Quote: Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." As she is quoted as saying, "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."
I have long held the informed opinion that the people within UN WIPO are corrupt - it is why I have this website.
My logic is proven - not one lawyer has been able to give argument against the facts. These people at UN WIPO have no honour - they are too cowardly to answer my charges.
People have every right to use words for whatever legal reason they wish - true or false?
UN WIPO made rules that abridge peoples rights to choose words on the Domain Name System - words that are not used for any unlawful purpose.
Fact 1 - a trademark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('classification') in SPECIFIC country. UN WIPO aid and abet corporations to overreach their trademark rights on the Internet - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
UN WIPO, together with ICANN, the US Department of Commerce (also Patent and Trademark Office) actually help corporations violate the First Amendment rights of US citizens.
More lawyers getting richer - I suppose you know it is all a big con.
I have identified the solution to the conflict of domain names with registered trademarks.
Honest expert lawyers have agreed it would uniquely identify all registered trademarked words on the Internet.
Not one lawyer has ever given logical reasoned argument against this. Indeed most are too cowardly to answer.
You may be interested in the solution and my informed opinion:
I make no egotistical claim that I was the first to see the solution. The authorities must have always known - it is indisputable that the answer was self-evident.
This is really very strange - because the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) said they were stumped. Having contacted them, UN WIPO does not refute or admit the solution - such is their contempt for the law.
I have even communicated with the United States Department of Commerce about it - they are most evasive. As are our own cowardly and dishonourable UK Patent Office.
As you will have guessed - it is mainly about the abuse of power by big business and money. On that - do you know where UN WIPO gets most their money?
From the facts (and this silence) it can be assumed that UN WIPO, US DoC and ICANN (with their lawyers Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue) are all a bunch of crooks. They aid and abet the violation of Trademark and Antitrust Law. They also abridge the choice of words that people may use - violating the US First Amendment.
Even Karl talks about the abuse of power.
Quote: "Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names."
Some simple facts - which even the layman can see is true:
1. You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm. It is AGAINST THE LAW to prevent them from using their legal name - as the authorities do with UNLAWFUL fatally flawed Sunrise period and UDRP.
2. It is possible for many different firms to register the same word as trademark in the same country - but only with different type of goods or products, e.g. the word 'apple' is used by computer and tobacco companies in the US.
3. With the vast ocean of domains, most are not owned by registered trademarks, so some sort of label is required to identify them - or else they claim 'trademark conflict' or 'consumer confusion' - even 'passing off'. The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identifies them in physical world - it is really very very most exceedingly obvious that something is required in cyberspace to perform same function. For example - a protected Top Level Domain of.reg - like duh, simple or what.
4. Using format of name.class.country.reg would identify ALL registered trademarks - e.g. apple.tobacco.us.reg and apple.computer.us.reg
This is then used as certificate of authentication or as a directory (dual functionality). There is NO RESTRICTIONS any business, it can still use current/new domain, just directed to dot REG e.g. apple.com is directed to apple.computer.us.reg
If somebody could ask the Secretary for US DoC this easy question (as he ignores me) - "Mr Eva
The Council of Europe should make it a legal requirement that individuals HAVE TO REPLY to criticisms on these sites.
That is part the reason why some people make (company)sucks.com sites - because sometimes these cowards in corporations will not answer justified criticism.
I have been waiting for years for the answers to some simple questions from people in the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
It is my informed opinion that they and others in ICANN are corrupt.
UN WIPO and ICANN help big business violate Trademark and Antitrust Law using the Domain Name System.
They also violate the First Amendment. As you know - people have every right to use words for whatever legal reason they wish. UN WIPO and ICANN seem to think they do not have this right - they abridge the words that people can use.
Please visit my site - not connected with the crooks at WIPO.org;-)
I posted this several times before - nobody has argument against it - so here it is again:-)
Government
Surveillance
Why do government have no respect for your
right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important
things in life. Well up there, behind health and
safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life
without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it
surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that
you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any
purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing
eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to
deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services
in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny
this:
Internet surveillance,
using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop
terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face
or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when
absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday
(meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The
Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people -
24/7.
The terrorism argument
is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL
NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This
propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer
b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious
motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance
- you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to
pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something
illegal.
It does not address the
real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) -
they want a surveillance society.
They
wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having
somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes
and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including
phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET:
Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call,
watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant
future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet
protocols.
Why should I worry? I do not care
if they know what I do in my own home, you may foolishly say.
Or, just as dumbly, They will not be interested in anything I
do.
This information will be held about you
until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example,
here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington
crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had
over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured
many).
This group had fought for better and safer
railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding
people - with good intent.
I have posted on the subject of surveillance many times before. Here is an extract regarding the psychological aspect. This particular part was wrote by another and did a better job of explaining than I could:
"Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure."
Next - I have no doubt that ICANN are corrupt - that they violate Trademark and Competition Law with Sunrise Process and UDRP.
Fact: They know how to identify all registered trademarks on the Internet - yet hide this.
The solution has been ratified by honest lawyers.
More facts for you:
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course.
Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.
It is trademark overreach to prevent all these businesses from using their name in commerce.
Also - why prevent people using any words for personal sites? Everybody has legitimate rights to use ANY words for ANY legal purpose they wish - true or false?
Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC country.
A protected TLD could identify all registered trademarks - like the symbol of a R in circle - ®
Most businesses share the same trademark word with others e.g. Apple is used by tobacco and computer company.
Which do you think is Apple Computers website in the US - if.reg was introduced?
apple.tobacco.us.reg apple.computer.us.reg
Therefore, apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg to serve as certificate of authentication and fuction as directory.
Please visit my protest site - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org.
c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=property
The rights to use a domain name can be transfered to another. It is obviously property - it does not take a Judge to work that one out.
