Internet at Risk

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The internet is one of the greatest forces bringing the world together and helping to promote freedom... so of course some governments are against it.

Internet also promotes lies, fascism, spam, pornography, self injuring. Internet is used to recruit bad people for bad things, internet is used for propaganda, for ....

 

Not all is bad with internet. Actually, there is a lots of good things with internet. But it needs to be regulated, heavily regulated.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You don't need censorship for child porn, You simply take the site down because it's illegal and sick and go after the offenders.

What about adult pornography? Can a minor in Australia go to a convenient store (gas station) and buy a pornographic magazine? I am pretty sure, your answer will be NO! So, why is it that a minor can access all kind of porn over the internet?

 

Internet must be regulated. If not regulated, internet freedom turns into internet anarchy.

Edited December 13, 2012 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[Fjordmonkey]

Internet also promotes lies, fascism, spam, pornography, self injuring. Internet is used to recruit bad people for bad things, internet is used for propaganda, for ....

 

Not all is bad with internet. Actually, there is a lots of good things with internet. But it needs to be regulated, heavily regulated.

 

You cannot regulate that which is already anarchy and outside anyone's control in terms of content, and you cannot regulate anything unless you can get people to agree on which regulations to enforce. And good luck with that.

[Pyroflash]

What about adult pornography? Can a minor in Australia go to a convenient store (gas station) and buy a pornographic magazine? I am pretty sure, your answer will be NO! So, why is it that a minor can access all kind of porn over the internet?

 

Internet must be regulated. If not regulated, internet freedom turns into internet anarchy.

 

Yes, actually. That minor can simply find a homeless person on the street and pay him to go and buy the magazine for him. In the same way, most commercial internet porn sites (the ones that are legal anyhow) require a digital signature (might be something as simple as clicking a box, or agreeing to a EULA) in order to access the material.

 

And you are also making the mistake of referring to internet pornography as overtly sexual photo/filmography. The real definition however can be expanded to include stuff like violent video games, videos of people getting seriously injured, or even harmful youtube pranks.

 

People can utilize this material, even make their own, just fine without the internet (okay, YT wouldn't exist without the internet), and there are regulations already in place to govern this media. However when is the last time you paid attention to the ESRB or cared what a movie was rated? Because a large portion of people do not care about these things, does that mean we should make it illegal to allow children to see rated R movies, even with parental supervision? Perhaps we should ban 16 year old children from playing games their parents have purchased them?

 

These questions might seem important, but first, we have to take a large step back and answer the far more immediate ones.

 

Who decides what is appropriate for my child to watch or be exposed to? Is a rating system supposed to apply to age, or mental maturity? What are the effects of being exposed to this material, and is it even damaging to begin with? How free should parents be to determine what content their children are exposed to? Who determines how free parents are to influence the development of their children? If parents are responsible for the development of their children, then who is? Whose rights will we be affecting in the attempt to fix this perceived issue?

 

Before we can begin to answer questions about what to do, shouldn't we be first asking if anything even needs to be done at all? Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it is no. However it is important to consider that just because the answer was yes other there, that it is not necessarily yes here.

[Wolf Rider]

Anyone that knows how. The point is that you are assuming that the people that are targeted by this specific measure are computer savvy. They are not. Internet users that has ever even heard the acronym VPN (for example) are a very very tiny minority. The absolute majority of internet users don't even know what an IP adress is.

 

yes, that is true... for the most

 

You're just refusing to acknowledge that point, but it is important.

 

no I'm not refusing to acknowledge that point at all... the 'mainstream' don't know what is what. However those who do know what is what don't seem to figure into your point

 

 

You are considering the measure as if it would be relevant to you, establishing that you would be able to defeat it, and from that reaching the conclusion that the measure is pointless. The last does not follow from the previous. It simply doesn't.

 

doesn't make sense, that statement... none whatsoever as I have no intentions ever of peddling pictures of youngens, in any form

 

 

 

Another example then: I can fairly easily defeat automated speed cameras. There is equipment that is technically illegal without license in my country that will detect them and render them ineffective. (Since I'll slow down only right in front of them and otherwise continue to drive at illegal speeds.) Said equipment is, however, still fairly easy to get hold of and not expensive. Therefore, shouldn't it follow that speed cameras are pointless since they are easy to defeat?

