Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats To Security, Or Freedom?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Villaseñor
    Steve: ...one unwritten safeguard against the internet being switched off is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This ensures that the government
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 26, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve: "...one unwritten safeguard against the internet being switched off
      is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This ensures that the
      government are unlikely to take a decision to switch it off lightly..."

      Steve:
      Respectfully, you are mistaken. The only element to "ensure" proper action
      is compliance with law, clearly defined law; nothing more nothing less.
      Application aside from this principle is folly, and relies too much on
      speculative intentions of those in power (whoever they may be); i.e., the
      road to hell is paved with good intentions and trust of the people. And this
      is not just my opinion, but one supported by current and historical
      evidence -- unquestionably!

      Please know, so that we're clear, I am not among those who purport the
      government should not take measures in the spirit of S-3480. Taking no
      measures to protect vital Net structures would be foolish, in the extreme.
      But doing so under poorly crafted and hastily targeted means such as S-3480;
      neither provides real security nor adequately addresses preservation of
      civil liberties.

      Were the latter not accurate; why would so many diverse and normally
      opposing groups band together to address correction of S-3480, before
      implementation? The short answer is they wouldn't; such would not be in
      their common interest.

      Notwithstanding; I'd be happy to provide ample supportive material to
      further demonstrate why I believe your notion (above) is error, and do so in
      the spirit of friendly conversation. In the alternative suffice it that your
      sentiment, while understandable, does not take into account other critical
      factors.

      Best Regards,
      Mark Villaseñor,
      http://www.TailTrex.tv
      Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
      http://www.SOAR508.org
    • Mark Villaseñor
      Joly MacFie: If the wording needs to be improved, so be it - but to spread fud about the Internet kill switches isn t really all that helpful. Hey Joly:
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 26, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Joly MacFie: "If the wording needs to be improved, so be it - but to spread
        fud about the 'Internet kill switches' isn't really all that helpful."

        Hey Joly:
        Please forgive me if you got the impression I was spreading "fud" regarding
        the topic. My intent by broaching the thread was to inform, certainly not
        infuse histrionics. And because of the serious implications to us all I am
        fully prepared to argue valid issues with irrefutable evidence, should that
        be necessary and appropriate. In short; I have not and do not comment on
        this subject from a casual or uninformed position.

        Thanks in advance for your grace and understanding.

        Happy Trails,
        Mark Villaseñor,
        http://www.TailTrex.tv
        Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
        http://www.SOAR508.org
      • elbowsofdeath
        Hello, Well there are no complete certainties in life, and whilst the written laws can help, they arent a total safeguard either, they can quickly be
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          Well there are no complete certainties in life, and whilst the written laws can help, they arent a total safeguard either, they can quickly be overridden by emergency legislation thats rushed through once the 'justifying situation' has already begun.

          I would be mistaken if I thought that the commerce stuff I went on about is a license to be completely complacent about this stuff. But it remains a real factor that really would prevent government from taking this action too readily, in the USA especially. Governments may end up screwingcertain sectors of commerce from time to time, but in this age they really arent going to mess with a variety of corporate interests unless there is an extremely strong reason to do so.

          Still whatever the outcome of this stuff,I dont expect governments to tie their own hands completely, so I dont expect a conclusion that is completely reassuring.

          Probably not worth arguing about this stuff too much, not trying to change opinions and Im not even in the USA anyway. Im in the UK where the game is played mostly the same way, except here the masses tend to be so worn down and cynical that we mostly wont bother having these legislative battles as we dont expect to be listened to or for it to safeguard us much if the going gets tough one day.

