Skip to main content

Home/ Future of the Web/ Group items tagged tyranny

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
2More

The Tyranny of the Market | Joel Waldfogel | Harvard University Press - 0 views

www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php tyranny market joel Waldfogel harvard university press regulation government telecommunications Internet knowledge access
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Mar 15
     
    Economists have long counseled reliance on markets rather than on government to decide a wide range of questions, in part because allocation through voting can give rise to a... [# probably, 'government regulation' is much better than leaving broadband's 'shape' subject to the 'Tyranny of The Market'...]
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Mar 15
     
    Economists have long counseled reliance on markets rather than on government to decide a wide range of questions, in part because allocation through voting can give rise to a
1More

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : The NSA Continues to Abuse Americans ... - 0 views

www.ronpaulinstitute.org/...rcepting-their-telephone-calls surveillance state NSA phone-content phone-texts
shared by Paul Merrell on 15 May 18 - No Cached
  • One of the few positive things in the ill-named USA FREEDOM Act, enacted in 2015 after the Snowden revelations on NSA domestic spying, is that it required the Director of National Intelligence to regularly report on its domestic surveillance activities. On Friday, the latest report was released on just how much our own government is spying on us. The news is not good at all if you value freedom over tyranny.According to the annual report, named the Statistical Transparency Report Regarding Use of National Security Authorities, the US government intercepted and stored information from more than a half-billion of our telephone calls and text messages in 2017. That is a 300 percent increase from 2016. All of these intercepts were “legal” under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is ironic because FISA was enacted to curtail the Nixon-era abuse of surveillance on American citizens.Has the US government intercepted your phone calls and/or text messages? You don’t know, which is why the surveillance state is so evil. Instead of assuming your privacy is protected by the US Constitution, you must assume that the US government is listening in to your communications. The difference between these is the difference between freedom and tyranny. The ultimate triumph of totalitarian states was not to punish citizens for opposing its tyranny, but to successfully cause them to censor themselves before even expressing “subversive” thoughts.
3More

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 3 views

www.un.org/...index.shtml universal declaration human rights Human Rights
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 01 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 01 Dec 12
     
    [PREAMBLE Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories
  • Paul Merrell on 01 Dec 12
     
    The Declaration is an important document but only aspirational in nature. It was hamstrung from the beginning by omission of mandated procedures by which an aggrieved person could seek its enforcement or protection.
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Dec 12
     
    Oh.. of course, Paul. This is Just a Reminder... ... of the other ways to do the things... For Every@ne. Perhaps One Day... :)
3More

GNU/Linux ¿cual es el camino de la libertad? | Desde Linux [# ! Nota.] - 0 views

blog.desdelinux.net/al-es-el-camino-de-la-libertad linux camino libertad nota
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 15 Nov 16 - No Cached
    • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.
      Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 15 Nov 16
       
      # ! ... creo que se confunde (a menudo, y, en ocasiones, 'deliberadamente') #Variedad con #Complejidad... la Libre Disponibilidad de distintas aplicaciones/distribuciones no implica 'enfrentamiento'.si no oportunidad... [# ! Echad un Vistazo a 'The Tyranny Of Choice', de JAMES DELINGPOLE en dailymail.co.uk ]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-466296/The-tyranny-choice-Do-really-need-38-types-milk.html]
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 15 Nov 16
     
    ""Toda convicción es una cárcel" : Friedrich Nietzsche"
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 15 Nov 16
     
    ""Toda convicción es una cárcel" : Friedrich Nietzsche"
1More

Is There Such a Thing as Too Many GNU/Linux Distributions? - Softpedia - 1 views

news.softpedia.com/...nux-distributions-490166.shtml too many GNU_Linux Linux distributions distros choice tyranny vs pleasure
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 28 Aug 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 28 Aug 15
     
    "Softpedia lists about 2,000 Linux kernel-based OSes I think it's time to clarify the matter of "too many Linux distributions" once and for all. "
5More

What's Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in its Name? - The Intercept - 0 views

firstlook.org/...terally-blocking-websites-name censorship-crimes web-site-blocking terrorism™ civil liberties discrimination War-on-Muslims
shared by Paul Merrell on 19 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Forcibly taking down websites deemed to be supportive of terrorism, or criminalizing speech deemed to “advocate” terrorism, is a major trend in both Europe and the West generally. Last month in Brussels, the European Union’s counter-terrorism coordinator issued a memo proclaiming that “Europe is facing an unprecedented, diverse and serious terrorist threat,” and argued that increased state control over the Internet is crucial to combating it. The memo noted that “the EU and its Member States have developed several initiatives related to countering radicalisation and terrorism on the Internet,” yet argued that more must be done. It argued that the focus should be on “working with the main players in the Internet industry [a]s the best way to limit the circulation of terrorist material online.” It specifically hailed the tactics of the U.K. Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU), which has succeeded in causing the removal of large amounts of material it deems “extremist”:
  • In addition to recommending the dissemination of “counter-narratives” by governments, the memo also urged EU member states to “examine the legal and technical possibilities to remove illegal content.” Exploiting terrorism fears to control speech has been a common practice in the West since 9/11, but it is becoming increasingly popular even in countries that have experienced exceedingly few attacks. A new extremist bill advocated by the right-wing Harper government in Canada (also supported by Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau even as he recognizes its dangers) would create new crimes for “advocating terrorism”; specifically: “every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general” would be a guilty and can be sent to prison for five years for each offense. In justifying the new proposal, the Canadian government admits that “under the current criminal law, it is [already] a crime to counsel or actively encourage others to commit a specific terrorism offence.” This new proposal is about criminalizing ideas and opinions. In the government’s words, it “prohibits the intentional advocacy or promotion of terrorism, knowing or reckless as to whether it would result in terrorism.”
  • If someone argues that continuous Western violence and interference in the Muslim world for decades justifies violence being returned to the West, or even advocates that governments arm various insurgents considered by some to be “terrorists,” such speech could easily be viewed as constituting a crime. To calm concerns, Canadian authorities point out that “the proposed new offence is similar to one recently enacted by Australia, that prohibits advocating a terrorist act or the commission of a terrorism offence-all while being reckless as to whether another person will engage in this kind of activity.” Indeed, Australia enacted a new law late last year that indisputably targets political speech and ideas, as well as criminalizing journalism considered threatening by the government. Punishing people for their speech deemed extremist or dangerous has been a vibrant practice in both the U.K. and U.S. for some time now, as I detailed (coincidentally) just a couple days before free speech marches broke out in the West after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Those criminalization-of-speech attacks overwhelmingly target Muslims, and have resulted in the punishment of such classic free speech activities as posting anti-war commentary on Facebook, tweeting links to “extremist” videos, translating and posting “radicalizing” videos to the Internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Beyond the technical issues, trying to legislate ideas out of existence is a fool’s game: those sufficiently determined will always find ways to make themselves heard. Indeed, as U.S. pop star Barbra Streisand famously learned, attempts to suppress ideas usually result in the greatest publicity possible for their advocates and/or elevate them by turning fringe ideas into martyrs for free speech (I have zero doubt that all five of the targeted sites enjoyed among their highest traffic dates ever today as a result of the French targeting). But the comical futility of these efforts is exceeded by their profound dangers. Who wants governments to be able to unilaterally block websites? Isn’t the exercise of this website-blocking power what has long been cited as reasons we should regard the Bad Countries — such as China and Iran — as tyrannies (which also usually cite “counterterrorism” to justify their censorship efforts)?
  • s those and countless other examples prove, the concepts of “extremism” and “radicalizing” (like “terrorism” itself) are incredibly vague and elastic, and in the hands of those who wield power, almost always expand far beyond what you think it should mean (plotting to blow up innocent people) to mean: anyone who disseminates ideas that are threatening to the exercise of our power. That’s why powers justified in the name of combating “radicalism” or “extremism” are invariably — not often or usually, but invariably — applied to activists, dissidents, protesters and those who challenge prevailing orthodoxies and power centers. My arguments for distrusting governments to exercise powers of censorship are set forth here (in the context of a prior attempt by a different French minister to control the content of Twitter). In sum, far more damage has been inflicted historically by efforts to censor and criminalize political ideas than by the kind of “terrorism” these governments are invoking to justify these censorship powers. And whatever else may be true, few things are more inimical to, or threatening of, Internet freedom than allowing functionaries inside governments to unilaterally block websites from functioning on the ground that the ideas those sites advocate are objectionable or “dangerous.” That’s every bit as true when the censors are in Paris, London, and Ottawa, and Washington as when they are in Tehran, Moscow or Beijing.
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20▼ items per page