerned by the decree's provisions,' arguing that 'fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

140 comments

Pot calling kettle black (5, Insightful)

ckhorne (940312) | about 8 months ago | (#44732179)

And the US is in a position to be talking about "fundamental freedoms"?

Re:Pot calling kettle black (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#44732213)

The US government is all for fundamental freedoms, providing your use of them can be logged, queried at will and used against you later.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 8 months ago | (#44732253)

The US government is all for fundamental freedoms, providing your use of them can be logged, queried at will and used against you later.

Indeed. The US government wants everyone to talk about current affairs online, so they can easily flag and monitor the trouble-makers.

The Vietnamese alternative is just so twentieth century.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (2, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#44732607)

Indeed. The US government wants everyone to talk about current affairs online, so they can easily flag and monitor the trouble-makers.

Where " trouble-makers" is the set of people trying to use truck bombs, car bombs, and suicide vests, plus various experiments with poison gas and plague [telegraph.co.uk] , to kill masses of innocent people, yes.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732767)

kill yourself

Re:Pot calling kettle black (3, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 8 months ago | (#44733367)

Because no government would ever abuse such powers, turning into a totalitarian regime without hope of reverting back to democracy, right[U+2e2e]

If you want to take the risk, then you're really stupid. Unless for you it is not a risk, but the objective. Then you're waaaay more stupid than I thought.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 8 months ago | (#44733447)

... you forgot those that want to fly on and airplane and have views that aren't in line with government double-think, those who would expose the unconstitutional behavior of the government, and generally anyone who doesn't think like a fascist. Don't forget those "trouble makers". After all, they're the worst kind. They support terrorism!

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 8 months ago | (#44733467)

Where " trouble-makers" is the set of people trying to use truck bombs, car bombs, and suicide vests, plus various experiments with poison gas and plague, to kill masses of innocent people, yes.

Sure, because there's so much to gain tactically and strategically for someone to engage in such behavior. :p

Seriously, Fjord; you need to change your username (and your strawman; he's looking a trifle piqued); as I repeatedly told you, you've been outed.

Oh, and think about telling Uncle Sam that you want Sundays off. :p

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 8 months ago | (#44733605)

The label of "trouble-maker" applies to anyone the government, or individuals in the government, feel like targeting. If the government can get away with abusing its powers, and it is beneficial to do so, you'd better count on it happening.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#44733757)

Where " trouble-makers" is the set of people trying to use truck bombs, car bombs, and suicide vests, plus various experiments with poison gas and plague [telegraph.co.uk] , to kill masses of innocent people, yes.

Ummm... some would say US is happily in bed with such trouble makers [voiceofrussia.com] .
But this can't be true... or can it?

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#44733825)

I doubt it for these reasons [slashdot.org] .

The Russian government continues to cover the back of the Syrian government as it has for decades.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about [abovetopsecret.com]

Re:Pot calling kettle black (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#44733871)

The Russian government continues to cover the back of the Syrian government as it has for decades.

I can't stop to notice that US does pretty much the same with the Saudi house (sort like a proxy war but instead of communism vs free world, it's now Sunni vs Shia).
What doesn't make sense to me: is the Saudi house less interested in re-establishing the caliphate?

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#44734273)

Ummm... some would say US is happily in bed with such trouble makers.

I doubt it for these reasons [slashdot.org] .

The Russian government continues to cover the back of the Syrian government as it has for decades.

Ummm... yeah. Seems that I'm not alone not buying it.
* Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force' [thehill.com]
* Obama's obsession with Syria [news24.com]

Who would benefit from US involvement?
What does the Saud house have at hand to force US into this conflict and on their side?

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 8 months ago | (#44734337)

We are only talking about and adding to what is in the free UK/US press, linking to free sites, not paywalls.
Is that really so bad of us?

Re:Pot calling kettle black (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 8 months ago | (#44732443)

The US government is all for fundamental freedoms, providing your use of them can be logged, queried at will and used against you later.

No, I'm afraid not. Let's go down the amendments one by one and see where we come out:

First amendment: Freedom of speech and the press.
The United States has no Journalistic shield law [wikipedia.org] . Basically, if a whistleblower drops of some incriminating government documents, publication can land you in jail. Failing to reveal your source? That's a one-way trip to Guantanamo. Then there's the designated Free Speech Cages [wikipedia.org] , surrounded by police, cameras, and barbed wire, and usually located far away from a place where your protect might be visible. Failure to protest within the cage will and you in a different cage. Don't worry -- they pre-construct them for all major events at nearby warehouses.

