111–120 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which makes me wonder, is there a way to make an ad-hoc, decentralized internet that a government could not shut down?
Yes, it's called HAM radio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>if all the middle east leaders were merely as good as him, the region would be a much better place. No it wouldn't. It might be a better place for Israel, but it would still be a terrible place for Arabs. Egyptians are rebelling for a reason: They have no jobs, and no food. They are kept under the heel of a brutal dictatorship. So are Saudis and Yemenis and everyone else the West likes. The US props up the Egyptian…
This might come across as an anti-American rant. Well - a lot of your comment is worded as though it's a contradition to what I said, where it isn't. It's difficult to participate in a conversation where you're getting hit over the head with a world view like that.
Your claim that I denied was that the middle east would be better with more Mubaraks. I claimed, I believe with good evidence, that the existence of Mubaraks in the middle east is precisely what prevents the region from being peaceful and prosperous.
To the extent that I editorialized is simply the extent to which I felt it necessary to explain why the Mubaraks of the world exist. If my worldview, namely that the US acts in its own interests without regard to the wellbeing of the people its policies affect is one you have a problem with, then by all means tell me why. If, on the other hand, you take offense to my claim that the United States knowingly and willfully installs, props up, prolongs, and supports brutal, tortuous, and murderous dictatorships around the world, then you have a great deal of reality to conquer if you wish to dispute it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which makes me wonder, is there a way to make an ad-hoc, decentralized internet that a government could not shut down?
The government needs the internet for its own internal communications. Also, the banking system or any electronic commerce can't function. Just imagine the world going back to 1980. A parasite can't risk outright killing its host.
The government there strategically left the one provider up that they themselves use and all others are down.
I'd imagine that if a relatively low-tech country like Egypt can pull off a sophisticated partitioning like that on a moments notice that most other countries would be able to do so as well but probably in a more precise manner.
> A parasite can't risk outright killing its host.
Beware of people with nothing to lose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am at a loss as to what this additional infrastructure really permits that having lots of armored men with guns does not. Armored men with guns are a flexible bunch, they can do lots of things. The marginal distinction to the person in power between pressing a button and ordering other people to go shut the net down is pretty minimal; it's not like without this switch, the President is going to actually have go out…
Because to have armed men shooting the place up, it actually takes loyal people, a functioning hierarchy, guns, and a lot of planning. However, if suitable infrastructure is in place, theoretically spoken, even a lone tyrant could push a button and make it happen. That's the danger... Also, an 'internet switch' could selectively filter, it could allow the communication of one faction but not the other.
If it weren't for that North Korea and Myanmar wouldn't last for 5 minutes under their present leadership, the same goes for many other countries.
Just a friendly heads-up that everyone should help spread the word for people in Egypt (and anywhere else with blocked/censored Internet) to download and start using AnchorFree's Hotspot Shield as soon as possible. I've even started using it here in the States for maximum online security.
No ISP connectivity isn't blocked/censored internet, the ISP links are down completely. There isn't a possible way to get through something that isn't even connected. Ham radio is funnily enough a better solution.
I read this, and become more concerned about bills to give the US President an Internet kill-switch. They say it's to protect against cyber-warfare, but something makes me think it's just as likely to be applied to civil unrest, and civil unrest doesn't usually happen unless there's something pretty wrong with the government.
Communication is so central to modern life (especially for businesses) that When people are cut off from their communications they get very angry very rapidly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because to have armed men shooting the place up, it actually takes loyal people, a functioning hierarchy, guns, and a lot of planning. However, if suitable infrastructure is in place, theoretically spoken, even a lone tyrant could push a button and make it happen. That's the danger... Also, an 'internet switch' could selectively filter, it could allow the communication of one faction but not the other.
There is no such thing as a 'lone tyrant', typically tyrants are backed by large numbers of guys willing to do their bidding. If it weren't for that North Korea and Myanmar wouldn't last for 5 minutes under their present leadership, the same goes for many other countries.
Anyway, that doesn't change my point, having control infrastructure already in place does make it a lot easier for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't trust me - but I would wager a bet that the US government already has such infrastructure. We trust them with the power to detonate 1,000's of thermonuclear warheads or study Ebola virus for weapnization at USAMRID - the internet kill switch is horrible, but it is nowhere near the top of my list.
One nuclear bomb, set off at the right location and altitude, could wipe out the Internet and most consumer electronics for most of the continental USA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse . And this is with no direct physical injury.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans may be docile, but businesses and corporations are not. What do you think the proprietors of the thousands of POPs across America are going to tell the feds who come to shut them down? What do you think Google or Microsoft or Facebook are going to say when the government tries to cut off their primary source of income? Do you really think the same corporations that extensively lobby the government now are g…
"What do you think Google or Microsoft or Facebook are going to say when the government tries to cut off their primary source of income?" They're going to say: "how much will you pay us to help you do it?" The answer will be "a lot" as it's always been. And the answer if they don't comply will be "you're finished". Standard mafioso tactics. Are you really expecting giant corporations to have principles at all, not to…
The regulations that hobble the pharmaceutical industry today (you can debate about whether they're good or not; this isn't the point) were initially sought by the industry, in order to weed out snake oil charlatans. A significant early backer of gun control regulation was the Ruger corporation, because the regulations were structured in a way that affected imports (like Beretta) much more severely.