Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
Holy crap, I'm old!
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.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
I are a Brazilian, and I say NO to this.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
I'm sorry, Tor and the myriad other proxy services floating around China would like a word.
Sent from my CR-48
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.
Now they have an excuse, and all hell is going to break loose.
Sorry for the accidental rhyming.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
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.
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?
One World Government, here we come!
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?
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!!!!!!
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
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.
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.
There are already over 2000 Wikileaks mirrors, so it's going to next to impossible to shut it down in the first place.
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.
Can someone shed light on whether they can actually control the internet, on a technical level?
It'll hasten the spread of P2P DNS by a good bit.
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.
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?
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.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Get the UN to run it ...
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
Kill your TV
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.
-Valen
I'm sure they would - in the 5 mins they're available before they're blocked.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
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.
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.
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.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
That this subject has came up after all of the media hype about Wikileaks?
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!
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?
"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.
Next up: UN considering control of gravity, also considering extensions to other laws of physics.
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.)
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.
And how much are you going to pay to get them to stop?
rewriting history since 2109
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.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
"The harder you squeeze the soap, the faster it flies out of your grasp." -- My Grandma T
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?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
...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.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
"Strike freedom down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!"
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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!
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
ZOMG! UN troops in Fargo! To arms! To arms!
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.
Don't you love it when your government reacts more forcefully against wikileaks than it does against oil leaks?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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!"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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?
A permanent seat on the UN Internet Security Council.
Invenio via vel creo
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The nations in the summary are bastions of free speech.. Oh, wait, not their not.
I do not play in the middle of the road
Yes, information will survive underground but is that the life we want?
I don't.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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?
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.
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]."
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.
The UN will be one of the first buildings to be burned to the ground.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
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.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Guilty as charged. *&^$#%!!!
sed "s/threshold/line"/g
sed "s/paradigm/reality"/g
Better?
"buzzword bingo"? LOL
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...
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
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.
Read radical news here
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.
Read radical news here
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.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
"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
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
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.
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 !!
"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!"
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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 lets see how it comes out in the wash.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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.
-kgj
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
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.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"You may fire when ready" Grand Moff Tarkin, obviously cowed, in response.
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.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
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.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
In 3,2,1...
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