Rockefeller: Internet is "Number One National Hazard" , page 4

privacy

reply posted on 23-3-2009 @ 03:14 PM by Illusionsaregrander

reply to post by logician magician

Since there are a couple different positions being discussed here, how so?

You know the whole one line post thing really applies in this case. You make a comment, disparaging the thread, and ATS at the same time, but you arent making a case at all for what you mean by that, or whom you are directing it to, unless you mean the fact that threads and posts themselves exist.

Then, yes, that is a comment on ATS. It is designed for threads and posts. Thats the only thing that I can see that all posters are doing that also characterizes ATS itself.

reply posted on 23-3-2009 @ 03:17 PM by Illusionsaregrander

reply to post by v3_exceed

You seem to know alot about the technical aspects of it. Could a plan to censor the search engines be thwarted by the creation of new ones? Or by setting up a moving target where search engines "mutated" like a virus just enough to stay ahead of any attempt to censor them?

reply posted on 23-3-2009 @ 03:43 PM by v3_exceed

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

The problem with censoring, is the HUGE company. groups like alexia, Ikotomi and google sub-let their search database to smaller engines. This helps the smaller engine use less resources to offer up their own branded search results.

A smaller engine can still provide people with their own database results, but they will differ from googles. So for example, the word "Freedom" is censored in Japans version of Google. I would go to a smaller search engine looking for free dom (note the space) get zero from googles engine, but some results from Cuil or altavista. So the government would then have to consider censoring words like "free". Which would bring a whole new level of interference.

To get around this the government introduces it's own proxy servers that are your point of connection prior to your real point of connection. (Shaw does this to cache web traffic and file downloads) An easy way to think of this is; a computer receives the connection before you do, and then forwards it to you. You accept this as part of your connection because of how DNS works. If you change your dns to use a recursive dns server on the web (several are offered as pay to use services) you then bypass your ISP's dns servers and their proxy server and thus their filtering or censorship.

Currently this is all academic, as most people will not use their own dns servers, but their isps. Or they trust free dns services on the net to host their stuff. It all boils down to being aware of the choices you have. Even in full censorship mode in the USA, there are still countries that will not censor what the government wants you not to see. You only need to use their services or their routing to get around the blocks. (smaller companies can react faster to these intended blocks)

As another poster pointed out, the internet was designed to be able to function even if a nuke were to take out a city routing traffic. So to suddenly change all of that and put a big plug on it, is next to impossible unless people always leave things in their "default" state.

So although this doesn't answer your question, it provides reasons why it's not necessary to react to government interference like that, just choose not to play along.

Thanks for reading
..Ex

reply posted on 23-3-2009 @ 04:03 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by v3_exceed
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

The problem with censoring, is the HUGE company. groups like alexia, Ikotomi and google sub-let their search database to smaller engines. This helps the smaller engine use less resources to offer up their own branded search results.

A smaller engine can still provide people with their own database results, but they will differ from googles. So for example, the word "Freedom" is censored in Japans version of Google. I would go to a smaller search engine looking for free dom (note the space) get zero from googles engine, but some results from Cuil or altavista. So the government would then have to consider censoring words like "free". Which would bring a whole new level of interference.

To get around this the government introduces it's own proxy servers that are your point of connection prior to your real point of connection. (Shaw does this to cache web traffic and file downloads) An easy way to think of this is; a computer receives the connection before you do, and then forwards it to you. You accept this as part of your connection because of how DNS works. If you change your dns to use a recursive dns server on the web (several are offered as pay to use services) you then bypass your ISP's dns servers and their proxy server and thus their filtering or censorship.

Currently this is all academic, as most people will not use their own dns servers, but their isps. Or they trust free dns services on the net to host their stuff. It all boils down to being aware of the choices you have. Even in full censorship mode in the USA, there are still countries that will not censor what the government wants you not to see. You only need to use their services or their routing to get around the blocks. (smaller companies can react faster to these intended blocks)

As another poster pointed out, the internet was designed to be able to function even if a nuke were to take out a city routing traffic. So to suddenly change all of that and put a big plug on it, is next to impossible unless people always leave things in their "default" state.

So although this doesn't answer your question, it provides reasons why it's not necessary to react to government interference like that, just choose not to play along.

Thanks for reading
..Ex

Absolutely outstanding addition to this thread! The Internet is so amazingly versatile as an information access stream.

People in China and the Middle East have been working their way around these kinds of restrictions for years using techniques like that.

There are even a couple outfits out there that will sell you Internet Access with an absolute gaurantee no subeona will ever be servable on them and none of your browsing or emails will ever fall into government hands.

A lot more companies like this will pop up if the Internet becomes heavily censored, because ultimately all you need is a few servers, a phone or cable line, and some electricity to access the net freely with a search engine that has no restrictions built into it.

reply posted on 23-3-2009 @ 04:11 PM by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Now if you can't get any group of people to wake up in conditions like that, where death and suffering is about the only thing they can expect as a reward for staying asleep, and it's happening all around them, how are you going to get people to wake up?

You are right. But the fact is, you can get people to wake up in those conditions.

en.wikipedia.org...

The truce began on Christmas Eve, 24 December 1914, when German troops began decorating the area around their trenches in the region of Ypres, Belgium, for Christmas. They began by placing candles on trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols, most notably Stille Nacht (Silent Night). The Scottish troops in the trenches across from them responded by singing English carols.

The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were calls for visits across the "No Man's Land" where small gifts were exchanged — whisky, jam, cigars, chocolate, and the like. The soldiers exchanged gifts, sometimes addresses, and drank together. The artillery in the region fell silent that night. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently-fallen soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Proper burials took place as soldiers from both sides mourned the dead together and paid their respects. At one funeral in No Man's Land, soldiers from both sides gathered and read a passage from the 23rd Psalm

It took a holiday to ignite it, and it was soon put back down, but it happened. It can happen. It did happen. Because of the holiday the feeling of the people changed. And after the holiday the feeling of the people changed back. But that doesnt change the fact that all it takes is a change of heart to make this happen.

And as for the example of the Queen and the "awake" thats also a label issue. Just because you say you are awake, and others may agree, does not mean you ARE awake. Jesus said of this "it is by their fruits that you know them." And there is also the issue that wakefulness and sleep are mutually exclusive but only in the moment. The sleeper can awaken, and they awakened can doze off. Becoming awake is the least of our worry. Staying awake is the hard part, and we all doze off if not mindful.

Let me just ask a question. What positive purpose does it serve to spread a message that it will be "too hard" or require bloodshed and sacrifice? Not that it may not be difficult at some points, or require force at others, but is that not the case with every single human endeavor? From bridge building, to fishing, to sports, really, everything? Do we sit down ahead of time and psych ourselves out that "we cant do this, they are too powerful, too strong, we will never win" in other worthy endeavors? Or is it notable that when we began the Iraq war it was going to be a quick decisive strike, costing little, with virtually no civilian and US military casualties?

Do you see what I am saying?

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING we do is guaranteed to be without risk. People die on the freeway, on the way to their office jobs, on construction sites, on fishing boats. Death, suffering and effort is a fact of life. Why sell the idea that freedom is particularly dangerous? It isnt. And the freer you are, from fear, the less dangerous life is, because fear has a way of manifesting justification. You create what is feared from fear itself. It happens time and time again.

Our situation is NOT hopeless. The actions we need to take are NOT doomed to fail and impossibly difficult. First and foremost we need to defeat fear in our own hearts, and after that everything else will be easy. We will die. But we were going to die anyway. The question should never be about "how will I die," but always about "how will I live."