Even though it is true government look for dirt on citizens, proof below, many shortsighted people are not worried about this invasion of privacy. These people think it does not affect them. They are very naive, to say the least.
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", they may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
The government want a surveillance society - for doing things like checking 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 - I shall also disprove that is fallacy below.
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 rail crash survivors group. It was lead by Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after being badly injured in the 1999 crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all quite legally. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people with good intent.
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 smear the character of these good people.
The government arrogantly presume she and the rest of group would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
You want the Truth about Government Surveillance on the Internet?
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" (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 CNET: "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."
I explained why you should worry above. As I say, this could be anything - all your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes. You are then a crook.
They try make everything they say all 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 (as a backhanded compliment) - with the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware - are you really that easily lead?
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, and then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) and the United States Department of Commerce (DOC.gov) are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my WIPO.org.uk 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: "We were intrigued by the difficult computing science research involved in creating network capabilities that would provide the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world," spokeswoman Jan Walker said in a telephone interview.
"the same level of accountability"
Makes it all sound perfectly reasonable - doesn't it?
Do they currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to ananalyse? - so is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to tag you like some sex offender - or an animal - would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
When will people realize that the Total Information Awareness plan / USA Patriot act are all bull* propaganda?
Like I stated many times:-
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) 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 CNET: "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. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when they checked individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. The group was lead by badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would not worry about having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
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.
I gave this comment before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or 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 - bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
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 CNET: "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. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody in UDRP and Sunrise - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations !
When Nissan Motors tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan, their spokesman said "We registered nissancomputer.com and offered it to him for free, but he has no interest in being Nissan Computer -- his real name"
They have nissanmotors.com - so is it not EXACTLY the same as them having no interest in being Nissan Motors -- their real name.
IANAL but Nissan act unlawfully by overreaching their trademark - they cannot claim all occurances of the word 'nissan'. It is against Competition Law for them to prevent others from doing using the word in business - if they are not acting unlawfully (which Mr Nissan is not).
Quote from European Competition Law:
2. Abuses of dominant position (Article 82)
2.2. What are the prohibited practices under Article 82?
c) Abuse of intellectual property rights
The mere existence of a patent, trademark or copyright is not sufficient to establish a dominant position.
Like I say, the authorities know the solution to trademark conflict and consumer confusion on the Internet. It is therefore logical to conclude that the US DoC, ICANN and UN WIPO are dishonest (to say the least), as they hide the answer (ratified by honest attorneys).
Sorry Dustin - your logic is flawed. Also you seem unaware of the big picture of the corruption that has been going on - possibly because of propaganda by authorities and corporations.
> Paranoid about trademarks?
No - I always said that I am pro-trademark - not wanting anybody to be conned by some fraudster passing themselves off as trademark holders.
> The corporations can object to use of their trademarks in trade. And when they try to do the same in areas not connected with trade and the little guy stands up to them, they get slapped by the courts. Your vocabulary and freedom of speech is not being limited by trademarks.
You are ill-informed - this is not the case on the Internet.
> As far as domains are concerned, are I haven't heard a case of www.[generic noun].com being adjudicated against the holder under pressure from a corporation with [generic noun] trademark (considering that you can't easily trademark a simple noun unless you're in an area of business not related to that noun, its not surprising...
You are wrong. Trademarks are given priority in Sunrise and UDRP - abridging your choice of words - surely a violation of the First Amendment. Virtually every word is trademarked - here is a list of a few domains taken by WIPO: 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.
This does not include domains like JT.com taken by UN WIPO which could be used by any business or individual. Nor does it include any domains that have been bullied by corporate lawyers before they got to WIPO - nor any of the other 'so-called' arbitors.
> By way of explaination, you could probably trademark "Computer" for a restaurant but couldn't for a computer shop).
I am well versed in this subject and have used this "Computer" example myself. Quote:
A trademark cannot be for the same class as the word - for instance the word 'COMPUTER' can be used for selling socks and tights - but not computers.
UK trademark 1134604 - 'COMPUTER'
Proprietor: Dunlop Australia Limited
Class 25: Stockings, panti-hose; socks and tights, all for wear.
> Now a more original turn of phrase can be trademarked and only the trademark holder can state that it has a moral (and legal) right to an original phrase that it uses. I have no sympathy for people squatting on Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble and other original, non-generic phrases. But I'm open to comments and rebuttal.
The Coca-Cola to stop cybersquatter example is one that is used in corporate propaganda to give all big business unlawful priority in Sunrise and UDRP.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by honest lawyers. Trademark holders do not own the vast majority of domains - it is obvious that something is needed to highlight them - to replace the registered trademark symbol. A new protected TLD of.reg would do that. This is for the same reasons, primarily to advise people that the mark is legally registered and protected by law.
I have posted similar comment several times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or 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 - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
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 CNET: "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. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !
Quote: Claims of invasions of privacy online are "baseless," says Mark Corallo, a spokesperson for the Justice Department.
What a load of spin (lies). I have posted similar comment a few times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) 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 - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
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 CNET [zdnet.com]: "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. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !
I have posted similar comment a couple of times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) 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 - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
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 CNET: "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."
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
Quote: A federal appeals panel has ruled that the operator of Bargainbeanies.com is not violating the trademark of Beanie Babies creator Ty by offering used dolls through the Web address. The case is significant because it supports the ability of second-hand resellers to market and hawk their wares over the Internet without running afoul of trademark laws.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). This could be any acronym or initialism - including the famous International Trade Centre (ITC) or International Monetary Fund (IMF).
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.
The authorities hide the simple solution to this conflict. From correspondence with them and their response, I believe them corrupt. Why? For a start, trademark holders do not own the vast majority of domains - it is obvious that something is needed to replace the registered trademark symbol - a new TLD of.reg would do that. This is for the same reasons, primarily to advise people that the mark is legally registered and protected by law. It is indisputable fact that the answer to domain and trademark problems was self-evident and is easier to use than the telephone. Honest lawyers have ratified the solution.
To see major findings please visit WIPO.org.uk - not associated with UN WIPO.org. Although I use the initials WIPO, it is obvious to even the 'crooks' in UN WIPO that this site not associated with them. Same as is obvious to those at AOL that pengaol.org is not associated with them.
Does not alter my premise
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
I will give you benefit of doubt - take your statement as informed opinion and say, "He's someone who knows what he is talking about"
Your post does not alter my premise one bit - does it?
If anything it shows surveillance to be a waste of time and money.
My premise:
Internet surveillance is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Again - ask Security Services in the US or UK 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.
> Others won't be able to communicate, and their plans will not succeed.
How will they not be able to communicate?
Read post again - you have not digested it.
I see you do not deny the Truth - unlike the corrupt governments:
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Ask Security Services to deny this
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
I have posted this premise before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US or UK 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 - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - 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 thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
While Lisa Bowmans article seems unbiased, I feel it could have given greater analysis for the sake of a few extra lines.
Usually greater analysis in the media equates to corporate spin.
> In this phase of the legal saga, which has gone on for more than six years, the appellate judges are trying to decide VeriSign's culpability in the case.
VeriSign knew it possible to spoof transfers and DID NOT verify the transfer with original owner - so why aren't they guilty of gross negligence?
Objectively, who can say they are not to blame?
Should it not have been pointed out, for those new to this story, that the case was overwhelming against VeriSign?
> However, the court also ruled Kremen cannot sue VeriSign for the transfer because a domain name isn't tangible property. Now Kremen's hoping the appellate panel will overturn that ruling.
Is intangible property worth nothing when owned by individuals - but worth a fortune when owned by corporations?
Obviously, double standards are wrong.
VeriSign had a duty of care for this property.
> Judge Alex Kozinski wondered how VeriSign's DNS database of domain names was any different from a stock certificate, which he said connects an owner with some property.
> David Dolkas, a lawyer for Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich who's representing VeriSign, said that if the judges were asking "is the DNS database somehow representative of an ownership right, the answer is no".
> "Why not?" Kozinski replied. "Why isn't that exactly what it is?"
Nobody can deny that the DNS is representative of an ownership right (as well as pointer to web address).
The article should have highlighted that David Dolkas spun a LIE in court.
> Judge Margaret McKeown also grilled Dolkas, asking him if the company is claiming that it has no responsibility at all in the case.
> Dolka reiterated claims that VeriSign shouldn't be held liable, saying the database is simply a neutral translator between Web addresses and domain names.
The database is a neutral translator between domain and web address - but that is not germane to this central question.
It is spin - evasion - deflection.
Article certainly should have highlighted this.
VeriSign are responsible for the security and accuracy of their database.
They also have a duty to their clients - which they are evading.
Ask anybody in I.T. - the essential requirement of any system like this is for ACCURATE SECURE DATA.
> He said a ruling against his company would "create a world of hurt", opening the floodgates for all types of suits, including contract and property claims from people whose domains are down for just a short while.
It is evasion again - article should have pointed out that this is not at all what the case is about.
The case will make registrars more careful about verifying transfers of domain with the original owner.
> Wagstaffe said the whole case could have been avoided if VeriSign had simply phoned or emailed Kremen and asked him if he approved the transfer. "They do it now. They should have done it then," he said.
Exactly - what else need be said?
> At one point, the judges chastised Cohen's lawyer for his characterisation of the federal judge who ruled against his client. Mike Mayock said the judge was "sucker punched" and "blindsided" by Kremen, an assertion that didn't go over well with the judges.