 

 

They are very easy to defeat and the province (state) which I reside in, has in fact turned a great many of them off

 

 

Well no. Because most people don't have a clue about that possibility. So they are effective at apprehending those speeders that don't take these measures, and they are effective through modifying the behaviour of those that don't take these measures.

 

Down here, it is widely known

 

(The analogy suffers slightly in my country since the exact location of all speed cameras must be made public, so obviously all GPS equipment nowadays will tell all drivers that they're coming up on one, but go a couple years back to before everyone had GPS in their automobiles.)

 

well... there ya go

 

 

And finally, the same argument you are using can be used right back at your example: how come a random browser of child pornography would know exactly how to hide, but a whistleblower wouldn't? How come criminals and whatnoit are by definition very computer savvy, but whistleblowers are not?

 

 

Well by its very nature your above point is moot and self defeating... people of illicit nature, of course would want their activities hidden... whereas a whistleblower wants to go public... that's why they blow their whistle

 

 

 

Basically:

Yes, it is possible to make laws with ulterior motives.

 

 

Thank you... point made

 

No, this does not mean all such laws have ulterior motives nor that they are ineffective at what they do.

 

no, not all laws have ulterior motives... some laws, however, do and come complete with deliberately inbuilt loopholes.

 

 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that something has to be 100% effective to be valuable; if that was the case, clearly we should abolish the police entirely since they don't catch every criminal.

 

well, you make a good point, then cancel itt out

 

 

 

 

 

Look... if you want a 'netfilter, thats fine and dandy. That's your choice.

 

I, however very much appreciate very much being to view (within social and legal frameworks) whatever I choose to, and if that happens to be some whistleblower site... then power to me

 

 

iEDIT

 

Here's something to consider, which may be considered cryptic but nonetheless its an applicable point,... people would have millions spent in building a better mousetrap, yet ignore what attracts the mice in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

Internet also promotes lies, fascism, spam, pornography, self injuring. Internet is used to recruit bad people for bad things, internet is used for propaganda, for ....

 

 

well... so does the local pub (hotel/ inn/ tavern)

Edited December 13, 2012 by Wolf Rider

[EtherealN]

Actually, I have not given you my opinion on a netfilter. All I've done is state that it is not exclusive to russia (or China etcetera) and is totally capable of serving a legitimate law enforcement goal. I have also specifically stated that deciding whether this law enforcement goal is enough to outweigh possible problems with having such filters. Please don't assume my position.

 

Again, what you're missing is very simple:

1) Filters can still fill a legit purpose even if the worst guys evade them.

2) For those that evade them, you use other measures. Successfully, I might add, since there have been arrests made on people that did try to hide behind VPN. ;) (EDIT: Whether said arrests were correct is something I don't know, I haven't followed said legal cases in detail.)

 

This really isn't complex. You are refuting one measure's legitimacy because it doesn't solve 100% of the problem. That is exactly like saying that having cops on the street is pointless because there will still be muggings.

 

Also, again, the filters are there to stop people from accessing this kind of material that these hardboiled criminals profit from. Not all people that access this stuff knows all about internet security. I know of absolutely no reason to expect them to be better, in average, at computer systems than your average schmoe is.

 

Finally, the fact that some laws have ulterior motives does not void the burden of proof when you state that the motivation for a specific law is not as presented. You cannot simply take a loose statement like that and then decide that whatever fits your personal suspicions of global conspiracies must be those ones. You still have to prove that point.

Edited December 13, 2012 by EtherealN

[BIGNEWY]

The internet should be free and wide open for everyone

 

if it is changed in anyway we will fight it. . . .

[EtherealN]

Here's something to consider, which may be considered cryptic but nonetheless its an applicable point,... people would have millions spent in building a better mousetrap, yet ignore what attracts the mice in the first place.

 

Or they do both.

 

Seriously.

 

You don't stop producers with a filter.

However, it is a measure that can help reduce their profitability and/or reducing the damage to the victims through limiting the spread of the material - especially when talking about a medium like the internet, where said producer can be in one country, and the site can be on some random island outside of africa or something. You can only stop that site, in that case, through these measures:

 

1) Request local authorities to do it.

...and if the servers are placed strategically such that the stuff either isn't illegal, or local authorities are just incompetent, overworked or bribed, your remaining non-censorship options is:

2) Invasion.

 

But identifying the site and making it impossible to access it from within the country will stop the vast majority of people from reaching it. Compare with blockings of ThePirateBay - when it was blocked here (which was like for a couple days), almost no-one was able to access it. And that's a crowd that usually knows their way around this stuff!

