Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 09, 2016, 11:06:37 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates  (Read 97241 times)

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Amicus Curiae Brief to EU Court of Justice
November 13, 2012
By Ante Wessels

Today the FFII sent an amicus curiae brief about ACTA to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The FFII concludes that ACTA is not compatible with international human rights instruments, the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the European Treaties...

(See link for rest of post)

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
EU Court refuses FFII amicus curiae brief on ACTA
Quote
November 14, 2012
By Ante Wessels

On 13 November 2012 the FFII sent an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to the Court of Justice of the European Union. A few hours later the registry of the court informed the FFII that only the Member States, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission may participate in the Opinion procedure and submit written statements. The Court does not accept amicus curiae briefs from third parties...
(Read the rest via the above link.)

Looks like the Court of Justice of the European Union wishes to remain in a state of selective deafness. Not a good look really for democratic process.

Quote
"Mine ears are aking of thy drafty speech." (Chaucer's Melibus)

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,341
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
^
Quote
"the court informed the FFII that only the Member States, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission may participate in the Opinion procedure and submit written statements."

not much hope there then :-(
Tom

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I see common sense reigns supreme in the UK...Oops, or maybe not...
(TechDirt post copied sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
UK Looking To Cement Its New Anti-Free Speech Reputation By Arresting Man For Posting Photo Of A Burning Poppy
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Nov 13th 2012 12:14am
from the making-a-mockery-of-free-speech dept

Lately, we've noted a string of questionable prosecutions in the UK over statements made by people on social networks. These posts may have been in poor taste, but hardly seemed like the sort of thing that ought to be criminal. While UK prosecutors are finally admitting that perhaps they need to rethink speech online, it apparently hasn't stopped these kinds of arrests and prosecutions. Police, over the weekend, arrested someone for posting an image of a burning poppy. The poppy is seen as a memorial sign for those who died in battle, and the image was posted on "Remembrance Sunday." While some might say this in poor taste, it certainly seems like a legitimate form of political protest... but apparently not to law enforcement in the UK:

Quote
"A man from Aylesham has tonight been arrested on suspicion of malicious telecommunications," Kent police said in a statement after the arrest. "This follows a posting on a social network site of a burning poppy. He is currently in police custody awaiting interview."

The article notes that free speech advocates in the UK are speaking out in response to this, pointing out how ridiculous it is -- and noting that part of the reason why soldiers fought wars for the UK was to provide freedoms like the ability to express their views on things like war.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I had seen but had forgotten about this - i.e., mandatory substantive evidential standards of proof required in file-sharing cases - until I came across it in StumbleUpon (which I hardly ever use). It is a post from TorrentFreak from March 2011.

The idea that this could happen in the US or elsewhere could presumably scare the pants off th **AA.
One wonders whether a great deal of commercial/political pressure already has been and will be brought to bear on the Danes to "rectify this anomaly" that they have created.
Substantive evidential proof of guilt indeed! Whoever heard of such a thing?    8)

Quote
Supreme Court Ruling Makes Chasing File-Sharers Hugely Expensive
March 25, 2011

A court ruling has not only sharply reduced the amount of compensation rightsholders can expect from Danish file-sharing cases, but has also drawn a line on evidential standards. To accurately claim their losses in future, rightsholders will have to gain physical access to an infringer’s computer. A leading lawyer in the field says the costs will prove prohibitively expensive.

In 2005, anti-piracy group Antipiratgruppen (APG) and the underlying music group IFPI tracked a man who they say was sharing 13,000 music tracks via a Direct Connect network. The case moved through the legal system and went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The 6 year-old case has now been concluded and although the rightsholder plaintiffs in the case won their battle – albeit in a much smaller way than anticipated – the Court’s ruling is set to prove a huge setback to their overall war.

The case against the now 57-year-old was brought by APG on behalf of many IFPI-linked record labels and artists. As is so often in these cases, they had hoped for a punishing outcome in order to deter others. The rightsholders had originally demanded 440,000 kroner ($83,400) in compensation but that claimed amount was ultimately reduced to 200,000 ($37,900).

