Internet censorship, privacy, and anonymity

[John.d.h]

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/online-anonymity-debate-south-korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship

While internet censorship and anti-privacy laws aren't anything new to dictatorships like China and North Korea, lately even some of the freer nations around the world have begun to jump on the bandwagon.  What do you think?  Do web users need to be tracked and monitored so they don't do bad things, or is it really none of the government's business?  Discuss.


Source

[-Archmage-]

What I am about to post is for mature people, if you aren't mature and you read this.....well that's your problem. 

Everybody knows that guys like to look at sexy pictures on the web. The internet practically came about for that purpose, a very easy way to trade and look at erotic material, that's why guys used the internet more than women when it first came out. My point being that the internet is or rather was a private way to trade and look at erotic material.

Obviously the censoring would focus more on illegal stuff and all that crap. But if the government can see what you're doing online, then they can practically control your life.
I'm all for privacy. The internet is a great way to let out your...........more immoral urges, but to have someone censor you, and know that you're doing that, that's scary.

A lot of people just don't have the money to spare for games and stuff, so they do torrent downloads. The US especially has a lot of gamers, and with our economy soaring like a dropping stone, there may be a lot more illegal downloads. Us Americans have a right to free speech written in the constitution, so it'd be very wrong for the government to censor the internet here.

To sum it all up: PRIVACY! Don't ruin the internet for everyone! The government should continue the way they have been, attacking websites that support illegal downloads.

[Omega]

Well... I am of mixed opinions. I do think that people who try to upload, say, child pornography SHOULD be tracked down and get their ass thrown in jail, but on the other hand, I don't think the government should interfere with our internet. While they should trace down such, they should NOT mess with me beloved torrents and programs of... er... questionable legality... But, here's the facts (those who just want the jokes should read the letters of the pirate bay), illegal downloads and pirated software, contractory to what hollywood says, does not make a sizable dent to their income. They are still massively overpaid, and no known movie to date has failed based only upon piracy (movies that fail do so because they are terrible). Same applies to games, programs, etc; If someone likes your product, they will buy it. It's like a library. I buy some of my favorite books, such as Eragon or Terry Brook's books, simply because I like them, wish to support the author, and want to be able to read and re-read them at my leisure. However, books I'm not sure about or just casually read once, I would simply take out from a library, borrow from a friend, etc;

As for pornography as arch is trying to put it, as long as it's legal, I have nothing against it. The government has no right to be interfering with what we do on our internet.

[Gabbe]

When they start censoring porn...then "lets start a riot!!!".. I heard EU is going to cancel one of these programs that track suspect illegals or something, i haven`t really read much about it though..I think people still should be tracked on Facebook though, were i see a lot of things going on...one thing, the police doesn`t stop the ones downloading the torrent, they stop the people making them (skidrow/razor etc.) atleast the police got me once and asked were i had downloaded the torrent, then i was free to go..poor piratebay..mhm, people should stop pirating on games though...they are really cheap and the pc gaming is dying...because of the stupid torrenting..governemnt should stay doing their own buissins as they got loads of other problems to handle instead of making the population angry...

[wyvern]

I think that pirated movies and books are fine, since, I don't want to pay for some of them and its just not in the library/video rental place at the time or I don't think its good enough to pay for, I don't do this myself but I understand why people do it, as Gabbe pointed out  though, pc gaming is suffering badly because of illegal downloading, for this argument I think I'll not comment much

[John.d.h]

Personally, I'm strongly against piracy.  It's stealing, plain and simple.  You can use whatever justification you like, but when it comes down to it, it's taking something from the providers that they spent money and effort to produce, without rewarding them for the products and efforts.  You might think it's not stealing because you're just taking a copy of something, rather than the original, and to that my answer is "opportunity cost".  If ten people shoplift a $10 album, then $100 in profit go missing.  If ten people pirate a $10 album, then $100 in profit go missing.  It's the same effect either way.  If I go to the record store and shoplift an album, it's the same effect as if I went on Limewire and pirated it: I'm getting something I didn't pay for, and it's coming at the expense of 1.) the retailer, 2.) the label, and 3.) the artist.  Why would you want to steal from the people who provide you with entertainment?  Ever head of the phrase "biting the hand that feeds you"?  To answer the arguments of "if I like it, I'll buy it", that's like saying "I'm only stealing stuff I don't like!"  Also, take some time to research the Categorical Imperative.

