Top 10 Signs Of Impending U.S. Police State

Conveniently, the two alleged purposes dovetail, so it's a matter of philosophy as to why they are doing it. First of all we could go back to laws about taxation. I'm not an expert on this but I've read some of the positions of those taxpayers' rights groups, and at the very least they make it clear that most of us are overtaxed for services that we don't need or want.

The Internet exists in a "zone" that many people regard as sacrosanct. It's not because we are all criminals, or tax cheats, but because we don't want stupid and unnecessary regulations placed upon our online activites, placed there by a greedy and philosophically outdated government. If I make money on the Internet it winds up as tax dollars anyway, eventually. I honestly believe that the Internet is outside the regulations of any countries government, at least when we are talking about non-criminal activity. And selling online is not illegal. Making a significant amount of money and not reporting it is illegal, yes, but what's that amendment where they need evidence before they can get a warrant to search for evidence?

The US would be better off if we had more successful online sellers. The money enters the local economy indirectly.

I reject the idea that every time a US citizen makes a trade or a barter, or some casual sales take place, that the government should be involved. That's like the Mafia. I think that the government is entitled to some tax dollars, though this is also open to debate. I'm not hard-core about it though. I like using the library, and I guess I got something from their schools. I use public transportation. The point is, I've always paid taxes since I worked, and I've always accepted it.

But taxing, or modifying the way the Internet works is a huge mistake. Just like open-source software, the Internet is a collaborative ongoing project. Now Microsoft will probably never embrace open source philosophy, but as people become more comfortable with customizing their own machines, we will reach a point where the only reason to buy any microsoft product is because you are too much of a newbie or don't have someone to help you install free open source alternatives.

I don't know what will happen with the Internet, but they are saying that we are all going to have broadband wireless everywhere soon. The possibilities of people collaborating, and discussing ideas with people all over the world can only be a good thing.

You're right about Paypal, but again, that company needs to be regulated. As far as downloading, they keep saying that there are going to be new methods to stop this, or make it more risky. The artists are taking on this task themselves though, in making an affordable product available legally. I haven't listened to NIN for years but I bought that $5 download to support the idea behind it, and show the record companies that there are new ways to sell music online and that people will pay.

Basically, scouring the Internet for criminals, reading people's emails, tracking their activities, with no warrant, and no cause, is against the Constitution, and that's bigger than the downloading problem.

Mostly, I resent the assertion that we can do without the Constitution, and that it's justified because the record companies are dinosaurs who did not learn anything from Napster, and allowed iTunes to become a huge institution, selling us shitty quality files, at roughly the same price per unit, as if you bought a full quality CD with packaging, no limits on what machines you can play it on, no nonsense.

You know, the RIAA says that buying a CD, and putting it on your iPod for your own use, is a violation of copyright law. This isn't about criminals. It's about record companies doing what they have always done, and exploiting the artists and the consumers.

Let's not pretend that downloading is what's wrong with record sales. Even if it is, I'm not ready to throw out the Constitution.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President
 
What about all UK citizens having to be subjected to finger and eye scanning on arrival in the good ol' US of A?
I thought we were 'on your side'?:confused:

Jukebox Jury

WTF? Surely you're joking about the eye scanning thing and the finger scanning? PLEASE tell me you are.
 
I can't recall when it's ever been different, the sad thing is that the New Zealand govt is under the same pressure as every other govt & will kowtow to the ruling class. For such a small class their pressure is enormous, whilst our class is massive we are servile to the wishes of the few! The govts are the mouthpieces of the corporations!

Freedom is a one-way process, they (the ruling class) can move (their money) to anywhere in the world, whilst we are put under 'immigration controls' just to try & get the crumbs.

love

Comrade Grim

LOL, Comrade Grim. I have a friend in NZ and I've been reading tons of books on it- and of course, every country is going to have their good sides and bad, but I'd become a NZ citizen in a heartbeat because of the way things are going here in the good ol' USA of A. What about Halliburton and the detention centers? I'd have to concur with you, Grim. The governments ARE the mouthpieces of the corporations. But Blackwater & Halliburton scare the shit out of me. And I've always thought that the Internet is a double edged sword. We have Facebook, MySpaz, etc. for *entertainment purposes* yet our info is out there more than ever before. Love, Comrade Kali
 
LOL, Comrade Grim. I have a friend in NZ and I've been reading tons of books on it- and of course, every country is going to have their good sides and bad, but I'd become a NZ citizen in a heartbeat because of the way things are going here in the good ol' USA of A. What about Halliburton and the detention centers? I'd have to concur with you, Grim. The governments ARE the mouthpieces of the corporations. But Blackwater & Halliburton scare the shit out of me. And I've always thought that the Internet is a double edged sword. We have Facebook, MySpaz, etc. for *entertainment purposes* yet our info is out there more than ever before. Love, Comrade Kali

LOL the only downside to living in New Zealand is that I'd probably never see Morrissey again! (Unless he came to Australia!) :eek:
 
I would love to live in New Zealand.I think i will one day.I think it might be hard to be veggie there though.
 
