Comments on: When blogging can get you locked up

Around the world, Net crackdowns are becoming commonplace. CNET News.com's Charles Cooper asks why Silicon Valley seems indifferent.

[computer_genius]

No Freedom of Expression?

Freedom of speech was introduced to the world centuries ago, and it's somewhat related to freedom of expression. So why are they locking up people in jail just because they express their thoughts about wars and stuff? They are SO nuts. I'm pro-American, but this is just too much.

[David Arbogast]

Freedoms are not introduced

Actually, the freedom of speech was never introduced. It is inherent in any human who knows how to speak. Different governments work to protect this freedom on behalf of their people in different ways. Even in the US, you do not have complete freedom of speech. When your speech violates the rules established by the government, you become a criminal. When that speech betrays the government, it is treason. It would be nice if these people had fewer restrictions, but the great debate is whether or not we can help them reclaim those rights.

[Prndll]

Come on.....

Not everyone thinks "American". Some americans don't even think American.

This story is not about America, it's about certain "other" governments.

My feelings and thoughts about being American is of pride, hope, and sorrow that other nations across the globe aren't more like America.

This story from CNET trys very hard to make a link to "blogging". Far too many people place significance on this thing called blogs.

[lsander153]

Stick to technology, please

Citing the United Nations as moral authority for anything is like citing Packard-Bell as a source of great technology.

[lsander153]

Censorship

He who bloviates against censorship of Internet content should NOT have links to "report offensive content."

What is not offensive to you might be VERY offensive to someone else.

Can technology help to overcome filtering and blocking of Internet?

I wonder if peer-to-peer and proxy technologies can help to bring the freedom of speech to people of those countries whose governments choose to filter and block access to Internet. I am not an expert on this subject, but what if someone creates a Web browser that uses technology similar to that used in peer-to-peer file sharing networks like eDonkey to re-route Web requests through other participating computers serving as proxy servers in case a direct request to a particular Web site is blocked by the ISP?

As I understand, the modern peer-to-peer networks, like the Kad network supported by eMule, don't need centralized servers. Participants discover other peer nodes dynamically, so there is no central point that can be blocked or shut down. I doubt that any country would be willing to block all Internet traffic. Chances are that different countries will want to block different sites but not everything at once. Assuming that enough people use this peer-to-peer enabled browser, people in China could provide Saudis with access to information about Israel and people in Saudi Arabia could provide access to Chinese people to information blocked by the Chinese government.

I am not sure how feasible this idea is from technical prospective or how resistant it can be to the attempts to block it.

Thoughts, anyone?

[David Arbogast]

Unfortunately......

Unfortunately, technology does not change laws. Specifically introducing technology to allow people to circumvent their legal environment would likely be considered a crime. If the technology was developed and released in a country with limited rights, it may be considered treason.

Just like P2P software did not make music free, and subjects its users to legitimate law suits, communications software in other countries will not automatically change the laws. This will have to be solved at a political level... [whispers] or through nation rebuilding.[/whispers]

[djkouza]

Possible YES, but counterable also YES

This could be a possibility, but the goverment could counter by using keywork filtering, or simply cut all traffic that is not to "approved" IP's. As unfortunate as this is, I agree that this will boil down to a political issue, and not a technological.

You Have To Fight The Blue Meanies

You are caught in the paradox of the web: by witlessly fielding a system devoid of any evolutionary imperatives, you ensured that the stronger forces would control its future.

Help the open patent keiretsu fight the closing of the commons. Then use the legally acquired and legally maintained rights to prosecute the companies that are fielding technologies that degrade human liberty and freedom of expression. Vote with every purchase you make.

You play in an ecology of games, networks of relationships, and unless you learn the codes of these systems, you are holding your finger up to a flight of geese who don't care and will crap on you if you keep standing there.

You have to fight the blue meanies.

You have to fight the blue meanies.

[dmgm01]

Scapegoating Companies

It's beyond reality to expect Cisco, Yahoo, or any other private entity to give up a huge sale based on Internet Filtering policies. What would the Cisco Board and Shareholders have said if he said we lost this deal (input many other companie names)because I don't like the Chinese Filtering approach.

[charlie cooper]

Scapegoating?

That's obvious. But what's to prevent a CEO from registering a point of view on the record? Even if it doesn't persuade this time around, it might help move the needle -- even a small point. But turning an absolute blind eye to the ultimate use of your technology is an abdication of responsibility, IMHO.

This is the real need for anon P2P

This is the real benefit that anonymous P2P networks - something in the direction of Kazaa - but with better annonymity and better encryption.

Note that the same features that make it easy for the RIAA to get grandmothers arrested for filesharing software make it easy for Iran to arrest people for publishing stuff Iran's government doesn't want released.

[CyberWoLfman]

Freedom of expression and government spy tech.

Interesting... The story mentions the UDP (Declaration of Human Rights) which was created back in 1948, but doesn't mention the fact that the US doesn't agree to it. Do you think the US government in this 'land of the free' would like things like Article 12 or Article 19 from that document?

Here's part of Artile 12:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence..."

Part of Article 19:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Doesn't go very well with the US Patriot Act, now does it?