          Cheers

          Steve
          --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
          >
          > Steve: "...one unwritten safeguard against the internet being switched off
          > is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This ensures that the
          > government are unlikely to take a decision to switch it off lightly..."
          >
          > Steve:
          > Respectfully, you are mistaken. The only element to "ensure" proper action
          > is compliance with law, clearly defined law; nothing more nothing less.
          > Application aside from this principle is folly, and relies too much on
          > speculative intentions of those in power (whoever they may be); i.e., the
          > road to hell is paved with good intentions and trust of the people. And this
          > is not just my opinion, but one supported by current and historical
          > evidence -- unquestionably!
          >
          > Please know, so that we're clear, I am not among those who purport the
          > government should not take measures in the spirit of S-3480. Taking no
          > measures to protect vital Net structures would be foolish, in the extreme.
          > But doing so under poorly crafted and hastily targeted means such as S-3480;
          > neither provides real security nor adequately addresses preservation of
          > civil liberties.
          >
          > Were the latter not accurate; why would so many diverse and normally
          > opposing groups band together to address correction of S-3480, before
          > implementation? The short answer is they wouldn't; such would not be in
          > their common interest.
          >
          > Notwithstanding; I'd be happy to provide ample supportive material to
          > further demonstrate why I believe your notion (above) is error, and do so in
          > the spirit of friendly conversation. In the alternative suffice it that your
          > sentiment, while understandable, does not take into account other critical
          > factors.
          >
          > Best Regards,
          > Mark Villaseñor,
          > http://www.TailTrex.tv
          > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
          > http://www.SOAR508.org
          >
        • Mark Villaseñor
          Steve: I would be mistaken if I thought that the commerce stuff I went on about is a license to be completely complacent about this stuff. But it remains a
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Steve: "I would be mistaken if I thought that the commerce stuff I went on
            about is a license to be completely complacent about this stuff. But it
            remains a real factor that really would prevent government from taking this
            action too readily..."

            Again, I respectfully disagree.

            First quarter 2010 total US gross domestic retail sales numbers are cited at
            960 Billion, with an online (Ecommerce) percentage of slightly over 3.99%;
            roughly 38.7 Billion, respectively (Source: U.S. Department of Commence).
            What you are suggesting is that the US government would not quickly
            sacrifice less than four percent of an economic base, if it potentially
            meant preserving 96+ percent. Such is not realistic, especially in these
            economic times.

            Considering you're in the UK I'll mention two facts about compliant efficacy
            of our US government...

            Thus far we've spent billions on New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, yet
            the bulk of rebuilding homes has been done by charities due to government
            failures to act as mandated. And almost ten years after the attack on New
            York, Ground Zero is still a hole in the earth. Why? Primarily because
            ambiguous laws make interdepartmental frays common, and real action subject
            to interpretation of those statutes. Few things get done as promised, or
            expected.

            I could go on, but hopefully you get the gist.

            Under U.S. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) the government must act in a
            coherent manner, pursuant to applicable statute. But if that statute is
            unclear and ambiguous, then interpretation is left to the lawyers (who,
            believe me, argue positions not necessarily truth or intent of law). What we
            are left with are gapping loopholes, too often resulting in unintended
            consequences.

            ...And there are overabundant examples of the latter, rest assured.

            Happy Trails,
            Mark Villaseñor,
            http://www.TailTrex.tv
            Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
            http://www.SOAR508.org
          • elbowsofdeath
            Retail sales are only one part of the picture, one which will continue to grow,bus asides from that most companies use the internet for a variety of different
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Retail sales are only one part of the picture, one which will continue to grow,bus asides from that most companies use the internet for a variety of different things, and increasingly so do government departments. This is often seen as a way to reduce costs & staff, and business wont be at all happy to lose that, especially at extremely short notice which would cause a lot of disruption.

              Of course you are correct that its balancing act, and that if the wider economy, institutions or society are deemed to be under serious threat then the net is not beyond sacrifice, especially if its only taken down for a short time.

              And yes of course you should aim to have sane and clear laws. My point is only that under certain conditions they would shut the net down, and that the law is far from the only factor that will influence the judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many people to be shut down on a whim for weak reasons.

