Comments on: Advancing global Internet freedom http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: jay http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9170 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:06:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9170 It is interesting that China is once again the focus of the internet censorship debate. Just look at the keywords used to push this article. The fact is that the US and UK are actively trying to censor websites like infowars (dot)com that inform the public about the 911 hoax and global warming hoax. The fact is that news companies that are under corporate control like reuters are facing competition from much more reliable sources that give real facts. I admire the spirit of Leslie’s article but the answer is not in some form of global governance that “gives” rights to dissidents. It is the taking of power by dissidents regardless of what the world powers think.They can’t arrest everyone. The internet has woken up millions to the fact that they are just serfs of a corrupt international banking system. The only solution for these bankers is too destroy the internet before common people really take over the world.

]]>
By: Tamara http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9167 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:45:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9167 The internet is the only tool that has not been captured within mankinds egoic created worldorder structures. The rise of Consciousness and humankinds transformation to the rise of the authentic I and realignment with the ‘I AM’ is no coincidence. The internet is a natural facilitator in the (real) democratic process.

]]>
By: Prop8 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9164 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:49:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9164 we need kinda common sense. i’ve seen organizations like Amnesty international very quietly if not dead during those two wars in Afghanistan and Irak.I assume they should have made divisions for covering the warand also divisions for covering the local violence we livehere in the US and broad frontiers and US islands.I agree the EFF does a great job, and kindly support manyof their proposals. but we also should be kind and more openregarding invisible web spiders that make people go furiouswhen they know that some of their content goes onlinebefore being published.In fact, i’m working close to the EFF to ensure a global proposition for digging into private content withoutfurther actions and leaving mankind to trust the capabilitywe have to solve problems peacefully in the best casesand quickly receiving international support (aka Amnesty)if things go out of maner and violence takes over peoplewho actually are internet users and their contentis needed to be ‘protected’ from going online priorto their posts.I hope some hard-right organizations to be sure thatpeople stand still supporting their rights, andcitizens need to cope with fear of totalitarian statesand get all the support they need, specially thosesuffering the crisis worst than the others withresources to succed.Email intervention thru satellite in many cases is massivein half-totalitarian countries with anti-invasive fencedfrontiers. i assume it would be less nastier to proposea global scheme defining steps to follow for the internationalcommunity to bring the net to less painful situationsfor their citizens and for foreign citizens stayingin totalitarian countries too, without the needof hard intervention from embassies or war threats,like occurs in the case of Iran because of their humanrights issues, that molest international citizensregarding a world less bloody in all terms.The press should be very smooth and clever regardingindividuals troubling the vision of future all havefor the net itself.we all should define procedures to get out of this riddlethe net brings to standard tough inner policies fromstates. even to include countries with negativebirth coefficient into the discussion no matterif they are rich countries or very poor ones.

]]>
By: JK http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9157 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:34:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9157 Oh now you want the technology companies to save you??After you expect them to provide everything for free and continuously beat them down on cost….?Unfortunately you sleep in the bed you make and most of the tech companies are not interested in you and fiercely guarding your privacy. Like normal companies, they’re looking to make a profit. Compliance to privacy legislation is done primarily on the collective level to limit liability. They’re hardly going to stand up against the US governement and the expense that entails on your behalf. Dont expect them to respect you when you have hardly done much to respect them….1984 here we come!

