8 ms·
Hundreds march in Singapore against website licensing regime
- runn1ng 13y ago"It is an international embarrassment when governments around the world are working to deregulate the Internet, and Singapore, one of the wealthiest nations per capita, is going in the opposite direction," the activist told AFP. I am not sure which governments he speaks about. America? China? Russia? Middle-Eastern countries with their blasphemy laws?
- nkoren 13y agoIceland? Lovely little country. I've been seriously considering learning Icelandic lately...
- gngeal 13y agoThe language is amazing. And as a side benefit, you can read Old Norse sagas with very little effort if you learn it!
- PhantomGremlin 13y agoDoes Iceland want immigrants? Japan, another quite homogenous country (demographically speaking), makes it quite difficult to immigrate there. Contrast with the USA, where one of Americas greatest strengths is in welcoming immigrants. E.g. people like Andy Grove and Sergey Brin and countless others.
- 1morepassword 13y agoI agree that the one of the USA's greatest strengths is in how it welcomes immigrants. However, when it comes to actually welcoming immigrants, there are many (Western) countries where it's easier to immigrate to these days than the US if you take the route from work permit to permanent residence to citizenship.
- cdavid 13y agoEmigrating to Japan is actually incredibly easy if you have a job: getting a work visa takes less than 2 months and costs almost nothing.
- PhantomGremlin 13y agoI wasn't clear about what I meant. I'll accept your assertion that it's easy to get a work visa in Japan. It's certainly easy for Japanese expats to work in the USA for subsidiaries of Japanese companies. There are special visas for that. What I meant by immigration is the whole totality of how an immigrant would become part of Japanese society. My understanding is that's more difficult in Japan than here in the USA. E.g. this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_Japanese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_Japanese makes the perhaps unsubstantiated claim that "Probably because of the difficulty in gaining citizenship and because of cultural difference, foreign-born Japanese people account for a very small percentage of the population in Japan." Contrast with USA where, as Butch in Pulp Fiction puts it: "I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean shit." And, by the time you get to children of immigrants, national origin "don't mean shit" either. Except, doubtlessly, to a small minority of WASPs who trace their ancestry to the Mayflower. Hardly anyone will emigrate to homogenous Japan if it's really hard to be accepted by the natives. I was interested in whether homogenous Iceland was similar.
- GFischer 13y agoYou mean, how it used to welcome inmigrants. It doesn't anymore. Brin entered in 1979, and Grove in 1957. Some extremely talented people (for example, one worked with Anders Hejlsberg developing C#) are still stuck in the extremely long green card process. And, other than H1B, I don't know of a decent way to get a work visa in the U.S. (forget about actually inmigrating). Compare to Canada, where I know there's a sane system for entering, it's still bureaucratic, but at least it's clear. Australia is even more open. And while Europe is heterogeneous in its inmigration policies, it's far better than the U.S.
- PhantomGremlin 13y agoGood point. Even by the time Brin entered in 1979, the rules of immigration had changed. Brin got in easily because we had special rules for Jewish families trying to get out of the Soviet Union. More recently (in the 2000's) we did the same thing for certain persecuted people from Africa (a colleague helped sponsor a family of these; sadly I don't remember the exact nationality). But what happened to the "traditional" method of high tech immigration? I.e. come here for grad school, then stay. Is that all H1B stuff? I know quite a few people who came here for grad school and then stayed to work in high tech. They are now citizens. Their children are native born Americans.
- valdiorn 13y agoWe take immigrants as long as you're not a refugee. Have money? WELCOME!! Have a big family and no education? We rent a jet and send you home http://bit.ly/18jpmj1 http://bit.ly/18jpmj1
- iand 13y agoIceland is no better. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/iceland-seeks-internet-pornography-ban http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/iceland-seeks-in... Governments are made of people.
- valdiorn 13y agoTo be fair, Ögmundur is now out of office and this is as good as dead. The porn filter was a political suicide for him and his entire party. ... I'm still ashamed to have voted for that dickbag in the previous elections.
- rtpg 13y agoThe EU has been trying to push privacy laws or a while (mainly because they can't control servers in America), while the US has pushed for non-censorship-stuff on the internet (mainly because it'd undermine de facto US control of the internet) It's not all doom and gloom
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- TomGullen 13y agoHow on earth are they going to enforce this.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoOne blog at a time. It's not difficult to imagine there are a few government people looking for unauthorized blogs, or the ability to report an unauthorized blogger.
