Internetwars : De Grote IT-oorlog

[Frans Oghtendlicht]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door the_dude

gvd quicksilverscreen is ermee opgehouden

't is precies serieuze oorlog.

Dat van die internet cafees ook gelezen, de Amerikaanse stoppen zijn volledig ende compleet aan't doorslaan; mensen kunnen ginder moeilijk iets anders dan schrik hebben van elkaar.

die 'oorlog' is begonnen op het moment dat protestbewegingen zoals Occupy Wall Street zich van de moderne media gingen bedienen.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frans Oghtendlicht

die 'oorlog' is begonnen op het moment dat protestbewegingen zoals Occupy Wall Street zich van de moderne media gingen bedienen.

Moderne media ?

OWS = Media Matters & CO. = Globalist & Filantroop Soros.

[zonbron]

Ook China krijgt het nu hard te verduren. De invoering van de internet-ID

Weibo Policy Unclear for Overseas Users

China Daily

China Daily reports on the latest news regarding sign-up regulations for micro-blogging in China.

China Daily says the upcoming regulation requiring micro blog users to register with their real identities has yet to set procedures for overseas users.

The situation is puzzling foreign users without Chinese ID cards.

A weibo user from South Africa, Jeremy Goldkorn, is quoted by China Daily as saying,
"I asked the website staff members what I should do, but they didn't answer."

Goldkorn said he has been paying attention to this regulation for a long time, but is still confused. He registered with his real name since he began using weibo, and remembered noone asked him to provide a passport at that time.

Weibo has announced that it will require anyone registered after March 16 to provide their real identities to post or forward micro blogs.

At last count, according to figures supplied to China Daily by Sina.com, there were 8 million blog accounts "based overseas."

[the_dude]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frans Oghtendlicht

die 'oorlog' is begonnen op het moment dat protestbewegingen zoals Occupy Wall Street zich van de moderne media gingen bedienen.

wij Belgen mogen ook al niet meer op thepiratebay.org ; precies China hier.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door the_dude

wij Belgen mogen ook al niet meer op thepiratebay.org ; precies China hier.

Waarom zou U dat doen ?

U wilt toch geen 'ongewenst' gevaarlijk boek, document, film, documentaire of andere informatie te bekijken ? !

Lijkt me uiterst verdacht ! !

Een proxy gebruiken om deze site toch te bezoeken is uit den boze en tevens extreem verdacht ! Nene !


DANGER !

BTW, laatste waarschuwing...

BTW

[Scherven A. Mok]

Dear friends,



Politicians across Europe are starting to withdraw their support from the dangerous ACTA treaty. This weekend's mass protest is our moment to bury ACTA for good. Click to join the day of action, in person or virtually -- let's win this!

Take action now
In 24 hours, people across the planet are joining a global street protest to bury ACTA for good.

This week our massive 2 million ACTA petition caused shockwaves in Brussels, and we've just learned that Germany has put ACTA on ice and other governments are close to following suit. If Europe says no to ACTA, it dies! We're at a tipping point -- If enough of us join the protest tomorrow, we can secure our online freedom and end the threat of ACTA's censorship nightmare.

Let's turn out in thousands to protest or, if we can't be there in person (most of the protests are in Europe), send messages of solidarity to our fellow citizens who are marching. Click here to use our map tool to find an event near you, or leave a solidarity message for marchers:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/acta_day_of_action_hub/?vl

Our massive ACTA petition was personally delivered to leading EU politicians in Brussels this week as it grew to 2.2 million signers and beyond. The European Parliament is choosing their new point person on the treaty right now. Let's make sure that person realises that ACTA is too hot to handle.

Four Eastern European governments and now Germany have just said they'll stall their decision on the treaty. Now, if hundreds of thousands of people attend thousands of rallies all across Europe tomorrow, we can ensure that all politicians across the 27 EU countries are put on notice that people don't want ACTA and will continue to take action until the treaty is buried.

Those of us in Europe can join the protests. And we all can send messages of solidarity to encourage the people there and use social media to pile the pressure on key parliamentarian. Click here to check out the action centre, and tell everyone.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/acta_day_of_action_hub/?vl

Again and again, we've shown how people power can work. When our fundamental freedoms are at stake, and we act together, we can forge an unstoppable force that makes politicians turn away from the corporate lobbies, and work in the interests of all of us. Let's do it again.

With hope and determination,

Alex, Alice, Pascal, Emma, Ricken, Maria Paz, Luis and the rest of the Avaaz team

More information:

Acta activates mass opposition (Euractiv)
http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/...ty-news-510533

Acta: Europe braced for protests over anti-piracy treaty (BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16906086

Latest pact on internet piracy set to be derailed (Financial Times) http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a52f5...#axzz1lzG5htN5

Czech Republic, Slovakia freeze anti-piracy pact (AFP) http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...80183554bcc.71

ACTA vs. SOPA: Five Reasons ACTA is a Scarier Threat to Internet Freedom
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2869...edom.htm?cid=2

Act on Acta now if you care about democracy and free speech (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cy-free-speech

The secret treaty: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and Its Impact on Access to Medicines
http://www.msfaccess.org/content/sec...cess-medicines

Ik moet spijtig genoeg werken morgen.

