7 ms·
Sergey Brin, et al. to U.S. Government: Do Not Emulate These Oppressive Nations
- cq 15y agoI find it hilarious that people naturally assume the U.S. is not an oppressive government. Why don't you ask the black population of your country whether they feel oppressed?
- swombat 15y agoIf this thing goes through, it'll be a damning indictment of the state of democracy in the western world.
- rmc 15y agoa damning indictment of the state of democracy in the USA
- wladimir 15y agoThe problem is that many governments, also in Europe, still see the USA as a shining example which to follow. Or are somehow bribed/manipulated into adopting similar laws (see also ACTA). So if the USA falls to this low, I have little hope for the rest of the western world. Edit: I don't understand the downvotes; the ACTA is a secretly discussed copyright treaty about to be signed in many countries, including those in the EU. We are not even allowed to know what is in it, it could be exactly in line with SOPA.
- rmc 15y agoDepends. EU will never adopt any of the mad laws they have in the USA, e.g. abolishing nationalised health care, bringing in 'at will' employment, weakening anti-discrimination law. In the area of copyright, EU isn't fully copying USA.
- wladimir 15y agoI also hope it will be less mad. USA govt has the tendency to be really extreme in some things (war on this, war on that), to the point of being neurotic, whereas European governments are generally more subtle and slower to jump on the bandwagon. But it is clearly going the wrong way. Also I'd be careful with saying 'never'. Here in the Netherlands, for example, nationalized health care was weakened a long time ago by privatizing health insurance, more 'at will' employment is pushed as panacea for the employment problem by right-wing parties, and weakening anti-discrimination law (especially anti-Islam) is also on the agenda of a popular party.
- einhverfr 15y agoNo, the EU members just have different mad laws that we in the USA will never have, like hate speech bans (which I have argued lead to the Jyllands-Posten riots because they give an appearance of unequal protection), bans criticizing religions, disagreeing with the scope of the holocaust, etc, and banning the advertising that water helps reduce the chance of dehydration. Similarly Ireland has recently reinstituted blasphemy laws (given the demographics of Ireland, almost certainly to protect the Catholic church from certain forms of criticism). The fact of the matter is, stupid laws exist everwhere. Nobody is immune. EU countries have generally done a somewhat better job in some areas but worse in others (allowing copyright of mere lists of facts for example).
- rmc 15y agoNah Ireland's blashpemy law is just a silly nonsense law that's never going to be enforced. The Irish government has floated ideas of literally confiscating lands/schools of the catholic church. They aren't protecting them all the way.
- christkv 15y agoStop writing letters Sergey Brin and throw money at the scoundrels as that's the only thing that makes them listen.
- cloudwalking 15y agoMaybe they write polarizing legislation like this knowing it won't pass, but that people will take up arms (and donate money) over it?
- christkv 15y agoMaybe but that's attributing a very complex plot to something that is probably much simpler the movie and music industry spending tons of money on political donations. The whole thing is taking on the guise of a last stand by the copyright lobby.
- wladimir 15y agoThe copyright lobby is certainly behind it, but I am sure that it runs much deeper. Copyright, in a way, is just an excuse, so that proponents can use reasoning that copyright creates jobs, incentives innovation, fights "immoral" stealing of property etc. The layman could hardly disagree... Try arguing for censorship in the same way. Once in place, the laws can and will be used to repress criticism directed at government and corporations, and will be used to plug "inconvenient" leaks, put away whistle-blowers, and curb press freedom (just like in other oppressive nations). Even though that is obvious to outsiders, they cannot openly put that on their agenda.
- Jgrubb 15y agoI have no idea why you're being downvoted, because what you said is the absolute truth.
- akavi 15y agoThis is what I don't understand. Google makes more revenue in a quarter than the entire recording industry makes in a year. Why then, does the RIAA have so much sway in Washington? Because they know money buys influence, and they are willing to put up the cash. It may be a damning indictment of our democratic process that this is true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true. SOPA's going to be as hurtful to Google as anyone else, but talking about it on wonky tech blogs won't solve shit. Put up the cash, Google. Play the game.
- retrogradeorbit 15y agoThey'll write this letter and then they'll go and vote for these very same people.
- BonoboBoner 15y agoWe voted for Change in 2008 and here we are in 2011 fighting for basic democratic rights.
- dsplittgerber 15y agoEither people fell for good marketing or for the irrational belief that power does not change people. It was George W. Bush who once said in an interview that whoever becomes president after him, what he will get told every day (meaning security briefings etc) will change him. I think that's probably true only insofar as you as a president accept the basic premise that you are the Chief Watchdog of The American People and have to use ever more centralised power to guard your sheep. Edit: This is not really on topic concerning the issues raised in the article linked, I know. I am just replying.
- einhverfr 15y agoI voted for Obama in 2008 because of the major candidates, he had the best track record regarding civil liberties. I looked at the track record, and I was also deeply concerned that the approaches to health insurance law proposed by McCain would lead eventually to massive federal regulation of the sort we got under the PPACA. The thing though is I don't think that it's just the security briefings. Obama didn't slowly change. He ran out of the gate running the wrong direction and by April 2009, the EFF was calling the way state secrets privilege was invoked under the Obama administration "Worse than Bush." Instead what have we got for our troubles? more bodyscanners at airports, mobile bodyscanners deployed at various places, the DoJ arguing in court that random body cavity searches in airports would be Constitutional (EPIC v. DHS) and that the President has the Constitutional authority to target any American anywhere in the world with lethal military force (in the Al-Awlaki case) and that state secrets privilege extended to evidence against the accused. And through this whole process we are told that the Republicans would be worse and so we should just accept what we are given, and support our President as the fundamental protections of our liberty are assaulted again and again by the executive branch. This is where the voting for the lesser evil leads, because a lesser evil unopposed for fear of a greater one can do far more damage than a greater one where such opposition exists.