              Cheers

              Steve

              --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
              >
              > Steve: "I would be mistaken if I thought that the commerce stuff I went on
              > about is a license to be completely complacent about this stuff. But it
              > remains a real factor that really would prevent government from taking this
              > action too readily..."
              >
              > Again, I respectfully disagree.
              >
              > First quarter 2010 total US gross domestic retail sales numbers are cited at
              > 960 Billion, with an online (Ecommerce) percentage of slightly over 3.99%;
              > roughly 38.7 Billion, respectively (Source: U.S. Department of Commence).
              > What you are suggesting is that the US government would not quickly
              > sacrifice less than four percent of an economic base, if it potentially
              > meant preserving 96+ percent. Such is not realistic, especially in these
              > economic times.
              >
              > Considering you're in the UK I'll mention two facts about compliant efficacy
              > of our US government...
              >
              > Thus far we've spent billions on New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, yet
              > the bulk of rebuilding homes has been done by charities due to government
              > failures to act as mandated. And almost ten years after the attack on New
              > York, Ground Zero is still a hole in the earth. Why? Primarily because
              > ambiguous laws make interdepartmental frays common, and real action subject
              > to interpretation of those statutes. Few things get done as promised, or
              > expected.
              >
              > I could go on, but hopefully you get the gist.
              >
              > Under U.S. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) the government must act in a
              > coherent manner, pursuant to applicable statute. But if that statute is
              > unclear and ambiguous, then interpretation is left to the lawyers (who,
              > believe me, argue positions not necessarily truth or intent of law). What we
              > are left with are gapping loopholes, too often resulting in unintended
              > consequences.
              >
              > ...And there are overabundant examples of the latter, rest assured.
              >
              > Happy Trails,
              > Mark Villaseñor,
              > http://www.TailTrex.tv
              > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
              > http://www.SOAR508.org
              >
            • Mark Villaseñor
              Steve: ...the law is far from the only factor that will influence the judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many people to be
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Steve: "...the law is far from the only factor that will influence the
                judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many
                people to be shut down on a whim for weak reasons."

                Well, at least we agree on the latter.

                However LAW is not functioned, here in the U.S. anyway, to "influence"
                judgment but rather authorize or prohibit action. And therein rests my
                distain for S-3480 because by way of ambiguity, it AUTHORIZES precisely what
                we agree should not be done. And I'm not suggesting that a sitting U.S.
                President would necessarily act "on a whim," yet under S-3480 as current
                he/she would have that power/authority. (Does the matter of WMD existence
                ring any bells?)

                Although we could discuss (debate) the ancillary elements and possible
                contributing factors of a Net shut-down at length, such distracts from the
                historical core; indisputable truth. Unless clearly restrained, a government
                will act of its own will. When it does this in affect thwarts the purpose of
                a republic, the U.S. foundation. Whereas weak or nonexistent governmental
                restraints brought about by a lack of vigilance, invariably robs THE PEOPLE
                of secure liberties.

                ...My resistance is a Yank thing, Steve. :D

                Happy Trails,
                Mark Villaseñor,
                http://www.TailTrex.tv
                Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                http://www.SOAR508.org
              • elbowsofdeath
                Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this group, and have a history of posting too much about too few subjects, because Im enjoying this
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this group, and have a history of posting too much about too few subjects, because Im enjoying this discussion, but better make this my last post on the subject.

                  In theory there are a variety of aspects of the U.S system of government that are superior to the system here. The way your system is written down, in theory you have much better separation between the different branches of government. Here we dont have proper separation between the judicial arm, the executive has progressivly taken power away from the parliament, and one of our chambers isnt even elected. So Im not the sort of European that finds it easy to take cheap shots at the US of A.

                  In practice however, the system is subject to the usual powerful human influences which are always looking to erode the safeguards, with mixed results. It is said that every generation has to fight to retain its previously hard won freedoms, and maybe even win some new ones. In some senses and in many places round the world, this battle seems to have been somewhat lost in recent times, perhaps because we've appeared to have the luxury of not needing to pay as much attention, or the game seems to heavily stacked against us to bother fighting. All sorts of horror can result from such complacency or sense of powerlessness and defeat. So I dont want to discourage people fighting for stuff they believe is important. I was merely musing on some of the reasons why I dont think this particular issue is that all that much of a threat unless we happen to end up in a world which will be horrific in many other more dramatic ways. I could more easily imagine a time when the net still exists, but people become more afraid of the consequences of saying certain things on it, than I can imagine them just switching it off completely for reasons that dont pass the smell test.Time will tell eh, hope you get a better law than that currently proposed, but am personally cynical as to whether it will be enough to save you if the times of real strife arrive.

                  As for WMD, its a shame that the US has massive double standards when it comes to sovereignty and the law for them as compared to the rest of the world. USA uses its might to get other countries to sign up to things that are not reciprocated, eg extradition treaties, and its attitude towards international law is little better than using them as justification for starting wars when it suits, but not to feel bound by these international laws itself when it doesnt want to be.

