Enemies of the Internet

March 23rd, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

has released its annual Enemies of the Internet report. The enemies they list, and why are:

  • Saudi Arabia: prime centre of content blocking
  • Bahrain: No spring
  • United Arab Emirates: Tracking “cyber-criminals”
  • USA: NSA symbolises intelligence services’ abuses
  • Cuba: Long live (but not for the Internet)!
  • Syria: online tracking is a family affair
  • Iran: Cyberspace ayatollahs
  • Russia: control from the top down
  • Arms trade fairs: Surveillance dealerships
  • United Kingdom: World champion of surveillance
  • Belarus: Apparatus of repression
  • Uzbekistan: Welcome to digital tyranny
  • Pakistan: Upgraded censorship
  • India: Big Brother up and running
  • Vietnam: Targeting bloggers
  • China: Electronic Great Wall getting taller
  • Turkmenistan: News black hole
  • North Korea: the Web as a pawn in the power game
  • Sudan: Scoring high in censorship
  • Ethiopia: full online powers

How sad the US and UK make the list due to their over-reach of surveillance. Surveillance should be targeted as suspects with probable cause, not the entire population.

Tags: , ,

58 Responses to “Enemies of the Internet”

  1. Manolo (13,745 comments) says:

    Strange mix and motley array indeed!
    The US and UK among tinpot and barbaric countries, some of them followers of the religion of peace.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Why isn’t the RIAA in the list?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    The Auckland City Libraries should be on this list.

    Their ancient XP system is a diasaster and nightmare. Constantly snapping like it’s run by rubber bands cause the buses are so slow.

    On top of that micrrosoft windows are going to stop supporting XP so if the library doesn’t upgrade while the rest of the country is enjoying Windows 7 I dread to think which 20th century technology the library is going to adapt to!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    And the kb award for stupid comment of the day goes to……

    Ugly Truth!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mjw (396 comments) says:

    We tend to take our freedom for granted. Seeing the US and UK on this list is a reminder of how easily it can all be lost. When Orwell wrote 1984 he was really referring to 1948, but thought people would be too shocked to consider that. But it is the same situation now – the requirement of warfare leads to the loss of liberty. Some sections find this loss of liberty so seductive, they start to think it is a better way to do things.

    We need more Orwells and Hayeks to stop the slide to serfdom.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The stupidity is all yours, ShawnLH. The RIAA promotes the fiction that copying is theft, which provides a political motive for the monitoring of internet traffic to pursue “copyright infringement”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Fletch (6,365 comments) says:

    And this is during the same week that the Whitehouse released a statement saying that they’re giving away the keys to the internet, so to speak – paving the way for sites to be censored, not just locally in countries like China and Russia, but worldwide.

    The decision was announced nonchalantly, in trademark Washington fashion on a Friday afternoon: The U.S. government will cede its last bit of control over the Internet. 

    The government has maintained that influence through contracts with the organization that administers the Internet, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. But a Commerce Department agency announced Friday that it would relinquish control over ICANN, presumably when its contract expires in September 2015. The office said it wants the group to next convene “global stakeholders” to come up with a transition plan — a transition to what remains unknown. 

    But that sudden and highly controversial decision was years in the making, and it arguably dates back close to two decades. Further, despite the Internet being hatched in the U.S., the move to transfer control to the “global” community has accelerated in recent years — under heavy pressure from foreign governments.

    It came as little surprise, then, that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday praised the U.S. Commerce Department’s decision.

    “The Secretary-General takes note of this important development,” a statement from Ban’s office said, calling for all stakeholders to pursue a “single, open, free, secure and trustworthy Internet.”

    But whether that goal can be achieved is the big question. The decision Friday by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has raised concerns that, in the void left by America’s transfer of oversight, other nations that don’t share the United States’ commitment to free speech and expression could make a grab at Internet influence.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/18/us-transfer-internet-control-years-in-making-fueled-by-foreign-pressure/

    Note: the statements that the Whitehouse wants to escape most notice, they release on a Friday night.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “The RIAA promotes the fiction that copying is theft”

    It is theft. Objectively so. My art/creation is my property. Copying that which I alone have the right to sell is theft.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. stephieboy (3,013 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, your problem is that you think life’s a free lunch.!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    The UK is *shocking* with their monitoring. Absolutely diabolical.

