UN Considering Control of the Internet

Dangerous_Minds writes "News has surfaced in the wake of the WikiLeaks story that the United Nations is mulling total inter-government regulation of the internet. The initiative was spearheaded by Brazil and supported by other countries including India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid commented that while the Cablegate story may be bad, attempting to destroy WikiLeaks would only make matters worse for various governments around the world, given what happened when the music industry shut down Napster ten years ago."

Comments

global standards for policing the internet

[YrWrstNtmr]

global standards for policing the internet
Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight, and the decision making process involved in keeping it up to date far less agile than the network itself. Now if governments also agree not to add their own layers on top this would be total win.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[dragonhunter21]

China and Saudi Arabia and the US and North Korea and South Korea and Liechtenstein and Mexico and Canada and Australia and Britian and France and New Zealand and Japan and Russia and Sweden and Finland and Greenland and all other UN member states, yes.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[duggi]

What it means in Diplomatese is that they are going to set up a commiteee first, talk to each and every nation about their preferences, and then create a document, laying the bare minimum regulations that need to be imposed. Of course, some countries will not like this, and will not opt-in. A few will opt in, but the implementation will be so broken, that each country will set up its own regulation mechanism on the top of it. As these clash with the UN, the UN regulation mechanism will be completely broken.
The UN cannot tie its own shoe laces. This will only justify the creation of a government approved 'regulation' process, which is often referred to as cencorship.
The Internet was nice while it lasted.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately I've been thinking China is better than the US..... alright maybe not. (shrug)

If they take-away free speech, then we'll just revive the Usenet and Fidonet and pass our messages/images over the existing phone lines. That's how we did it back in the 80s and 90s. And no it's really not that slow with modern MPEG4 codecs. When I'm stuck in a hotel for business travel, I surf the web without any problem & watch youtube over a 50k line (download it first; watch it 5 minutes later).

As for the UN: The thought that immediately comes to mind is "No regulation without representation." No global laws shall be passed until a People's House is created at the UN level, and also a Bill of Rights including a functional equivalent to amendments 9 and 10 (rights/powers are reserved to the Member States and the People).

And even if the plan is to pass these "block the net" laws at the local level, the US and EU Constitutions both forbid the silencing of free speech, or press, or expression. The higher constitutional law nullifies lower laws.

-C64_love (banned from posting for one day)

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[aliquis]

China and Saudi Arabia and the US and North Korea and South Korea and Liechtenstein and Mexico and Canada and Australia and Britian and France and New Zealand and Japan and Russia and Sweden and Finland and Greenland and all other UN member states, yes.

Actually? No.

Zero policing is what I want.

Child porn, Islamic terrorists, Joe not-so-much-of-an-sex-pack? Sure.

I can decide where I spend my time myself.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[dmacleod808]

Revive Usenet? my current 125GB transfer via Usenet for this month alone begs to differ. My wallet also begs to differ with my 30 dollar a month subscription.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[betterunixthanunix]

The Internet was nice while it lasted.

If the difficulty US law enforcement has had in policing child pornography on the Internet is any indication, any mandated censorship is going to be very difficult to pull off. Every so often, people will get busted, but for the most part free speech online will be difficult to kill. Let them try to censor the Internet; we'll just see an age of common people learning more and more about cryptography, steganography, and computer security.

Not that I think the Internet would be a nice place if everyone had to take those sorts of measures to protect their freedom of speech.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[malignant_minded]

Do we really need global standards? If some country says it is illegal to post hate speech or classified documents or what have you that on that country to police for it's citizens. If the citizens do not want those laws, push back, if no change revolt.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Scrameustache]

global standards for policing the internet
Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

I'd answer that but I'm being held in isolation, without bail, on trumped up rape charges, sorry.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[dragonhunter21]

I agree completely, and I think this is bound to fail spectacularly- but to say that only extremists would decide what would happen is a fallacy.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Jason Levine]

To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled. The religious right would love it if everything "harmful to children" (read: anything inappropriate for a 5 year old to read) was taken off the Internet. They've tried multiple times to get laws passed enforcing this but it has always been struck down in the courts. (This coming from the father of a 7 year old and a 3 year old... I'll police how my kids use the Internet, I don't need the government to do my job for me!)

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Jason Levine]

If I know politicians, there will be compromises that make both parties happy, but that make all of us less free. We'd agree to China's speech restrictions (no more mentioning Tiananmen Square, for example) and they would agree to tighten the clamp on IP protection in their country. Their government would walk away happy that everyone will only know the Chinese Government's account of Tiananmen Square (nothing happened) and our government will walk away happy (reporting "Mission Accomplished" to their lobbyist friends). Meanwhile, we'll cry out in anguish... or we would if we were still allowed to...

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[mwvdlee]

You either have a ridiculous amount of things to freely say or you're not really using Usenet for freedom-of-speech stuff.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[TaoPhoenix]

US - China - North Korea - France - Australia - Britain -

Aren't these the countries always hitting YRO for opressive initiatives?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

or the UN, a bunch of wimpy bureucrats...

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that all the UN member states help make policy? Are you seriously that naive?

A few key member states-- the US included, I must admit-- bully the rest into following their lead.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah.

Most of the 'leftards' (I assume that anyone from Europe qualifies, given that even the left in the US is right wing by our standards) want regulation (in order to prevent ISPs becoming abusive to their customers), but not censorship. Most of the groups demanding censorship are far right wing groups like the Chinese, Russian and US Governments, and Religious groups.

For the rest of us, having some sort of UN regulation is about trying to minimise their impact - it would be *very* bad for us if the US started seizing control of the internet, given the wildly different political climates.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest difference between the US and most of the others is that if the US cant get the UN to agree it does what it wants anyway (after convincing idiots like Tony bLIAR to go along).

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[erroneus]

Indeed. It's a good thing that we can't agree on anything at all, or I would be worried.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[click2005]

Only until the UN allows then to block these kinds of stories.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[C_amiga_fan]

WOW.

You must be downloading movies (125GB/700MB == ~150 movies)? My total Usenet download is less than 1 GB per month - all text plus an image or two. Since a dialup line can handle 13GB per month, my usenet usage is not a big deal. Get two or three phone lines and you can grab 2-3 times that amount (and most importantly: avoid the censorship of the ISP).

-C64_love (banned from posting for one day)

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. So it's YOU who defines what "freedom-of-speech stuff" is... Great! Now I know who I should ask the next time I want to say something.

Is "freedom-of-speech stuff" limited to 1 MB/month? What if I want to post gigabytes of high-definition videos of US secrets somewhere?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[xTantrum]

Otherwise known as least common denominator. Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

U mean like the US is any better? The US reactions to this wikileaks mess shows their true colours. So whether the US or China it's the same thing in the end. 6 of a dozen....

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[JackieBrown]

Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight,

You are assuming they start with an "allow everything" policy. If they start with a "deny everything" policy then "the set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight" will result with a very heavily restricted internet.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[icebraining]

Maybe he prefers HD to SD. A 720p H.264 movie takes at least 4GB, and many takes 6GB+. 1080p takes even more.

And while I'm not a avid downloader, 39GB seems awfully limited. I guess I'm spoiled by my unlimited 10mbps package for about $30 (it's $60, but it comes with cable TV and phone with unlimited calls to landlines plus 120 free minutes to cellphones per month. The free calls already pay for the remaining $30).

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[poetmatt]

well, you can enjoy that all you want, but I'll take P2P DNS.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone is happy with xvids anymore! Some of us want 1080p video(also think TV shows etc, not just movies).

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Quince alPillan]

In an age that multiple gigabytes of information can fit in a card the size of a fingernail, sneakernet is alive and well. Even if the government starts policing the internet, the underground will still live on in the shadows as it does in China today.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[AltairDusk]

To play devil's advocate here the US is a sovereign country (as are other UN members). There is no requirement that they do what the UN tells them.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN has been considering Internet regulation for some time. I believe they wanted to start taxing the Internet since 1999. Some believe the UN would like funding independent of the member nations and perceive this as a means to do so. Then there's the whole ICANN thing. Of course with Security Council type vetos, don't expect an expansion or protection of Internet freedoms.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[budgenator]

Add in some modern stuff like mesh network via built in wireless networking cards and pringle cans, and a dash of old stuff like UUCP and any control of the internet would be fleeting at best.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[dragonhunter21]

It's a sig. Way to be a prick.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[dreamchaser]

"Sent from my CR-48"

We don't care. Stop being a twat.

Then turn sigs off and stop being an asshole.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[mcgrew]

Agreed, it's YOUR job as a parent, not the government. It's YOUR choice what you think is appropriate, not the government. When my kids were still young, there were NC-17 movies I didn't mind them seeing, while at the same time there were PG-13 movies I thought were too violent for them.

I didn't mind them watching Cheech and Chong with me (especially the ones with Pee Wee Herman, they loved his kid show on Saturday mornings, and so did I), but I wouldn't let them watch the "sanitized for TV" (read "dirty words and sex scene cut out") version of the Terminator.

Who would want their kids having nightmares?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[mlts]

That is true as of now, but things can change. There are a lot of technology pieces that are in use now that can push free, unregulated speech to the edges of the Internet:

1: "Blue pill" variants. These would be hardened chips, or just hypervisor modifications which would periodically freeze a CPU's execution, scan a machine's RAM for stuff, then if it finds something either shuts the machine down, or shuts it down and phones home about it. This same technology can ensure only signed operating systems boot. This is a technology different from TPM chips because it is active and part of the boot process, as opposed to sitting on the site and just taking in hashes, then only releasing a key if a hash series matches.

2: NAC and health checking. If a machine isn't "authorized", either by not running a "legal" OS, or the hardware is not "trusted", it won't get the ability to connect.

3: Closed computing. Closed environments where the user has no access to root/Administrator are getting dangerously close to the desktop. One can see Android, iOS, or variants ending up on the desktop. End users would actually be happy because they wouldn't have to worry about system admin tasks. However, in this environment, it is trivial to have monitoring tools in place that can't be disabled by the end user.

4: No such thing as net neutrality. ISPs have no legal responsibility to carry sites, and if they so chose, they could make a website that looks like Google.com, but in reality be something completely different, and route traffic there. So, ISPs can easily make a blacklist of sites whose packets are either dropped, or whose users are logged, then those users are dropped off the Internet. Because of the monopolies, it wouldn't take more than just 3-4 ISPs cooperating to ensure someone has no net access other than through borrowed logins, and a policy of dropping anyone who allows blacklisted users to connect would fix that in a hurry.

So, it wouldn't take much for all these pieces to come into place, and everyone who once used the Web now ends up using essentially a thin terminal to Compuserve 2.0 and pays by the hour online, by the sites visited... and all use is of course handed over to advertisers in toto.

This is something that a lot of organizations with deep pockets would benefit from. Advertisers would have more info to sell, insurance companies would be able to raise rates or find people's secret lifes as reasons to kick them off the rolls. ISPs would benefit from the data available to advertisers for mining, as well as all the additional fees. Commercial software developers would not have piracy as an issue, nor F/OSS software competing. Record labels can charge people any fees they want (5 cents per song per play.) LEOs would have easy pickings to dredge up details to do cases on people.

So, everyone benefits from the Internet going back to a CIS/AOL/Prodigy arrangement, except the end user.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[KingMotley]

it would be *very* bad for us if the US started seizing control of the internet

The US created the internet. They have and still currently have control on most of the infrastructure. The internet has flourished under their "control" or lack thereof, and I see no reason to change it. Unless you think the internet is currently broken, don't go trying to fix it by handing control over to the UN, which typically takes 15 years to do anything of importance, if they ever get around to it. THAT would be disastrous.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll police how my kids use the Internet, I don't need the government to do my job for me!

This.

The only thing I could see as beneficial to the situation is if we had a self-imposed ratings system so people could filter their own internets.
Or maybe if there was a ratings group which could be used to independently verify the content of sites.

That way, anyone wanting a walled-garden internet could just: subscribe to the list provided by the ratings group(s), select the level of naughtyness they want, then happily live their lives without worry about encountering content which may offend them. ... all without bothering the rest of us.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[interval1066]

Good point. 2 things; The UN general council is comprised of the usual cabal of thieves and murderers who can't agree on when to have lunch much less any kind of internet standards, and no one pays any attention to them unless it benefits their country's national policies anyway. The UN declares things all the time and member nations ignore those declarations all the time, so, this is a real non-issue.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[LWATCDR]

It really is hysterical that you lump them all together.
US wants to crack down on piracy, child porn, and gambling.
Australia wants to crack down on piracy and child porn.
Britain wants to crack down on child porn and the an embarrassing leak now and then.
France wants to crack down on people selling Nazi stuff and selling fake designer handbags.
And notice how they all want to or try to do this but often they can not because of their own laws. Notice that Wiki-leaks isn't blocked in the US.

China throws people in jail for pro-democracy blogs. North Korea doesn't have the internet at all.

The crabbing in the west is a good thing because it means that people care and the fact that it is public means that we do have freedom of speech.
In China and North Korea just try and publish a document critical of their policy.
And in North Korea just try and even talk to anyone about the policy in public actually don't I don't want any deaths based on one of my posts.

Truth is that most of the world still doesn't have any where near the freedom of speech that is common in US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, and a few other nations. It would be wise to realize that we are not the entire world and the UN is.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[rtb61]

It is a matter of inevitability and UN control is all about establishing treaties for intercommunication with each individual country controlling their part of it. So other countries are becoming more uncomfortable with US control, when the US has security failures and starts attacking internet access in other countries to try to enforce web silence.

So really is was only a matter of time between the imperial US attempting total control of the internet and other countries driving for greater independence. Think of it in dollar terms, no every other country can sell those prime .com .net and .org all over again and the US get's stuck with .us.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[clone52431]

It really is hysterical that you lump them all together.

What’s hilarious about it? He didn’t say they all had exactly the same oppressive initiatives, he just said they all seemed to be hitting the news often. Which they are, and you already ran through the list of what each country is respectively trying to restrict.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Danathar]

I suppose one could create a sneakernet with some people as routers. :)

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[MightyMartian]

Yup. All that will happen is a variant on the same way RIAA and the MPAA are fighting, where every blow you make simply makes the other side smarter.

Try to bolt down the Internet, and you'll encourage innovation that keeps it free.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Daimanta]

"It's a sig. Way to be a prick.
--
Sent from my CR-48
"

Then stop sending pricks from your CR-48!

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also...

Then why is it a left-wing President who wants an "internet kill switch"? Sure, many religious folks want porn and such taken out, but we all know that's impossible. I realize that the enjoyment of adult content has driven a lot of computer-related technology. As a so-called "religious right-winger" myself, I want the government to keep it's grubby hands out of my life. I want ICANN to both activate the .xxx TLD and strongly recommend to new and existing adult sites that they migrate over to it, so I can block it from my own network with a single rule. I don't need a government nanny controlling what I or my children see on the internet, TV, books, or magazines, because I'm smart enough to do it myself. I don't need US.gov or the UN to think for me or raise my kids for me; I'm perfectly capable of doing that on my own.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[SuricouRaven]

"the Chinese"

Somewhat complicated - they are actually far left economically, still dedicated to a form of partial communism, but tend towards the right on social issues.

Within the US, social-conservative and ecnomic-conservative align very nearly perfectly, as a consequence of an effectively two-party political environment forcing everyone to pick sides. Outside of the US, there is more variation.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[SuricouRaven]

"A 720p H.264 movie takes at least 4GB"
I wish pirates would put more effort into encoding. Four gig is the standard, but for most movies and a sufficient amount of processor time two gig looks just as good. It's about the encoding settings as much as the size - but with the scene dedicated to getting movies out first, frequently the encoders would rather just use twice the size they need than wait a week for the encode to run.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[SuricouRaven]

This being the UN, I imagine they would also want to prohibit 'defamation of religion' - a motion often championed by Islamic countries, still horrified that filthy westerners could allow caricatures of Mohammed to be published.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

What NC-17 movie is appropriate for the "young"?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[dragonhunter21]

It might be inevitable that the UN will try to control the internet, but that doesn't mean we have to lay down and accept it.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[interkin3tic]

Say what you want about the US, but do you really want China and Saudi Arabia defining global internet standards?

It's my understanding, from Glorious People's North Korean Daily Enlightening News Broadcast, that Dear Leader already does a fine job defining global Internet standards, and there is no better judge than him.

Also, anyone who says otherwise is an american imperialist scum, even the ones from Brazil, India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[interkin3tic]

What it means in Diplomatese is that they are going to set up a commiteee first, talk to each and every nation about their preferences, and then create a document

which will enshrine the wishes of the US government and it's corporate owners, which will then be signed into treaty in secret under the guise of fighting child porn, piracy, and terrorism.

I think you're overthinking the process here, the one you described takes too long.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, it's not the citizens of these countries defining the standards, it's a select TINY FEW who have an invested interest in controlling what and how the people inside their borders think. Given an informed choice, I don't think that ANY person would choose to live shrouded from the truth.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[LWATCDR]

It hilarious because for the most part western nations are trying to restrict things that most people agree should be restricted. They sometimes go to far but for the most part they get ruled in by their own laws. In other words every once and a while they try and go too far.
China and NK both have succeeded in their repression.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"They have and still currently have control on most of the infrastructure. " You do realize how little part of the Internet infrastructure that is under control of the USG? No, of course you don't. Sorry about the noise. You can go back to doing categorically retarded statements about the Internet now.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Right wingers want to "save the children?"

Do you even pay attention to who says what in congress?

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/111307tdpm1.htm

The Democrats want to "save teh children" just as much as the rest of the group-- because, shocking as it might be, people in the government want to expand the government.

I am consistently considered (and registered) independent, yet most of my friends are "right wing". None of them want stricter controls from the government. If anything, the very opposite of what you just said is true.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[clone52431]

It hilarious because for the most part western nations are trying to restrict things that most people agree should be restricted.

Just from your list I could single out gambling (US) and not-child-porn-but-we’re-banning-it-anyway (Australia already, US appears to be headed in that direction); Britain has basically made it illegal to have data on your hard drive that looks like it could be encrypted data but which you don’t have (or won’t give the authorities) a password for...

China and NK both have succeeded in their repression.

He never said they were all equally repressive. The fact that some of the countries he mentioned are already much more repressive is beside the point... the western nations are also steadily moving in a more repressive direction, as indicated by what keeps surfacing in the news.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't recall any specifics, but I've run into quite a few non-violent, non-sexual NC-17 movies that were rated as such simply for frontal nudity. Again, nothing sexual, just the occasional bushy crotch making its way across the screen in the background. European imports tend to be rated as such by the MPAA.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[kheldan]

I don't think you get it: It all starts there. Once they have successfully exerted control, then it expands to include whatever they want, and don't sit there and tell me with a straight face that it isn't going to happen: Historically, power seeks more power, control seeks more control, and if something like this happens then it won't be too long before the internet resembles a swiss cheese for all the censorship that will be done to it.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

not to mention anything that shows how full of it their beliefs are.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[LWATCDR]

Gambling isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a taxation issue. One doesn't express ones self in online poker.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[jd]

Which the French, Chinese and Australians already have. The US prefers hellcat missiles to censorship, so it would not suprise me if there was an edit from an anonymous source somewhere in the London region soon.