Conveniently, the two alleged purposes dovetail, so it's a matter of philosophy as to why they are doing it. First of all we could go back to laws about taxation. I'm not an expert on this but I've read some of the positions of those taxpayers' rights groups, and at the very least they make it clear that most of us are overtaxed for services that we don't need or want.

Agreed - the problem with that is historically speaking we do indeed require a strong central government that decides what it necessary for us as far as things as national security. I do not put the faith of my hard earned money - turned tax dollars into the hands of the internet generation. One of the major failures of the Articles of Confederation was that the individual had the ability to make too many decisions and veto too many attempts to create policy. Under the Articles the states had the ability to (in simple terms) donate tax dollars it felt the government deserved. Bascially New York would be reluctant to pass on tax dollars to the Federal Government if those dollars would be used to beef up Georgia's militia in case the Spanish in Florida decided to attack. The minority of people see the "overall" picture, short of two towers falling and an attack on the pentagon. Do I agree with everything that we spend tax dollars on? No. Do I believe the government at heart, as a whole tries to do the correct thing? Absolutely. If we do not like what occurs, then we can change the government with a vote.

The Internet exists in a "zone" that many people regard as sacrosanct. It's not because we are all criminals, or tax cheats, but because we don't want stupid and unnecessary regulations placed upon our online activites, placed there by a greedy and philosophically outdated government. If I make money on the Internet it winds up as tax dollars anyway, eventually. I honestly believe that the Internet is outside the regulations of any countries government, at least when we are talking about non-criminal activity. And selling online is not illegal. Making a significant amount of money and not reporting it is illegal, yes, but what's that amendment where they need evidence before they can get a warrant to search for evidence? The US would be better off if we had more successful online sellers. The money enters the local economy indirectly
It's not a matter of trickle down theory economics where if you make money you will spend money. It's not that simple. By law, the government is allowed a percentage of every transaction in the United States with few exceptions (non profits, certain retirement programs and other incentives). The view is that the internet is an avoidance of paying that tax which denies the government was is allowed to them by law. Dave even if you and I pay taxes on eBay sales and the like, are we in the majority? I would guess not. While the money goes into the economy indirectly, and I agree with that, there is a lack of money flowing into government agencies dependent on tax dollars. In the extreme example there is no money collected to pay the police, fire department, sanitation or education systems. The worst thing I could think of would be privatized police and fire departments. Read further though.

I reject the idea that every time a US citizen makes a trade or a barter, or some casual sales take place, that the government should be involved. That's like the Mafia. I think that the government is entitled to some tax dollars, though this is also open to debate. I'm not hard-core about it though. I like using the library, and I guess I got something from their schools. I use public transportation. The point is, I've always paid taxes since I worked, and I've always accepted it.

But taxing, or modifying the way the Internet works is a huge mistake. Just like open-source software, the Internet is a collaborative ongoing project. Now Microsoft will probably never embrace open source philosophy, but as people become more comfortable with customizing their own machines, we will reach a point where the only reason to buy any microsoft product is because you are too much of a newbie or don't have someone to help you install free open source alternatives.

