"Right. And when your government backs the stance, like they did SOPA, what happens?
SOPA went down because politicians were scared they wouldn't get reelected because of the massive outcry."
Exactly the same thing.
If the people can convince their government to drop SOPA, they can convince them to veto any bad ITU legislation. The best part is we're not relying on just the US to do this, but all nations that find whatever legislation it is distasteful, meaning even if we don't get a US veto, we may well get a veto from a country like say, Norway.
"The politician can just say they went rogue and that they won't reappoint them."
No they can't. The appointee is merely there to convey the message they've been told to convey by their government and to feedback to government, few countries (and certainly not the US) allow them to just arbitrarily make their own decisions, so this excuse would make no sense. There's still the issue of other nations acting as a backup if the US fails to uphold internet freedom.
"So the US wanted the Berne convention and now 165 signed on. And mind that is signed a treaty not just voted 'okay' at the ITU. So my point is that peer pressure pushed a treaty across the world. How far do you think it could push a resolution in the ITU? Especially if you say 'well this is really just part of the Berne convention to uphold copyright'."
Again, you're dodging the point. If the US can be influenced at the ITU it can be influenced anyway, so how is the status quo better? The difference is as I say that under the ITU we're not relying on just the US, but other independent nations that would veto too.
"I dunno, but I see arrests and IP bans (which I view as far more serious than domain seizures, BTW) and jail time and free speech issues everywhere to follow one thread."
Again you're simply resorting to FUD, because these things would need international support to go international, yet they do not have, nor would they ever get international support. These countries cannot impose their will unilaterally at the ITU, they need unanimous global support, I don't know why you find that concept so hard to understand.
"And Do you really think that, in a world where ACTA could be created, that ITU will somehow prevent domain seizures? What government would really be against that?"
How about countries whose legitimate businesses have been victim to it, or whose MPs have had their privacy online violated by the US government like Antigua and Iceland?
How about nations that crippled ACTA through political pressure having an effect due to having a legitimate form of democracy due to a sensible electoral system that forces politicians to listen to the people such as EU nations who decided against it like Germany?
For what it's worth many of the people who get sent to the ITU as national representatives are actually experts in their field of telecommunications often from academia.
This is not to say that academics are uncorruptable, far from it, but they tend to have a much better track record than politicians, that's for sure.
I'd also argue that the logistics of bribing representatives from 193 different countries is a little more tricky than it is to bribe people through the revolving doors between congress and big business.
Really? is that your only argument? that what you say is right and that's all their is to it? you don't need any facts, evidence, or data to back up your point, you don't even have to make sense, it is the way you say it is and that's it? As I say, the internet doesn't need the US either.
What are you on about? the vetoes are passed by your national represenatives appointed by your government. Unless your government backs the stance then it can veto it.
The Berne convention passed precisely because the US government did want it, I'm failing to see how your argument eliminates the US government as still being a clear point of protection even under the ITU.
There isn't some separate entity at the ITU, it's still the representatives your government appoints.
"The long and the sort of is it that moving to to the UN spreads the accountability so thin as to be non-existent. At least with the US there is enough accountability (see the defeat of SOPA) and principal (see as one of the freest speech countries around) to keep the internet what it is."
Great, and what about counter-examples like ICE domain seizures? You're using a really weak tactic here to try and push your viewpoint with this and your mention of the Berne convention - it's called FUD. The Berne convention has nothing to do with the ITU and the US has done as much wrong as it's done right in terms of internet governance in recent years.
If the US hadn't carried out the ICE seizures, or if US citizens had protested against them and got them stopped I'd be with you, but this hasn't happened so we're already past the point where the US can pretend to be a protector of the freedoms of the internet.
The Internet does not need the US. So why should the US have any say over the Internet?
Do you actually have any valid argument against it or are you just a nationalist? I'm failing to see how increased protection for the internet against bad laws is a bad thing. That's exactly what unanimous vote at the ITU grants it.
You do know what the word "unanimity" means right? If not then go look it up and then come back and see why your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
It means every single member nation would have to vote on an issue for it to pass, including the US. For the ITU to change against this requirement of unanimity it would also in itself require a unanimous vote.
