RSS feed
UN wants to ‘regulate’ the internet
February 22, 2012 — xanthippaAs if SOPA, ACTA Bill C-30 were not enough, there is a new threat to the information superhighway – from the United Nations, none the less. From The Wall Street Journal:
On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year’s end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish “international control over the Internet” through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.
If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet’s flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.
Really?
Does this not illustrate that it is:
- time to leave the UN – iff we cannot de-legitimize and dismantle the organization as a whole
- time to really push to establish an internet substitute which is diffused, so that there are no pipelines which could be controlled by any regulatory body (the current technology that could be used for this is still under development – and much too slow)
Yeah, I have called for both these things in the past, but perhaps the time is running out faster than we expected…
More thoughts about the issues of ‘privcy’ and ‘presumption of privacy’
February 21, 2012 — xanthippaOver the weekend, this video, purported to be from ‘Anonymous’, was released. It demands that the Canadian Minister, Vic Toews, remove bill C-30 (which would permit civil servants unlimited snooping powers on the citizens via the internet without judicial oversight) and that he step down immediately.
The following video also purports to be from ‘Anonymous’. As I have no connection to that group, I have no idea if it is authentic. However, I do think it is worth posting because it raises several issues worth further discussion:
This video raises the connection between the desire by various governments to regulate arms and to regulate the internet.
This is a deeper connection that one may think, at first glance. But, deep down, both are attempts to take away the citizen’s ability to protect themselves – including, if necessary, to resist their government. Both are ways in which governments make their citizens less secure, more isolated, and more afraid of their government.
Even if you are not as libertarian in your views as I am (I think that monopoly control over infrastructure – even, or perhaps especially, information infrastructure – is perilous to civil liberties), it is easy to see how governments are threatened by citizenry that is difficult to control and willing and able to oppose them.
Firearms are a means of physical self-defense and an equalizer between the strong and the weak. Even a small woman can protect herself from a rapist with the use of a gun: her physical safety is no longer dependant solely on the timely response of the state to come to her aid. This threatens the government monopoly on the enforcement of laws: as every monopoly’s natural reaction would be, the government’s reaction is to restrict this competition.
Let’s be clear about this: government ‘regulation’ of firearms is not about increasing public safety by having many well trained, well armed citizens available in public spaces who would be able to stop law-breakers and thus increase public safety. To the contrary: it is always specifically designed to restrict gun ownership, use, and the very presence of privately owned guns in public spaces. This intolerance on the part of government of guns in private hands – even though this increases public safety – is indicative of the government’s disrespect for its citizenry, with the goal to increase government coercive powers at the root of all ‘arms regulations’.
Information is a weapon and a powerful one.
So is anonymous speech.
The internet enables both.
As a matter of principle, anonymous speech is necessary for the preservation of the very freedom of speech. For example, The Federalist Papers could never have been published had their authors not had absolute anonymity at the time of publication! The bigger the government is, the more dangerous it is to speak up against it openly. Without anonymous speech, governments do indeed become more totalitarian and more tyrannical in nature: this cycle has been repeated so often, it is blatant.
Yet, the ever-growing governments in the formerly-free world now wish to have complete and unfettered access to the information which would identify each and every internet user: to be able to attach a name to every sentence uttered on the internet, from seeking sensitive advice at an online support group to dissenting political speech!
Of course, the governments are also increasing citizen surveillance on so many fronts… There will soon be no arena where we do have ‘presumption to privacy’, not even in our homes and certainly not anywhere else. So, the whole ‘getting a warrant’ might be a mute issue…
Technology is beautiful – but it is a tool, to be used for good or evil. It is necessary that we understand these tools because our society will need to evolve along with them. What am I talking about?
For example, drone-based aerial surveillance…
Or this totally awesome ‘bug thech’! (Do watch the video, it is art and technology combined!)
What is my point?
As new technologies arise, we will need to develop laws to govern their use. However, these laws (all laws, really) ought to be focused on protecting the civil libeties of individual citizens – not legitimizing the ways that governments and big business can circumvent them!
Garry McHale arrestted again, because the sight of him ‘provoked’ someone to violence
February 20, 2012 — xanthippaThis is the result when we stop remembering the proper roles for police, the military and the government.
The reason we have police is to uphold the laws of the land. That is, they are the instrument of force the State uses against its civilian population to maintain its monopoly on lawmaking within their territory. Basic, simple and clear, right?