As for getting thrown in jail for stating your opinion or having the sheer un-mitigated gall to disagree with the government, it's un-acceptable behavior, but what can we, the lowly people do about it? Very little, I'm afraid. They hold all the power. But, jail time is mild compared to some forms of censorship. Heck, I get death threats all the time from people because I dared to tell the world about modern day slavery practices, and serial killers using the Internet to find victims. Try doing a search for "truth about gor" and see what you get...

Now, as for tech; you've never heard of Echelon? It's a world-wide system that scans all your communications, including your e-mails.

Even Websites can keep certain domains from accessing their content. It's a simple trick with an .htaccess file.

The more technology advances, the more we can do, and the more information we can share. Better than the old days when people who wanted to get their words read had to get a book published. Now, you just get a Website, even a free one, and stick it out there and it's instantly available to the whole world.

Except those parts of the world which deems your content un-suitable, of course...

And that's how we find that technology, while making our lives more enjoyable, can also be used by overly-restrictive governments to censor whatever they will. But then censorship has always been the tyrant's favorite tool. After all, if they can control what people read, hear on the radio, or see on the television, they can control how you think, especially if it's only their voice you hear, and all the others are silenced.

- CyberWoLfman

[lameth]

Good Points but........

Here's what makes the UN document completely worthless when it comes to any guranteing rights, and why any patriotic American should be against this particular document.

Article 29
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Our rights and liberties described in the Bill of Rights, although curtailed and trampled on by the government for the last hundred years are diametricly opposed to the above article. Rights under the UN document are given to the people by their government through laws. You'll notice in the first sentence of this paragraph I used the term described, not given, bestowed, or awarded. Why? Because our Rights are not given to us, they are Our's by birth. The Bill of Rights no more gives us our rights and liberties then a description of the sky creates the sky.

In the past American companies run by solid patriotic Americans have done Business with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and last but not least Saddam Hussien. Cisco selling some routers to a country that curtails freedom of speach is small potatos compared with what some other American business customers have done. I guarantee if it had been an open international contract you'd find some old bids by American companies to build 500 industrial sized coal fired ovens to be sold to germany in 1938.

If you know any MBA's ask them how many morality, ethics, or theological classes they had to take to get their degree. My guess would be none.

If you have stock in Yahoo Cisco or any other company that has dealings with repressive governments put your money with your mouth is and do something the CEO's and board of directors will understand. Sell your stock and don't buy their products.

You think that's bad?

The country I live in, Malaysia, recently had an uproar about a blog concerning politics.
Blogs are personal and are like TV channels, if you don't like what you see, change the channel.

[camstone-fox]

More facts, less editorial remarks...

I agree with what you are saying, but editorially this is a weak report. The facts are missing... most of them. Or are you afraid of being detained?

- Pete Morrison, Washington DC USA

Empty Discussion

A right is merely something that a government agrees to give its people, nothing more. A right only goes so far as the government is willing to grant it, or the people are willing to fight for it. It is not a free license to ride! People complain that their rights are entitlements, but that's B.S. Freedom has never been free; that's just an unfortunate artifact of the English language. On one hand, those Iranian bloggers are fighting for their rights via civil disobedience, so they could be applauded. On the other hand, they have to be willing to be held account for their actions, as any responsible person would (think H.D. Thoreau).

The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is too idealistic. If one believes one should have liberty, then even in the U.S. I don't have it: we're in a lawsuit-happy, socialist, Patriot Act prison compared to the ideal of liberty. In other words, universal rights by whose definition? (What exactly is "inhuman punishment"? Ok Mr. Serial Killer, please go sit in the corner until you feel like being civil again.) Quite often laws themselves are wrong, and/or don't uphold the rights that the government said they would observe. To treat law as absolutely correct is morally wrong.

Regarding the Apple lawsuit against the blogger, publishing trade secret information, if the source is not through official channels, is unethical (not to mention illegal). I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but I think that Apple is right on this one. Everyone listens to rumors, and well, bad things can happen if it gets traced back to the source. To pass on illegally obtained information is not good.

Speaking of violations of freedom of speech, c|net, why do I have to register an account to post here? I have no problem with being held accountable for my words and actions, but anonymous speech is part of freedom of speech, as controversial as it may be.

[lameth]

Ahhh Excuse me....

Dude if your a US Citizen you really need to qualify this statement

<------
A right is merely something that a government agrees to give its people, nothing more. A right only goes so far as the government is willing to grant it, or the people are willing to fight for it. It is not a free license to ride! People complain that their rights are entitlements, but that's B.S. Freedom has never been free; that's just an unfortunate artifact of the English language.
----->

If you don't think it should be qualified you really do need to sit down and actually read the Declaration of Independence and the US Consititution, and just for well-roundness I'd suggest buying and reading a copy of the Federalist papers as well.

[swwg69]

So what would offend YOU?

Explaining H-bomb making?
How to create anthrax? Perhaps something positive
about jews, or something negative about jews?
How about flat out Lies.
Some porn or gambling? What would offend you?
If you say nothing, you need to examine your soul.
Censorship is not ALL bad. You need to look at
your own values before you decide that you are on
a moral high ground. Yeah show naked kids making anthrax (the popup ads would be worth millions).

Freedom of speech in US!

Freedom of speech is imperiled in the US by the lack of interest in the masses in who controls over 50% of newsprint and radio... One republican run company shouldn't have that much power over the voting public!