Global internet 'Big Brother' coming...

11 years ago

I respsect your nobility here sir but...

The sad reality is that the internet has never been the utopic reality some people want it to be. Take a good look at it's structure and you soon realize it's basically the same thing as mass media, controlled by a handful of corporations and heavily monitored by special intrerest and government. The only primary difference is that it's bidirectional and each of us can have a voice -- how powerful that voice is depends on how effective one is at connecting/networking. The same limitations imposed on us in real life that give power to a select few (old boy networks/establishment etc) exist on the web and hinder real positive change. That doesn't mean the web doesn't help real change - it does, but you still have to work around the same obsticals and potential threats to ideas that have always been there.

Google is one of those corporations trying to control the web. I cast a jaundiced eye at any cause along these lines they champion because their main aim is profit and not freedom of expression, based on their actions. Go ahead and test those waters and see how fast they smack you down. They don't want a free internet, they want the internet best suited to their bottom line.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending back door meetings about the future of the web, but I do think we shouldn't buy the propoganda from gov or biz and think for ourselves.

Regards,
jim

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7422198].message }}

Sumit Menon

11 years ago

Originally Posted by JimDucharme

I respsect your nobility here sir but...

The sad reality is that the internet has never been the utopic reality some people want it to be. Take a good look at it's structure and you soon realize it's basically the same thing as mass media, controlled by a handful of corporations and heavily monitored by special intrerest and government. The only primary difference is that it's bidirectional and each of us can have a voice -- how powerful that voice is depends on how effective one is at connecting/networking. The same limitations imposed on us in real life that give power to a select few (old boy networks/establishment etc) exist on the web and hinder real positive change. That doesn't mean the web doesn't help real change - it does, but you still have to work around the same obsticals and potential threats to ideas that have always been there.

Google is one of those corporations trying to control the web. I cast a jaundiced eye at any cause along these lines they champion because their main aim is profit and not freedom of expression, based on their actions. Go ahead and test those waters and see how fast they smack you down. They don't want a free internet, they want the internet best suited to their bottom line.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending back door meetings about the future of the web, but I do think we shouldn't buy the propoganda from gov or biz and think for ourselves.

Regards,
jim

I'm sure Google have their vested interests. But, for once, their vested interests is in a good cause, I believe. I heard something about China and Russia not wanting the American body that controls the internet to do so. I'd guess Google wouldn't want the power to move out of America. Also, more censorship means Google's product is less effective.

But even with all the censorship, the body is better off in America than any other country. A global body for internet control is going to be dangerous. I don't want China, Russia, Iran (or even India) control what I can watch on the internet. And I heard my country is going to vote FOR this motion.

The fact that I CAN come here and make this post means something to me. And I want it to stay that way.

Sumit.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7422383].message }}

Kay King 11 years ago

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post7422422
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
that's why there are so many of us.
...jane goodall
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7422428].message }}
- Sumit Menon 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post7422422
  
  Oh sorry! I didn't see that... I don't visit the main forum that often.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7425516].message }}
  
  Kay King 11 years ago
  
  Don't blame you, Sumit - it's a jungle up there
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
  that's why there are so many of us.
  ...jane goodall
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7425529].message }}

travlinguy

11 years ago

Originally Posted by JimDucharme

I respsect your nobility here sir but...

The sad reality is that the internet has never been the utopic reality some people want it to be. Take a good look at it's structure and you soon realize it's basically the same thing as mass media, controlled by a handful of corporations and heavily monitored by special intrerest and government. The only primary difference is that it's bidirectional and each of us can have a voice -- how powerful that voice is depends on how effective one is at connecting/networking. The same limitations imposed on us in real life that give power to a select few (old boy networks/establishment etc) exist on the web and hinder real positive change. That doesn't mean the web doesn't help real change - it does, but you still have to work around the same obsticals and potential threats to ideas that have always been there.

Google is one of those corporations trying to control the web. I cast a jaundiced eye at any cause along these lines they champion because their main aim is profit and not freedom of expression, based on their actions. Go ahead and test those waters and see how fast they smack you down. They don't want a free internet, they want the internet best suited to their bottom line.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending back door meetings about the future of the web, but I do think we shouldn't buy the propoganda from gov or biz and think for ourselves.