Now, back to the anonymity thing.  Personally, I don't think I particularly have anything to hide.  With that said, I still don't like the idea of the government looking over my shoulder all the time.  I don't even like when my roommates do it, let alone Big Brother.  I don't want the government or my ISP to track where I go and what I do.  That's one of the reasons I don't use a proprietary browser like Google Chrome.  They could very well embed whatever spyware they wanted in there and have no obligation to tell anyone.  I don't think they do, but I'm not going to chance it, especially when the very nature of the company is gathering information.  I don't have any terrible online crimes that I need to hide, but at the same time, anonymity is necessary for freedom of expression.  When people might track you down, you have to filter what you say.  You can't say what you really want.  That's why WikiLeaks moved to a Tor hidden service.  They let out lots of sensitive information about corrupt organizations that have an interest in tracking them down and exacting revenge.  In case you missed the implication there, I'm saying the "Church" of $cientology murders people.  When you have the government monitoring what you do, it's mostly just going to end up hurting the law-abiding citizens, as the criminals will always find a way to circumvent the protocols, in much the same way as Freenet and Tor allow people to get around IP tracking.  If the government enacts some kind of South-Korea-esque "real name" policy, somebody will just come up with a way to foil that, and I could be posting as Amadeus Franklin in Birmingham.

[Gabbe]

Personally, I'm strongly against piracy.  It's stealing, plain and simple.  You can use whatever justification you like, but when it comes down to it, it's taking something from the providers that they spent money and effort to produce, without rewarding them for the products and efforts.  You might think it's not stealing because you're just taking a copy of something, rather than the original, and to that my answer is "opportunity cost".  If ten people shoplift a $10 album, then $100 in profit go missing.  If ten people pirate a $10 album, then $100 in profit go missing.  It's the same effect either way.  If I go to the record store and shoplift an album, it's the same effect as if I went on Limewire and pirated it: I'm getting something I didn't pay for, and it's coming at the expense of 1.) the retailer, 2.) the label, and 3.) the artist.  Why would you want to steal from the people who provide you with entertainment?  Ever head of the phrase "biting the hand that feeds you"?  To answer the arguments of "if I like it, I'll buy it", that's like saying "I'm only stealing stuff I don't like!"  Also, take some time to research the Categorical Imperative.

I know, I download demo/beta before purchasing anything, its sad that some games don`t or they don`t sell it in Norway for some odd reason and then.....well...

[Omega]

While john is right and I am such a hypocrite because I loath stealing, but er.... am less oppressive to piracy, I still have always gone by what I said.

Why PC gaming is failing: Because many people, me included, prefer to game on consoles such as the 360 or PS3, which are meant for games, not limited by bad system stats (games always work well because they are made for one set standard, instead of hundreds of different types of computers of varying degrees of power). Besides, my laptop is only 17", while I could get a TV without those limits (though I am on a 5 year old 20" CRT which cost me $100 when it came out, though we do have a 42" LCD downstairs).

However, a good game will do well. Take the game oblivion. It is massively popular and has a few major advantages on the computer, such as the ability to install player created mods (the best mod I've ever seen is this one that scales all quest items to your level as you level up. In oblivion, all items are scaled to your level only when you recieve it. So if you do a quest at level 2, you get a crappy item, and are stuck with it for the rest of the game. If you do it at level 25, you may have one of the best items in the game. The mod simply scales the item when you level up so if you got that item at level 2 and eventually leveled up to 25, it turns into the more powerful versions, so you aren't penaltized for doing a quest too early).  As well, the PC version of oblivion lets you use the console, which could be used to cheat, try beta stuff never implimented in the game (such as visit the testing hall), or fix bugs (such as if you get stuck (once happened to me in a plane of oblivion, the character got stuck in a crevice and couldn't move or jump), you can use the console to place the character just outside the crevice. The console also adds fun to replays with obvious cheats such as 'tgm', which puts on god mode, which makes you completely invincible (go out and kill all the stuff you want until you get bored). Oblivion is such a good game that it never failed on the PC. If only all other games were made as well, then more people would buy them (if one likes a game, (s)he will buy the game).

