http://www.ciol.com/content/developer/2006/106072702.asp
"Internet is pulling ahead of censors"
John Gilmore, co-founder of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a
well-known figure in the cyber world and beyond, speaks about the
issues of Internet and censorship in the wake of the DoT diktat to
ISPs to block certain websites and pages
Thursday, July 27, 2006
It is not the first time that the Internet was gagged, and certainly
not the last. Far too many governments, regimes, authorities, and
others have at one time or the other soiled their hands while
attempting to restrict the free-flow of information in the cyberspace.
It could be under the guise of religious tolerance, pornography,
patriotism, or many such pretexts. Thus, if China blocked websites
that talked about Taiwan or Tibet, or Pakistan blocked blogs
displaying the controversial Danish cartoons, not many eyebrows were
raised.
But when, the Indian government starting giving diktats to ISPs on
which websites and blogs should be blocked, it came as a rude shock.
After all, censorship and democracy hardly go together, and the
world's largest democracy doing something like this was simply not
acceptable. There was a huge uproar. And the battle against the ban
was carried on multiple fronts.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) founded in 1990 is a group that
fights against censorship defending free speech, privacy, innovation,
and consumer rights. With the aid of lawyers, policy analysts,
activists, and technologists, EFF has achieved considerable success
and clout in its battle for freedom.
Shashwat Chaturvedi from CyberMedia News interacted with the
co-founder of EFF and board member, John Gilmore on the various issues
that surround the debate of Internet and censorship. Gilmore describes
himself as an entrepreneur and civil libertarian. He is a technology
veteran and quite an authority on issues related to, well, technology
and liberty as well. Excerpts:
Is it really possible to ban or block any content on the Internet?
If there are dedicated people who wish to publish the information, it
is quite hard to ban or block information. This is true of any kind of
information (as was seen in the erstwhile USSR where typewriters and
copying machines were banned, yet hand-copied smuggled information was
widely distributed). It is even harder on the Internet, because
computers are very good at making copies, and because there are so
many jurisdictions from which those copies can be legally published.
Often, the attempt to ban particular information produces publicity
that causes tens of thousands of people to seek out and/or republish
the very information that was being censored.
Do you think, as a trend, Internet censorship is increasing over the
past few years?
People who wish to control what other people are allowed to read or
think have not given up those wishes. I think that Internet censorship
is increasing, but I think it is increasing less than the growth of
the Internet. Thus, the Internet is pulling ahead of the censors
despite their efforts.
What according to you are the ethical concerns involved? For instance,
is it not "appropriate" to ban child pornography or content that might
stoke religious fervour?
I do not think it is appropriate to ban any information from adults.
The cure for bad information is more information. Teach people why
they should not be religious fanatics; teach them why they should not
molest children. Let us hear the stories and see the pictures of those
people who are the victims of these excesses -- as well as the stories
and pictures of the fanatics and molesters.
A computer or a network cannot make a moral choice; that choice is for
humans, and is best done by educated and informed humans. Hiding these
ugly sides of humanity will not help to cure them. As a US Supreme
Court justice (judge) said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Proponents for censorship often debate that if given a free reign, the
Internet might be totally taken over by subversive and pervert
elements and some form of control is necessary, what are your views?
It is obvious that the vast majority of information on the Internet is
innocent or informative. By definition, "subversive" information is a
minority (if it was the majority belief, it would be the dominant way
of thinking). Perversion is defined only in a context in which some
other, much more popular, action or belief is "normal." A little
thought will evaporate this myth about an explosion of perversion.
The reason that some kinds of information, such as sexual information,
or factual information about illegal drugs, are more prevalent on the
Internet than in other media, is because that information is banned
from appearing in those other media, such as broadcast television, or
censored newspapers. One of the interesting rules of new media is that
every new medium starts with a burst of material that had no available
outlet in the old media. For example, pre-recorded video cassettes'
initial market in the US was for pornography, because porn could not
be seen on broadcast TV or in most movie theatres. Only after that
market was established, did the major movie vendors start selling
ordinary movies on video cassettes. Similarly, "pirated" music became
prevalent on the Internet long before major companies were willing to
release music legally on the Internet.
While we all know that China and Saudi Arabia are in the forefront
when it comes to banning Internet websites. Do you see progressive and
democratic countries indulging in such practices?
Yes, the particular form of government does not seem to determine
whether a country will attempt to control the minds of its citizens;
they all do, to one extent or another. And many so-called democratic
countries, my own especially, have seized on 9/11 as an excuse for
authoritarian excesses.
Are not big Internet companies willing to partner with anti-democratic
governments for the sake of commercial gains, for instance, Yahoo had
helped in the prosecution of a blogger in China, and Google also
agreed to filter its content. In such an atmosphere, can democracy
really flourish on the Internet?
Even Google's founder, Sergey Brin, now thinks that Google may have
made a mistake in agreeing to censor their results in China. Sometimes
the answer is that some people and some countries will have to make
mistakes in order for all of us to learn from those mistakes. I am
heartened that people from all over India and all over the world have
objected to the current round of Indian government censorship.
What do you think will be the scenario in the future? Will Internet
have to submit to the diktats of the authorities like any other medium
like television and print?
Every person is responsible to follow the laws of their own country;
yet we can all work to change those laws. And when those laws are
reprehensible, then passive or active opposition may be required.
Mahatma Gandhi provided many useful lessons in how a populace can
nonviolently free itself from oppressive rules and rulers. And many
technologists have developed ways for citizens to evade information
controls that they think are inappropriate.
How does EFF help in the fight against censorship?
EFF publicizes attempts at censorship, to help rally opposition to
those attempts. It has litigated against several such national laws in
the United States, succeeding each time in overturning the attempted
censorship. It has also litigated against various attempts to hold
people responsible for publishing information that others do not want
to be published (such as DVD copy control information; information
about unreleased Apple products; and more than a dozen cases in which
employers try to identify an anonymous poster who criticizes the
company so that they can fire that person if they are an employee). In
general we have been successful in the courts on these topics.
We could not succeed in this work without the broad support of good
people. Because the Internet community -- and the community of mankind
in general -- is supportive of freedom of information and freedom of
communication, we are not a lone voice when we oppose censorship.
Instead, we are the thin point of a wedge -- a focus of a much broader
social movement.
Are there plans to open an Indian chapter in the near future?
We do not have a plan to open an Indian chapter soon, unfortunately.
However, in the last few years, we have become much more active
internationally, with employees working in England, Canada, and Latin
America. As we learn more about working throughout the world, I am
sure that you will see us in India sometime or other. We hope that
India does not need us any sooner than we can find the funding to
arrive there!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala run by
Global Alternate Information Applications (GAIA)
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
