I do apologize for my absence from this thread today - but, it is the season, as they say and real life obligations kept me away.
I'll try to address pages of questions with a few generic answers:
1) The idea of a "kill switch" is not something I am concerned about in a universal manner. The potential for abusing it lay in local terms.
Remember the Iranian woman who was shot a couple of years ago? Nadia I think her name was? Her entire story became public because of social media. If
the power to simply "kill the waves" had existed, her story would never have gotten out and international reaction to her death would have never
This type of localized loss of ability to connect is the real danger involved in this proposed resolution and in the secret EO signed by President
Obama a few weeks ago that closely mirrors the same language.
2) Of course they aren't going to take away our distraction. The folks who are saying that the net needs censorship, IMO, are hyperbolic. The issue
of child porn has been tabled several times.
The reality of the situation is that maybe ten years ago? Such things were accessible - even by accident - through web searches. But now? That evil is
already mostly contained and, believe me when I say, if you are accessing such materials: A) You had to go out of your way to do so. B) You have been
logged and can expect not just the FBI but probably Anon as well.
Blaming this subject as a need for censorship is a straw man of the highest order.
I truly wish more of the older members who can remember the days of Compuserve, AOL, and Prodigy would have chimed in and discussed the very real fact
that the net used to exist in the form they wish to return it to now. A tightly controlled gateway system - based upon a new "pay for content"
Those who use Steam will relate. When you log into Steam some games are free. Others are on sale. Still others are quite expensive. Hulu - the same.
Some free content, other things require a paid subscription. And your cable "on demand" - another example.
THAT is the future model of the Internet if the bad men have their way. It's not that they want to take away our Internet. They do, however, very
much want to take away our unlimited access
both in terms of bandwidth and content.
As far as social media goes - and those who say "Dude they won't kill Facebook or Twitter". I agree. I predict that these apps, and the future
versions of them will always be free and open. Because they are used for data mining. The members who have discussed sites demanding real
names have it right. That is the direction we are heading. Currently it takes a bit of work to track down the troublemakers who go out of their way to
be anonymous. Those who are tasked with patrolling the net don't like this - it makes them work harder.
Oh - and another thing. There are agent provocateurs here - and everywhere else online. Don't let anyone tell you different. It used to be easy to
spot them - and sometimes it still is. New, generic accounts that post only on one topic. Using usernames that don't get any search engine hits for
other sites and throwaway information.
But they've adapted. Research it. Now you might meet a person here with a fully fleshed out Facebook page - pictures and family information included,
more than one field of posting interest, and a very real "feel" to their online personas.
And they know what they are doing. They know the buzzwords to use for acceptance in any subculture. So always - always
post as if you KNOW that
a Federal agent is looking over your shoulder. To do any less would be folly. Oh, and I am not suggesting that you be silent or compliant. I am simply
saying know the risks.
There is a fine line between provocative discussion and finding oneself on a "no fly list". Honestly... I don't fly so I don't care.