It will be a corrupt legal system that lets Verisign, et al., off the hook for mismanagement.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) told a LIE when they said there is no solution to trademark and domain name problem. The answer was ratified by honest attorneys and it is indisputably self-evident. Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization to see.
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
For those that have not read my previous postings on this matter:
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. This is a lot better for government than having a CCTV fitted into every home. The all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
People that know me will tell you - I don't do bull*. Slashdotters are the most technological aware people there are. Regulars must be really pissed off with me - sorry but I really have to put this up again:
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. This is a lot better for government than having a CCTV fitted into every home. The all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols." http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdat e/stories/mai n/0,14179,2879094,00.html
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
The research, which was conducted on behalf of the euthanasia group EXIT --which supports the introduction of death for the senile and ill of health -- saw 1,000 people interviewed by telephone between 17 and 19 January, 2003.
Who takes poll conducted by or for people with vested interest seriously?
This ID card poll will likely be used for spin by corrupt members of government who want greater surveillance of the public.
Snippet from my SKILFUL.com site:
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Very sorry to/. regulars - I have to bore you with this again to dispel some of the propaganda put by UK and US Governments.
From my skilful.com website (yes Americans, it is spelt correctly):
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
Well right up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your life without being forced to live your life under an oppressive surveillance society. For it surely is oppressive, knowing this information could be used against you for any purpose the authorities wish.
This is quite part from the minor fact it is very leaky - example seen here in UK news today: Revenue staff selling tax secrets. Quote, "There have been a number of instances of celebrity-browsing or looking up details of family or friends out of idle curiosity. But there is also evidence that some people are using the information maliciously, for example finding out how much an ex-spouse earns and passing the information to the Child Support Agency, or even selling the information to outside agencies. This is a clear breach of customer confidentiality and the Data Protection Act."... "But the Board had become aware about the levels of unauthorised browsing of customer records. They realised the Department needed to draw together a policy to clarify the rules on computer usage and to tighten up the disciplinary consequences of misuse."
The main thing is this - Not enough importance is placed on our Liberty.
Why can't everybody see the blatant use of propaganda, when it is so clear?
I have placed the following on this board many times - the regulars must be sick of it by now - sorry for that:-)
Subject - Ask Security Services to deny this:
First - a quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
Okay then -
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
G> They want to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They KNOW you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, [... ]
T> So, this is a bad thing? That is, do you think only foreigners should be profiled for possible links to terrorism?
Mister T, they SAY that TIA is for the "United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists"
That is the declared GOAL - true or false?
G> They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe.
T> Oh, I see. US citizens ought to be able to commit tax evasion without fear of getting caught too. Gr00vy!
What is the declared GOAL again?
You obviously agree with me - it is all underhand LIES to monitor the American public.
"The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
They want to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They KNOW you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb - to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (of propaganda).
I have said this many times - and have yet to hear reasoned argument against it:->
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet Protocols.
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good People.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe.
All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world.
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
Here in UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
P.S. Did you know the the United States Department of Commerce and United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization LIED, when they said there was no solution to trademark conflict with domain names?
They are dishonourable cowards. The UN Organization, who deal with these conflicts, use WIPO.org - I use VERY similar URL - please visit.
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation? It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my site - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
Quote from DARPA: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists - and decipher their plans - and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
What a load of bull*. Why has NOBODY asked the Security Services the following? I have posted this argument several times before.
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation? It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens, rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily led?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my site - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
Why has NOBODY asked the Security Services the following? I have posted this argument several times before.
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation? It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens, rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily led?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my site - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
You are using government tactics of evasion and misdirection.
Why do you wish to abridge the publics choice of words?
> This would be so much more fun if anyone else were reading.
While one person seeks the Truth, what does fun matter - the effort is still worth while.
> A trademark is...
Yep - I know all this.
A trademark is NOT a word that prevents all other businesses from using dictionary words (providing not passing off) - is it?
It is unlawful for trademarks to do this - is it not?
Also - some big businesses try to prevent people using seemingly made up words - even though these words have been used before them.
Also - eBay tried to stop 'Appraise Bay' from being used on the Internet. There are many hundreds of trademarks in the U.S. with the word 'bay' - likely thousands all over the world. There are untold numbers more of small businesses legally using the word 'bay' without a registered trademark.
Is it not a true fact, that Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it?
> This problem presents nothing more than a simple need to balance competing interests.
I disagree - but tell me the reason - tell me why simple need to balance competing interests has not been solved?
As for 'ivory-tower' analysis - it takes into account everybodies right to use domains for lawful purpose.
> do you believe I should have the right to register and use cocacola.com?
I believe you have the right to use cocacola.newTLD to make legitimate complaint about the company.
If you believe people do not have right to make complaint - if you are anti-First Amendment - then I surely agree with you - "we're going nowhere."
Incidentally - those in corporate pocket always use the cocacola example - look at many of UDRP decisions - here are a few made by corrupt UN WIPO on their own - does not include other arbitration services and cases of domains that have been bullied by lawyers (is an old list):
video net, roller blade, best locks, nitro fuel, tonsil, north face, marketing mix, 0xygen, edentist, state-farm, new-gig, video direct, iphones, open mail, traditions, open view, unicode, southern company, pc gateway, ultra pure water, time keeper, click here, current, beauty co, sound-choice, e-auto-parts, eresolution, body and soul, talk about, esquire, office specialists, crew, praline, the total package, faith net, buy PC, home interiors, big dog, euro consult, music web, RANT...etc
Very different from the example of cocacola that corrupt lawyers use - are they not?
> find it impossible to suggest that my personal interest in registering and using a particular domain name is more compelling than the other billion internet users finding what they think they're going to find when they type.
You would allow ONE trademark to prevent all the rest from using their mark - and prevent small businesses from using their name in commerce.