The only legitimate role for a police force is to uphold the law – equally and without discrimination.
The only legitimate role for a police officer is to uphold the laws within the policing framework, and it is each individual officer’s personal responsibility to ensure they are not upholding the laws unequally or obeying illegal orders. This is essential because it is the front-line police officers who are the agents of the state within this: that is why they are the only ones who can safeguard this powerful force from corruption.
When exactly did the role of the police become re-defined from ‘enforcing the law of the land’ to ‘maintaining public peace’?
Because ‘maintaining public peace’ is not the same thing as ‘upholding the laws of the land’. If a crowd is upset by the presence of a witch, the easiest, most cost-effective course of action for someone ‘maintaining public peace’ is to simply burn the witch!
Most moral people would have a problem with this approach…
Yet, this is exactly what the OPP are doing in Caledonia: faced with an angry mob, they target the person the mob is angry at instead of maintaining order by upholding the laws of the land!
People who are willing to tolerate this approach to ‘maintaining peace’, who are ‘keeping their heads down’ in the conviction this will stop the mob from going after them should remember that in Eastern and Central Europe, the witch hunters sometimes killed every man, woman and child in a village they thought was infected with witchcraft.
The ‘peace of the tomb’ is not something our society ought to be striving for. Yet that is the logical result of the type of policing the OPP is practicing in Caledonia and many other places in Ontario!
Law Without Government
February 16, 2012 — xanthippaThe Libertarian Party of Canada has a nice, newly re-done website – well worth checking out!
Through the ‘resources’ section, I found a link to this interesting video:
One Law for All: report from the February 11th protest in London
February 15, 2012 — xanthippa(My apologies – embedding decided not to work in this post, though I have no idea why, it’s not like I haven’t done it in several other posts just today…)
Following is an email I received from Maryam Namazie of One Law For All, reporting on the event and supplying some excellent links. Congratulations on a successful event – and thank you to each and every person who participated and/or helped spread the word: this is one fight we must not back down from!!!
One Law for All held a successful rally in defence of free expression on Saturday 11 February 2012 opposite the Houses of Parliament. Hundreds braved the cold weather to join the rally at Old Palace Yard.
The rally followed several incidents in London recently where freedom of expression was curtailed in favour of fear of causing offence. In one incident, a talk on sharia law by One Law for All’s Anne Marie Waters was cancelled following threats of violence. Rhys Morgan was told by his school to remove a picture of Jesus and Mo from his Facebook page – a picture he had used in solidarity with the University College London Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society who had been asked by their student union to remove the same image. Both UCL and the London School of Economics have since passed draconian motions which will further restrict religious criticism or satire at their schools.
Speakers at the rally included A C Grayling, Nick Cohen, Caroline Cox, Gita Sahgal, Keith Porteous Wood, and Rhys Morgan.
The event was sponsored by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science UK and featured Richard Dawkins who told the crowd to ‘stop being so damn respectful’ and that without freedom of speech, society would be a ‘scientific, technological, moral dark age’.
Maryam Namazie of One Law for All closed the rally by remembering those, around the world, who are fighting for freedom of expression, often at cost of their lives.
You can listen to a podcast of the London rally here: http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2012/02/11/rally-to-defend-free-expression-11th-february-2012/ and see videos of the event here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL324F7E92CC808428&feature=view_all. See some photos from the rally here: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/11-february-2012-an-important-stand-for-free-expression/.
Actions to mark the occassion were also held in other cities, including Germany, Portugal and South Africa. Some highlights included a solidarity rally in Warsaw, Poland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqRBW7zGflk&fb_source=message, a fundraising dinner for One Law for All in Melbourne, Australia and the start of a campaign by Women’s Initiative for Citizenship and Universal Rights in France to denounce discrimination faced by women due to the application of unfair laws in France.
The Free Expression Day of Action was endorsed by hundreds of people and organisations: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/endorsements-for-11-february-day-of-action-for-free-expression/.
As a follow up to the day, One Law for All has initiated a campaign in defence of 23 year old writer, Hamza Kashgari, who faces execution in Saudi Arabia for tweeting about Mohammad, Islam’s prophet. To support the campaign, click here: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/freedom-for-saudi-writer-hamza-kashgari/.
