8 ms·

EFF: Say No to Online Censorship

189 points by jdp23 16y ago

oziumjinx 16y ago
If I have sensitive (and confidential) health records about my family members and someone steals them and posts them on the web, is that freedom of speech? Do I have the right to get them taken down, or in this case shut the website down? If my company is working on a new product containing details we consider secret, is it OK to post those on the web? If the gov't has secrets that could compromise our national security, is that Ok to post on the web? How do we determine where to draw the line?
- Daishiman 16y ago
  Don't use privacy as a strawman for censorship. Individuals and corporations have a right to privacy. That does not conflict with censorship.
- bad_user 16y ago
  Are the health records for your family members paid out of taxpayer's money? Do they have a negative impact on the lives of anyone outside your family? Is your new product paid out of taxpayer's money? Will it do a lot of harm to people? The line is quite clear to me.
  - oziumjinx 16y ago
    Is the security of our citizen lives paid for by taxpayers money? Yes it is. I'm not saying I am against the leaks of most of the cables/documents, but putting national security at risk is a different story
    - bad_user 16y ago
      putting national security at risk is a different story "national security" is a vague concept; and either way security by obscurity doesn't work for terrorist groups with the right resources. If "national security" is compromised from the leaks of a couple of documents to the public, than the nation wasn't so secure in the first place. After all, if Wikileaks got a hold of those documents, how hard do you think it is for somebody with a couple of millions in cash and the right connections to do it? But yeah, we should think of the children.
      - oziumjinx 16y ago
        Is there any good that comes out of putting sensitive and classified documents that are meant to protect our citizens (if kept confidential) on the web? Let's assume that the strategy or communication didn't mention any illegal activity or corruption from within our gov't within these documents?
kiba 16y ago
If we were to make decision as voters, don't you think we should have some reliable idea about what the government is doing? What if the current administration is doing evil something behind the back of the electorate? How would we know about it? You see, secrecy is a catch-22 proposition. If you're trying to do actual real work of tracking down terrorists, you don't want the whole world to know(at least until years later). But if you're doing something EVIL behind our back, the world have the right to know. The cablegate? Hardly any reason to get angry over. It make the government looks good. But politicians are overreacting.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  With the slight twist that if we didn't have all this secrecy going on we might not have engaged in the kind of behavior that made people decide it was worth forfeiting their very lives to strike at us.
  - drivingmenuts 16y ago
    With all due respect, the current problems with terrorism have roots that go much deeper than the recent activities of our government(s). A lot of, if not most of, the current tension in the Middle East dates back to just after WWII, when someone decided it would be a good idea to stick all the people that no one wanted (but wouldn't come right out and say it) in the middle of a bunch of people who were ill-prepared to absorb them (and didn't particularly want them, either). That pretty much paved the road to our current little slice of Middle Eastern hell.
    - Daishiman 16y ago
      The conflict with Israel is just a tiny fraction of the issues behind the Middle East problems. Much more substantial were the efforts of the US government to overthrow moderate regimes for hardlines who would support them, as well the UK's efforts to deliberately screw up the decolonization efforts by drawing up national boundaries with no regards to the inhabitants' will. It's complex, but it's ridiculously easy to see where things were wrong, and you don't need the hindsight either.
yread 16y ago
Just donated yesterday. You should too
- silentOpen 16y ago
  Thanks! I just did and got a cool t-shirt.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    I got the hat. Don't know if its cool, but I like it.
cellurl 16y ago
'just added the EFF link on my site.
jacquesm 16y ago
I don't see how putting a button or a banner on your site is going to stop censorship, that seems to be pretty symbolic. Saying 'no' to online censorship is not equivalent to some cosmetic changes, it's a fundamental thing to do and in the end of all we do is place some buttons then I doubt that would put a dent in to the plan of those that would have it differently. Contributing directly to the EFF (I believe VISA and Mastercard are still processing donations to them, possibly even PayPal) would be one way, what other ways are there in which we could make more than just a symbolic stand here ?
- xbryanx 16y ago
  Symbolic stands like this are often the first step to the more virtuous concrete actions you describe.
  - TheSOB88 16y ago
    Indeed - it's starting a movement, and supporting the organization becomes part of your identity.
- dtf 16y ago
  There's a great story in Cialdini's "Influence: Science & Practice" about window stickers and lawn signs that explains this common tactic. Website buttons are the thin end of the wedge.
onedognight 16y ago
wikileaks.eff.org is not resolving for me. It seems inconsistent for the EFF to talk about standing up to censorship without them hosting a mirror and encouraging others to do so.
- aw3c2 16y ago
  That's the same void argument some people make when some non-artist is critising their art: "Well, you make it better then!" Criticism does not need to be made by someone participating (I can't think of a better word, hm) to be valid.
  - tjr 16y ago
    I think it's an interesting point. If the EFF is claiming that the work of WikiLeaks is good and valid, then would they encourage someone else to mirror the leaked documents? Would they mirror they documents themselves? If not, then why not? I'd be curious to know the reasoning here.
    - gst 16y ago
      Only because something is good and valid does not mean that you automatically need to directly support it. I think that Wikileaks is a good thing, but I can't (won't) run a mirror because right now I'm not going to risk the legal consequences (and because I think that Freenet and Tor are better ways to host such data than HTTP). In addition, running a mirror is not the only way how you can help Wikileaks: Donate money, run Tor nodes (even if they aren't outproxies), etc.
      - tjr 16y ago
        Sure. I wouldn't necessarily expect the EFF to take on the action of mirroring WikiLeaks, but would they view mirroring it as a good action to take, if one were so inclined to directly take action?
    - kgo 16y ago
      From http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors: Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1289 sites (updated 2010-12-08 19:07 GMT) Does the world really need a 1290th mirror site?
billmcneale 16y ago
A lame attempt by the EFF to get publicity and gain new members. Instead of selling buttons or memberships, how about offering to host the documents on eff.org? Action > words.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  Thus requiring the EFF to spend all their resources defending themselves instead of needy others?
lbrdn 16y ago
The issue here is not about censorship on the web (ha!), it's about confidential relationships and whether, as a society and for the betterment of it, we feel some information should be confidential and protected. Would the same arguments be made about censorship if WikiLeaks' instead posted health records, or confidential conversations between attorneys and their clients? (which are confidential and legally protected, similar to security clearances). The debate should be whether we want to protect communications between our politicians and diplomats, not the inevitable publication of released confidential material and the vilification of the one who does it. This release does show, however, that once this type of information is on the internet, whether it's medical records, nuclear secrets, or what the Secretary of State said to some diplomat, no one can stop its availability, as long as there are people who support its release.