Not very lawful - are you?
It is not mutually exclusive - is it?
Also - why cannot apple.computer.us.reg, apple.computer.uk.reg, apple.record.uk.reg etc. etc. ALL use their trademark?
> Frankly, unless a person has some sort of anti-corporate chip on their shoulder,
It is nothing to do with being anti-corporate - it is to do with being fair and equitable.
G> You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
> Because nobody's looking for Mr. Nissan, we're all trying to buy a car. We might as well ask why shouldn't Mr Nissan use davidnissan.notreg.us.
The vast majority of domains are not owned by trademarks are they?
The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identifies them in physical world - is not it obvious, that something is required in cyberspace to perform same function?
G> But you do not find it at domino.com
> Silly European, all Americans know its DOMINO'S and not DOMINO,..all I can tell you is I haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be. I'll grant that it's possible, but it seems highly unlikely there is some UK (or whereever) DOMINO mark that remotely approches the strength and fame of DOMINO'S. How else would they occur to you as an example?
European? - You insult me;-)
So - if you "haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be", then everybody that wants domino is going to be confused also - most are going to get wrong business - true or false?
> There are numerous ways to avoid confusion in the brick and mortar world beyond mere information, but let's generally set that aside.
We are talking about a word on its own, say for example 'domino' - how can you avoid confusion in cyberspace?
The odds are that most people typing domino.com get the wrong business - true or false?
So again (longer version) - The only way to avoid confusion, on the Internet, is to supply more information - yes or no?
> day 1 after rollout, 998 million internet users are still trying nissan.com for the auto maker.
When they do not find it there - they try nissan.car.us.reg - and find it straight away.
As most words are shared by many trademarks - 998 million internet users are still trying (InsertWord).com and not finding it there.
Quote from Trademark Act: "the registered owner of any one of those trade marks does not have the right to prevent the registered owner of any other of those trade marks from using that trade mark except to the extent that the first-mentioned owner is authorised to do so under the registration of his or her trade mark."
Why should one trademark be allowed to prevent everybody else from using the word - when it is unlawful for them to do so?
> You do an excellent job of quoting completely specious authorities.
You do excellent job of diverting attention away from root of problem.
> Referring me to your own website, for one, doesn't exactly get the ball rolling.
If you are going to accuse me of promoting "that trademarks are some evil pro-corporation conspiracy" - then you should back that up. The website makes intent clear.
> The part about your analysis that fails to persuade is that it tries to discuss this in a vacuum.
The analysis is accurate (demonstrably so) and takes into account all aspects of the problem.
The fact is that authorities are helping corporations violate the Law - or do you deny that?
> ('Prof. Somedude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that the public treats them that way.
Professor Milton Mueller is recognized expert in this field - you seem to not know this. You appear ignorant in other aspects of this.
I shall answer second point in example below.
> 'Domain name creator Otherdude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that they clearly function as an indicator of source in the vast majority of instances.)
DNS creator Paul Mockapetris would be the best person to ask about the project - would he not?
I shall answer second point in example below.
> Without wasting words trying to influence someone with an apparent big grudge,
You misrepresent me again. I have no grudge - I want to stop corporations abuse the Law - at the expense of small business and the public.
> I'll be brief: you miss the point that.reg would only help if consumers tried nissan.geeletmelookupclassnumberswhileitype.us.reg or whatever you're proposing before they tried nissan.com, which they totally won't.
You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
Duh - how about nissan.car.us.reg?
Or - directory services nissan..us.reg - brings up all nissan trademarks.
Or - like yellow pages they could have several entries - nissan.motor.us.reg - simps is it not?
> Artificially moving trademark issues to a separate TLD might placate you (what lost domain name ticked you off this much?)
How does this move anything? - It gives certificate of authentication.
I have not lost any domain.
> but it won't do the average guy any good.
As an average guy - ask how the current situation answers the example below.
> The rhetorical question in answer to yours is: Given people conduct business on the internet - most lots of business - why should some small random guy the average consumer has never heard of be able to interfere with business between a consumer and the proprietor of a famous brand?
This does not interfere - it helps avoid confussion.
You did not answer my questions inc. The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
> Besides, you're also ignoring how UDRP bails out seriously screwed up 'landrush' systems.
Landrush was mostly screwed up because of unlawful Sunrise period - giving priority to trademarks in an open market.
> Likelihood of confusion is appropriately determined on a factual basis, so there's no way you can tell me in advance what is confusing and what isn't.
Okay - if you are so clever.
Trademark law states the consumer should not be confused. So, you wanted to order a pizza over the Internet from Domino. But you do not find it at domino.com. Which one of these US trademarked businesses do you think own it?
I know some of these are the same company - exact numbers do not matter - the principle does.
> My problem with this sort of analysis is it assumes that trademarks are some evil pro-corporation conspiracy.
You are most wrong - and you misrepresent me. I am pro-trademark - not wanting anybody to be conned by some fraudster passing themselves off as trademark holders. In their communications, nobody in USPTO or US DoC has ever accused me of this.
You would know you are wrong if you looked at WIPO.org.uk - Quote: "Trademarks are for the good of the people, as well as business. Attorneys would say, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace"."
Quote: "Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet..."
> I think a little more review of "confusingly similar" and the apple analogy would help UDRP decisions seem much more reasonable.
UDRP is unlawful and fatally flawed. It violates Trademark and Competition Law - and pisses on First Amendment.
> Co-existence of similar marks in the real world is dependent on a low likelihood of confusion of source,...etc.
The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
> Obviously, I shouldn't expect this opinion to be very popular here, but I'd rather get Microsoft on my first try at microsoft.com,.biz,.whatever than preserve some random small-time third party's right to the name.
You would prevent the use of the word 'microsoft' to be used to complain about their monopoly or business practices?