    Put a post that criticises Islam on a forum or blog there (even if the post is 100% true and can be shown to be so) and it’s very likely that the “boys in blue” will be on your doorstep in no time.
    People have been nabbed there for such posts on Twitter and Facebook.
    Free speech has been dead there for decades.

    @mjw – “We tend to take our freedom for granted. Seeing the US and UK on this list is a reminder of how easily it can all be lost.”
    Agreed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The RIAA claimed that rogue websites often come up in search engine results and the government and the content industry needs stronger laws to stop Internet users from seeing such websites. SOPA would have empowered law enforcement to block access to Internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single site or even blog post.
    http://www.dailypaul.com/310130/riaa-attacks-google-and-radio-stations

    The Recording Industry Association of America on Monday demanded a federal judge order Harvard University’s Charles Nesson to remove from the internet “unauthorized and illegal recordings” of pretrial hearings and depositions in a file-sharing lawsuit headed to trial.
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/nesson/

    SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free. (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a7)

    Cat got your tongue, ShawnLH?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, your problem is that you think life’s a free lunch.!

    stephieboy, your problem that what you post often only serves to illustrate your stupidity. Life is not a free lunch.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephieboy (3,013 comments) says:

    Fletch, again you post Fox News anti Obama Propoganda and falsehoods,

    Fox News falsely claims Obama is giving the internet away,

    http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/15/fox-news-falsely-claims-obama-is-giving-the-int/198502

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “The RIAA promotes the fiction that copying is theft”

    It is theft.

    Digitial audio data (the data from CD’s, MP3’s etc) is not property because it does not have quality of exclusive possession.

    Theft: A popular name for larceny. The taking of property without the owner’s consent.

    Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one … The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying,
    and disposing of a thing.

    Source: Black’s 5th.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    UT, your post did not even deal with the issue you raised, which is that copying is theft.

    Prove that claim. You can’t by the way. But keep up the bluff if you feel a need to cover your butt over such a monumentally dumb statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Digitial audio data (the data from CD’s, MP3′s etc) is not property because it does not have quality of exclusive possession.”

    Utter rubbish. On what basis does someone’s art cease to be theirs merely because it is in digital form?

    “Theft: A popular name for larceny. The taking of property without the owner’s consent.”

    Copying a movie or album that I created without my consent is therefore theft.

    “Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one … The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying,
    and disposing of a thing.”

    Which includes my creations, even in digital form.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Utter rubbish. On what basis does someone’s art cease to be theirs merely because it is in digital form?

    It ceases to be their property when it ceases to be property.

    “Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one … The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying,
    and disposing of a thing.”

    Which includes my creations, even in digital form.

    Yes, up to such time as you no longer have exclusive possession of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “Strange mix and motley array indeed!”

    Not really Manolo.

    Its where the “progressives” are taking western civilisation

    Not progressive at all, they’re taking us back to our worst times in history.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. lazza (381 comments) says:

    Oh Dear How Sad Too bad Wussell … NooZild does not make the list.

    So go now and make another conspiracy somewhere else … This time try one built with Wood?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “It ceases to be their property when it ceases to be property.”

    Property is always property. It does not cease being so. My personal property is my property until I choose to sell it. Being in digital form does not change this.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. stephieboy (3,013 comments) says:

    property ( other person’s effort and hard work) of which UT thinks along with the motley and bludger Kim.Com that he’s free to dine out on at no cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    The RIAA IS an enemy of the internet.

    In protecting their “turf” they are taking steps to clog up the free flow of information and ideas.

    Imagine having a central authority decide whether your post is acceptable before you are able to post it here? Or a video on YouTube? That might sound far-fetched, but it is the sort of thing RIAA would love to have enacted.

    If you don’t see that the RIAA is the enemy of the internet then you don’t really understand what the internet is or you lack them necessary imagination to foresee how dangerous an obsolete “old world” organisation can be to the new world.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    UT,

    “Yes, up to such time as you no longer have exclusive possession of them.”

    So if all your neighbors gang up and rob your house, then what they stole ceases being yours once other’s claim it as theirs?