 

Now, blocking ThePirateBay does not stop the crackers and rippers and stuff, but it did stop (temporarily) a big part of the distribution channel. Meanwhile, they used other measures to go for the crackers and rippers.

 

But saying that such filtering is, by definition, some sort of ulterior censorship to get at political opposition as part of some huge conspiracy... That's tin foil right there. Now, if you were to say "I think it might be" rather than "it is" - then suddenly you start approaching the realm of reason. ;)

[Wolf Rider]

 

Actually, I have not given you my opinion on a netfilter. All I've done is state that it is not exclusive to russia (or China etcetera) and is totally capable of serving a legitimate law enforcement goal. I have also specifically stated that deciding whether this law enforcement goal is enough to outweigh possible problems with having such filters. Please don't assume my position.

 

 

but... you've made assumptions, sorry to say

 

 

 

Again, what you're missing is very simple:

1) Filters can still fill a legit purpose even if the worst guys evade them.

2) For those that evade them, you use other measures. Successfully, I might add, since there have been arrests made on people that did try to hide behind VPN. ;) (EDIT: Whether said arrests were correct is something I don't know, I haven't followed said legal cases in detail.)

 

 

and you've missed some of mine

 

the hard proof on the machine is what done those ones in... not the communication method

 

 

This really isn't complex. You are refuting one measure's legitimacy because it doesn't solve 100% of the problem. That is exactly like saying that having cops on the street is pointless because there will still be muggings.

 

 

yet... there are still muggings on the street with police present - go figure (see my point on mousetraps)

 

 

Also, again, the filters are there to stop people from accessing this kind of material that these hardboiled criminals profit from.

 

 

Not all people that access this stuff knows all about internet security. I know of absolutely no reason to expect them to be better, in average, at computer systems than your average schmoe is.

 

Finally, the fact that some laws have ulterior motives does not void the burden of proof when you state that the motivation for a specific law is not as presented. You cannot simply take a loose statement like that and then decide that whatever fits your personal suspicions of global conspiracies must be those ones. You still have to prove that point.

 

 

can't be "proved" without contravening, your to be upheld, rules on political discussion in this forum, Ethereal...

 

now, do you still want a "filter"??

 

 

 

 

and please, don't take my discourse personally,,, it is not meant as such. I really enjoys views from all parts of the world. :thumbup:

[sobek]

But saying that such filtering is, by definition, some sort of ulterior censorship to get at political opposition as part of some huge conspiracy...

 

It often ends up being used in ways never devised in the first place. Have a look at the data preservation legislation that the EU jammed onto everybody to aid in the fight against terrorism.

 

IIRC it has been in place for about a year here in Austria and it wasn't once used for its intended purpose, namely, fighting terrorism. IIRC they accessed it in 180 cases to aid murder or burglary investigations. Not one investigation of terrorism, not even a fake one like when they accused those animal rights activists of founding an organised crime syndicate (lol). Whether that is worth preserving 8 million Austrians internet connection data around the clock preemptively, i have my doubts.

 

To top it off, the record labels are already going Paganini on the European Unions heart strings to be able to use data preservation in prosecution of piracy. And they put a lot of juice into that one.

 

Such measures have a tendency to awaken desires in all the wrong places.

 

Anyways, too much politics on my part. :music_whistling:

Edited December 13, 2012 by sobek

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The internet should be free and wide open for everyone

 

if it is changed in anyway we will fight it. . . .

Who is "we"? BTW, internet should not be free and it should be regulated.

[Fjordmonkey]

Who is "we"? BTW, internet should not be free and it should be regulated.

 

You can't regulate anarchy, which the internet pretty much is. That's where you, and most of the politicians and/or special interest groups that think that they can stamp out such things such as racism, porn, terrorism or bullying on the net, go severely wrong.

 

And at this point in history, where you can hardly get two people to agree on what color the sky is, you'd be hard pressed to get people to even agree on a common set of regulations. There's just too many differing interest in it to reach a consensus on it.

 

Hell, the ONLY way you'd get any sort of regulation of the 'Net is if each country set up a ruleset to apply to the internal 'Net of their country, and then firewalled the hell out of the country worse than what China currently has. And good luck with that, my friend.

 

So again: You can't stop the signal.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yes, actually. That minor can simply find a homeless person on the street and pay him to go and buy the magazine for him.