The fact is, US control hasn't prevented any of the abuses you mention, has actually enabled most of them (up to and including supplying the parts), and is guilty of censorship through terrorism itself. Not to mention backdooring IPSec to spy on others. And this is your preferred option? The UN being unable to decide sounds preferable to what we have.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[BeanThere]

It should also be pointed out the current South African government is making a heavy all-out attack on freedom of press in South Africa, as they are trying to push through a bill that would give them complete control of all media in South Africa (http://www.ngopulse.org/article/protection-information-bill-sa-media-under-attack "Protection of Information Bill: SA Media Under Attack").

The current South African government is also friendly with and aligning itself with the likes of Cuba (http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=128840 "Zuma writes off R1bn Cuban debt"; http://www.southafrica.info/news/international/zuma-josemarti-071210.htm "Zuma receives top Cuban honour").

I used to wonder why the US seemed to distrust and dislike the UN, but the more years pass, the more I realize the UN is really not helping the world the way they claim to, and in fact are in many ways dangerous and harmful - they are just another group of politicians fighting for more power and money.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[gandhi_2]

One of the reasons the US founding fathers used the 3-branch system was that they hoped the branches would spend most of their time fighting each-other for control and leave the common man alone.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[clone52431]

It’s an issue of your rights online, which was the subject that TaoPhoenix was commenting on, and as you are the one who initially mentioned gambling it was certainly fair play for me to single out.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[BeanThere]

The Internet was nice while it lasted.

No, NEVER give up the fight for increasing liberty. Never accept defeat. Even if they pass oppressive laws, never stop denouncing them, and never stop fighting them. Let these guys know in no uncertain terms that if they want to take our liberties, they are at least going to always have a fight on their hands --- always, and indefinitely.

There are many ways to "fight", including peaceful ones. There are organizations such as the Institute for Justice that fight for freedom within a legal framework; find such organizations that are fighting for liberty, and make them stronger by donating some spare change to them People are willing to spend a lot of money on things like their TV's, cars, houses, but for some reason it doesn't occur to people to spend money on their liberty. Liberty does not come easily or for free. Let's empower organizations that keep fighting back. Our ancestors gave their lives for liberty, we aren't willing to give our spare change for it?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[jedidiah]

> You must be downloading movies

Yes... a couple of things called Hulu and Netflix.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[BeanThere]

That's because there are four primary 'poles', not two as the left-right system implies and distorts our thoughts on the system; the 'right' in the US are typically higher on economic liberty but low on social liberty; 'liberals' vice-versa. In reality the best system is one which has high social and economic liberty.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Download WikiLeaks Secret US Embassy Cables from :http://tinyurl.com/35djwqh

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[nospam007]

The countries mentioned are the essence of all Democracies.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[cayenne8]

"Gambling isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a taxation issue. One doesn't express ones self in online poker."

LOL...I don't know, I've found myself expressing a multitude of opinions during an online poker match!!

Many of them unfit for people under the age of 18yrs.

:)

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[bem]

Or, Brazil...

It is stagggering how much spam I see from IMP and Squirrelmail on *.gov.br servers.

If they can't stop spewing spam, why should I trust them to secure anything?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the Metagovernment, which promotes agreement through synthesis... but certainly does not promote nation-states.

The only problem is, if nations do end up censoring the internet, they might be able to kill Metagovernment before it can kill them.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I hope you plan on being with your kids 24/7/365 then. And having thorough checks made into the parents of their friends and any other person whose care they are left in. After all if your child goes to play at little Timmy's house and Timmy's parents allow programs you wouldn't then you have to do something.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

A return to dial-up Bulletin Board Systems seems immiment. The good old days when the screech of a modem signal was a happy occurrence.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight, and the decision making process involved in keeping it up to date far less agile than the network itself. Now if governments also agree not to add their own layers on top this would be total win.

How naive you are. It would be the other way around. No government will ever cede control over content to any other body. The result would be tha the only way this could move forward is if nothing that is in any way objectionable to any nation-state would be allowed.

In other words, the Internet would consist of one web page, in French, saying, "Don't panic."

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[gfreeman]

Yup, it's not like the US is creating some sort of internet "kill switch" or anything like that.

Oh, wait ...

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[MachDelta]

Three branches ought to be enough for anybody!

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Shakrai]

One of the reasons the US founding fathers used the 3-branch system was that they hoped the branches would spend most of their time fighting each-other for control and leave the common man alone.

That was a good theory until political parties came along. The whole point of a political party is to get people in those 3 branches to cooperate with each other. Witness the Republican outrage over TSA's antics now that a Democrat is calling the shots and contrast it against the silence when GWB was calling the shots. Witness the muted response from Democrats when the Obama Administration declares that you have no right to privacy in public and contrast it against the response when GWB tried to do the same.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[commodore64_love]

We were discussing the Usenet and Fidonet for sharing text/image files over phone lines (in the event the internet was censored). Hulu/netflix has nothing to do with this topic.

700 MB is still the most common size found on isohunt.com searches. And while SOME may prefer higher-quality 1500 or 3000 MB HDTV rips, I actually prefer the opposite. I look for those "NapisyPL" rips that are 70 or 150 MB, or on ipodnova.com for 250 MB rips, since they can be downloaded in about ten minutes.

-C64_love (banned from posting for one day)

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Shakrai]

Only until the UN allows then to block these kinds of stories.

The US Government doesn't have the authority to block any stories. Little matter of the 1st Amendment to consider. The US Constitution remains the supreme law of the land in America so I could give two shits what the UN tries to impose on us.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[bobdevine]

Indeed. It's a good thing that we can't agree on anything at all, or I would be worried.

Yeah, I agree!

Umm, wait a minute...

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Shakrai]

The US reactions to this wikileaks mess shows their true colours

What "reactions"? There's been a whole bunch of whining and chest thumping. That's it. My Government hasn't even indicted let alone convicted Mr. Assange. The legal precedent here (going all the way back to the Pentagon Papers, look them up) is squarely on his side.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

... we'll just see an age of common people learning more and more about cryptography, steganography, and computer security.

steganography?!

what can you hide in an image file that can't be immediately found?

steganography is a word that sounds impressive but in practice it is virtually useless.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe six-pack. Referring to how beer is sold, not abdominal muscles.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirror's Edge becomes real life?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[GameboyRMH]

BTW. I think you mean hellfire missiles, the hellcat is a WW2 fighter plane.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[LWATCDR]

Actually that is called "the slippery slope argument" and is a logical fallacy. Once you do X then Y must surely follow.
For example "once you outlaw the private ownership of nuclear weapons the next thing they will outlaw is butter knives."

Once they tax alcohol they will have tax sex and we will have government meters on all our underwear.

For example outlawing child porn has not lead to the the outlawing of books with the word crap in them.
One must not always lead to the to the other.

The real problem is that governments are trying to deal with the problem that the internet crosses boarders.
For instance it the legal age in some places in Europe is less than 18. So a site in Europe is illegal in the US. In some places in Europe they have strict "hate speech" laws that are flat out unconstitutional in the US. That makes some political speech sites that are totally legal in the US illegal in the EU.
In many cases governments are not trying to gain new powers but to actually enforce powers they have had all along that the Internet has taken from them.
Which is worse? censoring pics of naked 17 year olds or limiting the free speech of neo-nazis?
The US offers more protection to ideas than sexually explicit images. In the EU it is the other way around.
Frankly blocking nude pics of 17 year old people and neo-nazis has no real effect on me since I don't want to see any of them. Any issues I have are more philosophical than practical. I do agree that political speech should have more protection than commercial speech and images but then I don't think a picture of a naked 17 year old is all that more offensive or immoral than an 18 year old.
However if the UN gets it way odds are that they will ban both everywhere.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[grcumb]

Lowest common denominator sounds nice. The set of regulations that all nation states can agree on should be fairly lightweight, and the decision making process involved in keeping it up to date far less agile than the network itself. Now if governments also agree not to add their own layers on top this would be total win.

Dude, you really need to get around more.

In this context, Lowest Common Denominator means 'Every nation has the right to do whatever the fuck it wants within its own national borders, and in the context of the Internet, we're going to define "borders" so arbitrarily that nobody will be safe from their own government anywhere on the 'Net. Have a nice day!'

I'm a big fan of multi-lateralism in many cases, but in this particular case, the people who are most vocal are the ones whose interests are inimical to a free and open Internet. Hate ICANN all you like, but they are vastly preferable to the alternative.

For many players in this game, the fact that the Internet is working as designed leads to the conclusion that the design must be changed. For us, this is a case of 'It's not broken yet, so keep fixing it!'

I'm not a scholar on this subject, but I've written a few briefing papers on this subject for the government of the place I live, so I don't speak entirely from ignorance.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[mcgrew]

My kids are grown, they can whatch whatever the hell they want.

When they were little, they knew the boundaries -- and when they went past the boundaries, they seldom had to be punished, going past the boundaries was punishment enough.

But the point was, the government (or the neighbor) isn't the one to set guidelines or boundaries, the parent is.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[matt4077]

The UN eradicated smallpox. What have you done lately that is comparable, except tying your own shoelaces?

It's true that the UN isn't really efficient. How could it be? It's 200 countries with vastly different cultures, ideas and goals. Getting all these powers to agree on something is bound to be hard. But that doesn't change the fact that having a common forum to talk in is a fundamentally good thing. There's also no alternative. The US has been trying to impose their will on other countries by force or political/economic power for decades, with decidedly mixed results. It's actually easier to find a compromise and get everyone to act on it.

Politics is hard. Remember that the next time you can't get your family to agree on dinner.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Actually that is called "the slippery slope argument" and is a logical fallacy. Once you do X then Y must surely follow.
For example "once you outlaw the private ownership of nuclear weapons the next thing they will outlaw is butter knives."

Unfortunately, that means of "proving" that the slippery slope is fallacious falls squarely into another logical fallacy, namely, the straw man. In the real world, slippery slopes are not anywhere near as extreme as "nukes and butter knives," and history is replete with examples of slopes that have shown to be very slippery indeed. The "Logical Fallacies 101" list of which every philosophy department seems to have some variant on its website is a useful introduction to some common rhetorical traps, but it shouldn't be taken as the be-all and end-all of logic.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Have Brain Will Rent]

ok I guess you missed my point. That's ok.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Only until the UN allows then to block these kinds of stories.

The US Government doesn't have the authority to block any stories. Little matter of the 1st Amendment to consider. The US Constitution remains the supreme law of the land in America so I could give two shits what the UN tries to impose on us.

If the UN outlaws something online it is almost certainly going to affect you. Content producers aren't going to put significant energy into an issue or topic that could get them blacklisted, or one that only has a fraction of the internet as a potential audience.
The controls they impose won't control what you can read, but they will definitely influence the types of things there are to read in the first place.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Pi1grim]

If I were you, I would definitely take a look around and see, that the US Constitution has long lost it's power. Freedom is not something you just get. You have to fight for it every goddamn minute and prove you're worthy of it. Otherwise other smart-ass, that knows how you should live will control your life. So, unless you fight back, you will have the same restrictions (or even stricter) before you can blink.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Pi1grim]

The problem here is not, that UN has declared something and because of that everyone will have to follow it. It's the fact, that they have declared it because the majority of governments is interested in censoring the internet. Globally. That's a red flag, meaning you should pay more attention in the coming years to _your_ government's attempts at censoring the internet.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[SlowMovingTarget]

...Witness the Republican outrage over TSA's antics now that a Democrat is calling the shots and contrast it against the silence when GWB was calling the shots....

I don't think it's just Republican outrage... The TSA weren't running nudie scanners with the alternative being a junk-touching session when GWB was calling the shots. That's a brand new wrinkle that brings the privacy outrage up close and personal. I've always assumed that the government could listen into phone calls anyway (not legally, they just didn't blab about doing it), and that actual private conversations could only occur face-to-face. I'd also argue that these two kinds of privacy are of a very different quality. Privacy of one's communications is not the same as privacy of one's body.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[RightSaidFred99]

US reaction? What exactly has the US done? Oh, that's right - a whole lot of nothing.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[KingMotley]

Perhaps you need to learn what exactly it is you are talking about, or do you just like looking like a fool?

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]child porn[/quote]you are a sick fuck you just are against it because you would be hurt fuck you there is something wrong with you so please just off yourself already

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[flyneye]

I'm not going to start worrying anytime soon about either the U.N. (Unlimited Numbskulls) or some backwater 2.5th world country setting internet standards no matter how hard they scream about it. You can always count on the U.N. to talk. Talk does nothing. The U.N. does nothing. Funny thing about authority, if you don't recognize it ,it dissipates like a fart.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[aliquis]

that's what they want you to believe mr BB-code.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[the_womble]

Living in the shadows means most people do not read it, so the authorities can safely ignore it. It will not change society - its hardly a serious challenge to the Chinese.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[ignavus]

In an age that multiple gigabytes of information can fit in a card the size of a fingernail, sneakernet is alive and well. Even if the government starts policing the internet, the underground will still live on in the shadows as it does in China today.

The World-Wide Sneakernet?

Have you tried walking across the Pacific? Apart from the obvious packet loss (and floating pairs of sneakers), the latency time on successful packet transfers is humongously high.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

no, bad idea .if they "try" then still the vast majority of technologically illiterate people will be affected. their goal is to reduce the chance that the little game they play will be exposed. if more people have a harder time getting access to information then their plan is working.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's really hilarious? The fact that every time when our rights are being trampled, idiots like you ALWAYS come out of the woodwork to scream BUT CHINA IS WORSE!!11

And so it is. Yet. It won't be very long if the only justification you need for taking a step in that direction is that someone else is even worse.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Wikileaks is over *there*

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would want their kids having nightmares?

Me. It is called "life". Fortunately I haven't been raised by such prudish people that would keep their kids in a walled garden.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I have yet to hear a single American conservative politician come out on favor of Internet policing, while in Australia, it is the left-wing Labor party that advocates censorship of the 'tubes. Your comment is completely baseless.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Zancarius]

To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled. The religious right would love it if everything "harmful to children" (read: anything inappropriate for a 5 year old to read) was taken off the Internet. They've tried multiple times to get laws passed enforcing this but it has always been struck down in the courts. (This coming from the father of a 7 year old and a 3 year old... I'll police how my kids use the Internet, I don't need the government to do my job for me!)

This is true, although I would classify most of them as the ignorant knee-jerkers that both sides of the political spectrum have (the left has their uninformed lunatics, too). You know the sort--it's good until it's something that offends them, then it's bad.

Personally, I self-identify as a right-winger, and I see any form of government control over the Internet as a necessarily bad thing. Although, you could probably convince me otherwise if it were an argument for increasing broadband penetration in areas that aren't well services (my only concern being who would pay for it). So, just to clarify: I believe there are those on either side of the fence who demand control for their own pet reasons, and many of them are largely quite clueless. I don't really see Internet censorship and/or control as a right/left issue as much as I see it as an informed versus uninformed issue.

Re:global standards for policing the internet

[Jason Levine]

Very true. My post was meant more as a counter-balance against the AC who said "quite a lot of anguished leftards want that [government control of the Internet]". There are people on both sides who would like to control the Internet. Their reasons might differ and what they'd want to control might differ, but in the end any government control of the Internet would be bad.

After all, maybe this year one party is the one "protecting people from that bad stuff online" but then next year the other party gets voted in and uses the powers the previous party established to block their online pet peeves. Whenever you're handing the government a power, I think it's a good idea to imagine how someone with the opposite political ideals as you would use that power. If you don't like it, then perhaps giving the government that power (e.g. control over the Internet) is a bad idea.

Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Viol8]

You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. Something people in wikileaks and all those naive kids calling themselves Anonymous (or whatever silly name they've thought up this week) and similar groups don't appear to realise.

And anyone who says you can't regulate the internet is dreaming. Ask the chinese.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[dragonhunter21]

I'm sorry, Tor and the myriad other proxy services floating around China would like a word.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Spad]

Of course you can regulate the internet - you can regulate anything in principle - but enforcing that regulation is something else altogether.

You can't get most countries to co-operate when they're dealing with the big issues; do you really think you're going to be able to get them to co-operate over that guy from country X who posted something objectionable about someone from country Y on that message board hosted in country Z?

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Teancum]

And anyone who says you can't regulate the internet is dreaming. Ask the chinese.

How has that experiment been working out? That isn't exactly regulating the internet so much as doing the equivalent of registering all of the typewriters in a country and requiring a license to own one.

It is still possible to "distribute" anti-government information within China about the Chinese Politburo or to discuss frankly the events of the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre in Chinese. It isn't exactly easy, but it can be done and in spite of insane levels of government interference in trying to deal with the issue it seems to only get harder to stop that from happening.

Such levels of regulation also haven't hit a people who is used to freedom of expression and the willingness to tell off the government in large numbers. This is one genie that is going to be very hard to stuff back into a bottle now that it is out, which is exactly what some of these governments are trying to do.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[oztiks]

Regulation will turn into taxation. Taxation will be self regulated. If you fudge your tax returns you go to jail. Wikileaks will be looked upon as a regulation violation and people would be dragged before a judge.

I knew this would be the result of Wikileaks where the end game is now a sped up process which otherwise would of taken the next 10 years to procure if left open-ended and unnoticed.

Wikileaks has set a new precedence welcoming the age of having to hold a broadcasters licence to setup a website.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Anonymous Coward]

your talking about a minority. no body cares.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Viol8]

I'm sure they would - in the 5 mins they're available before they're blocked.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[clone52431]

You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. Something people in wikileaks and all those naive kids calling themselves Anonymous (or whatever silly name they've thought up this week) and similar groups don't appear to realise.

That works the other direction too.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[oztiks]

Yes, but this is where self regulation comes in to play. I can issue false tax returns but i'm rolling the dice and taking my chances.

The regulation will come in a form of a Govt Duty which will be attached to the licence.

Sure i can drive my car without a licence but the same risk takes place.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[DrgnDancer]

The Chinese have had moderate, but by no means total success in in regulating the Internet via means that most Western Nations would find both technically difficult and legally impossible. first you have to have a population that is largely unwilling to do things that the government thinks are bad, which, all jokes about the nanny state aside, most western countries don't have. There are always a few million people here or a few hundred thousand there that will literally do something only *because* the government said it was bad. Then you have to firewall every pipe into the country, which is a Hell of a lot easier when you do it early like China did than now. Australia is kinda "lucky" in that regard, because the continent is so isolated that there's a pretty limited number of pipes in. Finally you'd have to make laws which would be First Amendment violations here and violate lots of Human Rights Charters elsewhere.

