Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't. Ending Its Hands-Off-the-Internet Stance
Taco Cowboy writes in with a report from The Register about a US policy shift away from keeping hands off the Internet. "According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over. Instead, an 'Internet Policy 3.0' approach will see policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet constituencies, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance." Here is the presentation in which Strickling enunciated these changes.
This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack. Now that they feel vulnerable they have what they think is adequate motivation to screw the rest of us. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out...
Water is wet; the sky is blue and small furry animals are still small and furry.
As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being. This is pretty much the opposite of what the Internet needs to proliferate.
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
Al Gore invented it, remember?
---
Privacy vs Sureillance Feed @ Feed Distiller
And change their stance on hands off spam.
I think the "simulation" was just a part of a massive drama intended to justify this and future acts.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
Your biometric identification with the Intergovermental Panel of Internet Acess Enforcement have failed.
Make sure that your webcam is BigBrother-certified and that its view of your face is not obstructed. If the problem persists, please verify that your general acess level is adequate for class 3 content and that you have no active thoughtcrime sanctions.
Along with a renewed Patriot Act!
Funny, I seem to have missed the Slashdot story of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passing that bill, or the Democrat-controlled Senate passing that bill. Nevermind the Slasdot story about the Democrat President actually signing that Patriot Act extension....
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!
Actually, that's not true. The old bosses at least said they were going to keep Gitmo open, extend that Patriot Act, and leave troops in Iraq. So at least they did what they said. These new bosses are MUCH worse - they LIE and do and say anything to get elected, then keep on with the policies of the past that they LIED about changing.
And now, these LYING new bosses want us to turn the largest sector of the US economy - health care - over to THEIR control. Because that'll be better for all of us.
What kind of person could possibly believe that THIS group of egomaniacs getting control of another couple of trillion dollars a year would help anyone?
...is frequently mentioned here in approving tones. You wouldn't want people to go on doing things without permission, would you? The State knows what's best.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
There should be a moratorium on government internet legislation of any kind until the first crop of kids who grew up with it and understand it are in power. The current group doesnt and will do long lasting damage - even if their intentions were/are good.
Either this article is over 10 years too late, or the things like the DMCA and forcing search engines to hand over use search records are seen as "hands off".
The working class can kiss my ass; I've got the foreman's job at last. -- Ballacks O'Bama.
Doh.
"Don't worry,....I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
Obama is here to save us from the internet! Don't worry everyone it's not like the Obama administration has ever said anything about your electronics devices on a network as it relates to privacy...oh wait wasn't there something about cell phones and Americans having “no reasonable expectation of privacy” http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
I'm sure we'll be fine...hey...why does my system tray have a little icon that looks like a dude in a brownshirt?? Never mind, when I mouse over it it says 'Hope and Change' so false alarm..
Let me balance this out a bit, I don't like the patriot act as well.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
"...covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance."
In other words, and in summarization, it's all about money and power/control. It's pretty much the only reason the Government gets involved in ANYTHING like this these days.
We see how well Government-sponsored control programs have worked out for other countries, so expect more of the same here. Billions (or trillions) spent, with little or not real effect(other than sending the country further into bankruptcy).
According to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce, the US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over.
Any time this has happened the past, geeks blaze a trail to another communication medium. While most people were using phones to make phone calls, geeks used it to create a BBS system. Later came the internet, which was a great place until AOL came along. Just seems like when one medium starts becoming crowded and excessively regulated, geeks will find another place.
Maybe self-discovering mesh networks, something over satellite, not sure what's next. But the more crowded and regulated the internet gets, the more the inner geek will start looking around for a less crowded place.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"If you’re a user, you want to know that you can make a transaction online without your credit card information falling into the wrong hands..." Yes, because all "internet users" are supposed to use the internet for is to consume. Feed the beast. If you are a consumer, you can be controlled, and we don't have to worry about you actually doing anything about the predicament this world is in.
Privacy - You are allowed to feel like you have privacy, but if we can trump-up a good sounding reason, forget it.
Child Protection - Now we can go after offending websites, forgetting First Amendment protections, but don't worry, it's all for the sake of protecting the children.
Cyber-security - We can't out-smart our opponents, so we'll employ brute force and squash anything that even looks dangerous.
Copyright Protection - Hey, we're big fans of the major media players, and we think they deserve a little somethin'-somethin for their generosity in the last several campaigns. (You don't think this administrations election campaign really raised three-quarters of a trillion dollars from (essentially) untraceable $10-200 donations over the web, do you?
Internet Governance - Hey, why should we cede control of something we in America invented?
There, I hope that helps you understand what is going on.
Ken
These points (crucial to the argument) strike me as massive FUD:
"* If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it.
* If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.
* If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.
* If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet."
- How many users are afraid to use Amazon, eBay, or any other service because of credit card fraud? I would suggest that only terminally ignorant users are afraid of this.
- Content providers are capable of handling their own protection just fine. See: Steam, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc. What he really means is "old and incompetent" providers.
