alan
Member
Is he "over the top"? Read the piece and judge for yourself.
geekWithA.45 said: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.
alan said:Is he "over the top"? Read the piece and judge for yourself.
Also Australia, remember.SomeKid said:"It can't happen here" - German people, pre-Hitler.
alan said:Is he "over the top"? Read the piece and judge for yourself.
SIGarmed said: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.
pmcbooks said: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.
Why should we? The U.N. needs dismantling.SaintofKillers said:I had mentioned this on another forum and someones response was that this administration doesnt care what the UN wants..
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.SaintofKillers said:"This administration" will be gone in 2009. The next administration may be a little bit more UN friendly.
Fletchette said: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?