As such, how would said repugnant regimes subvert the process exactly? The only way your view makes sense is if they can gain support of the US, but if that happens other countries can still veto. How is that worse than the status quo exactly where if said repugnant regimes can win over the US, then can do so currently anyway without the safeguard of other nations?
The only downside of unanimity is that it can make processes of change slow, but as I think the internet is best left to evolve naturally anyway I'm not sure in the context of the internet that that's a bad thing.
I don't think you understand the way the ITU works, despite the fact it's been covered here many times now. Part the problem is as in the summary here a muddying of waters on the issue. For example, the threat of European telecomms operators has nothing to do with the UN taking over the internet as said law relates to the underlying telephony equipment and how charges are handled at that level. This is already something in the remit of the ITU, so has little relevance to an ITU takeover of say, ICANN's responsibilities.
As has been pointed out here before many times, the ITU works on consensus and as such the only way the European proposal could pass anyway is if the US supports it.
The reason I believe ITU control would be better than the status quo is quite simple - I believe that 193 vetoes (including the US') are a better safeguard against the passing of controversal changes to the internet, than simply relying on the US only to forever do the right thing.
It's a simple question as to whether it's better to have a single dictator determining some policy, or having unanimous support for a policy from near 200 people - I know which I'd rather put more faith in in ensuring the fairest option to all is chosen, and it's not the single point of failure option, but hands down the option that requires all 193 points of failure to fail, something that's unlikely to happen nad is inherently better anyway, when you consider that one of the 193 points of failure that has to fail is the single point of failure in the other option itself.
How does that impact his right to free speech? Nothing the UK did prevents him saying whatever he wants. I don't think there's any country in the world that foregoes their right to deny entry to people they don't want in their country. Blocking entry does not block free speech though.
"And currently that means Islam. (I'll certainly grant that in the quite recent past it meant Christianity even more, but it doesn't seem to currently."
Really? What's been the primary religion of nations who have actually launched attacks abroad in the past? Nearly all muslim attacks have been against other muslims so I've no idea what they'd be crusading against - themselves? In contrast, in recent years, most attacks by Christians (whether terrorist actions, or military) have been against muslims and Islam.
"OTOH, if a major country become dominated by the Fundies, which the US seems to threaten, then Christianity would be worse than Islam.)"
What do you think Bush and his neocon friends were all about? Why do you think their allies like Tony Blair openly stated he looked to god before making the decision to invade Iraq etc.?
No because they've intentionally crippled apps like this from working on Android tablets where they work just fine if you bypass the incompatibility "test" they've used.
They only support it on phones because they recognise that ignoring the smartphone platform with near 70% marketshare is simply suicide for the product.
If this just worked on Nexus 7 tablets etc. out the box, which there's no reason it shouldn't, then I'd agree with you, but whilst they're still intentionally crippling it on one of the most prominent flagship Android tablets in the marketplace I'd say it's just business as usual sadly.
Microsoft are artificially preventing their XBox apps working on Google's tablets, because they recognise that whilst Android phones are now far and away the most prominent smartphone platform on the planet and hence unavoidable in terms of support, that's not such the case in the tablet world where Microsoft still think they have a chance with WinRT.
In other words they think that by blocking it on the Nexus 7's default setup it'll give users more reason to buy a Windows tablet, than an Android tablet whilst they recognise that in the smartphone market not supporting it will mean it's a feature no one takes up.
It's a pretty desperate attempt to try and give their tablets an edge, but there you have it.
I don't think you need to apologise, let's be honest this spec was created at the behest of the advertising industry to try and keep the industry regulators and national data protection and privacy authorities off of their backs.
The sooner it's exposed as that and they get the authorities onto them regardless and force them to respect people's default will for privacy the better.
Yes, because before ads and subscription only became the norm there was nothing on the internet whatsoever, no content at all, nope, none whatsoever. Even sites like Wikipedia don't actually exist and we all just imagined them because they don't have ads or tracking so they can't possibly be real.