However, yesterday the Supreme Court decided that the defendant should pay only 10,000 kroner ($1,900), a major setback for the rightsholders who had hoped for a much higher precedent-setting amount on which to model future cases.

The compensation-limiting factor problem proved to be the reach of the evidence relied on by Antipiratgruppen. APG used techniques which scraped the index of the files said to be being made available by the defendant and then linked them back to his IP address, a method which has been acceptable in the past. But while the Court accepted that some sharing had occurred due to the defendant’s confession, it wasn’t satisfied that the index was an accurate representation of the files physically present on the defendant’s computer.

Per Overbeck, lawyer for the defendant, said that the lowered compensation award shows that it’s worth fighting back.

“The ruling demonstrates that it pays to be critical of Antipiratgruppen’s claims,” he said.

Speaking with Politiken, IFPI lawyer Johan Schlüter said that the Supreme Court decision to tighten the standard of proof in these cases could mean that Antipiratgruppen has to seize and investigate the defendant’s computer in any forthcoming cases, an expensive process that would require a bailiff, IT experts, and in some cases a locksmith.

“I will not directly say that we can not afford it, but it could be so expensive that it could mean we cannot pursue such matters,” said Schlüter. “We can not accept that we have become completely neutered, so we’ll now sit down with some IT people and think through what we can do to provide better documentation.”

Schlüter commented that the industry is in somewhat of a “cultural battle” with illegal copying and he could have a point. A recent moral standards study in Denmark found that a high percentage of the public found illicit downloading socially acceptable.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Innovative thinking by Alki-David:
Billionaire Alki David On CBS Lawsuit and His Solution To BitTorrent Piracy
Quote
...So, given a magic wand, how would David solve the piracy dilemma – try to crush torrent sites like The Pirate Bay, or take a different approach?

“I would send the ISP of the websites an invoice for a small fee (say 5 dollars) for each torrent download to give to the rights holders. The ISP would have to collect from the customer or pay it themselves,” David concludes.

That's a dead simple transfer-pricing regime, right there.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
This is an interesting turn-up for the books:
Verizon Sued For Defending Alleged BitTorrent Pirates
(Copied in the spoiler below sans embedded hyperlinks/images, with my emphasis.)
Spoiler
A group of adult movie companies is suing Verizon for failing to hand over the personal details of alleged BitTorrent pirates. The provider systematically refuses to comply with court-ordered subpoenas and the copyright holders see these actions as more than just an attempt to protect its customers. According to the them, Verizon’s objections are in bad faith as the Internet provider is profiting from BitTorrent infringements at the expense of lower-tier ISPs.

The ongoing avalanche of mass-BitTorrent lawsuits reveal that IP-addresses can get people into a heap of trouble.

In many cases the person who pays for the account is not the person who shared the copyrighted material. However, this is the person who gets sued, something that can have all kinds of financial implications.

To shield their customers from this kind of outcome Verizon now objects to subpoenas granted by courts in these cases. Not in one case, but in dozens. One of the arguments cited by Verizon’s attorneys is that the requests breach the privacy rights of its customers.

“{The subpoena} seeks information that is protected from disclosure by third parties’ rights of privacy and protections guaranteed by the first amendment,” their counsel informed the copyright holders.

Verizon further cites arguments that have previously been successful in similar cases, including the notion that mass lawsuits are not proper as the defendants did not act in concert.

Three of the copyright holders, all makers of adult films, have had enough of Verizon’s refusals and have filed a lawsuit against the company at a federal court in Texas. Malibu Media, Patrick Collins and Third Degree Films ask the court to hold Verizon in contempt and compel Verizon to respond to the subpoenas.

“Verizon objects to the subpoenas on various grounds, all of which lack merit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court overrule each of Verizon’s objections, compel immediate compliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoenas and hold Verizon in contempt for failing to obey the subpoenas,” they write.

Aside from countering Verizon’s arguments directly, the copyright holders claim that Verizon’s refusal to hand over customer details is in bad faith, as the ISP profits from the alleged copyright infringements.

The movie companies back up this claim by pointing to a study published last year, which concluded that large ISPs profit from BitTorrent at the expense of smaller ones.

