Is the Internet About to be Censored ??

As we all know, there is a "new" internet, "the grid", which donates your unused possessing power to the grid. This is going to become a SUPER computer which mere fractions of it will blow anything we have now out of the water. But what people don't realize is this will allow them to track, block and police the internet with COMPLETE authority. Here is the US website for the grid and look at the VERY FIRST thing that catches your attention...

globalgridexchange.com...

A LAPTOP WITH A LOCK AND CHAIN... not very subtle is it... Another crazy thing is there is a MASSIVE grid in Europe which is what the machines at CERN are running on as it's the only way to compute such amounts of data. There are already grids here in the US at universities that you can donate your unused processing power to complex math equations ect.

This is coming, no doubt about it. Question is, will they use it like it seems they are going to. They will let the internet die out slowly as the grid grows until the internet is no longer. Once that happens, freedom of speech goes out the window.

Just a thought

EDIT: Just realized the top picture is on a rotation, hit refresh a couple times until the picture appears with the words "LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES."

[edit on 26-8-2008 by breakingdradles]

reply to post by breakingdradles

---

I don't think this is the same thing.

That method has been in use for almost 10 years, and as you can see you have to "donate" your computer's time to it.

I used to do it with SETI@home before they changed the system, the new system did not worked well on my computer and I stopped using it.

One of the problems of this system is that they are dependent on the participating computers, so if nobody participates then it will be next to useless. Also, it is only good for data that needs lots of calculations for small(ish) amounts of data.

Another things is that the "Global Grid Exchange", for example, lets you used the grid for your own calculations, if you pay for it, so anyone can use that power (as long as they pay for it).

So, this has nothing to do with the Internet censorship or the end of the Internet, in fact they need the Internet for it to work.

Text BlueThanks for posting the link. reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

---

People has fought back, forms been sign not to have this done, but are you or anyone listening or taking action is the question, the answer is YES. but no matter what, this BS sitiuation with the internet being control will happen rather you like it or not. The government needs (for what ever reason) control of what we are doing, or taking in as we surf the web. Just like THE NEW WORLD ORDER. The one's using bush as a puppet, it's going to happen anyways. I dont like it more then the next person but be ready.

I say this every time someone mentions it, but there is no such thing as "Internet2", at least in the manner you seem to believe it. Internet2 is a private consortium providing high bandwidth data services to academia. It isn't the next generation internet you seem to think it is.

The internet isn't even a thing to upgrade anyway. Most people haven't a clue how it operates and many seem to be under the impression the internet is something tangible and wholly seperate. It isn't.

What? How arrogant is that. Read up on what your Constituion and Bill of Rights were based on, then come back and say that.

Warning sounded on web's future

Even more warning on the webs future. The suggestion is web sites should be branded or labelled for their trustworthiness, sounds like a form of control to me. I mean how would you brand or label ATS for its trustworthiness considering its better content.

Why couldnt ol Sir Tim come out and say people should be more carefull and reserch what they read on the internet that it should be taught through the media that we must reaserch ourselves before making our OWN minds up.

Surley a system like this is open to abuse? How stupid of me, of course it is, i have my own mind to tell me that. Stupid world.

Warning sounded on web's future

Even more warning on the webs future. The suggestion is web sites should be branded or labelled for their trustworthiness, sounds like a form of control to me. I mean how would you brand or label ATS for its trustworthiness considering its better content.

Why couldnt ol Sir Tim come out and say people should be more carefull and reserch what they read on the internet that it should be taught through the media that we must reaserch ourselves before making our OWN minds up.

Surley a system like this is open to abuse? How stupid of me, of course it is, i have my own mind to tell me that. Stupid world.

Warning sounded on web's future

Even more warning on the webs future. The suggestion is web sites should be branded or labelled for their trustworthiness, sounds like a form of control to me. I mean how would you brand or label ATS for its trustworthiness considering its better content.

Why couldnt ol Sir Tim come out and say people should be more carefull and reserch what they read on the internet that it should be taught through the media that we must reaserch ourselves before making our OWN minds up.

Surley a system like this is open to abuse? How stupid of me, of course it is, i have my own mind to tell me that. Stupid world.

Sorry about that tripple post. Never had that happen before. Im having problems with my connection.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by kode]

I dont visit ats often enough anymore to publish anything worthwhile or at least as much as I used to but staying on the subject matter at hand I would like to take the time this evening to bring to the attention of all ats members as well as visiters to the following peice of documentation.