Even with all of that, most reports out of China are that other than a few high profile "Look we're enforcing this, really!" raids, most people in China who have a desire to get around the rules can do so trivially, and mostly untraceably. I mean, if i really wanted to do bad stuff on the Internet, all I'd do is use a randomly generated spoofed MAC address on the free wireless at Starbucks (after paying cash for my coffee of course), then use an anonymous proxy. Rotate through places with free wireless and you'd be electronically untraceable. If they really wanted you I suppose they could get tapes from the stores, but that would probably require them realizing that it was the same person at each shop. Pretty unlikely.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[moeinvt]

"You poke a dog with a stick often enough and eventually it'll go for you. "

I agree with that, but are you suggesting that the U.S. government is analogous to the dog and Wikileaks and its supporters are poking said dog with a stick? That's how I'M reading your words. It is with a mixture of sadness and frustration that I listen to the argument: "We better behave ourselves, or the government will crack down on the Internet!" I'm not saying that Wikileaks and Anonymous won't be used as an EXCUSE for government attempts to implement greater control of the Internet. That's a certainty. Actually ADVOCATING that we change our behavior to appease the government is the mentality of a serf or a slave. Better not do anything to make the Lord/Master angry because he'll punish us? Not only does that indicate a belief that the government has assumed the role of RULER of the people as opposed to "Representative" of the people, it indicates that the servitude is something that we must accept.

Wow! That thought just blows my mind. It just seems like we've very abruptly crossed a threshold into a whole new paradigm.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[deadweight]

Hmmmmm........how to stop..............what to do................ I know! Free wireless connections = bullet in head and they aren't too hard to track down. Problem solved.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[DrgnDancer]

Yeah, and that's totally gonna get by the Supreme Court. Did you read the whole post or just the part you could make a smart-ass comment about?

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Anonymous Coward]

It just seems like we've very abruptly crossed a threshold into a whole new paradigm.

Oh wow, I only need one of the following words to complete my buzzword bingo now:

• green computing/datacenter
• synergy
• virtualization
• cloud(-based)

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Anonymous Coward]

You already do have to have a license its called a telecommunications license and the major carriers have to have them but they will rent out a bit of their license to you for a fee. The internet already works like this.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with that, but are you suggesting that the U.S. government is analogous to the dog and Wikileaks and its supporters are poking said dog with a stick? That's how I'M reading your words. It is with a mixture of sadness and frustration that I listen to the argument: "We better behave ourselves, or the government will crack down on the Internet!"

I suggest you get used to it. You can spout rhetoric all you want. You can use revolutionist buzzwords fluently. You can hallucinate some world where you can do whatever you want, an imaginary line drawn by words on a piece of paper is permanent and impenetrable, and you have some sort of magical immunity against people who control the country you live in and their considerably higher physical firepower than you have.

And then reality comes knocking to remind you that you really don't make the rules and don't have the support of The People(tm), given all you're doing is harming everyone who would rather get on with their lives and quite frankly couldn't care less about your basement-scale revolution.

And now you're being reminded that having a revolution entirely dependent on a corporation-and-government-controlled communication medium is a pretty stupid idea when this revolution is against those very same corporations and governments that control it.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[SuricouRaven]

They'll be blocked, the blocks will be countered, the counters countered... those of technical skill will always have the ability to work around any restriction, but there comes a point when the skill needed is great enough that the vast majority can't do it. Why would China care about someone publishing pro-democracy documents or revealing embarassing secrets about the government's oppression when only one in a hundred citizens have the ability to hack around the firewalls and access it?

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Teancum]

But how is the experiment working out? This is my question.

I've known many people who have at least temporarily driven an automobile without a license and a whole bunch that drive without automotive insurance. In fact, there are so many laws that govern you life that it is possible that you are breaking the law right now, and not really being aware of that.

The point of the Chinese control over the internet is to stop the flow of "subversive" information spreading around. Surprisingly, it is pornography that the Chinese crack down almost as hard as dissident speech, yet I'd like you to convince me that somebody who is at least somewhat motivated can't obtain some porn in the middle of China. I wouldn't show it off to some government official, but I'm sure you can find it and it wouldn't even be all that hard. With encryption and peer to peer networks like freenet and Tor, how is even this sort of stuff even regulated at all?

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[oztiks]

Well see this would extend the process.

The telecommuncations providers perhaps could become more liable, ISPS will hold more responsibility and it will trickle down to the individuals responsible for publicizing content.

Different licences for differnet teirs. Sites like Facebook even needing their own licence for running a social network.

The realities baring on the situation (amidst an economical crisis) is that such a structure could create many jobs such policing the internet, devising policy, and creating infrastructure. Not to mention the massive basin of revenue delivered via duty. This is right up the ally of public service and wont go unnoticed.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[moeinvt]

Thanks for the "suggestion" but I'll pass. Your hostility bespeaks an anger born of helplessness and frustration. I know how easy it is to get depressed with the goings-on of the world, but things are not yet hopeless.

To what "buzz words" are you referring? Serf? Slave? Please enlighten me as to the appropriate terminology for someone who cowers in fear and tells their fellow CITIZENS to behave themselves lest they incur punishment from their Lords and Masters?

"You can hallucinate some world where ...an imaginary line drawn by words on a piece of paper is permanent and impenetrable"

You can burn the paper and the words, but the ideas live on, and as of now, those ideas are still the law.

"... then reality[TV] comes knocking to remind you ... don't have the support of The People(tm) ... all you're doing is harming everyone who would rather get on with their lives"

How are we supposed to "get over it" when the "it" isn't just a static situation, but rather a sinister ongoing process? How are you going to blindly "get on with your life" when everything that's happening around you is making your life more difficult by the day? I don't give a shit if my "rhetoric" is interrupting your television/junkfood induced state of semi-consciousness and you would rather get back to your gaming console.

We'll see how things play out, but in my observations, the corporate-government oligarchy doesn't have as much control as they might think they do. Their backlash seems rather reactionary and thus far relatively ineffectual. I don't think this was exactly part of the plan.

P.S.
"Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our country[man]."

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[moeinvt]

Guilty as charged. *&^$#%!!!

sed "s/threshold/line"/g
sed "s/paradigm/reality"/g

Better?

"buzzword bingo"? LOL

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just amazed that this is the excuse they choose to trot out. I would have expected them to go for the usual CP excuse.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[oztiks]

You're pertaining to the activities in china as the experiment? I'm first to say the filtration concept isn't something that works, its simply a wireframe for a departmental and manual policy to be put in place, similar to say the US Customs and Border Protection depts.

Take illegal importing for example. Drugs are imported across borders everyday. The risk factor is high, many people get punished for the crime.

Or say taxation, plenty of people fudging their tax returns but its the only real big fish worth chasing.

I see a regulatory body established where licencing for websites would mean the creation of an internet police (no not perfect). The next time a Wikileaks issue appears online it will be easy for them to unplug.

Julian Assange would be treated like Wesley Snipes in this case but much worse. No need for chumped up sex charges to keep him occupied and no need to manipulate companies like visa/mastercard.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Teancum]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't know what part of establishing a regulatory body falls under "making no law" makes sense here, but then again the principles of the convention of 1787 have all but been ignored anyway. Since you mention ICE and the Border Patrol, I am assuming that you were referring how it could happen in America.

Making "no law" means you can't make a law at all. It is an unregulatated enterprise entirely and enforcement laws simply can't be done... at least if you even pay lip service to this document. To suggest there is something different between a printing press and a website is really stretching the imagination.

Then again it could be argued that most Americans are merely well-paid serfs in the American empire and their opinions on these matters are moot and irrelevant as well.

In terms of China, no such principle even applies remotely. The Chinese Bill of Rights is essentially "You have the right to be shot by the police, and your family will be forced to pay for the bullets used." In spite of that the principle remains: the information isn't being stopped. Comparing the smuggling of information to smuggling other kinds of bulk goods is quite disingenuous here as well, but moving drugs certainly doesn't get the passion coming from trying to express your political opinion or more so your religious opinion on what matters. Dying for your god is a time-honored tradition for humanity, where people will certainly take risks that most drug runners would turn white even thinking about. It isn't the same thing.

As far as Julian Assange is concerned, he was an arrogant idiot who didn't keep his pants zipped up. I don't have too much sympathy for him at the moment, even though I do think the prosecution is being done because of political motivations. If you want to practice "free love" and sleep around, at least do so with women (or men... as it may be with your preference) that aren't going to stab you in the back afterward and try to know that person a little bit before you drop your undergarments. Having sex with random strangers is likely to screw up your life in more ways than one. The guy didn't even bother with a condom, which seems to be the main basis for the complaint in his case too.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[oztiks]

Is Assange a Journalist? Last time i looked at Wikileaks I didn't see a single news article written about a particular cable, all the site does is go "Here are the Cables".

The real whistle blower, the provider of the content, will be seeing the inside of a prison cell for the next 50 years. If anything Assange is that guy's "proxy". If Wikileaks was to post their own informational news pieces then extract relevant information from the cables. I could see this as a form of journalism but they are to lazy to do this.

Just as much as freedom of speech applies, its also abused, Wikileaks being the main culprit here. When does one simply shoot the messenger out of frustration? Because they get off scott free, while the guy who did the real grunt work, well, he's life is now over.

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Regulation doesn't prohibit it. Only when regulation prohibits it then it's prohibited and when when civil liberties are denied the law needs to step in - I believe in freedom on speech as much as the next guy but I wont stick every piece of information in that category. I believe freedom of speech is not a preempted strike on people or govts but more so an expression of one's self opinions, precisely like what two strangers over the internet are doing right here and now with this discussion. A healthy debate with the freedom to say anything they want and having the pleasure of anyone else chiming in or even simply reading it.

Taxing websites gives permission for companies to broadcast information. It isn't censoring the content or even charging for it, the tax/duty would be for running a legitimate piece of technology over a standard broadcast medium (the internet).

Run an illegal broadcast service. I.E a bunch of dodgy mirrored servers across different nations without the correct licence or substantiated purpose then the personal details of the people purchasing those servers should get subpoenaed and things are unplugged and people get fined.

You cant run a police scanner from your car these days, if you do you'll get busted, fined and perhaps lose the privileged to drive. You can't hot your car up beyond what the Govt regulations abide too of course there is a lot of flexibility there but when it hits levels of the extreme you can have your car impounded.

Re:Only the naive didn't see this coming

[Teancum]

Is Assange a Journalist? Last time i looked at Wikileaks I didn't see a single news article written about a particular cable, all the site does is go "Here are the Cables".

The U.S. Constitution makes no distinction between a "journalist" or an ordinary citizen. There is absolutely no difference, and the only thing that a journalist can claim is more experience at doing their job. I hate "shield laws" because they do give some sort of special distinction to journalists where none is necessarily warranted and in fact is making a "law" that protects one person's freedom of speech over another.

The real whistle blower, the provider of the content, will be seeing the inside of a prison cell for the next 50 years.

If you serve in the military, you swear an oath to uphold all "lawful" orders given by your superiors and more specifically you also swear an oath to keep secrets that may be available to you. The problem, if there is one, is in regards to keeping too much secret that doesn't deserve to be classified. That is the real issue here with Wikileaks, and one not being addressed.

If Wikileaks was to post their own informational news pieces then extract relevant information from the cables. I could see this as a form of journalism but they are to lazy to do this.

It makes no difference if all you do is publish stuff verbatim waiting for somebody else to make sense of it or making commentary. This is a basic and fundamental right, and the fact that it is a hot-type press that Ben Franklin would recognize or a website makes absolutely no difference. Publishing this sort of information was illegal by British law in the 1770's, and was one of the reasons why this particular amendment was written in the first place. Formal journalism with a degree and being on the payroll of a newsroom is not a requirement for protection here.

Just as much as freedom of speech applies, its also abused, Wikileaks being the main culprit here. When does one simply shoot the messenger out of frustration? Because they get off scott free, while the guy who did the real grunt work, well, he's life is now over.

Nobody at Wikileaks made the decision or induced this particular soldier to find a forum to publish these documents. If anything, Wikileaks is showing some responsibility by trying to hide the identities of innocent people only tangentially involved with these cables and redacting the names of soldiers in some of the other previously published contents. I dare say that Wikileaks is being responsible when there is no constitutional requirement to do so.

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Regulation doesn't prohibit it. Only when regulation prohibits it then it's prohibited and when when civil liberties are denied the law needs to step in

What part of "congress shall make no law" do you not get? Laws that govern this simply are prohibited completely. If anything, I dare say that even common law that regulates this activity is even unconstitutional. The only "regulations" that are generally upheld are a time, manner, and location issue where doing something stupid like holding an anti-war rally during a funeral in the actual cemetery of a soldier is of really bad taste and therefore the clueless have to be bashed over the head with laws to stop that idiotic behavior.

Obscenity or "instigating a riot" like butchering a pig in a mosque is similarly of bad taste and not permitted. Wikileaks can't be accused of doing any of that at all. Besides quoting what is some obscene language by some politicians who should have known better (and thus Wikileaks is only "reporting" the obscenity), what else are they doing that is regulated speech here? This is all political speech in its most pure form.

I believe in freedom on speech as much as the next guy but I wont stick every piece of i

Napster was ten years ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap, I'm old!

Re:Napster was ten years ago?

[Vernes]

You fool! As long as you don't say it, it's not true! You just HAD to say it! Napster, that shit happened YESTERDAY! YESTERDAAAY!

Re:Napster was ten years ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is that I distinctly remember using Napster somewhere between '95 to '97 or so. I had already stopped using it by '98 due to the obvious coming legal consequences. The Wikipedia page for Napster says it wasn't even started until '99... How is that possible? I know for a fact I was using it much earlier than that.

Drew Wilson? From ZeroPaid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drew Wilson? From ZeroPaid? Must be a freetard. And why should anyone care about what a freetard says? It all comes down to "I want something .. for nothing. Gimme gimme gimme. Bad people.".

Re:Drew Wilson? From ZeroPaid?

[JustOK]

And how much are you going to pay to get them to stop?

How much more

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Will nobody rid us of these lawyer politicians, whose only understanding of communication is how it can be used to control others? For countless millenia, these fools have been holding back humanity, calling themselves priests, or the aristocracy, or the upper class, or whatever. Enough! Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something. They want to control the internet? I say let the internet control them.

Re:How much more

[dragonhunter21]

Just so. The internet is the new forum, or town square, or hairdresser's shop. Trying to censor communication- any kind of communication at all- is wrong.

Re:How much more

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.
Unless "normal people" is code for people who agree with you 100% of the time, no. After all normal people can't set their DVR to record a show, or find a printer on a network. You want "normal people" to decide how technology should be used?

Re:How much more

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

No, I want normal people to be allowed to determine their own fates and communicate freely with one another without the intervention of those who dream themselves our masters.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyer politicians? Saudi Arabia? You're talking about a totalitarian monarchy there that want's to control the internet. Of course they want the internet regulated.

Brazil is a surprise to me but the other ones, I can see were they want the internet to be regulated in order to keep out information to their populace allowing to keep their control. The only thing I can think of is the ruling elite in Brazil wants to keep their populace from seeing how poor and the obscene disparity between rich and poor there are.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I want normal people to be allowed to determine their own fates and communicate freely with one another without the intervention of those who dream themselves our masters.

But normal people don't want freedom. Normal people don't want to live without the intervention of masters - they want to be the masters who "help" all those other poor unfortunates out there. You want freedom to choose. Most people are paralyzed with choice, and elect politicians who offer them freedom from choice. Not because they're naive; because they really want to be ruled :(

Remember the conjugation: I am erotic, you are kinky, they are disgusting perverts.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H. L. Mencken

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

Re:How much more

[royallthefourth]

Thanks for all that elitist bullshit about how stupid the commoners are

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

> But normal people don't want freedom. Normal people don't want to live without the intervention of masters - they want to be the masters who "help" all those other poor unfortunates out there.

Sallust expressed it more succinctly: "Namque pauci libertatem, pars magna iustos dominos volunt."

Re:How much more

[dkleinsc]

Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something?

No, we can't. As we should well know, when it comes to Internet voting, the whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

And even more so with politics, where big bucks are at stake and evil bastards trying to snag as much of that cash as possible through possibly illegitimate means. For instance, a corporate employer could require that their employees log a vote for the position that the corporation wants from a company computer (so they can intercept and verify it) as a condition for continued employment. So now that gives the board of that corporation 5000 votes instead of the 10 they should have, because most employees aren't willing to lose their livelihoods on a principle.

Re:How much more

[metrix007]

More likely it is to control blasphemous material.

Re:How much more

[kyz]

Thanks for all that elitist bullshit about how stupid the commoners are

Please go read some Youtube comments and Yahoo! Answers! for an hour.

Re:How much more

[DrgnDancer]

He didn't say stupid. He said followers. Most people are followers. It's a reasonably well established fact of the pack dynamic. Under the right circumstances nearly anyone becomes a follower. Have you ever noticed that most groups, no matter how loosely organized, have leaders? From a gang of kids, to a raid group in an MMO, to a multibillion dollar company, if there's no one in charge, we put someone in charge. Depending on their personal charisma and the institutional nature of the group in question they may answer to rest of the group to one extent or another, but they're still "in charge". Even when the group rises up against the leader, the usual result isn't "no leader" it's a new leader.

We're hard wired to want someone in charge. Some of us want to be in charge, and some don't, but we all feel better if there is some one who is in charge. Of course we're all different, we want to have have various relationships with authority (possessing it, being close to it, being ignored by it, etc), and a very few of us would actually prefer to live completely outside of it, but in general its existence makes the vast majority of us happy.

Re:How much more

[morethanapapercert]

There *is* a normal people's congress (of sorts).

We^h^hThey call themselves Anonymous

Re:How much more

[deadweight]

But they *ARE* that stupid! Anything that starts with "we need to do X" to protect you from: child molesters drug dealers terrorists is just fine with most people. We just made a rule where your fucking BALLS get grabbed by government agents and so far the sheeple are mostly OK with it!

Re:How much more

[RavenChild]

I say let the internet control them.

Only in Soviet Russia.

Re:How much more

[jandersen]

Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.

The problem with The People is that it consists of, well, people. This is something revolutionary do-gooders have come face to face with many times throughout history; and ordinary people aren't highminded, good or noble, they are just average. They don't care all that much for liberty when it comes to it, they are not all that concerned about democracy or justice in general. They just want life to be relatively easy to live from day to day.