“Verizon’s current Objections can only be seen as being asserted in bad faith, and with the expectation to continue to profit from BitTorrent infringement at the expense of other, lower-tier ISPs and the consuming public at large. There is seemingly no incentive for ISPs such as Verizon to aggressively identify infringers on their network,” they tell the court.

“Add to this the fact that Verizon and its cohorts enjoy virtual immunity from liability under the development of laws such as the DMCA, and this scenario presents multiple concerns of fairness and accountability.”

While it’s a novel argument, the movie studios omit to mention that Verizon is also one of the partners in the upcoming “six-strikes” scheme, which aims to decrease copyright infringements through BitTorrent.

The ISP previously told TorrentFreak that it sees more value in a system where users are warned and educated, as opposed to being sued in court.

“We believe this program offers the best approach to the problem of illegal file sharing and, importantly, is one that respects the privacy and rights of our subscribers. It also provides a mechanism for helping people to find many great sources of legal content,” Verizon told us.

The “six strikes” anti-piracy scheme, or copyright alerts system as it’s officially named, is expected to go live later this week. But since the adult film industry is not invited, mass-BitTorrent lawsuits are not going away anytime soon.

That said, the current case can make a huge impact according to Rob Cashman, a lawyer who represents many accused Does in these BitTorrent cases.

Cashman explains that if the ISP wins then copyright holders have no other way to identified the defendants, meaning that these and other Verizon defendants are off the hook.

“The hope and expectation on my end is that other ISPs will follow suit. This will be one more way we can shut down these trolling cases for good,” Cashman says.

“On the flip-side, if the judges grant the request to force the ISPs to comply with their subpoenas, then it will be “game on” for both of us. They will continue trying to extort money from the defendants, and attorneys such as myself and others will continue placing our “monkey wrenches” to break their operations,” Cashman adds.

Whatever happens, the case is going to be one to watch.

« Last Edit: November 26, 2012, 02:12:07 PM by IainB »

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
  An update of sorts.  According to this article, the U.S. and the European Parliment are now opposing the treaty.  Personally I'll believe it when I see it.....

U.N. readies for protests on eve of secret Internet regulation treaty
 
With the potential of becoming SOPA and CISPA on steroids, a multinational U.N.-sponsored treaty will be decided behind closed doors in Dubai next weekend. Leaked documents show why everyone wants it stopped.

 http://www.zdnet.com...on-treaty-7000007962

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
An update of sorts.  According to this article, the U.S. and the European Parliment are now opposing the treaty.  Personally I'll believe it when I see it.....

U.N. readies for protests on eve of secret Internet regulation treaty
 
With the potential of becoming SOPA and CISPA on steroids, a multinational U.N.-sponsored treaty will be decided behind closed doors in Dubai next weekend. Leaked documents show why everyone wants it stopped.

 http://www.zdnet.com...on-treaty-7000007962
Yes, and if you are right, then we have real cause for concern.
Doha, Qatar - a great regional locus of universal truth and freedom...Oh, but wait...

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Useful post at cryptome.org:
Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
The post/notes from Assange are copied in the spoiler below:
Spoiler
_______________________________________
1 December 2012
Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
_______________________________________

Excerpted from Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet, by Julian Assange with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn and Jérémie Zimmermann. OR Books, New York, 2012, 186 pages, Paper. Buy online. Cryptome review of the book.

Pages 1-7.

INTRODUCTION: A CALL TO CRYPTOGRAPHIC ARMS

This book is not a manifesto. There is not time for that. This book is a warning.

The world is not sliding, but galloping into a new transnational dystopia. This development has not been properly recognized outside of national security circles. It has been hidden by secrecy, complexity and scale. The internet, our greatest tool of emancipation, has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen. The internet is a threat to human civilization.

These transformations have come about silently, because those who know what is going on work in the global surveillance industry and have no incentives to speak out. Left to its own trajectory, within a few years, global civilization will be a postmodern surveillance dystopia, from which escape for all but the most skilled individuals will be impossible. In fact, we may already be there.

