5 ms·

Where have you witnessed creeping internet censorship starting like this? (Not disputing, I'd just be interested to study it)

lossolo 8y ago
I don't really understand why this comment is downvoted? OP wrote he is not disputing but want to study it. What's wrong with that? I am curious also and would like to know.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  Because we live in an era of increased authoritarianism. And the reality for those of us that don't like it is that authoritarianism doesn't appear from nowhere. It appears because of the prevailing attitude of large segments of the population. This means that criticism towards authority is generally received with skepticism and a very high evidence standard is used to judge the 'correctness' or the 'paranoia/conspiracy' of the claim. This while simultaneously accepting authority claims with little questioning and zero, even negative demand for evidence. I would agree the down voting is uncalled for given the good nature of the question. But given the previous explanation, I'm not surprised by it. Edit: spelling
sampo 8y ago
In Finland, 2006 the parliament made a law that that Finnish police will keep a block list of foreign web addresses containing child porn, and Finnish internet providers should block access to these. In 2007, a website appeared, that criticises the law, and claimed that using a web crawler, they had found that actually over 95% of the blocked addresses contain only legal porn. Also legal gay porn was quite overrepresented in the block list. Occasionally also for example www.w3.org was on the block list. And a memorial website for a dead princess of Thailand, which caused a minor diplomatic crisis, since defaming the royal family is a severe offence in Thailand. And then in 2008, the Finnish police also added the aforementioned criticizing website to the block list, although the law clearly said that it applies to blocking foreign, not domestic, websites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsiporno.info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsiporno.info
h91wka 8y ago
Russia. The first bill was passed around 2012. There is one key difference, though. As Russian government generally lacks influence on Western tech companies, they chose to target ISPs, while the EU law in question goes after hosting providers. It is significant because while network-level filtering is potentially more destructive, the agency in charge of enforcement of the russian law (Roskomnadzor) stumbled upon cryptography (who could have thought!). Their IP-level filters don't work for TLS, so the only option they are left with is all-or-nothing block by IP. This kind of censorship lacks subtlety, therefore big companies have some room for negotiation (small ones get banned without any questions asked). The EU law doesn't even bother with networks, it threatens companies directly. And the EU market is large, so tech giants won't just shrug, they'll probably choose to comply.
- lossolo 8y ago
  Russian Federation was never like western democracies. It began long time before 2012 in Russia. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested in 2003, because he wanted to oppose current status-quo in politics. State media are propaganda machines for the state a lot longer too. You can't really compare EU bill to Russia situation, they are at totally different level. The bill you are mentioning was just introduced to keep up with modern media censorship in Russia. Papers and TV were censored a long time ago.
  - h91wka 8y ago
    Western countries indeed have functional democracies, but freedom of speech is not sacred here either. Consider Britain for an extreme example. And you're only talking about the current situation, while I am making a pessimistic prediction based on the current attitude towards freedom of information exchange and some past experience.
    - lossolo 8y ago
      > And you're only talking about the current situation, while I am making a pessimistic prediction based on the current attitude towards freedom of information exchange and some past experience. It's indeed a pessimistic opinion but I understand where it's coming from based on where you live. I was born in authoritarian country also and lived in it when I was a kid, I am living now in western democracy in EU and based on my experience, knowledge and after reading most of the legislation myself I am more optimistic.

lossolo 8y ago

I don't really understand why this comment is downvoted? OP wrote he is not disputing but want to study it. What's wrong with that? I am curious also and would like to know.

towelr34dy 8y ago
Because we live in an era of increased authoritarianism. And the reality for those of us that don't like it is that authoritarianism doesn't appear from nowhere. It appears because of the prevailing attitude of large segments of the population. This means that criticism towards authority is generally received with skepticism and a very high evidence standard is used to judge the 'correctness' or the 'paranoia/conspiracy' of the claim. This while simultaneously accepting authority claims with little questioning and zero, even negative demand for evidence. I would agree the down voting is uncalled for given the good nature of the question. But given the previous explanation, I'm not surprised by it. Edit: spelling

sampo 8y ago

In Finland, 2006 the parliament made a law that that Finnish police will keep a block list of foreign web addresses containing child porn, and Finnish internet providers should block access to these. In 2007, a website appeared, that criticises the law, and claimed that using a web crawler, they had found that actually over 95% of the blocked addresses contain only legal porn. Also legal gay porn was quite overrepresented in the block list. Occasionally also for example www.w3.org was on the block list. And a memorial website for a dead princess of Thailand, which caused a minor diplomatic crisis, since defaming the royal family is a severe offence in Thailand. And then in 2008, the Finnish police also added the aforementioned criticizing website to the block list, although the law clearly said that it applies to blocking foreign, not domestic, websites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsiporno.info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsiporno.info

h91wka 8y ago

Russia. The first bill was passed around 2012. There is one key difference, though. As Russian government generally lacks influence on Western tech companies, they chose to target ISPs, while the EU law in question goes after hosting providers. It is significant because while network-level filtering is potentially more destructive, the agency in charge of enforcement of the russian law (Roskomnadzor) stumbled upon cryptography (who could have thought!). Their IP-level filters don't work for TLS, so the only option they are left with is all-or-nothing block by IP. This kind of censorship lacks subtlety, therefore big companies have some room for negotiation (small ones get banned without any questions asked). The EU law doesn't even bother with networks, it threatens companies directly. And the EU market is large, so tech giants won't just shrug, they'll probably choose to comply.

lossolo 8y ago
Russian Federation was never like western democracies. It began long time before 2012 in Russia. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested in 2003, because he wanted to oppose current status-quo in politics. State media are propaganda machines for the state a lot longer too. You can't really compare EU bill to Russia situation, they are at totally different level. The bill you are mentioning was just introduced to keep up with modern media censorship in Russia. Papers and TV were censored a long time ago.
- h91wka 8y ago
  Western countries indeed have functional democracies, but freedom of speech is not sacred here either. Consider Britain for an extreme example. And you're only talking about the current situation, while I am making a pessimistic prediction based on the current attitude towards freedom of information exchange and some past experience.
  - lossolo 8y ago
    > And you're only talking about the current situation, while I am making a pessimistic prediction based on the current attitude towards freedom of information exchange and some past experience. It's indeed a pessimistic opinion but I understand where it's coming from based on where you live. I was born in authoritarian country also and lived in it when I was a kid, I am living now in western democracy in EU and based on my experience, knowledge and after reading most of the legislation myself I am more optimistic.