What If The Internet Was Cut Off Tomorrow?

[Year: 1]

If the internet was cut off tomorrow then how will we connect, given the alienated state society is in?

[the_last_straw]

We would communicate like many of already are. Phones, direct contact, word-of-mouth, etc.

[Kamraten]

yeah that network should be built on as it seems internet is getting more restricted and censored each day. they seem to desire controll of the free information on the internet. And its happening in the motive of getting rid of child pornography and pirate copies.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Did Lenin have the Internet?
Mao?
Che Guevara?

The reactionaries can't shut down the Internet in the first place.

Even if they do, they can't shut us up.

We can carry on the propogation of our ideas through word of mouth, through meetings, demonstrations, pamphlets, etc etc.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:38 PM
And its happening in the motive of getting rid of child pornography
Dude, I think you may be the only one who thinks this is a bad thing...

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Still, the internet is as near we can get to safe haven I suppose. It's a free for all.

-Alex

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Jello+Jun 26 2006, 07:52 PM--> (Jello @ Jun 26 2006, 07:52 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 04:38 PM
And its happening in the motive of getting rid of child pornography
Dude, I think you may be the only one who thinks this is a bad thing... [/b]
I think he meant something more along the lines of 'under the guise of....' than 'in the motive of...' At least I hope for my own sanity that he did.

[the_last_straw]

There are tons of examples of the government making laws with the excuse of "to fight pedophiles" or "to fight terrorism". Pedophiles and terrorists are super-words for bills. If a bill has pedophile or terrorist in it, it is sure to make it into law.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 09:57 PM
There are tons of examples of the government making laws with the excuse of "to fight pedophiles" or "to fight terrorism". Pedophiles and terrorists are super-words for bills. If a bill has pedophile or terrorist in it, it is sure to make it into law.
Yeap, that's your primal fear as a motivation to suspend all rational thought in the name of 'getting rid of all those scary things!'. Of course mass hysteria about these things has had some unforseen consequenses (see the increase in anti arabaic discrimination or the case in which a group of 'otherwise rational' (I use the term aprehensivley.) attacked a paediatrician.) and some forseen but seemingly unrelated consequences (wire tapping homes? The 'sex offenders' register? anyone.).

[LSD]

There is absolutely no risk of the internet being "cut off".

It's simply to disparate and too international for any body, governmental or otherwise, to "shut it down".

Even if the American government decided to ban access to the internet the way that countries such as Jordan have done, the technology available to the average American would rapidly make that law moot.

There's about as much chance of "losing" the internet as there is of "losing" indoor plumbing. It's just not something that's going to happen.


There are tons of examples of the government making laws with the excuse of "to fight pedophiles" or "to fight terrorism".

:rolleyes:

Considering that, by your own admission, you are quite familiar with child pornography and have watched enough of it to know what's a "normal" pre-pubescent "orgasm" looks like, I would hardly consider your position on this issue unbiased.

You don't like anti-child pornography laws because, by all indications, you are a consumer of child pornography yourself.

Not that I'm denying that the US often masks its true intentions by appealing to "our children"; but lets call a spade a spade here!

[which doctor]

The internet is in it's golden age right now, but it is starting to go down hill.


Considering that, by your own admission, you are quite familiar with child pornography and have watched enough of it to know what's a "normal" pre-pubescent "orgasm" looks like, I would hardly consider your position on this issue unbiased.

You don't like anti-childp pornography laws because, by all indications, you are a consumer of child pornography yourself.

Umm, excuse me. You have no proof what so ever and let's not try to derail this thread.

[the_last_straw]

Thanks for sticking up for me, but he does have proof. (See pedophilia thread a few weeks ago). Here is an example of how the government pawns of pedophiles for people's rights:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/32858-2-10.htm

basically, the justice department wanted all the search queries entered into search engines in order to "catch pedophiles".

[Jazzratt]

As great as it would be to skin every paedophile aliveI don't think it's worth allowing this kind of shit to happen. The problem arises in the fact that the Government doesn't need the support of me it just needs the support of the hundereds it has whipped up into a state of pant-pissing terror over paedophiles. I don't think anyone on this board could seriously condone any of the recent 'paedophile catching' initiatives.

[Janus]

Provided that the Internet didn't come back along, we could still use mail, phone, even telegraph to get our messages across.

The Internet just makes a lot of this more convenient and accessible.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 06:57 PM
As great as it would be to skin every paedophile alive
That's the same thing as saying that it would be great to skin every homosexual alive.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Jun 27 2006, 12:55 AM--> (Fist of Blood @ Jun 27 2006, 12:55 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 06:57 PM
As great as it would be to skin every paedophile alive
That's the same thing as saying that it would be great to skin every homosexual alive. [/b]
I wasn't aware that having sex with children and having sex with consenting adults was equivelent.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

There are tons of examples of the government making laws with the excuse of "to fight pedophiles" or "to fight terrorism".

I believe you.

But do you happen to have a few examples? (I'm interested in internet censorship, that's why I ask)

[the_last_straw]

Please, if people want to debate pedophilia do it somewhere outside this thread.

Court Strikes Down Censorship Law (Again). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has, for the second time, ruled that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is unconstitutional. In a decision (pdf) issued on March 6, 2003, the court found that the law violates the First Amendment because it improperly restricts access to a substantial amount of online speech that is lawful for adults. The decision follows a Supreme Court decision that sent the case back to the appeals court, which had previously ruled that COPA was unconstitutional. EPIC is co-counsel in the case.
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/991324.pdf

Senator Dan Coats bill to amend the Communications Act to make it a crime to publish on the Net any material that is "harmful to minors" (a censorship standard half-way between "obscenity" and "indecency") unless the site screens out minors.
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_cen...s1482_1997.bill (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/s1482_1997.bill)

Judge rules "communications decency act" unconstitutional which would ban some speech to protect children
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_cen...v_reno.decision (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/960612_aclu_v_reno.decision)

In addition, most laws regarding vulgar/hate speech such as radio/tv control laws (thank you FCC) are done in the spirit of protecting children.