While many writers have considered what the internet means for global civilization, they are wrong. They are wrong because they do not have the sense of perspective that direct experience brings. They are wrong because they have never met the enemy.

No description of the world survives first contact with the enemy.

We have met the enemy.

Over the last six years WikiLeaks has had conflicts with nearly every powerful state. We know the new surveillance state from an insider's perspective, because we have plumbed its secrets. We know it from a combatant's perspective, because we have had to protect our people, our finances and our sources from it. We know it from a global perspective, because we have people, assets and information in nearly every country. We know it from the perspective of time, because we have been fighting this phenomenon for years and have seen it double and spread, again and again. It is an invasive parasite, growing fat off societies that merge with the internet. It is rolling over the planet, infecting all states and peoples before it.

What is to be done?

Once upon a time in a place that was neither here nor there, we, the constructors and citizens of the young internet discussed the future of our new world.

We saw that the relationships between all people would be mediated by our new world, and that the nature of states, which are defined by how people exchange information, economic value, and force, would also change.

We saw that the merger between existing state structures and the internet created an opening to change the nature of states.

First, recall that states are systems through which coercive force flows. Factions within a state may compete for support, leading to democratic surface phenomena, but the underpinnings of states are the systematic application, and avoidance, of violence. Land ownership, property, rents, dividends, taxation, court fines, censorship, copyrights and trademarks are all enforced by the threatened application of state violence.

Most of the time we are not even aware of how close to violence we are, because we all grant concessions to avoid it. Like sailors smelling the breeze, we rarely contemplate how our surface world is propped up from below by darkness.

In the new space of the internet what would be the mediator of coercive force?

Does it even make sense to ask this question? In this otherworldly space, this seemingly platonic realm of ideas and information flow, could there be a notion of coercive force? A force that could modify historical records, tap phones, separate people, transform complexity into rubble, and erect walls, like an occupying army?

The platonic nature of the internet, ideas and information flows, is debased by its physical origins. Its foundations are fiber optic cable lines stretching across the ocean floors, satellites spinning above our heads, computer servers housed in buildings in cities from New York to Nairobi. Like the soldier who slew Archimedes with a mere sword, so too could an armed militia take control of the peak development of Western civilization, our platonic realm.

The new world of the internet, abstracted from the old world of brute atoms, longed for independence. But states and their friends moved to control our new world -- by controlling its physical underpinnings. The state, like an army around an oil well, or a customs agent extracting bribes at the border, would soon learn to leverage its control of physical space to gain control over our platonic realm. It would prevent the independence we had dreamed of, and then, squatting on fiber optic lines and around satellite ground stations, it would go on to mass intercept the information flow of our new world -- its very essence even as every human, economic, and political relationship embraced it. The state would leech into the veins and arteries of our new societies, gobbling up every relationship expressed or communicated, every web page read, every message sent and every thought googled, and then store this knowledge, billions of interceptions a day, undreamed of power, in vast top secret warehouses, forever. It would go on to mine and mine again this treasure, the collective private intellectual output of humanity, with ever more sophisticated search and pattern finding algorithms, enriching the treasure and maximizing the power imbalance between interceptors and the world of interceptees. And then the state would reflect what it had learned back into the physical world, to start wars, to target drones, to manipulate UN committees and trade deals, and to do favors for its vast connected network of industries, insiders and cronies.

But we discovered something. Our one hope against total domination. A hope that with courage, insight and solidarity we could use to resist. A strange property of the physical universe that we live in.

The universe believes in encryption.

It is easier to encrypt information than it is to decrypt it.

We saw we could use this strange property to create the laws of a new world. To abstract away our new platonic realm from its base underpinnings of satellites, undersea cables and their controllers. To fortify our space behind a cryptographic veil. To create new lands barred to those who control physical reality, because to follow us into them would require infinite resources.

And in this manner to declare independence.

Scientists in the Manhattan Project discovered that the universe permitted the construction of a nuclear bomb. This was not an obvious conclusion. Perhaps nuclear weapons were not within the laws of physics. However, the universe believes in atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. They are a phenomenon the universe blesses, like salt, sea or stars.