- Large enterprises will NOT just disconnect their network for fear of being breached: they will develop better security. Fuck, this is an incredibly stupid argument.
- WHY would foreign governments ever trust Internet governance unless the internet is completely censored of all objectionable (read: valuable) speech?
Terrible, terrible, terrible arguments. This needs to be fought vigorously.
. . . the government is always searching for new sources of income. Call me cynical, but I believe that an Internet tax is also on their agenda.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.
Now here comes Obama with a new initiative for the US to regulate the internet and two of it's goals are "copyright protection, and Internet governance".
Seems a fair guess that one of the first things that will occur is an ACTA style 3 strikes rule that must be enforced by all ISP's.
Will BitTorrent be banned by those ISP's? It seems likely, since in spite of the legal applications, that would make life so much easier for the ISPs.
Our Internet freedoms are slowly disappearing as governments regulate them away on behalf of the Corporations! Internet users are allowed no voice.
Soon the Internet will be the CorporateNe" and we will have to enter Credit Card info just to log on!
Let me be the first to welcome our acta-wielding *AA -sponsored overlords.
Most of these changes are being driven by huge Corporations.
So instead of Biometric ID expect to enter a Credit Card to log on!
Actually the new bosses are turning health care over to a Monopoly with a long history of patient abuse for undisclosed sums.
I wish your version was true! We would be better off even in Government hands.
Spam,
Paypal.
low bandwidth due spam congestion.
But it will most likely bring about addition taxation for you usage time. (so much for constant connection value)
And it seems very clear that unknown to you, people will be monitoring and judging you in your use of the internet and this includes all communications you have via the internet and anything connected to teh internet, such as phones that use the internet.
Hmmm, and that means paypal will remain, so when some government official or someone they know or sucking up to them (payola) doesn't like your communication they can take your money away from you.
And tax you for doing so too.
And hey, since you don't really have control over what information gets put on your system in being connected to the internet, you can be set up and busted for all sorts of things. And taxed for it too.
As always, this will get sold to the public as a good thing and the ignorant public will accept it. little by little.
And the worse part......... They won't regulate the spam, it'll continue to be the majority of the traffic on the internet.
Proving how worthless and incompetent they (we know who they are here), to do anything about anything real.
So it should be obvious, just think of spam, if you think there exist any ability to do anything more than spy and attack those they don't like with acts of fraud.
For what is being claimed to be the benefits of such a direction, they should already be able to do anyway.
I.e. get rid of paypal exception to banking regulations.
And that is something they could do, but haven't.
Why is that?
slashdot moderators have plenty of experience in judging 'thought crime' and controlling debate. (look at the Hans Reiser stories for the sad trail of evidence) they will be the first to sign up for the Internet Protection Administration
LEAVE INTERNET ALONE!!
The only reason the Government gets involved in anything is when they are paid to do so by their Corporate Masters.
And it is a well known fact that Corporations want to eliminate those pesky Internet freedoms and force us to pay for every click or download.
Luckily for them, Obama's just the man for that job!
Hell, they've already culled off a good portion of the fighting force, now just cull off the free thinkers and the economy will snap right back!
In the UK we have the NHS. Lots of people moan about it. It's not perfect. But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.
In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.
The US is the home of free speech and a bastion of many personal freedoms, but it is also a place where survival of the fittest takes priority. If you're doing well for youself, then great. Not everyone is.
Take a step back and start thinking about what other people need for a change. Having a government mandated healthcare system to cater for the bottom fifth of society (which private healthcare would otherwise ignore) ain't so bad an idea.
If they could stop all the child porn and stop all illegal downloads then i'd be all for it, but only if they can stop _only_ child porn, and _only_ illegal downloads, without any 'collatoral damage' of legal material.
Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.
Here's one ugly scenario for effectively blocking copyright-infringing downloads. All material to be made available for download must be registered with a government clearing house[*] before it can be offered for download. Scanning everything for signatures provided by registered copyright owners might introduce a small delay, of course, but that's the cost of making the internet safe from copyright-infringing perverts. Worse, downloads might be legal only if initiated via that clearing house using approved proprietary software, to prevent copyright-infringing perverts from sneakily switching content). Oh, and don't even think about making encrypted or otherwise unrecognizable material available for download - it would be blocked and investigated. After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?
Now, a resourceful person could still circumvent such a scheme, but the inconvenience would render the effort of limited use to typical users. The cost would also entail becoming a federal criminal, and the minimum penalty could be set quite high (20-to-life in a PMITA institution). Don't underestimate the dark side...
[*] Multiple sites distributed around the US to oppress^W protect domestic consumers, and at all points where the net enters the US to thwart illegal import or export of copyright content. A sort-of Great Copyright Wall of the USA. The notion could be extended in much the way the Chinese have developed their censorship barriers, given today's technologies.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
How's that hope and change working out?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Actually the new bosses are turning health care over to a Monopoly with a long history of patient abuse for undisclosed sums.
I wish your version was true! We would be better off even in Government hands.
