CDZ How the internet is destroying us

[Derideo_Te]

Thanks for belatedly providing your links.

Nothing in what you provided supports your claim that it is "illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption".

Nothing is stopping you from using strong encryption so your claim is bogus.

Incorrect. 1) I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission." 2) I can't get permission unless I agree to hand over the keys, which means it's not encrypted, it's not encrypted because they have the keys. 3) I can't use a tool that has strong encryption because NONE ARE AVAILABLE that are allowed to use strong encryption except the ones that have AGREED TO HAND OVER THE KEYS.

IOW you can only have the illusion of strong encryption, you are not actually allowed to have or distribute or publish code for tools that use strong encryption where govco does not have the key.

Your paranoia is no substitute for facts. Nowhere do your links support your allegations.

Ok provide us with your proof I'm wrong. Any link to any strong encryption software in which the government does not have access to the keys would suffice.

Onus is still on you to quote the exact text of the law that is preventing you from...

I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission."

These are your fallacious claims. Either back them up with the appropriate legal references or deal with the consequences.

 

[SAYIT]

I would bet that more than 99% of what is on line is opinion, rather than fact.

There is little doubt that is correct. Trying to find the origin of most things accepted as fact on the internet usually becomes a circular effort, as sites reference other sites instead of actual sources.

Which is often because the original source is bogus, agenda driven BS.

 

[SAYIT]

The internet, its many evangelists tell us, is the answer to all our problems. It gives power to the people.

It’s a platform for equality that allows everyone an equal share in life’s riches. For the first time in history, anyone can produce, say or buy anything.

But today, as the internet heads towards putting more than half the world’s population online, all this promise has evaporated...

The author makes a self aggrandizing argument based on a Straw Man presumption. I have heard none say that the Internet "is the answer to all our problems." Furthermore it's "promise" has not "evaporated" and it does indeed serve the public good (notice I didn't say "solve all our problems"). Rather than toss the baby with the bathwater, perhaps we should strive to make it more useful while diminishing its negatives.

1. Thomas Friedman, on ‘Meet The Press,’ ‘The internet is an open sewer of untreated and unfiltered information.’
   1. If the internet existed in 1933, the NYTimes and Walter Duranty would not have been able to bury the story of he millions of Ukrainian farmers who were starved to death by Joseph Stalin and the Communists.
   2. If there had been an internet in 1957-1959, Herbert Matthews and the NYTimes would not have been able to claim that Fidel Castro was the new George Washington

I agree and the unfiltered transmission of events - by word and pictures - is both the good and the bad of the Internet. Sometimes info without context can be propaganda intended to inflame and sometimes the actual info is distorted or modified, again for nefarious purposes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks for belatedly providing your links.

Nothing in what you provided supports your claim that it is "illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption".

Nothing is stopping you from using strong encryption so your claim is bogus.

Incorrect. 1) I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission." 2) I can't get permission unless I agree to hand over the keys, which means it's not encrypted, it's not encrypted because they have the keys. 3) I can't use a tool that has strong encryption because NONE ARE AVAILABLE that are allowed to use strong encryption except the ones that have AGREED TO HAND OVER THE KEYS.

IOW you can only have the illusion of strong encryption, you are not actually allowed to have or distribute or publish code for tools that use strong encryption where govco does not have the key.

Your paranoia is no substitute for facts. Nowhere do your links support your allegations.

Ok provide us with your proof I'm wrong. Any link to any strong encryption software in which the government does not have access to the keys would suffice.

Onus is still on you to quote the exact text of the law that is preventing you from...

I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission."

These are your fallacious claims. Either back them up with the appropriate legal references or deal with the consequences.

I did back it up, with direct quotes and highlights. If you can't read english I suggest a remedial course. There are many available for free on-line.

 

[ChrisL]

Part of what I get from this article is that its the bullies who are victimizing those who are the least able to fight back.

