The 13 Enemies of the Internet

Hennell writes "Reporters without borders has just released its annual list of internet enemies, a list of countries 'that systematically violate online free expression.' A couple of countries have been removed, but Egypt has been added. A detailed summary can be read on the BBC Website." From that article: "The blacklist is published annually but it is the first time RSF has organized an online protest to accompany the list. 'We wanted to mobilize net users so that when we lobby certain countries we can say that the concerns are not just ours but those of thousands of internet users around the world,' said a spokesman for RSF. Many of those on the internet blacklist are countries that are regularly criticized by human rights groups, such as China and Burma."

First Posting.....

[Lissajous (989738)]

the enemy to all of t3h interwebs!!!

Oh crap......

I am not surprised...

[Ingolfke (515826)]

that those Uzbek assholes are on the list. Their potassium is vastly inferior to the potassium in the great nation of Khazakistan.

Re:

[dr_dank (472072)]

Their potassium is vastly inferior to the potassium in the great nation of Khazakistan.

High five for portassiam! Very nice.

Why only countries?

[MECC (8478)]

Why only include countries? Why not include companies as well? Some of them are gunning for 'the Internet' either intentionally, or just as a side-effect of unethical practices.

Re:Why only countries?

[massivefoot (922746)]

One would hope that large companies would consider close collaroration with the government of a country on the list something of a blemish on their character. However, I doubt this will be the case. What is needed is for consumers to start considering the ethics of those they purchase from. We need to give companies a choice - you may act unethically, however doing so will cause a large number of people or organisations with more moral fiber to cease doing business with you.

Re:Why only countries?

[Qzukk (229616)]

you may act unethically, however doing so will cause a large number of people or organisations with more moral fiber to cease doing business with you.

Moral fiber and psychic powers. There simply isn't enough transparency in corporations to figure out whether they are acting ethically or not in most cases, unless they do something really reprehensible and a government gets involved and compels transparency, or someone on the inside finally decides that having a job is no longer worth it.

Avoid the veal.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

you may act unethically, however doing so will cause a large number of people or organisations with more moral fiber to cease doing business with you.

Hello! May I be the first to welcome you to our planet. You may find things here a little unsettling, coming from your obviously very advanced civilization and culture; in the meantime I recommend you don't try to make sense of anything.

Oh, and be sure to try the pastrami, it's excellent here.

Re:

[jimstapleton (999106)]

really! I can think of two companies I want to add to that list...

What about USA ?

[ookaze (227977)]

For the DeCSS code censorship ?
What is the status of that ?
I hope it's not applied anymore, or this smells hypocritical.

Re:

[ajs (35943)]

For the DeCSS code censorship?

You can hardly compare the civil attacks on one piece of software that was designed to allow copying of content which the seller had restricted (no matter how right you might think that is, and I'm not arguing the point) with the systematic censorship of any political or otherwise controversial electronic communication. The fact that you would even bring that up in this context demonstrates that you MUST live in a country which is shockingly low in censorship when compared to t

I feel so....

[Karl Cocknozzle (514413)]

...Presidential... right now. Just think, ME, Karl Cocknozzle, with my own enemies list! And on Election Day to boot!

I feel very Nixonian right now. ...Not sure if that's a word or not but there it is.

enemies?

[darkwhite (139802)]

Countries which censor or curtail Internet usage (with the obvious exception of China, with its staggering size and mobility) are hardly "enemies" of the Internet - they can't attack it and expect any degree of success. Instead they're foolishly short-sighted, unable to comprehend the massive technological disadvantage any such action entails in the long run. The problem is, this usually correlates with general incompetence, which means many of these countries will become (or already are) failed states which require outside assistance.

Re:

[honkycat (249849)]

A great many of the small countries on the list have detained citizens for expressing themselves freely online. Even if the country is small, that is another part of the world where people are not free to share ideas. That is the basic freedom that made the Internet what it is.

Individually, it would be difficult for these nations to have an impact on the Internet as a whole. However, it sure puts a damper on it for its own citizens. Many of these people are not free to leave their country to find an unf

Article Text

[loimprevisto (910035)]

Already slashdotted, here's the mirrordot link (http://www.mirrordot.com/stories/037ac2605c402c45 d6ddcfb790b9ead6/index.html [mirrordot.com])

The list of 13 Internet enemies

Three countries - Nepal, Maldives and Libya - have been removed from the annual list of Internet enemies, which Reporters Without Borders publishes today. But many bloggers were harassed and imprisoned this year in Egypt, so it has been added to the roll of shame reserved for countries that systematically violate online free expression.

Countries in alphabetical order :

- Belarus

The government has a monopoly of telecommunications and does not hesitate to block access to opposition websites if it feels the need, especially at election time. Independent online publications are also often hacked. In March 2006, for example, several websites critical of President Alexandre Lukashenko mysteriously disappeared from the Internet for several days.

Burma

The Burmese governments Internet policies are even more repressive than those of its Chinese and Vietnamese neighbours. The military junta clearly filters opposition websites. It keeps a very close eye on Internet cafes, in which the computers automatically execute screen captures every five minutes, in order to monitor user activity. The authorities targeted Internet telephony and chat services in June, blocking Googles Gtalk, for example. The aim was two-fold: to defend the profitable long-distance telecommunications market, which is controlled by state companies, as well as to stop cyber-dissidents from using a means of communication that is hard to monitor.

