The INTERNET under Surveillance World Wide...

This a pretty big article, but is just to the people interested in knowing how the track by countries, how many of them has access, and how they want to filter some "key words" and censhorship.
It questions also if the Un wants freedom of speech in the internet

www.rsf.org...

Is a long read, but it is worth to read, believe me, very scary stuff anyway...
Big brother is going to win us...

Belgium
POPULATION: 10,264,000
INTERNET USERS: 3,400,000
PRIVATELY-OWNED ISPS: YES

Almost a third of the population uses the Internet, up from only half a million people in 1998. Ninety per cent are men between 24 and 45, two-thirds of them with a university degree or the equivalent.

Interesting. In Belgium, we're not so dumb after all.

I saw this article has the support from the French foreign ministry. Pretty laughable when you know how the former ( socialist ) french gov was censoring Internet. I don't know what do the new one, but I don't think they are better than the former gov.



Australia :

" The Broadcasting Services Act, which came into force on 1 January 2000, spells out material to be banned from websites, including pornography involving children, bestiality, excessive violence, real sex acts and information about crime, violence and drug use. "

What's wrong with banning pronography ( especially when childrens are involved ), bestiality, excessive violence and real sex acts ?

For the others ( information about crime, violence and drug use ), it depend. If the purpose is to help the peoples who are using drugs, have been victim of a crime or any violence, they don't have to ban it. But if the purpose is to promote crime, violence and drug using.....

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Australia :

" The Broadcasting Services Act, which came into force on 1 January 2000, spells out material to be banned from websites, including pornography involving children, bestiality, excessive violence, real sex acts and information about crime, violence and drug use. "

What's wrong with banning pronography ( especially when childrens are involved ), bestiality, excessive violence and real sex acts ?

For the others ( information about crime, violence and drug use ), it depend. If the purpose is to help the peoples who are using drugs, have been victim of a crime or any violence, they don't have to ban it. But if the purpose is to promote crime, violence and drug using.....

Well actually i am not against it, i supose some stuff in internet is really sick, but still we ALL KNOW what kind of censorship they want, and don�t forget sex, violence bla bla bla is TV more than anything else, and there is more TV users than internet users.
Those excuses are to convice the old population of the surveillance and it�s importance, but they hide their real intentions...

blah blah blah

A brief scan of some of the content (I can't read it all you know) shows the white paper is not nearly as alarmist as the title would have you believe. It appears to be covering more of how to apply the same type of "moral laws/standards" in offline publishing to online content... and how to place blame in situations where illegal content (such as child pronography) is published from locations where there are no specific laws against it.

The more alarmist material seems aimed at potential monitoring practices, and very little in-use policies.

I ask again, if the Internet were as monitored as you say, why is it that illegal spam is still around, and growing? Why haven't "they" been able to stop illegal file swapping?

Because they can't.

Originally posted by William
blah blah blah

A brief scan of some of the content (I can't read it all you know) shows the white paper is not nearly as alarmist as the title would have you believe. It appears to be covering more of how to apply the same type of "moral laws/standards" in offline publishing to online content... and how to place blame in situations where illegal content (such as child pronography) is published from locations where there are no specific laws against it.

The more alarmist material seems aimed at potential monitoring practices, and very little in-use policies.

I ask again, if the Internet were as monitored as you say, why is it that illegal spam is still around, and growing? Why haven't "they" been able to stop illegal file swapping?

Because they can't.

I don�t know william, they also enjoy some bad stuff as well, creation of worms, viruses etc etc
Don�t forget that for sell a war flight, u must first test it, anti impact, water resistance etc etc etc.
Same with internet, i think they test their own big security once in a while...

Anyway William keep an eye on stuff like that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I never said that is possible to monitor the entire NeT, but they are close....

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeRI never said that is possible to monitor the entire NeT, but they are close....

"They" are far, far away.

If "they" wanted to create a communications technology that was easy to monitor and track, then the Internet is not it. The packet switching technology behind routing TCP/IP packets from origin to destination is a nightmare to follow.

For example, on this server, the average IP opens 10-15 connections, from 10-15 different ports on your computer, each time you access the site. Each connection requests packets, but the routing of packets will likely not give your connections nice neat sequential chunks, more likely, a spread of packets, across all connections... to make matters worse, each of your connections could have a different route to our server... and to compound matters, returning packets to you could take a different route than was used to connect. Any tracing technology would have to be able know all the active outbound ports on your computer, the number of connections you make to our server, the number of packets my server is sending you, the route of each packet... and so on.

This is why montioring requires the active participation of one end of the scenario... too many variables.

Sure, "someday" there may be the ability to minitor all traffic by a third party... but given the current technology of packet transfer, it would require super computing power beyond our wildest dreams, and near total duplication of exising bandwidth (to reroute duplicate packets for decoding). Too hard and too expensive for the potential gain.

I ask again, if the Internet were as monitored as you say, why is it that illegal spam is still around, and growing? Why haven't "they" been able to stop illegal file swapping? Posted by William

Its called priorities...

Spam and file swapping, as considered in the "big picture" are incidental, although the respective industries make lots of noise regarding them. Of course, as opposed to the major interests of the cabal, these respective industries are rather insignificant.

The main thrust to such internet monitoring would revolve around sites such as this, which tend to flush the conspiracists out for identification. They wouldnt want to just clamp down all of a sudden, as they are still flushing "questionable" people out for identification... the crackdown will come later.

Originally posted by William

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeRI never said that is possible to monitor the entire NeT, but they are close....

"They" are far, far away.

If "they" wanted to create a communications technology that was easy to monitor and track, then the Internet is not it. The packet switching technology behind routing TCP/IP packets from origin to destination is a nightmare to follow.

For example, on this server, the average IP opens 10-15 connections, from 10-15 different ports on your computer, each time you access the site. Each connection requests packets, but the routing of packets will likely not give your connections nice neat sequential chunks, more likely, a spread of packets, across all connections... to make matters worse, each of your connections could have a different route to our server... and to compound matters, returning packets to you could take a different route than was used to connect. Any tracing technology would have to be able know all the active outbound ports on your computer, the number of connections you make to our server, the number of packets my server is sending you, the route of each packet... and so on.

This is why montioring requires the active participation of one end of the scenario... too many variables.

Sure, "someday" there may be the ability to minitor all traffic by a third party... but given the current technology of packet transfer, it would require super computing power beyond our wildest dreams, and near total duplication of exising bandwidth (to reroute duplicate packets for decoding). Too hard and too expensive for the potential gain.

But anyway, what do u think echelon or carnivore or pine gate is?
I think those are like "suckers of info", NSA, CIA, FBI all those agencies MUST have a system to track people via internet with "key words".

Check this out:

bjatraining.aspensys.com...

Tell me what u think of them

The Internet is all about information.

And disinformation, and collecting information.

This site falls under: Collecting information.

As much as we want to believe we are learning something here, we ARE being LEARNED about.

"breaking the internet" and "monitoring the internet" are things that make me crack up.

I never said that is possible to monitor the entire NeT, but they are close....

as william has explained, they are nowhere near close.

But anyway, what do u think echelon or carnivore or pine gate is?
I think those are like "suckers of info", NSA, CIA, FBI all those agencies MUST have a system to track people via internet with "key words".

"keywords" makes me think of web filters, pathetic, stupid automatically run programs that are so easy to bypass its funny (most of the ones ive encountered anyway). why dont people just not use suspicious words? Just like when you used to talk in code when you were at school?

but as for echelon and carnivore, try "encryption". Specifically, try "quantum encryption", something that the European Nations are very interested in. Encryption Encryption Encryption; Encryption of all shapes, sizes, and forms. Its a constant battle. The hackers encryption fails, but then the governments encryption fails, back and forth and back and forth.



[edit on 1-4-2005 by aggroskater]