> "You're really standing there telling us he's a fool?" wondered an incredulous Kozinski. "I don't think it's appropriate for you to call a district judge a sucker."
Shame - Judge Alex Kozinski showed good insight earlier.
Cohen's lawyer was telling the truth, the judge was "sucker punched" - he never said the judge was a moron.
Clever people can fool us ALL.
It is an unwise person who thinks they or others cannot be fooled.
Who here is so arrogant - they think themselves so intelligent, they cannot be fooled?
Additionally: It is my informed opinion the facts are clear - should VeriSign 'get away with it', then either the court is an ass - they ARE morons OR the court is lead by corporations - they ARE corrupt.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, Corporations steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment.
The Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get 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).
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and 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.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - 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 thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, Corporations steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment.
The Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.
The authorities know the solution to trademark conflicts.
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. Just 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.
Fact: Virtually every word is trademarked. 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. protected TLD of.reg) - as in apple.reg. This is because all word domains are 'confusingly similar' to trademarks. That is one of the excuses they use to steal domain in UDRP.
This.reg could serve the same purpose as the registered trademark symbol ® - to advise the public that it is legally registered and protected by law.
Yes, it is true - check USPTO link at end of paragraph - Virtually every word is trademarked. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check).
Whatever word you have for your business or personal web site, you will have some big bully try take your domain away from you. This is all a fraud by big business - the authorities are corrupt in helping them overreach Trademark Law.
It is ILLEGAL for one trademark to prevent others from using their trademark - even if using identical word. To allow this without consumer
confusion or trademark conflict, it is absolutely essential that the class or subclass is included. Please visit WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
The New York Times, company of which owns them, the Boston Globe, 21 regional newspapers, The New York Times syndicate, nine television and radio stations, three magazines, and fifty percent of the International Tribune - attacks search engines to prevent you from looking for information.
Given all the evidence (partly stated), I believe they do this to prevent criticism about them and their Corporate 'friends' on the Internet - and your ability to find things on them using search engines.
It seems clear that Corporations wish to prevent criticism about them on the Internet - and your ability to find things on them using search engines.
The authorities know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive. They hide this for several reasons - including to stop you calling them by name. They are all corrupt folks.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone.
The authorities prevent ALL from using their name - without 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org.
Quote: "Honeyman says existing steganography cannot be completely undetectable and adds that the key used to hide messages in images can be revealed with brute force computing power."
Any weakness of steganographic systems can be overcome.
For example; to beat brute force computing power only requires to have the message as an image of obfuscated text. There are several ways to do this; for one - think red-green colourblind eye test charts. It can also be multi-layered - each with seperate key. This would require manual viewing at every single attempt to crack it. The man hours required are too large to estimate.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department are hiding the simple solution to uniquely identify all registered trademarks on the Internet. The answer to this problem has been ratified by honest Lawyers. I believe UN WIPO and US DoC to be corrupt.
If you have heard of the respected Dr. Milton Mueller, you may be interested in the conclusion of his recent report, Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP. My comments and link to it on ICANN forum. His conclusion matches what I told UN WIPO and Nominet UK over a year ago.
"ICANN is secretive, slow, inefficient and, worst of all, firmly in the pocket of special interests."
From ICANN Forum: Vint has become crooked and does not answer emails any more.
ICANN wants more money to further increase their corrupt powers and for their Lawyers; JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE.
Karl should be allowed to see the books, with gagging preconditions. ICANN are supposed to be OPEN, for flips sake.
ICANN use spin to say critics are just trying to tear down ICANN.
Personally, I have always said ICANN (or similar) is necessary - as John Gilmore says, "No, we're trying to make ICANN accountable to its public for its actions."
Those responsible should pay with time in jail for any illegal acts. Not fines like corrupt fat cats pay - money that will come from us - the consumer.
We learn some new things, like it cost less than 25 cents per year per name to run domain name registry - are we all being screwed or what?
It should cost should cost the huge NSI less than 1 cent per year to do the work. Screwing everybody harder still - car dealers would love that percentage markup.
Mr Mueller, Mr Gilmore and myself all agree on about trademark abuse of power by the greedy corporations:
Milton Mueller's account of Internet governance, portrays ICANN primarily as a tool for trademark protection.
John Gilmore says "I do agree that ICANN and domain name policy has been perverted from the start by the machinations of trademark interests. Actual trademark law gives zero power to cancel or seize domain names, prevent their issuance, etc. Actual trademark law lets hundreds of people use the same name, both in different jurisdictions, and for different kinds of trades (e.g., computers vs. soap vs. ships). Trademark owners only have power over others when the others misrepresent themselves as the trademark owner."
The authorities IGNORE National and Classification boundaries - this is unlawful - ask any (honest) Lawyer. These authorities know the solution to these trademark/domain problems - it is easier than using the telephone.
