That's the main reason I've basically quit the internet.
Government surveillance and the legal industry will eventually turn the net into nothing more than a cable shopping channel.
Like in the USSR, it's going to get far too dangerous to stick your head above the parapet.
Everyone will have to think the same and talk the same in our new millennium clone eutopia.
@)
Government surveillance and the legal industry will eventually turn the net into nothing more than a cable shopping channel.
Like in the USSR, it's going to get far too dangerous to stick your head above the parapet.
Everyone will have to think the same and talk the same in our new millennium clone eutopia.
@)
The proposed bill linked above is of course much ado about nothing.
For some reason which I can't totally fathom, it seems fairly routine every year for various (usually) lower tenured members of the US Congress to introduce legislation that if passed and enforced would be instantly struck down as patently unconstitutional.
And only very, very rarely do such bills gain sufficient traction to even make it to an actual floor vote.
The only thing I can figure is that since each legislator is permitted to introduce a certain number of bills each session (I think it's four in Washington) there are some who will burn one of their quota simply to satisfy some well-to-do constituent(s) who are bent about something that happened to them and hysterically seek some new law.
Such appears to be the case here. "Megan" is bullied and defamed on MySpace and other web venues and becomes so despondent she kills herself.
So her grieving family members leap into action and demand that no one else in America can ever again bully or defame on the internet.
The congressman says, "I've got your back on this one" even though he knows full well such a law would never legally stand.
He gets a few other congressman (14 in this case) to also give their bogus support and now you have a pack of happy parents who think they are being serviced by their elected officials.
They make some big campaign donations and when the bill dies a quick death, the congressman blames it on "the fools in the other party" and it's on to the next silly bill that comes down the pike.
The above rueful summation of how this usually works is by no means exclusive to either Repubs or Dems. It's a time honored line of bullshit that is gleefully run by most all the lower level members of Congress as part of their foundation building to get reelected.
For some reason which I can't totally fathom, it seems fairly routine every year for various (usually) lower tenured members of the US Congress to introduce legislation that if passed and enforced would be instantly struck down as patently unconstitutional.
And only very, very rarely do such bills gain sufficient traction to even make it to an actual floor vote.
The only thing I can figure is that since each legislator is permitted to introduce a certain number of bills each session (I think it's four in Washington) there are some who will burn one of their quota simply to satisfy some well-to-do constituent(s) who are bent about something that happened to them and hysterically seek some new law.
Such appears to be the case here. "Megan" is bullied and defamed on MySpace and other web venues and becomes so despondent she kills herself.
So her grieving family members leap into action and demand that no one else in America can ever again bully or defame on the internet.
The congressman says, "I've got your back on this one" even though he knows full well such a law would never legally stand.
He gets a few other congressman (14 in this case) to also give their bogus support and now you have a pack of happy parents who think they are being serviced by their elected officials.
They make some big campaign donations and when the bill dies a quick death, the congressman blames it on "the fools in the other party" and it's on to the next silly bill that comes down the pike.
The above rueful summation of how this usually works is by no means exclusive to either Repubs or Dems. It's a time honored line of bullshit that is gleefully run by most all the lower level members of Congress as part of their foundation building to get reelected.
that's not true.....they've passed many bills to throw more government and monitoring at us all the time after a shocking event happens and not just 9/11
historically its mainly the the dems that feed on fear and doom to pass big government nanny state legislation but as we saw with the bush era that's not totally the case anymore as we seem to now have a one party system of big government the two parties just bicker over what government should and shouldn't be doing but the end result of all that is alot more should and no shouldn't for the most part
No threat really.
We don't have to worry until doc mercavirus disappears from Shrink's place. And then, solely based on what Tiz posted above he'll be next.
When those two go I might raise an eyebrow.
Until then Big Brother is just a show on CBS that Dan won last year and Adam won the year before.
We don't have to worry until doc mercavirus disappears from Shrink's place. And then, solely based on what Tiz posted above he'll be next.
When those two go I might raise an eyebrow.
Until then Big Brother is just a show on CBS that Dan won last year and Adam won the year before.
You vastly underestimate the ability of strong tech types to with reasonable ease, circumvent any attempt by government(s) to exert undue control on the worldwide web.
You and I might be temporarily curtailed, but any of us with sufficient interest would quickly enough learn how to merge in with those who are peaceably and easily manuevering around any government interference.
Far too many commercial applications worldwide for any government(s) to be able to put a longstanding pinch on general web activity.
Don't get me wrong. There may well be various legislators and policy makers with a sincere desire to put various clamps on the worldwide web.
But that's simply their ignorance at play, fueled in part by various government tech types who will string them along with promises that such clamps might be workable....Just give us a nice multi-million dollar budget and we'll do our best to get it done for ya.
Sadly, those promises not possible to fulfill
The cyber horse has done left the barn.
Orwell did not see the worldwide web, as far as I recall his writings.
As noted in my last post, governments might want to put clamps on internet, but in a generally free economic market such as that enjoyed by at least 85% of the internet using world, the literal hundreds of millions of individuals desiring a free virtual market will always be able to defeat efforts by governments to enforce such clamps.
The CSA is likely the most notable exception, but the backers at the time of its enactment in 1970 faced little or no opposition. Plus they were backed by literal billions in support money to generate false and dishonest information which helped assist passage and also helped maintain it in face of later lawsuits challenging it's constitutionality.
But regardless, the cited Topic in this thread is a clear 1st Amendment case.
And when it comes to free expression on the web, the unenforceablity multiplies dramatically.
Believe me, this bill - as proposed in the lead post's article - will never become law in the USA.
It won't matter the gravity of some supposed "9/11"-style internet incident. The government can huff and puff and start trying to seize control of various parts of the web.
But we've got upwards of 200 million individual internet users in North American alone.
Literally within just a few hours of any government grab at one or more parts of the net, hundreds of thousands of tech savvy web users will have created alternate routes into and on to the WWW.
In the days following, hundreds of thousands more, then millions of other users would become aware of the uncompromised alternatives.
And the government would of course try and obstruct those routes.
And the process would continue to repeat with the government literally unable to seize notable control unless they were willing to shut down the entire North American communications grid. Which of course they would never do.
Individual totalitarian states like China still have the best chance of mustering some notable control of internet access.
But with each passing HOUR - not to mention days and weeks - the number of tech savvy people within China's population grows and any hope they might have of long term control will steadily diminish.
But we've got upwards of 200 million individual internet users in North American alone.
Literally within just a few hours of any government grab at one or more parts of the net, hundreds of thousands of tech savvy web users will have created alternate routes into and on to the WWW.
In the days following, hundreds of thousands more, then millions of other users would become aware of the uncompromised alternatives.
And the government would of course try and obstruct those routes.
And the process would continue to repeat with the government literally unable to seize notable control unless they were willing to shut down the entire North American communications grid. Which of course they would never do.
Individual totalitarian states like China still have the best chance of mustering some notable control of internet access.
But with each passing HOUR - not to mention days and weeks - the number of tech savvy people within China's population grows and any hope they might have of long term control will steadily diminish.
