Javad Gholam Tamayomi, Omid Memarian, Shahram Rafihzadeh, Hanif Mazroi, Rozbeh Mir Ebrahimi, Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh and Fereshteh Ghazi are some of the most courageous people you've never met.
Not exactly household names, but each deserves a standing ovation.
During a crackdown against Iran's nascent online press last year, these sundry online journalists and bloggers got chucked into jail. The cyber seven were subsequently released but continue to invite the periodic and not-so-tender attention of the local police.
A blogger named Mojtaba Saminejad, also arrested on trumped-up charges at the beginning of November after condemning the jailings in his blog, is still being held in prison.
Increasingly, it seems, blogging can get you in big trouble. And as the number of Web logs and Internet news sites grows, journalists and bloggers regularly find themselves at odds with governments that are unenthusiastic about freedom of expression.
What's more, many governments now routinely filter the Internet, even though that's a clear violation of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which promotes access to information as an entitlement. Truth be told, the litany of examples of Internet repression around the globe makes for dreary reading.
In this post-Patriot Act age, we're all walking on terra incognita.
A recent report written by Gamal Eid, the executive director of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, was appropriately entitled, "The Internet in the Arab World: A New Space of Repression?" Among other conclusions, the report found that many Arab governments view the Internet with ambivalence. "From the governments' point of view, the disadvantages of the Internet stem from its very advantages. This attitude has affected the growth, or the lack thereof, of the Internet in the region."
So it is that some Middle Eastern regimes regularly use Domain Name System redirection or Internet Protocol-blocking techniques to prevent certain Web pages from loading. It's not difficult, and the measures are fairly effective. For example, Saudi Internet surfers looking for sites about Israel receive messages telling them the information has been blocked.
Elsewhere, China, the odds-on favorite to become the fastest-growing economy of the decade, is also the odds-on favorite to become the biggest Internet filterer of them all.
The Chinese government has developed an e-mail interception and Internet censorship technology that is as state-of-the-art as they come. Any cyberposters who stray from the straight and narrow risk a lot: Reporters Without Borders describes China, which, at last count, held 61 Internet users in detention last year, as the world's biggest prison for cyberdissidents.
In Kazakhstan, the government has periodically blocked access to opposition Web sites since 2002. The authorities have since called on one of the country's two main Internet service providers--Kazakhtelekom which is state-owned--to cut off access to sites deemed to be "destructive," or pose a threat to the state.
In the good ol' United States, things haven't gotten that out of hand--at least not yet. But who knows? In this post-Patriot Act age, we're all walking on terra incognita.
The business world doesn't produce heroes, but we should expect its leaders to occasionally demonstrate guts.
In the meantime, journalists and bloggers in the states are in no position to brag about their First Amendment rights. Just this month, we were treated to the spectacle of a bullying corporate entity--Apple Computer--
going after a student Web publisher it wants to silence. Free speech, anyone?
From my little perch in Northern California, I'm amazed at Silicon Valley's studied silence when it comes to the subject of Internet freedom. With few exceptions, there's little enthusiasm for doing much beyond selling gear. I know business and politics mix like oil and water. But isn't there something more the technology industry can do?
Get a backbone Internet infrastructure providers can't plead willful ignorance anymore. In China, for example, Cisco Systems routers do the heavy lifting for the country's surveillance infrastructure. Internet traffic passes through only five hubs, making it oh so easy to snoop on Web surfers and read private e-mails.
I'm not suggesting that Cisco was complicit in setting up a spy system, but the company's engineers did help program the equipment. Wouldn't it have been something if CEO John Chambers had shown more interest in how his company's technology was going to be used? Who knows--maybe Cisco could have extracted even a small concession from the authorities in Beijing. The business world doesn't produce heroes, but we should expect its leaders to occasionally demonstrate guts.
Do no evil If a foreign regime is intent on blocking sites that carry "sensitive" news, there's not much an Internet provider can do. So goes the claim. Very well, but at least avoid being complicit.
Yahoo CEO Terry Semel, who has done a remarkable job since taking over as company boss, has a reputation for being a tough manager. It sure would have been nice if he had demonstrated some of that legendary intestinal fortitude when the Beijing authorities put the squeeze on Yahoo. Instead, he wimped out.
Yahoo agreed to control its discussion forums and rig the Chinese version of its search engine to prohibit certain hot-button search terms, as defined by the sensitivities of the government.
Bad precedents like these won't make things any easier for the people who literally risk their lives to reveal the truth. Keeping the flow of information free and unfettered is going to become a struggle in the new century. It is an issue begging for Silicon Valley's attention--all the way from a jail cell in Iran. So far, the response has been studied indifference.
Biography Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
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.
What is not offensive to you might be VERY offensive to someone else.
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?
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]
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.
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.
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
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.
Blogs are personal and are like TV channels, if you don't like what you see, change the channel.
- Pete Morrison, Washington DC USA
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.
<------
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.
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).