My fellow posters - these corrupt people in the US DoC, UN WIPO and ICANN are aiding and abetting this abuse. They prevent all registered trademarks from using their mark - an illegal act.
The Truth will win in the end - and the corrupt will be named and shamed.
The US and UN authorities IGNORE National and Classification boundaries to aid and abet corporations in the abuse of their trademark powers. This is an unlawful act. They know the solution to trademark problems on the Internet.
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'.
"Apple" 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.
"BUT", I hear you say, followed by many reasons why they cannot co-exist without conflict on the Internet.
These reasons are based on PROPAGANDA, SPIN and LIES.
Fact 1: 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 - as in apple.reg
Just like the registered trademark symbol ® - this could serve the same purpose - to advise the public that it is legally registered and protected by law.
This.reg would be protected like.gov sites, so preventing passing off and any conflict with the majority of non-trademark domains. It acts as certificate of authentication.
Fact 2: Given that each country has its own trademark system and can use the same words as another, the country is absolutely essential - as in apple.us.reg
Fact 3: It is illegal for one to prevent others from using their trademark. To allow this without consumer confusion or trademark conflict, it is absolutely essential that the class or subclass is included (e.g. computer) - as in apple.computer.us.reg
Can you tell the difference between apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?
Of course you can. Being text based it is easier than using the phone.
Current.com domains and new protected TLDs could be used by trademarks for advertising purposes - then redirected to the.reg site e.g. apple.computer or nissan.car
This is all about corrupt authorities aiding and abetting corporations to abuse the Law.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org !
Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S. (1928).
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy"
Article 12, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Unfortunately, most people assume that they have greater rights to privacy than the Law actually provides. Others dismiss erosion of their rights to privacy with the dangerously false pretense that only people with something to hide should be concerned about the loss of privacy.
***********
The rest of this is a basic cut and paste from my previous posts on 'Bringing Echelon In From the Cold'
I believe anybody who says "They can read my email - I have nothing to hide" must be of low intelligence - a moron.
This information can be used retrospectively against you - wait until you get a just cause to fight. The UK government love to put down protesters - as can be seen when they tried to get the dirt on Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom I presume would have nothing to worry about, having her emails read.
Labour has found another email from a government adviser seeking information searches on the Paddington rail campaigners.
The adviser to Stephen Byers, sent a second request for the searches - which have been seen as an attempt to 'dig dirt' on members of the public.
Dan Corry's email to the Labour headquarters at Millbank Tower expressed a wish to find out what was behind the group's criticisms of Stephen Byers.
In it, Mr Corry said: "Any other checking useful. They seem to have an anti-SB agenda and we want to find out what lies behind it."
The department said the second email had been unearthed in a "very thorough" trawl of the email traffic from Mr Byers's special advisers.
A spokesman said it failed to reach the Labour Party owing to "intermittent difficulties" with the system.
The disclosure last week of Mr Corry's original email asking for information about the political affiliations of the Paddington group, prompted bitter accusations that the Government was trying to smear the crash survivors for asking awkward questions.
It led to unreserved apologies from Mr Corry and from new Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.
Story filed: 02:35 Tuesday 11th June 2002
***********
What do you think the USA Patriot Act is about?
It is all about Big Brother.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Go with plan A (human bomb to target A), or plan B (target B) or abort.
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA.
It is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and 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.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - 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 thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
It really annoys me that our governments would con their people like this.
We pay their wages - we deserve the Truth - not this spin and lies.
>Thing is that things such as face to face meetings, personal courier, steganography (most likely not computer based though), codes (not cyphers) are quite likely amongst the terrorists' prefered methods anyway.
There are several forms of steganography that the terrorist could safely use.
>They probably won't use languages like that though. Something more like if they are going to meet at place A, place B or not bother. How is anyone overhearing this phone call going to know that it's about terrorism?
I was using that as example - it would more likely be "Hello Harry, I will meet you at the bar at the usual time."
>You'd find out that the people involved are terrorists by regular detective work, not through mass surveillance.
I agree with you.
It really annoys me that our governments will con their people like this.
We pay their wages - we deserve the Truth - not this spin and lies.
I have posted this basic text before - as nobody has been able to refuted it, I will repost.
What do you think the USA Patriot Act is about?
For those of low intelligence - it is all about Big Brother.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Go with plan A (human bomb to target A), or plan B (target B) or abort.
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA.
It is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and 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.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - 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 thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
Incidentally, the United States Department of Commerce lies - they know the solution to uniquelly identify all registered trademarks on the Internet. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization to see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though it is true government look for dirt on citizens, proof below, many shortsighted people are not worried about this invasion of privacy. These people think it does not affect them. They are very naive, to say the least.
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", they may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
The government want a surveillance society - for doing things like checking 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 - I shall also disprove that is fallacy below.