Similarly, the universe, our physical universe, has that property that makes it possible for an individual or a group of individuals to reliably, automatically, even without knowing, encipher something, so that all the resources and all the political will of the strongest superpower on earth may not decipher it. And the paths of encipherment between people can mesh together to create regions free from the coercive force of the outer state. Free from mass interception. Free from state control.

In this way, people can oppose their will to that of a fully mobilized superpower and win. Encryption is an embodiment of the laws of physics, and it does not listen to the bluster of states, even transnational surveillance dystopias.

It isn't obvious that the world had to work this way. But somehow the universe smiles on encryption.

Cryptography is the ultimate form of non-violent direct action. While nuclear weapons states can exert unlimited violence over even millions of individuals, strong cryptography means that a state, even by exercising unlimited violence, cannot violate the intent of individuals to keep secrets from them.

Strong cryptography can resist an unlimited application of violence. No amount of coercive force will ever solve a math problem.

But could we take this strange fact about the world and build it up to be a basic emancipatory building block for the independence of mankind in the platonic realm of the internet? And as societies merged with the internet could that liberty then be reflected back into physical reality to redefine the state?

Recall that states are the systems which determine where and how coercive force is consistently applied.

The question of how much coercive force can seep into the platonic realm of the internet from the physical world is answered by cryptography and the cypherpunks' ideals.

As states merge with the internet and the future of our civilization becomes the future of the internet, we must redefine force relations.

If we do not, the universality of the internet will merge global humanity into one giant grid of mass surveillance and mass control.

We must raise an alarm. This book is a watchman's shout in the night.

On March 20, 2012, while under house arrest in the United Kingdom awaiting extradition, I met with three friends and fellow watchmen on the principle that perhaps in unison our voices can wake up the town. We must communicate what we have learned while there is still a chance for you, the reader, to understand and act on what is happening.

It is time to take up the arms of our new world, to fight for ourselves and for those we love.

Our task is to secure self-determination where we can, to hold back the coming dystopia where we cannot, and if all else fails, to accelerate its self-destruction.

-- Julian Assange, London, October 2012
_______________________________________

You can buy the book in paper or ebook form - here, where it says:
Quote
The harassment of WikiLeaks and other Internet activists, together with attempts to introduce anti-file sharing legislation such as SOPA and ACTA, indicate that the politics of the Internet have reached a crossroads. In one direction lies a future that guarantees, in the watchwords of the cypherpunks, "privacy for the weak and transparency for the powerful"; in the other lies an Internet that allows government and large corporations to discover ever more about internet users while hiding their own activities. Assange and his co-discussants unpick the complex issues surrounding this crucial choice with clarity and engaging enthusiasm.
There's a very droll plug for the book on YouTube, Secret Leaked Video of Petraeus Outburst. Made me laugh till I cried.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 05:50:35 PM by IainB »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
If you go to the Google main search page, then you will see a line below the search box that reads:
Quote
Love the free and open Internet? Tell the world's governments to keep it that way.
If you follow the link, then you will be taken to the Google Take Action page, where you can read about:
  • What’s at stake
  • What you can do
  • Past actions
Then, if you want, you can follow the link to Make your voice heard.
I added my ID to the list of 2.8million (and counting) respondents.
Interesting semi-realtime map they give of the respondents.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
From the Dept. of Hidden Agendas comes:

"House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0.

Can anyone say Hot Potato? This is the Congress that will gleefully wreck the country by letting us lose our AAA credit rating (so Bankers with short-derivative-whatevers can skim more cash) and play games with debt bankruptcy ceilings... and they can find it among themselves to vote 397-0 to keep the UN out of the internet?!

Ingredients: Barrel. Fish.

Directions: Leave in Sunlight to cure for 3 days until nice and rotten. Serve on top of legislation when they whine that they can't get consensus even though the country risks economic implosion. Serves 12 bills.

http://thehill.com/b...trol-out-of-un-hands

« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 06:48:54 PM by TaoPhoenix »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
..."House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0...
Hard to believe, but true, by all reports.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
..."House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0...
Hard to believe, but true, by all reports.