    That’s an appalling and nonsensical understanding of property rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Being in digital form does not change this.

    You draw a square on a piece of paper. Someone steals that paper. That is theft.

    Someone else draws the exact same square on a different piece of paper. And you think that they are stealing from you. Crazy.

    If someone else types out the 1’s and 0’s to recreate a piece of code, whose hard work ought to be protected?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. stephieboy (3,013 comments) says:

    No kimble, all that needs to be understood is the real threat is to people’s livelihoods ( musicians , actors artist etc) are those like you who think that you can have access to al their efforts for free.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    So if all your neighbors gang up and rob your house, then what they stole ceases being yours once other’s claim it as theirs?

    This just demonstrates that you don’t understand what he is saying.

    UglyTruth, don’t respond. Give him a chance to have another go at comprehending the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “You draw a square on a piece of paper. Someone steals that paper. That is theft.

    Someone else draws the exact same square on a different piece of paper. And you think that they are stealing from you. Crazy.”

    First, that would be theft. If I copy by hand any currently selling book, then try to sell it as my own, that is theft.

    Second, copying is not the same as drawing another circle. It is the SAME circle. Still theft.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Michael (909 comments) says:

    If you make it so I cannot protect my intellectual property to make money from it, then why should I make any new intellectual property.

    Although some would argue that Hollywood has not had an original idea since 1930…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    stephieboy, you are assuming that the impact of the RIAA’s actions are restricted to pirates and the like.

    It isn’t.

    That’s why they are the enemy of the internet.

    If you listen to podcasts your might hear the creators of that content complain about constant takedowns from YouTube thanks to incorrect, bullying, non-sensical DMCA’s.

    If given the chance, their efforts in protecting their ‘turf’ will destroy the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    First, that would be theft. If I copy by hand any currently selling book, then try to sell it as my own, that is theft.

    And what if you don’t sell it?

    What if you give it to your son?

    What if you use it as your main copy, and keep the original somewhere safe?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “If you make it so I cannot protect my intellectual property to make money from it, then why should I make any new intellectual property.”

    Exactly. Fastest way to destroy free expression, new art and creations, and real free trade is to destroy property rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “And what if you don’t sell it?

    What if you give it to your son?”

    Still theft. You have failed to pay for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Property is always property. It does not cease being so.

    It can cease to be property by being disposed of. For example, if I buy bottle of water then the water is my property. If I then pour the water into the sea then I have disposed of it, and it is not the property of any man.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    If you make it so I cannot protect my intellectual property to make money from it, then why should I make any new intellectual property.

    If in protecting your “property” you make it so onerous on anyone else trying to make their own “property” to avoid infringing on your protections, then I say damn your protections.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    To those clearly confused.

    Not paying for someone else’s creation/property is STEALING.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Still theft. You have failed to pay for it.

    You bought the original.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “If in protecting your “property” you make it so onerous on anyone else trying to make their own “property””

    This should read ‘If in protecting your “property” you make it so onerous on anyone else trying to steal that property then I say damn your protections.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Not paying for someone else’s creation/property is STEALING.

    How much did you pay for Michelangelo’s David?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “You bought the original.”

    Downloading movies and music without paying is not buying the original.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    This should read ‘If in protecting your “property” you make it so onerous on anyone else trying to steal that property then I say damn your protections.”

    No. It should read exactly as I fucking wrote it, you stupid cunt.

    You aren’t intelligent enough to put words in your fucking mouth, so never presume to do so with mine. Shithead.

    Downloading movies and music without paying is not buying the original.

    No shit, dickhead. But you did buy the original in the example I presented.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “How much did you pay for Michelangelo’s David?”

    It’s not sitting in my home.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    It’s not sitting in my home.

    But you made a copy of the image. How much did you pay the creator?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If I copy by hand any currently selling book, then try to sell it as my own, that is theft.

    No, that would be plagiarism. Also, you are changing the argument by introducing the idea of selling somebody else’s creative work, which is definitely not fair use of that work.

    Theft is another name for larceny.