Feel free to join Wesley Snipes' argument that Ohio did not ratify the 16th correctly and therefore the amendment is invalid. Seriously though, its not about taxation of the internet itself that the government wants. It is extending existing taxation laws to cover new areas where products that have always been taxed are being sold. If I am taxed if I sell my product in a store or a mail order catalog then why shouldn't I be taxed if I put that catalog online for everyone to see and sell my products there?
As far as Microsoft... I am an Apple user but must admit that the Microsoft monopoly did two things, it made Bill Gates a VERY wealthy man (and philanthropist in the smae tone as Carnegie) and probably advanced computer science in ways that a "non-monopoly holding" microsoft could have by enabling a computer in almost every home. Open source works in some instances such as smaller scale ideas and projects such as the Lego Mindstorms project but sometimes a monopoly is necessary when an industry needs a strong guiding hand to start. I agree that the time has passed though that computer science no longer needs a monopolized sector now that most homes own a computer if not multiple machines and my students are more computer literate than my parents.
You use more government resources than you realize. The illegal immigrant debate brought my attention to that. I drive on paved roads, walk on sidewalks, get my trash picked up on Tuesdays and Fridays, I take public transportation to Manhattan to get to work, cross at intersections with stoplights and do it safely thanks to NY's finest. When the house alarm goes off at my neighbors the fire department came to make sure all was alright. When my other neighbor had a heart attack it was the fire department that got him to the hospital. I depended on a criminal justice system to lock someone up for while. (Or as they say - sent him to college for awhile). The list is endless of the services that the government provides that we forget or pass over.


Continued in the next post - 10,000 character limit and all
 
I don't know what will happen with the Internet, but they are saying that we are all going to have broadband wireless everywhere soon. The possibilities of people collaborating, and discussing ideas with people all over the world can only be a good thing.
Agreed to a point. I can honestly say that this typo prone history teacher has the highest success rate for percentage of advanced eighth grade students understanding and passing their high school math regents. I used to teach math but pressured administration to let me teach my other concentration, which was Social Studies. I saw the writing on the wall that there would be too many cooks in my kitchen. The City of New York believes that students with minimal guidance will learn 500 years of Eucledian Geometry with a forty five minute period left to their own devices by doing "group work." If they didn't then the teacher was at fault. Long story short, the math scores are not what they should be. Two years ago almost all the advanced class math teacher became pregnant and took a leave. I was approached to teach this class while still teaching my History classes. I had only one stipulation, let me do it my way with no interference. I even taught a few kids that were not in the advanced class on the side. I had asked my Dad, who was also a math teacher, how to do this. He said "if chalk and talk could put man in space within sixty years of learning how to fly it can get a kid to pass a regents test." Out of 39 kids that took the test 38 passed. My principal was amazed. I went back to teaching History full time and they were unable to duplicate that number last year and we will see what happens this year. Sometimes group work is not the answer. Sometimes it is... but sometimes it is not.

You're right about Paypal, but again, that company needs to be regulated. As far as downloading, they keep saying that there are going to be new methods to stop this, or make it more risky. The artists are taking on this task themselves though, in making an affordable product available legally. I haven't listened to NIN for years but I bought that $5 download to support the idea behind it, and show the record companies that there are new ways to sell music online and that people will pay.
Agreed again- but I give you a perfect example of how far away we are from the legal transfer of intellectual property. Take a look at "Other Music" and the "downloads" section of this forum.

Basically, scouring the Internet for criminals, reading people's emails, tracking their activities, with no warrant, and no cause, is against the Constitution, and that's bigger than the downloading problem.
Mostly, I resent the assertion that we can do without the Constitution, and that it's justified because the record companies are dinosaurs who did not learn anything from Napster, and allowed iTunes to become a huge institution, selling us shitty quality files, at roughly the same price per unit, as if you bought a full quality CD with packaging, no limits on what machines you can play it on, no nonsense.
Correct - however I disagree with two points, I have no problem with iTunes. I really do not. Second - on the wiretapping - the Court's ruling regarding the wiretapping was against the current administration. Bush stated okay fine I agree, however I still have the authority to do those things so long as it is a matter of national security. Then he declared that every wiretap is of importance to national security in order to bypass 4th and 5th amendment rights. There is supposedly a new challenge to that currently working its way up the judicial ladder. You have not heard much about due to the coverage of Heller v D.C. which is in the spotlight. Keep in mind that this a conservative court in regard to constitutional interpretation. So that was a major blow to the Bush Adminstration.

You know, the RIAA says that buying a CD, and putting it on your iPod for your own use, is a violation of copyright law. This isn't about criminals. It's about record companies doing what they have always done, and exploiting the artists and the consumers.

RIAA is interested in using the burning of material onto a portable media device to overturn the cases lost concerning the sales of recording equipment. I forget the name of the case right now but it was when they tried to halt the sales of recordable VCRs and then CD burners in computers.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President
You do realize that FDR, a Democrat, had just as many constitutionally questionable actions as President Bush does. Today he usually makes the top five on the Presidential ranking lists for guiding the country through WWII and helping the country get out of the depression.