Don't you realise that your democracy and your Congress etc were once exactly the "normal people's democracy/congress"? Only, normal people don't care enough to take part, so it always ends like this, and that is the fundamental problem we have to solve.

Apart from that - what kind of ordinary people did you have in mind? What if it turned out that what a large majority really wanted was to to ban firearms? Or were in favour of something you would find intolerable - would you still want that kind of democracy? Ordinary people are not necessarily nice.

Re:How much more

[crunchygranola]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

Interesting quote. Here is another similar, but even more revealing, statement by Lewis: "The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent" (from Reflections on the Psalms, Chapter 3.).

We have seen over the last half century a revolution in American political philosophy - that of self-justifying wealth. Ayn Rand style Objectivism/Libertarianism holds that self-interest is the highest moral principle and altruism is evil; wealth is proof of moral rectitude, and poverty is proof of sloth and moral degeneracy. This philosophy has provided us with the perfection of the robber baron, now dominating American political life - cupidity that is never satiated, and extinguishing all moral doubt. Wealth is virtue; there can be nothing wrong with how the wealthy acquire or use their wealth; there is nothing to repent, and thus there is no possibility that the robber baron will change.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth hurts.

Re:How much more

[MindKata]

@”Will nobody rid us of these lawyer politicians, whose only understanding of communication is how it can be used to control others? “

@Darkman, Walkin Dude ... Brilliantly said. Your whole post sums up so many centuries of problems, repeated all around the world, caused by these same kind of greedy, corrupt, two faced, lying, control freaks that each generation has to suffer.

But then from so many diplomatic leaks, regardless of what we think of the leaks, one fact remains. We now have absolute confirmation our control freak governments (in almost every country) lie endlessly to us (so our leaders can get their own way and so they show they don't really work for us), yet they say they represent us even though their actions prove they are really seeking to deceive us. That isn't Democracy. It shows we are really dealing with an increasingly Authoritarian lying greedy Kleptocracy which is increasingly showing signs of becoming an outright Totalitarian Dictatorship. Worse still its becoming a global problem.

But then the act of seeking power over someone else, is the act of seeking to dictate their will over the wishes of others. So is it any wonder people who seek power over others end up seeking to dictate their will over us on the Internet. After all, the Internet is helping to highlight how much our power hungry leaders lie to us and so don't really represent us. They know if we see the truth, we can argue against them, so they lie to us, for their own greedy gain.

If that isn't bad enough, here's a shocking dictionary definition that shows how bad our lying greedy leaders actions really are against all of us. See if you can guess the word it defines. "A violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery." The word it defines is Treason. Its shocking to think of it, but our leaders really our in complete betrayal of our trust and confidence; breach of faith; treachery against their entire country, all for their own greedy gain. They really are showing acts of Treason!. They don't represent us, even though they say they do, when they want us to vote them into power.

Some countries still have the death sentence for Treason. So is it any wonder more people are getting angry at all our leaders in most countries and why our leaders seek to control the Internet even more, to cut off ways for us to see the truth and discuss what our leaders are doing.

The Internet has revolutionised many industries already so perhaps its time it also revolutionised the management of everyone where openness is forced into our two faced leaders, to stop them being able to lie to us all. After all if they want to represent us, then they take the job on that basis.

Re:How much more

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

However there has never been a mechanism to instantly make decisions as a group and have them ratified by whatever democratic process you choose before now. This is one of the reasons the internet is so important, its a new phenomenon, and one that clearly threatens entrenched concerns. There will always be respected spokepeople or what have you, but thats a lot different to executive leadership that doesn't have to justify its decisions. The vast majority might not want control, but the alternative is being led into whatever cattle pen to be dealth with by those who are not accountable as they see fit, so control they must ultimately have.

Re:How much more

[TheoMurpse]

You'll find that in literally no point in history were lawyers ever anything other than (upper) middle class. Aristocracy? Don't make me giggle.

Re:How much more

[Charcharodon]

Will nobody rid us of these lawyer politicians, whose only understanding of communication is how it can be used to control others? For countless millenia, these fools have been holding back humanity, calling themselves priests, or the aristocracy, or the upper class, or whatever. Enough! Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something. They want to control the internet? I say let the internet control them.

Considering we can barely get people to go vote, much less drag the political elite from their homes and kill them in the streets, I'd say the answer to the question is probably "no"

It would be nice if the world leaders were people who could do the job, but didn't neccessarily want the job. As long as there are people their will always being those who try to control others.

Re:How much more

[dcroxton]

When we get a "normal person" running for national office (Sarah Palin), she gets ripped to shreds for being plebeian.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

The current government of Brazil has been pushing "freedom of speech regulations" since day one. Franklin Martins, the responsible minister, always give speeches favoring regulations. It doesn't surprise me at all.

The da Silva administration and the next Roussef administration are mostly composed by former Communist guerrilla members. It abused power in so many ways to win the last elections. It has been using pension funds from state owned companies to increase Government control of private enterprises - and then push the companies to increase election donations for the Workers Party.

The Workers Party has also been member of a group - the São Paulo Forum - that includes the Colombian drug traffickers guerrilla groups. It also supported guerrilla groups that invades private owned farms pushing for collectivization, the Movimento dos Sem Terra (Workers without Land Movement).

Brazil always sucked - even the Constitution disallows anonymity, for example. But has been sucking even more every day.

Re:How much more

[menkhaura]

I'm Brazilian, and I can tell that all they want is to satiate their thirst for controlling us citizens in all possible manners, and having a few more public organizations from which to pipe some more taxpayer money while sending the intarwebs (as is anything on the hands of the government around here) down the gutter.

There's a saying around here that is something like "Do it right now, because tomorrow it may be forbidden"; that's the spirit of the Brazilian government.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say stupid. He said followers. Most people are followers. It's a reasonably well established fact of the pack dynamic. Under the right circumstances nearly anyone becomes a follower. Have you ever noticed that most groups, no matter how loosely organized, have leaders? From a gang of kids, to a raid group in an MMO, to a multibillion dollar company, if there's no one in charge, we put someone in charge.

And it doesn't even have to be for the sake of ignorance or laziness that this is done, but simple logistics. A medium- to large-sized endeavor usually runs more smoothly if there's a "project manager" or someone to organize co-ordination or logistics or communication between multiple parties.

If everyone is agrees on the direction of their own free will, and needs to spend their energy on getting their particular area/detail right, they may not have the time to look up to make sure the bigger picture is moving correctly.

Self-organization is fine for 8-10 people, but once your "team" can no longer be fed by two large pizzas late at night, you generally need a lead or you have to split the team up into smaller groups (that then need to co-ordinate between each other).

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

No one cares for religion in Brazil, with the exception of evangelical groups usually directly inspired by the Southern Baptist Convention.

It's for suppressing the opposition and keeping power. Pure and simple. The Workers Party administration is highly repressive and pushed for this since the beginning.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

I see those kind of comments all the time here on Slashdot, and it is sad. There's a large segment of intelligent people who are still very insecure, and need to constantly prop up their own egos with constant reminders of how superior they are over the masses. It's one of those flaws, like rationalization, that may actually be MORE prevalent among intelligent people.

As I get older, and experience more, I find that fragile egos and insecurity are one of the primary motivators of human behavior. Many of the comments on slashdot are simply attempts to assuage a need to feel superior, whether it's over technical knowledge, aesthetic taste, or political alignment.

Re:How much more

[gustgr]

You, sir, have hit the nail right on the head. It's only sad that even foreigners don't see Lula and his gang for what they really are.

Re:How much more

[ColdWetDog]

When we get a "normal person" running for national office (Sarah Palin), she gets ripped to shreds for being plebeian.

No, she gets ripped to shreds for being a geographically, historically and etymologically bereft idiot. She is a caricature of a 'plebeian' in her designer clothes and private jets.

Politicians are forever trying to get themeselves associated with the 'common man' with usually limited success because politics isn't about the common man. It's about control and influence. With a few startling exceptions, it's about various degrees of psychopathology. No one who runs for office nationally can ever be considered 'normal' unless you are using the term to mean 'orthogonal'.

Re:How much more

[dcroxton]

Accusing Republicans of being idiots is standard operating procedure for all liberals; it has nothing to do with Palin. They exaggerate Republican mis-statements and even true statements (Russia is visibile from Alaska), while ignoring similar statements by Democrats (e.g., Obama and Biden). Private jets and designer clothes? Are you under the impression that Palin is rich? She may be now, after publishing two books, but she worked her way through college -- unlike Obama, Kerry, Gore, etc. She has no privileged background.

Re:How much more

[unity100]

wow. so, youre being controlled to increase govt. ownership.

explain to me, the difference from being controlled by private corporations to become a private bitch, like in usa.

Re:How much more

[Shakrai]

Accusing Republicans of being idiots is standard operating procedure for all liberals; it has nothing to do with Palin.

I agree with you on your first point but that doesn't change the fact that Palin is an idiot. The woman was running for the 2nd highest office in the land and couldn't name a single SCOTUS case besides Roe v. Wade. Not one. Maybe it's just me, but I'd like my would-be leaders to show some familiarity with our system of government and it's history. I could rattle a dozen SCOTUS cases off the top of my head. Palin couldn't name a single one besides Roe? WTF?

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the oldest groups around, certainly older than any group you could name with a human word, is the group I like to call anarchists. There are no leaders, and it works quite well.

Re:How much more

[speroni]

Normal people, you know the kind that post comments on YouTube.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.

Hmm. I think I'll apply for a patent.

Normal people. On the Internet .

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

We have seen over the last half century a revolution in American political philosophy - that of self-justifying wealth.

That's Boehner in a nutshell. He believes that because he pulled himself up by the bootstraps to become a self-made businessman and a US Senator, that he implicitly deserves his station, and that anyone who did not achieve his level of success does not merit consideration. He believes that if he can do it, anyone can do it, and therefore anyone who has not done it is either incompetent or lazy. Unfortunately this is a false presumption, because it implies that motivation always overcomes circumstances. Someone can be highly motivated to walk on water, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Circumstances play an enormous role in our position in life, and the very best we can hope to do is not let a lack of motivation or determination be yet another barrier, but even removing oneself as a barrier still guarantees nothing. Boehner may well deserve his success, but that doesn't prove either that others deserve their station in life, or even that others don't deserve his station more than he does.

What's most ironic about this whole tax debacle is that everyone believes the rich should pay more -- even the rich -- except when they're the one paying. Doctors and lawyers waive fees, use sliding scales, and do pro bono work. Manufacturers use market segmentation and price discrimination to sell what are essentially the same products to people with more money, charging them disproportionately more than the added value they receive in exchange. The various editions of Windows is market segmentation in action, taking advantage of people who need or want certain features, and providing an exit for those who can get by without them. These practices but a few demonstrations of the world's belief that those who can afford to pay more should. Except when it comes to their own money, and taxes. And before you complain that taxes are mandatory, consider first that you're free to earn less money. If you know better than the government, give it away to charity -- it's tax deductible! Anything else is greed.

And before someone says "you first," I'll freely admit that I'm greedy, and that I wouldn't give away a dime if I didn't have to, knowing full well that such behavior helps no one, not even myself when it comes down to it. Your turn.

Re:How much more

[Pi1grim]

Damn, gotta buy a ticket to this utopian place.

Re:How much more

[chrissandvick]

wealth is proof of moral rectitude, and poverty is proof of sloth and moral degeneracy..

Funny how a lot of Rands villians are rich businessmen (Orren Boyle, James Taggart). And of her hero's the sculptor Steven Mallory is an unknown living in poverty, Cherryl Brooks is a poor shopgirl, and Howard Roark is so destitute at one point that he's breaking rocks in a quarry to have enough to eat. Looks like crunchygranola didn't even get as far as reading the Cliff's notes.

Ayn Rand is one of those authors where people feel free to post the most idiotic, inaccurate "facts" because of their politics. Read the book and judge it for what is actually in it instead of propagandizing your prejudices.

Re:How much more

[klkblake]

Wealth is virtue; there can be nothing wrong with how the wealthy acquire or use their wealth; there is nothing to repent, and thus there is no possibility that the robber baron will change.

"Ayn Rand style Objectivism" holds that acquiring wealth from anything other than voluntary trade is evil. Ayn Rand wouldn't like the current collusion between corporations and governments any more than you do.

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm.. ''countless millenia'' ?? I'm pretty sure I can count how many, we're young monkeys from Earth , welcome back from your space journey :)

Re:How much more

[Anonymous Coward]

"ordinary people aren't highminded, good or noble, they are just average."

No, they are poor, have kids to feed and houses to pay for, and can't afford the money, energy, or time to take on rights campaigns. Which is exactly how the government likes it.

However... offer them a share of the rich/politicians' cash once they overthrow the government, and that could change quickly.

Re:How much more

[jandersen]

I sympathise with your sentiment, but - it didn't work that way in USSR and China. And a large part of the reason was simply that ordinary people are not occupied with lofty ideals; I see and hear it every day in the office - people are interested in sport and that kind of things. You will find nuggets of genuine goodness and bits of narrowmindedness and bigotry in most, and occasionally they can be inspired to make great sacrifices for their fellow beings, but mostly they just want to get on with everyday life and its small joys and sorrows.

Say NO

[TheDarkMaster]

I are a Brazilian, and I say NO to this.

Re:Say NO

[aliquis]

I are a Brazilian, and I say NO to this.

They are Americans.

And weeks ago Chinese Internet (and whatever else) censorship was bad.

Now? It's fucking brilliant! Finally a way to make people obey the government and hide anything bad!

Guess the US and Chinese (and everyone else) government isn't that different after all.

You're allowed to say anything you want as long as it's what they want you to say :)

Re:Say NO

[Anonymous Coward]

I are Baboon, and my finger smells.

Re:Say NO

[Anonymous Coward]

How many is a Brazilian?

Re:Say NO

[Anonymous Coward]

I R Baboon and I say BANANA!

Re:Say NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. How many brazilian people will it take? There's only 6.5 in the world.

Re:Say NO

[TheDarkMaster]

No, you are a pluffy grammar nazi :) (and of course, too coward to try to offend someone not using anonymous account).

Re:Say NO

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Brazilian formed?

time to act?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, wikileaks has exposed world politics for what it really is, and the govts of the world are cracking down, this is possibly the turning point for democracy and real freedom for everyone across the globe, is now the time to stand up and fight back? really? people are far to apathetic these days, we complain about it on slashdot but not one of you would step out of your house, grab a pitchfork and torch and march on your parliament. They have already won.

Re:time to act?

[aliquis]

I've already suggested the Piratpartiet/Freedom of speech/Wikileaks demonstration not on Sergels torg but instead in kammaren of riksdagshuset since there's normally not much people around anyway .. Doubt they would get in there, even with pitchforks, but it would had been sweet ;)

The Excuses Worked

[Ltap]

Now they have an excuse, and all hell is going to break loose.

Sorry for the accidental rhyming.

Re:The Excuses Worked

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations for the correct use of "loose" on /.

Anonymous stands ready

[Drakkenmensch]

These people seem to forget that the more you fight against freedom of information, the harder information (and those seeking to protect it) will push back in return. The internet is powered by the Barbra Streisand Effect.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Spad]

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[paiute]

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

Usually, when the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels do win, the resulting government devolves into a totalitarian regime as bad as what was deposed. In the US, our view is skewed because our well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels was not headed by such. Recall that some wanted to make Washington King of America, but he bared his wooden teeth at them and refused.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[aliquis]

Thankfully they have put down all new paving stone in the city area.

And there will probably be ways around it. The question is why it takes so fucking long for everyone to start using them?

I doubt the average Swede got what it takes to do anything though...

Though some people have proven that they can react:
http://www.svd.se/multimedia/dynamic/00108/16698348_108431b.jpg
http://cdnstatic.expressen.se/polopoly/bilder/2007/02/11/1.454042TS1283934948235_defaultImage.jpg
http://www.fokus.se/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/vfgoteborg.jpg
http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/multimedia/archive/00027/deb221_27196w.jpg
http://www.bioroxy.orebro.se/bilder/terror.jpg

The government has to be reminded who's in charge every now and then ..

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Anonymous Coward]

People with that mindset think they hold some level importance in the world. Consider, have you influenced voting polls? have you changed the general publics way of thinking? No. You pissed off Tom Cruise for while but then he made a funny movie and nobody cared.

Become a real problem and you'll give the power mongers a reason to exterminate you. Until now you have been nothing more than a fly on the windscreen.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Lillebo]

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

You're right, but it does happen every now and then...

1. The Indian Independence movement
2. The French revolution
3. Mao and The Peoples Republic of China (freedom and prosperity may not apply here, but it was an improvement, no?)

So thar.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Mr. Slippery]

Recall that some wanted to make Washington King of America, but he bared his wooden teeth at them and refused.

And went home to his sumptuous estate (dude was worth half a billion in today's dollars) and his hundreds of slaves. It's not like he was retiring to the simple life...he was fabulously wealthy, and he had helped set running a federal government that was strong enough to protect the wealthy and powerful. Why should he bother with the stress of being a king?

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[DrgnDancer]

I would seriously hesitate to put the French Revolution and the Maoist in that list. The French Revolution was followed by the Reign of Terror, which was so bad that it lasted only a few years before Napoleon overthrew it, and the Maoists instituted some of the bloodiest purges in the history of world. The so called "Cultural Revolution" resulted in the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands more likely millions (it's really hard to tell, because so many records were destroyed), the persecutions of tens of millions perhaps even hundreds of millions, destruction of a huge swathe of China's cultural and religious heritage, and general bad stuffs.

It's arguable that both worked out OK in the end (if you want to consider China's current regime "OK". It's certainly better than it was in the early years of the Communist party), but not because of the efforts of the revolutionaries themselves. Mostly the revolutionaries were followed by cooler heads who experienced both the previous regime and the revolutionary's zeal, saw the problems with both, and took a middle ground ten, twenty, or thirty years after the fact. The revolutions themselves almost invariably made things temporarily worse.

Personally I'd throw in the US War for Independence, and the Indian Independence Movement. I'm sure there have been a few other examples of a rag tag group of rebels winning the war and *not* proceeding to make things much worse, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for god's sake...enough with this keyboard-warrior bravado. Anonymous will accomplish exactly nothing except to justify what the UN is proposing here--control of the internet. Go ahead, attack Amazon and blather about how untouchable 4chan is..you are proving their point. Especially when Anonymous uses the exact same illegal DoS botnets the criminals use.

We are talking about the real world here. The last time any of anonymous' supporters came out in real life, thinking a "V for vendetta" mask was going to give him an edge, he got his ass beat by a flesh-and-blood Scientology security guard. Spouting stupid manifestos and banging your keyboard amounts to nothing in the real world, sunshine.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Jiro]

The independence of India was immediately followed by a series of bloody wars between India and Pakistan (which were both part of British India), so I'm not sure it counts.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Steauengeglase]

Especially when Anonymous uses the exact same illegal DoS botnets the criminals use.