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 rail crash survivors group. It was lead by Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after being badly injured in the 1999 crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all quite legally. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people with good intent.
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 smear the character of these good people.
The government arrogantly presume she and the rest of group would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
You want the Truth about Government Surveillance on the Internet?
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" (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 CNET: "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."
I explained why you should worry above. As I say, this could be anything - all your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes. You are then a crook.
They try make everything they say all 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 (as a backhanded compliment) - with the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware - are you really that easily lead?
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, and then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) and the United States Department of Commerce (DOC.gov) are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my WIPO.org.uk 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: "We were intrigued by the difficult computing science research involved in creating network capabilities that would provide the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world," spokeswoman Jan Walker said in a telephone interview.
:-
"the same level of accountability"
Makes it all sound perfectly reasonable - doesn't it?
Do they currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to ananalyse? - so is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to tag you like some sex offender - or an animal - would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
When will people realize that the Total Information Awareness plan / USA Patriot act are all bull* propaganda?
Like I stated many times
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) 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 CNET: "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. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when they checked individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. The group was lead by badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would not worry about having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
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.
I gave this comment before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or 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 - bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
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 CNET: "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. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody in UDRP and Sunrise - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations !
They authorities know the solution.
When Nissan Motors tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan, their spokesman said "We registered nissancomputer.com and offered it to him for free, but he has no interest in being Nissan Computer -- his real name"
They have nissanmotors.com - so is it not EXACTLY the same as them having no interest in being Nissan Motors -- their real name.
IANAL but Nissan act unlawfully by overreaching their trademark - they cannot claim all occurances of the word 'nissan'. It is against Competition Law for them to prevent others from doing using the word in business - if they are not acting unlawfully (which Mr Nissan is not).
Quote from European Competition Law:
2. Abuses of dominant position (Article 82)
2.2. What are the prohibited practices under Article 82?
c) Abuse of intellectual property rights The mere existence of a patent, trademark or copyright is not sufficient to establish a dominant position.
Like I say, the authorities know the solution to trademark conflict and consumer confusion on the Internet. It is therefore logical to conclude that the US DoC, ICANN and UN WIPO are dishonest (to say the least), as they hide the answer (ratified by honest attorneys).
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see it. Not associated with corrupt United Nations !
Sorry Dustin - your logic is flawed. Also you seem unaware of the big picture of the corruption that has been going on - possibly because of propaganda by authorities and corporations.
e wt ldevaluationprocess;3CAF3A260000026F
.reg would do that. This is for the same reasons, primarily to advise people that the mark is legally registered and protected by law.
> Paranoid about trademarks?
No - I always said that I am pro-trademark - not wanting anybody to be conned by some fraudster passing themselves off as trademark holders.
> The corporations can object to use of their trademarks in trade. And when they try to do the same in areas not connected with trade and the little guy stands up to them, they get slapped by the courts. Your vocabulary and freedom of speech is not being limited by trademarks.
You are ill-informed - this is not the case on the Internet.
> As far as domains are concerned, are I haven't heard a case of www.[generic noun].com being adjudicated against the holder under pressure from a corporation with [generic noun] trademark (considering that you can't easily trademark a simple noun unless you're in an area of business not related to that noun, its not surprising...
You are wrong. Trademarks are given priority in Sunrise and UDRP - abridging your choice of words - surely a violation of the First Amendment. Virtually every word is trademarked - here is a list of a few domains taken by WIPO: 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.
This does not include domains like JT.com taken by UN WIPO which could be used by any business or individual. Nor does it include any domains that have been bullied by corporate lawyers before they got to WIPO - nor any of the other 'so-called' arbitors.
> By way of explaination, you could probably trademark "Computer" for a restaurant but couldn't for a computer shop).
I am well versed in this subject and have used this "Computer" example myself. Quote:
A trademark cannot be for the same class as the word - for instance the word 'COMPUTER' can be used for selling socks and tights - but not computers.
UK trademark 1134604 - 'COMPUTER'
Proprietor: Dunlop Australia Limited
Class 25: Stockings, panti-hose; socks and tights, all for wear.
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?n
> Now a more original turn of phrase can be trademarked and only the trademark holder can state that it has a moral (and legal) right to an original phrase that it uses. I have no sympathy for people squatting on Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble and other original, non-generic phrases. But I'm open to comments and rebuttal.
The Coca-Cola to stop cybersquatter example is one that is used in corporate propaganda to give all big business unlawful priority in Sunrise and UDRP.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by honest lawyers. Trademark holders do not own the vast majority of domains - it is obvious that something is needed to highlight them - to replace the registered trademark symbol. A new protected TLD of
I have posted similar comment several times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or 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 - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
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 CNET: "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. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !
Quote: Claims of invasions of privacy online are "baseless," says Mark Corallo, a spokesperson for the Justice Department.