The right to bear arms
In New York [wikipedia.org] and elsewhere... yeah, no. There are so many examples of the constant attempts to remove this or at least regulate it to the point it is effectively removed, I won't provide more examples. Go look them up yourself.

Not having soldiers quartered in your home
Yeah... a guy was recently arrested, beaten, and dragged out of his house for refusing to allow the police entry, so they could pitch a tent and enact surveillance of one of his neighbors. The story has since vanished [huffingtonpost.com] off the internet, and very few sites still have any information on it.

Unlawful search and seizure
The Department of Homeland Security has granted itself the ability to declare arbitrary constitution-free zones [globalresearch.ca] , which cover approximately 80% of the US population -- as most of the population lives within 50 miles of one of the country's borders, and that's one of the areas covered.

Right not to self-incriminate
unless of course, the FBI thinks you might have child porn [infosecuri...gazine.com] . ...

I could go on, but I think you get the point: They're not for all fundamental freedoms... they just want them on paper, but not in reality. Subtle difference.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#44732771)

Yeah... a guy was recently arrested, beaten, and dragged out of his house for refusing to allow the police entry, so they could pitch a tent and enact surveillance of one of his neighbors. The story has since vanished [huffingtonpost.com] off the internet, and very few sites still have any information on it.

When that kind of story disappears off the internet, it's usually because it wasn't very reliable to begin with, and the original source was found to be a liar, or otherwise.

With a 24-hour news cycle, it's easy to get up in stories and publish them without checking the sources first.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (5, Informative)

Sabriel (134364) | about 8 months ago | (#44733013)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/07/anthony-mitchell-lawsuit-third-amendment-_n_3557431.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/henderson.pdf [wsj.com] - Case 2:13-cv-01154-APG-CWH United States District Court District of Nevada

19. After Plaintiff ANTHONY MITCHELL refused to allow the police to enter his home, the De-fendant police officers, including Defendants SERGEANT MICHAEL WALLER, OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN and OFFICER CHRISTOPHER WORLEY, conspired among themselves to force AN-THONY MITCHELL out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use. Defendant OFFICER DAVID CAWTHORN outlined the Defendants’ plan in his official report:

It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.

That's a nice Catch-22 you've created there, Officer. Pity about that pesky Third Amendment (plaintiff is also suing under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as well).

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#44733141)

It's shitty, but I'm still not sure it violates the constitution, at least in the way the GP says it did.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733501)

Exactly. The British (who inspired the Right) at least allowed you to also continue living there at the same time. So this is actually worse.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733065)

> When that kind of story disappears off the internet, it's usually because it wasn't very reliable to begin with,

That's not how the internet works. It's a media outlet and behaves just like one.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#44734113)

The United States has no Journalistic shield law

Journalistic shield laws are a terrible idea. The freedom to speak and publish is a right shared by everyone. There should not be a special group of government approved "journalists" that have special rights that are denied to other citizens.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 8 months ago | (#44734369)

Yes a few parts of the world added on the need for a university degree to even start out as a journalist.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (2)

amirulbahr (1216502) | about 8 months ago | (#44734349)

In Vietnam, government says, "Don't say that shit online!"

In the Free World, government says, "Go ahead! Say that shit online. We're watching..."

Re:Pot calling kettle black (4, Insightful)

St.Creed (853824) | about 8 months ago | (#44732291)

The US embassy in Hanoi is deeply concerned about the situation in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Russian embassy is deeply concerned about the situation in the US. Meanwhile, the Turkish embassy was deeply concerned about the situation in Germany. Meanwhile...

Every government is deeply concerned with the freedoms of someone else's citizens. Even Putin is probably deeply concerned about some foreign citizens somewhere.

It really breaks my heart to see all our leaders so concerned for the welfare and freedom of citizens that don't live in their own country *sniff*.

