I find the write up for the United Kingdom interesting..
1. Spying - indefensible..
2. Terrorism laws to go after journalists - What does this have to do with the internet? I wonder what this was referencing. If it is stopping Greenwalds partner at the airport.. I fail to see what is wrong with stopping someone trying to smuggle national secrets out of the country.. it sounds like a person who needs to be stopped reguardless of occupation.
3. "Porn Filter" - The main problem with the filter is that it isn't a porn filter, it is an "objectional website" filter. It is a great example of the Government nannying its population. The filter should be opt-in rather than opt-out. I think calling it anti-Internet is a bit of stretch... The fact you can opt out though is obviously a good thing. Personally I don't mind it's existance. I can see it's use especially in helping protect children from adult content which is so easily accessed.
Sure. The UK should be on the list for Spying. The rest seem's a lot like padding.
2. Terrorism laws to go after journalists - What does this have to do with the internet? I wonder what this was referencing. If it is stopping Greenwalds partner at the airport.. I fail to see what is wrong with stopping someone trying to smuggle national secrets out of the country.. it sounds like a person who needs to be stopped reguardless of occupation.
Possibly something to do with government employees turning up at the Guardian and destroying some hard disks.
As for the "porn" filter, I definitely think censoring parts of the internet is anti-internet. Yes you can opt out, but who wants to be on a leaked list of self-confessed wankers?
Corey Doctrow, who incidentally happens to live in London, begs to differ regarding the UK filter's utility in "helping protect children from adult content":
The full title of the report is: "Enemies of the Internet 2014: entities at the heart of censorship and surveillance". It doesn't seem outlandish to include points 2 and 3 as serious examples of censorship.
Most journalists publish on the internet. By invoking anti-terror laws to go after journalists, the government gets a lot of power over internet hosts and providers.
The freedom of speech in India was never at its best to begin with. Libel and blasphemy laws in India basically allow anyone to be shut up. It is not that Indians are losing freedom-of-speech, it is that they never had most of it, to begin with.
Indian government has been pressurizing Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. to preemptively clear messages that are not in line with blasphemy laws.
To change anything in India for better, you have to sacrifice your family and your life. It is tough to challenge politicians with or without power in almost all cases. They are rich and have the strongest of connections.
I'm not going to lie... reading that list (and I agree with a lot of it) just makes me sad. I honestly don't know whether we can tackle that many large, important countries. Sure, they're a democracy, but it seems that those who care about this specific type of freedom aren't a majority...
I guess educating those around us and exercising our right to vote and protest (the latter is also coming under fire, at least here in Australia; while the reasoning behind the new law in Melbourne is a sound one, it will have ripple effects and abuse potential. Hell, just look at Queensland where I live back when Joh Bjelke-Petersen violently breaking up peaceful protests in 1971!) and attempt to turn the tide.
it's not just the Internet it's EVERYTHING - power, water, phone - EVERYTHING is state controlled --- even there's news coming out of North Korea from time to time but NEVER from Ethiopia, and they're getting REALLY-REALLY good at it!
and another thing [kinda off topic], it's real easy to get access to stuff, even the BANK i work at communicates via http NOT https
now if you'll excuse me, i have to hide in a bunker somewhere [joke aside, IF am caught am DONE]
I was hellbanned but quickly unbanned. I guess the fine folks at the JIDF figured it would be better to make me fall in the trap of non-trustworthiness by first hellbanning me so I would complain and then unbanning me so that it looks as if we are all spouting "another stupid conspiracy that Zionism is controlling the media".
They are not only well organized and nested deep down in every media outlet including internet communities, they are also deceiving two steps ahead of you. You are being tricked right here and the worst part is that you cannot even fathom it. Because this, this very comment sounds really sketchy right? What are the odds something like this is happening, right?
1. Spying - indefensible..
2. Terrorism laws to go after journalists - What does this have to do with the internet? I wonder what this was referencing. If it is stopping Greenwalds partner at the airport.. I fail to see what is wrong with stopping someone trying to smuggle national secrets out of the country.. it sounds like a person who needs to be stopped reguardless of occupation.
3. "Porn Filter" - The main problem with the filter is that it isn't a porn filter, it is an "objectional website" filter. It is a great example of the Government nannying its population. The filter should be opt-in rather than opt-out. I think calling it anti-Internet is a bit of stretch... The fact you can opt out though is obviously a good thing. Personally I don't mind it's existance. I can see it's use especially in helping protect children from adult content which is so easily accessed.
Sure. The UK should be on the list for Spying. The rest seem's a lot like padding.