H.R.275
Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 (Reported in House)

SEC. 206. PENALTIES.

(a) Civil Penalties- (1)(A) Any United States business that violates section 202(a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $2,000,000 imposed in an action brought by the Attorney General.

(B) Any officer, director, employee, or agent, or stockholder of a United States business, who is acting on behalf of that business concern and who violates section 202(a), shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more $100,000 imposed in an action brought by the Attorney General.

(2) Any United States business that violates section 201, 203, 204, or 205, or any officer, director, employee, or agent, or stockholder of a United States business, who is acting on behalf of that business concern and who violates section 201, 203, 204, or 205, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 imposed in an action brought by the Attorney General.

(b) Criminal Penalties- (1)(A) Any United States business that willfully violates, or willfully attempts to violate, section 202(a) shall be fined not more than $2,000,000.

(B) Any officer, director, employee, or agent, or stockholder of a United States business, who is acting on behalf of that business concern, and who willfully violates, or willfully attempts to violate, section 202(a), shall be fined not more than $100,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(2)(A) Any United States business that willfully violates, or willfully attempts to violate, section 201, 203, 204, or 205 shall be fined not more than $10,000.

(B) Any officer, director, employee, or agent, or stockholder of a United States business, who is acting on behalf of that business concern and who willfully violates, or willfully attempts to violate, section 201, 203, 204, or 205, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(c) Payment of Fines- Whenever a fine is imposed under subsection (a) or (b) upon any officer, director, employee, agent, or stockholder of a United States business, the fine may not be paid, directly or indirectly, by the United States business.

P.S. By the way for those wanting to know your United States Government has already spent 50 million dollers on this office and people associated with this office. Heres the link to the documents.

Link to doc

Thats all for now folks.

Falcon.



[edit on 15-9-2008 by falcon]

[edit on 15-9-2008 by falcon]

Is the Internet censored? Hmmmmmmm. It already is - In fact it goes on right here at ATS. Look at the latest constraints placed on threads pertaining to politics (Not a complaint but an observation). These restrictions USUALLY have good intentions but the end result is rarely the original goal.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by En4cer]

This is the problem I having atm with British Telecom. My connection drops from 8 meg to 512k when I am either on here, Infowars and prison planet. They tell me they are not doing anything to my line but I know when I am being throttled back as I have a Belkin N1 Vision Router that plainly shows me my connection speed.
They should'nt be allowed to do this, I pay my bills and I pay for a service and we should be able to look and go where we want on the internet....


[edit on 15-9-2008 by StarTraveller]

reply to post by kode

---

I think some way (or, as Sir Tim Berners-Lee suggests in the article you linked to, a multiplicity of ways) to discriminate against sense from nonsense is desperately needed on the internet. It isn't censorship, simply a helpful way of allowing people to judge better which sites they can trust to supply them with good information.

Frankly, most people simply do not possess the specialized knowledge and skills required to distinguish truth from tosh among the flotsam of the internet. And yes, AboveTopSecret lives off this Barnumesque reality. That is why, as you suggest, it will almost certainly receive a high bunkum-factor rating if Sir Tim's proposal ever comes to pass.

However, the Amigos needn't fear this will be bad for business. We'll lose a few genuine truth-seekers, perhaps, but let's face it; such people are a miniscule fraction of the membership and they don't belong here anyway. It'll take more than a Bunkum Rating of 8.9 to put the rest of us off.

That is funny, I was thinking all of the exact same things just before I got to this post.

Deleted, sorry.

[edit on 16/9/2008 by ArMaP]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

---

Thanks for the link

i thought i would post this information that gives a better insight into what our government consideres a reason for possible censorship insofar as information they gather from the internet on a daily basis. It is call Eligible Receiver



www.globalsecurity.org...

This is a profoundly human psychological story. Some people have a psychological makeup that enables them to tolerate freedom, honesty and spontaneity to a greater degree than others. Other people are unable to deal with it. They are like sensitive shellfish that have to secrete a hard, inflexible shell around themselves.

The most unscrupulous of these people become the controllers and supressors of everything that they are able to control and supress.

I think that internet supression is inevitable, just as all the other forms of supression that have gone before it. Nothing was done about those things, except piecemeal. The internet will be the same. Eventually it will be the mirror of, not the exuberance and diversity of the human spirit but the mirror of the sociopathic narrowness of captains of industry and leaders of nations.