5 ms·
Once the practice is well established they'll extend it to political opposition, independent journalism, inconvenient science, etc.
by nackerhewz 1y ago
Once the practice is well established they'll extend it to political opposition, independent journalism, inconvenient science, etc.
- gruez 1y agoShouldn't countries have the right to control activities inside their borders? The order was approved by the courts, so insofar as due process and checks and balances go, this seems fine. This is no different than any other sort of injunction or court order. What should be the alternative? That the internet should be some sort of lawless wild west? Opposing this on the basis of "they'll extend it to political opposition ..." makes as much sense as opposing the arrest of criminals because "they'll extend it to political opposition ...".
- logicchains 1y agoThe alternative is the belief that humans have some fundamental rights that it's unjust for governments to violate (e.g. the right to private, encrypted communication), and designing systems to make it as hard as possible for governments to violate those rights.
- gruez 1y ago>The alternative is the belief that humans have some fundamental rights that it's unjust for governments to violate (e.g. the right to private, encrypted communication) In what country is there actually a "right to private, encrypted communication"? At best there's rights for "privacy", which is a pretty woolly concept, but generally don't cover copyright infringement. More to the point, unless you reject the concept of copyright entirely, you have to accept that free speech rights will have to be "violated" to enforce it.
- saurik 1y agoOne can believe that something should exist even if it does not.
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoLike the right to load whatever software we want on the hardware we own. Thanks for allowing me to jailbreak my iPod back in the day.
- ejj28 1y ago"fundamental rights" implies an ideological belief that those rights should exist for all humans, regardless of whether any country recognizes them or not.
- dingnuts 1y ago> In what country is there actually a "right to private, encrypted communication"? I recognize that this is not a popular opinion, but IMHO IT SHOULD BE covered by the "secure in their papers" section in the 4th Amendment in the US, and/or with established precedent regulating encryption export as armaments, by the 2nd & the Heller decision granting the rights afforded by the 2nd to the individual at least that's the correct interpretation of the founding document as far as I can tell. not that it matters anymore.
- ryandrake 1y agoTrying to graft the Internet onto physical country borders has been fraught from the very beginning, but they keep trying. When a user in country A, connected to a satellite Internet provider headquartered in country B, through a VPN whose offices are in country C and their VPN server is in country D, looks up an IP address with a DNS server in country E, to a web site whose headquarters is in country F, and request a file hosted on servers distributed across countries G, H, I, J, and K, whose laws should apply?
- gruez 1y agoSo far as I can tell this concern isn't applicable, because it's only blocked in Belgium. I tested myself and it's not blocked in other countries.
- TZubiri 1y agoThis is an interesting question, but the law is well established, and it has an answer.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago"It has an answer" is not how you decide a policy question. It's rather important that the answer be reasonable rather than capricious, burdensome and ineffective.
- redleader55 1y agoAll the laws that we broke out of were established and had an answer to questions of life: land ownership, slavery, social structure, rights of various groups of people, etc. The laws that apply on the internet are very desperate attempts by people with no technical knowledge to control something that can't be controlled. They work only because ways to circumvent them are not yet easy to use by the masses.
- markvdb 1y agoIn the country where the physical person making the request is located would be a logical solution. Not saying it would be a good solution, but that would follow the logic of most international fiscal law. Super hard to implement though.
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoNo. The Internet should be borderless
- whynotmaybe 1y agoWhy?
- abeindoria 1y agoWhy should it not? What's the point of having an effectively open information network if you're going to just let each nation state arbitrarily censor/manipulate it as they see fit for their own peasants? You'd agree with say, <insert country> mass blocking sites for their people just because the sites say something about democracy?
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoBecause the internet is purely an information medium, so "borders" on the internet can be nothing other than censorship. Censorship is a human rights violation and is disproportionately useful to oppressive regimes.
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoI believe in freedom of speech.
- TZubiri 1y agoYes
- ipaddr 1y agoThe internet is a global space that do not belong to countries like the ocean or space.
- thomastjeffery 1y agoThe state exists to enforce the interests of capital against the interests of the people. This is a clear instance of that happening. Do you really believe that the interests of the people are inferior to the interests of capital? Do you actually believe that the interests of each group are aligned?
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago> Shouldn't countries have the right to control activities inside their borders? Using the word "activities" implies that something different than what's really happening. Ask the question like this: Should countries have the right to control information inside their borders? The answer to that question is no. > Opposing this on the basis of "they'll extend it to political opposition ..." makes as much sense as opposing the arrest of criminals because "they'll extend it to political opposition ...". If you make it less expensive to do something, you make it more likely that it happens. Incarcerating murderers and rapists is very important and is an effective deterrent against serious violent crimes, so creating prisons that make it easier to incarcerate political prisoners is bad but the thing it's necessary in order to do is more important. Blocking streaming sites isn't nearly as important and it's also less effective for its intended purpose than it is for the ulterior purpose, because users will go out of their way to bypass censorship of streaming sites whereas inconvenient political content is censored not just with respect to its content but also its existence, and then if you create a censorship apparatus it allows people to be kept in the dark as to what is even being censored. So in that case the badness of the censorship apparatus existing far exceeds its value in being able to inconvenience some minor offenders.
- TZubiri 1y agoSo we shouldn't have mechanisms to combat child pornography and drug sales because it could be used for censorship?
- cebert 1y agoI’d rather have a free Internet than a restricted one to a small number of individuals using it for unethical behavior. It’s a small price to pay for freedom.
- ipaddr 1y agoThe key is what mechanisms. Dropping 1,000 nukes that would destroy humanity would be a mechanism to stop drugs and pornography. But it would be the wrong tool.
- dragonwriter 1y agoWhat do you mean “could be”? Those are both examples of censorship, not non-censorship things thar can be acheived by tools that can also be used for censorship. But, no, some censorship is acceptable and necessary. But we have to be aware of—and appropriately guard against—the other kind, and sometimes that means having less capacity for the kind that would be acceptable than you would want if there was downside attached to it.
- roughly 1y agoYes, that’s it on the nose. The number of things which have been laundered under “prevent child porn” is absurd. No, it is not a problem which warrants a global panopticon state. As for drug sales, I’m not sure what to say if you think that’s the pitch that’s gonna land here.
- abeindoria 1y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
- ok123456 1y agoYes. Giving up civil rights for the perennial boogiemen like terrorism or CSAM never results in less terrorism or CSAM, but does erode the rights of individuals. The goal is to establish an undemocratic method of control over and coercion of individuals and the means of communication. This has been borne out time and time again.
- madeofpalk 1y agoEh. "The practice" of blocking some kinds of speech has been in place for a long time. Some countries use it for political oppression, and others don't.