The SOPA and PIPA laws were defeated in the U.S. just months ago, and already the forces for internet control are back. Up for vote this week, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) would override all privacy laws so that private companies (like ISPs) can share all information with the U.S. government. No warrants or other authorization required. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) points out the problems with this law. Like SOPA and PIPA, the privacy issues and monitoring could reach far beyond U.S. borders.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2008-07-07
Member since:2007-08-20
Member since:
2007-02-18
Member since:2011-01-28
kwan_e,
"It strikes me that what we really need is to require scientific backing of the effectiveness of policy proposals before anything should be passed into law."
That's what should happen. In reality though even science is abused for political purposes. Whether it's banking, global warming, tobacco, big oil, telecoms, TSA, healthcare, etc, our politicians selectively embrace only the data that supports their opinions and reject everything else. Worse yet, some scientists are being paid to make the science support politically favorable results. I doubt many politicians would genuinely change their minds based on scientific data, however this would be a minimum requirement if we desired an uncorrupted form of science to drive public policy.
Member since:2007-02-18
"It strikes me that what we really need is to require scientific backing of the effectiveness of policy proposals before anything should be passed into law."
That's what should happen. In reality though even science is abused for political purposes. Whether it's banking, global warming, tobacco, big oil, telecoms, TSA, healthcare, etc, our politicians selectively embrace only the data that supports their opinions and reject everything else. Worse yet, some scientists are being paid to make the science support politically favorable results. I doubt many politicians would genuinely change their minds based on scientific data, however this would be a minimum requirement if we desired an uncorrupted form of science to drive public policy.
You raise a good point.
It really does require coming at it from above and below. The lawmakers need to be scientifically literate, and so do the voters.
Member since:2011-10-17
Member since:2008-06-02
In the country with the 2nd highest per-capita number of young Earth creationists in the industrialized world (exceeded only by Turkey)? I wouldn't hold my breath.
Member since:2007-11-11
The problem with that idea is that you have 1.-An entire system designed to support corruption, in that to get to higher levels of the system one must has huge piles of cash that simply won't be given to you if you don't "play ball" so that removes the lawmakers, and 2.-as for the public? you have the largest most effective means of propaganda ever pointed right at them, mainstream media and television. Just look at how many believed Iraq was involved with 9/11 (the last numbers I saw put that number still over 30%) simply because that is what many in the MSM insinuated.
The problem is even if you had undeniable science on your side if it went against moneyed interests they would just have the MSM bury you in innuendo and ridicule and nobody would listen to you.
As for TFA this is something I've said for years, we simply have to abandon the Internet as they are gonna turn it into a locked down home shopping network whether you like it or not. too many rich corps have an interest in this and they will simply outlast you. instead we must lay our hopes on the geeks to build a secure anon network on TOP of the existing net, one designed from the ground up to treat everything as suspect. Lucky for us progress has been made in this area with projects like TOR and Freenet but of course more progress must be made.
But in the end if there is one thing we have learned in the states its that there is a never ending supply of greed and an unquenchable lust for power by those at the top, and you can rally and rail and complain all you want, unless your last name is Gates or Ellison or among the top 50 richest frankly they really don't care what you think or want. Vote them out, so what, they'll get a cushy job bribing the next guy. That's the thing about always choosing the lesser of two evils, you're always voting for evil.
Member since:2007-02-18
There is no problem with the idea. The problem is getting to the state where that idea becomes probable.
This will have to be done in a wireless manner. There is no way any government would allow its phone lines to be completely out of its control, and no citizens group will have the money to build its own. The private companies will only go the AOL route. The worst case scenario is that they can completely disable the network physically (eg, that kill switch idea bouncing around lately), which is a lot easier with landlines than wireless.
Member since:2011-01-28
kwan_e,
"This will have to be done in a wireless manner."
