Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Amnesty International vs. Internet Censorship 287

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the something-to-think-about dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Amnesty International has a new online campaign against governments which censor websites, monitor online communications, and persecute citizens who express dissent in blogs, emails, or chat-rooms. The website, Irrepressible.info contains a web-based petition (to be presented at a UN conference in November 2006) and also a downloadable web gadget which displays random excerpts of censored material on your own website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amnesty International vs. Internet Censorship

Comments Filter:
  • Re:official? (Score:4, Informative)

    by user24 (854467) on Sunday May 28, 2006 @10:00AM (#15420250) Homepage
    found it: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/ [amnesty.org.uk]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28, 2006 @11:40AM (#15420565)
    During the last UN conference on the internet, held in Tunisia, Robert Mugabe, dictator of Zimbabwe, got up and said, "There is too much freedom of speech on the internet" and received huge applause from the assembled thugs and potentates.

    The UN has a lot of evil members. Don't forget that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28, 2006 @12:03PM (#15420657)
    Silent about genocide, subjugated poverty and terror; up to and including denial of distribution of UN medicine to children resulting in the deaths of 100K+ under 18 because of political alliances.

    Should really clean house before going abroad.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28, 2006 @01:17PM (#15420927)
    I am interested in seeing what will happen in November. But for the time being there is a faster solution. anoNet is a VPN network which operates just like the Internet but without the influence of the government. All communications are encrypted and uncensored. People are free to say whatever they want to without fear of persecution. We use the 1.0.0.0/8 IP range, so it is impossible to geographically identify a user based on their IP. It is 100% anonymous. Interested? Visit http://anonet.org/ [anonet.org] for details.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28, 2006 @01:29PM (#15420959)
    We have all the tools we need. Check out OpenVPN http://openvpn.net/ [openvpn.net] Plus, a VPN network _does_ infact exist. It's called anoNet (which I have posted about before on this article, but is more appropriate in this thread). You can find all the details at http://anonet.org/ [anonet.org] Plus, Freenet tends to be laggy from my experience. :(
  • by liangzai (837960) on Sunday May 28, 2006 @02:03PM (#15421074) Homepage
    No, Shi Tao was not imprisoned for advocating freedom. He could have done that, and nothing would have happened to him (fuck, I do it everyday, and I am still alive!).

    Shi Tao received classified information from his employer, a newspaper. He was told it was classified, and he was also told not to take notes of what was said (he did anyway). He was completely aware of the consequences of disseminating the information.

    He spread the information from his workplace, the newspaper, using the newspaper's computer. By Chinese law, he committed a crime. By Chinese law, he deserves to be in prison, and by Chinese law, the punishment was accurate.

    Therefore, the petition will not free Shi Tao.

    On a more personal note I would like to say that I have never heard of such a stupid dissident before. Not only did he openly take notes, ignoring his bosses, but he also used his employers equipment, using an emial address with the account name huoyan1989 (1989 flame), sending the info unencrypted to foreign addresses that were sure to be monitored by the shield.

    That stupidity alone should give him ten years.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28, 2006 @03:12PM (#15421330)
    abc.net.au:

    John Bolton: There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States. When it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along. The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question, the only question for the United States is what's in our national interest. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact.

    Stan Correy: John Bolton is now the US Ambassador to the United Nations, an organisation he's publicly disdained for almost 30 years.

    Download Audio - 21052006 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/feeds/bbing_20060 521.mp3 [abc.net.au]

    John R Bolton may be called 'the ugly American' and be widely disliked, yet his pivotal role as US Ambassador to the UN makes him extraordinarily powerful and important in world affairs. Obsequious, arrogant, doctrinaire and above all, Americanist - but no fool, neocons hope he may save the Bush administration.


    Show transcript http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/storie s/2006/1639578.htm# [abc.net.au]
  • by Qa1 (592969) on Sunday May 28, 2006 @04:06PM (#15421525)
    Just last week Israel's Supreme court affirmed a law effectively banning a Palestinian from marrying an Israeli citizen, a law so much like the Nazi prohibition of intermarriage with Jews.

    This is, quite simply, false. The law you're refering to does not prevent anyone from marrying anyone.

    What that law does state is that Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens would not be automatically granted Israeli citizenship.

    So first of all, that's hardly a human-rights violation; it's a rule about who can and cannot become an Israeli citizen, and how. Japan, for instance, does not grant a man citizenship if he marries a Japanese woman. Every country has the right to determine who can and cannot gain citizenship, and many do enforce strict laws.

    Moreover, you can hardly call that rule unreasonable. The Palestinians are currently at war with Israel. Many of them state their commitment to wiping us out of the face of the Earth. Are we out of line by denying them the ability to become citizens of our country? Can a country not prevent its enemies from gaining its citizenship? I think the answer to these questions is obvious.

    And one other important fact. That rule was only established recently. After 5 years of intense conflict, during which 25 Palestinians who gained Israeli citizenship by marriage were involved in suicide bombings againt Israeli population. Each such bombing causes on average 10-30 casualties, and the order of 50-300 wounded. I believe the Israeli people have the right to defend themselves.

  • by Trogre (513942) on Sunday May 28, 2006 @05:15PM (#15421777) Homepage
    Amnesty International has recently adopted a policy where abortion is considered a human right.

    What do people here think about this? Is it over-stepping their mark?

  • by AgentWinter (977626) on Sunday May 28, 2006 @11:06PM (#15422908)
    In Australia we are not even allowed to know what is being censored/filtered. The ISP's are given a list and they are not allowed to release it.

    This url refers to newsgroups that are blocked: http://www.internode.on.net/content/premium-news/# Are_there_any_newsgroups_you_blo [on.net]

Your mode of life will be changed to EBCDIC.

Working...