Not, actually. In your example a minor is not buying pornography from a convenient store, but from a homeless person. Thus your response was not accurate nor appropriate.

 

BTW, why did you choose homeless person for you scenario? Could it be middle class, adult from a nice family who wants to take advantage of a minor and lure him into pornography?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You can't regulate anarchy, which the internet pretty much is.

You actually can regulate, with the main goal of preventing anarchy. What would be of a city of Stavanger, if the traffic is not regulated? Can you imagine Stavanger without traffic lights and without traffic rules? It would be Anarchy, right? Would you like to live in a city without traffic rules?

 

BTW, I was in Norway many times. I love Norway and I love the city of Stavanger!

 

 

Hell, the ONLY way you'd get any sort of regulation of the 'Net is if each country set up a ruleset to apply to the internal 'Net of their country, and then firewalled the hell out of the country worse than what China currently has.

Actually, yes, that is the answer. The cultures in Norway and in USA and in Iran and in China are way different. Therefore, why shouldn't they have a right to regulate their internet? I was in China a year ago. And youtube was blocked. And I did not miss it a bit! I love some of the you tube videos, but I get sick to my stomach with all that is readily available on youtube. Therefore, I fully understand Chinese government decision to block youtube.

[Fjordmonkey]

You actually can regulate, with the main goal of preventing anarchy. What would be of a city of Stavanger, if the traffic is not regulated? Can you imagine Stavanger without traffic lights and without traffic rules? It would be Anarchy, right? Would you like to live in a city without traffic rules?

 

The best bet on that thing is isolating the networks that actually handle civic systems completely from the rest of the 'net. Or better yet: Never put them on a network at all, anyway.

 

You cannot compare a local entity like a traffic-light system, or even a city/county-wide power-control grid, to the 'Net. The scale is so grossly different, and the mechanisms that make it work aren't anywhere close to comparable.

 

BTW, I was in Norway many times. I love Norway and I love the city of Stavanger!

 

If you love snow, you should go there :D They've gotten about 60cm so far, and there's a storm-front coming in that will give Beaufort 10-weather and most likely even more snow in the coming days :P

 

 

Actually, yes, that is the answer. The cultures in Norway and in USA and in Iran and in China are way different. Therefore, why shouldn't they have a right to regulate their internet? I was in China a year ago. And youtube was blocked. And I did not miss it a bit! I love some of the you tube videos, but I get sick to my stomach with all that is readily available on youtube. Therefore, I fully understand Chinese government decision to block youtube.

 

If you look past the techincal issues of doing what you say (and they are truly massive), the main problem with doing so is that it's not something that's seemed like a democratic thing to do. It's something that's not in agreement with the principles of democracy, and it WILL be viewed as the government imposing their rules about what's moral and what's not, what's right and what's wrong on a very personal level. Which again isn't something you'll be able to implement in this day and age.

 

Hell, think of what would happen if Washington tried to implement a limitation on what US citizens could view and find on the net on the scale that you suggest. I'm pretty sure that you can see think about the consequences of such an action, given where your profile say you live. Anarchy, indeed.

 

One of the main issues with regulation comes not just in the form of who's to say that what's right for you is right for me. It's also a question of the technical aspect of the whole idea. In order to have the level of control over the network traffic you'd need to effectively stop people from accessing whatever they want on the net, you'd have to limit the number of uplinks to a handful, install servers and systems powerful enough to handle the immense amount of traffic all the way down to a packet-level (which is a serious bitch in terms of cost and administration even for corporate networks, which is where I reside), and then route ALL network-traffic in and out of the country through them. And even then you wouldn't be able to stop things.

 

You see, people have been saying that the 'Net needs to be regulated since it's inception back in the good ol' analog modem-times. But even by then it was too late, since the use of the 'Net went through the roof as soon as people understood the implications it had for business. And now, given how globally connected everything is both in business and pleasure, imposing any sort of control over it is damn near impossible without also severely disrupting global business. Of course, one can argue that this probably wouldn't be such a bad thing, but that is as it is.

 

So, once again: You cannot stop the signal.

[EtherealN]

I get sick to my stomach with all that is readily available on youtube.

 

You do have the option of simply not clicking the video links, you know. :P

 

This is an ancient debate; if a friend from my childhood church would have his way, products like DCS would be banned. Why? Because it roughens the mind of people when they play at war etcetera etcetera, decensitizing us to the very real horrors of armed conflict and thus contributes towards a violent society filled with crime.