[modman]

I don't want to address the question directly tonight (this morning actually), but I would like to submit an idea.  I get the general feeling that the Internet has been a sort of "wild west" were there are few real consequences for anything.  I can make a metaphor here.  When the US had territories (like Utah), the territories could make their own laws (I think) as long as they didn't want to be a part of the US.  Websites also make their own rules.  Admins decide whether their site has free speech, and will suffer the natural consequences for it (depending on how many people have a problem with it).  But I think that the "wild west" era will come to an end in the future, and I think that it will be Youtube getting almost all video traffic, and Google getting almost all search traffic.  We can see this has already started to happen.  It is almost impossible for a startup to make a popular search engine, for example, because Google has such a head start in this software arms race.

So I think we will see a progression away from the decentralized internet towards a more centralized internet.  This would make it child's play for a government to interfere/track people if it wanted to.

No matter what I write (somewhat within reason) on this site, there will be few repercussions for me in the real world; the worst you could do is ban me.  But what I am suggesting is that in the future, governments may make actual punishments for saying the wrong thing.

[Gabbe]

Why PC gaming is failing: Because many people, me included, prefer to game on consoles such as the 360 or PS3, which are meant for games, not limited by bad system stats (games always work well because they are made for one set standard, instead of hundreds of different types of computers of varying degrees of power). Besides, my laptop is only 17", while I could get a TV without those limits (though I am on a 5 year old 20" CRT which cost me $100 when it came out, though we do have a 42" LCD downstairs).

I build a gaming PC for the same prize of the console, then you speak XD...lets take that debater somewere else...

I don't want to address the question directly tonight (this morning actually), but I would like to submit an idea.  I get the general feeling that the Internet has been a sort of "wild west" were there are few real consequences for anything.  I can make a metaphor here.  When the US had territories (like Utah), the territories could make their own laws (I think) as long as they didn't want to be a part of the US.  Websites also make their own rules.  Admins decide whether their site has free speech, and will suffer the natural consequences for it (depending on how many people have a problem with it).  But I think that the "wild west" era will come to an end in the future, and I think that it will be Youtube getting almost all video traffic, and Google getting almost all search traffic.  We can see this has already started to happen.  It is almost impossible for a startup to make a popular search engine, for example, because Google has such a head start in this software arms race.

So I think we will see a progression away from the decentralized internet towards a more centralized internet.  This would make it child's play for a government to interfere/track people if it wanted to.

No matter what I write (somewhat within reason) on this site, there will be few repercussions for me in the real world; the worst you could do is ban me.  But what I am suggesting is that in the future, governments may make actual punishments for saying the wrong thing.

you are right actually, i use 50 % time on YOUTUBE and around 25 % on google...and 25 % on glest...ofc i probably use 50 % on glest too but since i can do several things at once...interesting...veyr interesting...

[Loronal]

Obviously the censoring would focus more on illegal stuff and all that crap. But if the government can see what you're doing online, then they can practically control your life.
I'm all for privacy. The internet is a great way to let out your...........more immoral urges, but to have someone censor you, and know that you're doing that, that's scary.

A lot of people just don't have the money to spare for games and stuff, so they do torrent downloads. The US especially has a lot of gamers, and with our economy soaring like a dropping stone, there may be a lot more illegal downloads. Us Americans have a right to free speech written in the constitution, so it'd be very wrong for the government to censor the internet here.

To sum it all up: PRIVACY! Don't ruin the internet for everyone! The government should continue the way they have been, attacking websites that support illegal downloads.

Totally right but unfortunately w=they already kind of do it. A lot of stuff you post on the internet is carried on quoted and linked forming from a single string a massive web. Then one day you can go into the place that says help needed, the manager googles your name and their you are blowing up childrens toys in the kids face or rolling a port a potty down the hill. Well the manager says screw you and your job goes poof.

P.S I always fake my name to jango fett, Micheal Jackson, or Bob Marley

[ultifd]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/02/privacy
Hmm... 

[Gabbe]

I foound a very good video, you should really see it cause it is about our generation. the C-gen