- teyc 15y agoI never expected Malaysia to be mentioned in the same breath as Iran and China.
- einhverfr 15y agoAnd yet Malaysians laugh at the censorship regimes in place in places like Indonesia. (Malaysia is an very interesting place to travel to. I highly recommend it at least once. Their ideas of immigration and customs are nothing short of inspiring....) It looks like Malaysia has ordered 10 filesharing sites to be blocked by ISP's. If that's all, they are quite a bit less oppressive than the US already is with the ICE/DOJ domain name seizures. I have only been to Malaysia once and entered through KLIA, but the experience regarding immigration and customs provoked a lot of thought into contrarian strategies.
- Gigablah 15y agoAs a Malaysian currently living in Singapore, I'm just grateful to finally have a decent internet connection.
- teyc 15y agoInterfering with intellectual property infringement is rather different than infringing on intellectuals.
- nazar 15y agoA bit out of scope of the topic... I entered Malaysia from Singapore once, got to pay bribe of 100USD to pass the immigrations just because they didn't like my passport(Though my country is in no-visa list for Malaysia). That was a terrible experience because after living in Singapore for 3 years, I forgot about corruptions and such stuff. I openly declared the amout of each currency on me and they insisted that I give all my USD and CHY. I could have easily go back to Singapore, but I had another important flight to catch from KL to Beijing, so I would have lost more by returning to Sg than by bribing the officer. On the return I entered Malaysia from KLIA and it was smooth. I have many friends from Malaysia and I find their people nice and friendly, but after that incident, I just no longer feel like visiting Malaysia.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- dsplittgerber 15y agoSeriously, internet freedom and all is important. But please stay serious. Are you generally allowed to be openly gay in the US? Are you generally allowed to protest for your beliefs? Are you generally allowed to air your grievings with your government? Then you are miles away from being in the same league as the nations you mentioned. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Internet freedom is an important societal interest _once you've taken care of more basic freedoms_.
- einhverfr 15y agoI think part of the reason for the letter though is Chris Dodd's statement that the US should figure out how to filter foreign content, and specifically pointing to China as an example. If the MPAA wants to say we should be more like China, I think it is fair to state strongly that we shouldn't.
- nextparadigms 15y agoI wonder if they will invite 5:1 pro-SOPA vs anti-SOPA witnesses at the hearing again, or maybe they'll make it 10:1 this time, seeing how last time that strategy "failed". That being said, I really hope they invite someone that isn't from a corporation at the hearing, like people from EFF. At the end of the day the corporations will follow their own profit incentives. If that aligns with the regular people's interest or not it's besides the point.
- coffeemug 15y agoI agree with the spirit of your comment, but it's important to keep in mind that similarly to corporations, non-profits will follow their own non-profit incentives: often irrational, impractical, borderline fanatical beliefs which may or may not align with regular people's interests. This is exactly why it's so important to invite many different groups under one roof and get all possible perspectives out in the open. Everyone will follow their own interests which may or may not align with the interests of regular people, but somewhere in the middle of that, a pragmatic approach to the problem can be found.
- nextparadigms 15y agoI agree with having multiple sides at the table. I'm just saying I don't want one side to overwhelm the other, and I don't want them to invite only from the Corporations, too. It just shows that the politicians only care about what the Corporations that pay them say.
- jhancock 15y agoThats a great list of Internet pioneers. A few days ago, someone on HN suggested these companies put their concerns front and center on the web sites they control. If you want the masses to hear about this, no better way than to replace Yahoo and Google for a day with a clear message telling users what's happening in their country. If these letter co-signees are not willing to take the heat of their own shareholders by making such a move, then writing letters is mostly a waste of time.
- nextparadigms 15y agoAnd yet Mark Zuckerberg is not on the list: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/12310917086/is-facebook-selling-out-internet.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/12310917086/is-fac... I wonder why.
- stfu 15y agoI didn't expect different from Zuckerberg. Facebook never appeared to me as a pillar of fee speech except for those cases when they don't have to fear any negative consequences (i.e. 3rd world revolutions).
- vegashacker 15y ago"fee speech": I realize it's a typo but it's a cool phrase. Kind of 1984-y. I wonder what it means--"pay to say"?
- hsuresh 15y agoDirect link to Segey's Google+ post: https://plus.google.com/109813896768294978296/posts/Dt6FoRv6hXJ https://plus.google.com/109813896768294978296/posts/Dt6FoRv6...
- rclowery 15y agoThe internet has changed the way information is shared to such a severe degree that traditional definitions of intellectual property are now antiquated. This doesn't mean that the legal framework of IP protection should be thrown out entirely, but it has to adapt to the culture of sharing that the internet has fostered. Otherwise the internet will become a draconian environment that stifles new ideas and strangles the kinds of exchange that gave rise to it in the first place.
- 27182818284 15y agoIf Google put a black censored bar over their logo, this would be dead in a a couple of days, tops.
- magamiako 15y agoJust as an FYI to the right wing nuts here, I actively voted for Obama knowing that internet rights would be an uphill battle. I followed Biden's tech trends over the years and knew going into it that this would be a significant challenge. So no, I didn't go into it "blindly", and I didn't follow all this "hype" about "change". I knew what I was getting into by voting for those two. That said, the combination of other stances and policies led me to vote for them--and so far they haven't disappointed me. Also remember: SOPA is in a House Committee. Keep this in mind before bashing the President and VP.
- grannyg00se 15y agoIs this meant to imply that the U.S. is not an oppressive nation? I'm sorry, but the U.S. Government has absolutely no problem emulating oppressive nations, and in fact has been a global leader in sponsoring oppression for decades.