]]>
By: Dan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9156 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:24:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9156 We have internet because governments have put satellites in orbit around the Earth. The aim of placing satellites orbiting the Earth right from the start was to spy on what was below. Now cables are used to connect continents by internet but the technology has derived from the Cold War Defense research and development. If governments want to monitor the users and non-users alike, it’s very easy because they have always put in place the means to. That is why they invested heavily on spying equipment. I dissagree with the defunct Carl Sagan, who said that satellite technology would calm down the paranoids on both sides (of the Cold War) because one side (the american) would know what the other (the Soviet) was doing and thus stop the proliferation of nuclear arms. In fact, I think that the internet has enabled the paranoids (at least on this side) to full scale control of the population without resorting to nuclear fearmongering and it hasn’t stopped nations from destroying their current nuclear stash to any degree relevant, at least. What can be more fearful: Some foreign enemy most americans will never see on its shores or personal information being subjected to the whims of some impersonal eye in the sky? I wish Sagan been alive to see all this today: racial profiling instead of police work, searching national and international citizens without a warrant, or even their knowledge, instead of active diplomatic collaboration to pursue genuine foreign enemies, use of mass media to aid in misinforming instead of reasonable reporting of police work developments.It’s far too easy to play with personal prejudice against any given percentage of the population to disguise the absolute incompetence to capture real enemies. Which, by the way, are all means of massive communication. I’m sure the reasoning is that if you make people police each other, it keeps the terrorists at bay.It seems it wasn’t so easy to pry before the general use of computers since records were primarily kept in physical form (paper) and it would require vast collaboration to get to them, even the Social Security Number information. It is also true that the physical aspect of writing on a piece of paper involves the writer to think well before committing to voicing his/her opinion and write numerous times to get it right. I’m guilty of not thinking much prior to leaving my comments and my grammar shows it, along with my jumbled thoughts. But then, even Reuters is guilty of putting news out that haven’t been proof-read.The consequences of typing online are more dangerous than printing revolutionary flyers in an underground press because you’re just too easy to track down, regardless of your anonymous proxies.Take the case of how China deals with bloggers and others who criticize the Party or the Country: China simply shuts the servers down and finds whoever it wants realy quickly. What keeps the US from doing the same? Or pressuring/bribing the likes of Google or Yahoo into collaboration? Nothing.A basic printing press does not keep any personal information of the writer/s it prints, neither does a pen. But a computer does and that information can and will be used against you, whether by law or by unsavory individuals you don’t know.I feel paranoid at times but if we are paranoid with each other, then the work of despots is already half done. There is less value in a bunch of laws preserving freedom of speech and privacy when it’s far too easy to breach both without being open regarding it.As a last question, how much of my personal information am I risking by leaving a comment here, I wonder?

]]>
By: Al Reaud http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9155 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:47:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9155 The problem appears to be that you have to abide by the laws of the country you operate in. The privacy laws of the US are not available to an ISP based in Beijing.IMHO, some of this could be alleviated buy intelligent use of available tools such as VPN tunneling, secure peer-to-peer transacting, tor, and other obfuscation methods that make it hard to track a given user. Nifty applications can be created specific to the task of origin masking on personal communication devices as the operating systems become more sophisticated. Plausible deniability may be achieved via use of open source encryption methods, such as bcrypt and truecrypt.However, until the day that there is a world-wide free internet, become accustomed to the fact that nation-states ultimately control the switch. They can put the squeeze on a local ISP, so one has to operate with guaranteed discretion if one is an activist in certain countries, or one must operate by proxies that are untraceable.

]]>
By: Ken http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9151 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:49:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9151 Cloud computing is the very ultimate in outsourcing.

]]>
By: Big Bill http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9148 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:23:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9148 Just be fearless and the Dog will begin to wag the tail again.

]]>
By: Russell Cole http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9145 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:48:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9145 This account seems to generously estimate the humanity possessed by what are essentially profit oriented entities, whose management is ultimately beholden to shareholders.A more realistic projection would take into account that these corporations are driven by profit, and in order to maximize their profit they need to carefully manage private arrangements with authoritarian regimes while engaging in a delicate impression management attempting to positively impact the value of their brands among consumer markets in open societies.This will result in a complex array of behaviors, on the parts of these tech firms, that will be both opaque and publicly transparent. The theme underlying the story constructed in public might deviate from the motivations that compel the corporations operatators as they interact in spaces not subject to journalistic scrutiny.Indeed, what I have just described is a perfect representation of Yahoo!’s conduct over the past decade.r cole

]]>
By: phoenix1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/03/advancing-global-internet-freedom/#comment-9143 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:39:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=2285#comment-9143 If Jesus were alive today he would be under surveillance.

]]>