Domain names are not trademarks, ask creator Paul Mockapetris. He designed DNS for the function of naming resources - not as unlawful fatally flawed trademark system. He was asked, what do you wish you had invented? He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
Professor Milton Mueller (Associate Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies) recent study: "Conclusion: Domain Names are not Trademarks". To be trademarks he states, "If this is true then the exclusivities associated with business and product names should be applied systematically to them."
The exclusivity's are obvious:
1. That it is a registered trademark - given that ALL words are trademarks and so can be confused with other domains. 2. The country of the trademark - given that ANY word may be (is) used by different business in DIFFERENT country. 3. The type of business (classification) - given that ANY word may be (is) used by different business in SAME country.
So, as domain names are not trademarks - you would prevent the use of the word 'microsoft' to be used by authorized agents e.g. microsoftshop.com - or an individual offering training of microsoft office - e.g microsofttrainer.com?
> And in the end, it you take it from the perspective of the average guy (that is, the person trademark law is most trying to protect) doesn't it make sense that Nissan.com would be the car maker's site? After all, that's what they'll type into their browser when looking for it.
Nissan motors are unlawfully overreaching their trademark - Mr Nissan is not even in the same trademark classification - ask any trademark lawyer.
> Moreover, that's another reason.reg would be foolish: with the sophistication of the average user, it'd be about as worthwhile, popular, and well-known as.aero.
You completely miss the point (deliberately?) - it will be issued to all registered trademark holders.
Given every word is trademarked - most many times - why should big business be allowed prevent small business and the public from using every dictionary word?
People will associate.reg as the trademark symbol on the Internet.
If they are redirected to it - they will accept it as certificate of authentication.
Anybody that would abridge peoples use of words is obviously anti-First Amendment and likely in corporate pocket.
Quote: "Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names."
The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identies them in physical world - isn't it obvious something is required in cyberspace to perform same function?
Facts:
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. But they would rather be aiding and abetting corporations to violate Trademark and Competition Law.
Virtually every word is trademarked - most are many times over (in different types of business and/or country) so every domain can be 'stolen' in UDRP from the legal owner, on the premise that it is confusingly similar.
Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it.
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm. These are unlawfully being prevented from getting their name in Sunrise period.
In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify it as trademark - e.g. a new protected TLD of.reg !
name.class.country.reg would identify all trademarks - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg.
This could be used as certificate of authentication. There is no restriction on business, it can still use current/new domain, just directed to dot REG.
Slashdot Mirror
Quote: Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." As she is quoted as saying, "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."
I have long held the informed opinion that the people within UN WIPO are corrupt - it is why I have this website.
My logic is proven - not one lawyer has been able to give argument against the facts. These people at UN WIPO have no honour - they are too cowardly to answer my charges.
People have every right to use words for whatever legal reason they wish - true or false?
UN WIPO made rules that abridge peoples rights to choose words on the Domain Name System - words that are not used for any unlawful purpose.
Fact 1 - a trademark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('classification') in SPECIFIC country. UN WIPO aid and abet corporations to overreach their trademark rights on the Internet - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
UN WIPO, together with ICANN, the US Department of Commerce (also Patent and Trademark Office) actually help corporations violate the First Amendment rights of US citizens.
More lawyers getting richer - I suppose you know it is all a big con.
.reg - like duh, simple or what.
I have identified the solution to the conflict of domain names with registered trademarks.
Honest expert lawyers have agreed it would uniquely identify all registered trademarked words on the Internet.
Not one lawyer has ever given logical reasoned argument against this. Indeed most are too cowardly to answer.
You may be interested in the solution and my informed opinion:
I make no egotistical claim that I was the first to see the solution. The authorities must have always known - it is indisputable that the answer was self-evident.
This is really very strange - because the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) said they were stumped. Having contacted them, UN WIPO does not refute or admit the solution - such is their contempt for the law.
I have even communicated with the United States Department of Commerce about it - they are most evasive. As are our own cowardly and dishonourable UK Patent Office.
As you will have guessed - it is mainly about the abuse of power by big business and money. On that - do you know where UN WIPO gets most their money?
From the facts (and this silence) it can be assumed that UN WIPO, US DoC and ICANN (with their lawyers Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue) are all a bunch of crooks. They aid and abet the violation of Trademark and Antitrust Law. They also abridge the choice of words that people may use - violating the US First Amendment.
Even Karl talks about the abuse of power.
Quote: "Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names."
Some simple facts - which even the layman can see is true:
1. You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm. It is AGAINST THE LAW to prevent them from using their legal name - as the authorities do with UNLAWFUL fatally flawed Sunrise period and UDRP.
2. It is possible for many different firms to register the same word as trademark in the same country - but only with different type of goods or products, e.g. the word 'apple' is used by computer and tobacco companies in the US.
3. With the vast ocean of domains, most are not owned by registered trademarks, so some sort of label is required to identify them - or else they claim 'trademark conflict' or 'consumer confusion' - even 'passing off'. The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identifies them in physical world - it is really very very most exceedingly obvious that something is required in cyberspace to perform same function. For example - a protected Top Level Domain of
4. Using format of name.class.country.reg would identify ALL registered trademarks - e.g. apple.tobacco.us.reg and apple.computer.us.reg
This is then used as certificate of authentication or as a directory (dual functionality). There is NO RESTRICTIONS any business, it can still use current/new domain, just directed to dot REG e.g. apple.com is directed to apple.computer.us.reg
If somebody could ask the Secretary for US DoC this easy question (as he ignores me) - "Mr Eva
The Council of Europe should make it a legal requirement that individuals HAVE TO REPLY to criticisms on these sites.
;-)
That is part the reason why some people make (company)sucks.com sites - because sometimes these cowards in corporations will not answer justified criticism.
I have been waiting for years for the answers to some simple questions from people in the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
It is my informed opinion that they and others in ICANN are corrupt.