Jackson? The man on the $20 is single handedly responsible for the infamous "Trail of Tears" in the removal of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans from Georgia. When the court ruled in the Native American's favor, Jackson responded that "(Chief Justice John) Marshall made his decision, let's see him enforce it." and then he ordered the military to drive out the Indians so that they could mine the precious metals.

Its amazing what the years can do to historical opinion. It honestly interests me from a historical perspective how history will view G.W. I am not a fan of his but I cannot help but wonder what history will say.
 
On that note... I must go home - I will be on later... must go uptown around 5th Avenue side of Central Park first. Anyone calls out "Buzzetta" gets a beer. Tall guy in the Yankee hat from the photos... sans cheeseburger.
 
And I seem to remember a one Mr. Buzetta calling ME long-winded.. Well, pot: meet kettle. (j/k)
I was going to do a post about this, but I threw in so many quotes, I figured I'd just post the original source.
::in reference to the Fnglish revolution of the1600s::
"..as one historian pointed out in 1660, he criticized the radical democrats, the ones who had been calling for what we would now call democracy because they are making the people so curious, arrogant, that they will never find humility enough to submit to a civil rule. ..underlying these doctrines, which were very widely held, is a certain conception of democracy. It's a game for the elites,..not for the ignorant masses, who have to be marginalized, diverted and controlled-of course for their own good. The same principles were upheld in the American colonies. .."the people who own the country ought to govern it"-quoting John Jay.Now, in modern times, for elites, this ..contrary view is in fact the standard one, I think.. ..the title (Manufacturing Consent) is actually borrowed from a book by Walter Lippman (1921) ..in which he called the "manufacture of consent" .. "a revolution in the practice of democracy."
What it amounts to is a technique of control. ..he said this was useful, and necessary because "the common interests...,elude the public." ..they have to be the domain of a "specialized class." Notice thats' the opposite of the standard definition of democracy.
Theres' a version of this expressed by.. Reinhold Neibhur, who was very influential on contemporary policymakers. His view was that ..because of the "stupidity of the average man", he follows not reason but faith, ..requires "necessary illusions", and "emotionally potent oversimplifications." ..It's not the case,... that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy, as this whole line of thinkers observes, it's the essence of democracy. ..in a military or feudal state ..it doesn't matter what people think because you can control what people do. When the state loses it's bludgeon, ..when the voice of the people can be heard you have this problem. It may make the people so curious, so arrogant, that they won't have the humility to submit to a civil rule and therefore you have to control what people think. ..various other ways of.. marginalizing the public."
-Noam Chomsky, excerpt from "Manufacturing Consent"
 
Agreed to a point. I can honestly say that this typo prone history teacher has the highest success rate for percentage of advanced eighth grade students understanding and passing their high school math regents. I used to teach math but pressured administration to let me teach my other concentration, which was Social Studies. I saw the writing on the wall that there would be too many cooks in my kitchen. The City of New York believes that students with minimal guidance will learn 500 years of Eucledian Geometry with a forty five minute period left to their own devices by doing "group work." If they didn't then the teacher was at fault. Long story short, the math scores are not what they should be. Two years ago almost all the advanced class math teacher became pregnant and took a leave. I was approached to teach this class while still teaching my History classes. I had only one stipulation, let me do it my way with no interference. I even taught a few kids that were not in the advanced class on the side. I had asked my Dad, who was also a math teacher, how to do this. He said "if chalk and talk could put man in space within sixty years of learning how to fly it can get a kid to pass a regents test." Out of 39 kids that took the test 38 passed. My principal was amazed. I went back to teaching History full time and they were unable to duplicate that number last year and we will see what happens this year. Sometimes group work is not the answer. Sometimes it is... but sometimes it is not.


Agreed again- but I give you a perfect example of how far away we are from the legal transfer of intellectual property. Take a look at "Other Music" and the "downloads" section of this forum.


Correct - however I disagree with two points, I have no problem with iTunes. I really do not. Second - on the wiretapping - the Court's ruling regarding the wiretapping was against the current administration. Bush stated okay fine I agree, however I still have the authority to do those things so long as it is a matter of national security. Then he declared that every wiretap is of importance to national security in order to bypass 4th and 5th amendment rights. There is supposedly a new challenge to that currently working its way up the judicial ladder. You have not heard much about due to the coverage of Heller v D.C. which is in the spotlight. Keep in mind that this a conservative court in regard to constitutional interpretation. So that was a major blow to the Bush Adminstration.