 

My biggest problem with all of these things is that I can easily designate things that I want to block/ban the crap out of, and things that others want to block/ban the crap out of that I think is obviously not only stuff that should be left alone - but stuff that I even like! (Careful with that imagination now! :P ) And between those two I can construct a nice string of items that fall somewhere on the scales, and I end up finding that the limits become completely arbitrary. And that's a major problem. It's not enough to be disgusted by something to ban it - as long as we're talking actual legislation. It's a different matter, obviously, when it's your house either literally or figuratively; in your house, your rules.

[Pyroflash]

You actually can regulate, with the main goal of preventing anarchy. What would be of a city of Stavanger, if the traffic is not regulated? Can you imagine Stavanger without traffic lights and without traffic rules? It would be Anarchy, right? Would you like to live in a city without traffic rules?

 

BTW, I was in Norway many times. I love Norway and I love the city of Stavanger!

 

There is a difference indeed. First off, traffic laws are regulated because there is an apparent need to educate people on how to properly drive. This does not necessarily mean that people would be prosecuted on any of this, however simply teaching people correct and safe driving is, in many cases, sufficient for adults. The same with traffic lights, it is flow control, not hard restrictions. There is nothing physically stopping people from simply running red lights, going faster than the speed limit, or cutting people off.

 

Actually, yes, that is the answer. The cultures in Norway and in USA and in Iran and in China are way different. Therefore, why shouldn't they have a right to regulate their internet? I was in China a year ago. And youtube was blocked. And I did not miss it a bit! I love some of the you tube videos, but I get sick to my stomach with all that is readily available on youtube. Therefore, I fully understand Chinese government decision to block youtube.

 

Because it is a government restricting individual freedom to choose what is appropriate for viewing. What if someone came in here and said that www.eagle.ru is now a blocked site because these "airplane war games" are teaching people how to kill each other? Would you support this decision? Probably not.

 

Not, actually. In your example a minor is not buying pornography from a convenient store, but from a homeless person. Thus your response was not accurate nor appropriate.

 

My response was as accurate as it needed to be. I was illustrating the ability of a minor to be able to procure adult material from a convenience store. The homeless person described in my story was not actively soliciting the material, but merely acting as an intermediary.

 

If a minor buys porn from the internet using his parents' cards, then by your logic the parents are actively purchasing the content for their children to view, even if they are not made aware of these purchases.

 

BTW, why did you choose homeless person for you scenario? Could it be middle class, adult from a nice family who wants to take advantage of a minor and lure him into pornography?

I chose a homeless person because his lack of income is more likely to lead him into becoming an accomplice in this act. A nice middle/upper middle class adult with children of his/her own would be less likely to acquiesce the minor's request for the material in question. This however is hardly relevant in the slightest, as my analogy did not include income or home-ownership as factors in the ability for someone to act as an intermediary. Edited December 13, 2012 by Pyroflash

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

My response was as accurate as it needed to be. I was illustrating the ability of a minor to be able to procure adult material from a convenience store. The homeless person described in my story was not actively soliciting the material, but merely acting as an intermediary.

Your response was very inaccurate and I would say inappropriate. My question had nothing to do with involving homeless person buying porn. You brought that up.

 

If a minor buys porn from the internet using his parents' cards, then by your logic the parents are actively purchasing the content for their children to view, even if they are not made aware of these purchases.

That is your logic, certainly not mine. I've never mentioned parents, credit cards ... any of that. I have no idea why are you bringing this up?

 

I chose a homeless person because his lack of income is more likely to lead him into becoming an accomplice in this act. A nice middle/upper middle class adult with children of his/her own would be less likely to acquiesce the minor's request for the material in question. This however is hardly relevant in the slightest, as my analogy did not include income or home-ownership as factors in the ability for someone to act as an intermediary.

Bringing homeless people to this discussion was just inappropriate thing to do. Go back and re-read original question, (which had nothing to do with homeless people), and come back with a better idea on how to answer it.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You do have the option of simply not clicking the video links, you know. :P

And you can stay home, don't go out to drive you car, and you will be safe from driving accidents, you know :P Yet, you go out, take your chance, because you know that traffic is heavily regulated, significantly increasing your chances to avoid accidents.

 

I am not against the internet. I am all for it. But, in needs to be regulated, heavily regulated.