UN WIPO and ICANN help big business violate Trademark and Antitrust Law using the Domain Name System.
They also violate the First Amendment. As you know - people have every right to use words for whatever legal reason they wish. UN WIPO and ICANN seem to think they do not have this right - they abridge the words that people can use.
Please visit my site - not connected with the crooks at WIPO.org
Government Surveillance
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols.
Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home, you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, They will not be interested in anything I do.
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this
I have posted on the subject of surveillance many times before. Here is an extract regarding the psychological aspect. This particular part was wrote by another and did a better job of explaining than I could:
"Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure."
Full text is here and also on my personal website.
Firstly, I presume you know where ICANN money is going - to their Lawyers, JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE.
.reg was introduced?
Next - I have no doubt that ICANN are corrupt - that they violate Trademark and Competition Law with Sunrise Process and UDRP.
Fact: They know how to identify all registered trademarks on the Internet - yet hide this.
The solution has been ratified by honest lawyers.
More facts for you:
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course.
Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.
It is trademark overreach to prevent all these businesses from using their name in commerce.
Also - why prevent people using any words for personal sites? Everybody has legitimate rights to use ANY words for ANY legal purpose they wish - true or false?
Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC country.
A protected TLD could identify all registered trademarks - like the symbol of a R in circle - ®
Most businesses share the same trademark word with others e.g. Apple is used by tobacco and computer company.
Which do you think is Apple Computers website in the US - if
apple.tobacco.us.reg
apple.computer.us.reg
Therefore, apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg to serve as certificate of authentication and fuction as directory.
Please visit my protest site - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org.
Terrorists will communicate by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier - or they will be caught!
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption - is for monitoring the public.
c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=property
The rights to use a domain name can be transfered to another. It is obviously property - it does not take a Judge to work that one out.
It will be a corrupt legal system that lets Verisign, et al., off the hook for mismanagement.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) told a LIE when they said there is no solution to trademark and domain name problem. The answer was ratified by honest attorneys and it is indisputably self-evident. Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization to see.
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
For those that have not read my previous postings on this matter:
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. This is a lot better for government than having a CCTV fitted into every home. The all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
People that know me will tell you - I don't do bull*. Slashdotters are the most technological aware people there are. Regulars must be really pissed off with me - sorry but I really have to put this up again:
t e/stories/mai n/0,14179,2879094,00.html
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. This is a lot better for government than having a CCTV fitted into every home. The all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupda
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
The research, which was conducted on behalf of the euthanasia group EXIT --which supports the introduction of death for the senile and ill of health -- saw 1,000 people interviewed by telephone between 17 and 19 January, 2003.
Who takes poll conducted by or for people with vested interest seriously?
This ID card poll will likely be used for spin by corrupt members of government who want greater surveillance of the public.
Snippet from my SKILFUL.com site:
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Garry
Very sorry to /. regulars - I have to bore you with this again to dispel some of the propaganda put by UK and US Governments.
From my skilful.com website (yes Americans, it is spelt correctly):
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
The important things in life?
... "But the Board had become aware about the levels of unauthorised browsing of customer records. They realised the Department needed to draw together a policy to clarify the rules on computer usage and to tighten up the disciplinary consequences of misuse."
:-)
Well right up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your life without being forced to live your life under an oppressive surveillance society. For it surely is oppressive, knowing this information could be used against you for any purpose the authorities wish.
This is quite part from the minor fact it is very leaky - example seen here in UK news today: Revenue staff selling tax secrets. Quote, "There have been a number of instances of celebrity-browsing or looking up details of family or friends out of idle curiosity. But there is also evidence that some people are using the information maliciously, for example finding out how much an ex-spouse earns and passing the information to the Child Support Agency, or even selling the information to outside agencies. This is a clear breach of customer confidentiality and the Data Protection Act."
The main thing is this - Not enough importance is placed on our Liberty.
Why can't everybody see the blatant use of propaganda, when it is so clear?
I have placed the following on this board many times - the regulars must be sick of it by now - sorry for that
Subject - Ask Security Services to deny this:
First - a quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
Okay then -
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
If judges say that domain names are not property - then people (even the lawful) can copy electronic medium of music with impunity.
:-)
In fact domain names are more unique property.
You can take a MP3 copy from music tracks without taking original from the owner or degrading quality.
Many copies of music may exist - but only one domain name (e.g. my own ) may exist.
It is unique property that may be transfered or sold - like a car number plate.
Should anybody take my property away from me, I will beat them with a stick
G> They want to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They KNOW you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, [ ... ]
T> So, this is a bad thing? That is, do you think only foreigners should be profiled for possible links to terrorism?
Mister T, they SAY that TIA is for the "United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists"
That is the declared GOAL - true or false?
G> They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe.
T> Oh, I see. US citizens ought to be able to commit tax evasion without fear of getting caught too. Gr00vy!
What is the declared GOAL again?
You obviously agree with me - it is all underhand LIES to monitor the American public.
Quote from the U.S. Defense advanced Research Projects Agency:
"The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
They want to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They KNOW you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb - to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (of propaganda).
I have said this many times - and have yet to hear reasoned argument against it:->
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet Protocols.
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good People.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe.
All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world.
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
Here in UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Garry Anderson
P.S. Did you know the the United States Department of Commerce and United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization LIED, when they said there was no solution to trademark conflict with domain names?
They are dishonourable cowards. The UN Organization, who deal with these conflicts, use WIPO.org - I use VERY similar URL - please visit.
Domain names are NOT just for trademarks and countries - ask DNS creator Paul Mockapetris - normal people can use them also.
The authorities hide solution to these problems, to enable the domains to be easily taken from owner.
The domain name can be used to communicate title, or tell of subject, or give author.