While I agree with the sentiment that they are largely pissing in the wind, I want some documentation on this one. What little bit of their arsenal I've taken apart, I haven't seen any connection to "illegal DoS botnets", unless those "illegal DoS botnets" you are talking about are Windows. Until then, I'll have to accept this as a endangering, bald-faced smear.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[countertrolling]

The internet is powered by the Barbra Streisand Effect.

And to think a poor little mescite from Brooklyn made this masterpiece, and she's not getting any recognition for it.. *sniff* I'm sorry, but I get a little choked up!

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Anonymous Coward]

Recall that some wanted to make Washington King of America, but he bared his wooden teeth at them and refused.

Yet the Americans keep trying to build their own Royal Family aka the Kennedy family referring to their home as a "compound" and "Camelot." China should never have been granted most-favored nation (MFN) status by the US Government. Your demise has not been greatly exaggerated but simply a matter of time as the end days of Empire America approach.

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Dave Emami]

Thing is, reality is not a movie. Rarely do the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels overthrow the evil world government and usher in a new era of freedom and prosperity.

Usually, when the well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels do win, the resulting government devolves into a totalitarian regime as bad as what was deposed.

"Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!
A beggar upon horseback lashes a beggar on foot.
Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!
The beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on."
-- Yeats

Re:Anonymous stands ready

[Stormy Dragon]

In the US, our view is skewed because our well-intentioned, rag-tag band of rebels was not headed by such.

To a large extent that's because our revolution wasn't actually revolutionary, in that the goal for the most part wasn't really to remake society, but to actually stop the status quo from being changed by England.

One World

[imamac]

One World Government, here we come!

Re:One World

[m.ducharme]

I'd rather my One World Government be run out the Hague than Washington, thank you very much. At least the Hague is farther away.

Re:One World

[operagost]

Yes, they'll take forever to get to you in their wooden sailing ships! It is fortunate that we do not have magic that allows the authorities to communicate over long distances or find people in hiding!

Re:One World

[m.ducharme]

So why pray tell, would being ruled from Washington be better for me, a citizen of a country other than the US? Surely you don't think that anyone in the US, anyone at all, gives a flying fuck about my freedoms, do you?

But at least you caught my somewhat obscure reference.

Re:One World

[operagost]

I think we can both agree that global governance is bad for freedom, then.

Re:One World

[m.ducharme]

No, I think bad governance is bad for freedom. Whether that governance is global or not is beside the point. Though I will concede that governance by the UN wouldn't qualify as "good" (but still better than global governance by the US).

Re:One World

[operagost]

global governance by the US

I don't think you know what global governance is.

Purpose?

[Felix Da Rat]

So what impact would this group have on things such as 'Cyberwar'? A number of the governments mentioned in the article have sunk Billions of dollars into the development of such programs - I doubt they'd be happy to just 'write it off'.

Would this group go after China for hacking the Google servers? Or would it focus on catching nefarious individuals wanted for questioning? (Sorry Interpol - you might do decent things, but you deserve to catch flack for that.)

Would this group ease extradition between countries? If so, aren't there warrants out for the heads of Google and Facebook in Pakistan?

What actual purpose would this working group serve?

All government is the absolute enemy of freedom

[evanism]

Even our own. Threaten their power and they will take us out. It is time to fight back, reassert public control and or natural freedoms. Encryption everywhere, massive obsfuction via dns sprays, dummy requests and TOR. Fight these bastards!!!!!!

Re:All government is the absolute enemy of freedom

[m.ducharme]

It's so hilarious, because this attitude is exactly what the Tea Party/Republicans/Blue Dogs/Obama are using to increase authoritarianism in the US. If people believed that government can be used to provide greater benefits to its citizens, they would participate more in governance, and their government would do things for them, instead of to them. Instead, they've been scared into thinking that all government is bad, and they either stop voting or vote for "small government" Republicans who in turn make the government bigger and scarier than ever, to "prove" to people how bad big government is. And the cycle continues.

Re:All government is the absolute enemy of freedom

[operagost]

No, pretty much what you're talking about is fallacious. If everyone who claimed to want small government got small government, it would be a good thing. You're attacking the idea of small government by claiming that 100% of those who support it are hypocrites.

and their government would do things for them

The only things I want the government to do for me are in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the President thinks that's a bad thing, and wishes the constitution listed what the government "must do on our behalf".

Instead, they've been scared into thinking that all government is bad, and they either stop voting

It seemed like only the Democrats had trouble getting people to the polls this year. The turnout among independents and republicans was very high.

Re:All government is the absolute enemy of freedom

[m.ducharme]

The Republicans who claim to be for small government, but when they have the reins of power, make the government bigger, and more oppressive? Sorry, I think you just proved my point. Try harder next time.

Re:All government is the absolute enemy of freedom

[operagost]

Try reading my post before responding next time. Nowhere did I attempt to argue for the Republicans.

Cry, the beloved country.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from South Africa and I cannot believe a government that was once itself censored heavily, and violently when speaking out against such censorship, is now becoming one of it's staunchest supporters. First (draft) domestic legislation regulating what newspapers can publish, and now this.

Freedom? No, it doesn't seem to me like that was the end-goal of the struggle.

Re:Cry, the beloved country.

[DanielHC]

Same thing happening here in Brazil. The worst is that our beloved president publicly criticized Assange's arrest while our government was trying to regulate the internet. It really makes me sick.

Re:Cry, the beloved country.

[countertrolling]

Freedom? No, it doesn't seem to me like that was the end-goal of the struggle.

It wasn't. Never is. It's a simple turf war amongst pirates. Philosophy is for the plebes to debate while their pockets are being picked and their daughters are being raped.

Re:Cry, the beloved country.

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Learning this as a young man was a sad awakening for me. Most people who rail against the "evil doers" are really motivated by a lust for power - it isn't that they really disapprove of the "evil doers" excessive power it just that they want to be the ones to wield the power and they will become every bit as brutal and oppressive if and when they get the chance. Communism and Feminism are two very good examples of this.

Often when you confront groups likes this they will excuse their desires/actions with something along the line of "but they were bad and we aren't so it's ok for us to do these things" and most of the time they actually believe what they are saying. The will follow it up with something that boils down to "After all bad people must know that they are bad and just keep on being bad, but we are good people and so we will never use our excessive power to do bad things - we couldn't do that, because we are good."

Mirrors

[Spad]

There are already over 2000 Wikileaks mirrors, so it's going to next to impossible to shut it down in the first place.

In the wake of Thursday...

[Tom Rothamel]

News has surfaced in the wake of Thursday that the UN is mulling total inter-governmental regulation of the internet.

The UN has wanted control of the net for a while now, the WikiLeaks thing is just the excuse of the day for trying to take it.If it wasn't WikiLeaks, it would be some other reason.

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[zakeria]

When I said Julian Assange will do the Internet damage I was ridiculed... ummm

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[Anonymous Coward]

With good reason.

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[Evtim]

It's ridiculous indeed.

Without him there would be other excuse or no excuse at all. So you are advocating that WE should take anything obediently, without fighting back because THEY might beat US even more ferociously, excusing themselves with OUR disobedience which is there in the first place because of THEIR actions?!?!?!?. I fail to see any reason here....

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[Tim C]

The UN has wanted control of the net for a while now

Along with every other world power.

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[zakeria]

So your under the impression that the fight for freedom of information is gaining ground? hilarious!!

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[louarnkoz]

It is not so much "the UN" as "a group of authoritarian governments." The Internet enables freedom of speech. The Saudis kingdom and the Chinese communist party, to give two examples, don't like that. They have tried very hard to build their own nation wide firewalls, in the name of protecting religion or political harmony. But firewalls cannot control what happens outside of their borders.

They would go under the name of "internet governance" and argue against "US domination", but he dream of dictatures is clear. In addition to control what can be written within the borders of their countries, they would very much like to extend censorship world-wide.

And if it can creates a few more cosy positions for international bureaucrats, the UN will love it!

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[jd]

Given the US' response to WikiLeaks (mulling assassinating all who had anything to do with it), the UN sounds a smart shoice to me. Besides, is it to control such sites or to protect them? A lot of the countries in the UN have benefitted from the current round, and this may well be an attempt to defend freedoms the US is working hard to block.

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[shambalagoon]

I'm not too worried about this. The internet is designed to route around damage. If any oppressive organization were to try to control it, a shadow internet would instantly spring up and be beyond their control. And I'd immediately sign onto that and leave the censored one behind. I'm not talking different sites, but different protocols, routes, P2P DNS, etc. - whatever it takes. I bet it be up within days.

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[oztiks]

Pick a fight in a pub and get locked up, then claim that the police took away your civil liberties? Wikileaks may not of done something illegal today (like punch someone in the face) but the UN is discussing how to make it illegal.

Wikileaks opened a can of worms. If it was left unopened we would of enjoyed another 10 years of free internet. Now sufficed to say we'll be lucky to see 2 years of this free medium.

But yes if Wikileaks didn't happen the catalyst would of been something else but this particular reason makes for such a good excuse to regulate the internet. Even you'd have to admit it's been the best excuse to date. The evidence? its made a forum for the UN, before it was ministers and senators fighting to push a bill but now its world leaders, sadly the word "bipartisan" springs to mind.

Re:In the wake of Thursday...

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN has wanted control of the net for a while now, the WikiLeaks thing is just the excuse of the day for trying to take it.If it wasn't WikiLeaks, it would be some other reason.

Seriously, how wrong can one be on here without dying instantly? Geez. There are a very finite number possibilities for this to earnestly find consideration by a majority in the UN. Yes, they've been wanting this for years. No, there never has been a credible threat like this.

The only two possibilities I can think of are:

1. One country behaving very badly so that it needs to be cut off the net.
2. A distributed threat that can actually hurt any government out there.

The former can be 'solved' by de-peering an entire country, the latter can only be 'solved' by criminal proceedings in all countries (if it can be solved at all, that is. let us hope it can't).

amaç

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they have an excuse, and all hell is going to break loose . www.konutfirsatlari.com One World Government, here we come!

Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[LordNacho]

Can someone shed light on whether they can actually control the internet, on a technical level?

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

Well, normally "You and what army?" doesn't mean much, but I'm fairly certain the UN can broker one to show up when you challenge them. Especially since a lot of the members will want more control of their intertubes.

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[betterunixthanunix]

Can someone shed light on whether they can actually control the internet, on a technical level?

Sure they can; the Internet is not like the old Usenet/UUCPNet, where it is controlled by its own users. All the UN would have to do is go after a handful of companies that really run the Internet, and by force of law require them to do whatever the UN wants them to do. Sanctions against a country could suddenly mean a loss of Internet access -- just force the ISPs to drop any route to that country from their routing tables.

The real question is, will they be able to convince the most powerful nations to play along? I am just going to guess that the answer is "yes," since the world's most powerful nations also happen to stand to gain the most from having a controlled Internet.

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes while it is true what you say, i think in reality we will see lots of intranets being linked and used underground. Many people out there will find the ways to continue even if it is made law and the current IPS's abiding by the laws.

Im guessing the internet would just become a government control tool for the ones which opt in, and the one's that opt out, would link themselves together.

Fragmentation of the internet is the only outcome from this idea, but it will definately not be the end

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[Joe U]

The real question is, will they be able to convince the most powerful nations to play along? I am just going to guess that the answer is "yes," since the world's most powerful nations also happen to stand to gain the most from having a controlled Internet.

I'm going to say No, the US will not allow their baby to fall under the UN.

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are the possibilities for a technical decentralization of the Internet? How do we reinstate the Internet that interprets censorship as damage? That seems like the obvious next step, and it is certainly possible to create a network that isn't really feasible to control. We just don't have it.

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

And since all of the cables coming into your house are controlled by these law-abiding companies, how would these underground internets work? Wifi doesn't exactly go very far.

Re:Yes, yes, /. is all against this, but...

[eugene ts wong]

I agree with what you say. I wonder if the solution is to force a breaking up of the internet before they can broker a deal. It seems counterintuitive, but the idea is that if they wreak havoc, when brokering a deal, and if they want to do it, and if they will do it inevitably, then trying to withstand the tide would be the wrong thing to do. By breaking up the internet before they do, we remain in control, and then we could break it up in a way that gives us opportunities to connect to the separated parts. If they break it up, then we will no longer have those opportunities to connect to the separated parts.

That's a great plan...

[splerdu]

It'll hasten the spread of P2P DNS by a good bit.

Sure, UN, Sure

[Publikwerks]

The UN can't get pisspot dictators to stop comitting genocide, does it REALLY think it's going to be able to do anything with really powerful nations? Especially with the US, we don't want to give up control. So the UN thinks it can force the US to do so?

Re:Sure, UN, Sure

[Ltap]

If you think that the UN taking control of the Internet involves the United States losing control rather than gaining it, you're remarkably ignorant of the true state of international politics.

Re:Sure, UN, Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

S O M E in the US will be more than happy to hand over the keys because they believe everything we do is wrong. All those leftist idiots have to do is get out of the way at the right time and it will just steamroll in. DNS is already being compromised. The "key" is already, supposedly, in Obama's hands, and he'll hand it over to them in exchange for forgiveness or his own celebrity.

Re:Sure, UN, Sure

[Mashiki]

If the US had as much control as you think it does. Iran wouldn't be on the 'anti-racism council' I mean...the "we hate all jews council", along with being on the councils for womens rights. I'm sure you see the irony in all of that.

Re:Sure, UN, Sure

[Ltap]

The way I see it, they let Iran onto the councils they don't care about. If people (and by that I mean important peopel) had really vocally opposed it, they probably wouldn't have got on.

Re:Sure, UN, Sure

[chrb]

The UN can't get pisspot dictators to stop comitting genocide

That is not the job of the UN. The UN has no military forces, and it has no authority to order the military forces of its member nations into battle.

The job of the UN is to facilitate dialogue and cooperation between nation states, not to wage war. If nation states want to end genocide, then they can use the UN as a talking shop, and gain agreement in enforcement protocols etc. leading to Declarations, but the UN as an organisation can not itself declare war or command nation states. In the recent genocides to which you are alluding, Kofi Annan was clear that he wanted Western nations to commit military resources to protect people and prevent genocide, but Western nations tend to not be as supportive of military intervention when the nation in question is not strategically important to their own interests.

Re:Sure, UN, Sure

[chrb]

You are assuming that the make up of those councils is strategically important to U.S. interests...

NO controls

[Wowsers]

Hang on, all these countries that want control of the internet, they are some of the biggest despots out there and love censorship. Why don't they have their own version like China, and keep everyone else that loves freedom and democracy stick to the "Wild Wild West" internet.

The UN are a bunch of retards who's time to disbanding has come. They claim to represent international laws, but enforce them for some countries, and ignore others. Get rid of the UN.

Re:NO controls

[ducomputergeek]

If you want to explore that analogy, even the "Wild Wild West" was eventually homesteaded and tamed. So to will be the internet. The genie is being put back in the bottle slowly but steadily. I'm rather convinced now that Net Neutrality will be a thing largely of the past by 2015. There will be a tiered internet that is filtered at the ISP level for most users.

Fifteen years ago the internet was something new, interesting, opening up all kinds of new ideas and technologies. No one was exactly sure what this "internet" thing was so they decided to keep the hands off and see what happens. I remember taking a philosophy class in college in the late 90's that was all about this "cyberrevolution". It was a topic the prof had been looking at for 30 years. (He had a CS in comp sci from Berkley in the 60's, Masters in Math from Stanford, and a PhD in Philosophy.) He had led research projects in the 80's revolving around the idea of "hyperlinks". That one would be reading a piece, text would be linked so you could go find more information on that subject/term. The closest thing there is to that today would be Wikipedia. However, even by the late 90's early 2000's studies had been published that people navigated linearly through webpages.

It was really interesting because to him, all the high and noble ideas of what the "internet" was/should be in the end failed to materialize...sort of like the business plans of a lot of dot coms around the same period. It was not going to usher in some new age of enlightenment. People ended up doing pretty much the same things, just with faster/cheaper communications.

Re:NO controls

[chrb]

They claim to represent international laws, but enforce them for some countries, and ignore others.

The United Nations is not responsible for the enforcement of international laws. It has no military force. It has no authority to command the military forces of it's member nations.

Get rid of the UN.

The UN is just a place to facilitate communication and dialogue between the nation states of this world. It has no power in itself - any military intervention, any sanctions, etc. have to be willingly enforced by member states. What would getting rid of it actually achieve? The communication that the UN facilitates would either not happen, or happen in a distributed fashion, or the UN would simply be replaced by another global organisation carrying out the same functions.

one way to destroy WikiLeaks

[doperative]

Get the UN to run it ...

speed up dev. on P2PDNS

[deviceb]

Who cares if we break the internet into islands? DNS needs to be a truly distributed system that no 7 people or governments can bend to their will, else we will all end up like China. -Perhaps China was the smartest of all by implementing border-gateway rules long ago? All the so-called free countries our trying to jump on ship! It seems China had more foresight than other countries eh?
I would prefer to switch my DNS scheme and jump to the public internet islands
*facebook is not on my island btw

The UN is far too slow for this to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately by the time UN agrees on anything, the technology ahead of it will have of course moved on several decades ahead of them.

Remember, these are the people who are still debating over which HAM radio frequencies are reserved for government use.

Just Say No

[Valen0]

Let me get this straight: The Emperor was caught with his pants down, some people took pictures and posted it to etc.com, people started learning via etc.com that the Emperor has no clothes on, and now the Emperor wants to ban all knowledge of the incident by destroying the greatest communications invention since the printing press. I think the approach in this situation is completely wrong. Several common sayings such as "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," "shoot first and ask questions later," and "shoot the messenger" all come to mind and none of them should be encouraged.

I propose the following solution to the problem: Do a comprehensive security audit of the information and everyone that had access to it. Find out who leaked the information, how they received access to the information, and how they removed the information from secured storage. In addition, do a comprehensive audit on the classification of documents. Having a minimal amount of classified material will cut down on the risk of loosing it. Document classification should be used to guard national security interests (e.g. the keys to the castle) instead of hiding potentially embarrassing material or promoting a political agenda. When you have successfully identified the responsible party and method of attack, fix the glitch and prosecute the offender to the fullest extent of the law. The Internet does not need collective punishment for the actions of a select few individuals.

Re:Just Say No

[Anonymous Coward]

Our freedoms are in jeopardy here in the US and our fore-fathers warned and advised how each of us should beware and take precautions to protect ourselves. Ever wonder why liberals sometimes become conservative yet I do not know of any conservatives who have become liberals. If you know of one please let me know.