Although I don't think the US embassy is wrong here. This decree is ofcourse a blatant attack on the rights of the Vietnamese people to have a say in how their country is run, which is undesirable as far as the Vietnamese rulers are concerned. The fact they deemed it necessary to actually pronounce this decree, however, gives me great hopes for the future, since laws are mostly made about events that are happening. Even the laws in Hammurabi's codex give great insight of the problems the rulers had in these days with the opposition. And while this decree is a big step backward, it also shows huge trouble brewing for the Vietnamese government.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 8 months ago | (#44732401)

As if the US was concerned about Vietnam when it escalated its presence during the 60's and 70's, while Americans died and are still dying, increasing drug trafficking into the US where more Americans died and are still dying, where corporate America found an easy way to make obscene untaxed profits to the extent that Americans are still fighting wars for profit and dying for their efforts, is this the US you mean?

Re:Pot calling kettle black (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 8 months ago | (#44732405)

This decree is ofcourse a blatant attack on the rights of the Vietnamese people to have a say in how their country is run

They don't have a say in how their country is run unless they climb to the top ranks of the party. Sort of like how the US is operated.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732537)

Hello, I'm posting this from Vietnam so I can't discuss your comment but I would like to tell you about my family:

My uncle Acirema pretends to be a generous and liberal man but runs his family with an iron fist, monitoring all his kids activities. Yet he also likes to complain to everyone about how uncle Manteiv doesn't let his kids go out after school or talk to anyone.

Uncle Manteiv meanwhile says he's doing it for his kids security and points out that aunt Aissur does worse by intercepting her kids emails and changing the content before they're sent out.

Aunt Aissur herself had to give shelter to one of uncle Acirema's kids who was really scared of being brutally punished after telling his school mates about his dad's snoopings.

Grandpa Anihc is the best, he also runs his household with an iron fist but readily admits to it.

I'll be back later to tell you about how uncle Acimera wants to take over aunt Airys' house because she has the best apple trees in town. Of course he can't say that outright so he claims she poured bleach into her kids' soup, although rumor has it that the kids were the ones who tried to poison her instead.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733329)

!edoc eciN

ASN--

Re:Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44734823)

Wow! Wow! Wow!

It would be a great help to get you to be the big orator at the big house called Nu where all these uncles and aunts meet now and then.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732701)

We're all hypocrites. Yippy skip, that meme has gone stale over the past half century. But pick any person in the world at random and ask them whether they'd want to live in Vietnam or in the U.S, even with our over-reaching foreign policy, the @$&#ing NSA/CIA, and asshat politicians. Over here we want to preserve and protect our freedoms. Over there, chances are they're hoping to become free for the first time in their history.

Cylinder head calling engine block hi nodular Fe. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733951)

The story is no big deal. When all is said and done, the Vietnamese are Asians. Asians prefer order and collectivism.

Liberty, individualism and proper ethanol metabolism...that's white privilege

Re:Pot calling kettle black (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#44732313)

And the US is in a position to be talking about "fundamental freedoms"?

Depressingly, they do tend to bat above average RE: free speech: The feds are unnervingly interested listeners; but the list of subjects you can't talk about is very short.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732491)

Well, you are not allowed to report about the government committing crimes against wiretapping laws, you are not allowed to report about getting "National Security Letters" demanding to wiretap and keylog your entire infrastructure, you are not allowed to publish videos of soldiers having video-game style fun killing unarmed civilians.

On the plus side, you can lie under oath with impunity to congress without fearing repercussions as long as you are not lying about sex affairs or sports but areas of actual national importance.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#44732775)

Well, you are not allowed to report about the government committing crimes against wiretapping laws, you are not allowed to report about getting "National Security Letters" demanding to wiretap and keylog your entire infrastructure,

That might not be true. It's in the courts right now, I fully expect it to be overturned.

Overturned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733711)

you are not allowed to report about getting "National Security Letters" demanding to wiretap and keylog your entire infrastructure,

That might not be true. It's in the courts right now, I fully expect it to be overturned.

So what? They have worked for 10+ years. Then the government will invent "Secret Security Missives" which will not allow you to talk to anybody including the courts on pain of internment. Just like the NSLs. It takes several people going to the slammer and/or sacrificing their useful life to the purpose and quite a few years until such an illegal contraption is overturned. There are no punishments or even hardly admonishments for the violators of the constitution, only for those standing in for it. So the next cycle is started.

