File: How the ITU could put the internet behind closed doors..swf-(9.82 MB, Other)
[_] Important shit f4r !HanakoDlmg 12/03/12(Mon)16:52 No.

  whatistheitu.org

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)17:15 No.

  The day US internet relay starts censoring will be the day where normal internet dies, and
  everyone starts running Onion routers.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)17:18 No.

  >>1822713
  US is not on the side of censoring at this ITU meeting.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)17:32 No.

  I like the idea of getting a message out, but how does the author of this video know so much
  about the policies being discussed if there's no transparency and all proposals are discussed
  behind closed doors and not revealed until a decision has been made?

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)18:35 No.

  If u paid attention to the video fucktard he explains that some proposals were leaked

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)18:46 No.

  >Implying free masons won't impose their new rights independently from the voting of the people

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)18:55 No.

  I like the fact that the ITU actually put its proposed amendments up on its website for everyone
  to see and download.
  Look it up yourself. The narrator states that they aren't public, but they are right there with
  sub heading of "To be decided close (december)2012 conference"

  So someone link me and prove me wrong for fucks sakes please.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)20:54 No.

  ok, the sopa thing was exciting. This is just getting annoying.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)20:55 No.

  You realize that it's too big to stop now right? Even if they wanted to censor the internet,
  people would just get around it like they already do. Military grade encryption is public, open
  source systems allow for easy transversing of protocols, people develop programs that can go
  around any wall put in place, you can own your own server for cheap if you want. There is no way
  for anyone, no government no orginization, no single group to stop anything on the internet
  anymore, it would take unilateral consensus at this point to bring down more than a few sites.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)21:03 No.

  Worst comes to worst we get some pirate satellites and a pirate ISP.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)21:17 No.

  >>1822827
  Remember how effective anti-pirate radio laws were in the 60's and 70's? As in they weren't able
  to take down any of them for 30 years until the 90's when CR1 and the others went down.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)21:39 No.

  If you people buy into this blatantly wrong shit, I feel bad for you.
  Read:
  http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/87.aspx

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)21:44 No.

  >>1822845
  But that does not matter, the US said something about an "internet kill switch", and all I could
  think was how the fuck are you stupid bastards going to do that? Even a nuclear bomb wouldn't
  work, and crashing the DNS servers won't work anymore because we've open sourced those too,
  there's basically nothing they can do to even restrict the internet, none the less destroy it.
  The only real danger to the internet comes from normal people, congregating in sites like
  facebook and other places, trusting youtube etc is what really is killing the internet, we've
  given private corporations power over us on the internet voluntarily, they don't even need to do
  anything. Good thing that futaba exists, *channel networks are keeping discussion and privacy
  alive.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)21:55 No.

  >>1822846
  And yet it is that exact same crowdsourcing logic that allows the makers of this video to
  actually be seen as credible.
  Given that nobody has actually called bullshit until I post the resolution itself, and instead
  says shit like "If u paid attention to the video fucktard he explains that some proposals were
  leaked" and so on. The discussion continues to be that people accept what is said, and generally
  agree that controlling the internet would be a bad thing.
  Here's the amusing thing: Consider how many protocol relays are used in getting your reply to
  show up on my screen. Those were all created by someone, and integrated by the ITU to create a
  more streamlined internet. Everyone here seems to talk about the ITU and the internet being a new
  thing, but in fact, ITU has had regulatory control over the internet for years and concerns
  itself not with regulating what is seen, but how the information is processed through multiple
  servers.

>> [_] Anonymous 12/03/12(Mon)21:56 No.

  Further,
  What the draft amendments actually want to do is prevent major monopolies on telecommunications
  from having untenable stakes in data access and routing, which means that more start ups will
  have the ability to compete on an open market to provide services. I have yet to hear a
  convincing argument about how this is a bad thing since the end result is that it benefits the
  consumer because in competition to provide better internet at a better cost, the rates for access
  go way down and more people have the ability to access the internet and stay connected, thereby
  increasing profits for all, and providing a service to more people.
  It's a win win situation. The people get cheap, fast, internet, companies get business, and
  development of faster communications gets pushed forward.

  The entire notion of an internet kill switch, from what I've read, is little more than hyperbole.
  How far did that get?

  Not past Stephen Colbert who made fun of the very idea.