189 points by jdp23 16y ago

If I have sensitive (and confidential) health records about my family members and someone steals them and posts them on the web, is that freedom of speech? Do I have the right to get them taken down, or in this case shut the website down? If my company is working on a new product containing details we consider secret, is it OK to post those on the web? If the gov't has secrets that could compromise our national security, is that Ok to post on the web? How do we determine where to draw the line?

Daishiman 16y ago
Don't use privacy as a strawman for censorship. Individuals and corporations have a right to privacy. That does not conflict with censorship.
bad_user 16y ago
Are the health records for your family members paid out of taxpayer's money? Do they have a negative impact on the lives of anyone outside your family? Is your new product paid out of taxpayer's money? Will it do a lot of harm to people? The line is quite clear to me.
- oziumjinx 16y ago
  Is the security of our citizen lives paid for by taxpayers money? Yes it is. I'm not saying I am against the leaks of most of the cables/documents, but putting national security at risk is a different story
  - bad_user 16y ago
    putting national security at risk is a different story "national security" is a vague concept; and either way security by obscurity doesn't work for terrorist groups with the right resources. If "national security" is compromised from the leaks of a couple of documents to the public, than the nation wasn't so secure in the first place. After all, if Wikileaks got a hold of those documents, how hard do you think it is for somebody with a couple of millions in cash and the right connections to do it? But yeah, we should think of the children.
    - oziumjinx 16y ago
      Is there any good that comes out of putting sensitive and classified documents that are meant to protect our citizens (if kept confidential) on the web? Let's assume that the strategy or communication didn't mention any illegal activity or corruption from within our gov't within these documents?

kiba 16y ago

If we were to make decision as voters, don't you think we should have some reliable idea about what the government is doing? What if the current administration is doing evil something behind the back of the electorate? How would we know about it? You see, secrecy is a catch-22 proposition. If you're trying to do actual real work of tracking down terrorists, you don't want the whole world to know(at least until years later). But if you're doing something EVIL behind our back, the world have the right to know. The cablegate? Hardly any reason to get angry over. It make the government looks good. But politicians are overreacting.