I'm not sure I agree with your first categorization, but you have my full-throated support on your second. A government-run public option would definitely have been better for us. Too bad the Dems are suffering from spinal atrophy.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
A lot of the recent "CyberWar" related stories have no technical accuracy and are just straight out of those crappy hacker-movies. The only imaginable purpose of those stories is to spread paranoia among the masses who don't know how networks work. I also have many more suspicions but I'll be ridiculed if I put them forward now. So I'll confine myself to prediction. If my suspicions are correct, we are going to see a large number of DNS redirections in the next few years. These will be accompanied by clueless media reports which lack any discussion about WHO currently has the power to redirect traffic. Finally, US government takes over the Internet. There is nothing that can be done by you and me to stop this. Because we are outnumbered by naive and ignorant masses.
The internet isn't something you control. Government morons have no idea what technology this is. Remember when some idiot decided to shut Napster down and thereby "end" music sharing? Nerds will always get around this kind of stupid stuff. How about ad hoc networks? How about rooting your Droid to get around a different overseer, Verizon. This is all political posturing crap by the great benevolent dictator government. They should do what government is supposed to do. That is provide roads, water, sewer, police, fire, and pick up the garbage. Keep me safe with a big army and navy. Leave technology and it's advancement to nerds.
Directly from TFA:
Copyright protection: How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content? NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Enter the 20th century, it was a figment of imagination. There were always inherent limit to freedoms in the US imposed by local politics, and outside the US imposed by US foreign policy. The diffeernce, is that for a time the US looked LESS worst than the other bad guy. But now this is turning around, and the US looks as bad as everybody else, with politics wishing to grab as much power as possible , and keep it, and a certain aprt of the society , the new "aristocracy", enriching itself on the back of the serf. Sure we are better off than the 15th century (or even 19th) but let not you be blind : your chance to ever enter that group is nil.
Atlas has already shrugged, but it's the shrug of indifference. If Atlas were even awake, the PATRIOT act would have never passed. US democracy was tested, and it has failed. Even now you don't care whether more of your freedoms are trampled upon, as long as there is someplace left to run.
acta was being cooked in the last 2 years of bush admn. all the accompanying shit (including this) too. the 'cyberwar' bullshit started back then.
basically, its the same shitheads trying to cramp down internet now as they were back then.
yea, however it is obama's fault in a major way ; he didnt replace the bushies in administration rightaway. instead, he tried to be 'bipartisan' and cooperate.
the most naive act of the last decades by a politician. bushies were of course thrilled, for, see, they were able to further the plans they have set in motion.
Read radical news here
European union bureaucracy wont like this. that bureaucracy has been built on various freedoms and principles that are the core of our modern society. even more than u.s. constitution - you dont need any constitution to ensure those rights in europe - the declaration of human rights is paramount.
if this charade goes further, it will be inevitable for Eu to break away Eu's internet space from u.s. related control sources, to ensure these principles.
Read radical news here
One of the areas Hillary Clinton signaled the government may try (emphasize try) to address is anonymity on the internet (in the name of nailing child molesters). Alot of this is about increasing tax revenue, I believe.
Jim Hofmann
> If you believe that the government not getting involved is going to lead to an optimal outcome for the public, I'd love to hear why.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
BTW, do you also believe that the TSA increases our air travel security?
In light of the facts behind how the Government has ran the public option it HAS had (Medicare) which is a source of many of the ills they're trying to fix...you might not want them doing what you think you do.
If I thought that they'd handle it right, I'd be all for the public option. As it stands, they've shown us for years that they CAN'T really handle it in a manner that would help the problems.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This website tracks how well Obama is keeping his promises
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!
The old boss destroyed the budget, and pissed off the whole world.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
This is in result of (a) the failed cyber attack readiness test, and (b) ACTA is coming down the pike...and provisions in ACTA require certain laws to be in place. It's a pre-emptive strike to make ACTA easier to swallow.
Internet Censorship.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
How's that hope and change message sounding now? Welcome to the Obamanation formerly known as the US of A.
Interesting how 3 strikes laws like those mandated in the ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (championed by Obama) are showing up in various countries.
Just to clarify, the draft texts of the ACTA Internet Chapter that have been leaked do not mandate 3-strikes/graduated response. The text mentions 3 strikes in a footnote as an example of the measures that ISPs could take to qualify for safe harbor. Also, ACTA is not a treaty, but an executive agreement. The different is important, because treaties require ratification by the Senate, whereas executive agreements involve no Congressional oversight.
The problem is that 3 strikes is the ONLY example that the footnote provides, and that in past such "off the cuff" remarks in agreements have been used to justify interpreting laws in particular ways.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
This smells a lot like the copyright lobby is behind this. I think Obama made a big mistake choosing Joe Biden as Vice President. Biden is a staunch copyright goon. And I wonder if it was him that influenced Obama to put all those copyright lawyers in the justice department. I would be surprised. Biden stinks.
In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.
The poor in the US have Medicare. It's the middle class that gets screwed when they get layed off or fired. COBRA is too expensive to pay for, and they are ineligible for Medicare. If you have a pre-existing condition your even more screwed, as you have to find a job ASAP because no private insurance will cover you. You can't start your own company, because you have a pre-existing condition and no insurance company will touch you.