NOTES:
1. Also see a joint letter to Human Rights Watch on the importance of secularism: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/to-human-rights-watch-separation-of-religion-from-state-is-the-most-basic-guarantee-of-rights/.
2. To donate to the work of One Law for All, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/. We need regular support and also for supporters to commit to giving at least £5-10 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how to join the 100Club here: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/.
3. If you shop online, please do so via the Easy Fundraising website: http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/register-supporter/?char=40474. It won’t cost you anything extra but can help raise much needed funds for One Law for All.
4. For more information, contact:
Maryam Namazie
Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
Ending race-based policing in Ontario – let us hope we are one step closer
February 15, 2012 — xanthippaI received an email which I would like to reproduce in its (almost) entirety, because it not only speaks for itself, it also includes the most-important links….and, it does raise a ray of hope!
Here it is, in its (almost) entirety (I only redacted a phone number):
1. Just days after our Queen’s Park news conference -‘Ending Race-Based Policing: The Caledonia Act\,’ - where we were joined by speakers from the pro-Israel Never Again Group and the International Free Press Society, MPP Toby Barrett has issued a call for strong action re the Caledonia occupation, and praised our efforts and ideas for reaching a resolution…
“Barrett credits Gary Mchale and CANACE for keeping the issue alive in the media and in the limelight, suggesting a lot of McHale’s ideas have been ‘pretty good’.” They include having more oversight from the Ontario Ombudsman with respect to the OPP and more protection for whistleblowers in the Police service.
It was Toby Barrett who made the Queen’s Park Media Studio available for our news conference, as he has done in the past.
2. You can read the Caledonia Act recommendations here:
3. See also TobyBarrett.com: Occupy Caledonia will be six years February 28
This is the first time that Toby has publicly complimented our work to the media, and we hope it is a sign of good things to come.
Thank you Toby.
Mark Vandermaas
VoiceofCanada.ca
IpperwashPapers.ca
ConservativesAgainstFantino.ca
HelplessByBlatchford.ca
IpperwashPapers.ca
ConservativesAgainstFantino.ca
HelplessByBlatchford.ca
Warrantless surveillance is becoming a reality in Canada
February 14, 2012 — xanthippaOh, I know I cannot write this up in a way to do this topic justice – mostly because it sends my blood pressure so dangerously high. After all, blind rage is the only reasonable response to a minister claiming that those whodare to voice reservations about a proposed law that would make mincemeat out of civil liberties are no better than child molesters.
Because that is exactly what he is saying.
OK – I’m about to loose my temper…again…and not finish this post…
ARRRRGGGHHHH!
Resorting to the ‘do it or you hate children and kick puppies’ is the last resort of a bully who knows he cannot defend his position based on the issues!
AAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!!
YES! It actually IS supposed to be difficult to deprive people of their liberties: that is why cops have to follow all them silly rules!!! Taking the rules away will not make one child safer, while at the same time, it will make all of us a little less safe!
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
Michael Geist has a good write-up on this – with lots of excellent and informative links. Read him – it’ll make more sense than I can.
As you ponder this, also take a peek at this.
THAT is the root of the problem: the system lacks accountability!
Actually, that article just might explain a lot about the minister’s attitude: they have already started to build a huge electronic surveillance system. Parts of it have been operational for years!
All the bluster now is to hide that they have as yet to pass the laws to make it legal…
If the USA declared a ‘War on Drugs’, do ‘international rules of war’ apply?
February 13, 2012 — xanthippaOne of my favourite thinking games is taking words and looking at all the different layers of meanings in them – along with why certain of their meanings form the dominant interpretation at any given time.
Hours of fun – and anyone can play!
For example, I absolutely love the word ‘authority’: it means quite literally, that we – as a culture – accept that ‘power’ flows exclusively from Thor. Au Thor-ity. Coming from Thor. (This is particularly amusing when coupled with the term ‘divine’ – as in, ‘divine authority’. If someone claims their god has ‘divine authority’, whether they are aware of it or not, they are literally saying that their god derives all of its power from Thor…which is fascinating when monotheists who deny the very existence of Thor do it. Yes, it does not take a lot to amuse me…)
One thing I find very annoying are the ‘grand declarations’ of ‘war on …’ – especially ones that do not really have proper meaning. For example, ‘The War on Terror’ is a nonsense-statement.
