[Community-Discuss] Controversial anti-shutdown policy discussed at RIPE

[Ish Sookun]

Hi Tutu,

On 14/05/17 01:01, Tutu Ngcaba wrote:
> 
> Do you know who appointed the supreme court in country... Its the president.
> 

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa [1] says:

  174 (3) The President as head of the national executive, after
          consulting the Judicial Service Commission and the leaders of
          parties represented in the National Assembly, appoints the
          Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice and, after
          consulting the Judicial Service Commission, appoints the
          President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

> So you think the judge will stop govermment when chaos is happening.
> 

The Constitution also says:

  165 (2) The courts are independent and subject only to the
          Constitution and the law, which they must apply impartially
          and without fear, favour or prejudice.

      (3) No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning
          of the courts.

> Tell me one example where govermment or president order shutdown when no
> riot or chaos or protesting of the people. Tell me...
> 

In 2007 access to Facebook [2] was disrupted in Mauritius because of a
fake profile of the then prime minister of Mauritius. There were no
riot, protest or chaos in Mauritius.

In 2012 a state-run ISP [3] in Tajikistan blocked Facebook after
comments were made on the president. There did not seem to be protests
or riots in Tajikistan to have caused the ban.

In 2010 a South Korean state agency blocked [4] the North Korean's state
account on Twitter. No riots or protests caused that.

> You only thinking ooh the government shut it or they blocked it
> 

No. I am thinking the government blocking the internet has implications
on freedom of speech and access to information. You mentioned riots and
chaos. An internet ban during the times of « chaos » sounds similar to
being shut in a dark room.

> You are not thinking why they government they do it when it was all ok and
> all citizen enjoyed it freely.
> 

Governments could argue they are preventing the spread of
misinformation. In trying to do so by blocking the internet they end up
hurting the economy and prevent access to information (e.g on cases of
abuse). Meanwhile misinformation could still be spread through other
means. If propaganda can leverage on the internet, it can also leverage
on other (non-electronic) communication mediums. Blocking the internet
does not stop propaganda.

> Why why why please tell me before you pretending to be in American where
> the Trump say no refugee and that judge is saying yes refugee yet they
> America will have the powerful software to spy of the people like the
> swoden brother who wll go to prison but kept in the russia. Where is the
> freedom.
> 

Snowden stood against a privacy abuse.

Thinking that we should not discuss & look for a remedy to internet
shutdowns because the governments are too powerful, would be a wrong
thing. One could argue that the RPD is not the place to discuss about
actions "against governments". I believe though that the RPD can discuss
internet shutdowns & look for remedy, where the remedy might not
necessarily be a punitive measure against a government.

Regards,

Ish Sookun

[1]
http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf
[2]
https://www.lexpress.mu/article/maurice-censure-le-site-communautaire-%C2%ABfacebook%C2%BB
[3]
http://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-tajikistan-facebook-idUSBRE8AQ0JY20121127
[4] http://mashable.com/2010/08/19/north-korea-twitter-banned/#zoPCks5drqq9