China

China unquestionably continues to be the worlds most advanced country in Internet filtering. The authorities carefully monitor technological progress to ensure that no new window of free expression opens up, After initially targeting websites and chat forums, they nowadays concentrate on blogs and video exchange sites. China now has nearly 17 million bloggers. This is an enormous number, but very few of them dare to tackle sensitive issues, still less criticise government policy. Firstly, because Chinas blog tools all include filters that block subversive word strings. Secondly, because the companies operating these services, both Chinese and foreign, are pressured by the authorities to control content. They employ armies of moderators to clean up the content produced by the bloggers. Finally, in a country in which 52 people are currently in prison for expressing themselves too freely online, self-censorship is obviously in full force. Just five years ago, many people thought Chinese society and politics would be revolutionised by the Internet, a supposedly uncontrollable medium. Now, with China enjoying increasing geopolitical influence, people are wondering the opposite, whether perhaps Chinas Internet model, based on censorship and surveillance, may one day be imposed on the rest of the world.

Cuba

With less than 2 per cent of its population online, Cuba is one of the most backward Internet countries. An investigation carried out by Reporters Without Borders in October revealed that the Cuban government uses several levers to ensure that this medium is not used in a counter-revolutionary way. Firstly, it has more or less banned private Internet connections. To surf the Internet or check their e-mail, Cubans have to go to public access points such as Internet cafes, universities and youth computer clubs where their activity is more easily monitored. Secondly, the computers in all the Internet cafes and leading hotels contain software installed by the Cuban police that triggers an alert message whenever subversive key-words are spotted. The regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for dissidents and independent journalists, for whom communicating with people abroad is an ordeal. Fina

The 13 REAL enemies of the Internet

[krell (896769)]

1. Microsoft Internet Explorer 7
2. The MPAA
3. The RIAA
4. Flash
5. Javascript
6. Pointless registration screens [nytimes.com].
7. Content blocked for certain regions.
8. Spammers
9. Phishers
10. Senator Orrin Hatch
11. Nigeria (I mean, come on, how many millionaire spam scams emails have you ever gotten from Belarus or Burma?)
12. Senator Ted. "Tubey" Stevens
13. Bears (Not sure on this one, but Colbert insisted it belonged here)

Re:The 13 REAL enemies of the Internet

[karlfr (897006)]

You forgot "backhoes".

Enemys or censors?

[kinglink (195330)]

An enemy means you oppose the device. Reading this list I don't see many that are "we will destroy the internet" (though I'm sure that's they don't love it) This appears more to be enemy of free speech or radical thinking, which winds up with censorship of the internet.

Re:What about the Vatican?

[by Anonymous Coward]

It's right next to the condom machine.

Re:

[Fozzyuw (950608)]

I spent a day there earlier this year, and could not find a single cybercafe in the place.

They don't need the internet to look at pr0n they have... [ERROR: USER HAS BEEN SMITTED]

Re:

[krell (896769)]

"I went to Antarctica for vacation. I couldn't find a single cybercafe there either. They should be on the list too."

Not surprising, really. The tubes are all frozen solid.

Re:Enemies

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

They're probably calling it Burma [wikipedia.org] in protest of the military government there, one of whose changes was the name. It's not uncommon. For example, this [mises.org] non-crank author does it.

And I seriously doubt "human rights groups" put "profiteering" on the same level as e.g. torture and racism. Where are the human rights protests over Microsoft?

Also, do we call Germany "Deutschland" in English?

[HighOrbit (631451)]

I would like to apologize to all the Germans for calling their country Germany (Deutschland). I would like to also appologize to the citizens of Japan (Nihon), Vienna (Vien), Cologne (Koln), Rome (Roma), Bombay (Mumbai), Lisbon (Lisboa), Warsaw (Warszawa), and Leghorn (Livorno). I would also like to apologize to the Dutch (Nederlanders). Please accept my apology on behalf of all English speaking peoples everywhere for using perfectly proper english names for your countries, people, languages, and cities when speaking English. I shall henceforth brush up on my Japanese, Hindi, German, and Polish, and every other languange in the world so I can refere to you in your native language, even when speaking my own.

Re:But I thought?

[RsG (809189)]

I've not yet seen anyone argue that the US is currently worse than China. I've seen the occasional moral relativist argue that it isn't possible to judge the Chinese government, but that isn't the same position to take, and in any case few people these days take moral relativism very seriously.

What I have seen argued is that the US is slipping. What gives most Americans the high ground when comparing the US government to the PRC's? The fact that the latter espouses censorship, torture, invasion of privacy, strongarm military policies, and general human rights and due process violations. Americans are protected by the constitution and a multitude of checks and balances. Erosion of those protections is the concern.

If the US loses that high ground, you've got a problem. Do you really want your country to only be no worse than China? It would be one thing if that meant that the Chinese government had decided to treat its citizens better, but it's quite another if the US drops down to their current level of rights.

America isn't there yet, not by a long shot, and the constant cries of "OMG, Orwell" do grow a little tiresome, but the underlying concern is completely valid. It is easier to protect your rights in the here and now than it is to try and fight for them once they're gone.

Re:

[HighOrbit (631451)]

And why would the USA be on the list and not Germany or France? Germany outright bans certain speech and political thought (i.e. Nazism). France bans both Nazism and denial of the Armenian genocide. Such bans are unconstitutional in the USA.

Neither the USA, France, or Germany deserve to be on this list, because their restrictions, such as they are, are rather mild. I think your anti-Americanism has gotten the better of you, or you're trolling.

And as far "pariah" being a tautology for "military", that sp

The truth gets you marked as troll

[Quila (201335)]

Nice troll moderation, except when you think that all of those countries listed here are in the UN, and some of them have a lot of power and a history of getting on commissions where the don't belong. China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia (all on this list) are currently sitting on the UN Human Rights Council despite rules meant to keep countries with a policy of human rights abuses from being members. You can bet that China and one or more of the others will be on any Internet Governance Council in the fut