RIAA is interested in using the burning of material onto a portable media device to overturn the cases lost concerning the sales of recording equipment. I forget the name of the case right now but it was when they tried to halt the sales of recordable VCRs and then CD burners in computers.


You do realize that FDR, a Democrat, had just as many constitutionally questionable actions as President Bush does. Today he usually makes the top five on the Presidential ranking lists for guiding the country through WWII and helping the country get out of the depression.

Jackson? The man on the $20 is single handedly responsible for the infamous "Trail of Tears" in the removal of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans from Georgia. When the court ruled in the Native American's favor, Jackson responded that "(Chief Justice John) Marshall made his decision, let's see him enforce it." and then he ordered the military to drive out the Indians so that they could mine the precious metals.

Its amazing what the years can do to historical opinion. It honestly interests me from a historical perspective how history will view G.W. I am not a fan of his but I cannot help but wonder what history will say.

The only reason I haven't replied to this is because there's no easy way to reduce it and I'm behind in my work, but I read it.
 
Hey - I resemble that comment.

I'm glad at least SOMEBODY read my post. Oh well, I was using the excerpt to make a point. This is the commonly held belief, it's not even really a secret, that the people need to be subject to advanced mechanisms of control to ensure compliance because they are unable to comprehend the greater good. This is pretty commonly held, not just in washington, but also in liberal intellectual circles. As mentioned, this is the opposite of the standard idea of democracy. We inhabit a power structure, and power structures are self-perpetuating by nature, they seek growth, expansion. Even 'benevolent" institutions, when they inevitably must choose power over principle, choose the latter. (This is a great argument for Anarchism.) The United States government is no different. The PATRIOT act, Waco, COINTELPRO, these are all examples of a recurrent pattern of behavior that you can trace to shortly after the revolution. While Buzetta's insights on tax laws are enlightening, and i have no doubt they are legitimate concerns, the primary motivation behind cracking down on the internet is China-style social control. The internet is the greatest gift to grassroots organizers, or anyone with a vested interest in liberty, which I would hope is everyone here, could hope for. It is a manifestation of organic, unregulated human organization and interaction. Putting up roadblocks, limiting our access, should be seen as nothing short of an infringement upon democracy, itself.
 
I'm glad at least SOMEBODY read my post. Oh well, I was using the excerpt to make a point. This is the commonly held belief, it's not even really a secret, that the people need to be subject to advanced mechanisms of control to ensure compliance because they are unable to comprehend the greater good. This is pretty commonly held, not just in washington, but also in liberal intellectual circles. As mentioned, this is the opposite of the standard idea of democracy. We inhabit a power structure, and power structures are self-perpetuating by nature, they seek growth, expansion. Even 'benevolent" institutions, when they inevitably must choose power over principle, choose the latter. (This is a great argument for Anarchism.) The United States government is no different. The PATRIOT act, Waco, COINTELPRO, these are all examples of a recurrent pattern of behavior that you can trace to shortly after the revolution. While Buzetta's insights on tax laws are enlightening, and i have no doubt they are legitimate concerns, the primary motivation behind cracking down on the internet is China-style social control. The internet is the greatest gift to grassroots organizers, or anyone with a vested interest in liberty, which I would hope is everyone here, could hope for. It is a manifestation of organic, unregulated human organization and interaction. Putting up roadblocks, limiting our access, should be seen as nothing short of an infringement upon democracy, itself.

Nah - I read anyone's posts in a thread I am following. I simply cite tax law as I see more examples of concerns raised in that sector than I do in the supression of blogs or other things of that nature.

However keep in mind one thing. This is what people fail to realize. The first amendment protects you from criminal prosecution it does not protect you from civil concerns unless your first amendment right has been supressed. What do I mean? If you worked for my private company and started publically stating ideas and issues that my company disagrees with I have the right to terminate your employment on the basis that your views could be considered to represent the overall opinion of the company. Since your views could conflict with the mission statement of my company and could be considered bad for business I have the right to terminate your employment.

The same could be held for a web server. Say that godaddy.com acts as a server for someone calling for violence against minorities. If that is the case and godaddy realizes that this is bad for its overall business image then godaddy itself can shut down the site and refuse to do business with that individual. You have the right to your words and thoughts but I as a private citizen do not have to give you a platform to voice those words.
 
Nah - I read anyone's posts in a thread I am following. I simply cite tax law as I see more examples of concerns raised in that sector than I do in the supression of blogs or other things of that nature.

