OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Handhelds Security The Courts Slashdot.org Technology
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 hof

Sections
apache
Mar 4
(1 recent)

apple
Mar 6
(5 recent)

askslashdot
Mar 6
(9 recent)

books
Mar 5
(2 recent)

bsd
Mar 4
(2 recent)

developers
Mar 6
(6 recent)

features
Mar 3

interviews
Jan 16

radio
Jun 29

science
Mar 5
(7 recent)

yro
Mar 5
(7 recent)

Sell Out: Blocking an Open Net
TechnologyPosted by JonKatz on Tuesday November 27, @10:46AM
from the corporatism:-peddle-censorship-for-cash dept.
Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality. Too often, it isn't. Take, for example, the corporatist American and European companies happily selling blocking software to countries like China and Saudi Arabia so their governments can pervert the Net to deny their citizens basic freedoms. This is a significant blow to the notion that technology will forge a more open world. And it might not be all that distant a threat. We have plenty of zealots and fanatics right here, all itching for a model way of blocking a free Net.

Governments in Muslim nations, as well as China, have repeatedly made overtures to and done business with Net-filtering companies. But no nation has used blocking software as vigorously as Saudi Arabia, according to the New York Times. By royal decree, virtually all public Internet traffic to and from the kingdom has been funneled through a single control center outside Riyadh since the Net was first introduced there three years ago. If the Riyadh center blocks a site, a warning appears in both English and Arabic: "Access to the requested URL is not allowed!" Saudi Arabia blocks sex and pornography sites, as well as those relating to religion and human rights.

Now nearly a dozen software companies, most American, are competing for a hefty new contract to help block access to even more sites the Saudi government deems inappropriate for its country's half-million Net users. In fact, the Saudi government is helping to pioneer something once thought impossible -- a sanitized Net for an entire nation and culture.

American software companies are only too happy to help them do it. Software executives say they are only providing politically neutral tools. "Once we sell them the product, we can't enforce how they use it," Matthew Holt, a sales executive for San Jose's Secure Computing, told the Times earlier this week. Secure provides filtering software to the Saudi government under a contract that expires in 2003. The Saudi government is also reportedly talking with Websense, SurfControl and N2H2 of Seattle.

The Saudi government has already spent a fortune to design its centralized control system before permitting Net use a few years ago, selecting Secure Computing's Smart Filter software from four competing U.S. products. SmartFilter came with ready-made blocking categories like pornography and gambling and was also customized to exclude sites the Saudis perceived as bad for Islam, the royal family, or the country's political positions.

This is a radical assault on the spirit of the Net, of its open, point-to-point design, its great promise to democratize information. By allies, no less. And don't for a minute think there aren't plenty of fanatics and zealots in the United States who won't love the idea as well. Remember that the Harry Potter series is now the most banned book series in American libraries.

The Saudi government, along with other non-democratic countries, are notoriously technophobic. They are eager to participate in the emerging global economy, but desperate to stanch the free flow of information that might provide diverse information to their citizens. And they have no problem finding software companies, including American ones, that are happy to help extend censorship. The corporatist rule is simple -- maximize profits at all costs under virtually all circumstances.

Countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China have been surprisingly successful at wiring up certain segments of their societies while controlling information deemed insensitive for political or religious reasons. The Net can, in fact, be used to make money and suppress freedom. These governments have undercut the great promise of globalism, prosperity, technology and democracy, allowing corrupt and anti-democratic governments to prosper, in part by censoring information -- something many of us thought the Net would make impossible.

This highlights the menacing way corporatism exploits technology, undermining the most basic American values.

"We have a really serious problem in terms of the American free speech idea," says Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in the politics of Internet filtering. "But it is very American to make money. Between anti-censorship and the desire to make money, the desire to make money will win out." This is a profound blow to the whole idea of using technology -- especially the Net -- to force a more open society.

That's a bitter indictment of a nation that purports to be advancing democracy throughout the world, that's supposedly fighting a war to protect freedom. The reason money will always win out is corporatism, which subverts almost every other value in the name of profit, and which has made globalism a dirty word.

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
  • Saudi Arabia
  • More on Technology
  • Also by JonKatz
  • Features

    Some of Slashdot's more recent features include:

    Review: Fellowship of the Ring
    Satellite Radio: Tune In or Turn Off?
    EverQuest: Shadows of Luclin
    The Age of Paine Revisited
    Felten vs. RIAA Hearing
    Sell Out: Blocking an Open Net
    Constructing a Truly Quiet Gaming PC
    The Hypermedia Hazard
    Net: Now Our Most Serious News Medium?
    Morals and Layoffs
    Civil Liberties and the New Reality

    Update: 2001-12-29 by michael:

    Past Features

    Chipset Duel - VIA vs. Nvidia nForce | Thus Spake Tick Creator Ben Edlund  >
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Sell Out: Blocking an Open Net | Login/Create an Account | Top | 515 comments | Search Discussion
    Threshold:
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    Hopefully (Score:1)
    by nll8802 on Tuesday November 27, @10:52AM (#2619153)
    (User #536577 Info | http://www.higheriq.com/)
    Hopefully someday we will live in a world were everyone has the same freedom we have here in the states. I always here people around me complaining about how bad it is here, they just are uninformed of how bad some other people have it.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Hopefully by n3r0.m4dski11z (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @10:55AM
      • Re:Hopefully by ryanflynn (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @11:09AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Hopefully by bribecka (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:10AM
        • Re:Hopefully by ichimunki (Score:3) Tuesday November 27, @11:27AM
          • Re:Hopefully by scruffy (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @01:00PM
          • Re:Hopefully by Strange Ranger (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @12:07PM
          • Re:Hopefully by ichimunki (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @02:35PM
          • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Hopefully by sketerpot (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @11:34AM
          • Re:Hopefully by bribecka (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:51AM
      • Re:Hopefully by Chundra (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @03:19PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Hopefully by Twylite (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @10:56AM
    • Re:Hopefully by theJavaMan (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @11:03AM
      • Re:Hopefully by xmedar (Score:1) Wednesday November 28, @02:13PM
    • Re:Hopefully by rscrawford (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @06:15PM
      • Re:Hopefully by RbtMastah (Score:1) Wednesday November 28, @08:39AM
    • Unlike The Somalis by damas (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @01:45PM
    • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.
    I've got it! (Score:2, Troll)
    by nick_burns on Tuesday November 27, @10:53AM (#2619160)
    (User #452798 Info)
    Here's the solution. Have Microsoft sell the Arab nations the security software. That way, we guarantee security holes and people will then get around the software, allowing them to get to anywhere they want on the internet.
    [ Parent ]
    Blocking competition? (Score:1, Funny)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27, @10:56AM (#2619175)
    Do these filtering companies block traffic to other companies that make filtering software?
    [ Parent ]
    is there a limit? (Score:4, Insightful)
    by shibut on Tuesday November 27, @10:56AM (#2619176)
    (User #208631 Info)
    The question is: is there a limit/border and if so, where is it? If it's wrong to sell to Saudi Arabia, is it right to sell to city librarys? To parochial schools that block contents? To parents that block content from their children? It seems pretty obvious to me that the parents one is OK (before you flame, wait! let me put my flame retardant on. OK, proceed). Selling to the Saudis is morally dubious at best, so where is the line?