Regards,
jim

The Internet is huge but by no means is it anywhere near the mass media. What I've highlighted above makes ALL the difference. The world's puppetmasters are looking to take that away.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7422495].message }}

JimDucharme

11 years ago

As a Canadian I obviously have more comfort in general with US values than several of the countries invovled in this -- I think that would be a no-brainer for most Canadians. So, given a choice, I'd prefer the status quo.

My point was simply to keep this all in perspective, especially the motives of certain corporate entities who's past track record when it comes to censorship isn't stellar.

TG - fair enough...I should have said "traditional media." In my zeal to caution on the matter of perspective I may have come off sounding jaded to some, but I would still say each of us should look deeper into what the web is and what we think it is and see if those two visions actually align and if not, act for change. That action for change takes every bit as much effort as it always has, web or no web.

Regards,
jim

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7422740].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

Jim - I agree with much of what you say.

We've voluntarily given up much of our privacy in exchange for "access". We can whine about it - but we did it willingly so have no one else to blame for that.

This particular issue seems minor to some. It's not about the U.N. "grabbing control" of the internet in one fell swoop but those are the headlines used for attention.

It's a question of whether an old U.N. regulation that predates the internet and computers can be applied to the internet or not. If it is applied, what is proposed is a full database of IP addresses. Doesn't sound too bad. But then you stop to think about your iphone and ipad and all the other techie stuff the use IP addresses to connect you.

And then you wonder who will have access to and control of such a list and how far down the slippery slope it might go.

If big corps like google didn't try to fight this, they'd be fools. A decision saying this old U.N. law CAN'T be applied to internet regulation is what google wants. In this case, Google's agenda suits me.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -

that's why there are so many of us.

...jane goodall

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7423186].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Jim - I agree with much of what you say.

We've voluntarily given up much of our privacy in exchange for "access". We can whine about it - but we did it willingly so have no one else to blame for that.

This particular issue seems minor to some. It's not about the U.N. "grabbing control" of the internet in one fell swoop but those are the headlines used for attention.

It's a question of whether an old U.N. regulation that predates the internet and computers can be applied to the internet or not. If it is applied, what is proposed is a full database of IP addresses. Doesn't sound too bad. But then you stop to think about your iphone and ipad and all the other techie stuff the use IP addresses to connect you.

And then you wonder who will have access to and control of such a list and how far down the slippery slope it might go.

If big corps like google didn't try to fight this, they'd be fools. A decision saying this old U.N. law CAN'T be applied to internet regulation is what google wants. In this case, Google's agenda suits me.

OK, I am all for the idea of an international database as long as it is 100% legal and paid for by ONLY those people that want it. If stored as fixed length with NOTHING else, it would require 38.4�--10^28 bytes! That would require a system SO big that it would probably BANKRUPT most COUNTRIES! HEN, to be 100% legal, they would have to pay for people such as me to fight for our freedoms! Storing IPv4 IP addresses would be next to WORTHLESS!

The UN is SUPPOSED to be about fairness, peace, and FREEDOM! What happened such that so many have let it become simply a platform for all the worst people in the world to advocate PRECISELY what it was supposed to be AGAINST!?

Things like this REALLY make me want to get a radio license. There IS a group of people, with their OWN internet, that can communicate around the planet and could in theory work around many road blocks. Cutting wires, turning off power, and shutting down the phone companies will NOT necessarily affect them ONE BIT! They could EVEN go half way around the globe and plug into THIS internet! They use technology that has been around for about 40 years!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7424593].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Jim,

The backbone IS, ironically enough, controlled mostly by telephone companies. Above that are major site companies above THAT are mostly big ISPs. Above THAT are smaller ISPs and corporations. Above THAT, are mostly people like those HERE.

For the MOMENT, if we get cut off, there IS another path we could take.

Ironically, people have been waiting for IPv6. Because you are NOT fully right, the adoption of IPv6 has been SLOW! One thing occurred to me here though. When IPv6 hits, the dream is that people can get their OWN IP! That is currently nt possible, but IPv6 will make it possible. IPv6 is ALSO more secure, SUPPOSEDLY.