                  Cheers

                  Steve
                  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Steve: "...the law is far from the only factor that will influence the
                  > judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many
                  > people to be shut down on a whim for weak reasons."
                  >
                  > Well, at least we agree on the latter.
                  >
                  > However LAW is not functioned, here in the U.S. anyway, to "influence"
                  > judgment but rather authorize or prohibit action. And therein rests my
                  > distain for S-3480 because by way of ambiguity, it AUTHORIZES precisely what
                  > we agree should not be done. And I'm not suggesting that a sitting U.S.
                  > President would necessarily act "on a whim," yet under S-3480 as current
                  > he/she would have that power/authority. (Does the matter of WMD existence
                  > ring any bells?)
                  >
                  > Although we could discuss (debate) the ancillary elements and possible
                  > contributing factors of a Net shut-down at length, such distracts from the
                  > historical core; indisputable truth. Unless clearly restrained, a government
                  > will act of its own will. When it does this in affect thwarts the purpose of
                  > a republic, the U.S. foundation. Whereas weak or nonexistent governmental
                  > restraints brought about by a lack of vigilance, invariably robs THE PEOPLE
                  > of secure liberties.
                  >
                  > ...My resistance is a Yank thing, Steve. :D
                  >
                  > Happy Trails,
                  > Mark Villaseñor,
                  > http://www.TailTrex.tv
                  > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                  > http://www.SOAR508.org
                  >
                • Mark Villaseñor
                  Steve: Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this group... Actually, I (and I hope others) don t see it that way. After all discussing
                  Message 8 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Steve: "Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this
                    group..."

                    Actually, I (and I hope others) don't see it that way. After all discussing
                    topics and related issues such as this has extreme relevance to vlogging, in
                    much the same way Twitter had affect on information dissemination during
                    Iranian issues. (Not to suggest the U.S. is in any way headed for such
                    unrest, but that the value of speaking candidly is recognized.)

                    The FREE flow of information and ideas is what has made the Internet what it
                    is, even with inherent pitfalls. Our collective concern is presumably to
                    this end and so long as Net-folk have unfettered web accesses, one can
                    presume this would not change. The latter is my underlining motivation for
                    engaging this topic, as I'm certain is yours.

                    ...As for some of your other remarks.

                    After many years of dealing with governmental agencies, I am encouraged that
                    U.S. citizens are finally waking up to select points you raised. And over
                    the last five years or so I've notice that, irrespective political
                    affiliation (despite appearances), when us Yanks clearly grasp issue
                    elements; we understand each other better, and can therefore find
                    commonality. Yet given we lack the longevity of Europe, I'd say we haven't
                    done half bad thus far -- but there's still room for improvement.

                    So don't give up on Uncle Sam, getting his act more together. :D

                    Happy Trails,
                    Mark Villaseñor,
                    http://www.TailTrex.tv
                    Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                    http://www.SOAR508.org
                  • David Jones
                    ... At least someone of note is willing to stand up and hang their balls on the line for this one: http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/ Dave.
                    Message 9 of 17 , Aug 29, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:59 AM, elbowsofdeath <steve@...> wrote:
                      > As for WMD, its a shame that the US has massive double standards when it comes to sovereignty and the law for them as compared to the rest of the world. USA uses its might to get other countries to sign up to things that are not reciprocated, eg extradition treaties, and its attitude towards international law is little better than using them as justification for starting wars when it suits, but not to feel bound by these international laws itself when it doesnt want to be.

                      At least someone of note is willing to stand up and hang their balls
                      on the line for this one:
                      http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/

                      Dave.
                    • Mark Villaseñor
                      David Jones: At least someone of note is willing to stand up and hang their balls on the line... Hey Dave: Please stay on-topic rather than spouting off
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 29, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David Jones: "At least someone of note is willing to stand up and hang their
                        balls on the line..."

                        Hey Dave:
                        Please stay on-topic rather than spouting off about matter clearly out of
                        your depth -- demonstrating how utterly ignorant of U.S. governmental
                        dynamics, you truly are. I'm not ticked, mind you; it's just that lending
                        webtime to Bugliosi's bull is both inappropriate for and rude to the list.

                        Thank So Much,
                        Mark Villaseñor,
                        http://www.TailTrex.tv
                        Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                        http://www.SOAR508.org
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.