- bofussing 13y agoSingapore was one of the earliest adopters of a national firewall (back in the late 90s). I am sure this will be the primary tool in monitoring any 'misuse' of the Internet by the powers that be. Bo
- danso 13y agoIt's not about total enforcement, it's about chilling the desire for anyone to start a blog, to the point that the effect is the same as if they were able to enforce it. Singapore has had strong defamation laws in effect for awhile now, which have been able to make a mark on public discourse with a few select enforcement actions: http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/03/01/debate-over-blog-limits-intensifies-in-singapore/ http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/03/01/debate-over-blog... > But in recent weeks, lawyers acting on behalf of key Singapore leaders have delivered sharp legal warnings to dissenting blogs, saying the blogs published untruths and defamatory comments. Although editors of the blogs have retracted the posts and in some cases apologized, academics have said the cases nevertheless could have a chilling effect on writers at a time when they’re just beginning to enjoy new freedoms following years of restrictions defended by the government as necessary for maintaining social stability. > >In one case, lawyers acting on behalf of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong issued a five-page letter to prominent public affairs blog Temasek Review Emeritus, accusing it of posting a “defamatory” opinion piece that contained comments related to the appointment of Mr. Lee’s wife, Madam Ho Ching, as the head of Singapore sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings. The piece had asserted she received the appointment because of political connections, which the government says is untrue. > > The letter asked the website to retract the post and issue an apology, both of which it did days later.
- PhantomGremlin 13y agoReally, an article on censorship from "RT" aka Russia Today? According to Wikipedia "funded by the federal budget of Russia". I want to see an article from them critical of Putin, their dear leader. I suspect that whoever wrote it would be lucky to escape alive to London. That's a bit harsher than spending $39,500 for a license. Reminds me of the old joke of many years ago. An American journalist and a Soviet journalist are talking about press freedom. The American says something like "America is great. We have freedom of the press. I can freely criticize Richard Nixon and explain how bad and corrupt he is". The Soviet journalist says something like "We have the same freedom. I can freely criticize Richard Nixon and explain how bad and corrupt he is".
- StavrosK 13y ago> That's a bit harsher than spending $39,500 for a license. Why are you comparing the two? The fact that there's censorship in Russia doesn't invalidate the fact that there's censorship in Singapore.
- PhantomGremlin 13y agoI think RT is great. They're certainly an alternative to American "mainstream media". Our media (mostly) give Obama a pass about everything they were foaming at the mouth about when Bush did it. RT offers a much different perspective to our media that had a "thrill going up my leg" at the prospect of an Obama presidency. But we shouldn't give Russian state funded media a free pass to run photos with signs that say "INTERNET CENSORSHIP WORST IDEA EVER" when Russian censorship and reaction to dissent is harsher than that in Singapore or most other countries. There's a word for stories like that. The word is not "journalism". The word is "propaganda". In this case, state funded propaganda. RT is much like the Pravda of yesteryear. I saved a quip about the NY Times and Pravda: "My basic view on the New York Times is that it is best read the way the Soviets used to read Pravda: The purpose of reading it isn't to learn the truth, it's to learn what those in power want you to think." Keep in mind that you read RT to learn what Russia wants you to think. Then it's great. That's the point I was trying to make.
- 13y ago
- manojlds 13y agoAs an Indian citizen, the scariest thing about this is my government copying from its Singaporean counterpart.
- einhverfr 13y agoReading the article slowly, it's a lot less than it is suggested. To qualify one must be covering Singapore news and have 50000 unique visitors from Singapore per month. I think it is a pretty catastrophic law, but it is not the same as saying all blogs must be licensed.
- ValentineC 13y agoThe definition of news according to this regulation is "any news, intelligence, report or occurrence or any matter of public interest about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting scientific or any other aspect of Singapore in any language". That covers a lot of ground. 50,000 unique IP addresses (not visitors, as in the article) isn't too hard to hit either. Here's the original press release by the regulatory authority: http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/28052013.aspx http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/...
- einhverfr 13y agoMy reading is that they would have to be 50000 unique Singaporian IP addresses and that weekly coverage of Singaporian news was required as well.