However keep in mind one thing. This is what people fail to realize. The first amendment protects you from criminal prosecution it does not protect you from civil concerns unless your first amendment right has been supressed. What do I mean? If you worked for my private company and started publically stating ideas and issues that my company disagrees with I have the right to terminate your employment on the basis that your views could be considered to represent the overall opinion of the company. Since your views could conflict with the mission statement of my company and could be considered bad for business I have the right to terminate your employment.

The same could be held for a web server. Say that godaddy.com acts as a server for someone calling for violence against minorities. If that is the case and godaddy realizes that this is bad for its overall business image then godaddy itself can shut down the site and refuse to do business with that individual. You have the right to your words and thoughts but I as a private citizen do not have to give you a platform to voice those words.

Yes. And private companies are owned by individuals. It is entirely up to the owner of a company to decide what is "bad for its overall business image". That's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Of course, a customer who is denied a platform to speak his mind because of an arbitrary banning of his speech can always go to another platform. Right now it's not an issue. There isn't much banning going on except in the most extreme cases.

But it's not just where things are now. It's where things are going. As we've seen with TV and movies there will eventually be fewer and fewer companies in the marketplace. The day will come when there are only two or three companies offering affordable web space for citizens. Federal regulation of the Internet will mean that these companies will have to pass a given set of standards to operate, just as various programmers are now required to appease the FCC. At some point there is the risk-- not the inevitability, but the risk-- that all of our media will meet in this governmental bottleneck at a moment in time when Washington will have what it considers a vital need to control content.

What might that moment in time look like? What need might that be? The classic example of the limit of freedom of speech is that one is forbidden to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. An easy common sense argument. If the government has the power to define the crowd, the theater, and the threat, it can effectively shut down the First Amendment as it pleases. And the pretext to do so already exists as a reality-- and a reality potentially without end, potentially without any limits as to the number and intensity of its crises. It is called the War on Terror.
 
Last edited:
The internet is the greatest gift to grassroots organizers, or anyone with a vested interest in liberty, which I would hope is everyone here, could hope for. It is a manifestation of organic, unregulated human organization and interaction. Putting up roadblocks, limiting our access, should be seen as nothing short of an infringement upon democracy, itself.

It really isn't. For those who have decided on where they stand, it's helpful as a tool to organize themselves into cells of protest. Such people are the minority, though. For the vast majority of people who have not decided on where they stand on various subjects, the Internet is potentially the most devastating source of confusion imaginable. Some of the clandestine programs you mentioned trafficked in disinformation, and for delivering disinformation no better system than the Internet has ever existed. Take anything you know right now-- something you are dead certain about-- and I promise you within 10 minutes of Googling you will have found several legitimate looking web pages that "prove" exactly the opposite.

Not only that, if and when the government (alone or allied with private interests) takes control of the Internet, an entire chorus of voices will probably be silenced instantly. There's a reason Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" wasn't published by The Royal Publishing House, London. You don't put your trust in official channels. And you should think carefully about trusting free channels that may eventually become official. The more people grow accustomed to using the Internet, the more difficult it's going to be when the plug is pulled. I'm talking fifty or sixty years from now when the printed word really will be dead. Great masses of citizens who only know how to communicate using various forms of electronic media will be rendered helpless when that switch gets thrown.
 
Yes. And private companies are owned by individuals. It is entirely up to the owner of a company to decide what is "bad for its overall business image". That's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Of course, a customer who is denied a platform to speak his mind because of an arbitrary banning of his speech can always go to another platform. Right now it's not an issue. There isn't much banning going on except in the most extreme cases.

But it's not just where things are now. It's where things are going. As we've seen with TV and movies there will eventually be fewer and fewer companies in the marketplace. The day will come when there are only two or three companies offering affordable web space for citizens. Federal regulation of the Internet will mean that these companies will have to pass a given set of standards to operate, just as various programmers are now required to appease the FCC. At some point there is the risk-- not the inevitability, but the risk-- that all of our media will meet in this governmental bottleneck at a moment in time when Washington will have what it considers a vital need to control content.

What might that moment in time look like? What need might that be? The classic example of the limit of freedom of speech is that one is forbidden to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. An easy common sense argument. If the government has the power to define the crowd, the theater, and the threat, it can effectively shut down the First Amendment as it pleases. And the pretext to do so already exists as a reality-- and a reality potentially without end, potentially without any limits as to the number and intensity of its crises. It is called the War on Terror.