So what was the one thing that occurred to me? IPv6 would allow them to track you, and identify you! talk about IRONY! They COULD conceivably disconnect you.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7423040].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Everything you say and do via internet or phone is already being stored in NSA data warehouses. Anyone that does not realize this is just living with their heads buried in the sand. Censorship is already being practiced. Julian Assaunge has said that the infrastructure for a complete take over of the net is already in place. Whatever you think of that man - it can't be denied he knows what he says. The only issue anyone ever had with him was his right to say it or even know it. I believe his comments have total merit. I do not expect to be able to say what I'd like to anywhere online for too much longer. How citizens of the world will deal with that is going to vary country to country. We need to expect this, though. Those with power are becoming well certain that they can get away with any abuse of such that they please.

Communication won't stop - it will just be relegated to trivia with nothing of any true meaning being allowed to pass between us. It has always been that way during tyranny and always will be - they just have technology to take more control of the situation than they used to be. It's globally noticed now rather than just a community to community issue.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7424193].message }}

David Maschke

11 years ago

This is all smoke and mirror B.S.

I'm definitely not an Internet infrastructure expert like Steve, but this seems to me like a fight between two gangs. Do you want corporate thugs or government thugs running the internet?

Does it really F'n matter in the end? You have the right to remain silent. Everything you have ever written electronically will be used against you.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7425704].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

This is all smoke and mirror B.S.

I'm definitely not an Internet infrastructure expert like Steve, but this seems to me like a fight between two gangs. Do you want corporate thugs or government thugs running the internet?

Does it really F'n matter in the end? You have the right to remain silent. Everything you have ever written electronically will be used against you.

Frankly, I DON'T think it should be taxed. It is like mail order in that regard. IMAGINE if this stuff were taxed earlier! Most people have NO idea how complicated taxes are. I have SEEN lists, and dealt with california, etc.... WHAT is taxed? WHEN? HOW MUCH? WHERE should it be paid? HOW? ALL those questions can vary! City to city, county to county, state to state, possession to possession, country to country. And I DON'T think they should pass new laws! Simply use the old ones! People keep talking about new laws from the FTC, but I am still waiting to see one! They are merely codifications. That is when there is a law on the books saying "You shall not take something from another under false pretenses, or without the agreed compensation" and THEN, HUNDREDS of years later, they say "It is a felony to steal gas from a gas station". Or when they say "You can not misrepresent things to encourage a person to change their buying habits" and then DECADES later they say "You can not misrepresent income potential to sell a book on making money on the internet". Those are ACTUAL examples, by the way. And the Internet should be PRIVATE, meaning that the government should STAY OUT OF IT!

As for the network neutrality pact? There are only TWO ways to read it. I LOATHE trying to read such garbage, so I won't place a judgement on that. But HERE are the two ways.... ONE would favor companies like youtube, but in doing so make it near worthless. I think that is RIDICULOUS! STAY AWAY!!!!!!!!!! The OTHER would favor the consumer but, in doing so, make the internet near worthless! STAY AWAY!!!!!!! I have a simple way, tried for THOUSANDS of years that WORKS! It requires NO government, etc..... It is SIMPLE!

1. Leave it as it is, ALONE! If no changes are needed, it will plod along and EVERYONE benefits! Google and youtube MIGHT have to pay a bit more, and people might have to wait for buffering, but SO WHAT!?!?!?!?
2. If a company starts having problems, they have to cut back on services, or charge more. OK, it might hurt the very poor a little bit, etc.... But that NEEDS to be done to keep it working for ALL. If all is 100% free and never charged for, someone might download forever and bring down huge parts of the internet. Take it from a guy that actually got a letter from netzero asking him to NOT do business with them again!

It worked fine for DECADES, why change it NOW?

As for shutting down the internet, in reality, you merely delay and slow down. There are too many ways to compensate. Take greenland. What do YOU think hey do if their boat runs out of gas or something in the middle of nowhere? HOW do they communicate? How about pilots? In the 1970s we had a nice little network. MOST never touched the internet.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7427010].message }}

whateverpedia

11 years ago

Meanwhile, it would be nearly impossible for a government to shut down the entire Internet in the United States or Western Europe. “There are just too many paths into and out of the country,” Cowie writes, “too many independent providers who would have to be coerced or damaged, to make a rapid countrywide shutdown plausible to execute.”

How easy is it to shut off a country’s Internet?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7426203].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

How easy is it to shut off a country's Internet?