- justincormack 13y agoIts basically any site they decide they want covered. Current list is 1. asiaone.com 2. businesstimes.com.sg 3. channelnewsasia.com 4. omy.sg 5. sg.news.yahoo.com 6. stomp.com.sg 7. straitstimes.com 8. tnp.sg 9. todayonline.com 10. zaobao.com But they can add anyone at any time.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- murbard2 13y agoSingapore is good for business but bad free speech. Fortunately, anonymous speech is much more easily done than anonymous business :)
- straight_talk 13y agoBy doing business in Singapore you're funding this very evil regime.
- Tloewald 13y agoYou might not like Singapore's govrnment, but calling it "evil" is a bit of a stretch. I don't think Singapore has ever had legal slavery, massacred its indigenous population, or used weapons of mass destruction on foreign cities. But hey, we can talk about it, right?
- straight_talk 13y agoDid North Korea ever had legal slavery, massacred it's indigenous population or used weapons of mass destruction on foreign cities?
- laumars 13y agoYes. Kim Jong-il had personal slaves. Plus thousands of North Koreans work to death in concentration camps. And comparing Singapore to North Korea is just absurd. You might as well just reference the Nazi's and be done with Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
- cbr 13y agostraight_talk isn't comparing Singapore to North Korea; they're arguing that Tloewald's definition of evil is too strict because it wouldn't include North Korea.
- wheaties 13y agoThis isn't an attack on free speach. This has the hallmarks of regulatory capture. If you're a news organisation whose readership is being undermined by no moat blots (anyone can set one up and they cost nothing to run) then your profits are in grave danger. Structurally your business is suspect unless you can find a way to arbitrarily limit competition. This license is both arbitrary and expensive. Media sites no longer need to fear competition from small time blotters or new news upstarted.
- dingfeng_quek 13y agothe license also undermines the legitimacy of the ruling party without reducing the spread of information and propaganda that goes against the ruling party - these tend to arise from smaller (individual) publications which are not governed by the license. the motive of free speech restriction just doesn't fit the consequence (grant originators the benefit of intelligence).
- fab1an 13y agoThe resulting law is nevertheless an attack on free speech, regardless of alternative underlying motivations.
- hackerboos 13y agoIs anybody surprised? This is Singapore where the authoritarian PAP has been in power for decades.
- nivertech 13y agoSingapore make Russia's Putin regime look good ;)
- jmduke 13y agoWouldn't it be incredibly easy for a government or major news organization to spam a news blog, causing them to rise over the 50,000-visitor threshold, thus forcing them to apply for the license?
- mcintyre1994 13y agoI think the genius here is twofold. If a blog under that threshold seems threatening, they can do as you say. But the likelihood of that is kept low by the fact that people won't advertise their blog. Once a blog hits Twitter, Reddit or maybe even here and reaches a viral mass, that information spreads way too fast for a government to control - but who wants that to happen if they'll have to buy a license?
- spitx 13y agoSingapore has only recently relaxed (read: suspended) the imposition of mandatory capital punishment for drug trafficking charges. While Western governments and media have long criticized Singapore's draconian laws and its low tolerance for all crime, it has to be said that the prosperous city-state has been highly effective at warding off the ill effects of lax criminal jurisprudence and enforcement that typify, with the exception of an absurdly oil-rich Norway or two, almost all developed Western societies. It pays to give our approach to crime and sentencing another look before we blissfully laud ourselves for 'upholding' some imaginary ethos governing human dignity at the cost of rampant societal maladies that continue to plague us, while in reality, doing a sloppy job at both. Case in point: Number of deaths in Iraq over the period of 2003-11 : 4,422 Number of murders in Chicago,Ill. over the same period : 4,265 Source(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNIT9Dn_Rjk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNIT9Dn_Rjk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaDR2kLI0m0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaDR2kLI0m0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_99LydvXqDk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_99LydvXqDk https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=13850 https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=138... http://hbo.vice.com/episode-nine/ep-9-seg-1 http://hbo.vice.com/episode-nine/ep-9-seg-1
- tptacek 13y agoThere is absolutely no way that the total death count in Iraq from 2003, at the start of the US invasion, to 2011 is only 4,422. Bush's own estimate, which was heavily sandbagged, was 30,000.
- spitx 13y agoThe graphic clearly refers to Americans killed in Iraq. Source: http://hbo.vice.com/episode-nine/ep-9-seg-1/infographic http://hbo.vice.com/episode-nine/ep-9-seg-1/infographic
- jlgreco 13y agoThe only reason to exclude non-American deaths is to make a dishonest comparison, or racism. Vice did it for the first.