Internet censorship in our manifesto

[Aradiel]

But if you are talking about filtering the Internet because the server is forin and don't respond on your writing or because it was put on P2P than NO, you should let the data where they are.

From what I can see in this thread, no one is suggesting that at all.

[DavidXanatos]

Well, Internet censorship is about preventing access to things that can not be removed.

A full ban on Internet censorship would also mean exactly this that no measures can be legaly taken by the state to prevent access to a resource
other than legaly removing the resource from its source.

You also have to considder that if someone intentionaly puts updata, he will chose a location that will not take it down.


So reasonable censorship should be abolished at all.

[scuzzmonkey]

Hypothetical:

The mission should be aborted.
Aside of the fact that this hypothetical case is highly unlikely.

unlikely?

you've heard of the SAS, and missions like BRAVO-TWO-ZERO, right?

Or maybe deep-cover operations carried out by MI5/6/The Police - all of which cannot be simply "called off" like turning a game off an on.

I'm sorry dude - but you obviously have no idea why most secret military or civilian ops are secret, and seem to genuinely believe that the sole purpose is to cover up war crimes. Matey, I've got news for you - Government is FAR too incompetent to cover-up _anything_ for any length of time.

[DavidXanatos]

@scuzzmonkey
So please tell me how would you suggest the US should protect thair operations and stop the wilikeaks leak?

Of how UK should stop the yesturdays ACS LAW leak that compromises also a lot personal details?

[Aradiel]

@scuzzmonkey
So please tell me how would you suggest the US should protect thair operations and stop the wilikeaks leak?

Those operations were already finished and were of the public interest. Why should the US government stop the wikileaks leak?

[scuzzmonkey]

@scuzzmonkey
So please tell me how would you suggest the US should protect thair operations and stop the wilikeaks leak?

Those operations were already finished and were of the public interest. Why should the US government stop the wikileaks leak?

this.

i have absolutely no issue with "secrets" becoming public after the event - assuming of course that that doesn't again indanger operatives.

for example, you won't want to release the details of a deep cover operative a day after a massive bust, if you are wanting him to continue in his role.

personally i have absolutely no issue with even a 5-10 year silence on some things, if the knowledge of these things would still endanger lives. If for instance the man has been moved to the other side of the country under a new identity (etc) then there probably isn't going to be an issue.

[DavidXanatos]

Yea....

but my question is lets assume said data got out and the government says there are operatives in danger.

What would you do to take the data down?

And please take into account that whom ever spread the data intended for them to remain public, so he used Aside of EU servers like Rapidshare foign servers that does not respond to take down requests and the file is also being spread over P2P.

What technical and/or legal measures would you use to fix the leak?

[AndrewTindall]

information that's distributed should only ever redact details of people who would be at severe risk of serious harm or death as a result of disclosure.

If someone does release someone's details and that person dies as a result, i guess you could maybe go for Gross Negligence Manslaughter. and the threat of GNM looming over people might be enough to make sure people are careful about privacy. Also, not sure if we have it in the UK, but there'd be a case for Reckless Endangerment.

then there's DPA, which should be strengthened.

once data is out you can't really then withdraw it, instead you need to react to it - protect those put at risk if needed, etc.

[PeterBrett]

Yes -- the problem to be solved isn't the availability of data per se, since, as we've seen, removing data from the Internet is notoriously difficult even if the law is entirely on your side. Instead, its much more important to strengthen the laws against leaking data that puts lives or liberty at risk, and track down and punish those who do so.

[DavidXanatos]

Exactly my point!

EDIT: Important that this panilties should only apply to the people whom leaked the data in the first place and maby to server operators whom did not respond to takedown requests explaning teh danger the datas pose. Not to P2P users etc....

Those also any kind of censorship should be abolished!

[scuzzmonkey]

imo it all comes down to the Streisand effect - you can't ever really cover something up, and information is simply that...information - but there are (as AT has said) laws in place that already deal with these things, and just because it's online doesn't - imo - make a difference.

i thought you were talking about Governments releasing information, rather than how they should respond if someone leaks it.

[DavidXanatos]

I'm talking about what goverments, states or orger organisations should be allowed to respond to data on teh web thay dont want them to be there.

And the Censorship should be abolished at all.

[scuzzmonkey]

well you don't treat the symptoms, you go after the under lying cause.

making it ilegal to transmit information moves you very close to having to monitor traffic, and bringing in laws that people ignore and are ineffective reduces people opinion of government and drastically increases disenfranchisement.

basically, if someone leaks info that leads to someone being killed - as AT said - he might be guilty of Gross Negligence Manslaughter - and you prosecute him for that, not for the actual transmission.