I don't get how you can really be bullied on the internet. You can always log off, block people, ignore people, etc. People try to bully on me here all the time. I just ignore them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thanks for belatedly providing your links.

Nothing in what you provided supports your claim that it is "illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption".

Nothing is stopping you from using strong encryption so your claim is bogus.

Incorrect. 1) I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission." 2) I can't get permission unless I agree to hand over the keys, which means it's not encrypted, it's not encrypted because they have the keys. 3) I can't use a tool that has strong encryption because NONE ARE AVAILABLE that are allowed to use strong encryption except the ones that have AGREED TO HAND OVER THE KEYS.

IOW you can only have the illusion of strong encryption, you are not actually allowed to have or distribute or publish code for tools that use strong encryption where govco does not have the key.

Your paranoia is no substitute for facts. Nowhere do your links support your allegations.

Ok provide us with your proof I'm wrong. Any link to any strong encryption software in which the government does not have access to the keys would suffice.

Onus is still on you to quote the exact text of the law that is preventing you from...

I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission."

These are your fallacious claims. Either back them up with the appropriate legal references or deal with the consequences.

I did back it up, with direct quotes and highlights. If you can't read english I suggest a remedial course. There are many available for free on-line.

Not a single one of your quotes backed up your feckless claim.

Those quotes referred to exporting cryptology and offshore data storage. There was nothing in your links about "strong encryption" not being allowed.

But thanks for admitting that this is just another of your empty Libertarian nonsense allegations that falls apart under scrutiny.

At least you are consistent when it comes to failing to support your drivel.

 

[MaryL]

Ironic the OP is using the self same internet as a sounding board against the internet. But I have to agree, the internet has caused a lot of harm. Porn, and hacking of monetary or government agencies, to the promotion of terrorism. Something has do be done about all this. Posting on the USMB is nice as a exemplar of freedom of speech. But, on the other hand...then there is something called the "dark net". Anything goes. Trading child porn or plutonium or "daesh" propaganda recruiting for wives.

 

[ChrisL]

Ironic the OP is using the self same internet as a sounding board against the internet. But I have to agree, the internet has caused a lot of harm. Porn, and hacking of monetary or government agencies, to the promotion of terrorism. Something has do be done about all this. Posting on the USMB is nice as a exemplar of freedom of speech. But, on the other hand...then there is something called the "dark net". Anything goes. Trading child porn or plutonium or "daesh" propaganda recruiting for wives.

True, the child pornography and pedos are a definite problem on the internet. The police do have people who work undercover on the net to catch these people though. Also there are volunteers who turn people in too. It's important that the people who use the internet also police it. Whenever someone hears of child porn or pedophilia on the net, they should contact the FBI because child porn trading is a federal offense and a felony.

 

[emilynghiem]

Part of what I get from this article is that its the bullies who are victimizing those who are the least able to fight back.

Thanks for explaining Luddly Neddite
Wouldn't you say social media and internet have COUNTERACTED bullying by organizing to defend against it?

Like Trayvon Martin's parents, Ferguson,
the Anonymous hackers standing up for rape victims we'd never have heard were being hushed up and kicked out?

How do you measure the failures vs. the successes?

EX: Meriam Ibrahim
Pregnant woman freedom from Sudan where she was facing execution
and successfully reunited with her husband in the US

 

[D Truth]

It's funny really.

The university "educated" are the quickest to denounce the freedom of information that is the internet.

Why is that?

Could it be that since they threw away so much of their lives and families/taxpayers money so that the professor could have a new sports car? All the while the very same information is essentially free on the internet?

I mean, a lot of money was payed! They, like the idiot scarecrow, have a degree! THEY ARE THE TRUTH!!! THEY HAVE THE DEGREE!!!
How dare some lowbrow working class person dare learn anything without paying!!!

Could it be that they are too far in it to admit this truth? Their ego simply won't allow them to understand that you do not need to be a professor to use your own mind to process information?

