File: How the ITU could put the internet behind closed doors..swf-(9.82 MB, Other)
[_] Important shit f4r !HanakoDlmg 1822693 whatistheitu.org
>> [_] Anon 1822713 The day US internet relay starts censoring will be the day where normal internet dies, and everyone starts running Onion routers.
>> [_] Anon 1822716 >># US is not on the side of censoring at this ITU meeting.
>> [_] Anon 1822724 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?
>> [_] Anon 1822758 If u paid attention to the video fucktard he explains that some proposals were leaked
>> [_] Anon 1822765 >Implying free masons won't impose their new rights independently from the voting of the people
>> [_] Anon 1822770 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.
>> [_] Anon 1822822 ok, the sopa thing was exciting. This is just getting annoying.
>> [_] Anon 1822823 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.
>> [_] Anon 1822827 Worst comes to worst we get some pirate satellites and a pirate ISP.
>> [_] Anon 1822835 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 1822845 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
>> [_] Anon 1822846 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 1822852 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 1822853 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.