Declaration of Internet Freedom

Meh, at the end of the day, the internet really is all private business of telecom networks. In a capitalist system that means you speak with your wallet. Don't like what they're doing? Take your money else where.

LOL.

Meh, at the end of the day, the internet really is all private business of telecom networks. In a capitalist system that means you speak with your wallet. Don't like what they're doing? Take your money else where.

And if you don't like what Cox, Comcast, or Time Warner are doing (because they all are doing the same thing), what do you do then?

I'm pretty sure that he was joking.

It's pretty plain to any Canadian who catches the national news that the business of providing Internet service is not a fully private affair, in terms of both economics and security. It's one thing for the government to participate in a warranted hunt for people who share music, but it's another thing entirely for them to participate in a warrantless hunt for people who share their own opinions, especially when they'll be sanctioning those ISPs that refuse to spend the time and money required to join in on said warrantless hunt. It kind of reminds me of the US healthcare laws in recent days, except that in this case the government is hunting dissidents instead of illnesses.

A few months ago there was a whole lot of people spamming #tellviceverything on Twitter with stories about their fajita-induced anal leakage, as a protest against the way that the Canadian government is going. The funniest part was when the relevant minister got sideswiped by that, and started claiming that he didn't know about the warrantless part. Of course, that was a lie, and we all know now that the ISPs and the government had been meeting about the proposed law for quite some time before Twitter went ballistic on him.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that he was joking. I myself was kind of joking about Anonymous. They did redact some things here and there, like the Bahraini F1 attack, which is a start. I'll give them credit for that.

Strong encryption is the enemy of the censor and interloper. True Internet freedom comes from ubiquitous encryption.

Let agencies like the NSA spend all their time and resources decoding your encrypted cat pictures. They won't know what your message traffic contains until they decrypt it, and if all internet traffic is strongly encrypted, sensitive communications are less likely to be intercepted and exploited.

It kind of reminds me of the US healthcare laws in recent days, except that in this case the government is hunting dissidents instead of illnesses.

Just to head this off. The US healthcare jazz is much more complicated than national and international news is making it out to be. There are many very valid reasons to dislike it that are not just, "MRKA IS GETTING TO SOCIALIST". I just get frustrated that outwardly people think it is just a "rich people just don't want to pay taxes" type situation, when all that discussion does is cover the actual problems with the legislation, of which there are many.

MORE DISCUSSION HERE:
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/627127-health-care-passed-but-i-dont-like-where-its-going/

Let agencies like the NSA spend all their time and resources decoding your encrypted cat pictures.

My cat pictures aren't interesting enough for them. But what are the chances that the very purpose of this declaration which you are to sign is for the NSA to know whom to monitor more closely?

To speak in their language: If you are not a criminal, there is no reason for you to hide anything from them or to oppose to anyone reading your stuff.

Ahh Samoth seems to put it best...

The only way to thwart peeping toms in real life is to cover all of your windows with plywood, but if you have an issue with the lack of sunlight, then your barenaked visage is fair game, so sorry. ;)

Seriously though, I personally don't have a problem with people looking at my barenaked visage. I have a problem with people looking at my barenaked visage without my approval. I think that the feminists even have a similar stance, a la Slut Walk. Maybe I'm wrong about the law, but I'm pretty damn sure that if government employees started going around looking into peoples' bedroom windows at all hours, there'd be a lot of angry citizens walking out of court with dismissed manslaughter charges.

[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1341517652' post='4956071']
Meh, at the end of the day, the internet really is all private business of telecom networks. In a capitalist system that means you speak with your wallet. Don't like what they're doing? Take your money else where.

And if you don't like what Cox, Comcast, or Time Warner are doing (because they all are doing the same thing), what do you do then?
[/quote]

Do the capitalist thing? Get a group of people together, found your own company, build your own networks, and give the world the finger!

Yes, I'm not completely serious, but it also isn't a complete joke either. Besides, these days, "Talking with your Wallet" can cover both economic influence as well as political.

Legislation is meant to be a blanket, without holes, so capitalism won't "stop" the problem no matter how hard you hold your breath. I mean, it's pretty hard to run your business when you're in jail for breaking the law.

Capitalism sure stops legislation when it puts people in power who change it.

Ok, so at least you're admitting that the notion of "found your own company, build your own networks, and give the world the finger" is not valid.

As for whatever else you're trying to get at... no one here is denying that money buys power. And really, if we were to ever hope to strike down the relevant legislation, we'd have to vote the Liberals or NDP into power, which are kinda anathema to capitalism in the first place (and not really worthy of federal leadership at this time, on top of it all). I just don't see how money is anything more than a carrot on a stick here, though obviously it's a nice juicy carrot since there's obviously a lot of donkeys braying over it.

Also, it wouldn't be the first time in human history that illegal communications were carried out by the people attempting to evade their governments.

we'd have to vote the Liberals or NDP into power, which are kinda anathema to capitalism in the first place

Eh? Can you point out a Liberal or NDP policy that's "anathema to capitalism?"

[quote name='taby' timestamp='1341778398' post='4957008']we'd have to vote the Liberals or NDP into power, which are kinda anathema to capitalism in the first place

Eh? Can you point out a Liberal or NDP policy that's "anathema to capitalism?"
[/quote]

Can you point out a Conservative policy that's "anathema to socialism"?

Do you really want to talk about modern accusations of the spread of Dutch disease, and about the past destruction of homo reciprocans, or are you just being facetious? I am having serious trouble deciphering your intention.

Also, it wouldn't be the first time in human history that illegal communications were carried out by the people attempting to evade their governments.

Yeah, but the big difference here is that everyone is being accused, implicitly. That was the modus operandi of the KGB and SS. I'm not really sure if you're pointing a finger here, but you can rest assured that I made certain that the federal government monitors my communications, and there's nothing illegal about them, otherwise I'd be in jail right now, don't you think? It makes me feel a little warm and fuzzy actually, to know that I wasted their time.

Can you point out a Conservative policy that's "anathema to socialism"?

If you're trying to make the point that no such specific example of Liberal/NDP policy that is "anathema to capitalism" exists in the same way that no specific example of Conservative policy being "anathema to socialism" exists and that the "anathema to capitalism" aspect of the Liberals/NDPs exists the same way as the "anathema to socialism" aspect of the Conservative party does - that is, it lies in their overall ideals and not any specific policy - then why not just say this instead of forcing the people reading your post to guess what you're trying to say? Forcing people to guess what you're trying to say is called "poor communication." Plus, if this is the case, you still need to justify that the ideals of the Liberals and NDPs actually are "anathema to capitalism." I am aware of no platform on the part of either party to which I would give that label, so I'm a little confused and wondering what information you are privy to that I am not.

Do you really want to talk about modern accusations of the spread of Dutch disease, and about the past destruction of homo reciprocans, or are you just being facetious? I am having serious trouble deciphering your intention.
[/quote]

And I am having serious trouble deciphering what either of those two things (both of which were meaningless to me until I looked them up) have to do with my question. I almost feel like you're just throwing obscure jargon at me in some attempt to throw me off or at the very least make yourself look more knowledgeable/"well-read" instead of giving me a straight answer like, "yes, I can prove to you with this established fact and that established fact and the following reasoning that voting the Liberals or NDPs into power would be anathema to capitalism in Canada." I would think this straight answer would be the path of least resistance for you given that you made the original statement and you surely have a reason to believe it. So what is that reason?