    By the way, morality in many other aspects has never stopped old time American companies in the past. Need examples? How about Phillip Morris: is it moral to sell something to people that will harm them for sure and shorten their life span almost surely? Still, people have no problem investing in this company.
    [ Parent ]
    • harm from PM product? by mgkimsal2 (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:07AM
    • Diffrences by autopr0n (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:14AM
      • Re:Diffrences by morcego (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:41AM
        • Re:Diffrences by eam (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @02:42PM
          • Re:Diffrences by andkaha (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @07:22PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:is there a limit? by ryanflynn (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @11:18AM
    • Re:is there a limit? (Score:4, Insightful)
      by nanojath (thajath@kingdomcomeinstitute.com) on Tuesday November 27, @11:34AM (#2619439)
      (User #265940 Info | http://www.geocities.com/jhamlow2000/)
      More to the point, I'll worry about selling content blocking software to China - which is the LEAST of any Chinese person's worries as far as personal liberties are concerned - in about a thousand years, after I'm done worrying about the incredibly vast grey markets that dump millions of small arms into unstable civil conflicts, the sale of carcinogenic, toxic and persistent chemicals pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers which we choose to ban in our own country, for purposes of health safety, to third world nations, the exportation of toxic wastes, the encouragement of benighted economies to choose the quick fix of rapid industrial development to the extent that they destroy their ability to feed themselves...


      What does Mr. Katz suggest be done? Shall we declare cultural war on these countries and work openly to subvert their governments? Shall we make adoption of American cultural standards a requirement for participating in our "global" economy? No, of course not. We should take the usual liberal path (and this comes from an anti-conservative, mainly Green and Democratic voter, who is nevertheless sick to the teeth of ALL the empty rhetoric that defines our national dialog): wring our hands when we arent't sitting on them, point and shake our fingers at those who are merely playing by the world's rules as they currently exist, take the moral high ground and DO NOTHING. Shit or get off the pot, Mr. Katz: everybody knows it's a bad old world. If you don't have any more to add to the discussion than that then please just keep it to yourself.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:is there a limit? by shawnseat (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @12:10PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:is there a limit? by FFFish (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @04:02PM
    • Re:is there a limit? by SimCash (Score:1) Wednesday November 28, @11:21AM
    are you serious? (Score:3, Flamebait)
    by turbine216 (tur[ ]216@hotmail.com ['bine' in gap]) on Tuesday November 27, @10:56AM (#2619181)
    (User #458014 Info | http://www.projectlockdown.com/)
    News flash for ya, Katz...

    corporatism != humanitarianism.

    Of course American companies are going to jump on the opportunity to make a few million from the Saudi government. That's why they exist - to make money. They don't care if they're limiting the content that a bunch of people half a world away can access. Why is this such a big deal? Because a single country won't have access to the internet in its full, uncensored form? They should be happy - no porn popup ads, no Microsoft Approved content, no CRAP!! If anything, it sounds like this will limit the "Saudinet" to being *gasp* and INFORMATIONAL RESOURCE!!!!
     
    Dear god, the humanity!!!
    [ Parent ]
    Nice rant... but it goes to show... (Score:2, Insightful)
    by tomstdenis on Tuesday November 27, @10:56AM (#2619182)
    (User #446163 Info | http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/)
    This is a nice rant but it goes to show off the egocentricity of most U.S citizens. Just because you think you have the right to free speech in the states doesn't mean thats true elsewhere in the world.

    You apply your values and morals on everyone from around the world because you can't imagine someone unlike you.

    These are different people from a different culture. If there way of life curtails free speech then so be it.

    Ask yourself this though, how many violent crimes were there in China vs. the states last year?

    There are a million ways to compare two countries. In some cases the US looks better and others China.

    My point is that you cannot just openly apply what you think of as "the norm" to other cultures and then belittle them when it doesn't match.
    [ Parent ]
    The power of words (Score:2)
    by SirSlud on Tuesday November 27, @10:57AM (#2619186)
    (User #67381 Info | http://www.besonic.com/nufunq | Last Journal: Wednesday February 13, @02:58PM)
    > Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality

    A word (ie, globalism) doesn't mean shit until the people who wield power in the economy actually /want/ to give up some of that power and wealth for the benifit of all. On what planet do you think a power/wealth weiling CEO is going to admit to shareholders that they are allowing competition in weak foreign markets for the overall health of the global economy.

    Globalism is as buzzy a word as 'democracy' is; China is communist, and you don't see the US (or anyone else?) embargo'ing them. Hell, now they're in the WTO! (With the worlds fasted growing GPD at 7% annual growth.) The US can throw around the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' all they want, but those who are in need are not fooled one bit. Globalism is the same .. it really means corperatized america turning every other country into a strip mall and a community of blue collars operating the latest opening of Starbucks or BestBuy.
    [ Parent ]
    • Democracy by KjetilK (Score:3) Tuesday November 27, @12:35PM
      • Re:Democracy by SirSlud (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @12:57PM
    Free Speech in America? (Score:4, Insightful)
    by ajuda on Tuesday November 27, @10:57AM (#2619188)
    (User #124386 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    The FCC routinely blocks all sorts of content from American TV with little resistance. I don't see how Americans can be shocked when other governments do the same thing in other mediums.

