Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AhmedFaisal, Aug 8, 2010.
For people that don't read the article, what is Google doing that is evil ?
Apple, Microsoft, AT+T, Verizon and Google are companies whose only goal is to make money for their shareholders. There are no good companies or evil companies. There are only profitable and unprofitable companies.
I too am confused, and I read the article.
For how big and powerful google is I say they do a good job a privacy.
So I wasn't the only one who read both the article and the OP and then got confused.
I do not get the point the OP is making
So the fact that Schmidt and others at Google have been advocating against the abuse of anonymity on the internet for a number of years, whereas Julian Assange has only been in the news for a number of months, I'm assuming, just furthers the argument that Schmidt's statement is really about WikiLeaks?
Moral of the day: don't start a thread until you fully understand the article that you're trying to spark discussion about.
He's saying that if we want to be perfectly safe online there can't be any anonymity.
I think there isn't any left really. Even if there ever was some.
You can create a account here on this forum at a internet cafe, use cash, etc. But a person could still possibly trace the IP to the cafe, to the computer, get a time, and then do some social engineering and find out who used the computer that instant.
I think 99% of people believe they are anonymous online, and for the most part they are. If somebody really wants to know who you are they are going to find it out some way or another.
The encryption on predator drone UAVs is less than a DVD.
Exterior home door locks can be opened with a special made key in the hands of a expert in seconds.
I think you just need to find a comfortable area and not be so paranoid
Or end every post like its a formal letter...
Still not sure what the best solution is... one thing is for sure, I don't want a government agency regulating the internet like the FCC does for Television, Radio... deciding what' ok to be there and what's ok not to be. Putting in all sorts of red tape and bureaucracy.
The internet we love today was built and currently maintains itself thanks to capitalism and the free market. Haven't looked into the issue deep enough yet, but one thing is for sure... at the moment, I trust Google to maintain the quality of the web a lot more than I trust the U.S. Government.
You would prefer that the internet providers, like comcast, at&t, etc... be the ones regulating the internet and deciding what is ok to be there and what is not ok to be there, using their profit, capitalism and the free market as their guideposts, as opposed to providing free and open access to the internet for everyone?
Schmidt's right though - true anonymity breeds distrust and criminality, we've all seen it and experienced the problems of it, and if anyone hasn't they're fortunate enough to not had enough experience online.
I like the direction the internet is going recently with the linking of social accounts like Facebook to login to services, so when you're posting, people know it's really you. I don't think we're fully ready for that yet either, as it's too easily abused by people who opt out of posting as themselves. But it does show evolution and that the big companies are aware of the torrent of abuse on nearly any forum or platform.
Maybe we need an intermediary platform that links your forum account to your social network account. That way you can be vetted, but not exposed, and you can still post anonymously.
As for Wikileaks - I think anonymity will be something parties involved in that sort of thing can pro-actively seek to protect their identities, and they can physically leak goods as well, it doesn't all have to be done over the net.
You do know why we need the FCC controlling the radio and TV along with any other frequency in the air waves right?
There is a limited amount of space and there would be ton of problems if we have free will to use anything we want. TV stations trying to over power each other.
Since it is limited the advertising has to be controlled and force to be fair. What said and showed on those over the air waves need to be controlled. It is one thing to show nudity on premium cable. It is another thing to show it over the air waves.
I honestly would rather have the FCC forcing net neutrality than letting the ISP blocking every sit that does not pay them money.
This was true before the internet. People, in general, will do things under the anonymity offered by a closed door, an unsigned letter to an editor, being alone, or behing a faceless computer that they might not do if not anonymous.
However, the OP INFERRED what was not IMPLIED in the original article.
Start looking a little deeper at "net neutrality" and I think you'll agree that the having the FCC require ISPs to treat all internet traffic equally is better than letting ISPs sell fast bandwidth to the highest bidders thus allowing giant corporations to use their deep pockets to stifle competition and to control the internet similarly to how they control 'old media' by and large today.
From FinancialPost.com regarding a possible deal between Google and Verizon.
Also, like Rodimus Prime, I can clearly see the need of a regulating body like the FCC even if I do disagree w/how politics has altered the FCC from its original design over the years.
Yet another person who thinks the marketplace is only governed by disinterested automotons...
Companies are not separable from human beings precisely because they are made up of humans. The day this planet is ruled by machines, your naivety may become reality.
Companies are the modern equivalents of the church of rome or kingdoms or empires. Why is that so hard to understand?
Why is it that so many on the right only believe in freedom for large corporations? Are you really that big a sucker?
The Internet is what it is because of unbiased, universal access. 99% of everything you use on the Internet started on a shoestring in somebody's garage, metaphorically or sometimes literally. After the elimination of network neutrality that will never happen again, and that is precisely the intent of what the telcos are proposing. To the extent that the Internet exists "thanks to capitalism and the free market," the one thing you must understand is that the very intent of the telco position is to reduce freedom in the market by picking winners and granting effective monopolies on the basis of who is willing to cut them in for the largest share. The telcos propose to set themselves up as literal digital robber barons.
This is an open collusion with existing successful businesses and the media interests who have been trying to wrest control of the Internet away from the public for years to have the FCC allow them to just buy it wholesale and shut you out except as a passive consumer. And all Rupert Murdoch has to do is to stick some blatherer on TV to drop the word freedom in there a few times, and you are champing at the bit to sell out to him.
Network Neutrality is freedom. It is regulation of a common infrastructure in the public interest so as to promote and protect the freedom to communicate, to compete and to innovate.