For what it's worth the quality of content has gone down with the increase in ad-revenue run sites. You only have to look at Slashdot for example - nowadays due to being so reliant on gathering ad-revenue they regularly post stories that are out and out flamebait and not correct, informative, or interesting whatsoever purely to gain ad-revenue. Ad run websites have merely created a race to the bottom- to provide as much untrue inciteful bollocks as possible to make people come and see what the fuss is all about to increase ad revenue.
Actually good on them for exposing what a sham DNT is.
These companies ignoring it are just using whatever excuse under the sun to do what they were always going to do anyway, and ignore it.
As I've said elsewhere, if I disable DNT in IE, then re-enable it, then there's no breach of the spec, and I've provided my express consent for the DNT option, but despite that these companies like Yahoo, and webservers like Apache will still ignore my choice if I use IE10 meaning that it's actually them who are violating DNT.
In other words, these folks will ignore DNT regardless, for no reason other than the fact they're complete and utter privacy violating money grabbing cunts.
If giving users privacy by default is ignoring the spec then the spec is already meaningless.
As such I and no doubt many others will continue to use ad-blockers and roll out ad-blockers to friends, family, and the businesses we work for to ensure that if they're going to track us regardless of our DNT setting, then they wont get any ad-revenue at all.
So here's the thing, if I go into IE's options and disable DNT, and then re-enable it giving express consent according to the DNT spec then tell me, why is my DNT option still going to be ignored by Apache, Yahoo etc. hmm? Who is breaking the spec to make money and suit themselves then?
I get how our electoral system works, unfortunately I'm one of those people who doesn't have a real actual vote though, because here Labour wins regardless of how many times I vote against them due to having the unfortunate situation of an ex-mining village in our constituency where they vote Labour and probably will for all eternity no matter what happens because in their simplistic mindset, Thatcher kicked their puppy 40 years ago, and Labour stood against her back then and so that inherently means they must always vote Labour even when they do the worst job in the world, apparently.
This is why I detest the FPTP system because in fact I've never had a real vote, my vote has always been meaningless. I like my European Parliament vote much more because, due to it being PR, it means my EP vote actually has a purpose and no matter how small an impact, it means it does at least have an impact.
I liked AV, because whilst it didn't solve the problem of proportional representation it did at least mean the candidates around here would have to work a little harder to listen to the rest of us, rather than sit around idly enjoying the fact that said mining village will always vote him in no matter what he does and no matter what the other 60% of us would like him to do. That was scuppered though, because all the MPs supported by the Murdoch and Daily Mail media machine hated the idea of MPs having to actually represent the will of their constituents whilst ironically simultaneously putting forth the nonsensical hypocritical view that we can't move to PR because people need representatives - well guess what dickheads, under FPTP I don't have a representative, because the one that is there doesn't in any way represent me because he's one of the think of the children, ID card, DNA database, internet censorship loving whackjobs. This wouldn't all be so bad if it weren't for the fact that half the MPs claim they're not there to listen to us, but to do what they think is right, they claim we elect them to do what they want with our trust that they know what's best. This further runs a steamroller over the argument that they're our representatives as that belief runs completely counter to that- how can they be our representatives if they claim they have the moral authority to do what they think is right, rather than necessarily what we think is right? This is the excuse they use when pushing through unpopular bills- by definition if they go against what their constituents want then they're not representing them.
I don't really buy the excuse of letting them off over the party whip - here's an idea, ignore the god damn whip. They wont do that though, because that means less chance of promotion. What's that? Oh they're just in it for themselves, and there I was thinking they were our representatives.
Personally I think, with the Tories at least, that the bankbenchers are some of the worst. The 1922 committee for example are still literally living by their name - in 1922, they still seem to think we should all walk around being bigoted and racist, and that we still have an empire. Similarly some of the worst think of the children ideas have come from the backbenches.
This is not to say I don't think there are some good backbenchers, there are, and sometimes they even make it through to the front - Tom Watson being an obvious example, but I think the fact is that MPs who give a damn what people want or think are few and far between.