    [ Parent ]
    circumvention (Score:1)
    by nyteroot on Tuesday November 27, @10:57AM (#2619191)
    (User #311287 Info)
    well, the only arhcitecture i can think of fo this system is easily circumvented
    it would, of course, require someone in a free country to help..
    the way saudi arabia must have their internet set up is that _everything_ goes through a massive gateway, which filters content on port 80 (and probably a few others) .. just like your average high school gateway
    of course, they can't block any content thats encrypted
    so, someone sets up a website that will display any other website, but encypted.. and write a browser addon to read the encrypted info
    kinda similar architecture to those sites you used to see that allowed for anonymous browsing - excpt with the encryption layer in the middle
    just a thought..
    [ Parent ]
    I'm sick of Corpratist Corporations too (Score:5, Funny)
    by duffbeer703 (duffybj1 AT yahoo DOT com) on Tuesday November 27, @10:57AM (#2619193)
    (User #177751 Info)
    Jon Katz is right!

    Corporate Corpratists are jerks! I think we should attack all countries that do not share our views on free speech and expression. We can replace the gov't of Saudi Arabia and China with truly democratic regimes.

    Before we take on nations, we need to take the fight to the Elitist Global Corporate Entities like Websense. It's about time!
    [ Parent ]
    Freedom of speech vs freedom of listening (Score:1)
    by Marx_Mrvelous ({ude.eudrup} {ta} {woldulg}) on Tuesday November 27, @10:58AM (#2619199)
    (User #532372 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    So...
    What's the difference? I think it is an often-missed point that freedom of expression is severely limited by freedom to experience that expression.

    Even in the US, the free access to information and expression is limited. I think we need to focus on that, make it a constitutional right!
    [ Parent ]
    So what? (Score:3, Informative)
    by sharkticon on Tuesday November 27, @10:59AM (#2619201)
    (User #312992 Info)

    Not so what so much for the oppressed citizens of Saudi Arabia, but this is just the logical conclusion of the US's policy towards the country. This is just the corporate world getting their cut of the profits out of the situation.

    After all the US has been happy to prop up a corrupt, undemocratic and brutal regime there just to ensure the free flow of oil to fuel SUVs and cheap fuel. Every time a USian moans about the price of fuel they're helping to keep the citizens of Saudi Arabia under oppression. And since our country is all about money, money, money at the expense of little things like decency and human rights, why shouldn't our corporations get involved in helping? It's not like they don't have enough practice at oppression themselves.

    Sorry, but if you're getting upset about this I suggest you first take a long look at what our government has done in Saudi Arabia first. Whining about censoring the net when these people lack even a pretense at human rights just shows you're hopelessly naive.

    [ Parent ]
    • Amen by Ars-Fartsica (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:23AM
      • Re:Amen by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:41AM
          Re:Amen (Score:4, Insightful)
          by Ars-Fartsica on Tuesday November 27, @12:13PM (#2619676)
          (User #166957 Info | http://slashdot.org/~Ars-Fartsica/journal/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 05, @10:57PM)
          I think a lot of people need to grow up and realize that it's not a perfect world, and sometimes you have to choose lesser evils.

          This is also known as a "foreign policy that has no values".

          We can't snap our fingers and make the middle east a democracy overnight.

          Please. The US hasn't even made tacit overtures in this direction in fifty years. More accurately, the US doesn't care if Saudi Arabia ever becomes a democracy. As long as it keeps pumping gas.

          Unfortunately, to short-sighted people, that makes the US look like we "approve of" regimes like that just because we support them against worse alternatives.

          Well, there are always "worse" alternatives. There are always bogeymen hiding in the background. At some point you have to take a stand for some values. The US has never petitioned any of these governments to provide votes to citizens, support basic human rights, or in the case of Kuwait, make indentured slavery illegal.

          If now isn't a good time to support democracy, when is????? All your "pragmatic" approach has provided is a stronger Iraq and Iran (yes, the US supported them when the "alternatives were worse").

          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Amen by RedGuard (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @12:24PM
        • Re:Amen by TheSync (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @02:00PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:So what? by squaretorus (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:28AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:So what? by mattrad (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @11:28AM
    • Re:So what? by hey! (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @12:14PM
    • Re:So what? by Badanov (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @12:14PM
    • Re:So what? by Saahbs (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @12:17PM
    • Bullshit. Blaming America is PC BS (Score:4, Flamebait)
      by Shivetya (chris_holko@g[ ].com ['enpt' in gap]) on Tuesday November 27, @12:18PM (#2619719)
      (User #243324 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
      Don't get off blaming the US for Saudi Arabia's treatment of its people. They have been doing this for many years before we needed their oil. Its common throughout the Islamic world for the people in power to thwart any freedom for their people. Its not OUR fault, it is not the West's fault.

      We don't prop up Syria or Iraq yet they do the same as Saudi Arabia...

      Its very politically correct to blame America for the worlds woes, but sometimes, just maybe, you have to blame those other countries for their own plight. In fact, dare I say it, Shirah is the primary source of Saudi Arabians oppression - its implementation has nothing to do with our oil or capitalistic needs but everything to do with THEIR culture and religon.
      [ Parent ]
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
    China's Dot-Communism (Score:3, Informative)
    by tcd004 (tcd004@nospamearthlink.net) on Tuesday November 27, @11:00AM (#2619207)
    (User #134130 Info | http://www.lostbrain.com)
    Read it here China's Dot-Communism [ceip.org]

    and read about the restriction of innovation on the internet here: The Internet Under Seige by Lawrence Lessig [foreignpolicy.com]

    tcd004
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Read Between the Lines (Score:4, Interesting)
    by Knunov on Tuesday November 27, @11:00AM (#2619208)
    (User #158076 Info | http://goatse.cx/)
    "Take, for example, the corporatist American and European companies happily selling blocking software to countries like China and Saudi Arabia so their governments can pervert the Net to deny their citizens basic freedoms."

    Or, look at them as providing the necessary obstacles to encourage entire legions of new hackers. There is no better way to motivate a person, especially a young person, into doing something than by telling him/her that s/he can't do so.

    The Americans/Europeans get to profit from these oppressive governments while simultaneously and surreptitiously undermining those very regimes.

    Perfectly brilliant plan, in my opinion.

    Knunov
    [ Parent ]
    Tunelling (Score:2)
    by under_score (mishkin.mymind@net) on Tuesday November 27, @11:01AM (#2619215)
    (User #65824 Info | http://www.oomind.com/)
    I don't know any details about the Saudi firewall, but why doesn't someone set up a publicly accessible http tunelling system that gets around this? You could have a (moving?) node in the US which accepts http requests for 3rd party web pages and then "encrypts" (rot13?) them so that they aren't recognized in transit through the Saudi system. Then client software is accessed by the browser (at localhost) as a proxy and connects to the central node, doing the translation work and returning the page to the browser.