As long as it's so much cheaper to break the constitution than to stand in for it, the game can and will carry on indefinitely.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | about 8 months ago | (#44732343)

America's leaders just got a massive secret erection at the idea of doing this, themselves.

The first step, they've been pushing for ages. Control who can become a "journalist". Then license them. Then punish anyone "practicing journalism without a license".

Oooh gaaaawd! I think they just came!

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#44732753)

You've apparently been kissing the blarney stone a few too many times again.

You probably would straighten up with a whack from a shanene [youtube.com]

Re:Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732427)

Don't be ridiculous, if there was a degree like that in the US would be a civil war against it within a minute.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733087)

> if there was a degree like that in the US would be a civil war against it within a minute.

Nobody responds to your drivel because they know you're a child posting about concepts you are completely unfamiliar with.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#44732591)

Pot calling kettle black And the US is in a position to be talking about "fundamental freedoms"?

I think pot is the best explanation for considering that insightful. I don't see how you don't see the difference between the US and Vietnam. Maybe you haven't heard, but communism tends to have a heavy hand [harvard.edu] .

Pot is far blacker than the kettle. (2)

couchslug (175151) | about 8 months ago | (#44732785)

"And the US is in a position to be talking about "fundamental freedoms"?" to a country whose people it slaughtered while fighting to impose a neo-colonial government?

Re:Pot is far blacker than the kettle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733933)

They had a fundamental freedom... ... to choose the government *we* (the US) wanted, or have Napalm and Agent Orange dropped on them. Let's not call those "chemical weapons" though, because we are against those things... lets see, Agent Orange kills trees so we'll call it a 'defoliant', and Napalm burns the flesh off your body so that can be an 'exfoliant'. ::)

Re:Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733151)

Just as we shouldn't give a pass to the US government for not being as bad as, say, Iran - we shouldn't stay silent because our government is shitty when someone else's government is doing even shittier things.

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about 8 months ago | (#44733217)

They're only upset about this because the NSA didn't think of it first. Second, if you aren't discussing current events, how are they going to track citizens for abnormal opinions and mark them for additional surveillance?

Re:Pot calling kettle black (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 8 months ago | (#44733815)

Understandably, the US administration is envious that the Vietnamese are so far ahead in online censorship. Expect the US to start the same in 5-10 years.

Communism utopy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732191)

Vietnam = USA

Say it LOUDER! (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 8 months ago | (#44732211)

Repeat after me: "fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline"

Re:Say it LOUDER! (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#44732319)

Repeat after me: "fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline"

Indeed, comrade, we agree and are just moving to harmonize our regulations of the internet with our repressive system of informants and physical surveillance!

Re:Say it LOUDER! (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 8 months ago | (#44732357)

Exactly. Which is to say, you enjoy your fundamental freedoms online and offline at the whim and discretion of the government.

To the Vietnamese government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732255)

Suck it you assholes.
Take you decree 72 and shove it up you arse, you blithering pillocks.

Shall we talk about Le Anh Hung or old stuff like the PMU18 scandal?

Or about the countless political prisoners you stupid idiots have jailed.

Thou art as loathsome as a toad. Thou art a boil, a plague sore, an embossed, carbuncle in my corrupted blood.

Re:To the Vietnamese government (1)

lxs (131946) | about 8 months ago | (#44733345)

You have to hand it to them. "Decree 72" sounds deliciously Orwellian.

We should invade (5, Funny)

The_Star_Child (2660919) | about 8 months ago | (#44732257)

We should invade Vietnam to teach them a lesson.

Re:We should invade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732329)

1. Obama said they crossed his red line
2. but he needs to wait for the UN to confirm that they did despite him already having proof,
3. but now he will attack,
4. just as soon as allies agree as well,
5. but now allies won't he will attack unilaterally,
6. but now he decided that he will wait on Congressional approval instead.

The ONLY person you don't want to be is the guy Obama promises to help.

Re:We should invade (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732567)

You right-wing loons crack me up. If he DID do something unilaterally, you be the first ones screaming "black Hitler oversteps presidential authority, attacks sovereign nation!!!".

Re:We should invade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44734099)

You left wingers crack me up. Its actually Biden [youtube.com] that is threatening to impeach presidents for unilateral action without Congressional approval.