loewenskind 16y ago
With the slight twist that if we didn't have all this secrecy going on we might not have engaged in the kind of behavior that made people decide it was worth forfeiting their very lives to strike at us.
- drivingmenuts 16y ago
  With all due respect, the current problems with terrorism have roots that go much deeper than the recent activities of our government(s). A lot of, if not most of, the current tension in the Middle East dates back to just after WWII, when someone decided it would be a good idea to stick all the people that no one wanted (but wouldn't come right out and say it) in the middle of a bunch of people who were ill-prepared to absorb them (and didn't particularly want them, either). That pretty much paved the road to our current little slice of Middle Eastern hell.
  - Daishiman 16y ago
    The conflict with Israel is just a tiny fraction of the issues behind the Middle East problems. Much more substantial were the efforts of the US government to overthrow moderate regimes for hardlines who would support them, as well the UK's efforts to deliberately screw up the decolonization efforts by drawing up national boundaries with no regards to the inhabitants' will. It's complex, but it's ridiculously easy to see where things were wrong, and you don't need the hindsight either.

yread 16y ago

Just donated yesterday. You should too

silentOpen 16y ago
Thanks! I just did and got a cool t-shirt.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  I got the hat. Don't know if its cool, but I like it.

cellurl 16y ago

'just added the EFF link on my site.

jacquesm 16y ago

I don't see how putting a button or a banner on your site is going to stop censorship, that seems to be pretty symbolic. Saying 'no' to online censorship is not equivalent to some cosmetic changes, it's a fundamental thing to do and in the end of all we do is place some buttons then I doubt that would put a dent in to the plan of those that would have it differently. Contributing directly to the EFF (I believe VISA and Mastercard are still processing donations to them, possibly even PayPal) would be one way, what other ways are there in which we could make more than just a symbolic stand here ?

xbryanx 16y ago
Symbolic stands like this are often the first step to the more virtuous concrete actions you describe.
- TheSOB88 16y ago
  Indeed - it's starting a movement, and supporting the organization becomes part of your identity.
dtf 16y ago
There's a great story in Cialdini's "Influence: Science & Practice" about window stickers and lawn signs that explains this common tactic. Website buttons are the thin end of the wedge.

onedognight 16y ago

wikileaks.eff.org is not resolving for me. It seems inconsistent for the EFF to talk about standing up to censorship without them hosting a mirror and encouraging others to do so.

aw3c2 16y ago
That's the same void argument some people make when some non-artist is critising their art: "Well, you make it better then!" Criticism does not need to be made by someone participating (I can't think of a better word, hm) to be valid.
- tjr 16y ago
  I think it's an interesting point. If the EFF is claiming that the work of WikiLeaks is good and valid, then would they encourage someone else to mirror the leaked documents? Would they mirror they documents themselves? If not, then why not? I'd be curious to know the reasoning here.
  - gst 16y ago
    Only because something is good and valid does not mean that you automatically need to directly support it. I think that Wikileaks is a good thing, but I can't (won't) run a mirror because right now I'm not going to risk the legal consequences (and because I think that Freenet and Tor are better ways to host such data than HTTP). In addition, running a mirror is not the only way how you can help Wikileaks: Donate money, run Tor nodes (even if they aren't outproxies), etc.
    - tjr 16y ago
      Sure. I wouldn't necessarily expect the EFF to take on the action of mirroring WikiLeaks, but would they view mirroring it as a good action to take, if one were so inclined to directly take action?
  - kgo 16y ago
    From http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors: Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1289 sites (updated 2010-12-08 19:07 GMT) Does the world really need a 1290th mirror site?

billmcneale 16y ago

A lame attempt by the EFF to get publicity and gain new members. Instead of selling buttons or memberships, how about offering to host the documents on eff.org? Action > words.

ceejayoz 16y ago
Thus requiring the EFF to spend all their resources defending themselves instead of needy others?

lbrdn 16y ago

The issue here is not about censorship on the web (ha!), it's about confidential relationships and whether, as a society and for the betterment of it, we feel some information should be confidential and protected. Would the same arguments be made about censorship if WikiLeaks' instead posted health records, or confidential conversations between attorneys and their clients? (which are confidential and legally protected, similar to security clearances). The debate should be whether we want to protect communications between our politicians and diplomats, not the inevitable publication of released confidential material and the vilification of the one who does it. This release does show, however, that once this type of information is on the internet, whether it's medical records, nuclear secrets, or what the Secretary of State said to some diplomat, no one can stop its availability, as long as there are people who support its release.