    There is always a way, using technology.

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Tunelling by nick_burns (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @11:10AM
    • Re:Tunelling by _DMan_ (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @11:10AM
      • Re:Tunelling by WolfWithoutAClause (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:16AM
        • Re:Tunelling by ThePilgrim (Score:1) Tuesday November 27, @11:50AM
    • Re:Tunelling by ZxCv (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @11:20AM
      • Re:Tunelling by markmoss (Score:2) Tuesday November 27, @05:34PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
    Selling Out ? - I Don't think so. (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Astrogen on Tuesday November 27, @11:02AM (#2619225)
    (User #16643 Info | http://www.benjudson.com/)
    I don't think that there is any selling out going on here. There is a difference between globalization and communism.

    The fact that people are selling the software to China and elsewhere is proof that globalization is occuring, we are all seeing each other as neighbors, and business partners now. That means if I don't sell them my software someone else will.

    It is not up to us to judge our neighbors, we may or may not like how they do things, we may even use other methods to try to "encourage" them to change but Im not going to let my competitor sell them my legitimate product because I disagree with how they use it; thats up to their government.

    Business is business, and business in a global economy as in any "free enterprise" economy means you supply the consumer what they want, because if you don't someone else will. This does not mean that business is relieved of any moral obligations; however in this case the businesses are not supplying weapons to terrorists; the business is merely respecting the governments attempts to "protect" (and yes I agree its not the best way to protect) their citizens from outside influences. But what China is doing is not really that much worse than what Australia has been doing in recent years.
    [ Parent ]
    Companies are not governments (Score:1)
    by jcronen on Tuesday November 27, @11:03AM (#2619227)
    (User #325664 Info)
    I hate to say this, but all corporations, American or otherwise, are in the business of making money, not setting global policy.

    Sometimes these interests come close to each other, a little too close, and it's up to the government and citizens to do our part. We can vote, and not just with our political right; with our dollars, our euros, and our pounds.

    However, globalization does NOT necessarily include thrusting the American way of life onto nations that do not want it. No wonder globalization's become a bad word in the eyes of many.

    If Saudi Arabia wants to block content from its people, that's their problem and it needs to be discussed in the forum of human rights. The government does need to be enlightened as to how the free flow of ideas is helpful. But don't criticize the US companies trying to make a buck off of this. Whether or not they sell a solution or the Saudi government creates their own solution for filtering, the filtering will still be done nonetheless.
    [ Parent ]
    WTF, Harry Potter banned?! (Score:1)
    by UnknownSoldier (pohoreski@SPAMIGN ... ?Subject=Slashdot) on Tuesday November 27, @11:03AM (#2619229)
    (User #67820 Info)
    JK> Remember that the Harry Potter series is now the most banned book series in American libraries.

    Is this actually true?!?!

    I haven't read the series (yet.) What's *so* bad in the books, that they must be banned?

    What's the world coming too, when ideas must be repressed by a minority.
    [ Parent ]
    It's called Capitalism (Score:1)
    by glwtta on Tuesday November 27, @11:03AM (#2619232)
    (User #532858 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    Judging by how Americans break out in a cold sweat at the mention of words like "Socialism" I would say that Capitalism is the preferred way of doing things around here.

    And as we all know things like "morality" or "ethics" do not figure into business decisions a system driven by profits - that's what makes it work.

    I am actually not trying to pass judgement one way or another, just pointing out that this is the way things work around here. And I believe that under the PATRIOT Act (or was it the ATA?) criticizing the way the US does things, justifies you getting drawn and quartered (I am not sure about this one though, I'll have to check).

    Seriously though (and I've been told this many times) - this is Capitalism, if you don't like it, go to Romania.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    If the Saudi's really want that freedom... (Score:3, Insightful)
    by night_flyer on Tuesday November 27, @11:05AM (#2619238)
    (User #453866 Info | http://www.gargoyleslanding.com/)
    they can fight for it, just like the US did, after all, a people that gives up freedoms for security deserve neither. The Saudis have the power to change, *IF* they want to change, thats *their* option...
    [ Parent ]
    Freedom = American Values? (Score:1)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27, @11:05AM (#2619240)
    This highlights the menacing way corporatism exploits technology, undermining the most basic American values

    Which really is quite staggerringly hubristic, really. The Net delivers everybody freedom? Well yes, but only if that freedom is American-defined freedom.

    And isn't corporatism the most basic American value of all? Who invented the large world-spanning corporation anyway?

    [ Parent ]
    And your point is? (Score:1)
    by SplendidIsolatn (.moc.oohay. .ta. .ntalosididnelps.) on Tuesday November 27, @11:05AM (#2619244)
    (User #468434 Info)
    Ok, a large number of Slashdot readers live in the United States or other country which has supposed freedoms of speech, etc. I can understand how such an article would raise the ire of these people.


    However, the countries in question are NOT the same as the countries with such declared freedoms. They do not have a Bill of Rights or the freedoms many of us have been given. It is the declaration of the US Government that the people of the United States have these freedoms. If the governments of other nations choose not to give those freedoms, that is their concern. It isn't any more right or wrong, it is just their way of ruling. I agree it isn't always fair, but that is my US-centric view.


    If this occurs in the US, it will be because the censorship will be of a popular morality. It doesn't matter who is 'correct' in these matters--the majority will rule. This very well might cause problems for those who want a more limitless freedom, especially in the wake of a post 9/11 hysteria over anonymity and freedoms.

    Of course, that's just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    You're still allowed to write here? (Score:1)
    by autopr0n on Tuesday November 27, @11:06AM (#2619249)
    (User #534291 Info | http://autopr0n.com/)
    I was hoping after the last article, you'd be gone, I didn't expect it, since slashdot seems to have zero accountability.

    Nope, but here you are again, presenting the exact opposite thesis. And almost as poorly.

    In fact, the Saudi government is helping to pioneer something once thought impossible -- a sanitized Net for an entire nation and culture.