I just think our system is broken, AV wasn't a silver bullet, but it was a step up from where we are now such that it would've forced MPs to moderate their views and listen to a broader base of their electorate rather than rely on a guaranteed vote by a minority and then do what they want. PR to me is better again but that's because I'm used to not having a representative that actually represents me so I wouldn't see any loss in saying goodbye to local representation and neither would the other 70% of the country whose votes don't actually really count for anything in pract
To be fair this is the first British government that I'd argue technically isn't fake, because it is a coalition of parties elected with over 50% of combined popular support.
Normally our governments are single party with only 30% - 35% of popular support which under our failure of a political system gives them 100% of power regardless so yes, most of the time our governments are indeed fake.
It's fairly straightforward, the US signed up to have it's elections monitored so that it could then talk down on states like Iran, and Russia who genuinely don't have free and fair elections and try and get them to enact free and fair elections through the same mechanism.
The problem is if America then decides not to follow it's obligations then you find it no longer has the benefit of being able to say this.
It's not so much that the world cares, but more that the US wants to show itself as being a good example to everyone else. If it no longer wants that position then that's okay, but it has to decide one way or the other - you can't have the leadership saying one thing, and a state pretending it has the power to unilaterally decide something else.
Treaties are not subordinate to the constitution. I know in America the constitution is like the bible and you worship it and think it's the single most important document in existence, but that's not the way things work in the real world, in the real world no one else gives a fuck about some tatty old document that you think is the pinnacle of politics.
The fact is your government is your official representative to the world, chosen by you. What it does or doesn't adhere to is neither here nor there to the rest of the world, the fact is your representatives have given external organisations the right to do something in the state of Texas, and note also that the rest of the world doesn't really give a fuck what the state of Texas thinks either, because again, it's not the US' representative to the world.
Now, you may argue that your government shouldn't have given such permission, and you may want to take your government to court, impeach the president or whatever else you get upto in your own borders when someone does something you shouldn't.
But it doesn't matter, the fact is your representative to the world has given permission to an international organisation to enter and do something in the country, and in the rest of the world, under international law, that's simply all that matters.
You may think your constitution matters to the rest of the world, you may think your state lawmakers matter to the rest of the world, but they really don't. If you have a problem with what your government has authorised that's between you and them, if you don't like it deal with it and get rid of your government on a countrywide basis and pull out of the international treaty, or seccede and become independent of the US, but right now, your constitution and state laws are irrelevant to an international organisation that has been given permission to do something by your government- your internal governance is not their concern, only that the representative to the rest of the world for your country has given them the permission they need to do what they need to do.
Constitutions and local government structures like those at state level in the US are entirely internal concepts and although most countries have something similar they are not recognised internationally as entities that have the power to go against the permissions granted or denied to international bodies by the primary leadership of a nation.
This is why despite Assad in Syria having fuck all support, he still matters, because he's still the official leader of the country. Any law written by the rebels despite holding large swathes of the country and having a large percentage of popular support is irrelevant and unenforcable until there is an officially recognised change of leadership. Some countries may unilaterally recognise that change, but the point is, no one is suddenly going to recognise Texas as an overriding authority of the US government I'm afraid.
You may not like it, and that's fine, I actually sympathise somewhat with being overruled if you have strong sentiment towards localised government, it's not nice, but it is the way it is I'm afraid so the choice is to put up with it, or change it and/or become independent.
I'm not talking about the whole state but simply about the little upstart lawmakers who decided to pretend they were more important than they were by creating a law that has no real force behind it because it runs counter to laws that overrule it for likely no other reason than to give themselves a little right-wing nationalist hardon. So don't worry, unless you're one of those lawmakers with an inferiority complex that wrote this shit then I'm not talking about you.
Slashdot Mirror
"Right. And when your government backs the stance, like they did SOPA, what happens?
SOPA went down because politicians were scared they wouldn't get reelected because of the massive outcry."
Exactly the same thing.
If the people can convince their government to drop SOPA, they can convince them to veto any bad ITU legislation. The best part is we're not relying on just the US to do this, but all nations that find whatever legislation it is distasteful, meaning even if we don't get a US veto, we may well get a veto from a country like say, Norway.
"The politician can just say they went rogue and that they won't reappoint them."