"We need to send a strong message, blah blah blah. Now if you'll excuse us, we'll go back holding our country hostage before you rudely interrupted us."   :o 


40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
..."House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0...
Hard to believe, but true, by all reports.

"We need to send a strong message, blah blah blah. Now if you'll excuse us, we'll go back holding our country hostage before you rudely interrupted us."   :o  



Considering how feckless and ineffective (by design) the UN has been for most of it's existence, it's probably just as well.

You can't have an effective world governing body when a tiny group of players (all armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons) individually hold absolute and unchallengeable veto power over anything and everything the UN "resolves."

But then again, the UN was never set up with the intent to be a governing body. It's never been more than a public forum and debating society at the best of times. Much like the Student Councils and Student Senates in most high schools and universities. It has all the trappings of a government body - but none of the real authority.
 :-\
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 08:35:40 AM by 40hz »

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
From the Dept. of Hidden Agendas comes:

"House approves resolution to keep Internet control out of UN hands" ... by ... wait for it ... 397-0.

Can anyone say Hot Potato? This is the Congress that will gleefully wreck the country by letting us lose our AAA credit rating (so Bankers with short-derivative-whatevers can skim more cash) and play games with debt bankruptcy ceilings... and they can find it among themselves to vote 397-0 to keep the UN out of the internet?!

Ingredients: Barrel. Fish.

Directions: Leave in Sunlight to cure for 3 days until nice and rotten. Serve on top of legislation when they whine that they can't get consensus even though the country risks economic implosion. Serves 12 bills.

http://thehill.com/b...trol-out-of-un-hands

Thank God.

The Internet in the control of the UN is absolute Orwellian tyranny. The UN is nothing less than purely Satanic. And I mean that in the worst possible way.

I love Slayer, but compared to the UN? They're about as Satanic as a Cheeto is a nuclear bomb.

Considering how feckless and ineffective (by design) the UN has been for most of it's existence, it's probably just as well.

You can't have an effective world governing body when a tiny group of players (all armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons) individually hold absolute and unchallengeable veto power over anything and everything the UN "resolves."

But then again, the UN was never set up with the intent to be a governing body. It's never been more than a public forum and debating society at the best of times. Much like the Student Councils and Student Senates in most high schools and universities. It has all the trappings of a government body - but none of the real authority.
 :-\

You are far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more optimistic about the UN than I am.

My opinion is pretty much orthogonal in almost every way. The UN has been very effective in instituting its Satanic tyranny and socialist/fascist policies of destruction and rape. It's a long term game for the UN, and they're doing very well in bringing about their sickness.

The UN is set up as an organization to bring about complete world tyranny and misery.

Do a quick search on Agenda 21.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=agenda+21

These sickos think that vitamins should be by prescription, and that dosages should be far below any kind of nutritional value.

UN = Evil. Not "differently evil". Pure evil.

("You" here is the generic "you" or "one".)

If you start looking into the UN in greater detail, you will vomit. If you don't vomit, you didn't look into the UN, but rather just tried to get some sort of self indulgent satisfaction. It is not possible to peer into the Abyss and not have it affect you.

Any time that the UN does any "good", they are advancing a different agenda that is utterly Satanic and evil.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE... Do not believe me. Look into this for yourself. Doubt everything I say. Call me a liar. Tell me that I'm a crank/kook/nut/whatever. But do look into it for yourself.

While I think that the current US govt./system is broken/evil, it pales in comparison to the UN. I'm very glad that some semblance of sanity prevailed, and that the US told the UN and ITU to piss off.

The Internet under UN control will be the end of freedom. They will try to "protect" people... It won't work... Anytime someone wants to protect you... mass graves follow. Simple lesson in history.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Call me a liar. Tell me that I'm a crank/kook/nut/whatever.

Modern Media sez: "Yay, we Like this part! (Like us on Facebook!)"

But do look into it for yourself.

"Modern Media sez, "Aw $hit, this part takes work! Nah, let's go to the bar and go back to part 1, now armed with drinks!"