    Not thought impossible by the Chinese or even the Australians (a western democracy even!). Did you just get a copy of Lawrence Lessing's new book or something? I mean, it's always possible to excerpt some measure of control over something, if the internet's structure 'routs around' censorship, then all you have to do is change the structure.
    [ Parent ]
    This might be a good idea (Score:2)
    by Technician on Tuesday November 27, @11:07AM (#2619250)
    (User #215283 Info)
    Before you tag this as flaimbait for the title, consider this. Without any blocking, there may be no access at all. With blocking, stuff will leak. To see what I mean, think MP3 file trading. No access at all will kill trading. (think computer with no modem or NIC) Blocked access is not 100%. Stuff will get in. (think cyber patrol) Don't expect the leaders to freely open the doors just because it is there. There is lots of stuff out there to be afraid of. Getting a foot in the door is a step in the right direction.
    [ Parent ]
    Lets not forget the Net is International.... (Score:3, Insightful)
    by caesar-auf-nihil on Tuesday November 27, @11:07AM (#2619256)
    (User #513828 Info)
    "This is a radical assault on the spirit of the Net, of its open, point-to-point design, its great promise to democratize information."

    I'll agree with some of what you write, but, I can't agree with all of it. We look at other governments and their policies through our own set of lenses, which paint things in terms of democracy, liberty, and all sorts of other American ideals. Now while I'm not saying the censorship certain nations apply should be aplogized for or encouraged, those nations have their own set of ideals and therefore, may not see things the way we do when it comes to certain civil rights. Take Saudi Arabia for example. You have a monarchy which has a strong fundamentalist religious belief system. So Saudi Arabia prevents its citizens from seeing porn and subversive material. We take offense. Did it occur to you that the majority of the Saudi Arabian citizenry may actually WANT those things blocked so their children or family cannot see the things which may offend them? Just as there are southern baptists who rant and rave over the local Rock and Roll concert and demand that it is banned, I suspect there are those in Saudi Arabia who do the same thing. The big difference is that for the most part, those rabid baptists get ignored. In Saudi Arabia, they are the majority and cannot be ignored. Certainly, there may be citizens in Saudi Arabia who don't like the censorship, but there is probably an equal or larger number who are glad that it is there. If the majority of the citizens don't want that information available, then they have the right to ask their government to block it.

    Since different cultures have different belief systems, and put emphasis on different values, their version of the Net will be different than ours, and therefore, blocking certain information makes sense to them. So this isn't a radical assualt on the whole Net, just the American Centralized view of it. If the Internet is supposed to be the great democratizer, then no wonder it is viewed as a threat to a government or nation's culture. We already do a wonderful job destroying world cultures with our consumer-based culture, and now we have a method to send it out as fast as possible. Since a majority of the world's internet sites are US based, and designed by those with US values, the Net therefore looks like an American value-based highway of information. Perhaps the censorship, while not always good, may allow for the creation of local culture-based website, un-inspired (untainted perhaps?) by American-based web/net culture. Then they can send this information back out to the Net and we can learn about their unique point of view.

    Let me say again that I don't support censorship, but I also don't agree that our value system should be shoved down other people's throats. For that matter, I don't think anyone's value system should be forced upon anyone else. Make the information available, but don't shove it. If they don't want to hear it, fine. Go pass it along to someone else then.
    [ Parent ]
    Censorship and Terrorism (Score:2)
    by sterno (sterno at bigbrother dot net) on Tuesday November 27, @11:07AM (#2619258)
    (User #16320 Info | http://www.bigbrother.net/)
    Terrorism is an alternative for of communication. People who feel they have no effective means of expressing their concerns about the government, etc, get frustrated and try to find a way to get their message out. When communications channels are closed down in a heavily censored state, it drives people to the only means they have available, getting guns and bombs (and germs?) and wreaking havoc.

    One of the reasons this country has had a consitent government and relative stability despite the dramatic changes we've made over the last 200 years is the freedom of speech. We don't feel as compelled to resorting to violent revolution, etc, because for the most part we feel we have a voice for our grievances. It is only when people feel powerless that they start resorting to to terrorism.

    So, interestingly by promoting existing powers in certain countries who are oppressive we are sowing the seeds for more future terrorism. Of course that terrorism won't stay within their borders because we are acting as backers and are thus guilty by association.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Love the concept, now get real... (Score:2, Insightful)
    by iworm on Tuesday November 27, @11:09AM (#2619268)
    (User #132527 Info)
    I both detest the Saudi govenment and would love all Saudi's to have unfiltered Internet access.

    So, following JK's logic (well, there's none really. Notice no real suggestions, it's just a well-intentioned rant), "we" (the West) should maybe stop the sale of any filtering software to the Saudis. And what have we achieved then? We've ensured that Saudi's then get NO Internet, filtered or not.

    Filtering is undesirable, but in practice is, in the best possible sense, the thin end of the wedge: i.e. give them some access and it will improve their society just a little. Then maybe the filtering will ease just a little. And so on... Iterate until sanity achieved.

    Sure, it's not certain to work, but what else should we do?
    [ Parent ]
    Jon, Jon, Jon, by now you should know the order: (Score:2)
    by decipher_saint on Tuesday November 27, @11:10AM (#2619281)
    (User #72686 Info | http://www.lost-telemetry.com/)
    Like it or lump it, the natural order of things:

    1. Money
    2. Power
    3. Freedom
    [ Parent ]
    If the US is so free... (Score:3, Funny)
    by graybeard on Tuesday November 27, @11:11AM (#2619294)
    (User #114823 Info)
    then why do Brits get to see tits on the telly & we don't?
    [ Parent ]
    Better than nothing (Score:2)
    by DaoudaW on Tuesday November 27, @11:11AM (#2619297)
    (User #533025 Info)
    The Net can, in fact, be used to make money and suppress freedom.

    I'm not sure quite what Jon means here. Sure some companies make money by restricting information, but that's been true for a long time. Most school districts in the U.S. have some sort of filtering software in place and there are plenty of firewall companies out there, some are even Open Source.

    But suppressing freedom? I think that even heavily filtered Internet access is better than nothing. How are Saudis less free by having 90% of the Internet available to them than by having no Internet?

    Finally, if I'm reading it correctly, even the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] wouldn't prevent companies from doing business with Saudi Arabia, so I'm not sure how critical we can be of companies doing business as usual.
    [ Parent ]
    Technology ! = Making money with sales (Score:1)
    by andr0meda on Tuesday November 27, @11:13AM (#2619300)
    (User #167375 Info | http://a0a.myip.org:3000/ | Last Journal: Monday February 04, @07:38AM)

    Read the topic.
    End of story.
     
    [ Parent ]
    A little perspective... (Score:1)
    by Debillitatus (<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <2lellived>) on Tuesday November 27, @11:13AM (#2619306)
    (User #532722 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    Countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China have been surprisingly successful at wiring up certain segments of their societies while controlling information deemed insensitive for political or religious reasons. The Net can, in fact, be used to make money and suppress freedom. These governments have undercut the great promise of globalism, prosperity, technology and democracy, allowing corrupt and anti-democratic governments to prosper, in part by censoring information -- something many of us thought the Net would make impossible.