What do they mean, "EVEN GREENLAND". Greenland has like 2 major industries(mining and fishing) and exists because of denmark. So YEAH, it is at the mercy of such things. Yeah, I have mentioned how they could cut countries off, even in the US. STILL, there ARE ways of getting past the roadblocks. It has been done before. What they are talking about is getting rid of terrestrial high bandwidth connections. But what of non terrestrial?

Steve
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7426920].message }}
- whateverpedia 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by seasoned
  
  But what of non terrestrial?
  
  Steve
  
  Excellent point, although it's a bit unrealistic (at this stage) for everyone to have their own satellite transmitter/receiver.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
  So that blind people can hate them as well.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7426975].message }}
  
  seasoned 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by whateverpedia
  
  Excellent point, although it's a bit unrealistic (at this stage) for everyone to have their own satellite transmitter/receiver.
  
  well, satellites can still be easily shut down. I'm thinking about VLF! Where the signal goes up and just bounces in the atmosphere. HEY, it helped win WWII! Funny how people had SO much trouble trying to stop that. NATIONS tried!
  
  steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7427023].message }}

paulie

11 years ago

Not sure about that. I think I would prefer controls to based in America. At least there people can stand up and voice their opinion unlike some other countries. End of the day it seems all about money though so that's where corporate interests come into play unfortunately.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Paul Anthony.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7427142].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

This is all smoke and mirror B.S.

Maybe...

After all the proposal isn't to "take over" the internet. It's a modest request to have the internet be placed under a generations old U.N. law that was passed long before there was an internet. The law was meant to relate to land line telephone and the electronic equipment available back then.

It's only a "list" that's requested - a LIST of every IP and every person using the IPs. Why would any care about a list?

Who would have access/control over the list. The list would include the IPs used by cell phones and all the other gadgetry you use. The list could be used to identify and block entire areas of the world from the internet or could used to keep other areas coming coming into a country on the internet. It could be used to charge fees for entry. It could be used by govts to impose taxes. Very useful list....if misused.

If you think Google is evil - consider this. With such a list Google could block traffic/ads (or discount clicks?) from low income or third world countries that use the internet but contribute little in the way of funding.

The ultimate in geo tracking.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -

that's why there are so many of us.

...jane goodall

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7427414].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Maybe...

After all the proposal isn't to "take over" the internet. It's a modest request to have the internet be placed under a generations old U.N. law that was passed long before there was an internet. The law was meant to relate to land line telephone and the electronic equipment available back then.

It's only a "list" that's requested - a LIST of every IP and every person using the IPs. Why would any care about a list?

Who would have access/control over the list. The list would include the IPs used by cell phones and all the other gadgetry you use. The list could be used to identify and block entire areas of the world from the internet or could used to keep other areas coming coming into a country on the internet. It could be used to charge fees for entry. It could be used by govts to impose taxes. Very useful list....if misused.

If you think Google is evil - consider this. With such a list Google could block traffic/ads (or discount clicks?) from low income or third world countries that use the internet but contribute little in the way of funding.

The ultimate in geo tracking.

MOST IPV4 ip numbers are NOT geo stable. Many others are used by MANY people. Ports and standards change.

NOW, as I understand it, IPv6 are DIFFERENT! THEY follow you, and are assigned to YOU! They can do this because the people on this planet will simultaneously change all the oxygen to CO2 and suffocate, if they don't kill one another by sheer numbers first, before there are enough to use all the IPv6 numbers. IPv4 doesn't even provide enough routable numbers for like half of the worlds population. Things run as they do ONLY because they have been rationed.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7428010].message }}

JimDucharme

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

MOST IPV4 ip numbers are NOT geo stable. Many others are used by MANY people. Ports and standards change.

NOW, as I understand it, IPv6 are DIFFERENT! THEY follow you, and are assigned to YOU! They can do this because the people on this planet will simultaneously change all the oxygen to CO2 and suffocate, if they don't kill one another by sheer numbers first, before there are enough to use all the IPv6 numbers. IPv4 doesn't even provide enough routable numbers for like half of the worlds population. Things run as they do ONLY because they have been rationed.

Steve

Steve,

Will they be tatooing these numbers on the back of our necks? Ya, I worry about that kind of thing...I really do.

Regards,
jim

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7428889].message }}

Global internet 'Big Brother' coming...

Trending Topics

Check out DeepL Write

Is Wordpress Website Secure? - Emmanuel Katto

Meta ad revenue increases by 27% in Q1 2024

Google Search CPC up 13%

Newbie