No they can't. The appointee is merely there to convey the message they've been told to convey by their government and to feedback to government, few countries (and certainly not the US) allow them to just arbitrarily make their own decisions, so this excuse would make no sense. There's still the issue of other nations acting as a backup if the US fails to uphold internet freedom.
"So the US wanted the Berne convention and now 165 signed on. And mind that is signed a treaty not just voted 'okay' at the ITU. So my point is that peer pressure pushed a treaty across the world. How far do you think it could push a resolution in the ITU? Especially if you say 'well this is really just part of the Berne convention to uphold copyright'."
Again, you're dodging the point. If the US can be influenced at the ITU it can be influenced anyway, so how is the status quo better? The difference is as I say that under the ITU we're not relying on just the US, but other independent nations that would veto too.
"I dunno, but I see arrests and IP bans (which I view as far more serious than domain seizures, BTW) and jail time and free speech issues everywhere to follow one thread."
Again you're simply resorting to FUD, because these things would need international support to go international, yet they do not have, nor would they ever get international support. These countries cannot impose their will unilaterally at the ITU, they need unanimous global support, I don't know why you find that concept so hard to understand.
"And Do you really think that, in a world where ACTA could be created, that ITU will somehow prevent domain seizures? What government would really be against that?"
How about countries whose legitimate businesses have been victim to it, or whose MPs have had their privacy online violated by the US government like Antigua and Iceland?
How about nations that crippled ACTA through political pressure having an effect due to having a legitimate form of democracy due to a sensible electoral system that forces politicians to listen to the people such as EU nations who decided against it like Germany?
Richard Dawkins is a scientist.
This is the science section of Slashdot.
He's giving an interview on the issues surrounding science education and awareness.
Which bits are you struggling with?
For what it's worth many of the people who get sent to the ITU as national representatives are actually experts in their field of telecommunications often from academia.
This is not to say that academics are uncorruptable, far from it, but they tend to have a much better track record than politicians, that's for sure.
I'd also argue that the logistics of bribing representatives from 193 different countries is a little more tricky than it is to bribe people through the revolving doors between congress and big business.
Really? is that your only argument? that what you say is right and that's all their is to it? you don't need any facts, evidence, or data to back up your point, you don't even have to make sense, it is the way you say it is and that's it? As I say, the internet doesn't need the US either.
I feel sorry for you I really do.
What are you on about? the vetoes are passed by your national represenatives appointed by your government. Unless your government backs the stance then it can veto it.
The Berne convention passed precisely because the US government did want it, I'm failing to see how your argument eliminates the US government as still being a clear point of protection even under the ITU.
There isn't some separate entity at the ITU, it's still the representatives your government appoints.
"The long and the sort of is it that moving to to the UN spreads the accountability so thin as to be non-existent. At least with the US there is enough accountability (see the defeat of SOPA) and principal (see as one of the freest speech countries around) to keep the internet what it is."
Great, and what about counter-examples like ICE domain seizures? You're using a really weak tactic here to try and push your viewpoint with this and your mention of the Berne convention - it's called FUD. The Berne convention has nothing to do with the ITU and the US has done as much wrong as it's done right in terms of internet governance in recent years.
If the US hadn't carried out the ICE seizures, or if US citizens had protested against them and got them stopped I'd be with you, but this hasn't happened so we're already past the point where the US can pretend to be a protector of the freedoms of the internet.
"1, If control is transferred to ITU, pricing will become the new censorship."
Sure if the US supports it, so how is that any different to now where the US could support it anyway?
The Internet does not need the US. So why should the US have any say over the Internet?
Do you actually have any valid argument against it or are you just a nationalist? I'm failing to see how increased protection for the internet against bad laws is a bad thing. That's exactly what unanimous vote at the ITU grants it.
You do know what the word "unanimity" means right? If not then go look it up and then come back and see why your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
It means every single member nation would have to vote on an issue for it to pass, including the US. For the ITU to change against this requirement of unanimity it would also in itself require a unanimous vote.