    I've heard this argument quite a few times, which essentially boils down to "when a country censors the net, the citizens become less free, thus the emergence of the Net has reduced freedom, not encouraged it". But perhaps a little perspective? If Saudi Arabia restricts the right of its citizens to use the Net, how are they less free than if the Net never existed at all? This isn't a step backward for these people, it's at worst the status quo.

    Plus, it's just a matter of time. Saudi Arabia's restricting of the Net certainly doesn't help the country; look at the US. Any country which does this kind of stuff will have to pay the piper down the road.

    [ Parent ]
    Newsflash: Dollars over Democracy (Score:2)
    by Ars-Fartsica on Tuesday November 27, @11:15AM (#2619318)
    (User #166957 Info | http://slashdot.org/~Ars-Fartsica/journal/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 05, @10:57PM)
    Why do I always feel like Katz asks such sophomoric and naive questions in his rants?

    The US has been aiding the oppresive Saudi regime for years. Hell, the US went to war for the Kuwaiti regime - one of the most backwards and repressive in the already repressive Middle East.

    You can bet that if the dollars dictate, the US will prop up China too. Look at how we have already backed down on Taiwan.

    Look at Chile back during the cold war - the US wasn't beyond toppling an elected leader to put a US-friendly dictator in charge when it suited their purposes.

    How naive are you Katz?

    [ Parent ]
    John Katz is 100% right... (Score:1)
    by spamkabuki on Tuesday November 27, @11:16AM (#2619326)
    (User #458468 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    as far as he goes. Yes, corporate interests will sell out ideals for cash. Is this news?

    Yes, the Net is being throttled in some places. This is simply an instance of the far more pervasive and damaging censorship that has always gone on. (Compare newspaper-reader-years to net-surfer-years in China.)

    But, to Katz' argument, are corporations under some obligation to export US rhetoric re: free speech? I don't think so. Do corporations do anything within reason to make a buck? Sure.

    Let's look at how they will make a buck next. I like to see politics here, but /. is for tech issues, too. OK, Net access is blocked outside of Riyadh with US corporate help. The way I see it, that creates a market hungry for porn, South Park, Salman Rushdie novels, and Britney.

    Here is the incentive for other companies to throw up another satellite and bypass the chokepoints. I understand that two-way (no phone line req'd satellite-based net service is just over the horizon.)Illicit sat dishes have been a feature of Iran rooftops for years.

    That is just the first idea off the top of my head. The point is that companies are motivated by cash. Governments are motivated by a whole lot of things, including paranoia. One corp will sell blocking software, another will sell tools to get around it somehow. Sell to both sides.

    Does this solve the problems with governments everywhere poking around where they don't belong? No, but it is a start. Remember the power of technology to subvert governments has a long track record.

    On a final note, more insidious is the bastardization and dumbing down of culture. Katz mentioned Harry Potter. What the hell is a Sorceror's Stone? Last time I checked it was a Philosopher's Stone. Why must the US public continue to put up with corporations blocking access to the real goods to line their pockets...?
    [ Parent ]
    Technology for freedom or control? (Score:1)
    by josquint on Tuesday November 27, @11:18AM (#2619338)
    (User #193951 Info | http://geocities.com/agent_q2)
    This is a significant blow to the notion that technology will forge a more open world.

    I have to ask, but since when is technology developed to promote freedom(directly). In our history, most technological advances have been developed to control, in fact, the military and their wars have been the biggest influence in technology developement.

    Take, for example, the internet. Sure, now we regard it as one of the biggest freedoms in the world, the freedom of speech in one of its purest forms. I don't see why the military would have helped develop it for that purpose!

    Really, if you look at current projects, you'll see more control-centered than freedom-centered development, with the possible exception of the OpenSource Movement. Encryption, Remote Administration, Standard OSes, Backdoors, Firewalling, Blocking, National ID, X-ray machines at every door, network monitoring....
    These are technologies ment to control elements of society, not promote freedom. However, some may make freedom easier in time.


    Take, for example, the corporatist American and European companies happily selling blocking software

    That's called capitalism... our 'free' enterprise. Sell what can be sold were it can be sold. Otherwise to prevent companies from selling blocking sofware to companies, you'd hafta have a government that controls the enterpise. Sounds suspiciously like communism.
    Don't bitch about something unless you consider it's alternative!!!
    Under capitalism, we are controlled buy the currency and consumers, under communism, we are controlled by the government and the whims of its leaders. There is no true freedom in economics, if there were, we would have no need for economics.
    [ Parent ]
    Evangelism (Score:1)
    by diablovision on Tuesday November 27, @11:18AM (#2619342)
    (User #83618 Info | http://www.redpants.org)
    I am really starting to get utterly sick of Jon Katz's evangelism masquerading as news. I'm tired of being told what I should think about globalism, corporatism, and technology's impact on the world. Katz spews his rhetoric with no balancing viewpoint (with the exception of some replies that do not carry the same legitimacy or weight as a slashdot article).

    Yes Katz, tell me how evil America is and why anything but unbridled selfish freedom unbalanced against the common good is the ultimate goal of society and why I'm some mindless glutonous drone in this capitalist evil that is the US. Tell me again how spoiled and rotten I am. Tell me all about the "wholesome" nations of the earth who lived in undeveloped, backwards, and repressive regimes when in America I am some evil person for living here and having a dollar in my pocket.

    Could you please shut the hell up Katz? You're hardly representative of the views on slashdot and you paint us all as zealots.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Arrange boycotts and public humiliation (Score:1)
    by Bobo the Space Chimp on Tuesday November 27, @11:21AM (#2619350)
    (User #304349 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    What we need to do in response to this is to keep pointing out publically that this type of behavior is morally repugnant. When it gets bad enough that reporters start stalking the CEO's of these companies (and any domestic governmental officials supporting the sales, as they often do) THEN we will see a change.

    Though lesser in magnitude, it is the same negative sign on the morality scale as selling extermination chambers and torchure implementations.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Force-feeding morals (Score:1)
    by Nikau on Tuesday November 27, @11:22AM (#2619360)
    (User #531995 Info | http://www.uncultured.com/)
    One thing that I will probably never understand is why everyone feels the need to thrust their moral beliefs down everyone else's throats. I see this issue about blocking the net to be nothing more than that.