[zonbron]

Ook in India komt het internet en de vrijheid van meningsuiting steeds meer onder vuur te liggen.

India debates limits to freedom of expression

By Simon Denyer, Published: February 12

NEW DELHI — From Google to Facebook, from world-famous author Salman Rushdie to a little-known political cartoonist, it has become increasingly easy in recent months to offend the Indian government, and to incur the wrath of the censor or even the threat of legal action.

In the world’s largest democracy, many Indians say freedom of expression is under attack, and along with it the values of pluralism and tolerance that have bound this nation of 1.2 billion people together since independence from Britain more than 64 years ago.

 India’s finance minister called for the country’s political parties to allow the nation to bring in major foreign retailers.

India’s democracy is nothing if not raucous. The huge array of newspapers and 24-hour television news channels are often vociferous in their criticism of politicians. But the media’s determination to root out corruption in the past two years has prompted a backlash. Talk of more stringent regulation is mounting.

At the same time, artists say their creative freedom has been steadily eroded. Even Jay Leno managed to offend Indian Sikhs — and prompt an official government complaint — with a satirical reference to their holiest shrine, the Golden Temple, in a joke about Mitt Romney’s vacation homes.

At fault, many say, is a thin-skinned government that gives in to the demands of violent mobs, ostensibly to make political gains but in fact to suppress its critics.

“For a country that takes great pride in its democracy and history of free speech, the present situation is troubling,” said Nilanjana Roy, a columnist and literary critic. “Especially in the creative sphere, the last two decades have been progressively intolerant.”

Targeting authors, artists

Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” was banned in India in 1988, was forced to cancel appearances at the Jaipur Literature Festival last month after threats of violence from Muslim groups and a warning about a possible assassination attempt — information he said was probably fabricated by authorities to keep him away.

Wary of alienating Muslim voters in ongoing state elections, not a single Indian politician spoke out in favor of Rushdie’s right to be heard.

Last month, the screening of a documentary on Kashmir was canceled at a college in the city of Pune after right-wing Hindus objected, and an artist was beaten in his gallery in Delhi for showing nude paintings of actresses and models that his attackers claimed were an insult to the country.

The release of the latest book by Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen was canceled in Kolkata after Muslims protested, and Aseem Trivedi, a 25-year-old political cartoonist, was charged with treason and insulting India’s national emblems in drawings inspired by activist Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement.

But perhaps the most shocking episode for advocates of freedom of expression has been the government’s attempt to muzzle Facebook and Google — and prosecute the companies’ executives — for content posted on their sites deemed to be offensive. “Like China, we can block all such Web sites,” warned the judge hearing the case in the Delhi High Court.

The government cites images insulting to one or another of India’s religions, content it says could provoke unrest. It is up to social media sites, the government says, to manually screen and censor all potentially offensive content or face prosecution.

[Scherven A. Mok]

De Gucht wil advies over acta
Durft de politiek geen beslissing meer nemen en gaan ze het met een omwegje proberen ?
Al bijna 2,5 miljoen mensen hebben de internetpetitie getekend

[zonbron]

*** BELANGRIJK ***


Zoals ik reeds schreef is de huidige strijd tegen het vrije internetverkeer vergelijkbaar met het invoeren van bepaalde FCC-wetgeving ivm het radiospectrum.

Nu neemt ook het ITU de touwtjes in handen.



Het protest van het volk heeft SOPA, PIPA & ACTA vertraagd.

Nu snellen onze vrienden van de V.N. ter hulp, spoedig restricties op het IP-protocol(internet) !

WSJ - The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom
Top-down, international regulation is antithetical to the Net, which has flourished under its current governance model.

By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet's flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

Since the Net's inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net's phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.


Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.

The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering."

• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.

And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Merely saying "no" to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.

While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe.

Mr. McDowell is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

[fbpolitics]

Het is niet alleen MU dat plat ligt, Filesonic werkt ook al niet meer.
Het proces tegen de eigenaar is een schijnvertoning, want men wil een voorbeeld stellen.

Als ze het internet willen censureren, moeten ze ook de misleidende reclame en andere onrechtmatigheden aanpakken.

Hierbij een oproep gevonden op andere site(s) om zoveel mogelijk NIET te kopen via het internet in de maand maart (klik op de 2 links -> nog geen succes om hier figuren in te voegen )
http://img127.imagevenue.com/img.php...b_122_53lo.jpg
http://img279.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_139lo.jpg

Enkele jaren terug was er een reportage waarin de vraag werd gesteld: "Wie is eigenaar van het internet?" Die vraag lijkt nu beantwoord: de staat en grote bedrijven.

