Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

U.S. tests system to break foreign internet censorshipFollow

#1 Aug 13 2009 at 11:53 PM Rating: Good
*
202 posts
Quote:
BOSTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government is covertly testing technology in China and Iran that lets residents break through screens set up by their governments to limit access to news on the Internet.

The "feed over email" (FOE) system delivers news, podcasts and data via technology that evades web-screening protocols of restrictive regimes, said Ken Berman, head of IT at the U.S. government's Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is testing the system.

The news feeds are sent through email accounts including those operated by Google Inc, Microsoft Corp's Hotmail and Yahoo Inc.

"We have people testing it in China and Iran," said Berman, whose agency runs Voice of America. He provided few details on the new system, which is in the early stages of testing. He said some secrecy was important to avoid detection by the two governments.

The Internet has become a powerful tool for citizens in countries where governments regularly censor news media, enabling them to learn about and react to major social and political events.

Young Iranians used social networking services Facebook and Twitter as well as mobile phones to coordinate protests and report on demonstrations in the wake of the country's disputed presidential election in June.

In May, ahead of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown, the Chinese government blocked access to Twitter and Hotmail.

Sho Ho, who helped develop FOE, said in an email that the system could be tweaked easily to work on most types of mobile phones.

The U.S. government also offers a free service that allows overseas users to access virtually any site on the Internet, including those opposing the United States.

"We don't make any political statement about what people visit," Berman said. "We are trying to impart the value: 'The more you know, the better.' People can look for themselves."

In addition to China and Iran, targets for the FOE technology include Myanmar, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, he said.

Berman, however, said there would be modest filtering of pornography on the system. "There is a limit to how much (U.S.) taxpayers should have to pay for," he said.


Interesting implications.

link: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57C5OQ20090813http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57C5OQ20090813
#2 Aug 14 2009 at 12:04 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
It's not the same if they can't access our high-quality Western ****.
#3 Aug 14 2009 at 12:12 AM Rating: Decent
**
591 posts
I guess they will have to fap to their low quality eastern ****.
#4 Aug 14 2009 at 12:25 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
DarthGekko wrote:
I guess they will have to fap to their low quality eastern ****.

There's nothing low quality about most Eastern girls. And many Indian, Chinese, and Japanese men. Smiley: drool2

This is great service by the USA to the world, in the very best tradition of American sense of freedom of information, expression, political opinion and pursuit of happiness.

Kudos to you!
#5 Aug 14 2009 at 1:23 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
Quote:
Berman, however, said there would be modest filtering of pornography on the system. "There is a limit to how much (U.S.) taxpayers should have to pay for," he said.


So much for FREEDOM Smiley: mad
#6 Aug 14 2009 at 5:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
DarthGekko wrote:
I guess they will have to fap to their low quality eastern ****.

There's nothing low quality about most Eastern girls. And many Indian, Chinese, and Japanese men. Smiley: drool2

This is great service by the USA to the world, in the very best tradition of American sense of freedom of information, expression, political opinion and pursuit of happiness.

Kudos to you!
Do you think it's a service that the government should be providing? I'm all for the technology and all against censorship, but it seems like, for foreign relations purposes, it's a service that would be better off coming from the private sector.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Aug 14 2009 at 6:48 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Do you think it's a service that the government should be providing?


No. We've got no business in our peoples freedom. No sarcasm what so ever in that.

It's not our problem.
#8 Aug 14 2009 at 7:01 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Do you think it's a service that the government should be providing?


No. We've got no business in our peoples freedom. No sarcasm what so ever in that.

It's not our problem.
If the software is available, privately, why can't 'our' citizens simply buy it they need it?

Seriously, this isn't about the freedoms of our citizens. It's, covertly, undermining the censorship program of another country.

We censor stuff too. Should Canada get to decide what words we bleep out or don't in US media?





Edited, Aug 14th 2009 5:03pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 Aug 14 2009 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
I may just be reaching for a tin-foil hat, but when the US government offers free technology for overseas folks to use... I kinda get the feeling that Uncle Sam is watching whatever you browse using said technology. Sure, not censored, but now the government knows to watch what you're doing because you looked up how to make explosives with fertilizer.
#10 Aug 14 2009 at 8:12 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
We censor stuff too. Should Canada get to decide what words we bleep out or don't in US media?