The domain name as title may be picked because it sounds good or is easy to remember.
The domain name as subject would tell readers what they will find within.
The authorities would have you believe that it is always the author.
Countries and places give same false argument.
If you wrote a book entitled 'South Africa', do the rights to this book belong to that countries government?
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization deal with these conflicts.
UN WIPO would not confirm or deny the simple solution when it was pointed out to them.
You might ask, "Why not - surely they want it?"
Trademark and Competition Law is being violated by big business - so money and power perhaps.
Guess who pays UN WIPO?
There is no doubt in my mind - the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and United States Department of Commerce are corrupt.
Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization- no connection with corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation? It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my site - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
Quote from DARPA: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists - and decipher their plans - and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
What a load of bull*. Why has NOBODY asked the Security Services the following? I have posted this argument several times before.
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation? It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens, rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily led?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my site - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
I could not understand why you would want consumer confusion for ownership of domain names.
It appears that you work for, quote "one of the largest law firms in the Southwest." (US)
I would imagine they make a lot of money from these problems.
You did not disclose this.
I now understand your deliberately spin on these arguments - and see straight through you.
Why has NOBODY asked the Security Services the following? I have posted this argument several times before.
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation? It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens, rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily led?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my site - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
You are using government tactics of evasion and misdirection.
...
;-)
Why do you wish to abridge the publics choice of words?
> This would be so much more fun if anyone else were reading.
While one person seeks the Truth, what does fun matter - the effort is still worth while.
> A trademark is
Yep - I know all this.
A trademark is NOT a word that prevents all other businesses from using dictionary words (providing not passing off) - is it?
It is unlawful for trademarks to do this - is it not?
Also - some big businesses try to prevent people using seemingly made up words - even though these words have been used before them.
Also - eBay tried to stop 'Appraise Bay' from being used on the Internet. There are many hundreds of trademarks in the U.S. with the word 'bay' - likely thousands all over the world. There are untold numbers more of small businesses legally using the word 'bay' without a registered trademark.
Is it not a true fact, that Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it?
> This problem presents nothing more than a simple need to balance competing interests.
I disagree - but tell me the reason - tell me why simple need to balance competing interests has not been solved?
As for 'ivory-tower' analysis - it takes into account everybodies right to use domains for lawful purpose.
> do you believe I should have the right to register and use cocacola.com?
I believe you have the right to use cocacola.newTLD to make legitimate complaint about the company.
If you believe people do not have right to make complaint - if you are anti-First Amendment - then I surely agree with you - "we're going nowhere."
Incidentally - those in corporate pocket always use the cocacola example - look at many of UDRP decisions - here are a few made by corrupt UN WIPO on their own - does not include other arbitration services and cases of domains that have been bullied by lawyers (is an old list):
video net, roller blade, best locks, nitro fuel, tonsil, north face, marketing mix, 0xygen, edentist, state-farm, new-gig, video direct, iphones, open mail, traditions, open view, unicode, southern company, pc gateway, ultra pure water, time keeper, click here, current, beauty co, sound-choice, e-auto-parts, eresolution, body and soul, talk about, esquire, office specialists, crew, praline, the total package, faith net, buy PC, home interiors, big dog, euro consult, music web, RANT...etc
Very different from the example of cocacola that corrupt lawyers use - are they not?
> find it impossible to suggest that my personal interest in registering and using a particular domain name is more compelling than the other billion internet users finding what they think they're going to find when they type.
You would allow ONE trademark to prevent all the rest from using their mark - and prevent small businesses from using their name in commerce.
Not very lawful - are you?
It is not mutually exclusive - is it?
Also - why cannot apple.computer.us.reg, apple.computer.uk.reg, apple.record.uk.reg etc. etc. ALL use their trademark?
> Frankly, unless a person has some sort of anti-corporate chip on their shoulder,
It is nothing to do with being anti-corporate - it is to do with being fair and equitable.
G> You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
> Because nobody's looking for Mr. Nissan, we're all trying to buy a car. We might as well ask why shouldn't Mr Nissan use davidnissan.notreg.us.
The vast majority of domains are not owned by trademarks are they?
The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identifies them in physical world - is not it obvious, that something is required in cyberspace to perform same function?
G> But you do not find it at domino.com
> Silly European, all Americans know its DOMINO'S and not DOMINO,..all I can tell you is I haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be. I'll grant that it's possible, but it seems highly unlikely there is some UK (or whereever) DOMINO mark that remotely approches the strength and fame of DOMINO'S. How else would they occur to you as an example?
European? - You insult me
So - if you "haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be", then everybody that wants domino is going to be confused also - most are going to get wrong business - true or false?
> There are numerous ways to avoid confusion in the brick and mortar world beyond mere information, but let's generally set that aside.
We are talking about a word on its own, say for example 'domino' - how can you avoid confusion in cyberspace?
The odds are that most people typing domino.com get the wrong business - true or false?
So again (longer version) - The only way to avoid confusion, on the Internet, is to supply more information - yes or no?
> day 1 after rollout, 998 million internet users are still trying nissan.com for the auto maker.
When they do not find it there - they try nissan.car.us.reg - and find it straight away.
As most words are shared by many trademarks - 998 million internet users are still trying (InsertWord).com and not finding it there.
Quote from Trademark Act: "the registered owner of any one of those trade marks does not have the right to prevent the registered owner of any other of those trade marks from using that trade mark except to the extent that the first-mentioned owner is authorised to do so under the registration of his or her trade mark."
Why should one trademark be allowed to prevent everybody else from using the word - when it is unlawful for them to do so?
> You do an excellent job of quoting completely specious authorities.
.reg would only help if consumers tried nissan.geeletmelookupclassnumberswhileitype.us.reg or whatever you're proposing before they tried nissan.com, which they totally won't.