As such, how would said repugnant regimes subvert the process exactly? The only way your view makes sense is if they can gain support of the US, but if that happens other countries can still veto. How is that worse than the status quo exactly where if said repugnant regimes can win over the US, then can do so currently anyway without the safeguard of other nations?
The only downside of unanimity is that it can make processes of change slow, but as I think the internet is best left to evolve naturally anyway I'm not sure in the context of the internet that that's a bad thing.
I don't think you understand the way the ITU works, despite the fact it's been covered here many times now. Part the problem is as in the summary here a muddying of waters on the issue. For example, the threat of European telecomms operators has nothing to do with the UN taking over the internet as said law relates to the underlying telephony equipment and how charges are handled at that level. This is already something in the remit of the ITU, so has little relevance to an ITU takeover of say, ICANN's responsibilities.
As has been pointed out here before many times, the ITU works on consensus and as such the only way the European proposal could pass anyway is if the US supports it.
The reason I believe ITU control would be better than the status quo is quite simple - I believe that 193 vetoes (including the US') are a better safeguard against the passing of controversal changes to the internet, than simply relying on the US only to forever do the right thing.
It's a simple question as to whether it's better to have a single dictator determining some policy, or having unanimous support for a policy from near 200 people - I know which I'd rather put more faith in in ensuring the fairest option to all is chosen, and it's not the single point of failure option, but hands down the option that requires all 193 points of failure to fail, something that's unlikely to happen nad is inherently better anyway, when you consider that one of the 193 points of failure that has to fail is the single point of failure in the other option itself.
How does that impact his right to free speech? Nothing the UK did prevents him saying whatever he wants. I don't think there's any country in the world that foregoes their right to deny entry to people they don't want in their country. Blocking entry does not block free speech though.
Besides, you might want to read about this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303
Yes, a 17 year old is banned for life from entering the US because he sent a drunken e-mail to Barack Obama.
It cuts both ways.
"And currently that means Islam. (I'll certainly grant that in the quite recent past it meant Christianity even more, but it doesn't seem to currently."
Really? What's been the primary religion of nations who have actually launched attacks abroad in the past? Nearly all muslim attacks have been against other muslims so I've no idea what they'd be crusading against - themselves? In contrast, in recent years, most attacks by Christians (whether terrorist actions, or military) have been against muslims and Islam.
"OTOH, if a major country become dominated by the Fundies, which the US seems to threaten, then Christianity would be worse than Islam.)"
What do you think Bush and his neocon friends were all about? Why do you think their allies like Tony Blair openly stated he looked to god before making the decision to invade Iraq etc.?
No because they've intentionally crippled apps like this from working on Android tablets where they work just fine if you bypass the incompatibility "test" they've used.
They only support it on phones because they recognise that ignoring the smartphone platform with near 70% marketshare is simply suicide for the product.
If this just worked on Nexus 7 tablets etc. out the box, which there's no reason it shouldn't, then I'd agree with you, but whilst they're still intentionally crippling it on one of the most prominent flagship Android tablets in the marketplace I'd say it's just business as usual sadly.
Microsoft are artificially preventing their XBox apps working on Google's tablets, because they recognise that whilst Android phones are now far and away the most prominent smartphone platform on the planet and hence unavoidable in terms of support, that's not such the case in the tablet world where Microsoft still think they have a chance with WinRT.
In other words they think that by blocking it on the Nexus 7's default setup it'll give users more reason to buy a Windows tablet, than an Android tablet whilst they recognise that in the smartphone market not supporting it will mean it's a feature no one takes up.
It's a pretty desperate attempt to try and give their tablets an edge, but there you have it.
Oh more Mozilla incompetence? Colour me suprised.
I don't think you need to apologise, let's be honest this spec was created at the behest of the advertising industry to try and keep the industry regulators and national data protection and privacy authorities off of their backs.
The sooner it's exposed as that and they get the authorities onto them regardless and force them to respect people's default will for privacy the better.
It's called the ICCPR, the US ratified it in 1992. Specifically, it's the implementation of Article 25.
Hope you didn't feel you had to wait too long, and don't worry about thanking me for doing your homework for you, it's okay, I don't mind.
Yes, because before ads and subscription only became the norm there was nothing on the internet whatsoever, no content at all, nope, none whatsoever. Even sites like Wikipedia don't actually exist and we all just imagined them because they don't have ads or tracking so they can't possibly be real.
For what it's worth the quality of content has gone down with the increase in ad-revenue run sites. You only have to look at Slashdot for example - nowadays due to being so reliant on gathering ad-revenue they regularly post stories that are out and out flamebait and not correct, informative, or interesting whatsoever purely to gain ad-revenue. Ad run websites have merely created a race to the bottom- to provide as much untrue inciteful bollocks as possible to make people come and see what the fuss is all about to increase ad revenue.
Actually good on them for exposing what a sham DNT is.
These companies ignoring it are just using whatever excuse under the sun to do what they were always going to do anyway, and ignore it.
As I've said elsewhere, if I disable DNT in IE, then re-enable it, then there's no breach of the spec, and I've provided my express consent for the DNT option, but despite that these companies like Yahoo, and webservers like Apache will still ignore my choice if I use IE10 meaning that it's actually them who are violating DNT.
In other words, these folks will ignore DNT regardless, for no reason other than the fact they're complete and utter privacy violating money grabbing cunts.
If giving users privacy by default is ignoring the spec then the spec is already meaningless.
As such I and no doubt many others will continue to use ad-blockers and roll out ad-blockers to friends, family, and the businesses we work for to ensure that if they're going to track us regardless of our DNT setting, then they wont get any ad-revenue at all.
So here's the thing, if I go into IE's options and disable DNT, and then re-enable it giving express consent according to the DNT spec then tell me, why is my DNT option still going to be ignored by Apache, Yahoo etc. hmm? Who is breaking the spec to make money and suit themselves then?
I get how our electoral system works, unfortunately I'm one of those people who doesn't have a real actual vote though, because here Labour wins regardless of how many times I vote against them due to having the unfortunate situation of an ex-mining village in our constituency where they vote Labour and probably will for all eternity no matter what happens because in their simplistic mindset, Thatcher kicked their puppy 40 years ago, and Labour stood against her back then and so that inherently means they must always vote Labour even when they do the worst job in the world, apparently.
This is why I detest the FPTP system because in fact I've never had a real vote, my vote has always been meaningless. I like my European Parliament vote much more because, due to it being PR, it means my EP vote actually has a purpose and no matter how small an impact, it means it does at least have an impact.
I liked AV, because whilst it didn't solve the problem of proportional representation it did at least mean the candidates around here would have to work a little harder to listen to the rest of us, rather than sit around idly enjoying the fact that said mining village will always vote him in no matter what he does and no matter what the other 60% of us would like him to do. That was scuppered though, because all the MPs supported by the Murdoch and Daily Mail media machine hated the idea of MPs having to actually represent the will of their constituents whilst ironically simultaneously putting forth the nonsensical hypocritical view that we can't move to PR because people need representatives - well guess what dickheads, under FPTP I don't have a representative, because the one that is there doesn't in any way represent me because he's one of the think of the children, ID card, DNA database, internet censorship loving whackjobs. This wouldn't all be so bad if it weren't for the fact that half the MPs claim they're not there to listen to us, but to do what they think is right, they claim we elect them to do what they want with our trust that they know what's best. This further runs a steamroller over the argument that they're our representatives as that belief runs completely counter to that- how can they be our representatives if they claim they have the moral authority to do what they think is right, rather than necessarily what we think is right? This is the excuse they use when pushing through unpopular bills- by definition if they go against what their constituents want then they're not representing them.
I don't really buy the excuse of letting them off over the party whip - here's an idea, ignore the god damn whip. They wont do that though, because that means less chance of promotion. What's that? Oh they're just in it for themselves, and there I was thinking they were our representatives.
Personally I think, with the Tories at least, that the bankbenchers are some of the worst. The 1922 committee for example are still literally living by their name - in 1922, they still seem to think we should all walk around being bigoted and racist, and that we still have an empire. Similarly some of the worst think of the children ideas have come from the backbenches.