    Larceny Ilarsaniy I. Felonious stealing, taking and carrying, leading, riding, or driving away another’s personal property, with intent to convert it or to deprive owner thereof. The unlawful taking and carrying away of property of another with intent to appropriate it to use inconsistent with latter’s rights. (Black’s 5th)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Not paying for someone else’s creation/property is STEALING.

    No, you’re just making up your definiton of the word, ShawnLH. Creations can be alienated from their creator.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Akaroa (557 comments) says:

    OK! I give up!

    What or who is the RIAA?

    (I’ve lived a sheltered life!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What or who is the RIAA?

    http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/RIAA

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. stephieboy (3,013 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, this is the kind of bile ,hate and unreason your link disseminates,

    http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jews

    and here too,

    http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Negroes

    Sums up your arguments and very limited reasoning powers extremely well.!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “Creations can be alienated from their creator.”

    Yes. It’s called STEALING.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    We didn’t make it. err cause we really don’t know how big the big brother really is.

    Of course we are attached to the USA & UK so its a good guess that we are caught in their net.

    Google announced on Thursday ( I posted the link.) that from that day onwards the Gmail would be encrypted. Followed by Microsoft and Yahoo with everyone else to follow.

    yeh

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    stephieboy

    About Uncyclodedia:
    Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter lies. You might say it puts the “psych!” in “encyclopedia”. It’s sort of like Congress or Parliament, but unlike Congress or Parliament, we do have a sense of humor. Nonetheless, this is one of the only factual pages, before everything turns into a puddle of utter confusion and disarray. Savor it. And for the love of Sophia, we know you like disarray, (and confusion) but stop adding confusion to this non-confusing page which leads to confusion, and possibly disarray. Which we wish to stop. Non-non-confusion, that is. Not disarray. Or is it the other way around?

    Sums up your arguments and very limited reasoning powers extremely well.!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. stephieboy (3,013 comments) says:

    It strikes me as very sad when someone like Bic Runga was forced to take on full time work due to the fact that many people ,much like your self and UT, felt justified pirating her music tracks and “dining out “on them for free .
    Contemptible in my view.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    Contemptible in my view.

    What’s contemptible in my view is when people who don’t know how to think hallucinate by putting interpretations on what other people have said THAT HAVE NO RELATION TO WHAT WAS IN FACT SAID.

    Since you (allege) you love facts and references stephie, show us all where either UT or Kimble have said above that this is what they have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Turkish twitter users have ignored the ban imposed by Erdogan.

    The number of active Twitter users, as well as tweeted messages, has soared since the Turkish government blocked access to the popular social media platform, new statistics have shown.

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/twitter-usage-soars-in-turkey-let-alone-succumbing-to-the-ban.aspx?pageID=238&nID=63952&NewsCatID=338

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    the fact that many people ,much like your self and UT, felt justified pirating her music tracks

    The point that I’ve been trying to make is that fair use doesn’t result in any loss to the artist. I’m not condoning any form of piracy which results in such a loss, for example selling bootleg copies of their work.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Blocked.

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-widens-internet-censorship.aspx?pageID=238&nID=63954&NewsCatID=338

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. lolitasbrother (685 comments) says:

    Internet censorship is locking the door when the mad horse escaped.
    UK is in there because of the slack immigration programme decades ago which introduced terrorists cells. Now they have to work with what is going on.
    PM Abbot in Australia is coming under fire from the bleeding hearts for turning away t boat people who may hate Western. This is how Abbot got to be PM, and congratulations to his advert campaign in the Indian ocean.
    knock knock on the door.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fletch (6,365 comments) says:

    For those interested, there is an app for iPhone called Open Door, which allows one to bypass censorship and browse with anonymity. It was big in China until it was removed from their app store.

    Hong Kong (CNN) — Apple has been accused of kowtowing to the Chinese government by pulling from its China App Store a product enabling users to circumvent firewalls and access restricted sites.
    OpenDoor, a free app that provides users a randomized IP address to keep their browsing habits anonymous and shielded from censors, was removed after the tech giant deemed it contained “illegal content,” the app’s lead developer told CNN.
    It remains available in App Stores outside China.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/04/tech/opendoor-app-apple-china/

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opendoor/id543808008?mt=8

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    You forgot to mention
    New Zealand

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote