

EFF: Say No to Online Censorship - jdp23
https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship

======
kiba
If we were to make decision as voters, don't you think we should have some
reliable idea about what the government is doing?

What if the current administration is doing evil something behind the back of
the electorate? How would we know about it?

You see, secrecy is a catch-22 proposition. If you're trying to do actual real
work of tracking down terrorists, you don't want the whole world to know(at
least until years later). But if you're doing something EVIL behind our back,
the world have the right to know.

The cablegate? Hardly any reason to get angry over. It make the government
looks good. But politicians are overreacting.

~~~
Dove
_If you're trying to do actual real work of tracking down terrorists, you
don't want the whole world to know(at least until years later). But if you're
doing something EVIL behind our back, the world have the right to know._

The main safeguard is rule of law. There's a whitelist of information that is
allowed to be classified -- spelled out in
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526> .

    
    
        Information shall not be considered for classification 
        unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be 
        expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to 
        the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of 
        this order, and it pertains to one or more of the 
        following:
    
            (a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
    
            (b) foreign government information;
    
            (c) intelligence activities (including covert 
                action), intelligence sources or methods, or 
                cryptology;
    
            (d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the 
                United States, including confidential sources;
    
            (e) scientific, technological, or economic matters 
                relating to the national security;
    
            (f) United States Government programs for 
                safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
    
            (g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, 
                installations, infrastructures, projects, 
                plans, or protection services relating to the 
                national security; or
    
            (h) the development, production, or use of weapons 
                of mass destruction.
    

You can't simply mark your shady activities "TOP SECRET". Not even the
president has the authority to do that. That's an improper classification, and
is illegal -- anyone who works with classified information should know that,
and could be expected to report it.

Between rule of law, a law that outlines which categories of things the
government is allowed to keep secret, and the fact that even really secret
programs of any significant size have to ultimately be staffed with lots of
normal citizens, I think it's actually a pretty safe and sane system.

~~~
jbooth
I could drive a truck through half of those clauses. Of course you can just
mark your shady activities TOP SECRET. It's national security!

------
yread
Just donated yesterday. You should too

~~~
silentOpen
Thanks! I just did and got a cool t-shirt.

~~~
binaryfinery
I got the hat. Don't know if its cool, but I like it.

------
lbrdn
The issue here is not about censorship on the web (ha!), it's about
confidential relationships and whether, as a society and for the betterment of
it, we feel some information should be confidential and protected.

Would the same arguments be made about censorship if WikiLeaks' instead posted
health records, or confidential conversations between attorneys and their
clients? (which are confidential and legally protected, similar to security
clearances).

The debate should be whether we want to protect communications between our
politicians and diplomats, not the inevitable publication of released
confidential material and the vilification of the one who does it.

This release does show, however, that once this type of information is on the
internet, whether it's medical records, nuclear secrets, or what the Secretary
of State said to some diplomat, no one can stop its availability, as long as
there are people who support its release.

------
jacquesm
I don't see how putting a button or a banner on your site is going to stop
censorship, that seems to be pretty symbolic.

Saying 'no' to online censorship is not equivalent to some cosmetic changes,
it's a fundamental thing to do and in the end of all we do is place some
buttons then I doubt that would put a dent in to the plan of those that would
have it differently.

Contributing directly to the EFF (I believe VISA and Mastercard are still
processing donations to them, possibly even PayPal) would be one way, what
other ways are there in which we could make more than just a symbolic stand
here ?

~~~
xbryanx
Symbolic stands like this are often the first step to the more virtuous
concrete actions you describe.

~~~
TheSOB88
Indeed - it's starting a movement, and supporting the organization becomes
part of your identity.

------
onedognight
wikileaks.eff.org is not resolving for me. It seems inconsistent for the EFF
to talk about standing up to censorship without them hosting a mirror and
encouraging others to do so.

~~~
aw3c2
That's the same void argument some people make when some non-artist is
critising their art: "Well, you make it better then!"

Criticism does not need to be made by someone participating (I can't think of
a better word, hm) to be valid.

~~~
tjr
I think it's an interesting point. If the EFF is claiming that the work of
WikiLeaks is good and valid, then would they encourage someone else to mirror
the leaked documents? Would they mirror they documents themselves? If not,
then why not? I'd be curious to know the reasoning here.

~~~
kgo
From <http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors>:

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1289 sites (updated 2010-12-08 19:07 GMT)

Does the world really need a 1290th mirror site?

~~~
nitrogen
_From<http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors>: _

Should that perhaps read _<http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html> _?

~~~
shadowpwner
No, the original one works fine.

~~~
nitrogen
Strange. The first time I tried I got a 404, and clicking the Mirrors link
from the home page gave me mirrors.html. I wonder if a few of the servers
behind wikileaks.ch don't have the /mirrors alias.

------
oziumjinx
If I have sensitive (and confidential) health records about my family members
and someone steals them and posts them on the web, is that freedom of speech?
Do I have the right to get them taken down, or in this case shut the website
down?

If my company is working on a new product containing details we consider
secret, is it OK to post those on the web?

If the gov't has secrets that could compromise our national security, is that
Ok to post on the web?

How do we determine where to draw the line?

~~~
bad_user
Are the health records for your family members paid out of taxpayer's money?
Do they have a negative impact on the lives of anyone outside your family?

Is your new product paid out of taxpayer's money? Will it do a lot of harm to
people?

The line is quite clear to me.

~~~
oziumjinx
Is the security of our citizen lives paid for by taxpayers money? Yes it is.

I'm not saying I am against the leaks of most of the cables/documents, but
putting national security at risk is a different story

~~~
bad_user

         putting national security at risk is a different story
    

"national security" is a vague concept; and either way security by obscurity
doesn't work for terrorist groups with the right resources.

If "national security" is compromised from the leaks of a couple of documents
to the public, than the nation wasn't so secure in the first place. After all,
if Wikileaks got a hold of those documents, how hard do you think it is for
somebody with a couple of millions in cash and the right connections to do it?

But yeah, we should think of the children.

~~~
oziumjinx
Is there any good that comes out of putting sensitive and classified documents
that are meant to protect our citizens (if kept confidential) on the web?
Let's assume that the strategy or communication didn't mention any illegal
activity or corruption from within our gov't within these documents?

------
billmcneale
A lame attempt by the EFF to get publicity and gain new members.

Instead of selling buttons or memberships, how about offering to host the
documents on eff.org?

Action > words.

~~~
ceejayoz
Thus requiring the EFF to spend all their resources defending themselves
instead of needy others?