This is not to say I don't think there are some good backbenchers, there are, and sometimes they even make it through to the front - Tom Watson being an obvious example, but I think the fact is that MPs who give a damn what people want or think are few and far between.
I just think our system is broken, AV wasn't a silver bullet, but it was a step up from where we are now such that it would've forced MPs to moderate their views and listen to a broader base of their electorate rather than rely on a guaranteed vote by a minority and then do what they want. PR to me is better again but that's because I'm used to not having a representative that actually represents me so I wouldn't see any loss in saying goodbye to local representation and neither would the other 70% of the country whose votes don't actually really count for anything in pract
To be fair this is the first British government that I'd argue technically isn't fake, because it is a coalition of parties elected with over 50% of combined popular support.
Normally our governments are single party with only 30% - 35% of popular support which under our failure of a political system gives them 100% of power regardless so yes, most of the time our governments are indeed fake.
*facepalm*
What do you think treaties are? They're laws, laws signed in by the US government, laws that override state laws.
It's pretty simple and I really understand if you don't like this particular law, but it is the way it is, sorry if you don't like that.
It's fairly straightforward, the US signed up to have it's elections monitored so that it could then talk down on states like Iran, and Russia who genuinely don't have free and fair elections and try and get them to enact free and fair elections through the same mechanism.
The problem is if America then decides not to follow it's obligations then you find it no longer has the benefit of being able to say this.
It's not so much that the world cares, but more that the US wants to show itself as being a good example to everyone else. If it no longer wants that position then that's okay, but it has to decide one way or the other - you can't have the leadership saying one thing, and a state pretending it has the power to unilaterally decide something else.
Treaties are not subordinate to the constitution. I know in America the constitution is like the bible and you worship it and think it's the single most important document in existence, but that's not the way things work in the real world, in the real world no one else gives a fuck about some tatty old document that you think is the pinnacle of politics.
The fact is your government is your official representative to the world, chosen by you. What it does or doesn't adhere to is neither here nor there to the rest of the world, the fact is your representatives have given external organisations the right to do something in the state of Texas, and note also that the rest of the world doesn't really give a fuck what the state of Texas thinks either, because again, it's not the US' representative to the world.
Now, you may argue that your government shouldn't have given such permission, and you may want to take your government to court, impeach the president or whatever else you get upto in your own borders when someone does something you shouldn't.
But it doesn't matter, the fact is your representative to the world has given permission to an international organisation to enter and do something in the country, and in the rest of the world, under international law, that's simply all that matters.
You may think your constitution matters to the rest of the world, you may think your state lawmakers matter to the rest of the world, but they really don't. If you have a problem with what your government has authorised that's between you and them, if you don't like it deal with it and get rid of your government on a countrywide basis and pull out of the international treaty, or seccede and become independent of the US, but right now, your constitution and state laws are irrelevant to an international organisation that has been given permission to do something by your government- your internal governance is not their concern, only that the representative to the rest of the world for your country has given them the permission they need to do what they need to do.
Constitutions and local government structures like those at state level in the US are entirely internal concepts and although most countries have something similar they are not recognised internationally as entities that have the power to go against the permissions granted or denied to international bodies by the primary leadership of a nation.
This is why despite Assad in Syria having fuck all support, he still matters, because he's still the official leader of the country. Any law written by the rebels despite holding large swathes of the country and having a large percentage of popular support is irrelevant and unenforcable until there is an officially recognised change of leadership. Some countries may unilaterally recognise that change, but the point is, no one is suddenly going to recognise Texas as an overriding authority of the US government I'm afraid.
You may not like it, and that's fine, I actually sympathise somewhat with being overruled if you have strong sentiment towards localised government, it's not nice, but it is the way it is I'm afraid so the choice is to put up with it, or change it and/or become independent.
I'm not talking about the whole state but simply about the little upstart lawmakers who decided to pretend they were more important than they were by creating a law that has no real force behind it because it runs counter to laws that overrule it for likely no other reason than to give themselves a little right-wing nationalist hardon. So don't worry, unless you're one of those lawmakers with an inferiority complex that wrote this shit then I'm not talking about you.