Also, for laws that violate rights/censor for anti-terrorism take a look at:

The Patriot Act - Enables the FBI to make people silent about secret subponeas about terrorists as well as violates pretty much every right

There was also just a ruling that said employees working in government offices that dealt with issues of national security or restricted information couldn't report corruption to officers above them or the press.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jun 27 2006, 08:34 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Jun 27 2006, 08:34 AM)
Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 27 2006, 12:55 AM

[email protected] 26 2006, 06:57 PM
As great as it would be to skin every paedophile alive
That's the same thing as saying that it would be great to skin every homosexual alive.
I wasn't aware that having sex with children and having sex with consenting adults was equivelent. [/b]
Paedophiles don't have sex with children, child molestors do.

[FinnMacCool]

If hyppthetically speaking the internet was cut off, I would have to move to New York City and get in touch with radicals over there. THis is basically the only way outside of protests that I am ever in touch with radicals.

[Jazzratt]

Personally I don't have the confidence to get in touch with radicals without first using something anonymous (like the 'net.) but I know a few people I'd try to see up in London.

(As for the paedophile/child molestor thing I get your point FoB, I'll try not to make that mistake again.)

[razboz]

Perhaps it would be better if the internet did not exist or if this website di not exist, because it provides for a semi-safe haven for us radicals to waste our days away talking, and typing and generally sitting on our hands "networking". if the internet did not exist we would be forced to commnicate physically and see each other. And when a goroup of people actually meet and talk then action is much more likely to ensue than if people therise on forums and so on.

But thats just theoretical.

[Kamraten]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jun 26 2006, 09:45 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jun 26 2006, 09:45 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:52 PM

[email protected] 26 2006, 04:38 PM
And its happening in the motive of getting rid of child pornography
Dude, I think you may be the only one who thinks this is a bad thing...
I think he meant something more along the lines of 'under the guise of....' than 'in the motive of...' At least I hope for my own sanity that he did. [/b]
ofcourse that is what i meant sorry for my lack of english. Iam all for the fight against child porn. but that is how they work to get controll , they blame it on a issue wich nobody can deny, but when we give them the power to shut down theese sites we also give them power to shut down other sites. The free information gets restricted. Its a guise.

The same work with surveillance on the streets, here in sweden there were a hot topic about violence and sexual abuse against wimmen outdoors and therefor we need cameras on the streets and parks for the safety . and nobody can deny that but since then its popping up everywhere, big brothers got eyes in every wall.
Little by little they move forward.

Like a frog in water, you cant boil it by heating it up on full power then he will just jump out, you have to little by little raise the heat and the frog will adjust to its temperature and not realise that he is infact boiling until its toolate.


Razboz, i hear your point. But for countries or people cut off from the rest of the world without internet they would live in a bubble. And the flow of free information is so important, imagine if all the news you get comes from the mainstream media, one side perspective.
Internet is freedom.

[Forward Union]

Im in touch with loads of activists who don't have Internet access. It'd make it harder for me to hear about national gatherings, slightly. But probably wouldn't have a huge effect on my activism.

I know when all the meetings are and where they are, and from that I'll know when demonstrations or other activities are.

anyway the internet really isn't in any danger, so no need to panic. ;)

[anarchista feminista]

the internet makes things so convenient. it allows instant contact across the globe. and as with most technologies there are always downsides. and because it's such a technological milestone and convenience i don't think it will be going anywhere. afterall, that's all society cares about. convenience.

[Kamraten]

Governments to decide future of net

ICANN Marrakech In an historic shift of power, international governments will this week argue that they should take the lead role in "public policy" issues on the Net - effectively deciding the future course of much of the internet.

The request will come in an official communique from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of internet overseeing organisation ICANN tomorrow. It forms part of an "enhanced co-operation" mechanism agreed in theory at the World Summit in Tunis last November.

Part of the communique will state that the GAC "should identify issues where there may be public policy concerns... and bring them to the attention of other ICANN constituents". The GAC will also request that there is an "early warning system" from ICANN over any upcoming issues that may have a public policy element, and request that ICANN both extend its current 21-day public notice period as well as provide it with all relevant information 30 days before an ICANN meeting.

The GAC will also suggest that a new working group, encompassing all of the different elements of the internet community, be created to improve communication across ICANN as a whole. And it will also ask that more material is made available in languages other than English.

Many of the changes are no more than a reflection of how seriously the Internet is now taken by governments worldwide. It is an open secret that where in the past government officials were able to make decisions regarding the internet with a minimum of review, now many governments insist on high-level approval of any significant decisions. This process takes time and, the GAC argues, the system must be adjusted to account for new realities.

However, the attempt to put the GAC at the heart of "public policy issues" - which in reality means anything that isn't purely technical - will worry many within the ICANN system who are used to sharing official equity in decision-making processes.

ICANN CEO Paul Twomey - a former chair of the GAC himself - had made clear in the past that he sees any decision by the GAC as binding in anything but the most extraordinary circumstances. The significant risk by providing governments with the public policy remit however is that the GAC's tendency toward caution will end up stymying innovation on the Net.

In return, the GAC is expected to promise a streamlining of the current decision-making process, although how much of that is expected to come from the changes themselves and how much from reviewing the existing system is unclear.®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/28/ga...ann_communique/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/28/gac_icann_communique/)

I belive the internet is heavily under attack.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:16 PM
I belive the internet is heavily under attack.
As long as there are hackers we will have a defense.