[deleted]
The Free Internet Project
51–60 of 66 posts
Re: The Free Internet Project
#52The United Kingdom is colored Yellow, yet there is Internet censorship in the UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
The description mentions the ISP-controlled, opt-in "filtering" plans, but not the state-mandated no-opt-out censorship of an indeterminate number of websites (the lists are not public)
Re: The Free Internet Project
#53I'm pretty sure Canada removed it's Hate Speech law.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27/hate-speech-no-longe...
Re: The Free Internet Project
#54greenyoda, what do you require to assign a colour to Austria? I could maybe help you out here doing some research according to your criteria.
One of the last major "freedom initiatives" in Austria was our government's decision to abolish the data retention law on Juli 1st to comply with EU law - a small victory for data protection activists.
Re: The Free Internet Project
#55Why does "left to market" seem to imply "less protected"? I have much more trust in my connection with five competing ISPs than I would have with five regulators. I also find communication with the customer retention department smoother and more productive than trying to figure out which complaint form I need to fill.
Perhaps because markets are meant to optimize for profit, and not necessarily freedom?
And government officials optimize for freedom? Has this been your experience?
Re: The Free Internet Project
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. If the blogger was in fact a domestic blogger (was it?), it can in fact be both about domestic efforts to organize and international influence. The United States and allies have other ways of handling domestic movements, like Fusion Centers and Free Speech Zones (in the US) and partnerships and leverage on media providers.
Meanwhile as an american I can freely watch russia today on youtube, read presstv without a proxy, and hang out on conspiracy websites like globalresearch.ca and infowars.com. Maybe I'm just a dumb american but at least my protectionist nannystate allows me to watch the "bad" tv channels. I'm just reminded of a quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri: "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, fre…
You say that as if the US plans the same freedoms given to it's citizens extended to regimes it disagrees with. You can watch everything freely because there's no antagonistic hugely powerful and apt state effectively able to spy on all US citizens and take undercover measures to destabilize the US. I'm not saying I agree with this or that regime, but to me it's clear that the US can be very liberal because it doesn't feel threatened technologically.
Re: The Free Internet Project
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Personal data protected"? So it is protected while our government stores it for 6 to 12 months?
As far as i know its not the government that keeps the data itself, is the ISP's and service providers.. its a minimum period of archiving, for them to respect, so if a law enforcement signed by a judge ask them to reveal some logs for instance, they should have it, if its in the date range they have defined, or else they would also be accountable. I think this is quite good
There's a voluntary program in the Netherlands that financially compensates ISPs for uploading logs to a central database where law enforcement is free to query it without, in practice, judicial oversight.
Laws are great, but they're easily circumvented. Especially in the Netherlands. That's why this "Free Internet" project is reasonably useless. Its view is too narrow, focusing only on official laws and not on actual practices. For instance, after the whole Project-X incident[1], law enforcement has been looking into being able to remove social media posts on a whim, without judicial oversight. Such underwater erosion of rights is common in the Netherlands.
Re: The Free Internet Project
#58Do they say anywhere what exactly it means for a country to have 'net neutrality', 'safe harbours' etc?
Re: The Free Internet Project
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Personal data protected"? So it is protected while our government stores it for 6 to 12 months?
As far as i know its not the government that keeps the data itself, is the ISP's and service providers.. its a minimum period of archiving, for them to respect, so if a law enforcement signed by a judge ask them to reveal some logs for instance, they should have it, if its in the date range they have defined, or else they would also be accountable. I think this is quite good
> its a minimum period of archiving
And a maximum. Privacy laws also dictate that data should not be retained longer than needed for the purpose for which you're storing it. If you store data for statistics, a few days would be the max because you can count hits and anonymize data almost immediately. If you store data for the government and the government only needs it for 6 months, then after 6 months you have no right to store it anymore. And ISPs really stick to this.
Re: The Free Internet Project
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps because markets are meant to optimize for profit, and not necessarily freedom?
And government officials optimize for freedom? Has this been your experience?
Not always, obviously. But I think it's important to at least differentiate between the purpose of law and the purpose of business. Assuming the best case for the former but the worst case for the latter doesn't make a lot of sense.
Laws at the very least could act to limit the ability of corporations to limit access and mine user privacy - but businesses in the best case are still going to attempt to do what makes money, which will almost never mean the less lucrative option of allowing their customers greater freedom and more privacy.
I think the general thesis here is that internet freedom is more secure in an environment where it is considered a right and not a term of service.