40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
^Oh man! The Phoenix is on a roll! That's twice he's made me give my age away saying "right on!!!" to something he's posted this week.  :Thmbsup: ;D

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Beware Godzilla Sleeping: The ITU's Internet Fiasco
« Reply #193 on: December 16, 2012, 06:18:09 PM »
This guy makes relevant points and sooo well too:
Beware Godzilla Sleeping: The ITU's Internet Fiasco
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Quote
December 14, 2012
Beware Godzilla Sleeping: The ITU's Internet Fiasco

A mainstay of science-fiction and horror films is the monster that you're led to believe has been vanquished, but reappears in even more horrific form (sometimes bringing along "friends" as well) in the final scene, or the sequels, or often both.

Godzilla appears to sink back into the sea to leave a battered Tokyo in peace, but he's merely snoozing, dreaming happy dreams of future destruction.

It's worth keeping Godzilla in mind as we scan reports of the ITU's new telecom treaty, which despite a glowing ITU press release was quite properly not signed by the U.S. and many other countries, rendering the entire exercise not even a Pyrrhic victory for the ITU.

The result is that we stand today regarding the open Internet in much the same place we stood a couple of weeks ago before the ITU's WCIT meeting in Dubai even began.

But like Alice in Through the Looking-Glass, we had to do an awful lot of running to end up very close to where we started. And while this can be celebrated in the short run, in the long run it is a very worrisome place to be.

Virtually all of the dangerous dynamics that we've talked about many times in the past -- which led us to this point -- still remain in play.

The existing DNS (Domain Name System) continues to be a focal point of contention. ICANN's escalating mismanagement of the Internet's naming resources, culminating in their extortionist, damaging, and nightmarishly mutating gTLD expansion scheme -- designed to enrich the existing domain-industrial complex -- has driven a stake through the heart of any possible global cooperation in this area.

The DNS has been warped from a simple addressing tool into a truncheon of copyright and censorship enforcement -- with the U.S. leading the way with both related police actions without normal due process, and the insane filings of millions of often hilariously inaccurate takedown demands with Google and others, made all the worse since there usually are no effective penalties for false takedown filings.

Governments around the world continue to eye the Internet and the open communications it fosters to be primarily a threat, with its technology ripe for surveillance, and its users to be controlled, censored, flogged, imprisoned, and even worse. The ITU's newfound fetish for DPI -- Deep Packet Inspection -- makes the wet dreams of tyrants and others in this sphere all the more explicit.

These dynamics are continuing going forward. The risks of Internet censorship, fragmentation, and other severe damage to the Internet we've worked so hard to build will continue to be exacerbated, despite our holding the ITU pretty much at bay this time around.

It's not as if better paths forward have not been suggested in the past. But in answer to most such suggestions, the response has usually been fear of tampering with the status quo, tied to concerns that any changes might end up being worse than the de facto situation in which we find ourselves today.

But as we've now seen with dramatic clarity, the current situation is not likely to be stable in the long run. It is in fact highly unstable, and the risks of this instability ripping the Internet apart in fundamental ways are now worse than ever.

In the past we've talked about the possibility of creating new, purpose-built multi-stakeholder organizations to better serve the entire Internet community -- not just the relatively few lucky entities currently suckling the bulk of the bucks from the DNS gravy train.

Alternatives to the existing DNS -- secure, fully distributed systems for Internet naming and addressing -- such as IDONS and others -- have already been proposed, and could potentially eliminate billions of dollars in associated waste, while simultaneously ending the kinds of naming and DNS abuse problems that now seem synonymous with the existing DNS ecosystem.

Pervasive Internet encryption systems -- that would make Internet connections routinely far more secure from attacks and surveillance abuses -- are possible but resisted, often in concert with much the same kinds of arguments that tyrants have spouted since the dawn of civilization.

The despicable behavior of ITU leadership at WCIT is but a shadow of what the future may be like, unless we seriously take proactive actions now to protect the global, open Internet -- and the open access to information and communications that it engenders -- against those forces who would turn the Net into a tool of political, economic, and other forms of oppression.

The Internet Godzilla may be heading off to sleep for now. But he'll be back, along with his brethren and multitude of minions as well.