Ik meende dat censuur enkel in landen zoals Noord-Korea en China hoorde, of in landen waar oorlog is. Is de wereld aan het begin van een oorlog?

Eerst lokken ze ons om het internet groot te maken. Daarna maken ze van ons slaven.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door fbpolitics

Het is niet alleen MU dat plat ligt, Filesonic werkt ook al niet meer.
Het proces tegen de eigenaar is een schijnvertoning, want men wil een voorbeeld stellen.

Als ze het internet willen censureren, moeten ze ook de misleidende reclame en andere onrechtmatigheden aanpakken.

Hierbij een oproep gevonden op andere site(s) om zoveel mogelijk NIET te kopen via het internet in de maand maart (klik op de 2 links -> nog geen succes om hier figuren in te voegen )
http://img127.imagevenue.com/img.php...b_122_53lo.jpg
http://img279.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_139lo.jpg

Enkele jaren terug was er een reportage waarin de vraag werd gesteld: "Wie is eigenaar van het internet?" Die vraag lijkt nu beantwoord: de staat en grote bedrijven.

Ik meende dat censuur enkel in landen zoals Noord-Korea en China hoorde, of in landen waar oorlog is. Is de wereld aan het begin van een oorlog?

Eerst lokken ze ons om het internet groot te maken. Daarna maken ze van ons slaven.

Bedankt !

[zonbron]

Meer over de actie 'Black March' van anonymous...

http://black-march.com/

Video Anonymous: Operation Black March 2012
Video Anonymous: Operation Black 'March'

[Distel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frans Oghtendlicht

die 'oorlog' is begonnen op het moment dat protestbewegingen zoals Occupy Wall Street zich van de moderne media gingen bedienen.

De oorlog is begonnen toen de entertainment-industrie de zwarte piet van hun eigen falen via monsterclaims probeerden door te schuiven naar piraat modaal.

[Scherven A. Mok]

De oorlog is begonnen toen de Amerikaanse elite besloot van haar industrie te delocaliseren en te leven van diensten en de creatieve sector. Men is er alles aan beginnen doen om het snuffelen, ruilen en leren kennen tegen te gaan en te laten betalen voor elke seconde die men het product bekijkt. Wat ze willen is ingangsgeld vragen om de winkel binnen te stappen, geld vragen als je iets even vastneemt en bekijkt, ... de consument dwingen van alleen de grote commerciële 'successen' van hun multinationals te kopen ... .

[vrijevlaming]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Meer over de actie 'Black March' van anonymous...

wat is er verschillend aan de actie van die bende, dat ze voorheen nog niet deden?

Laat ons een kat een kat noemen: ze zijn zo tegen die acta-toestanden, niet omwille van "den edele vrijheid der internets" maar omdat ze zelf veel boter op het hoofd hebben hé: ze stelen maandelijks/jaarlijks zelf gigabytes aan muziek en terrabytes aan films.
Niet dat de muziek- en filmindustrie daarom onschuldige schapen zijn.

Maar ik vraag mij af waarom ik mij zou scharen achter een groep dieven die een andere groep dieven probeert te bestrijden. En die zin kan je in twee richtingen bekijken.

[Distel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door vrijevlaming

ze stelen maandelijks/jaarlijks zelf gigabytes aan muziek en terrabytes aan films.

Bestaan daar eigenlijk wel correcte cijfers over?

[vrijevlaming]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Distel

Bestaan daar eigenlijk wel correcte cijfers over?

Verder dan schattingen gaan ze waarschijnlijk niet geraken. Maar al die zware internetabbonnementen, dat dient niet om elkaar foto's van het laatste verjaardagsfeestje te sturen hé.

Ik merk gewoon evenveel hypocrisie bij zowel de industrie als de zelfverklaarde robin hoods.

[Distel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door vrijevlaming

Verder dan schattingen gaan ze waarschijnlijk niet geraken.

Verder dan heel slechte schattingen geraken ze zelfs niet. Hallucinant dat mensen op basis daarvan veroordeeld worden.

Maar al die zware internetabbonnementen, dat dient niet om elkaar foto's van het laatste verjaardagsfeestje te sturen hé.

Ook niet per se om illegaal te downloaden.

[vrijevlaming]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Distel

Ook niet per se om illegaal te downloaden.

neen, dat klopt. Maar men moet ook het heilig lam niet uithangen hé. Het overgrote deel daarvan is dat wel. Anders zouden de legale downloadsites wel heel andere bedrijfsresultaten kunnen voorleggen

[Distel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door vrijevlaming

neen, dat klopt. Maar men moet ook het heilig lam niet uithangen hé. Het overgrote deel daarvan is dat wel.

Is dat zo?

Anders zouden de legale downloadsites wel heel andere bedrijfsresultaten kunnen voorleggen

Wie zegt dat? Je zegt zelf dat ze in het beste geval maar schattingen hebben. Waar is het causaal verband tussen de downloads en de slechte bedrijfsresultaten?