Should we keep the anonymouse browsing away from the media? I am enjoying every little bit of it.
W > More coverage at http://www.monitor.co.ug/news/news02175.php and at > http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/482528 > > Very brave of the LUG member who let his name be mentioned!! > > P. > > > On Feb 15, 2006, at 13:47, Guido Sohne wrote: > >> On Feb 14, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Paul Bagyenda wrote: >> >>> I know this is a 'techies list' and therefore the urge to turn >>> each discussion into one about bits & bytes is overwhelming, but >>> I think the important issues are different. For instance: >> >> I find it very annoying and frustrating when I hear things like >> "but I have nothing to hide" from a well-known nation. People will >> always want to hide their heads in the sand - until it's too late >> to do anything about it. These are very important issues indeed and >> what makes it difficult at this time is that globally, the trend is >> now towards repression. In the US, in China, in Europe, the courts >> have been for some time now meddling with the Internet and the >> results have *never* been in the direction of liberalization, but >> always more in the direction of repression and controls. >> >> To understand this is to recognize the heart of the issue. Internet >> was a technical development with idealistic and lofty goals taken >> from the desires of the people who created it and first populated >> it. They developed their own subcultures (e.g. Email, Usenet and >> IRC) which were 'attacked' with the influx of the 'uncultured' >> masses from AOL and others. >> >> Since then, email has been reinvented as HTML email (complete with >> annoying fonts and crazy looking backgrounds), Usenet has been >> fragmented into all the forums and web boards that every site seems >> to have sprouted, IRC has been replaced by a series of incompatible >> instant messaging systems. The warnings and objections of the >> original netizens were never heeded and today, we have the Internet >> devolved into a system less than it originally was, but with a lot >> more bells and whistles added. That problem is similar to >> democracy, where there are a few well informed people, and a whole >> bunch of others who do not choose wisely, hence our problem of >> always electing 'bad' politicians. >> >>> >>> 1) Surely this is not the last time ISPs will be required to >>> block access to a site. That is, what next, a ban on accessing >>> news.bbc.co.uk? And then after that a ban on receiving certain >>> kinds of email. Is this not the thin end of the wedge? It is a >>> rather dark tunnel to find oneself peering into. >> >> It's happening in the US (DMCA, Patriot Act and a host of others), >> in China (Great Firewall) etc. I think that within Africa, this is >> a process that can be encouraged and driven by the CIA and Homeland >> Security Dept. First they will create or tap into the demands of >> the ignorant politicians, to raise calls for control of the >> internet. Then, it is only they who really have that technology, >> and they will sell it to us, and insert their own backdoors to >> monitor us in even greater detail. For them, increased monitoring >> is the goal and we just walk into those traps. And it's always >> promoted as something reasonable (such as tracking down people who >> do child porn, never mind that they are very tiny as a group and >> the side effects are much larger than that group) >> >>> 2) Whatever the real technicalities, the ability to block certain >>> sites creates the impression to the customer that his/her Internet >>> activities are monitored. Which surely is not an impression any >>> ISP would like to create. >> >> I think that this is another ignorance that many people have. Yes, >> your Internet traffic is being monitored. Just not by your average >> African government. The Europeans and Americans have total coverage >> of all our international traffic and almost certainly have access >> to the local traffic (via mobile phone and land line as well!). The >> only way you can have your privacy is to protect it and almost no >> one bothers to do so. Its the calm before the storm. And the storm >> will occur when governments are able to control the internet again, >> so that they can shut up the few smart ones or sideline them, while >> herding the malleable and ignorant masses to the slaughter house. >> >> And the typical reaction is the same. <<I have nothing to hide, so >> what's the problem with the Americans monitoring me?>> Well, maybe >> they want to see what's down the road before complaining. For me, I >> don't want to see that. I can already see enough media and mass >> manipulation surrounding me to know the chilling effects of >> uncritical thinking and blind allegiance to mistakenly trusted >> leaders. I can also see to what extent people in very high places >> have gotten away with high crimes to understand how this can be >> used for great evil under guise of good deeds. >> >>> 3) And then there is the deafening silence that has accompanied >>> this action. Almost always a bad sign. >> >> This is something most people don't understand. History. Just learn >> from things that happened earlier. Seems too hard for people. Seems >> they only understand when it actually happens to them, and of >> course, by the time it's happening it's too late to do anything >> about it. >> >> Just ask people about small arms. When they have experienced civil >> war directly then ask them again. Trouble is that human beings tend >> to be too lazy to take the time to think. So we just allow others >> to think for us instead (e.g. read newspapers, watch TV) or trust >> in the leaders that we vote into power. >> >>> There are many such questions that could be asked. Many. And many >>> lessons from elsewhere. But I guess while we wait for answers, >>> we'll just keep doing http://www.google.com/search?q=anonymous >>> +surfing and making use of whatever that brings! >> >> Generally, to my thinking, this is a fundamental issue of legal >> mechanisms, or technical mechanisms. Govts and courts favor legal >> mechanisms to achieve their goals. Tech companies use tech >> mechanisms, but when they fail, or to protect profits, then they >> turn to the legal system. My belief is that technology has no place >> in legislation because it is eventually obsoleted. My belief is >> that the burden to restrict or to protect should be placed on the >> person who wants to do it, not on the person who happens to want to >> use it. >> >> -- G. >> _______________________________________________ >> LUG mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug >> %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ >> >> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them >> (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible >> for them in any way. >> --------------------------------------- >> > > ----------------------------------------------- > Trek the Rwenzori's. Or just see them online - http:// > www.rwenzori.com/gallery.htm > > _______________________________________________ > LUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug > %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including > attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any > way. > --------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