Re:We should invade (0)

reboot246 (623534) | about 8 months ago | (#44733615)

"You might as well try to teach a snake to juggle as hope the Obama administration will think strategically."
~Ralph Peters
retired US Army officer

Re:We should invade (2)

blue trane (110704) | about 8 months ago | (#44732331)

How about use satellites, or balloons, or drones, to give them free uncensored internet, and let them exercise their unalienable right to liberty regardless of what their government says?

We could do it in Syria, too. Why aren't we discussing nonviolent options?

Re:We should evade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732547)

How about use satellites, or balloons, or drones, to give them free uncensored internet, and let them exercise their unalienable right to liberty regardless of what their government says?

We could do it in Syria, too. Why aren't we discussing nonviolent options?

How about doing it in the U.S.A.? They are so busy hauling all the haystack in that they can't be bothered with a few stray straws of low-bandwidth side channels travelling at pseudo-noised spread spectrum shortwave.

Who needs the government all over one's underwear drawers?

Re:We should evade (1)

blue trane (110704) | about 8 months ago | (#44733271)

Yes, our govt should provide free internet. And we need to vote out the bums who support surveillance, It's up to us; power resides in We the People.

Re:We should invade (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 8 months ago | (#44732365)

I presume you're being sarcastic, but Vietnam's leading export is crude oil.

Re:We should invade (1, Insightful)

slick7 (1703596) | about 8 months ago | (#44732451)

I presume you're being sarcastic, but Vietnam's leading export is crude oil.

Which is the "WHY" of the Vietnam war from its inception.

Re:We should invade (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 8 months ago | (#44732699)

You are wrong, do some research or substantiate your claims.

The US has been involved in the politics of Vietnam since the end of world war 2. Paranoia and fear of [the spread of] communism are the reason the US went into Vietnam.

If you were correct, why don't we actully get any oil from there? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/19/where-the-u-s-gets-its-oil-imports-in-one-map/ [washingtonpost.com]

Re:We should invade (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 8 months ago | (#44734163)

If you were correct, why don't we actully get any oil from there? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/19/where-the-u-s-gets-its-oil-imports-in-one-map/ [washingtonpost.com]

The drug connection was more lucrative. Afghanistan, Turkey, the Golder Triangle are the main sources of opium and heroin, South America marijauna and cocaine, Central America and Mexico are the conduits for said drugs into the US via military and CIA flights. As to citations, no.

Re:We should invade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732755)

I think the main point was to keep cheap Southeast Asian labor from being closed off to U.S. manufacturers at a time when the American labor movement was strong and likely to get stronger.

Re:We should invade (1)

mlookaba (2802163) | about 8 months ago | (#44732811)

Wow. I guess everything I read over the last 40 years is wrong then. Oh, BTW, care to back that up with any facts?

Re:We should invade (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#44732887)

I presume you're being sarcastic, but Vietnam's leading export is crude oil.

Which is the "WHY" of the Vietnam war from its inception.

That's pretty unlikely since oil wasn't discovered in Vietnamese waters until 1975 [latimes.com] , and Vietnam had been at war pretty much since the Japanese invasion in the 1940s.

Do you have a theory about Korea? Where are the big oil fields there? Or is that just another case of the US preventing a communist takeover of mountain covered land instead of jungle covered land?

Re:We should invade (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 8 months ago | (#44734311)

According to your article, oil was "discovered" in 1975. For an oil company to even drill an exploratory well, there has to be some assurance of the well producing. Athough the article states the time of discovery, it says nothing about when it was first understood that oil was there. It takes many weeks or months to set up an oil rig let alone where to drill. Taking seismic readings and interpreting them takes many more weeks. I knew about the oil while on Yankee station, not alot to read, but will read any and everything. I'm sure it was a magazine article.

First Rule of Vietnam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732305)

The 'first rule' of Vietnam is don't talk about Vietnam. I'm sure that will work wonders and be effective beyond belief ... as long as they've never heard of Streisand in Vietnam.

But then (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732321)

How are they supposed to tell people what they're not supposed to talk about?

just use encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732397)

so you can say things such as N!CK:884*/KSJLA1&O83-OWIP+P3 with absolutely 0 concerns.

Re:just use encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44734657)

Zero concerns, John Smith of 131 Acacia Avenue, who skipped breakfast today?