If your poor, more importantly if your a young girl in a poverty area, the best way to be provided for is to get pregnant. The goverment opens up it's coffers to support you.
So it's not the poor who don't have anything, they get covered, it's all about the Middle Class. They get screwed.
I would like to point out was invented using American tax payers money.
It belongs to the American people, not to our government, and certainly not to any foreign individual, corporation or government.
If the American people want to play hands off, it should be voted on.
I vote "NO" to ending American management of the internet.
Leave our friggin internet alone.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
A bit off topic, but in the event that internet legislation leads to revolution...
I've been thinking of new democratic and legislative structures for a post-revolution America. An exercise in thought, nothing more. Anyways, I was thinking that one of the biggest issues with our current government is the Iron Triangle. Essentially, we have a centralized government that is actively being DoS'ed by lobbyists and anyone else who can buy a lobbyist. The interest of those individual groups often come at the expense of the majority.
What if we structured our government like the Internet by providing functionality at the end point and only using congress to pass data?
Essentially, people would be responsible for writing laws in some sort of wiki type collaboration. These laws would have "release cycles" that go to an elected body of "experts" (congress) only after the legislation passed a public review process. Congress would ONLY have the ability to veto proposed legislation. The president would serve more as a mediator in the event the public wanted to force legislation after congress has already vetoed it. If the majority has a mandate and Congress has a minority veto, then the president can be used to override the Congressional veto, but only in those circumstances.
Lobbyists would essentially be spammers. They cannot effectively bribe anymore due to decentralization of legislation. Anyways, I'm still developing the idea, feedback would be much appreciated, sorry I'm offtopic!
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
"I say that the government's role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator."
"I say that the government's role need not be one of a heavy-handed regulator, but we will be."
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Since the days of Bill Clinton the federal government's "hand-off" policy has meant Americans had to download encryption code and audio/video codecs from abroad; couldn't use 128-bit encryption to secure financial transactions for several years; could be expedited to the most conservative jurisdiction and jailed for receiving illegal material; could be put on trial for re-publishing publicly-available information; and can now be jailed for drawings.
Maybe this new policy of "we'll finally start regulating the Internet" means they'll finally stop.
After nationalizing the financial, banking and auto industries, and attempting to nationalize health care, is it surprising that Obama and his Bolsheviks would want to seize the communications networks as well?
an ill wind that blows no good
Here it comes "The Great Firewall of America".
Here's one ugly scenario for effectively blocking copyright-infringing downloads. All material to be made available for download must be registered with a government clearing house[*] before it can be offered for download.
s/government/hardware maker/g and you have the exact situation that currently applies to some platforms managed by Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Apple.
I'm almost positive that we once had this vague notion about government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed. There was also this idea about government using the money that they steal from us in ways that are directly or indirectly beneficial to the society. For quite a while now, we've had a gangster government running the taxation system like a protection racket where the confiscated wealth is concentrated in the hands of a well connected few.
The private sector gangsters would take the money, but then they would at least leave the person being "taxed" to their own activities, and even provide some valuable services in return.
With the public sector gangsters, they stll take the money, but then they also want to tell us what to do and how to do it and provide few, if any services in return.
They certainly don't govern with MY consent, and it's gotten so bad that I'd be willing to pay the protection money if they would just take it, and leave me the F*&% alone.
You were slightly off there... The government "gets involved" with your air travel via the FAA... And the FAA has not been a net positive for ANYONE...
Internet theft (real theft) increases greatly every year. I run into phishing schemes a few times per year. Don't fall for them because I know better, but it still looks like a blatant crime. If you can connect an author to that phishing site, that's very strong evidence of an attempted crime, and I'd like to see these people punished. The government has a poor record of prosecuting these activities, and I would like to see them take it seriously.
Mr. Strickling's article is pretty reasonable on this point, he discusses reasons to avoid heavy-handed government control (other governments won't trust us or it), the downside of not having net-neutrality rules, etc. And the article doesn't have many hard conclusions, it's more focused on trying to identify problems and frame the questions.
His main point, that we are in the internet 3.0 era, and it's time for the government to pay attention and help everyone trust it sounds reasonable and obvious to me. In particular the need for net neutrality, and the fallout from governments fighting for control of the internet. It's time for the government to grow up, and this seems like a good start.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
"with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance."
and freedom of speech. Mother Fucker.
Oh, wait.
They better get ready to hire 10 million armed guards to stand in front of our Linux PC's and our Tivo's.
The spelling and grammar police can kiss my ass
The government doesn't have to compete with anyone on its own turf. It can regulate any competitor out of business. It's like the ultimate Microsoft being given the ability to make it illegal for you not to buy their crap. It's illegal not to pay your taxes after all, no?
Mind the frickin' laser...
As far as I've noticed, the more the U.S. government gets involved with something, the lower the quality that something ends up being.
Indeed. So just look forward to the wonderful things in store if the Dmeocrats actually manage to ram ObamaCare through...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
It's the good old, proven "Create the problem, then offer the solution." method of power expansion. It's been working for ages.