Seems like a fun idea that people sometimes throw out there, but true adhoc mesh networking has several feasibility barriers today when deployed on a wide scale. 100mw wlan transceivers would require an insanely dense grid to achieve any kind of reliable connectivity, and by that I mean any connection at all. The network would likely deconverge into isolated pools. The network has to be engineered for competing goals such as privacy, routing efficiency, resiliency, and trustworthiness. Even tried and true concepts like rout-able IP addresses break down in an adhoc network with no central authority.
If the network were more organized and a little less adhoc it could work, particularly with more powerful technology like GSM or WiMax. But without government authorization it would likely get shut down just like the pirate radio stations of last century.
So I'm not sure whether a government free internet is viable. Building a privacy aware network ontop of existing networks may be the best option even if it has it's own problems.
Edited 2012-04-25 14:07 UTC
Member since:2007-02-18
"This will have to be done in a wireless manner."
Seems like a fun idea that people sometimes throw out there, but true adhoc mesh networking has several feasibility barriers today when deployed on a wide scale.
We choose to build ad hoc wireless networks and all the other things in this deCade, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Seriously, it would be a good excuse to get a head start on it before we have to face the reality of having to get off this planet in the future.
If I remember correctly, wasn't Vint Cerf or Tim Berners-Lee already trying to work on a new protocol for networks used in future space travel?
Member since:2011-01-28
kwan_e,
"Seriously, it would be a good excuse to get a head start on it before we have to face the reality of having to get off this planet in the future."
For sure, I'm always up for a software engineering challenge. However software engineering isn't always able to get around hardware deficiencies. That's where I think the project would stall if we're dependent upon off the shelf components.
If we avail ourselves to more powerful (and perhaps illegal/unlicensed) custom equipment, then the sky's the limit. Software developers don't generally have those kinds of resources though.
At university I was on a team trying to build mesh networks out of bluetooth devices in the early 2000's. We wrote code for the project, but it was mostly theoretical since the actual bluetooth hardware we had was holding us back.
Member since:2011-01-05
that's the best comment I've read for yonks
..hell yeah let's get a compulsory requirement in for
double-blind randomised controlled anti-wank trials of all policy and prospective legislation(heck, even current legislation!)
obviously the U.S., probably where I live, the U.K. can provide some of the wank law and policy data, you know - along with Iran, Zimbabwe, the Philippines and so on
and maybe Sweden and possibly Thom's place, on a good day - can provide some examples of better policy -- obviously this can't be fully interpreted until the results of the anti-wank trials are in.
but when they are eventually in, they can help inform, scratch that, mandate the implementation of similar laws by the new U.N. 3.0 - the government of us, aka the New Earth republic of Gaia
Member since:
2006-08-26
Until everyone gets tired, or used to, "widespread internet protests," and it just passes. As much as constituents matter, what really matters (in order of importance) is money, constituents who regularly vote, constituents who might vote, constituents who could vote, and finally everyone else. So, unless you can get middle class white women 50 and over to care about it (one of the most regular voters), or drop fat stacks of cash in super-pacs and re-election warchests, then it's going to stay on the floor of the house and senate. Even if this bill gets defeated there will be CRISPER, POOPA, FOOPA, and as many variations as they need to get it passed.
Sometimes I think the age of the 'free' internet is dying in the same way that the wild west died. There's just too much money, freedom and too much power out there that people are tempted to try to control it. As much as our US govt praises the role of the internet when it comes to revolutions in other countries, I'm sure there are people who are terrified that the same tools could be used for wide-spread unrest or protests in the US.
The only other approach I can think of is to stop consuming their content. Pick a blockbuster opening weekend or a holiday season and go for some period of time on a boycot. Now new games. No going to movies. No pay per view. No streaming rentals. No iTunes purchases, etc. Of course, I'm assuming people that get fired up about this could be persuaded to go without for a couple of weeks. But, next to setting up a paypal account and putting together a big blob of cash as a 'reward' for opposing these laws...
Member since:2007-08-20
Member since:
2008-06-03
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2007-02-18
Member since:
2005-12-18
Member since:2010-06-08
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2007-02-18
Member since:
2010-04-06