What a load of spin (lies). I have posted similar comment a few times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) 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 - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
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 CNET [zdnet.com]: "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. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !
I have posted similar comment a couple of times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) 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 - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
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 CNET: "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."
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
Quote: A federal appeals panel has ruled that the operator of Bargainbeanies.com is not violating the trademark of Beanie Babies creator Ty by offering used dolls through the Web address. The case is significant because it supports the ability of second-hand resellers to market and hawk their wares over the Internet without running afoul of trademark laws.
m h
.reg would do that. This is for the same reasons, primarily to advise people that the mark is legally registered and protected by law. It is indisputable fact that the answer to domain and trademark problems was self-evident and is easier to use than the telephone. Honest lawyers have ratified the solution.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-961090.html?tag=cd_
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). This could be any acronym or initialism - including the famous International Trade Centre (ITC) or International Monetary Fund (IMF).
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.
The authorities hide the simple solution to this conflict. From correspondence with them and their response, I believe them corrupt. Why? For a start, trademark holders do not own the vast majority of domains - it is obvious that something is needed to replace the registered trademark symbol - a new TLD of
To see major findings please visit WIPO.org.uk - not associated with UN WIPO.org. Although I use the initials WIPO, it is obvious to even the 'crooks' in UN WIPO that this site not associated with them. Same as is obvious to those at AOL that pengaol.org is not associated with them.
I will give you benefit of doubt - take your statement as informed opinion and say, "He's someone who knows what he is talking about"
Your post does not alter my premise one bit - does it?
If anything it shows surveillance to be a waste of time and money.
My premise:
Internet surveillance is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Again - ask Security Services in the US or UK 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.
> Others won't be able to communicate, and their plans will not succeed.
How will they not be able to communicate?
Read post again - you have not digested it.
I see you do not deny the Truth - unlike the corrupt governments:
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
I have posted this premise before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US or UK 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 - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that 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.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - 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 thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
While Lisa Bowmans article seems unbiased, I feel it could have given greater analysis for the sake of a few extra lines.
Usually greater analysis in the media equates to corporate spin.
> In this phase of the legal saga, which has gone on for more than six years, the appellate judges are trying to decide VeriSign's culpability in the case.
VeriSign knew it possible to spoof transfers and DID NOT verify the transfer with original owner - so why aren't they guilty of gross negligence?
Objectively, who can say they are not to blame?
Should it not have been pointed out, for those new to this story, that the case was overwhelming against VeriSign?
> However, the court also ruled Kremen cannot sue VeriSign for the transfer because a domain name isn't tangible property. Now Kremen's hoping the appellate panel will overturn that ruling.
Is intangible property worth nothing when owned by individuals - but worth a fortune when owned by corporations?
Obviously, double standards are wrong.
VeriSign had a duty of care for this property.
> Judge Alex Kozinski wondered how VeriSign's DNS database of domain names was any different from a stock certificate, which he said connects an owner with some property.
> David Dolkas, a lawyer for Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich who's representing VeriSign, said that if the judges were asking "is the DNS database somehow representative of an ownership right, the answer is no".
> "Why not?" Kozinski replied. "Why isn't that exactly what it is?"
Nobody can deny that the DNS is representative of an ownership right (as well as pointer to web address).
The article should have highlighted that David Dolkas spun a LIE in court.
> Judge Margaret McKeown also grilled Dolkas, asking him if the company is claiming that it has no responsibility at all in the case.
> Dolka reiterated claims that VeriSign shouldn't be held liable, saying the database is simply a neutral translator between Web addresses and domain names.
The database is a neutral translator between domain and web address - but that is not germane to this central question.
It is spin - evasion - deflection.
Article certainly should have highlighted this.
VeriSign are responsible for the security and accuracy of their database.
They also have a duty to their clients - which they are evading.
Ask anybody in I.T. - the essential requirement of any system like this is for ACCURATE SECURE DATA.
> He said a ruling against his company would "create a world of hurt", opening the floodgates for all types of suits, including contract and property claims from people whose domains are down for just a short while.
It is evasion again - article should have pointed out that this is not at all what the case is about.
The case will make registrars more careful about verifying transfers of domain with the original owner.
> Wagstaffe said the whole case could have been avoided if VeriSign had simply phoned or emailed Kremen and asked him if he approved the transfer. "They do it now. They should have done it then," he said.
Exactly - what else need be said?
> At one point, the judges chastised Cohen's lawyer for his characterisation of the federal judge who ruled against his client. Mike Mayock said the judge was "sucker punched" and "blindsided" by Kremen, an assertion that didn't go over well with the judges.
> "You're really standing there telling us he's a fool?" wondered an incredulous Kozinski. "I don't think it's appropriate for you to call a district judge a sucker."
Shame - Judge Alex Kozinski showed good insight earlier.
Cohen's lawyer was telling the truth, the judge was "sucker punched" - he never said the judge was a moron.
Clever people can fool us ALL.
It is an unwise person who thinks they or others cannot be fooled.
Who here is so arrogant - they think themselves so intelligent, they cannot be fooled?
Additionally: It is my informed opinion the facts are clear - should VeriSign 'get away with it', then either the court is an ass - they ARE morons OR the court is lead by corporations - they ARE corrupt.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, Corporations steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment.
The Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get 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).
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and 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.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - 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 thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, Corporations steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment.
The Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
TO ICANN LAWYERS - JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
Karls platform.
***End quote.
In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
ICANN minutes.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.
The authorities know the solution to trademark conflicts.
.reg) - as in apple.reg. This is because all word domains are 'confusingly similar' to trademarks. That is one of the excuses they use to steal domain in UDRP.
.reg could serve the same purpose as the registered trademark symbol ® - to advise the public that it is legally registered and protected by law.
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. Just 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.
Fact: Virtually every word is trademarked. 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. protected TLD of
This
Yes, it is true - check USPTO link at end of paragraph - Virtually every word is trademarked. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check).
Whatever word you have for your business or personal web site, you will have some big bully try take your domain away from you. This is all a fraud by big business - the authorities are corrupt in helping them overreach Trademark Law.
It is ILLEGAL for one trademark to prevent others from using their trademark - even if using identical word. To allow this without consumer confusion or trademark conflict, it is absolutely essential that the class or subclass is included. Please visit WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
The New York Times, company of which owns them, the Boston Globe, 21 regional newspapers, The New York Times syndicate, nine television and radio stations, three magazines, and fifty percent of the International Tribune - attacks search engines to prevent you from looking for information.
Given all the evidence (partly stated), I believe they do this to prevent criticism about them and their Corporate 'friends' on the Internet - and your ability to find things on them using search engines.
How can that be off topic?
It seems clear that Corporations wish to prevent criticism about them on the Internet - and your ability to find things on them using search engines.
The authorities know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive. They hide this for several reasons - including to stop you calling them by name. They are all corrupt folks.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone.
The authorities prevent ALL from using their name - without 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org.
Quote: "Honeyman says existing steganography cannot be completely undetectable and adds that the key used to hide messages in images can be revealed with brute force computing power."
Any weakness of steganographic systems can be overcome.
For example; to beat brute force computing power only requires to have the message as an image of obfuscated text. There are several ways to do this; for one - think red-green colourblind eye test charts. It can also be multi-layered - each with seperate key. This would require manual viewing at every single attempt to crack it. The man hours required are too large to estimate.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department are hiding the simple solution to uniquely identify all registered trademarks on the Internet. The answer to this problem has been ratified by honest Lawyers. I believe UN WIPO and US DoC to be corrupt.
If you have heard of the respected Dr. Milton Mueller, you may be interested in the conclusion of his recent report, Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP. My comments and link to it on ICANN forum. His conclusion matches what I told UN WIPO and Nominet UK over a year ago.
Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization - Not associated with visit United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization
IMO - I believe we know most of it:
"ICANN is secretive, slow, inefficient and, worst of all, firmly in the pocket of special interests."
From ICANN Forum: Vint has become crooked and does not answer emails any more.
ICANN wants more money to further increase their corrupt powers and for their Lawyers; JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE.
Karl should be allowed to see the books, with gagging preconditions. ICANN are supposed to be OPEN, for flips sake.
ICANN use spin to say critics are just trying to tear down ICANN.
Personally, I have always said ICANN (or similar) is necessary - as John Gilmore says, "No, we're trying to make ICANN accountable to its public for its actions."
Those responsible should pay with time in jail for any illegal acts. Not fines like corrupt fat cats pay - money that will come from us - the consumer.
We learn some new things, like it cost less than 25 cents per year per name to run domain name registry - are we all being screwed or what?
It should cost should cost the huge NSI less than 1 cent per year to do the work. Screwing everybody harder still - car dealers would love that percentage markup.
Mr Mueller, Mr Gilmore and myself all agree on about trademark abuse of power by the greedy corporations:
Milton Mueller's account of Internet governance, portrays ICANN primarily as a tool for trademark protection.
John Gilmore says "I do agree that ICANN and domain name policy has been perverted from the start by the machinations of trademark interests. Actual trademark law gives zero power to cancel or seize domain names, prevent their issuance, etc. Actual trademark law lets hundreds of people use the same name, both in different jurisdictions, and for different kinds of trades (e.g., computers vs. soap vs. ships). Trademark owners only have power over others when the others misrepresent themselves as the trademark owner."
The authorities IGNORE National and Classification boundaries - this is unlawful - ask any (honest) Lawyer. These authorities know the solution to these trademark/domain problems - it is easier than using the telephone.
My fellow posters - these corrupt people in the US DoC, UN WIPO and ICANN are aiding and abetting this abuse. They prevent all registered trademarks from using their mark - an illegal act.
The Truth will win in the end - and the corrupt will be named and shamed.
Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org !
The US and UN authorities IGNORE National and Classification boundaries to aid and abet corporations in the abuse of their trademark powers. This is an unlawful act. They know the solution to trademark problems on the Internet.
.reg - as in apple.reg
.reg would be protected like .gov sites, so preventing passing off and any conflict with the majority of non-trademark domains. It acts as certificate of authentication.
.com domains and new protected TLDs could be used by trademarks for advertising purposes - then redirected to the .reg site e.g. apple.computer or nissan.car
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'.
"Apple" 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.
"BUT", I hear you say, followed by many reasons why they cannot co-exist without conflict on the Internet.
These reasons are based on PROPAGANDA, SPIN and LIES.
Fact 1: 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
Just like the registered trademark symbol ® - this could serve the same purpose - to advise the public that it is legally registered and protected by law.
This
Fact 2: Given that each country has its own trademark system and can use the same words as another, the country is absolutely essential - as in apple.us.reg
Fact 3: It is illegal for one to prevent others from using their trademark. To allow this without consumer confusion or trademark conflict, it is absolutely essential that the class or subclass is included (e.g. computer) - as in apple.computer.us.reg
Can you tell the difference between apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?
Of course you can. Being text based it is easier than using the phone.
Current
This is all about corrupt authorities aiding and abetting corporations to abuse the Law.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org !
TO ICANN LAWYERS - JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
Karls platform.
***End quote.
In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
ICANN minutes.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.
First, here are three quotes from Rightoprivacy.com
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.
To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S. (1928).
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy"
Article 12, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Unfortunately, most people assume that they have greater rights to privacy than the Law actually provides. Others dismiss erosion of their rights to privacy with the dangerously false pretense that only people with something to hide should be concerned about the loss of privacy.
***********
The rest of this is a basic cut and paste from my previous posts on 'Bringing Echelon In From the Cold'
I believe anybody who says "They can read my email - I have nothing to hide" must be of low intelligence - a moron.
This information can be used retrospectively against you - wait until you get a just cause to fight. The UK government love to put down protesters - as can be seen when they tried to get the dirt on Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom I presume would have nothing to worry about, having her emails read.
News article: Labour admits second email seeking searches on rail group
Labour has found another email from a government adviser seeking information searches on the Paddington rail campaigners.
The adviser to Stephen Byers, sent a second request for the searches - which have been seen as an attempt to 'dig dirt' on members of the public.
Dan Corry's email to the Labour headquarters at Millbank Tower expressed a wish to find out what was behind the group's criticisms of Stephen Byers.
In it, Mr Corry said: "Any other checking useful. They seem to have an anti-SB agenda and we want to find out what lies behind it."
The department said the second email had been unearthed in a "very thorough" trawl of the email traffic from Mr Byers's special advisers.
A spokesman said it failed to reach the Labour Party owing to "intermittent difficulties" with the system.
The disclosure last week of Mr Corry's original email asking for information about the political affiliations of the Paddington group, prompted bitter accusations that the Government was trying to smear the crash survivors for asking awkward questions.
It led to unreserved apologies from Mr Corry and from new Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.
Story filed: 02:35 Tuesday 11th June 2002
***********
What do you think the USA Patriot Act is about?
It is all about Big Brother.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Go with plan A (human bomb to target A), or plan B (target B) or abort.
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA.
It is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and 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.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - 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 thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
It really annoys me that our governments would con their people like this.
We pay their wages - we deserve the Truth - not this spin and lies.
Beware corporate theft of your domain name. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
>Thing is that things such as face to face meetings, personal courier, steganography (most likely not computer based though), codes (not cyphers) are quite likely amongst the terrorists' prefered methods anyway.
There are several forms of steganography that the terrorist could safely use.
>They probably won't use languages like that though. Something more like if they are going to meet at place A, place B or not bother. How is anyone overhearing this phone call going to know that it's about terrorism?
I was using that as example - it would more likely be "Hello Harry, I will meet you at the bar at the usual time."
>You'd find out that the people involved are terrorists by regular detective work, not through mass surveillance.
I agree with you.
It really annoys me that our governments will con their people like this.
We pay their wages - we deserve the Truth - not this spin and lies.
I have posted this basic text before - as nobody has been able to refuted it, I will repost.
What do you think the USA Patriot Act is about?
For those of low intelligence - it is all about Big Brother.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Go with plan A (human bomb to target A), or plan B (target B) or abort.
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA.
It is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and 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.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - 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 thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
Incidentally, the United States Department of Commerce lies - they know the solution to uniquelly identify all registered trademarks on the Internet. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization to see it.