Mind the frickin' laser...
You sure earned that Insightful mod. I can honestly say that's the first time I've thought about that, and now that I have, it makes an incredible amount of sense. That sounds exactly like something the government would pull. They know that they can't just slap limitations on the Internet, there has to be a "the terrorists are coming" (or "think of the children," or both) aspect to it.
I can hear the speeches now. "Not passing this bill will amount to giving al Qaeda all of our passwords to our e-mail, banks, Social Security accounts... everything!"
Pay for voting by making lazy people pay a fine for not showing up. Then they can contribute in some way. The idiots and fanatics tend to cancel out - the parties try to split the vote and the "undecided" (who are not so bright either) decide the elections. This happens today and would continue to happen; however, it might be more difficult to fool that many "undecided" voters than it is today.
I voted for Obama because he clearly was the better one (unless you are ignorant or stupid.) My doubts are that McCain might have been better in that he would most likely have been HOOVER #2 and wreaked the nation ---> in the end, it might have been better to crash, burn and rebuild than having Obama plug the leaks in the dam with his fingers... Or calmly crash landing us into the Hudson river. He won't get credit unless he starts performing miracles (which won't happen this is reality not the Bible.)
Obama doesn't have the power; the broken system that the public helped create is bigger than Obama. He could be the smartest leader EVER but without help he won't gain much ground against the current system. Obama can't act like Bush and get anywhere near that amount of work done by the simple fact: the entrenched powers are only YOURS when you do their bidding. Bush was on the side of the winners, they even did a lot of his job for him so he took record long vacations. Obama is tacking against hurricane winds; he must go with the flow or not make any headway. He has already taken on the biggest most powerful groups in the USA in the 1st year. The pathetic healthcare bill is the most that can be done in the current system; doesn't matter what he wants and I think it was wise to distance himself hoping people would see the corruption at work and learn. Instead the pussy Americans are put off from fixing anything because politics is too dirty.
We have a bunch of wimpy suburbanites who can't deal with the reality of our situation which they helped cause. Its a stupid mob mentality-- help us! we screwed ourselves and need somebody to fix our mess and to shift blame towards! Don't EVER tell us we caused this problem! Especially don't EVER tell us we have to change our ways! Hence the need for a smack in the face - to wake up America. Hoover #2 is probably the only thing that will fix America; as long as Americans have disposable income/debt they will give up life, liberty, and the real pursuit of happiness.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Change! (Some restrictions apply)
I have long uttered the statement that no government can withstand the public being able to communicate freely. The pressure from foreign governments to censor or limit the net must be stunning. And I suspect that numerous corporations also want content controlled as well.
Individual resistance is fine but without organised resistance the net will suffer a huge and crippling blow as these types of measures come into play. During these harsh times the last thing our nation needs is angry groups protesting anything but we simply have to get together and put pressure to maintain freedom of speech or it will soon be lost to us entirely. Publishers in the US have for a couple of decades used lawyers to survey every publication before it is put in print to judge if there is any way that the content might generate a law suit. That would not occur in a free and open society.
I'm really sick of this "I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils" crap. If you actually believe there is a lesser of two evils, I'd say it's your duty as an American to vote for it. Abstination from voting is an expression of cynicism...nothing more.
I used to be one of those guys that told friends and family "Don't waste your right to vote... people died so that you could keep it". But after years of watching politics, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't give a damn, if you can't even be bothered to know who the candidates are and what the basic outline of the issues of the day are, then no, by all means, don't vote. Do your country a favor and stay home on election day, and leave the voting to people that actually give a damn.
I'd be delighted and encouraged if more people got involved with the issues and thus more voted because of that. But under no circumstances do I want unmotivated, uncaring people wandering into a booth and choosing the first name on the list just because they were told they should vote. In a free country, the decision not to give a crap is a valid one, like it or not.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
This is all because of their recent failed security simulation where they couldn't repel a cyber attack.
CNN and the private sector actually ran that, and they weren't really simulating an attempt to repel the attack. It was more like MST3K with talking heads gabbing about Die Hard 4 in the background.
Thank you for this information. Very informative but not at all comforting!
So this means:
1. The countries implementing 3 strikes rules are going beyond the letter of ACTA to punish anyone accused of (but not necessarily guilty of) some "copyright violation".
2. You assert that ACTA is actually an executive agreement, not a Treaty and therefore will be shoved right down our throats (or other orifices) without any chance to comment or stop it unless our laws somehow allow it. If this is true we are well and royally screwed indeed!
Sorry but I need to throw in my two cents: as a college student I started to miscarry my baby, so I showed up at the local hospital in Berkeley. I wasn't even allowed in to see a doctor to be stabilized or sent by ambulance to the county hospital in Oakland. They literally couldn't hurry me off their property fast enough. I had to have someone drive me the half hour to Highland. It was shocking and awful.
Which would be better:
1. A government run Insurance option which they might have problems running.
Or
2. Corporate For-Profit Insurance Companies which have a demonstrate record of denying funds for life critical procedures, for refusing to pay huge bills for procedures which bankrupt patients and for canceling policies for the crime of becoming very sick.
Better the devil you know than the one you do not?
If users do not trust that their credit card numbers and private information are safe on the Internet, they won’t use it.
And the current system works fine, so that's an argument for government hands off, right? Or maybe it's an argument for tightening credit/debit card security? I mean, the crypto for transmitting credit card numbers works fine as is...
If content providers do not trust that their content will be protected, they will threaten to stop putting it online.
Then the pirates will have the online distribution market all to themselves. Yeah, I'm sure the legit content distributors are going to like that.
If large enterprises don’t have confidence that their network will not be breached over the Internet, they will disconnect their network and limit access to business partners and customers.
Any sane large organization should realize that it will have security incidents. I see an abundance of organizations online today. So this is an argument for... what, exactly?
If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems, they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet.
Uh-huh. And the US having control of the root zone engenders trust exactly how? I see this as a great argument for less US gov involvement.
There's Tor hidden services. Try the onionforum (see link in external links @ wikipedia's tor entry page) for starters, with your browser's image autoloading turned off just in case - never know what someone may post! Always browse them with images off in your browser.
Tor hidden services is a good alternative right now, though there aren't a lot of well known and good hidden services up at the moment. It may take awhile to catch on or it may dwindle to nothing without ever catching on.
Check out onionforums via tor.
This is just a preparation to apply draconian controls and restrictions on the Internet, which is the hidden agenda of the government. Sadly, no amount of protest will stop them.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
It looks more like Internet Vista
Everyone is sure going to love it.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
The Internet has been a major success. But we have health care problems, jobs problems, Wall Street is out of fucking control. If our government has a single person who's got this kind of play time on his hands and wants to fuck up the only working think we have, I think it's time to shrink the Federal government. This is fucking amazing. This should not be a topic or a distraction. They should allow thing to work and get the fuck out of our what. What the hell did we hire these retards for in the first place? Clearly we keep hiring the wrong idiots. What's wrong with us?
I know the vast majority of people wont pry a single finger away form WOW to do anything, but you should. This is your fault, anyone who didn't stand up and be the the kind of boss these people need. We hire'em and we can fire'em. We got some rouge employees, so what are you going to do? Someone else will take care of it. I'll wait until Karl Auerbach does something about it. Take action or you caused the end of the Internet, about the only thing working.
We got Goerge Bush form your inaction, if you couldn't vote you could have campaigned. You. I'm talking to you. I'm pointing you. Fix it. Get up, cancel your TV subscription, game subscription, get your friends to do the same things. Get the word out. Vote. Brainstorm. Write to papers, web site, and educate people. Let's move you lazy ass for once. Get going.
I'll be doing the same.
Thanks, now get back to work!
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
That's what the 0bamanation is all all about, Control. Health control. Industry control. Banking control. And now, Internet control.
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
...only outlaws will have internet.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Did he mean to protect works from being pirated on the Net? That is, someone rips a DVD or records a movie in a theatre and sticks it on the Net.
Or, did he mean to prevent online media from being ripped? But, wait a second! What is the difference from using a VCR to record a TV show (see Betamax decision) on TV and from using software to record a show you're watching on Hulu? Provided it falls under fair use, and you're not seeding it.
This alternative is humming along fine. Its only about as fast as Tor, but supports full anonymity along with mail, websites, torrents (these first 3 are built-in), chat and custom apps.
obama was able to get ahead clinton and get elected, and then able to go through enormous prejudices and overcome the wasp vote that has flown to gop side, only because of internet. only because it was an uncontrollable medium, he was able to get ahead in his race. it was unexpected, unprecedented, the old school machinery of washington didnt even expect internet could be that effective, so he succeeded.
it goes for his second term. its important to have a free internet to secure a second term.,.
Read radical news here
You get care on a par with most everyone else.
The Emergency Room is the only access to the medical system for those without insurance (some 45 million people). ER is the most expensive place to receive care (e.g. $75 aspirin). The uninsured statistics get marginal attention in the corporate press, for obvious reasons, but you can find them:
Billing is up to each doctor, to each hospital, to each billing service (collection department), sometimes even to each collection agent. Some write off bills far more willingly than others. Some never let go, and your credit report reflects these choices.
Try a thought experiment: you have 3 new clients with broken computers. Client 1 is well off and will pay you $120 per hour, plus parts, no questions. Client 2 can afford a $60 repair. Client 3 has no money, but needs their computer operational. Which one gets most of your attention, has priority? Sure every analogy is flawed, and a broken computer does not equal a sick person and the difference in consequences are huge (and give me credit for not using a car analogy). Still, how much difference is there between your ethics and a doctor's?
Saying that people should wait as they do now, for personal health problems to appear and then become so severe that going to the emergency wing becomes an option -- just because its worked out for *you* so far -- that really is a load of crap pop philosophy.
The Trek analogy is also poor because we are not living on a military space vessel. In order for it to work even slightly, Spock and the other officers would have had to come from a society where they didn't receive the benefit of universal health care that helped get them to where they were at that moment.
privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance? What does privacy, child protection, and copyright protection have to do with internet governance? This is the new prohibition. The internet is too free, too many people are happy, so they have to make us all get a license so that they can better control what we say and can read.
Child protection is the common excuse. When that doesn't work then it's copyright protection. If all of these fail then it's cyber security against Chinese hackers. I'd be fine if the government wanted to solve this by hiring people who visit Slashdot to actually design better hardware, software, and encryption standards. I'd be fine if people moved away from using passwords and moved onto some more secure mechanisms for two factor authentication.
But thats probably not who the government has in mind. The government does not care about individual security, individual privacy, individuals intellectual property, this is about protecting big corporations who control the government. So until Google and Microsoft, and other big corporations who support internet freedom band together and get better lobbyists, their industry is going to be completely destroyed.
You guys know how the internet works don't you? The only central authority is the IANA, and all they really do is make sure people don't reuse the same IP addresses (and assign the more important AS Numbers. When we're IPv6 in under five years (Sorry, but thanks Microsoft), they will be even less important (still important though). Other than that, it's just private organziations agreeing with each other to carry traffic through their routers. At one point this was Ma Bell but now you have radio links, satellite links, mesh networks, lasers, fiber optics, etc. It's too late for the government. They are going to keep trying to shut us down but the people of the world can all communicate on equal terms now and we know now more than every that we're all pretty much alike.
I think what the Obama policy is about is getting involved in the international aspects where diplomacy is needed. We need more relationships happening across international borders that foster this kind of communications. This will lead to a future where humans across the global can fully communicate on equal terms. At that point we don't really have a use for diplomacy and war because there will just be a lot of small disagreements rather than these large nationwide ones that are questionable anyway. In fact this is going to be the key to opening up new markets.
To think that this was ever the goal of the neo-cons and that Obama is somehow worse is falase beyond almost anything I've ever heard. The neo-cons are so embroiled in World War III, just read a history of president Reagan and all the weapons and stuff we developed then. No one seems to remember the rediculous cold war that looks REALLY rediculous now. That's the system Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld grew up in, forged with their own hands, saw it crumble with the public failure of the Soviet Union. All the power in the world, gone in 2 years.
Thus the fairly false threat of terrorism. Sure, it's a minor fear, but nothing compared to total nuclear anihilation. Anyway, your breathless posts about how Obama is not doing what he said he'd do is wrong. He said he would do all of this. Quit listening to the media and actually listen to the man.
The disagreements will be between corporations, not governments. Lets face it, many internet corporations will have to go out of business just to keep other older more established businesses in business. This is about corporate monarchy deciding rules on an international scale to benefit cartels and corporate profits.
It has nothing to do with individual interests. Our interests are not considered because we don't own blue chip corporations. At some point the blue chip corporations and the copyright royalty owning corporations decided that it is better to destroy freedom on the internet than to invest in new technologies. It's very much like the phone companies trying to destroy the internet rather than invest in broadband technology. It has nothing to do with consumers, or child protection, or privacy.
So you have extremist Christians who want to force prohibition and their concept of morality on all of us. Or you have extremist Muslims who want to force women to cover their hair and force their concept of morality on us?
Neither culture is better. Both cultures are equally oppressive. So why should I care which extremist group wins that war? It's not like these two groups are all that different, both are extremists to the max and both want to force their morality on everyone else in authoritarian fashion. They both want a theocracy and the battle is to determine which group will get to have their theocracy.
In my opinion extremism in general is the problem. In my opinion authoritarianism in general is the problem. And since America is basically run by the most extreme elements, whether left or right, it's not like we are in any real position at this time to say our culture is superior to theirs.
The FDA only has to check the food because we have huge supermarkets and chemicals in the food. Maybe if we went back to growing our food locally we wouldn't need a federal agency to check the food.
Maybe we wouldn't need the government involved in worker safety if Unions weren't crushed and if Corporations weren't persons.
And come on, why compare us to countries like Haiti and Somolia? You act as if this big government actually makes us safer. We are no safer than we were 100 years ago. In fact the world is a more dangerous place than it was 100 years ago, because the government doesn't care about individuals anymore. 100 years ago the government cared about people.
If we want the best outcome for the public, the federal government should not get involved. Let state governments regulate and tax, and let states solve cultural issues. The federal government already has an NSA, it already has a military, it has DARPA, it has no reason to get more involved and police the internet. Nobody asked the government to police the internet. Do you see citizens around the country going "Please Obama, please make the internet safer!" No you don't.
You are exactly right.
"Here it comes "The Great Firewall of America"." - by jvillain (546827) on Sunday February 28, @11:22AM (#31306432)
Maybe it's needed guys, because in case you haven't noticed?
It's getting QUITE "nuts" out there with spam alone (& that's just the stuff trying to scam you out of your monies), as well as viruses/trojans/spywares/rootkits/malwares-in-general!
There's tons of it out there, and many folks get "burned" by it everyday!
(Plus, I don't mean for just redoing their systems, or having to pay to have them removed, hopefully fully etc. (& yes, I have spent more than my fair share of time doing those too, they're a TIME CONSUMING PAIN - but, then again, most "techies" spend a good 90% of their day removing them too - gee, I wonder WHO "stands to profit" there, eh? OR WORSE YET, it makes you even consider THEY MAY BE THE ONES CREATING THESE DAMN THINGS TOO... believe me, it's more than crossed my mind @ least, as to that possibility too)).
I mean, hey guys - Face it: They're being sent @ you "every which way" via HTML & scripted emails, bogusly scripted .pdf files, wares like FLASH & holes in it, IE being the relative "Swiss Cheese" it is this way too (getting better here though), bogusly scripted websites, bogus wares, & heck - even adbanners being shown as harboring malscripted content.
In a lot of ways, MAYBE this "Great Firewall of America" (heck, the world) IS needed guys!
(By that, I mean as to somekind of INTERNATIONAL "Gov't. + International Police(s) & ISP/BSP's" doing a "teaming up" vs. this b.s.!)
I mean... See, because for the past oh, 10-12 yrs. or so now, I've actually taken an "interest" in following security-trends & such online & even TRYING to help others not get "hit" by this b.s., via guides like this one -> http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=acc9ba7fa970982d9de549d7c3885703&showtopic=2662
(Which actually WORKS, if you keep up on patches, watch it with javascript, use things like HOSTS files that are up to date & FAR more (for "layered security)).
To get into it?
Well - Years ago, I started with looking at sites like SECUNIA.COM + SECURITYFOCUS.COM (and many others this site, for one, points to that also do a lot of decent good work to TRY to help keep others safer online etc. et al)!
Know what?
Imo & observation as well - Well, it's actually gotten worse the past 4-5 yrs. from what I've seen - worse in the things I noted above, than I ever have seen it in the past decade++... so, again:
MAYBE WE NEED THIS TYPE OF EFFORTS FROM OUR GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HELPING THE REST OF US OUT TOO, vs. this madness & lunacy!
(Sure, I wonder if it will be used for "evil ends" or "mind control" too, but... I have faith in MOST others, & I don't think folks will allow too much of that without a HUGE fuss... but helping stall the "malware wave"? Yes, it's needed...)
APK
P.S.=> Of course, there are those here who are PROBABLY "hacker/cracker" types themselves, who DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN... consider that much @ least!
(Yes, script-kiddie types, all the "up to" (or should I say even LOWER than) to those who are the more "dangerous types" who actually create the newer/more modern types of threats, of which rootkits personally actually somewhat scare the hell out of me (not the bootsector originated types, those are fairly easily dealt with once detected, but memory resident or "driver-driven" stuff, or below that level even))...
Heck - You can BANK ON IT, that they're amongst the ones around here & elsewhere, that no doubt (imo @ least) all around about this topic who are screaming "LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE"... why?
Well, it's OBVIOUS - & mainly because you WANT it this way, and you LIKE IT THIS WAY (malware galore & all, so you can continue your shenan
The problem here is that you assume that a public health plan would actually get most poorer patients better/earlier diagnosis and/or care.
Correct, that's exactly what a public health plan does; it gives everyone access to a doctor before an ER visit, the most expensive medical treatment known, is required.
A "publicly-insured" patient will have the same stigmas as far as being the preferred patient class as Medicare/Medicaid patients currently, if not much worse as all the plans I've read have even lower doctor/hospital reimbursement rates than current Medicare/Medicaid plans making them a much-less desirable patient in financial terms than they are currently.
For stigmas, the uninsured are worse off than any Medicare/Medicaid patient. Almost any reasonable public health plan would be better than none. The US health plans being considered by the government and discussed in the corporate media, however, are not public health plans. For better examples of public health plans, see Canada, England, Australia, France, and even Switzerland which has an interesting take on one-price-for-all plans with a competition and profit-driven twist.
What I see this creating is a low-quality minimal-care system for the "plebes" and another high-quality care system for those in government & unions, and those wealthy people that can afford to pay high rates and government-mandated penalties for private insurance and care.
What you "see this creating" is exactly what the current system is. A multi-tier class system which gives the richest the best care and the poorest the worst. Using this as an argument against a better system makes no sense.
All this doesn't even touch on the fact that no matter how politicians try to massage the numbers, this will be a huge increase in costs to the country and *will* mean huge increases in everyone's taxes across the board at a time when the country is on the verge of a national debt crisis with massive inflation imminent.
You are aware that a single payer healthcare, run by the government, would operate with about 97% of funds going to healthcare and the rest to administration? Whereas the current system requires for-profit corporations to reduce their costs (reject procedures, drop expensive clients, deny coverage to risky patients) while increasing profits (raising premiums, as happened just recently, sometimes as much as 50%) and giving those profits to shareholders and executives. In other words, paying taxes for single payer healthcare would be cheaper for everyone compared to insurance premiums. If the national debt crisis is a concern, then the choice is obvious.