http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2008/07/the_future_of_t.php According to Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig, former Govt Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke says there is going to be a big event on the internet, i9/11, which will enable the passing of the "iPatriot Act". Meanwhile, in the MSM, Gaping Internet Security Holes! Keep your eyes open. We have to protect the internets.
Actually, by controlling the Domain Name System and ICANN, America effectively owns the internet. The EU has been trying to give control over to the UN And you don't think our government has any influence on others?
The American GOVERNMENT owns this? Where can I find out more about this? Besides, It sounds like, if anything, the United States will attempt to exhert force and instead create a chasm resulting in a two-tier sort of internet. American Internet and the World Wide Web. Hahaha imagine that shit! Not that kind of influence, no.
Although i am too young to remember this, they have been saying since the start of the internet. If this were to happen, people (website owners) would flock to the cheapest server. Most likely, free. Creating a free web server. This company would make a hell of a lot of money though trafficking, and advertising, forcing the other competing companies to become free as well. Web site owners would also not like this to happen because charging per view would cause trafficking to their sites would drop extremely fast. All sites had to be created at sometime. Thus the web would reach it's limits and since the web was founded on independent companies, would kill the internet that we know of. The internet runs on free information, and if it wasn't free, we would see another Dot Com Bust.
Not to mention, I forgot to ask an obvious question; how are Islamic extremists going to attack the internet?
China already has full government control over internet. They are exiling people and sending them to jail just for trying to speak freely on the internet. Even Google, whose corporate motto is "Don't be Evil", has conformed to China's censorship laws. (For example, they don't allow you to search Tieneman Square Riot) 11 out of 25 EU nations have bilateral agreements with the US and Patriot Act. I know its not identical in powers, but Canada passed the Anti-Terrorism Act immediately following the US Patriot Act.
Yes, but you'll notice that China doesn't control YOUR internet. That's the whole point. Yes, and all those countries disagree on a bunch of other things to. Don't give me this flimsy confirmation bias bullshit. It's such a waste of time.
Whoa, hostility overload. I was agreeing there would be a two-tiered internet existence, US vs World, and that China already has that. The US impact on the Western world's use of the internet is much greater than China, they have little effect on our lives. Confirmation bias? All I said was the US influences other countries, and is that not evidence of such? And if you had been following the anthrax case, you would realize Bruce Ivins was a patsy. The anthrax scare was a ploy by the administration to garner support for the war.
Sorry, you're right. Just getting a little carried away. I too prefer we keep this clean and as personally objective as possible Yeah, we can definitely agree there. We've been moving in that direction for at least half a decade now. Yes, and you do have a point. But what I was trying to illustrate is that the U.S. also FAILS to influence countries on things on a regular basis. It seems that the last eight years of explosive and unruly American foreign affairs has really waned the influence and clout that the U.S. has had in the past. A great example is the U.S. role in NATO. If they had it their way, all of NATO would be out in force in Afghanistan and Iraq, but as it remains, only a few countries are even willing to put in more than a couple hundred soldiers. Evidence? I mean your accusing an awful lot there and required an awful lot of evidence to back it up. How do you confirm mens reus and actus reus? How was the anthrax even used to support the war? I don't recall the Administration once using it was fuel for an invasion. I can't recall the president or one of his lackies ever even mentioned the 2001 Anthrax attacks in regards to Iraq or Afghanistan. The only mention of Anthrax and Afghanistan I can find is from McCain! and That was back in 2001. I mean, here is the most important question. Where lies the falsifiability of your assertion? Why can this just not be the actions of a psychopathic yuppy? Why must you place blame on the government for some kind of malicious action? Yours Truly, Sam_Spade
Thankfully, yes, the US does not have ultimate influence. Just as good as the evidence damning him. So his psychiatrist Jean Duley says he stated he would "go out in a blaze of glory" and kill as many of his coworkers as possible. Yet his coworkers have nothing but praise for him. Taken from Washington Post: Here are some articles from when the media was pushing for war, based on the anthrax scare in 2001: ABC News: Troubling Anthrax Newsmax: Saddam is Behind the Attacks Washington Post: Our Forgotten Panic The fact that he couldn't have done it alone, as it would take whole team to create and contain anthrax, is never mentioned. The media only serves to comply with what the FBI has posthumously asserted. If he was guilty, why couldn't they arrest him? Why did they have to put tremendous pressure on him throughout the years until he eventually "killed" himself? I'm not saying the government was necessarily involved, but I'm sure they will jump at any explanation to close this embarrassing case. A lot of questions are still unanswered, Ivins seems too convenient to me. The psychopathic brainiac bent on global destruction makes a lot less sense than a politically motivated scare to engage in war.
Deutschbag got to it before I did with his post. But additionally: "DNA evidence from the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings led authorities to a suspect who officials say killed himself [...] The DNA linked the anthrax used in the mailing to a flask used in Bruce Ivins' lab at the U.S. Army Medical Institute of Infectious Diseases." -- http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/03/anthrax.case/index.html Ah, so instead we should take the testimony of his co-workers as evidence of his innocence and the basis for an accusation of a federal conspiracy to murder it's own civilians? There is no chance at all he intentionally deceived his co-workers? Let's not forget the rest of the story you're also forgetting to omit: "Ivins was under a temporary restraining order sought by a social worker who counseled him in private and group sessions. She accused him of having harassed, stalked and threatened violence in the previous 30 days." -- http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/03/anthrax.case/index.html Not to mention he had willing entered treatment for depression and contemplating suicide; he was obviously unstable, although an accomplished scientist. (source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax1-2008aug01,0,2864223.story?page=1) And you forgot to quote Tom Ivins, his OWN BROTHER, who said: "It makes sense ... he considered himself like a god" Not to mention that Dr. Ivins stood to gain quite a bit of acclaim from the attacks; he was a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically-engineered anthrax vaccine. A company called VaxGen licensed the vaccine and won a federal contract valued at $877.5 million. In fact, the allegations by Ivin's psychologist only came AFTER all this information. I actually genuinley appreciate this. I didn't hear of any connection to Iraq via Canadian media outlets, so this is a new perspective. What? Why do you think this? Well, he didn't kill himself until AFTER they had informed him of intentions to press charges. Well this is the same way they treat any high-ranking bureaucrat charges of a violent or otherwise nonviolent crime in American politics it seems. They did the same with Scooter Libby, and all those other fine chaps they've arrested for various crimes in the last couple hundred years. That's a whole bigger problem if you ask me; but either way, it seems to be nothing new. Because he was under legal investigation. Legal investigation is a very stress-inducing process, trust me on that one. Remember Kenneth Lay? Budd Dwyer? Now, there you may have some merit. His guilt shouldn't be solidified until all the information comes out. They're still dealing with the bureaucracy surrounding his death; the information intended for legal prosecution may not be revealed for many years. Although, what we do currently know seems to be quite damning. Perhaps that's why it's correct.