Re:Just Say No

[jbeaupre]

No, it's more like this:

Emperor A got depantsed. Emperors B,C,SoA, and SaA propose standardizing pants to prevent depantsing.

Re:Just Say No

[Anonymous Coward]

My God, this is the best post I have ever seen on Slashdot. This needs to be spammed to every internet board, news site comments section, and then mailed to all the government officials in email and hard copy form. 100% correct.

Re:Just Say No

[Anonymous Coward]

As it happens, the attacks on the internet now are quite similar to those on the printing press. And we all know what happened to the printing press...

Re:Just Say No

[DigitalSorceress]

I used to consider myself Fiscally Conservative, but Socially Libertarian... think Gov. Bill Weld in Massachusetts.

Bill and Hillary Clinton made my skin crawl.

Then, George W. Bush got elected and completely betrayed every conservative fiscal principal, condoned torture, started two wars, and generally let big business/corporations have free reign with no risks to themselves personally.

I've since deiced that given the choice, I'd much prefer the liberals' view than what the conservatives are pushing these days.

George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh (used to like Rush) have completely betrayed my trust and I will always have special dislike for Bush as he did something I NEVER thought anyone could do: he made me miss Bill Clinton. /disgusted!

So, yeah, count me as a former conservative who couldn't stand the direction the Right is going and can't stand their hypocrisy any more.

Re:Just Say No

[cronius]

Having a minimal amount of classified material will cut down on the risk of loosing it. Document classification should be used to guard national security interests (e.g. the keys to the castle) instead of hiding potentially embarrassing material or promoting a political agenda.

Just a comment on that: None of the cables that wikileaks has their hands on are classified as top secret. That's why a lot of it is basically gossip: It was given a low classification because it's simply unimportant (which is why someone was able to so easily get their hands on it, if the rumour of the press is correct). So in that regards, the classification system is working as intended: The really nasty stuff (US national security etc.) is literally top secret and still remains undisclosed.

Wikileaks cables:

# 15, 652 secret
# 101,748 confidential
# 133,887 unclassified

Re:Just Say No

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Emperor wants to ban all knowledge of the incident by destroying the greatest communications invention since the printing press.
Printing press only gave us the Bible and some rich people to open a museum. The internet gives me access to b00bz whenever and where ever I want. Waiting in line at the ATM, sitting in my cubicle, etc.

Re:Just Say No

[James McGuigan]

Well the obvious solution would be for the Emperor to simply admit that he not been wearing anything, that he had us dupped all along, and that hes going to act and dress in private the same way he acts and dresses in public. Maybe the solution is more cameras and not less.

Re:Just Say No

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberal, though I came to it from a family of conservative Democrats.

When Limbaugh first went on the air, I thought he was a comedian, a conservative version of Andrew Dice Clay. I quit laughing a long time ago.

So, there you have it. I'm out.

Re:Just Say No

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because liberals are sometimes adult enough to admit when they're wrong, while history has shown that conservatives never are adult enough to even consider it.

Common Sense

[cstacy]

They are merely proposing common sense communication safety legislation. Surely we can all get on board with that? Do you have any idea how many injuries and injustices unpoliced thought caused last year?

Re:Common Sense

[AltairDusk]

What's really sad here is that I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or if you honestly believe that. I'm really hoping it's the former.

Re:Common Sense

[morethanapapercert]

Sorry, but that just sounds too damn much like "Won't someone pleeeaase think of the children!" for my liking.

Do you have any idea how many injuries and injustices have been committed in an attempt to control thought? Let me throw some terms at you to look up on your own:

1) The Cultural Revolution

2) The Killing Fields

3) Punitive psychiatry

4) McCarthyism

5) Dear Leader

6) The Inquistion (Blasphemy, Apostasy and Heresy )

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a joke...

Re:Common Sense

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

7) Hurricane force WOOOOOSH!

I, for one, welcome our powerless overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

UN has no power at all, so let them "control" the internet.

Better than having someone in charge with the ability to actually do something.

Re:I, for one, welcome our powerless overlords

[BergZ]

That's the great thing about the internet: Somehow the UN is both spineless/weak and, at the same time, a shadowy conspiracy that controls everything!

a serendipitous article on the first war on terror

[Alan R Light]

Serendipitously, this article about the first war on terror - governmental suppression of 19th century peaceful anarchists - was just published by Reason.

The authorities made extensive use of agents provocateurs because the anarchists were too peaceful to be threatening enough. Accidental side effects included the Russian Revolution and the exacerbation of the First World War (which events of course led to the Second World War and the Cold War).

It looks like history is repeating itself.

The end of democracy

[gmuslera]

No freedom of information means no freedom of choice. You could hang the label you want over the governments after that gets passed, but none would really be democracy.

Re:The end of democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

please consider what they going to do is try to _maintain_ that state of secrecy so the question is if we ever had democracy.
It's not that they will start hiding informations now. That's how things work like...forever.

Re:The end of democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not that they could have secrets. Is having free press, that governments don't enforce what we should know and what not, specially about what we, thru them, are doing. And, of course, freedom of speech. All of that should still work in web 2.0.

Their greatest trick...

[copponex]

Their greatest trick has been making you believe that you aren't in control already, if you live in the United States. They thrive on your apathy. They rejoice whenever some new mindless form of entertainment takes over. That's why Iran left gaming lines open during their crackdown of democracy.

Personally, I have no pity for the American public. We are receiving the democracy we are asking for, which is "whatever the powerful are willing to give me." The Tea Party just re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class. The guy in the House who plays a major part in our environmental policy also quotes from Genesis to avoid discussion of the impact of climate change, because God promised that he wouldn't flood the earth again. (Despite some more barbaric claims in Revelation that He will indeed come back to destroy the world, and the claim that the rainbow is a symbol of God's promise, instead of a result of light refraction.)

Regular Joes can't be bothered to give a shit about extrajudicial assassination, or trillions of dollars wasted on war. Until they can address those sorts of issues, I'm afraid the openness of the internet will be easy fodder for elite control.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[operagost]

Please stop getting your talking points from Bernie Sanders.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[copponex]

Please stop copying ad hominem politics from everyone on talk radio.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[hittman007]

The "Tea Party Movement" has a specific set of core beliefs. However, this also is a loose affiliation of different groups within the movement have differing beliefs. Believe it or not there are many Democrats that support this group and call themselves members of the movement. I personally am not a member, however I am sympathetic to some of their core beliefs. People on a grass roots level, primarily the middle class that is largely ignored by both parties have made their mark on politics, and weather you agree with them or not they are trying to make a difference. When the silent majority speaks you would do well to listen or their will or their will be hell to pay, and this goes for both parties, neither one of which has shown much care for this group of people.

The Republican Party at least plays lip service to the beliefs and has given such lip service every time they have been the minority party, before they won control and acted just like Democrats with their enormous spending.

So you think Republicans are only for the rich? Of course this could potentially be true as those on the far right I know seem to believe that anyone who actually has a job is considered rich by Democrat standards. Ironically these two beliefs, while both wrong, seem to be compatible...

Re:Their greatest trick...

[countertrolling]

Personally, I have no pity for the American public.

They don't want your pity, they want your compliance.

The Tea Party just re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class.

The Tea Party's job was to pit the middle class against the poor. It's the "opposition" that's trying to get the millionaires into the class war. And I have to say that everybody played their part beautifully. *golf clap* The millionaires are enjoying their drinks and the show.

...quotes from Genesis...

I wouldn't sweat the small shit

Re:Their greatest trick...

[kid_oliva]

I know this will draw the ire of some, if not many, but do you not get tired of propping up Republicans for your straw-man or non sequitur arguements. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi, Julius Genachowski, or Barack Obama have your best interest at heart? The elite are elite despite their party affiliation. There is little difference between elitest in the Republican and Democrat party. They both want to control you. It just of matter of do you get pissed on first, then defecated on or defecated on first, then pissed on.

People need to wake-up. Nothing has changed under Obama, just as nothing changed under Bush 2, just as nothing changed under Clinton, just as nothing changed under Bush 1. These people do not care about us like you do for your best buds. They see us as people who do not know how to run our lives and will do it for us.

I can tell you lean Socialist by your quote, which is fine. I just do not think that government is the answer. After all, it is ran by people.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[copponex]

My point is the American public doesn't even need to be lied to. Democrats may support some interests of the wealthy in secret, but Republicans publicly denounce the poor and support continued tax cuts for people who are already fabulously wealthy. The only people who are going to pay more with the new tax laws that are about to pass are the poorest of the poor, while the rich see their benefits increase.

Repeating commonly held views of a political party is not a strawman. It's a fact. And the fact remains that wealthy Americans are fucking traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government and the infrastructure that made their wealth possible.

These are the same sad fucks who dumped out of the stock market after 9/11. They don't give a damn about this nation if they can't exploit it for money.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[infinite9]

...because God promised that he wouldn't flood the earth again. (Despite some more barbaric claims in Revelation that He will indeed come back to destroy the world, and the claim that the rainbow is a symbol of God's promise, instead of a result of light refraction.)

God is supernatural. The very definition of that word means that God is outside of nature. Because of this, God can either work within or without the confines of nature to affect his will. In other words, God could strike you dead by making a piano materialize over your head. Or he could simply allow you to catch aids through your lifestyle and die that way.

Did people 4000 years ago understand that a rainbow comes from refracted light? No. Could God have used light refraction to implement a rainbow? Yes. Remember that the world before the flood was wildly different than it is now. It had never rained before the flood. (water for plants and animals came from other sources) So a rainbow would indeed be a new phenomenon for people here on earth. (People often think this is far too fantastic to be true. But how many weird planets are their in our universe? And how much of a astronomical change would it take to turn our planet into something very different?)

You're right that the bible predicts that the earth will be destroyed by God's judgments. But I think it's important to note that it's humans and their free will that brought these judgments upon the planet. Who is responsible then?

I had an interesting conversation on a christian forum discussing the 2012 "prophecies" and such. The book of revelation describes a lot of events during the tribulation that result in destruction here on earth. A few in particular seem like accurate descriptions of large meteor strikes. One describes something "like a large fiery mountain crashing into the sea." We wondered whether this event would be 100% supernatural in origin, whether God would simply bump an asteroid in our direction depending on our behavior, or whether this asteroid is currently on an intercept course because he already knows the outcome of our behavior. It could be any of those. One of the events associated with 2012 is the galactic crossing where we're supposed to cross through the plane of the galaxy. What if the galaxy contains a saturn-style ring full of space junk? Some of them could be the size of small planets. They could pass through the solar system disrupting orbits, the axis of rotation, even the rotational speed of the earth. Then again, it could just all be supernatural in origin.

Anyway, time is running out. Christians will disappear soon and whoever's left gets to deal with all these unpleasantries. It will be so bad that people will wish for death. Of course, death will bring something far worse than life here under those conditions. Repent or else.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[hittman007]

...It's a fact. And the fact remains that wealthy Americans are fucking traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government and the infrastructure that made their wealth possible...

Wow, first I'm surprised as to how civil the comments have remained. Usually this topic brings out heated debate and arguing very quickly. I have to say good job to those who have posted.

Copponex, I have read many of your posts in multiple threads, I will tell you first off based on what I have read in your posts that we have near opposite views when it comes to politics. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, this is still a free country after all no thanks to the efforts of both political parties.

I'm getting that you are saying just because someone makes more money that they should pay a higher percent of that money in taxes. I don't agree with this on a fundamental level, for even at the same rates they are already paying more in taxes than someone who makes less money. If they pay enough of a higher percentage what is the point of trying to better oneself as the gains quickly dwindle and the extra effort is more and more for not. In the end this line of thought is ultimately self defeating and will eventually lead to collapse, unless you can find a new source of income as the "rich" will not always be "rich".

On your statement of rich Americans being traitors you need to define you definition of "rich". All to often to may people blame the "rich". If you poll pretty much any American they will consider those who make usually not that much more then themselves as rich, and thus being "rich" takes on a different meaning to different people.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[Rakarra]

I had high hopes for the Tea Party movement. I'd hoped they could change the Republican Party, make it a bit more Libertarian, but looking at the 2010 election cycle it's now obvious that the old Republican Party completely conquered and absorbed the Tea Party. There's little difference between the Tea Party of today and the 1990s Republicans.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[copponex]

I'm getting that you are saying just because someone makes more money that they should pay a higher percent of that money in taxes. I don't agree with this on a fundamental level, for even at the same rates they are already paying more in taxes than someone who makes less money.

Is taking $10,000 away from someone who makes $30,000 more unjust than taking $400,000 away from someone who makes $1,000,000?

If they pay enough of a higher percentage what is the point of trying to better oneself as the gains quickly dwindle and the extra effort is more and more for not. In the end this line of thought is ultimately self defeating and will eventually lead to collapse, unless you can find a new source of income as the "rich" will not always be "rich".

Tax rates in the 50s were 90% for the top tier. America still had rich people willing to work hard then.

On your statement of rich Americans being traitors you need to define you definition of "rich". All to often to may people blame the "rich". If you poll pretty much any American they will consider those who make usually not that much more then themselves as rich, and thus being "rich" takes on a different meaning to different people.

I define it as the top 10% of income earners in the United States, who wield disproportional power and change tax laws to their own benefit.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, because last time I looked the current administration was working hand in hand with the Fed to pump TRILLIONS into the mega-rich, so they could convert their shitty paper into real wealth, before the whole debt house of cards collapses for real.

Damn it's good to be a billionaire, eh?

Re:Their greatest trick...

[diamondmagic]

Speak for yourself (Hey, there's a great idea!)

Re:Their greatest trick...

[diamondmagic]

Not only is democracy a bad thing, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. Democracy is not the form of rule we want, that is mob rule, the purpose of the US Constitution was to protect this thing called liberty, not to establish democracy!

The Tea Party happened to re-elect Republicans, because people who adopted their reduce-spending platform ran as... surprise, Republicans! They still managed to oust quite a number of incumbents, in both parties. To say that they "re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class" is not only a fallacy in your assessment of causation, but appears to assume that supporting (i.e. not stealing from) all people, no matter their income, is somehow a bad thing.

Re:Their greatest trick...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The Tea Party just re-elected the only party that openly expresses more support for millionaires than it does for the middle class.

The Tea Party IS the "regular Joes". They're attempting to oust the established big-spenders from the government, and that includes the Neocons, who had a death grip on the Republican Party machine (and who fought them tooth-and-nail since they came into being during the Ron Paul campaign). Of the "Republicans" that were elected to the House, nearly half are Tea Party candidates, much to the consternation of the power elite.

By "more support for the millionaires than the middle class" are you by any chance referring to the Republicans' opposition to excluding "the rich" from "the extension of the Bush tax cuts" (i.e. raising taxes on anyone with more than a couple hundred grand a year in income)? Let me give you a couple clues:

First: "The Rich" don't pay taxes out of their pockets. They pass them on to their customers - and only get hurt when the rising prices mean less people buy their products - at which point they lay off employees and stop buying both raw materials and luxury goods (so people who sell to them lay off employees or fold). Raising taxes on "The Rich" just means taxing their customers and killing the businesses of their suppliers.

It isn't the poor or the middle class who hire people. It's the rich.

Second: Higher taxes on "The Rich" means the government has a perverse incentive to (hyper)inflate the currency, in order to push "The Middle Class" into the income-in-dollars range that was defined as "Rich". They have to soak the middle class, because it's the only way to get significant money. The poor don't have much to tax, while there are still so few rich that even if the government took ALL their wealth it would be a drop in the bucket (as well as killing the goose that lays the gold eggs.)

They already did this, over and over, with the income tax (which was originally a "temporary emergency war" tax that was supposed to tax only "the rich".)

Of course the inflation robs you of your savings and the value of everything else you have denominated in dollars. And it cuts your wages (which won't rise enough and fast enough to keep you even). And it also sucks value out of any investments you have that AREN'T denominated in dollars, as well - because when you sell styff for more cheaper dollars that you bought with fewer expensive dollars they'll get to tax the difference. But that's fine by them. When the money inflates it's because they printed more - and spent it. The value for the new money was sucked out of the money that was already out there, so they got it, along with all the extra taxes from everything else.

So be VERY VERY SUSPICIOUS of any politician who plays the class warfare card and claims he'll help you by soaking "the rich". Because, no matter how middle-class or poor you are now, you'll find that, as far as they're concerned, you're "The Rich" - or will be shortly, while the super-soaker is still running.

What the conservatives (that didn't get sucked into the beltway machine) are about is trying to help everybody become richer, rather than looting people who are just trying to do better next year than last.

They're doing what they know best

[geekymachoman]

And that is.. controlling people. When things start getting out of hand, they start enforcing and censoring stuff. Like they want to do with internet now, because internet is biggest threat to them. Internet is communication freedom.

Authority never liked that, because it undermines their power to do what they want. Religion... Governments, no difference there. All they want is power. And if people don't rise up now, and let their voices be heard, whatever the cost, we and future generations are properly screwed, because this now is our best chance, and if we miss it, the whole point of internet will be lost soon, and we'll go back to getting tailored info from our masters which suits their interests, not the truth.

I'd rather have anarchy then this dictatorship masked as democracy/freedom shit.

Re:They're doing what they know best

[KlomDark]

Religion and sex are power plays
Manipulate the people for the money they pay
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards
-- Queensryche (Operation Mindcrime) - Spreading the Disease

Coincidence?

[balaband]

That this subject has came up after all of the media hype about Wikileaks?

Stop that!

[killmenow]

You'll let your kids watch the government approved violence on TV and youtube and we'll protect them from any and all kinds of human sexuality (except the Disney approved sexualization of teen/tween "stars", of course) AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!

Re:Stop that!

[Rakarra]

You'll let your kids watch the government approved violence on TV and youtube and we'll protect them from any and all kinds of human sexuality (except the Disney approved sexualization of teen/tween "stars", of course) AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!

Boy, I miss when Disney was pushing America to accept Annette Funicello as America's next young star. The current crop is somewhat embarrassing.

Told ya.

[trollertron3000]

Doesn't anyone else think this is awfully convenient, this whole mess?

Think again

[Anonymous Coward]

This IS democracy. It just isn't what you dreamed it would be. Quite a rude awakening, isn't it?

I have long believed that democracy is every bit as likely to deteriorate into authoritarianism as monarchy, dictatorship, communism, or any other form of government you can name -- possibly even more likely since democracy removes the element of ownership from government. A king, for example, wouldn't be nearly as quick to risk billions on war, because those billions actually belong to him, and he actually risks losing his royalty forever.

When you're spending other people's money, on the other hand, you have nothing to lose -- and therefore you can exploit that cash flow for personal gain. For those at the top of a democratic pyramid, the more spending the better.

So what can be done? There's only one solution: strict limits on government power and revenue. STRICT limits, as the founders of the US intended. Of course, strict limits on the scope of government is nothing but a pipe dream for radicals and libertarians, right?