    Yes, it's good that people have their beliefs. But I wish people would realize that not everyone shares in them. I also wish for a Beatles reunion tour, but that's not likely either.

    If there's something that offends you terribly, don't look at it. It's as simple as that... I mean, there's no reason for the Harry Potter books to be banned in libraries. If people see the series as being evil because it promotes witchcraft, ignore it. Don't force your beliefs upon others through actions like banning books and deprive the people who have different beliefs than you of something they may like.

    Unfortunately I don't think many people share this view. History's rife with force-fed beliefs and morals (read: Taliban - and that's the last I'll mention them). I disagree that it would be a (Insert-deity-name-here)-given right.

    Governments also don't seem to share this view.

    My comments here may seem a little pointless since things are unlikely to change overall, but it is an open net and hopefully opinions and thoughts of all kind are still welcome.

    [ Parent ]
    Is not free enterprise a principle too? (Score:1)
    by pinkUZI (slashdot.7.jmasker@spamgourmet.com) on Tuesday November 27, @11:22AM (#2619361)
    (User #515787 Info)
    I think you're missing the point. The major factor in advancing democracy throughout the world is the same thing that you are so harshly criticizing. Our capitalistic ideals are what caused the fall of the Soviet Union and others and continue to plague oppressors world-wide. Free enterprise begets democracy because one cannot exist without the other. If we compromise the principles of our own profit driven economy by chastising corporations that would profit for providing a service or solution that is useful to others - whatever their intentions - would be detrimental to the spread of democracy throughout the world. Look at China - they know they are playing with fire as they become more capitalistic and try to participate in world trade on a free enterprise system, but they can't resist! The government's interest in the financial growth of their country is the only reason the internet is in China today and the only reason that Chinese citizens have a connection to the outside world. Remember, that is the only reason the internet is in Saudi Arabia. Do you think internet use would be allowed at all if the government was not provided with a means of filtering it by companies with the resources to create these solutions? And the little view of the rest of the world these people DO have would be closed up because of how awful it is to profit from giving a government software that they can use. What we need here is for American individuals and companies alike to stand up and support an example of Free Enterprise to the world. Its the only example they have. Don't be fooled by the socialistic views that dominate the globe today. Americans are different. That's why we're better. And yes, by the way, we are BETTER or everybody else wouldn't be trying to BE like us. I think by compromising these values and disallowing American corporations to participate in worldwide trade with international governments would be more harmful in the long run and a bad example for the world.
    [ Parent ]
    All or nothing? (Score:1)
    by damsgaard on Tuesday November 27, @11:23AM (#2619373)
    (User #168662 Info)
    Would it be better for subjects of dictatorial goverments to have no access to the internet at all, rather than having a somewhat constrained window to the global community?
     
    Is'nt freedom an organic idea which grow from having a small foothold in any form of free communication (e.g. the church in the DDR). Eventually it later blooms in a fullblown Democracy, but first when the society has matured to a level where the powers that be won't abuse the freedom given to the people (e.g. Russia and also the USA where Corporations have been given the rights of human beings, but not the duties that follow).
    [ Parent ]
    Re: Freedom of speech in the West (Score:1)
    by blibbleblobble on Tuesday November 27, @11:24AM (#2619384)
    (User #526872 Info | http://www.blibbleblobble.co.uk/)

    You are of course, quite right to raise the question of free speech in countries where it ought to be taken for granted, such as the US and UK.

    Freedom of speech has long been under attack from all directions, from copyright law to national security, trade secrets, libel law, and even the new "intent to incite racial hatred" laws.

    As most slashdotters know, one of the worst offenders has been the american DMCA act, which effectively outlaws encryption research, and even the mentioning of safety/security flaws.
    Ed Foster wrote an excellent article [infoworld.com] on this at which I suggest is readable enough to use as an introduction to the subject for outsiders.

    And if international summits have their way, each country's law will be enforceable in any other. Never mind the arrest of Russian Skylarov, or of the Norweigan kid for breaking US law in their respective home countries, we shall soon be officially subjet to Chinese, US, French, German, and Arabic copyright laws in our own countries. (Read about it here [gnu.org])

    We in the G8 take so much pride in our countries' laws, that we are such knights in shining armour that we can legitimitely tell other countries what is right and what is wrong, that we often lose sight of how far our countries have strayed from the ideals we expect from them.

    How long until someone can be arrested at Speakers' Corner, for talking about encryption research?

    [ Parent ]
    Katz: Contradictory (Score:5, Insightful)
    by elefantstn on Tuesday November 27, @11:29AM (#2619409)
    (User #195873 Info | http://joshuadmiller.com/)
    When it comes to the DMCA, Katz correctly argues that a tool must be separated from its use when it comes to the law. The fact that some people use the tool Sklyarov's company wrote to infringe copyrights should not mean that the tool should be outlawed and its authors jailed.

    Why, then, is it different now? A company writes software that can be used either for "good" or "bad" purposes, and all of a sudden it's wrong? What is Katz trying to say?

    In my opinion, it's clear that Katz does not really believe the tool/use argument, it's just rhetoric. He believes that information should be free, and takes the appropriate position at opposite sides of the "can a tool be intrinsically bad?" argument in order to further his views. There's nothing wrong with thinking that, but he is being dishonest by arguing both sides on the same question depending on who the protagonists are.
    [ Parent ]
    Sometimes I wonder if Katz... (Score:1)
    by Badmovies (fenris@badmovies.org) on Tuesday November 27, @11:31AM (#2619418)
    (User #182275 Info | http://www.badmovies.org/)
    ...has any clue of how the world works.

    I mean, a company's goal in life is not preserving freedom and liberty, it's making money.

    He really, really tried to make a good argument, but that is useless when your basic premise is stupid. Hopefully Jon's next essay will be on eating mud; that's something I can get behind.

    Go ahead, call me a troll. It's still a dumb essay.
    [ Parent ]
    American Values. (Score:1)
    by Overphiend on Tuesday November 27, @11:33AM (#2619434)
    (User #227888 Info)
    This highlights the menacing way corporatism exploits technology, undermining the most basic American values.

    I thought that one of the most basic American values was Free Enterprise.
    [ Parent ]
    Get Katz outta here (Score:2)
    by micromoog on Tuesday November 27, @11:34AM (#2619438)
    (User #206608 Info)
    So what do you say we do, Katz? Block companies from producing their software? Block who they sell it to based on an "Internet moral code", as dictated by the U.S. Government?