And if we haven't prepared, if we haven't taken action by then -- woe to us all.

--Lauren--
________________________

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
From the "It's not dead, it's resting" dept:

http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1702
"ACTA Gets Death Certificate In Europe" (Slashdot's title)

(Rather abbreviated quote)
"With the withdrawal of the ACTA referral to the court this second change for ACTA is now impossible. ACTA is fully dead in the EU.

As Switzerland intended to follow the EU, ACTA may be dead in Switzerland as well. Other countries may still ratify ACTA."


IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Just when you might be forgiven for thinking that the Brits had gone to the dogs, they show a new twist:
Quote
Positive developments in UK copyright law:

Video mash-ups and song parodies to be legalised (just as long as they are funny)
By MATT CHORLEY, MAILONLINE POLITICAL EDITOR
PUBLISHED: 07:18 EST, 21 December 2012 | UPDATED: 11:29 EST, 21 December 2012
  • Copyright law shake-up to make it easier to transfer files between devices
  • iPod and e-book users will not be criminalised if copy is for personal use
  • Record companies will not be able to block song parodies

Film companies and record labels will not be able to force mash-ups and spoofs to be taken down from the internet under a major shake-up of copyright law.

Ministers have vowed to legalise parodies after countless viral hits have disappeared from sites like YouTube because multi-national firms failed to see the funny side.

It also means the creators of hits like the countless parodies of the Hitler film Downfall, Cassetteboy’s mash-ups of TV shows and the genius behind the Masterchef Synthesia (buttery biscuit base) will no longer be breaking the law by copying and editing popular TV shows.
 
Parodies of the 2004 film Downfall are now so widespread online there is even one which shows Hitler's fury at the number of spoof versionsParodies of the 2004 film Downfall are now so widespread online there is even one which shows Hitler’s fury at the number of spoof versions

The shake-up, ordered by Lib Dem Vince Cable, also means the hilarious video of his boss Nick Clegg ‘singing’ his tuition fees apology would be freed from copyright control.

Read more>>

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
^^ Ok. I'll bite. What's the catch? A new 10% tax on all Internet connections to make up for their septillions of losses?
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
(Null Post - I miscounted threads. Either an admin can delete this or I'll eventually find something to post here.)

Edit: Didn't take too long, which is depressing.

Network World has a puff piece on "you win, we won't do another SOPA".

http://www.networkwo...not-have-265351.html

Slashdot is calling the bluff on it, so start your clocks here.

One AC over there posted a snip about shenanigans with the NDAA bill.
"This is exactly what happened with the NDAA. Harry Ried broke into proceedings a couple weeks ago and very quickly (almost too fast to understand) said a bunch of mumbo jumbo about amendments and extensions being added to some bill and then motioned for it to be accepted, it was, and then left and they went back to the former proceedings he had interrupted. In all, it took about 30 seconds. What was this bill he was so weirdly inserting something into? Bill 4310. The NDAA.

Nobody knows about it (unless they were watching CSPAN in the middle of the night during those 30 seconds and thought enough to ask what 4310 was). Nobody is accountable for it. And nobody has made a big deal about it."



« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 08:12:19 PM by TaoPhoenix »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
[/spoiler]
^^ Ok. I'll bite. What's the catch? A new 10% tax on all Internet connections to make up for their septillions of losses?
@Hero: You are sooo cynical.
But probably quite right.    ;)

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,141
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
"This is exactly what happened with the NDAA. Harry Ried broke into proceedings a couple weeks ago and very quickly (almost too fast to understand) said a bunch of mumbo jumbo about amendments and extensions being added to some bill and then motioned for it to be accepted, it was, and then left and they went back to the former proceedings he had interrupted. In all, it took about 30 seconds. What was this bill he was so weirdly inserting something into? Bill 4310. The NDAA.

Nobody knows about it (unless they were watching CSPAN in the middle of the night during those 30 seconds and thought enough to ask what 4310 was). Nobody is accountable for it. And nobody has made a big deal about it."

Yes, well, I guess that's how you bypass a despised Constitution and due process, and trample on a despised proletariat.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2012, 07:57:45 PM by IainB »