Then you have the other side...
The propaganda machine. Let's face it the dinosaur media, FOX, MSNBC, New York Times, and all the rest... they had a monopoly on propaganda. Not so much with this internet thingy, and it absolutely terrifies them. So, the only weapon they have left is their "government".

Things are going to be interesting in the next decade or so.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's funny really.

The university "educated" are the quickest to denounce the freedom of information that is the internet.

Why is that?

Could it be that since they threw away so much of their lives and families/taxpayers money so that the professor could have a new sports car? All the while the very same information is essentially free on the internet?

I mean, a lot of money was payed! They, like the idiot scarecrow, have a degree! THEY ARE THE TRUTH!!! THEY HAVE THE DEGREE!!!
How dare some lowbrow working class person dare learn anything without paying!!!

Could it be that they are too far in it to admit this truth? Their ego simply won't allow them to understand that you do not need to be a professor to use your own mind to process information?

Then you have the other side...
The propaganda machine. Let's face it the dinosaur media, FOX, MSNBC, New York Times, and all the rest... they had a monopoly on propaganda. Not so much with this internet thingy, and it absolutely terrifies them. So, the only weapon they have left is their "government".

Things are going to be interesting in the next decade or so.

Oh, and of course, Luddly Neddite uses the INTERNET
to protest and distribute this.
Mr. "thou doth protest too much" using "that which thou doth protesteth"?

 

[D Truth]

Ah yes, I've noticed the clown puppeteer. Funny how these so called progressives cling desperately to the archaic ideal of a university "education" as being the only method, mode, and or mean of truth.
Hilarious actually.

 

[asaratis]

The internet coupled with smart phones has enabled the public to have instant access to facts and instant communications between each other to the point that the government now has extreme difficulty in deceiving the voters via delaying or preventing the spread of TRUTH. The worst enemy of government is an informed populace. That's why Obama wants to control the internet...and talk radio.

 

[Circe]

A recent focus on changes wrought by the Internet is in the shorter attention span people may be learning because of the Net's short pieces (like these forum posts) disturbed and distracted by the many ads and multitasking the Web promotes. So writers are saying our brains can't read and concentrate on books or long articles as well. I think there is something to that.

 

[asaratis]

A recent focus on changes wrought by the Internet is in the shorter attention span people may be learning because of the Net's short pieces (like these forum posts) disturbed and distracted by the many ads and multitasking the Web promotes. So writers are saying our brains can't read and concentrate on books or long articles as well. I think there is something to that.

Could be. We spend far too much time with electronic devices.

Whenever I invite families to enjoy a weekend in the woods with me, there is only one hard and fast rule...no electronic devices. Phones are for emergency outgoing calls only. Otherwise, it's deal with nature and each other. No radios, no MP3 players, no TVs, ...nothing but campfires, good food, story telling, guitars and conversation. I REALLY pissed off a young teenage boy once by throwing the batteries to his radio into the river.

 

[emilynghiem]

A recent focus on changes wrought by the Internet is in the shorter attention span people may be learning because of the Net's short pieces (like these forum posts) disturbed and distracted by the many ads and multitasking the Web promotes. So writers are saying our brains can't read and concentrate on books or long articles as well. I think there is something to that.

I think the multitasking is from all the sources of information and media that people are exposed to.
This is supposed to be a step forward in evolution that we can process information from multiple sources faster.
We just haven't learned to filter yet.

As for laziness in not reading whole content, once people understand the background behind things,
you should be able to grab the gist of where someone is coming from and process faster. That's not a bad skill.

the PROBLEM is if you have a filter or bias on the receiving side and are PROJECTING your own judgment
based on misunderstanding of the background of the source (such as if you automatically reject Christians
so you miss what is going on with Spiritual Healing, or automatically reject liberals so you miss what is going on with real issues with the Environment or Corporate corruption that is affecting taxpayers forced to cover the damages, or people who reject anything "Tea Party as racist" so they are missing out on the background behind the Constitution, etc.)