    Give me a break. Attack the policy of the restrictive nations; don't attack the software makers.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course they are donating blocking software... (Score:2)
    by denzo on Tuesday November 27, @11:35AM (#2619447)
    (User #113290 Info | http://www.lexxguide.com/)
    With the cost of legally buying software products from the United States and Europe, and with piracy being a very attractive option to Saudis (and citizens of any other country), of course these corporations are willing to donate blocking software to ISPs. It's in their best interest, especially if they are funded by large software corporations like Microsoft.

    Notice how most business and Windows software boxes say "Not for Export". Microsoft sells special localized software to regions such as the Middle East. And guess what, it's more expensive. Big surprise there. And because of this, piracy is a really big problem. Nobody (except the rich princes) is going to spend almost twice as much on their operating system. This is unfair, really. It's the same sort of control that the MPAA has over movies distributed internationally, with price-fixing and such.

    If anything, this should end up promoting open source to these parts of the world. I'm sure there are plenty people who said: "Screw paying Windows, I'm installing Linux." We already have this widespread sentiment in the U.S., where Windows is cheapest. This sentiment is probably amplified elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]
    Cultural Relativism (Score:2)
    by under_score (mishkin.mymind@net) on Tuesday November 27, @11:36AM (#2619448)
    (User #65824 Info | http://www.oomind.com/)
    There are some real serious underlying issues not mentioned. Basically, is the value of culture relative, or is there some absolute standard? The Saudi people (as mentioned by some other posters) are currently accepting the restrictions placed on them by their government. Theoretically, they could revolt over this issue or any of a number of others, and replace the government with one more appropriate to their desires. In practice this takes a long, long time. Globalization/Globalism (not the same things), may eventually be a force which "helps" this process of building a revolution. It is kinda like potential differences in electrical charge: if the potential gets large enough it breaks through the dialectric and zap - sparks fly!

    Anyway, in the West, we put a very high value on freedoms. The fact is that I don't feel there is any conclusive evidence that these extreme freedoms are much different philosophically from extreme restrictions: both have some pretty harmful effects and both seem to be okay for the majority of people (note: by extreme restrictions I don't necessarily mean violent oppression).

    As for the companies selling to the Saudis, if you really don't like it, start a revolution: that's exactly the sort of attitude we often have towards those who are somewhat restricted. Don't forget: you can't have it both ways. Either you have extensive freedom which means that people can support "immoral" goals, or you have restrictions which are going to bug some people.

    [ Parent ]
    Three reasons you are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Dana P'Simer (dana.psimerNO@SPAMdhptech.com) on Tuesday November 27, @11:37AM (#2619449)
    (User #530866 Info)
    Your point that corporations are to blame for the suppression of information on the internet is based on some false assumptions. First, you assume that what is good for westerners in necessarily good for Arabs. Second, you assume that corporations have an obligation beyond the pursuit of profit. Third, you seem to think that the NET exists because people like you want it to.

    I lived in Saudi Arabia from the age of 9 until I was 20 years old. My father lived there for an additional 7 years. That is from 1977 to 1997. We know Arabs and they are some of the most loving, gracious, and hospitable people in the world. As long as you don't try to change their culture. They are happy to do business with outsiders but the will not allow them to attempt to change their society. You and I agree, freedom is the natural state of humans. Oppression is not moral. However, if you demand that these people to change overnight then they will react violently. The internet would not even be in Saudi Arabia today if it were not for this filtering technology. And keep in mind, it is just technology, the determined mind can find a way around it.

    Corporations exist solely for the production of profit for their shareholders. There is no other reason for their existence. A corporation is like a farm that is owned by several people, they will not continue to operate the farm if it does not produce crops. Likewise corporations. The very fact that a corporation has chosen the internet filtering sector as its market means that the people investing in the corporation and the employees working for it have no compunction against this technology and railing against their attempts to perpetrate that business is useless.

    The NET in it's current form would not exist if it were not for "corporatism". I was on the internet in 1993. I had a shell account, no fancy PPP or SLIP connection, and got my first taste of the Internet's power. But the internet didn't really turn into what it is today until corporations decided it would be a good way to make money by providing internet access to "the masses" and then selling on the internet. Most of the internet users out there got access so that they could access information, mostly provided for profit, that they wanted.

    Idealism is a nice thing as long as it stays out of the real world. As soon as you attempt to apply your idealistic ideas to the real world they break down. No, your morals are not necessarily right for everyone and No, corporations have no other obligation than to make money, and No the internet has not defined purpose, only the purposes we use it for. It is a tool and not an end.

    [ Parent ]
    Fear the Future (Score:1)
    by jeff13 on Tuesday November 27, @11:38AM (#2619462)
    (User #255285 Info | http://www.compublox.com/)
    Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality.

    Why even state this? There is no global plan for a world economy. No government has even bothered to write anything resembleing a human rights law with regards to so called Global Trade. In fact, in Quebec earlier this year, between beating, gassing, and shooting students from across the U.S.A. and Canada - the G7 liars club rejected a human rights clause they originally put in to silence the protests from outside. Behind the fences, the dogs, the guns, the gas launchers. Talk about two faced.

    Remember, this was before 9.11.

    For Katz to begin his article with the implication that there is anything but a policy against human rights within the rich halls of international trade, shows an ignorance of the facts.

    This is the second time I've called Katz on facts. I'm getting annoyed. Stop writing about things you don't understand Katz.
    [ Parent ]
    "Corporatist" (Score:2)
    by Kalabajoui on Tuesday November 27, @11:39AM (#2619466)
    (User #232671 Info)
    At first I thought the word 'corporatist', a label that Jon Katz liberally peppers his articles with, was just a way to add glitz to his editorializing. However, the more I think about it, the more fitting and usefull an adjective I find it to be. Take the root word, corporate, and then ad the 'ist suffix to it and voila!, you've got a handy word that pigeonholes a certain group of people. Individual people I might add, and that's an important distinction because corporations are really just fictional creations used to describe the relationship of certain groups of people to each other and the rest of society. A comparison between corporations and countries would yield the surprising results that many corporations are by far the wealthier and influential of the two in some cases. The more I think of countries and corporations as fictional entities set up to secure the interests of groups of individual people; the more I realize that corporations by design will attempt to make an end run around the democratic principals of nation states.
    [ Parent ]
  • 27 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
      Tcl tends to get ported to weird places like routers. -- Larry Wall in <199710071721.KAA19014@wall.org>
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]