[EtherealN]

There is a pretty major difference between being able to move out of your home without hospitalization and death, and having self-control issues when it comes to accessing specific videos on a specific video sharing site.

 

Complaining about that is roughly on par with going to the store, purchasing a pornographic magazine, and then be all upset at being exposed to nudity... It's not an argument for legislation. It's a huge "DUUUUH". ;)

 

If you don't like it, don't access it.

If you don't want your kids to access it, block it on their computer.

Problem solved?

[sobek]

And you can stay home, don't go out to drive you car, and you will be safe from driving accidents, you know :P Yet, you go out, take your chance, because you know that traffic is heavily regulated, significantly increasing your chances to avoid accidents.

 

Really? Because last time my browser was manhandled by an unwanted popup, i didn't have to get hospitalized afterwards. You have no idea what you would be giving up for not having to wrinkle your nose now and then (compared to potential death when we're talking traffic).

 

Seriously, sometimes i wonder how our society manages to put the collective bra and panties on in the morning, the way we all beg for politicians to do it for us.

[Pyroflash]

Your response was very inaccurate and I would say inappropriate. My question had nothing to do with involving homeless person buying porn. You brought that up.

 

No, you are right, your comment did not involve any intermediary third parties. However, without lying (fake ID) or using intermediary parties (this is why I brought up the homeless person), how else is the child supposed to legally (as far as the store is concerned) purchase the material in question (I'm not saying they should be able to)?

 

That is your logic, certainly not mine. I've never mentioned parents, credit cards ... any of that. I have no idea why are you bringing this up?

Again, a minor cannot legally obtain pornographic content from commercial providers ( on the internet). Thus again, an intermediary is needed. If not the parents, then whom? an uncle? a sister? a brother? A credit card is a credit card as far as I'm concerned, and it could be Joe Schmoe's from down the street for all that it matters in this context.

 

Bringing homeless people to this discussion was just inappropriate thing to do. Go back and re-read original question, (which had nothing to do with homeless people), and come back with a better idea on how to answer it.

No, my point was made to say that it is possible, and fairly simple at that, for minors to currently purchase adult material, if not directly. I do not consider a McGuffin analogy to be inappropriate in this case. If you wish however, I will henceforth refer to the "homeless person" in this context as "intermediary x", although honestly it is pure semantics. Edited December 14, 2012 by Pyroflash

[Fjordmonkey]

And you can stay home, don't go out to drive you car, and you will be safe from driving accidents, you know :P Yet, you go out, take your chance, because you know that traffic is heavily regulated, significantly increasing your chances to avoid accidents.

 

I am not against the internet. I am all for it. But, in needs to be regulated, heavily regulated.

 

Comparing the 'Net to what happens when you break the regulations in traffic is, quite frankly, utterly idiotic. As someone else mentioned, you don't end up in the hospital because you suddenly come across porn, bullying or violence on the 'Net. Or because your browser suddenly spits out an error-message.

 

To be honest, Hajduk, you haven't got the slightest shred of an idea on just how big the 'Net is, how much information it contains, how it works and how mankind has come to depend on it for damn near everything. Just like the majority of the politicians around the world that say that it must be regulated.

 

The countries that do try to regulate things are usually crystal-clear on the fact that you cannot stop those dedicated enough to circumvent the blocks, nor the ones that have the technical skills to work around the inhibitors. It happens in China despite the amount of work they've put into their Great Firewall of China, it happens here despite the child-porn filter they have in place for all ISP's operating in Norway.

 

So once again, for the N'th time: You cannot stop the signal.

[BIGNEWY]

The facists banking families want to control the net, they have everything else already.

 

I use the tor project ( and bridges ) to bypass some net filters and manually add blocked websites that I want to access to my own dns list (tpb for example)

 

 

https://www.torproject.org/

Edited December 14, 2012 by BIGNEWY

[GGTharos]

Why don't we regulate you off the internet, see how you like it :P

 

Every time internet regulation has been attempted, it has been too much. Don't you live in the land of the free? A price comes with freedom. That price is YOUR vigilance, not that of the government.

 

Regulate yourself.

 

And you can stay home, don't go out to drive you car, and you will be safe from driving accidents, you know :P Yet, you go out, take your chance, because you know that traffic is heavily regulated, significantly increasing your chances to avoid accidents.

 

I am not against the internet. I am all for it. But, in needs to be regulated, heavily regulated.