No I understand what you are trying to say. I also saw Star Wars: Episode I,II and III. :D However the argument goes to that we should not be focusing in on the immediate effect but look to the root of the problem. Have you ever seen the Korn video, "Y'all Want a Single"? I also believe that we should have more of a breakup or regulation of businesses that have a monopoly with few exceptiopns. (Transportation and sports come to mind- and I have previously mentioned that computers have become commonplace because of the monopoly that microsoft had over the industry because of its desire to put a computer in every home.)

What you cite is complaints that Howard Stern has raised numerous times over the years concerning the FCC.
 
Our government is horrible right now. Something that really upsets me though, is that the world doesn't limit their hatred of America to hating the assholes who have taken us over and are trying to normalize fascism. The world is confused enough to actually hate the people of America. I see it on solo all the time. It makes me very sad. We're not our government. We are the victims of our government.
 
No I understand what you are trying to say. I also saw Star Wars: Episode I,II and III. :D However the argument goes to that we should not be focusing in on the immediate effect but look to the root of the problem. Have you ever seen the Korn video, "Y'all Want a Single"? I also believe that we should have more of a breakup or regulation of businesses that have a monopoly with few exceptiopns. (Transportation and sports come to mind- and I have previously mentioned that computers have become commonplace because of the monopoly that microsoft had over the industry because of its desire to put a computer in every home.)

What you cite is complaints that Howard Stern has raised numerous times over the years concerning the FCC.

Funny you mention Howard Stern. He left "terrestrial" radio because of the FCC and signed on with satellite radio. No one's rights were trampled, all the parties got richer, the FCC got rid of a pest. Everyone wins, right?

Recently Sirius and XM announced they were merging, as you are probably aware. Now the two existing platforms for non-FCC controlled radio are one, meaning that he will have no options available to him should the new mega company decide to drop him. Of course that won't happen because he is the foundation of their profitability. But the possibility of censorship by default, as I have described above, exists nevertheless.

Mergers like this will become more common. They already are, really, but I mean that it will become harder to ignore. Already we've seen film studios start funding only the most profitable ("tent pole") features, usually with two or more other big partners. Sooner or later some of the TV networks will merge, probably. Newspapers are dying, and those that remain are often often owned by corporations in other cities whose only interest is the bottom line. Book and magazine publishing-- forget it. The fewer choices citizens have, the easier it gets to choke them off.

The architecture for a police state is in place. Whether a nightmarish police state actually comes into being remains to be seen. With your mention of Microsoft I can only assume you trust that things will break in the direction of harmless profiteering. Even if Microsoft's monopoly could be proved beneficial, which I doubt, the notion that this example will prove to be the norm is delusional. If we leave it to chance that corporate strategy and public interest will always dovetail we are asking for trouble.
 
Last edited:
Who trumps bin Laden as a cyberthreat? Look in the mirror

Among the report's highlights:

• 65% of the new code being released into the market is malicious

• The U.S. was the top country of attack origin in the second half of 2007

• The education sector accounted for 24 percent of data breaches that could lead to identity theft.

• Government was the top sector for identities exposed, accounting for 60 percent of the total

• Theft or computer loss resulted in the most data breaches that could lead to identity theft

• The United States had the most bot-infected computers worldwide

*****************************************************

This is a whole other angle that I thought was interesting. I keep thinking of an opinion I read somewhere that people should be licensed to use the Internet or hire someone who is. I think that we probably are seeing the beginning of a crackdown on the freedom we take for granted online, and this is another way it's going to be justified.

Locally, one laptop was lost by a government worker, and it turned out to have data, including social security numbers, for thousands of people. When I worked at the library, they were very paranoid about viruses but the county IT person had to follow policies written by people that were totally clueless. They had all these restrictions, such as blocking redirect, though you could just right-click and paste the address anyway, but they wouldn't allow us to use Firefox.

The point though, was that the personal records of everyone with a library card were available to everyone that worked there, and I'm sure that anyone with any level of expertise in these things could have accessed any of the records from one of the public computers.

Banks and government, anyone that has your data, has a responsibility to protect it, but I'm not sure I understand where they are going with this report about private users. It sounds like they are saying that your computer, by being online, becomes a potential threat to the security of everyone else that is online. And this message is delivered by the head of a security company. Maybe he's just trying to sell software. I just thought it related to the thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom