The Greek government is so stupid, so brutal, and so barbarous that it robs, persecutes, and terrorizes dissident bloggers!
The Greek government is a major enemy of the internet.
Netherlands leads the way to net-neutrality, whereas Greece lags far behind. Netherlands versus Neanderthals! Whenever the internet encounters a bottleneck, such as the freakish government of Greece, it just goes around it, bypassing cybercensorship, stupid regulation, VAT, cancer of socialism, and sadomasochism! A major benefit of net neutrality is that it allows society to blow off steam. Broadcasting of ideas releases pressures which otherwise might become destructive. Free speech also allows the government to gather information about public concerns.
Most netizens oppose cybercensorship. Giving cybercensorship to blogbusters is giving gin to alcoholics! Blogbusters galore! Freak! Freak! Freak! The freakish government of Greece, the most corrupt country in Europe, steals computers! Robbing dissident bloggers and locking them in jail is a freakish behavior that does not belong to the European Union, not even to this galaxy! No wonder some vain Greeks boast they come from Andromeda galaxy!
The fight against cybercensorship is more essential than ever. By creating blogs for exchanging ideas and information, internet is a force for freedom. In countries where the traditional media are controlled by the government, the only independent news and information are to be found on the internet, which has become a forum for discussion and a refuge for those who want to express their views freely.
However, more and more repressive governments, such as those of China and Greece, have realized this and persecute dissident bloggers. Never have so many countries been affected by some form of cybercensorship, whether arrests or harassment of dissident bloggers, online surveillance, website blocking, or the adoption of repressive internet laws. Dissident bloggers are being targeted by government reprisals.
Building a connected continent
By Neelie Kroes
Today we all worry about the economy. Every citizen and every politician.
We face a severe economic crisis; one with devastating effects, particularly on young people.
Fixing this isn't just an academic debate. It's about helping those without jobs, those without certainty, those without hope.
In fact there's much we can do by looking at the future. Thinking about it, preparing for it and investing in it. Investing in tomorrow's growth.
Without doubt, that growth lies online. The web is a vibrant forum for innovation and growth. And a significant boost to performance and productivity.
From socialising to learning the latest news; from logistics to financial transactions; from transport to tourism; big data to cloud computing— today there are few activities untouched or unimproved by digital tools.
The Internet creates 5 jobs for every two lost. 10 percentage points more broadband boosts growth by 1 to 1.5%. And soon 90% of jobs will require digital skills.
That is why Italy needs to start taking connectivity seriously. Yet as it stands, just 14% of Italian homes have coverage by fast, "next generation" broadband networks. That figure, about a quarter of the EU average, puts Italy in last place among the EU. Meanwhile 37% of Italian adults have never used the Internet.
That is a big let-down to the Italian people. But there's a huge opportunity if the country can catch up.
The ICT sector includes some of the biggest companies in the world: yet of those global giants, none are from Europe. Not any more.
The fact is we have lots of top talent and lots of great ideas. But too often, ideas that start in Europe don't stay in Europe. Like Glancee – an Italian startup, last year bought up by Facebook, and packed off to Silicon Valley.
To fix this problem, we need the right supporting ecosystem. Especially broadband: the 21st century infrastructure that underpins connectivity.
Those networks can only be provided by a strong, healthy telecoms sector.
Yet, today, providers cannot easily work as integrated single market operations. They are reduced to rent-seeking in protected national markets, blocking new ideas, and relying on outdated unsustainable revenues.
Rather, we need a sector that looks forward to face the future. A sector that offers plentiful fast broadband and innovative services. A sector that invests and innovates for tomorrow.
All together a single market in telecommunications could be worth 110 billion euros a year. And world-class digital infrastructure could boost productivity growth by 5%.
It's time to bring down the barriers within our single market. Then we can start to see growth in this sector stimulate growth in the entire economy.
Making it easier for operators to work across borders. With more consistent access to fixed networks. Better rules on spectrum, so more Europeans get fast wireless broadband. New rules on WiFi, giving more chances to connect.
Fairer prices – like for calling and texting across Europe: because removing artificial borders is exactly what the EU is here to do. An end to blocking and throttling online services. Allowing new specialised online services, only if they don't slow down the internet for everyone else.
Better consumer rights, like to ensure you get the internet speed and quality you pay for, so you can switch providers without hassle or high costs.
That is our proposal for a Connected Continent.
Much of the response to it – positive and negative – has focused on our proposal to bring about the end of roaming in Europe. Telcos in particular are lobbying fiercely for those rip-offs to stay. So let me clarify a few points.
First, our proposal is not based on mandated price caps. Rather it encourages new, pan-European deals onto the market. If any market player is fighting against a voluntary, market-based mechanism, you have to ask yourself. Why do they fear that competition?
Second, they claim that roaming rip-offs help investment. I don't see that. They have not led to significant investment in recent years; I cannot believe they ever would. Why would you invest in the new networks that support innovative services, if you can make fast money from roaming? In fact, investors want to see business plans that are sustainable and forward-looking.
And that is my third point. Roaming isn't sustainable. No business model based on irritating your customers could be. Even market analysts agree it's on its way out. So let's not look backwards to yesterday's cash cows. But forward to tomorrow's opportunities.
Tomorrow's opportunities are based on data. Innovative, tailored services from a competitive, dynamic market. A market that doesn’t face borders and barriers, but that benefits from the single market boost. For every company trying to do business between multiple sites. Every business user taking their phone abroad. Every citizen wanting seamless connections to the open internet.
They all enjoy the single market: they all need the networks and framework to match their ambitions.
That's what our proposals are about. Ensuring the networks that underpin a vibrant digital single market and a competitive economy.
ENEMIES OF BLOGOSPHERE
Persecuting dissident bloggers often results in their blogs being publicized more widely. The Streisand Effect is a strong argument for the old adage that the best response to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. The Streisand Effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the perverse effect of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress photos of her residence generated further publicity.
Standing up for freedom online is the logical next step to our age-old endeavor for freedom of speech. For centuries, this fundamental freedom has been the driver of democracy. The fight for freedom of speech continues. But in the last decades, it has taken on an extra dimension, that of freedom online. Freedom of speech online is no different from freedom of speech offline. Only now, we are faced with new technological possibilities and challenges. We are still doing the same, only with different means, and much faster. Protecting freedom online is to safeguard its democratic potential. It is time for governments, companies, ICT experts, the academic community and civil society at large to join efforts.
Since network neutrality first appeared in policy debates, its meaning has been less than crystal clear. Some advocates have argued that net neutrality demands that broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all bits equally: a bit is a bit is a bit, while others make exceptions for malware bits, spam bits, child pornography bits, etc. Some advocates have argued that net neutrality must apply not only to wired broadband ISPs, but to wireless broadband providers as well, while others recognize that wireless broadband has a unique technological structure that requires more stringent and flexible capacity management than is consistent with a bit is a bit is a bit. Prophylactic regulation is not necessary, and may well reduce welfare. Sound policy is to wait for ex post evidence of harm to justify interventions in specific cases.
It is impossible to effectively control the flow of information in the digital age by law and technology without harming public freedoms, and damaging economic and social development. This is similar to the squaring of the circle, a problem that cannot be solved.
Net-neutrality means the internet has no gatekeeper. It encompasses all the issues related to the circulation of information on the internet, such as free speech, access to knowledge, copyright, or innovation. Thanks to this principle, everyone retain the freedom to access and produce the information they want. Socialists want prioritization of certain information flows by taking control of the network. Kleptocrats threaten net-neutrality by seeking to implement filtering techniques in order to re-establish the kind of control they used to have on traditional media.
The internet compresses time and space. News nowadays is flashing on mobile phones in a matter of seconds. Messages on possible election fraud can invigorate a texting crowd within minutes. Where it used to take days to mobilize the masses, protests by so called flash mobs are now organized instantaneously. Online technology is a catalyst which can help people collectively overcome their fear of a totalitarian regime within days.
The persecution of Greek dissident bloggers is a worrying example of how freedom on the net is under increasing threat. As more people use cyberspace to communicate, obtain information, express their views, socialize, and conduct commerce, governments are stepping up their efforts to regulate and control it. Tight control on the internet impinges on our freedom of speech, association and assembly. And it means that violations of other human rights are kept away from us.
People increasingly turn to the internet to conduct important aspects of their lives, and we have to make sure that human rights are as respected online as offline. After all, the right to express one's views, practice one's faith, peacefully assemble with others to pursue political or social change – these are all rights to which all human beings are entitled, whether they choose to exercise them in a city square or an internet chat room. And just as we have worked together since the last century to secure these rights in the material world, we must work together in this century to secure them in cyberspace.
This is an urgent task. It is most urgent, of course, for those around the world whose words are now censored, who are imprisoned because of what they or others have written online, who are blocked from accessing entire categories of internet content, or who are being tracked by governments seeking to keep them from connecting with one another.
Many incidents worldwide remind us of the stakes in this struggle. And the struggle does not belong only to those on the front lines and who are suffering. It belongs to all of us: first, because we all have a responsibility to support human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere. Second, because the benefits of the network grow as the number of users grow. The internet is not exhaustible or competitive.
My use of the internet doesn't diminish yours. On the contrary, the more people that are online and contributing ideas, the more valuable the entire network becomes to all the other users. In this way, all users, through the billions of individual choices we make about what information to seek or share, fuel innovation, enliven public debates, quench a thirst for knowledge, and connect people in ways that distance and cost made impossible just a generation ago.
When ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished for all of us. What we do today to preserve fundamental freedoms online will have a profound effect on the next generation of users. More than two billion people are now connected to the internet, but in the next 20 years, that number will more than double. And we are quickly approaching the day when more than a billion people are using the internet in repressive countries. The pledges we make and the actions we take today can help us determine whether that number grows or shrinks, or whether the meaning of being on the internet is totally distorted.
Fragmenting the global internet by erecting barriers around national internets would change the landscape of cyberspace. In this scenario, the internet would contain people in a series of digital bubbles, rather than connecting them in a global network. Breaking the internet into pieces would give you echo chambers rather than an innovative global marketplace of ideas.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is a proposed law in the United States which would allow for the sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and certain technology and manufacturing companies. The stated aim of the bill is to help the U.S government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyberattack.
CISPA is essentially an Internet monitoring bill that permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications with no judicial oversight, provided, of course, that they do so in the name of cybersecurity.
Basically it says the Fourth Amendment does not apply online, at all. Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a cybersecurity crime.
The Greek presidency of EU must be annulled, because the kleptocratic alliance of Pasok mafia and Nea Democratia mafia cannot be trusted. The freakish government of Greece stole my computer, my files, and my life in cold blood! Basil Venitis, venitis@gmail.com, http://themostsearched.blogspot.com @Venitis
0 komentar:
Post a Comment