Iran Vows to Unplug Internet(online.wsj.com) |
Iran Vows to Unplug Internet(online.wsj.com) |
I suppose we are at the farce stage with the Internet.
Yeah, I'm sure that'll work out well. Iran has always been known as a hot-bed of bleeding-edge secure operating system design, right? And SecureBSD folks will be happy to pitch in to help build an OS that kills free speech dead.
"Kills free speech dead." Something like the West that kills people dead.
{ +hide-referrer{http://news.google.com/news/} }
.wsj.com1) Spying on their citizens. 2) Not above an Internet kill switch. You know, for the kids.
http://doc.cat-v.org/political_science/cyberspace-declaratio...
There is a certain amount of political capital in shouting loudly about thinking of the children, and the evils of the net. However, if Iran can't even turn it off because they rely on it for commerce and other key functions, How much worse would a lack of net hit the west?
Like the war on drugs the arising war on the net, driven in part by the death throws of big media, will be a lot more bluster, grandiose talk and rather lucrative funding of projects than effective action.
(you notice I've ignored spying. I reckon Google know more about me than the government does. My generation will flap about going "ooh ooh the privacy!". My children will grow in a world that has never been different and will find ways to adapt)
It probably is. The real question is should the outside let the government of Iran disconnect their citizens to keep their ideals? Should "wilful obstruction of facts known and shared by other humans" become a kind of humanitarian offence, with a bit of leeway for yet-to-be-agreed reasonable law enforcement purposes? Should it become a more pressing consideration the more the difference between rich scientific countries and closed-off/poor/controlled societies grows?
The UN human rights declaration includes Education, and the Cairo declaration of human rights in Islam forbids discrimination on racial, political affiliation and belief grounds, and also "emphasizes the "full right to freedom and self-determination", and its opposition to enslavement, oppression, exploitation and colonialism."
"22(c) states: "Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may [..] disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith."
22(d) states "It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination."
(Source: Wikipedia). A right to education isn't much good if it only covers being educated in what some people want you to know. Information may not be used to disrupt or weaken the faith of an Islamic society by that convention, which the internet probably would, but censoring it for being "western" seems close to nationalistic and doctrinal hatred. (Iran may have nothing to do with the CDHRI).
Do these comments do anything to further discussion?
But I'm also tired of every story like this having a "hey look at this other problem" post at the top.
We have threads here where the problem of US spying are hashed-out. I'm against it in those threads too...
But there's nothing wrong with focusing on this particular Iranian scheme - the Iranians certainly "deserve freedom" as much as anyone else.
My guess is a private Islamic Republic Internet will generally outline the stupidity of the clerics and that anyone's who anyone will want to get the real Internet. IE, it might fly back in their faces.
I just don't think that I have any moral right to comment on Iranians and/or their government if I am letting my government do the same.
I guess this is the difference between normal people and politicians.
Huh? I don't think have a moral right to ignore the oppression of people in other countries. And yes, as an American, it is easier for me to comment on the situation in Iran. And that's why I should - to help people who have a harder time helping themselves.
This is the model of Amnesty International, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International
People one country protest repression in another because they can. And yes, Amnesty has looked at quite a number of problematic US actions (and I imagine Canadian actions as well).
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or
inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a
government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
"A private corporation restricting access to ITS OWN information isn't censorship."
(And Wikipedia is hardly approaching authoritative. I'd suggest something like the OED, but given that it's another subscription service [for the online form], I guess it would fall under one of those skewed interpretations of censorship, too.)
Now if North Korea could only arrange to become one large company with its citizens relabeled employees, its laws relabeled "conditions of employment", and their prisons as "homeless camps" then no one could object.
Those who are fired are welcome to go "anywhere in the country not owned by KimCo" - IE to any of ten detention areas.
Yes, I think I've found the path to Freedom for the 'Democratic' North Koreans...