‘Terror’ is a feeling – a state of mind. To wage a war on it would mean trying to make people feel better, perhaps by medicating them into a state of non-fear. It certainly does not mean waging a physical war, with soldiers and guns.
Declaring war on terrorist organizations would make more sense…
Now, how about ‘The War on Drugs’?
Again, the jingoism of the slogan is non-sensical, at best. ‘Drugs’ are not something that is capable of fighting back, it is just stuff. Inanimate objects. It makes even less sense to claim to wage a war against inanimate objects than it does to wage a war against a state of mind. It does, however. bring up the image of one ’tilting at windmills’…
Except, of course, that the term ‘War on Drugs’ does not mean a war on drugs as such: it means a war on the organizations that handle certain drugs currently prohibited by the government.
Ok – so we have deciphered what the ‘Drugs’ in the statement means: organizations which are involved in the production and distribution of substances classified as ‘illegal’ by the US government. (Yes, I am intentionally not addressing why these laws are ‘illegal’!) So, what does the word ‘War’ mean?
This is, by far, the more interesting part of the phrase.
What, indeed, is meant by the word ‘War’?!?!?!?
Typically, ‘wars’ are fought by armies – not police forces. Yet, the ‘War on Drugs’ is being fought by non-military police officers. That is curious, to say the least. (Some would claim it is illegal – but that is a differen discussion.)
It would, of course, explain why the various police forces across the USA are becoming increasingly militarized: sometimes, it seems that cops are more military-like than the military itself! This would, indeed, be a more-or-less necessary outcome if the police were, indeed, waging ‘a war’… at least, according to my understanding of the ‘conventional’ meaning of the word ‘war’.
So, let us look at whom the ‘war’ is being waged against: the ‘drug gangs’. Are these, in any way, shape, or form ‘an army’?
A good case could be made that ‘drug gangs’ are, indeed, ‘armies’. If my memory serves me right (I have lost all of my bookmarks again, so I am not including links – please, check up on me!), according to international laws, ‘an army’ is defined as an organization must have:
- a well defined chain-of-command
- defined markings/insignia worn by its members to make them recognizable and differentiate them from civilians
Drug gangs most definitely satisfy this definition. Their chain-of-command is very well defined. And, all gang-members do wear specific ‘colours’, or symbols, which identify them clearly and unambiguously as members of that particular gang. Many gangs go a step further than most conventional armies – they not only wear their gang insignia, they have them tattooed into their very skin, so no disguise is possible!
In other words, the ‘drug gangs’ are more of an ‘army’ (under international law) than ‘terrorist organizations’, which do not wear identifying insignia and pride themselves in hiding among the civilian population. Honestly, the ‘War on Drugs’ adheres more closely to the definition of ‘war’ under international laws than ‘War on Terror’ does – yet the ‘War on Terror’ has been used, successfully, to justify (internationally) at least two extra-territorial wars that the US got involved in.
So, why is this an issue I bother thinking about?
Well, it does have some very interesting LEGAL implications….
If this is, indeed, a ‘War’ – then the ‘international rules of war’ automatically kick in!!!
It means that each and every person arrested in the USA under the ‘drug laws’ MUST be treated as a prisoner of war – and is not subject to any criminal laws!!!
Yes, please, do think about it!
Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that no enterprising lawyer has not thought of this yet…
The US government cannot have their cake and eat it, too. (OK – ‘the cake is a lie’….but that does not take away from my point!)
The US government has openly declared ‘A War’ on all organizations even peripherally involved in the drug trade. These drug organizations straddle national borders. This means that the international ‘rules of war’ most definitely kicked in once US made their declaration of war!!!
Under international ‘rules of war’, if you capture ‘a soldier’ from the opposing side, even if that person had indeed brutally killed many, many people, they cannot be tried as ‘murderers’! Rather, they must be given all the privileges attached to Prisoners Of War!
To re-phrase: because the US government has openly declared ‘War on Drugs’, is it now violating the Geneva Convention every single time it applies criminal law to anyone arrested on any drug-related charges?
Please, think about it!!!
-
Recent Comments
Ralph Musgrave on Daniel Hannan: Politicians can… Collin on Thoughts about ‘Anonymou… Bahrain on Shoot ‘em up – for… Collin on Thoughts about ‘Anonymou… Collin on Thoughts about ‘Anonymou…