This oppressive law.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732419)

.. will hinder the NSA from finding out what's going in Vietnam.

Just anothr day in vietnam (1)

Joeypwnsjoo (3037389) | about 8 months ago | (#44732441)

There's so many reports of Censorship in Vietnam it basically shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Interesting (1)

asamad (658115) | about 8 months ago | (#44732447)

Could the servers be hosted in the US embassy ? that within in vietnam might not be Vietnam soil but

Re:Interesting (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 8 months ago | (#44734423)

Most of the worlds telco equipment is/was standardised to help the police and fight/track terrorism.
Then add in the fast/lower cost deep packet inspection products that are exported from the free "West".
So the average person in Vietnam would be watched at an internet cafe, have their home internet logged.
Even if you can use the internet without glowing keywords or visiting blocked sites, its like the US effort, the gov is in your ISP for that first hop out.

There's an obvious solution... (4, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | about 8 months ago | (#44732483)

We should send in the military to help out those poor oppressed people. Sure, an invasion is excessive and would look bad, but we could certainly send in a few "advisors" under the radar, and see how that goes...

Re:There's an obvious solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732725)

And bring back the draft. Kids these days are sitting at home playing video games because they're jobless. /s Freaking wars, you'd think people would do everything they can to avoid them. But I guess as long as the people declaring the war aren't actually the ones fighting in them, it will go on like this. You'd think good legislation would involve that if leaders declare a war, they have to be put in the most dangerous place on the front lines. After all, we can always elect new people. How long until Darwin Awards are handed out and the wars end?

only applies to vietnamese citizens? (2)

0111 1110 (518466) | about 8 months ago | (#44732489)

I wonder if this law also prohibits foreigners in Vietnam from posting information about current events (like this new law for instance). I also wonder what kinds of things they will interpret as reducing "national security". Are they going to start shutting down internet cafes now or just require ID in order to use a computer there and introduce mandatory video surveillance etc? It really is too bad that America lost the war there. America had no business being there in the first place but this sort of thing is ugly.

Leftists Show Their True Colors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732575)

They tried to shutdown a Hilary documentary a few years back, now they are making one to get Mrs. Benghazi elected.

Why not just use government servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44732681)

I'd be quite happy to use the NSA - or the VNA as mail system - excellent phone, sms, social network and email search integration, unlimited storage, and an unbeatable price!

As for freedoms, at first glance it would seem that people are more free in the US than in Vietnam, but on the other hand I don't think that Vietnam is really interested in reading the mail of the other 90% of the world.

my personal problem is ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 8 months ago | (#44732897)

... with evil leaders of Vietnam who are not representing the Vietnamese people at all.

There's a simple solution (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 8 months ago | (#44733027)

I think the US should send thousands of troops to 'Nam to ensure freedom and liberty. It worked last time, didn't it.... :-P

Pot to kettle: combustion remains discolouration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44733371)

These provisions are absolutely disgusting, but less restrictive than the laws I live under in a bourgeois liberal democracy.

The hypocrisy from the US on this topic is palpable.

English, Motherfucker! (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 8 months ago | (#44733611)

Do you speak it?

The law itself is not "online." Perhaps it is by a matter of incidence (it is likely published online, on a government website), but not inheritance; and surely not what you meant by your choice of phrasing.

It is categorically an idea, not a physical noun, and therefore, cannot be contained within something. It certainly can't be entirely contained "online."

The title should be: Law Banning Online Discussion of Current Affairs Comes into Effect.

Phrasing is important. Words mean shit.

This must be where Huffington Post is moving (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 8 months ago | (#44733791)

Criticism of Dear Leader is of course, treason. All Hail Barry.

In America most news is disreported through Fox (-1, Flamebait)

jsepeta (412566) | about 8 months ago | (#44734545)

So it's not like we have free and open discussion of current events here. The funneling of the messages on corporate-sponsored television is pretty horrible in America.

Re:In America most news is disreported through Fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44734625)

You left out CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS. Just for fun, throw in Pat Robertson's news show too. Every corporate sponsored network has a head honcho who sets the political tone of what's shown on the air, including news.

Fox is just the most blatantly overt about their political bias/favoritism, and fact-filtering in their reporting.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...