If you get past the false filtering, then we DO need skills to read and process information faster
in order to network and organize ideas and resources.

What is a weakness should be developed fully and it becomes a strength.
but until then, the potential and strengths that the Internet provides may well act as a weakness
by flooding us with so much bogus information people put up false filters to try to screen it out.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. 1) I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission." 2) I can't get permission unless I agree to hand over the keys, which means it's not encrypted, it's not encrypted because they have the keys. 3) I can't use a tool that has strong encryption because NONE ARE AVAILABLE that are allowed to use strong encryption except the ones that have AGREED TO HAND OVER THE KEYS.

IOW you can only have the illusion of strong encryption, you are not actually allowed to have or distribute or publish code for tools that use strong encryption where govco does not have the key.

Your paranoia is no substitute for facts. Nowhere do your links support your allegations.

Ok provide us with your proof I'm wrong. Any link to any strong encryption software in which the government does not have access to the keys would suffice.

Onus is still on you to quote the exact text of the law that is preventing you from...

I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission."

These are your fallacious claims. Either back them up with the appropriate legal references or deal with the consequences.

I did back it up, with direct quotes and highlights. If you can't read english I suggest a remedial course. There are many available for free on-line.

Not a single one of your quotes backed up your feckless claim.

Those quotes referred to exporting cryptology and offshore data storage. There was nothing in your links about "strong encryption" not being allowed.

But thanks for admitting that this is just another of your empty Libertarian nonsense allegations that falls apart under scrutiny.

At least you are consistent when it comes to failing to support your drivel.

Your bile is spewing onto your prose. Again, I suggest you take a remedial reading course.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your paranoia is no substitute for facts. Nowhere do your links support your allegations.

Ok provide us with your proof I'm wrong. Any link to any strong encryption software in which the government does not have access to the keys would suffice.

Onus is still on you to quote the exact text of the law that is preventing you from...

I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission."

These are your fallacious claims. Either back them up with the appropriate legal references or deal with the consequences.

I did back it up, with direct quotes and highlights. If you can't read english I suggest a remedial course. There are many available for free on-line.

Not a single one of your quotes backed up your feckless claim.

Those quotes referred to exporting cryptology and offshore data storage. There was nothing in your links about "strong encryption" not being allowed.

But thanks for admitting that this is just another of your empty Libertarian nonsense allegations that falls apart under scrutiny.

At least you are consistent when it comes to failing to support your drivel.

Your bile is spewing onto your prose. Again, I suggest you take a remedial reading course.

Oh the irony coming from you!

Onus remains on you to quote the appropriate wording in the legislation that supports your fallacious claim.

You have had umpteen opportunities and failed every time.

That tells us that you have squat but your empty Libertarian drivel.

Have a nice day.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ok provide us with your proof I'm wrong. Any link to any strong encryption software in which the government does not have access to the keys would suffice.

Onus is still on you to quote the exact text of the law that is preventing you from...

I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission."

These are your fallacious claims. Either back them up with the appropriate legal references or deal with the consequences.

I did back it up, with direct quotes and highlights. If you can't read english I suggest a remedial course. There are many available for free on-line.

Not a single one of your quotes backed up your feckless claim.

Those quotes referred to exporting cryptology and offshore data storage. There was nothing in your links about "strong encryption" not being allowed.

But thanks for admitting that this is just another of your empty Libertarian nonsense allegations that falls apart under scrutiny.

At least you are consistent when it comes to failing to support your drivel.

Your bile is spewing onto your prose. Again, I suggest you take a remedial reading course.

Oh the irony coming from you!

Onus remains on you to quote the appropriate wording in the legislation that supports your fallacious claim.

You have had umpteen opportunities and failed every time.

That tells us that you have squat but your empty Libertarian drivel.

Have a nice day.

Not only did I quote it, I HIGHLIGHTED IT IN BOLD AND ITALICS FOR YOU.