LaPierre on Internet Censorship and UN, Feb AR, page 010


PDA






alan
January 21, 2006, 01:25 AM
Is he "over the top"? Read the piece and judge for yourself.

If you enjoyed reading about "LaPierre on Internet Censorship and UN, Feb AR, page 010" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sindawe
January 21, 2006, 01:28 AM
A link to the article would be helpfull. :)

geekWithA.45
January 21, 2006, 08:37 PM
I gave it a skim in the car on the way to the mall.

The scenario he outlines, of massive online political censorship a la China at the hands of a UN controlled Internet is a bit over the top, and implausible, to my mind.

If I should ever wake up and find the situation be largely as he's described, it would be time to seriously contemplate invoking extraordinary measures.


I doubt Americans would leave two bricks standing atop one another down @ the UN.

SomeKid
January 21, 2006, 08:53 PM
I gave it a skim in the car on the way to the mall.

The scenario he outlines, of massive online political censorship a la China at the hands of a UN controlled Internet is a bit over the top, and implausible, to my mind.

If I should ever wake up and find the situation be largely as he's described, it would be time to seriously contemplate invoking extraordinary measures.


I doubt Americans would leave two bricks standing atop one another down @ the UN.

"It can't happen here" - German people, pre-Hitler.

geekWithA.45
January 21, 2006, 10:33 PM
The lesson of "It can't happen here" is an important lesson.

It should not, however, lead one to accept the proposition that "every dark scenario can and will happen here".

One must contemplate the threats before us, and realistically categorize them according to their probability and the degree of completeness of their prerequesites, so that they can be prioritized for their appropriate countermeasure.

The scenario LaPierre envisions here is quite a ways down the pike, and there are certainly more imminent dangers before us. The appropriate stance for this scenario, is, IMO, "keep an eye on it".

Fletchette
January 21, 2006, 11:34 PM
I have been worried about the exact scenario LaPierre cited for some time. Now that Microsoft, Google et al have designed and tested such censoring software on the Chinese people, we could be censored overnight with a push of a button.

I have been advocating some type of alternate web design. One with no server hubs and excellent encyption. Think about how the airlines are moving from a hub-and-spoke model to a point to point based model. If we can do the same, and randomly encrypt the content so key words like "democracy" are not able to be seen, we could buy ourselves a few more years.

Any computer-saavy takers?

pmcbooks
January 22, 2006, 07:21 PM
Start here:
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
and
http://www.pgpi.org/

but ... like Al Gore says, no one has a right to encryption (to be secure in one's papers and effects) and the providers who run the lines to your house are REALLY easy to lean on and are not going to stand up for your rights.

SIGarmed
January 22, 2006, 08:46 PM
Is he "over the top"? Read the piece and judge for yourself.

No he's not over the top. Most people are sheep. It'll be too late until they realize it. The UN already wants control of the root servers. Something they have no business having.

Stevie-Ray
January 22, 2006, 09:04 PM
"It can't happen here" - German people, pre-Hitler.Also Australia, remember.

In fact my Australian buddy told me it would happen in America long before Australia.

SaintofKillers
January 22, 2006, 10:48 PM
Is he "over the top"? Read the piece and judge for yourself.


Not at all. I think what he says in the article is completely plauseable.

I had mentioned this on another forum and someones response was that this administration doesnt care what the UN wants.

"This administration" will be gone in 2009. The next administration may be a little bit more UN friendly.

xd9fan
January 23, 2006, 12:18 AM
No he's not over the top. Most people are sheep. It'll be too late until they realize it. The UN already wants control of the root servers. Something they have no business having.


+1

Fletchette
January 23, 2006, 04:38 PM
Start here:
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
and
http://www.pgpi.org/

but ... like Al Gore says, no one has a right to encryption (to be secure in one's papers and effects) and the providers who run the lines to your house are REALLY easy to lean on and are not going to stand up for your rights.

Intersting links, Thanks!

Maybe some careful design will buy us a few more years of online- Freedom of Speech, but ultimately the issue will need to be settled in Washington (by us or them).

I also wonder about the Constitutionality of Gore's statement. How can encryption, in and of itself, be illegal (unless the law is unConstitutional)? Could one undermine this legal arguement by intentionally sending a bunch of random numbers and letters to someone? The .gov would suspect this message to be encrypted, would not be able to decode it, and arrest the sender. If it was truly just random gobblety-gook, the sender would not have broken the unConstitional law, but would have proven that the law is unenforceable.

Camp David
January 23, 2006, 06:07 PM
I had mentioned this on another forum and someones response was that this administration doesnt care what the UN wants..
Why should we? The U.N. needs dismantling.

"This administration" will be gone in 2009. The next administration may be a little bit more UN friendly.I hope not; indeed, let's hope the next administration is more antagonistic toward typical U.N. bs and typical U.N. procedure. That will be to its credit.

I can't think of one beneficial thing the United Nations has accomplished in the last decade that is worth even mentioning in terms of world peace. McDonald Douglas and General Electric have, jointly, made the world safer and accomplished more than any U.N. resolution.... If the U.N. paid its NYC parking tickets that would be a start....

pmcbooks
January 23, 2006, 10:26 PM
I also wonder about the Constitutionality of Gore's statement. How can encryption, in and of itself, be illegal (unless the law is unConstitutional)? Could one undermine this legal arguement by intentionally sending a bunch of random numbers and letters to someone?

If you want to research these shenanigans the phrase is "key escrow." In a nutshell the government would hold your encryption keys "in escrow" just in case they ever wanted to have a look at your communications.

As for sending garbage and encrypting trivial information: Yes! Do this! It makes it easy for "them" if you only encrypt your sensitive information. Look at what the "header" looks like in a PGP encrypted message and place it around random garbage, encrypt cookie recipes, etc. Learn about steganography. Then imply that pictures you distribute via internet have hidden messages *wink wink*. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't.

If you enjoyed reading about "LaPierre on Internet Censorship and UN, Feb AR, page 010" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!