Re:Think again

[misexistentialist]

It is a dream though, just like the dream of democracy. The Founders tried, but people end up with the government they deserve.

Re:Think again

[Logic and Reason]

So what can be done? There's only one solution: strict limits on government power and revenue. STRICT limits, as the founders of the US intended. Of course, strict limits on the scope of government is nothing but a pipe dream for radicals and libertarians, right?

It is a pipe dream, but for different reasons. Who is going to enforce these "strict limits"? Why, the selfsame organization that is supposed to be limited by them! "Limited government" is an oxymoron: once you grant ultimate authority to an entity, any limits you try to place on it are moot.

We keep trying to create "safe" engines of mass subjugation, and somehow they keep getting abused. When will we finally realize that whatever difficulties we might face without a master, it's the only way we'll ever achieve lasting freedom?

Next up...

[MadKeithV]

Next up: UN considering control of gravity, also considering extensions to other laws of physics.

Inclusive ?

[mbone]

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has been grinding along for almost five years, so this is something of late news. Unlike the Australian commenter in the original article, the process is inclusive only as to governments, not people or even NGOs. This has the Internet Society (ISOC) worried enough that they have an online petition on it :

The UN Needs to Ensure an Open and Inclusive Approach to Internet Governance

(Yes, you will get a fundraising pitch at the end, but that's not the reason for this petition.)

Enlightenment is irreversible

[wasabu]

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin

Re:Enlightenment is irreversible

[KlomDark]

"The harder you squeeze the soap, the faster it flies out of your grasp." -- My Grandma T

Re:Enlightenment is irreversible

[geminidomino]

"You may fire when ready" Grand Moff Tarkin, obviously cowed, in response.

700MB per film?

[RulerOf]

You must be downloading movies (125GB/700MB == ~150 movies)?

Who acquires 700MB rips anymore? Torrent users?

Last I checked, being able to "archive" to a CD-R isn't really top priority for anyone who enjoys and likely few who contribute to the scene. The scene is about providing or acquiring the same content you would normally get in a **AA approved package, only with better compatibility, picture quality, and freedom of use.

When the scene ceases to provide (for free, I might add) a better product than the morons that produce the product through legitimate distribution channels, people will stop using it.

The point is that 700MB DVD rips are a legacy product from a time when no one had DVD burners, and hard drives and internet connections were an order of magnitude or more smaller and slower than they are today.

The fact that it takes less time to get the same product (an 8.4GB 1080p copy of something, for example) from the intarwebz than it does to actually go to the store and buy or rent it is rather pathetic.

Better the UN than the US

[loufoque]

There is no reason why the US should be in control of a global entity.

Nothing new here, let's move along people.

irrellevant

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is controlled by rich corporations solely. Only they can afford to lay the fibre and offer subsidized speeds to the end-user. The true purpose of a cheap link is not always giving the customer value, so I don't think the UN can do anything in regards to that.

The UN can suck it

[KlomDark]

United Abominations is more like it.

Those US ideals...

[wiresquire]

...has anyone considered that those ideals that are contained or implied in the US constitution only apply to USians?

Think about it. It makes sense.

Re:Those US ideals...

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

...has anyone considered that those ideals that are contained or implied in the US constitution only apply to Americians?
FTFY.

*crackle*

[kallisti5]

*creak*Screw you guys... i'll start my own internet... with hookers... and booze.

U.N. to U.S.:

[Culture20]

"Strike freedom down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!"

Government censorship of the internet?

[grasshoppa]

Are they insane? Do they have any idea what this will do to the economy, let alone the precious information they are trying to hide? It's almost like...wait, it's the UN?

Nevermind. Here's hoping they'll be as effective in this initiative as they are in everything else.

Re:Government censorship of the internet?

[oliverthered]

The MAN. geeeees.

freedom is only a government away.

Black helicopters!!!

[Quiet_Desperation]

ZOMG! UN troops in Fargo! To arms! To arms!

Re:a serendipitous article on the first war on ter

[Anonymous Coward]

anarchists ... peaceful

LOL!

The Revolution that Wasn't

[bsDaemon]

The American Revolution was more like a second chapter in the English Civil War, not a revolution. To borrow from a speech in the film 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley,' the only thing that the war changed was "the colour of the flag and the accent of the powerful." But, we took the same colours anyway, and just changed the pattern. Many of the Revolutionary leaders would have continued to live perfectly fine, happy, comfortable lives with lots of money had they remained in the British Empire. The real revolution, in terms of major social upheaval, didn't happen until the 1860s and didn't really finish until the 1960s. Hell, the end of slavery would have come sooner had the colonies remained such.

I like America. Hell, my family has largely been here since the 1650s. However, it seems to me that a lot of our national mythology is mostly that: mythology, and since we have the misfortune of being an Enlightenment-based "idea nation," questioning it can get you labelled 'un-American' in a way that one can't really be "un-English" when one is English.

Re:The Revolution that Wasn't

[Mr. Slippery]

However, it seems to me that a lot of our national mythology is mostly that: mythology

Most definitely -- a recently poll found that 58% of Americans believe God has granted America a special role in human history. You can't get more mythological than that. You don't count the dead when God's on your side, and you don't worry about troublesome "facts" either.

so it's come to this has it government

[oliverthered]

when the government is afraid of the people, the people should be afraid of the government

Re:so it's come to this has it government

[Opportunist]

Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.

Re:so it's come to this has it government

[oliverthered]

well lets see how it comes out in the wash.

No one controls the net.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one controls the net. I dare anyone try it. I double dare that motherfucker.

Most revealing

[countertrolling]

Don't you love it when your government reacts more forcefully against wikileaks than it does against oil leaks?

Re:Most revealing

[Opportunist]

One threatens only wildlife and people, their livelihood and their existence. The other threatens the government's ability to lie, cheat and outright betray its people.

Priorities, man!

UN = Bad Idea

[couchslug]

The United Nations was a horrid mistake like the League of Nations before it.

World government by lawfare in a world mostly composed of anti-freedom governments was never a good idea. People should fear international law more than its absence.

Law is fine locally, useless internationally, because in the international context being free of law is an overwhelming advantage.

Re:UN = Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The United Nations was a horrid mistake like the League of Nations before it.

World government by lawfare in a world mostly composed of anti-freedom governments was never a good idea. People should fear international law more than its absence.

Law is fine locally, useless internationally, because in the international context being free of law is an overwhelming advantage.

The UN isn't a world government. They have absolutely zero power. If different governments didn't have the UN, they would be doing this through individual meetings. When they pass resolutions, the governments that like what the resolutions says uses it as an excuse to pass those laws, the governments that don't simply ignore the UN and affirm they have a right to national sovereignty.

The UN might be useless, but abolishing it wouldn't fix anything. You've got to fix your own government when they pass laws you disapprove of, whether approved by the UN or not.

Re:UN = Bad Idea

[Rockoon]

The UN isn't a world government. They have absolutely zero power.

..and by zero power you mean that the most high tech armies in the world fights for it, and is backed by multiple nuclear arsenals, and that decisions made on its floors can effect everyone on the planet... sure..

is zero power a euphemism for ice-cold power?

Re:UN = Bad Idea

[Sentrion]

You are referring to the US. The article is about the UN.

Re:UN = Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States was a horrid mistake like the Articles of Confederation before it.

National government by lawfare in a world mostly composed of anti-freedom governments was never a good idea. People should fear national law more than its absence.

Law is fine locally, useless nationally, because in the national context being free of law is an overwhelming advantage.

ftfy

Re:UN = Bad Idea

[chrb]

People should fear international law more than its absence.

The Nurenburg trials were conducted for violations of international law. The problem with restricting law to the boundaries of nation states is that if a nation state "goes rogue" and legalises genocide against certain ethnicities (e.g. Nazi Germany), then there is no legal framework for later prosecuting the people enforcing that law, as they acted lawfully under the jurisdiction of their nation state at the time.

Another instance where national law is of no use is in piracy. Since the jurisdiction of a nation state does not extend to international waters, in the absence of international law it would be entirely lawful to murder, enslave, rape etc. in international waters. Obviously it is desirable for most people that these activities be held accountable in some legal framework.

So, the solution is obvious...

[steelersteve13]

Tell the repubs to vote us (the US) out of the UN. Without US support, the UN will die. And repubs will vote against net neutrality and related nonsense.

Folks. Relax. It's the UN

[Opportunist]

By the time they finally agree on a resolution, there is no longer an internet to govern.

Plus, whatever they'll agree on will be SO watered down that it amounts to little more than "look, we did something!"

No

[Anonymous Coward]

I want them to remain undefined

And China Gets...

[FurtiveGlancer]

A permanent seat on the UN Internet Security Council.

It is initially a good idea

[bussdriver]

The UN does not have much actual power and can not effectively oppose the big powers of the world (economic forces; banks/corporations) therefore, they serve their tiny purpose quite effectively without much corruption interfering with their purpose. Now if you go and empower the UN in any significant way like giving them the internet they will either become corrupt since then they will have real power to attract corruption OR they will continue to be ineffective so the corruption motive will continue to be minimal.

One reason they do as well as they do is because they are so weak and easily thwarted by ineffectiveness -- which is actually better than being corrupt. Sure, some people think the result is the same and to you I say: Being unable to fix something is not the same as being the one who BREAKS it.

Given their history of being unable to gain the needed support to do the right thing; I would say if they drew up the regulations properly (which is actually possible) they would do a better job in keeping freedom on the internet over the downward spiral we are in today all over the world. That having been said, the multinational corporate groups are going to limit internet freedom 1 way or another as far as Music and Movies -- creating a single target to influence at the UN might make it better for them; although, again, this is the UN and its only slightly easier than "convincing" nations 1 by 1.

Re:It is initially a good idea

[HungryHobo]

not corrupt?
The 5 biggest arms dealers in the world also happen to be the 5 permanent members of the UN security council.

Re:It is initially a good idea

[Dutch Gun]

they serve their tiny purpose quite effectively without much corruption interfering with their purpose.

They haven't demonstrated any such thing. See: Oil-For-Food Program.

Re:It is initially a good idea

[bussdriver]

I didn't say they are free from corruption; no large organization is - when they have people get caught it helps; if they had a "perfect" record then there would need to be more concern about them.

citing wikipedia isn't that wise.

Re:It is initially a good idea

[bussdriver]

I didn't say they are free from corruption.

You are off base, the member nations all have corruption and their corrupt influences on the UN are minimized or nullified by the other members.

NOT doing something due to being made ineffective is not corrupt; sure the people preventing action are corrupt but the organization being vetoed by a minority does not make it corrupt; its not effective etc. but not corrupt until its working towards those bad ends with a motive.

My argument is that the UN doesn't need to get involved in the corruption because it is unable to act strongly against the truly powerful who can just render it useless without taking it over. So smaller things can be done and even large oppositions can be made public even if nothing concretely is accomplished. It has helped to illustrate situations; like the Iraq war scam and made it more difficult to legitimize that war (except for American suckers) but failed to prevent it.

ah, free speech

[n_djinn]

The nations in the summary are bastions of free speech.. Oh, wait, not their not.

The underground

[nurb432]

Yes, information will survive underground but is that the life we want?

I don't.

Freedom is based on trust and vice versa.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that this whole wikileaks thing is making everyone (mostly governments) scared about the power of the internet. But I have a bright idea! How about our governments tell the people what they should know about themselves right off the bat. that way no one will feel the need to unearth the deep dark secrets that should't belong in civilian minds. people forget the whole reason why this has developed is because people are starting to distrust their government. So instead of regulating the internet, why dont they just earn the peoples trust back. Its not rocket science.

Don't wait until universal censorship to fix this

[Sentrion]

I honestly believe that the internet has the capacity to empower basic human freedoms more than any other development in history, even the printing press. The Open Source movement is just one example of how the internet can take long established and universally accepted theories of capitalism, commerce, production, distribution, patents and copyrights and turn it on its head.

However, there are two major weaknesses of the internet. First, it is dependent on semiconductor technology, which to my knowledge even the most talented home-brew geek cannot fabricate in his garage. At best he could program an FPGA, but he still needs a massive silicon foundry and the associated supply chain of toxic chemicals and kilojoules of energy to supply his components. If the "powers that be" can control the supply of microprocessors (or worse, sneak malicious tracking or blocking circuitry into the chips) then they can (theoretically) control and regulate the flow of information over the internet.

Second is that the internet is still largely dependent on the fiber put in place by some of the world's most powerful corporations. It is this fiber that is the target of government surveillance and regulation.

While the "home brew" microchip does not seem to be on the horizon, the potential for neighbors to connect directly to each other in an ad-hoc, free (as in speech and in beer [except for the hardware]), and unregulated manner does seem to be feasible, but as the threat of severe censorship is not yet upon us there is little incentive for such a self organizing network to get off the ground. The key to such a network is that it needs to be completely independent from providers of infrastructure, which would include cable, phone, and cellular networks. If anyone knows of any projects in the works I would be interested in getting involved.

Ultimately I think one of the best ways to dispose of tyranny is to render such powers as redundant and impotent. Once a population doesn't benefit from or rely on their government then the government is seen only as an oppressor. Most colonial territories are now independent nations for this very reason. Sometimes peacefully, sometimes not.

As for the UN, I find it interesting that in this modern world we have a United Nations and we have a United States and a United Kingdom, but there does not exist a "United Peoples". Perhaps if such an entity could form then the tyranny of nation-states could come to an end.

When the revolution comes

[koan]

The UN will be one of the first buildings to be burned to the ground.

this is becoming a problem....

[monkyyy]

with so many governments looking into controlling the internet and so many **aa`s in so many of them,
pushing them into the idea more and more we need back up plans for every possible attack
for weak blacklists theres dozens of ways
for strong blacklists theres freenet and a few other options
but for whitelists?
or 3 strikes laws?

What could possibly go wrong?

[DarthVain]

Kidding aside, do it. Do it now. Considering the actions of the US government on behalf of their RIAA and MPAA overlords, it is clear that they are not up to the task. Someone else should do it.

What we need is the opposite of the UN

[Adrian Lopez]

Instead of the UN deciding on a set of regulations governments may/may not/must adopt, what we need is for countries to stop imposing their laws upon other counties.

If Wikileaks were deemed illegal in the US but not in Country X, the system should guarantee the US will not be able to shut down any servers located in Country X, and neither should any country other than Country X where the content is hosted. Same thing for domain name seizures or any other action that effectively blocks content beyond the borders of the country where such content is illegal.

Tell me how you really feel

[kid_oliva]

Wow... I applaud your passion, but do not necessarily agree with your statements. I assume by tax cuts, you are referring to the Bush tax cuts that have passed the House and Senate. I will diverge here for a second because they were not true tax cuts when implemented because they were not followed by a decrease in spending.
Back to the focus, Why do you feel that people who make more money should pay more percentange of the money they make? Everybody has the oppurtunity to work and make money. My friend's parents who came from Croatia 50 years ago started out with a suitcase and that was it. They now own a home, car, have raised a family, etc. My other friend's father-in-law, who is of Hungarian descent, started this company, http://www.edenpure.com/, as well as this one, http://www.ballbike.com/. He started with nothing 15 years ago.

These people have worked hard to get where they are and I do not believe they should have to pay a higher percentage of tax because they are sucessful. It is counter-intuitive to punish someone for success. Yes, it is punishment to pay a higher percentage of your money to government, no matter how altruistic they may want you to believe they are. The goverment did not make these people wealthy. They worked hard and came up with services or products that people wanted. In fact depending on what business you go into, the goverment hinders competion to the status quo in the way of regulations, specifically telecomm.

Another thing, it is the prerogative of everyone to invest their money how they see fit. It seem that you might be saying that it is unAmerican if you don't invest your money in the stock market. I hope you are including George Soros as one of your sad f'ers. If you are not then your are not being honest with yourself.

It is sort of funny that taxation was one the things that started the whole American Experiment into motion.

the fact remains that wealthy Americans are fucking traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government and the infrastructure that made their wealth possible.

Back then our ancestors were tired of taxes and the crown. Yet your rhetoric would probablly be not out of place in the Empire of Brittian at that time. "the fact remains that wealthy Colonists are f'ing traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government, infrastructure, and war that made their wealth possible."
I guess somedays nothing changes...

Re:Tell me how you really feel

[Rakarra]

These people have worked hard to get where they are and I do not believe they should have to pay a higher percentage of tax because they are sucessful.

For myself, it comes down to civic duty -- everyone should feel the same amount of "pain" of supporting government. It should be just as much of a hassle, just as much of a burden for the rich as it is for the poor, and $1000 less from a poor person's salary is far far more damaging to them than it is for a rich person.

Re:Tell me how you really feel

[RightSaidFred99]

You don't think paying the vast majority of the tax burden is enough "pain" for the much hated rich fat cats?

Poor people already pay little if any in taxes.

great troll potential

[Anonymous Coward]

hey miscreants!

Did you realize that a lot of the wikileaks releases are still classified ? And that various US agencies have warned people not to look at them? Having classified information that you're not supposed to have access to, on a computer on the public internet to boot, could be a real problem for someone who works for the government, government contractor, or may need to get a security clearance in the future.

get my drift, copypastamastas ?!

so ?

[unity100]

well unfortunately, they are. throw a carrot, and the majority does what you want. 'child porn', 'national security', this that. just watch fox viewers and how they behave.

reasons.

[unity100]

french revolution was followed by immediate invasion of all the monarchies of europe, headed by the 'liberty loving' and modern great britain, intending to restore the absolute king again.

when attacked by SO many nations for destruction, people get psychopathic. and it evolved into a reign of terror, to oust the traitors (and there were many actually committing that, since there were many aristocrats losing everything), then it devolved into schizophrenia.

same thing happened in october revolution in 1917 too. even before war ended, the glorious freedom loving british landed in russia in order to suppress the 'rebellion' and restore the tzar, along with soldiers from all members of the allies. white russians (aristocrats) started fighting in the south with material and monetary support from the same allies.

and no suprise, the revolution devolved into schizophrenia in the same way, and this climate allowed extremists to take power.

notice how great britain plays the star role in both of the incidents.

The US Would Veto

[Nethemas the Great]

Last I knew the US was very much against ceding control of the Internet. Being as they are permanent members of the UN security council this notion really has no wheels even if every other country in the UN was in favor of it. While something akin to this is likely inevitable, it won't until UN v3.0 is release.

Protecting children from economic predators

[Paul Fernhout]

"The war play dilemma: what every parent and teacher needs to know"
http://books.google.com/books?id=-loYzCV11JcC

It mentions an unholy alliance from Reagan administration media deregulation leading to boys being saturated with violent content 24X7 between media, food, toys, and apparel.

The version for girls:
"So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids"
http://books.google.com/books?id=O7NrhdwTeCkC

Good luck. At least these two books will help you understand what you are up agsainst when you dismiss the need for much help. Of course, what kind of help is really useful is a different question...

Other background reading:

"Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose"
http://books.google.com/books?id=HQlg3rQquUoC

"The Pleasure Trap: Mastering the Hidden Force That Undermines Health and Happiness"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh6qAAAACAAJ

"Disease-Proof Your Child: Feeding Kids Right"
http://books.google.com/books?id=-W_LYnBFIY8C

"Treating Disease With Vitamin D" (since kids are indoors so much at media)
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

"In defense of childhood: protecting kids' inner wildness"
http://books.google.com/books?id=MAB3CciL40UC

"The Underground History of American Education"
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

Read the Declaration of Independence

[copponex]

. . .The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. . .

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. . .

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury. . .

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences. . .

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. . .

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. . .

Independence was not about lower taxes. It was about ending corruption, costly wars, and making everyone obey the Law, including the King. It's not that the founders hated taxes and the government, but they knew that only a transparent government with limited powers could be effective and just. When it came to trusting the government, the most important realities of their day - building roads, delivering mail, regulating commerce, and waging war - were all still kept under the government, which was supposed to be kept under the watchful eye of the citizens.

Even Adam Smith recognized the importance of a just distribution of wealth, stating "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Since 1980, income of the top 1% of Americans has tripled from $500,000 a year to $1,500,000 a year (AFI). Are they working three times harder than the rest of the country, who have seen their living standards decline? Do billionaires really deserve to have a hundred thousand times more say than a soldier, firefighter, or teacher when it comes to how we should spend our nation's wealth?

You seem to know nothing of our founding values or basic economics, or even the common sense argument that America has rich people only because it has infrastructure paid for by the government. You cannot sell iPads to illiterate peasants who can barely provide their own food. Creating this peasant society by denying people an equal chance at success by publicly funding their security, health, and education seems to be the main goal of you and the rest of the witless adherents of whatever latest intellectual fad the media has hand fed you.

Re:Read the Declaration of Independence

[kid_oliva]

You seem to be missing the point. It is not about lower taxes it is about equal taxation. The infrastructure is there for all to use. If the wealthy use the infrastructure better than you do that is your problem. Learn how to use the infrastructure better. You seem to have a problem with people who make money. You want the rich to pay for goverment and then get upset when they run it. But wait... did you not want them to pay more and they do pay more in percentage, I would guess they pay more than you do unless you make more tham $250,000. If the burden of society is on the rich and they are paying for most of it, which they do http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/the-rich-pay-fo.html, then you should be fine with the elite running the country. It is clear however you are not, yet you want them to pay for most of everything. I hate to break it to you but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

We out spend any other nation when it comes to war. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for that, although Democrats do get us involved in more: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War. http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/why-the-u-s-outspends-the-world-on-defense/

Public education is the biggest failure. http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/12/international-education-rankings-suggest-reform-can-lift-u-s/

We out spend everyone on healthcare as well. http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2593-Chart-1-US-Gov.-outspends-world-on-health.html


The problem here is that you want people to change their morality. You do that through social means, not the strong arm of goverment.

Re:Read the Declaration of Independence

[copponex]

If the wealthy use the infrastructure better than you do that is your problem. Learn how to use the infrastructure better.

No, I'm going to change the infrastructure to help the average man. If the wealthy have to actually work in order to have money, it's up to them to learn how to do that, and use the infrastructure better.

The "burden on society" is the biggest load of shit since the last time you opened your mouth. The top tier of income earners have tripled their income since 1980, so even though their effective tax rate has gone down, they pay more taxes because they're paying less taxes on triple the income. They pay all the taxes because they own the vast majority of assets in the country. If they'd like to give up those assets for a lower tax portion, I'll open an account and they can all start wiring it to me.

Until then, don't complain that your yachts are expensive to maintain. If you don't like it, fuck off somewhere else. I'm sure flights to the third world are cheap these days.

Re:Read the Declaration of Independence

[kid_oliva]

Let me drop some facts on you about the American wealthy:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy. More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

Re:Read the Declaration of Independence

[Anonymous Coward]

The "burden on society" is the biggest load of shit since the last time you opened your mouth.

Liberals are kind of cute when they're angry, most especially when they feel that their beliefs are the "correct" ones but find that the only responses to their statements are that of disagreement.

Honestly, I would've found it much more interesting to read your replies to the other poster if your responses hadn't degenerated to this level. It only demonstrates anger and not a genuine interest in maintaining some level of civility in conversation.

Anti-UN scaremongering

[Zoxed]

I know this is Slashdot, but talk about anti-UN scaremongering.
Firstly it a news report, not a UN statement. It is *one* country *suggesting* a committee that may (or may not) *attempt* to exert control. And 4 other countries *appear* to be in favour (presumably of the committee and not the control). What the heck does *appear* mean in this case ?
Not exactly about to be policy is it !!

Fucking Liberal Morons

[z-j-y]

"USA is bad, World is good. Surrender internet control to the World!"

"How dare you belittle other cultures? USA has problems too, so there is no difference really."

"World Gov can make good censorship laws!"

"No big deal, censorship never works anyway!"

Re:a serendipitous article on the first war on ter

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Lenin was used as a weapon against the Russia by the Germans. They purposefully picked him up from Paris. The nationalistic tensions of the eastern Europe combined with the irrationally tight coupling of the governments before the first WW can't really be underestimated as a cause for the conflict. We hopefully know our chaos theory by know, so it is less likely that the kind of couplings are formed in the future. I wonder if the chaos theory is taught in the political sciences let alone in the law schools, so your scenario might occur nevertheless.

One thing they can agree on

[GameboyRMH]

There's one thing every government in the world can agree to ban from the Internet:

Classified government documents.

Second most likely to be banned is corporate trade secrets, third most likely is child porn, fourth is unauthorized copyrighted material and cicumvention tools, and fifth is pics of Mohammed.

Re:One thing they can agree on

[Anonymous Coward]

and fifth is pics of Mohammed.

That's probably a good thing, because it seems to me that any time someone has made a caricature of Mohammed available, they've had fatwahs issued against them or have wound up stabbed to death by crazy Islamists.

Re:One thing they can agree on

[GameboyRMH]

I fully support the right to bring crazy Islamist murder onto oneself using the Internet.

Re:a serendipitous article on the first war on ter

[Anonymous Coward]

The authorities made extensive use of agents provocateurs because the anarchists were too peaceful to be threatening enough.

jon kyl has been trying to start a race war in southern arizona for years now because he profits from the sale of firearms.

one hopes that these sorts of conflict of interest will be more widely publicized on the internets.

Not so sure about Brazil...

[mindstormpt]

I'm as trusting of politicians as the next Slashdotter but, given how the Brazilian president recently (and very publicly) voiced his strong support for Assange and Wikileaks (when there weren't that many world leaders doing the same), I'm not sure their intention is the one stated in the article. They may just want to reduce US control of the internet, which is clearly a good idea given both past and current events.

Well said

[handy_vandal]

Awesome post. Thanks for the CS Lewis rebuttal/quote, and for the intelligent commentary. You're a latter-day Mark Twain, neatly skewering our current Gilded Age.

To be fair, a lot of LEFT-wingers want ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled.

To be fair, a lot of LEFT-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled.

Like "hate speech". Or anything politically incorrect. Or opposing one of their programs. Or discussing their voting records - especially in the months just preceding an election. Or political organizing, especially by "right wing loons" and "racists" (or Tea Party members). (For a list, consult the Southern Poverty Law Center.) Or opposing taxes. Or criticizing government agencies or officials. Or talking about guns in a positive way. Or anything discussing when the use of force might be justified. Or recruiting for religious groups, non-left-wing political organizations, and other "hate groups".

"'The Children' must be protected from these discussions. And since we've wired the Internet into the schools we have to keep all that stuff off the Internet."

Which side of the asile is more of a problem? Try look at the party breakdown of the vote counts on the various proposals to censor the Internet.

Does anyone know what the UN intentions are?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of comments but no one seems to know (or care to know) what the UN intentions are --- or even whether the statements in the orginal post is true.

FACTS, anyone, please?

Simpleton.

[copponex]

A republic means that the people rule the government without a monarch. They can choose to do it through representation or directly, which may or may not have a constitution, and our Constitution guarantees all people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In my view, the aristocracy of monied corporations and their squalid adherents are the largest obstructions to all three of these rights. If the majority decides to change the tax rate to suit society as a whole instead of the landed gentry that perform close to zero useful work, that is our right and we will take it. As Jefferson stated in his inaugural address:

. . .it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government. . . a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism

Get back to regurgitating propaganda somewhere else, thanks.

Re:Simpleton.

[diamondmagic]

Thanks for reiterating my exact point, but note that cooperations are made up of individuals, yes? You cannot stop any company from doing something without violating some individual's rights, nor can a government try and steal money since government's only legitimate powers are those which are derived from the people, and last I checked individual people cannot go into a person's savings just because they they think they are "rich" or for any other reason.

Maybe you should actually go read some Jefferson (and the rest of the Framers for that matter, they all had different opinions, of course) before you claim to know what he thinks on the issue of liberty and individual rights?

Citation needed on what propaganda it is I am "regurgitating."

Re:Simpleton.

[copponex]

What point? You falsely claimed the US wasn't a democracy. Then you equated levying taxes with stealing. Which would make the US military the biggest gangster in the United States.

You cannot stop any company from doing something without violating some individual's rights

Right. So if a pacifier company is putting arsenic in their products, they can't be stopped without violating shareholder rights? You can't possibly be that stupid and still have the ability to read and write.

nor can a government try and steal money since government's only legitimate powers are those which are derived from the people

And if the people decide progressive taxation leads to a better society, they are free to impose it, and you are free to leave if you don't like it.

and last I checked individual people cannot go into a person's savings just because they they think they are "rich" or for any other reason.

No one is talking about stealing savings. What we are talking about is taxation of income earned in the United States. Try to stay on this side of reality.

Re:Simpleton.

[diamondmagic]

The US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, the Constitution provides that (look it up). There's a major difference, in particular, there is supreme law and natural law that the citizens cannot change. Yes, yes I did equate taxes with stealing, is it not legalized theft? Yes the US does have quite a bit of illegitimate powers that the Framers did not intend, as a consequence.

Right. So if a pacifier company is putting arsenic in their products, they can't be stopped without violating shareholder rights? You can't possibly be that stupid and still have the ability to read and write.

Tthat's called fraud, it's a form of coercion, and individuals cannot do it, therefore companies (and governments for that matter, no difference) cannot either.

And if the people decide progressive taxation leads to a better society, they are free to impose it, and you are free to leave if you don't like it.

There's no reason you couldn't start a small city and have everyone sign onto an agreement in exchange for a public library and whatnot. I'm perfectly happy doing that if I understand what's going on. But most people have not, and it's almost certainly not possible at a federal level, therefore the legitimate powers are most narrow.

No one is talking about stealing savings. What we are talking about is taxation of income earned in the United States. Try to stay on this side of reality.

It applies equally well to any form of taxation. I would, by the way, include the estate tax and the "inflation" tax as taxes on savings when using that term, but that's a matter of personal definition I guess.

Re:Simpleton.

[copponex]

There's a major difference, in particular, there is supreme law and natural law that the citizens cannot change.

No, you fucking idiot. The Constitution can be changed and amended at our whim. That's why we have amendments. That's why black people are no longer 3/5 of a person and have the right to vote.

Republic is derived from the latin "res publica" and only means that there is no religious or blood rule.

Tthat's called fraud, it's a form of coercion, and individuals cannot do it, therefore companies (and governments for that matter, no difference) cannot either.

Yes, they can, and they do. The question is whether you want your child to die and then sue some company instead of having a government agency preventing those deaths before they happen.

Re:Simpleton.

[diamondmagic]

The name calling can end please, thank you. You have yet to cite what propaganda I'm regurgitating let alone acknowledge my correction on the party preferences of the tea party.

Do you really think I never read the amendment process? You're completely missing the point. The legislative branch and the House of Representatives in particular might be structured like a democracy but what part of the Constitution establishes a democracy? What part provides that member states will be democracies?

While we are on the topic of taking fine points completely out of context and missing the point, blacks were never considered 3/5ths of a person. Only slaves were. There were numerous blacks who were voting, owned land, owned other slaves (!), and held political office. The 3/5ths number was so that slave states would not have as much representation in congress, and ideally they wouldn't have counted at all, and that's a good thing.

And stop playing stupid. When I say "they can't" I mean in terms of legitimacy, i.e. individual rights. When was the last time a government agency ever stopped anything? It's so wound up in the side-effects of it's own actions all it can do is make the problems worse. What kind of company wants to put arsenic in pacifiers, you tell me? That was your original question wasn't it? You were talking about some company that was already doing that action, yes, they legitimately can be stopped because it's something an individual could legitimately do.

Re:Simpleton.

[copponex]

The name calling can end please, thank you.

No. You're a fucking idiot.

You have yet to cite what propaganda I'm regurgitating let alone acknowledge my correction on the party preferences of the tea party.

Again, you're a fucking idiot. Telling you facts is like showing a dog a card trick.

what part of the Constitution establishes a democracy?

It's not hard. Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The issue is that you're so unbelievably ignorant that you think Republic means Republic. Actually, it means that the state is ruled by the public. Which means they vote for representatives to control their government. Which is a representative democracy. Which does limit democratic power to abridge minority rights, but even those rules can be removed by democratic action through a 2/3 vote in the Congress and Senate, or in a Constitutional Convention.

The 3/5ths number was so that slave states would not have as much representation in congress, and ideally they wouldn't have counted at all, and that's a good thing.

Does this mean you're missing a Klan rally somewhere? In what universe is not counting people as people a good thing? Because it allowed the North to retain power while they allowed the south to own slaves? The rest of the civilized world considers that a mistake.

When was the last time a government agency ever stopped anything?

You're probably not aware of this, but about 30,000 children die every day in Africa from preventable diseases. In developed nations with strong social infrastructure, the rate is pretty close to 0.

You know, details details. If you really hate government that much, I'm sure they could use a few more bodies in the Congo. Hop to it. I'm begging you.

Re:Simpleton.

[diamondmagic]

No. You're a fucking idiot.

I'll take that as a concession, thank you very much.

Again, you're a fucking idiot. Telling you facts is like showing a dog a card trick.

This hardly refutes the case that somehow newly elected, non-establishment (i.e. not the choice of the Republican Party leadership) representatives must somehow adopt the same views as other people from the same party. No, not true in any universe. I will concede that arm-twisting goes on within parties, but that's something to (rightfully) blame the parties themselves for, not the anti-spending/anti-tax values the Tea Party stands for.

The issue is that you're so unbelievably ignorant that you think Republic means Republic. Actually, it means that the state is ruled by the public. Which means they vote for representatives to control their government. Which is a representative democracy. Which does limit democratic power to abridge minority rights, but even those rules can be removed by democratic action through a 2/3 vote in the Congress and Senate, or in a Constitutional Convention.

Go read the Federalist papers, now please. Madison pretty damn well knew what he meant by "republic" when he said it.

Does this mean you're missing a Klan rally somewhere? In what universe is not counting people as people a good thing? Because it allowed the North to retain power while they allowed the south to own slaves? The rest of the civilized world considers that a mistake.

Slaves couldn't vote. Let me rephrase that again to get the point across. By definition slaves were non-voters. Counting slaves into the House of Representatives would have given more power to pro-slavery congressmen against the wishes of slaves themselves, who again did not vote. Still you manage to completely miss the important point that blacks != slaves and were counted as full people when they were able to vote (thus getting increased representation in Congress), are you going to acknowledge that?

You're probably not aware of this, but about 30,000 children die every day in Africa from preventable diseases. In developed nations with strong social infrastructure, the rate is pretty close to 0.

That's because of this thing called capitalism where we invest lots of capital into workers so they can be productive enough to be able to exchange their produce for clean water, medical care, shelter, etc. You don't need a government to do that, and there's plenty of examples around the world, the US itself to an extent, New Zealand (out of all places), Hong Kong, etc. Government doesn't produce prosperity, rule of law does, and surveying African social structures you will find some of the most tyrannical governments or social structures in general. So again, you fall victim to the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.

THIS country does!

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Some countries still have the death sentence for Treason

Heck. THIS country still has the death sentence for Treason.

The only mitigation is that, in reaction to England's excesses, the Constitution DEFINES Treason, limiting it to making war on the US or giving aid and comfort to an enemy (which effectively requires a DECLARED war) and requiring two witnesses to the act.

(That's why Jane Fonda got to dance with Tom Hayden and Ted Turner at her second and third weddings, rather than with Danny Deever in the morning.)

There used to be a tradition.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Recall that some wanted to make Washington King of America, but he bared his wooden teeth at them and refused.

Heard an interesting speculation on that.

There used to be a tradition in Europe for when a new kingdom was being created and the crown (and associated hotseat) was being offered to the first king/victim/prototyrant: He'd turn down the crown on the first two offers and only accept it on the third.

So scenario:

  - Delegation comes to Washington and offers him the crown.
  - Washington, a learned man, does the first refusal.
  - Delegation, not familiar with the tradition, slaps him on the back and departs, to spread the story of what a fine fellow he is. B-)

= = = =

Of course this bit of humor is unlikely, given both his well-documented popular-government leanings and his reported statement about not having fought a war just to replace one "Tyrant George" with another. But it WOULD make a good Monty Python skit.

That's not libertarianism

[SteveFoerster]

Ayn Rand style Objectivism/Libertarianism holds that self-interest is the highest moral principle and altruism is evil; wealth is proof of moral rectitude, and poverty is proof of sloth and moral degeneracy.

Objectivists may believe this, but it's not part of libertarianism. Many libertarians think that helping others is great, they just don't think the state should force people to do it.

Re:"equally" repressive

[TaoPhoenix]

It's fiendishly complicated which of the western countries is "most" repressive right now. If I may mashup some gaming analogies, I'm seeing it as "repression battleship". France is playing with Unlucky Strikes, we just saw the Packet Inspection update a few hours ago, Intel contributed a remote-kill switch, US wants to shove ACTA along, etc. Each piece is bad, but they synergistically combine into OhDearWTF.
Then it's just a grid exercise to complete the collectible set across all countries.

Vote for 2600, Wikileaks, and cDc as regulators

[h00manist]

I'd vote for Indymedia, 2600, Wikileaks, Pirate Bay, Pirate Parties International, the EFF, FSF, and cDc communications to regulate the Internet. And Open Meshshould be the direction of growth. Ok then, we aren't going to get to coordinate "The Internet", we'll settle for The ParallelNet. There's enough geeks for it.

Preparing to route around the UN

[Geminii]

In 3,2,1...