Exhibit A: Terrence and Phillip

LockeColeMA wrote:
I may just be reaching for a tin-foil hat, but when the US government offers free technology for overseas folks to use... I kinda get the feeling that Uncle Sam is watching whatever you browse using said technology. Sure, not censored, but now the government knows to watch what you're doing because you looked up how to make explosives with fertilizer.


Well on the surface, the idea seems pretty mundane, actually. Deliver the news via email instead of over the web. Theoretically, people would still choose what software they use to interpret those feeds. Now, if the program required a special reader program, I could see your point. I think the big technology issue is getting around the internet filters, not how to deliver the content.

Edited, Aug 14th 2009 11:14am by BrownDuck
#11 Aug 14 2009 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
**
291 posts
Quote:
No. We've got no business in our peoples freedom. No sarcasm what so ever in that.

It's not our problem.


The theory is ... increasing the freedom of people in other countries increases security in the U.S. because -- the theory goes -- free peoples generally do not fight each other in wars.

Quote:
Seriously, this isn't about the freedoms of our citizens. It's, covertly, undermining the censorship program of another country.

We censor stuff too. Should Canada get to decide what words we bleep out or don't in US media?


1. Damn, I was waiting for that point to come up. Took longer than I expected.

2. It's hardly covert when it's in the news.

3. Bleeping out words -- not a good analogy -- try something about the U.S. govt blocking access to information from other countries.
#12 Aug 14 2009 at 9:23 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
If the software is available, privately, why can't 'our' citizens simply buy it they need it?

Seriously, this isn't about the freedoms of our citizens. It's, covertly, undermining the censorship program of another country.

We censor stuff too. Should Canada get to decide what words we bleep out or don't in US media?


I really didn't mean for it to say "our people", it should have said "other people", as in not our citizens freedoms. Ever have one of those days when you type words that you're speaking to other people? Yea, one of them days.
#13 Aug 14 2009 at 9:25 AM Rating: Decent
Ahkuraj wrote:
The theory is ... increasing the freedom of people in other countries increases security in the U.S. because -- the theory goes -- free peoples generally do not fight each other in wars.


I'm aware of the theory. Which is just as much ******** today as it was 20 years ago the first time around.
#14 Aug 14 2009 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,590 posts
Quote:
The U.S. government is covertly testing technology in China and Iran that lets residents break through screens set up by their governments to limit access to news on the Internet.


Not anymore? Smiley: lol

It's an interesting story and all, it's just that I can't imagine word of this *not* getting back to the people they're intending to thwart.
#15 Aug 15 2009 at 11:16 AM Rating: Decent
**
591 posts
Quote:
I'm aware of the theory. Which is just as much bullsh*t today as it was 20 years ago the first time around.


Only time 2 democracies ever fought eachother was Finland vs Great Brittan in WW2.
#16 Aug 15 2009 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Only time 2 democracies ever fought eachother was Finland vs Great Brittan in WW2.


Britain is a democracy? Did they depose the Queen?

Or is it possible that "free people" don't always come under the guise of a "democracy?"
#17 Aug 15 2009 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
Whimsi wrote:
"There is a limit to how much (U.S.) taxpayers should have to pay for," he said.


I wonder if gbaji things this program would be great use of his taxpayer money. Since, you know, health care isn't.
#18 Aug 15 2009 at 11:55 AM Rating: Decent
**
591 posts
Quote:
Britain is a democracy? Did they depose the Queen?


For the purposes of the democracy peace theory, they are considered one.
#19 Aug 15 2009 at 11:07 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
There's nothing low quality about most Eastern girls. And many Indian, Chinese, and Japanese men. Smiley: drool2

This is great service by the USA to the world, in the very best tradition of American sense of freedom of information, expression, political opinion and pursuit of happiness.

Kudos to you!


No, it isn't. It's hegemony and imperialism. The "American sense" on anything is for America, not to be forced down the throats of the rest of the world. This is why things like 9/11 happen.
#20 Aug 15 2009 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Only time 2 democracies ever fought eachother was Finland vs Great Brittan in WW2.


No, ******, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democracies
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 519 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (519)