.DOC .DOMINO .DOMINO .DOMINO
You do excellent job of diverting attention away from root of problem.
> Referring me to your own website, for one, doesn't exactly get the ball rolling.
If you are going to accuse me of promoting "that trademarks are some evil pro-corporation conspiracy" - then you should back that up. The website makes intent clear.
> The part about your analysis that fails to persuade is that it tries to discuss this in a vacuum.
The analysis is accurate (demonstrably so) and takes into account all aspects of the problem.
The fact is that authorities are helping corporations violate the Law - or do you deny that?
> ('Prof. Somedude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that the public treats them that way.
Professor Milton Mueller is recognized expert in this field - you seem to not know this. You appear ignorant in other aspects of this.
I shall answer second point in example below.
> 'Domain name creator Otherdude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that they clearly function as an indicator of source in the vast majority of instances.)
DNS creator Paul Mockapetris would be the best person to ask about the project - would he not?
I shall answer second point in example below.
> Without wasting words trying to influence someone with an apparent big grudge,
You misrepresent me again. I have no grudge - I want to stop corporations abuse the Law - at the expense of small business and the public.
> I'll be brief: you miss the point that
You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
Duh - how about nissan.car.us.reg?
Or - directory services nissan..us.reg - brings up all nissan trademarks.
Or - like yellow pages they could have several entries - nissan.motor.us.reg - simps is it not?
> Artificially moving trademark issues to a separate TLD might placate you (what lost domain name ticked you off this much?)
How does this move anything? - It gives certificate of authentication.
I have not lost any domain.
> but it won't do the average guy any good.
As an average guy - ask how the current situation answers the example below.
> The rhetorical question in answer to yours is: Given people conduct business on the internet - most lots of business - why should some small random guy the average consumer has never heard of be able to interfere with business between a consumer and the proprietor of a famous brand?
This does not interfere - it helps avoid confussion.
You did not answer my questions inc. The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
> Besides, you're also ignoring how UDRP bails out seriously screwed up 'landrush' systems.
Landrush was mostly screwed up because of unlawful Sunrise period - giving priority to trademarks in an open market.
> Likelihood of confusion is appropriately determined on a factual basis, so there's no way you can tell me in advance what is confusing and what isn't.
Okay - if you are so clever.
Trademark law states the consumer should not be confused. So, you wanted to order a pizza over the Internet from Domino. But you do not find it at domino.com. Which one of these US trademarked businesses do you think own it?
I know some of these are the same company - exact numbers do not matter - the principle does.
1 78054972 DOMINO EASYEDIT
2 78043999 GET THE DOOR. IT'S DOMINO'S.
3 78043563 DOMINO'S PIZZA ALWAYS DELIVERS
4 78014495 DOMINO'S TOUCHDOWN TAKE-OFF
5 78028015 DOMINO'S PIZZA PAC
6 78009108 DOMINO'S, GOOD PIZZA.
7 76240732 BUTTERFLY DOMINOES
8 76078073 DOMINO EFFECT
9 76193486 DOMINO
10 76007760 DOMINO
11 75499984 DOMINO
12 75778831 RUNS WITH LOTUS.DOMINO
13 75198223 DOMINO.BROADCAST
14 75791660 2433096 PEOPLE FIRST! DOMINO'S PIZZA
15 75598015 2434012 DOMINO'S DOMINO'S PIZZA
16 75198226 DOMINO.MERCHANT
17 75198224 DOMINO.HEADLINES
18 75198222 DOMINO.ACTION
19 75832621 DOMIN-8
20 75613168 2397006 DOMINO
21 75489347 DOMINO EXTENDED SEARCH
22 75813822 DOMINO'S PIZZA RANCH
23 75613169 DOMINO.DOC IMAGING CLIENT
24 75613170 DOMINO.DOC STORAGE MANAGER
25 75909782 DOMINO
26 75747277 DOMINO
27 75705667 2341094 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE
28 75668552 JAVINO
29 75566938 2340269 DOMINO'S PIZZA PRINT PROGRAM
30 75514691 2292434 DOMINO'S PIZZA IMAGE 2000
31 75504692 2334538 ORDERDOMINOS.COM
32 75503344 2328038 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE
33 75500376 2359221 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE DOMINO'S PIZZA
34 75385423 2238421 DOMINO'S UNIVERSITY
35 75363014 2343965 DOMINOSERVER
36 75359535 2286280 DOMINOPLUS
37 75327355 2226774 PINK DOMINO
38 75322278 DOMINO.COMMERCE
39 75310768 DOMINO INTRANET STARTER PACK
40 75306520 2199099 DOMINO'S ONLINE!
41 75248234 2293117 DOMINO PLUS
42 75241600 2182970 DOUBLE WUBBLE DOMINOES
43 75214086
44 75214085
45 75214084
46 75179392 2276986 DOMINO
47 75161656 2200695 AMERICAN DOMINOES
48 75141065 2069876 DOMINO
49 75124486 DOMINO
50 75084591 2082479 DOMINO PARK
51 75078094 2109837 DOMINOWIZARD
52 75046809 2047395 DOMINO
53 75005459 2307662 DOMINO
54 74300278 1921539 DOMINO COMPUTERS
55 74732376 2005425 COLOR DOT DOMINOES
56 74636244 2007581 DOMINO
57 74623484 2180906 DOMINOATM
58 74618236 1941096 GOTTA BE DOMINO'S
59 74548867 1927565 PINK DOMINO
60 74534533 1959676 DOMINO
61 74499406 1880479 DOMINO
62 74491432 2131544 DOMINO
63 74472238 2053055 DOMINOLAN
64 74472237 2051098 DOMINO
65 74472094 2051097 DOMINOWAN
66 74470359 1877911 KISS-DOMINO
67 74436986 1856079 DONNY DOMINO
68 74361281 1975582 DOMINO CGT DUPLEX
69 74277464 1744721 DOMINO'S
70 74210777 1768801 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY KNOWS LIKE DOMINO'S HOW YOU LIKE PIZZA AT HOME
71 74133773 1682070 BUCK$ BAG DOMINO'S PIZZA
72 74075314 1647572 DOMINO'S PIZZA PIZZAZZ
73 74048366 1665372 DOMINO'S PIZZA PIZZAZZ
74 74021946 1620123 DOMINO RALLY
75 73814024 1604865 1-888-DOMINOS
76 73810670 1585978 DOMINO REDI-FOND
77 73793978 1582848 DOMINO'S FARMS
78 73776718 1568673 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY DELIVERS BETTER
79 73749832 1555133 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY DELIVERS BETTER.