Here's my concern, right now we have access to several different types of media; tv, radio, internet, etc. Currently, only one of these is completely free and open and full of any and every type of content to fill your heart's desire (among other benefits). The rest of these, are controlled by the government. Controlled by agencies 'looking out for our best interest', making the content more 'acceptable' or 'family friendly', limiting access of smaller companies to get a foot hold.
The internet is something completely different. Pure capitalism, pure free market, pure start-up entrepreneurialism, freedom, etc. If the free market was able to create this, why woudl you want to change the equation and get the government (with it's obvious history) involved to screw it up?
Your concerns are of throttling, etc. but if consumers backlash they won't do it. If one company does it and their competitor does, which will you choose? Why? Will they be able to maintain this policy if customers leave? Will they be as profitable? Will their shareholders put up with it?
I'm much more confident that corporations will do the right thing out of greed/fear of losing business than the government will in an attempt to 'help us.' I believe history has proven this out. All the things the Net Neutrality (catch name BTW) advocates seem to be worried about are 'plausibles' potential problems that haven't happened to any substantial level yet. The internet they love was created with the very thing they're trying to crush with government bureaucracy.
IDK. Not an expert on this issue, just my $0.02 worth.
No... modern big government empires are the equivalents of kingdoms and empires.
Minus one problem. We have example after example in so call free markets that it does not work that way.
In your case it only works if their are a ton of companies that are ISP. At first that was the case but now we are down to a handful of big guys and those tend to follow eachother lead. WHen all the big players throttling what choose to we have.
Lets look at cell phones. We have 4 big players. One started requiring a data plan on all smart phones and now look. All 4 do it and of the biggest 2. Verizon and AT&T their monthly plans are pretty much the exact same cost.
Or you can look at the big air lines almost all their ticket prices are roughly the same. One raise rate the other tend to follow. We all get screwed.
Another example from our past is cost of CD. It was proven that the 5 major record companies illegeally raised the prices of new cds. They all raised them at the same rate and we the consumers got screwed. We were paying $15 for new cds when really the cost should of been around $10 and it was proven in court. Record companies were required to refund billions for that stunt plus had to pay some pretty hefty fines.
We can go example after example. Hell I could pull up what happen after cable TV was deregulated. Cost jump and service fell because they just bought and sold different areas to eachother and would get a monopoly in any given area. You only would have one choice on who you could go with.
Anonymity requires effort, planning, and if doing so online a lot of misleading data to throw people off your trail making activity harder to trace back to its source. Buying a used laptop with cash zeroing the data on the HD and reinstalling the OS using some random registration name and never using your home ISP to connect but free wifi at the coffee shop or some other public place is always a good start, but the wifi connections.
You always need to keep the data separate from your regular activities never hooking it up anywhere you provide your own info and never be tempted to even check your regular e-mails on the same machine. To be anonymous you have to eliminate as much trace evidence that can be directly cross referenced back to you. Keep things complicated.
I think everyone here probably believes that the equal prioritization of content is a good thing.... my point is, just like you said, since the availability of the internet to the world market we've been operating this way. Government tries to pick 'winners' and 'losers' in an endless number of programs. Whether it's subsidies to companies, entitlement programs, universal healthcare, etc. they're in the business of picking winners and losers. So, if the free market has brought us this net neutrality (outside of one or two companies who have experimented with non-equal prioritization or throttling, to which they faced severe consumer backlash) why in the world would you want to give up that free system in order to move to a government regulated one with the history that they have? Just doesn't make sense.
I completely understand and agree with the backlash against this prioritization issue, just disagree with the proposed solution. I think voting with your wallet is the solution. I think free speech is the solution. I don't think big government manipulative bureaucratic regulation is the answer.
One big question you must ask yourself... why are there only a few telecom companies? Government regulations make it next to impossible for entrepreneurial start-ups to enter the market place. So, government caused the problem you're trying to solve... with more government.
If we can prove there is monopolistic activities going on, the companies can be split up by the courts (it's happened to AT&T before). Just like your CD example, if the accusation is true, the guilty party can be made to pay. If there's fraud or monopolistic activities going on, that should be put through the justice system. But it certainly doesn't justify a government takeover (especially when their policies helped lead toward those activities)! It doesn't justify putting the entire web under a massive government regulation which will almost certainly lead to fewer choices, less freedom, less openness, and I think you all know that.
With regards to mobile phones the reason the US networks are among the worlds worst is more down to the US not insisting that mobile phone networks used GSM. That's what rest of the world has done very successfully - including countries with far more regulation than the US.
With regards to landline phones given the vast costs of putting in new copper into peoples homes the only way that has proved successful in the real world to offer competition is to force the owner of the telephone wires to sell it wholesale to other companies for a fixed price which involves government regulation to force the owner of the wires to play fair.
Problem you run into is it is very hard to prove they are working together even if they are. Often they are just following each others lead. Lets assume they do not force net nuertality. We the conumers will get screwed because 99% of all network traffic would have to pass over one of the 3-4 big players at some point to get to you. No matter who your ISP.
Those 3-4 ISP will be doing the throttling so you get screwed. About 40% of all Europe traffic would get throttled because 40% of it passes threw the US.
I could point out that when the telecoms first were set decades ago there was very little incentives at the time for companies to build out that very costly network. As bad as it sounds we need the government sometimes to fund and set up some things that are better for the long term good. Draw back is you then run into things like a handful of companies.
But even when they are not set up that way things still end up forming into a handful of companies. Take Oil for example. Goverement never set up that instead it in the past it broke up standard Oil into quite a few different companies. Now only 4 major ones left world wide.
Record companies when from a lot of small ones to a handful of large ones.
Either way net neutrality needs to be force on the ISP. I pay for my bandwith. The ISP should not care what I use it for.