80 73749120 1539093 DOMINO
81 73729899 1520302 DOMINO'S PIZZA
82 73729898 1519402 DOMINO'S PIZZA
83 73722665 1525625 COUNT ON DOMINO'S
84 73710763 1504835 DOMINOTES
85 73664947 1475625 DOMINO'S PIZZA
86 73664887 1473901 DOMINO'S PIZZA
87 73602462 1427679 DOMINO'S PIZZA
88 73487625 1382556 DOMINO'S PIZZA
89 73463366 1388040 DOMINO
90 73460960 1306462 COLLEGE OF PIZZAROLOGY DOMINOS PIZZA
91 73431713 1325825 DOMINO
92 73429900 1310321 DOMINO'S PIZZA DELIVERS
93 73427337 1280877 DOMINO
94 73349691 1249196 DOMINO'S PIZZA
95 73265845 1166751 DOMINO'S PIZZA
96 73226590 1185666 DOMINO
97 73215481 1191810 DOMINO
98 73165932 1146369 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP DOMINO TOURNAMENT
99 72251933 0832403 DOMINO
100 72141219 0746508 DOMINO
101 71587865 0565192 DOMINO
102 71178908 0171995 DOMINO
103 71178907 0171994 DOMINO
104 71038424 0073099 DOMINO
105 70037177 0037177 DOMINO
Or is it owned in one of 200 other countries?
Or is owned by small business without trademark?
Come on - if you are so clever.
> My problem with this sort of analysis is it assumes that trademarks are some evil pro-corporation conspiracy.
...etc.
.biz, .whatever than preserve some random small-time third party's right to the name.
.reg would be foolish: with the sophistication of the average user, it'd be about as worthwhile, popular, and well-known as .aero.
.reg as the trademark symbol on the Internet.
You are most wrong - and you misrepresent me. I am pro-trademark - not wanting anybody to be conned by some fraudster passing themselves off as trademark holders. In their communications, nobody in USPTO or US DoC has ever accused me of this.
You would know you are wrong if you looked at WIPO.org.uk - Quote: "Trademarks are for the good of the people, as well as business. Attorneys would say, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace"."
Then look at Comments on WIPO Interim Report
Quote: "Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet..."
> I think a little more review of "confusingly similar" and the apple analogy would help UDRP decisions seem much more reasonable.
UDRP is unlawful and fatally flawed. It violates Trademark and Competition Law - and pisses on First Amendment.
> Co-existence of similar marks in the real world is dependent on a low likelihood of confusion of source,
The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
> Obviously, I shouldn't expect this opinion to be very popular here, but I'd rather get Microsoft on my first try at microsoft.com,
You would prevent the use of the word 'microsoft' to be used to complain about their monopoly or business practices?
Domain names are not trademarks, ask creator Paul Mockapetris. He designed DNS for the function of naming resources - not as unlawful fatally flawed trademark system. He was asked, what do you wish you had invented? He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
Professor Milton Mueller (Associate Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies) recent study: "Conclusion: Domain Names are not Trademarks". To be trademarks he states, "If this is true then the exclusivities associated with business and product names should be applied systematically to them."
The exclusivity's are obvious:
1. That it is a registered trademark - given that ALL words are trademarks and so can be confused with other domains.
2. The country of the trademark - given that ANY word may be (is) used by different business in DIFFERENT country.
3. The type of business (classification) - given that ANY word may be (is) used by different business in SAME country.
So, as domain names are not trademarks - you would prevent the use of the word 'microsoft' to be used by authorized agents e.g. microsoftshop.com - or an individual offering training of microsoft office - e.g microsofttrainer.com?
> And in the end, it you take it from the perspective of the average guy (that is, the person trademark law is most trying to protect) doesn't it make sense that Nissan.com would be the car maker's site? After all, that's what they'll type into their browser when looking for it.
Nissan motors are unlawfully overreaching their trademark - Mr Nissan is not even in the same trademark classification - ask any trademark lawyer.
> Moreover, that's another reason
You completely miss the point (deliberately?) - it will be issued to all registered trademark holders.
Given every word is trademarked - most many times - why should big business be allowed prevent small business and the public from using every dictionary word?
People will associate
If they are redirected to it - they will accept it as certificate of authentication.
Anybody that would abridge peoples use of words is obviously anti-First Amendment and likely in corporate pocket.
Quote: "Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names."
.reg !
The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identies them in physical world - isn't it obvious something is required in cyberspace to perform same function?
Facts:
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. But they would rather be aiding and abetting corporations to violate Trademark and Competition Law.
Virtually every word is trademarked - most are many times over (in different types of business and/or country) so every domain can be 'stolen' in UDRP from the legal owner, on the premise that it is confusingly similar.
Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it.
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm. These are unlawfully being prevented from getting their name in Sunrise period.
In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify it as trademark - e.g. a new protected TLD of
name.class.country.reg would identify all trademarks - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg.
This could be used as certificate of authentication. There is no restriction on business, it can still use current/new domain, just directed to dot REG.
For more facts please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org