Skip to main content

Maureen Cruise wrote me:

Paraphrasing Orwell, Assange explains that he who controls today's internet servers controls the intellectual record of mankind. He warns us that Western governments, large corporations, and certain wealthy individuals are increasingly able and increasingly trying to remove material permanently from the historical record using sophisticated methods. If the West doesn't reverse its course of increased censorship and rights abuses, Assange warns, it will lose all of the ideals that it once stood for.

Be Well anyway....especially because there are people like Julian Assange in the world!!,

This is from the Oslo Freedom Forum 2010

Julian Assange - Oslo Freedom Forum 2010 (Part 1 of 2)

A number of groups have recently gone into panic mode after the courts ruled that the FCC didn't have the power to impose network neutrality or anything else on the Internet. This is a good thing as there are ways to protect net neutrality through the existing regime of international Internet regulatory bodies. This is not good enough for Free Press. They say:

The FCC Should Classify Broadband Internet Connectivity as a Telecommunications Service Under the Communications Act and Pair that Determination with Tailored Forbearance.

So the FCC should first cease near total control and then we must rely on the forbearance of all future administrations for freedom on the Internet.

Groups like Free Press and ColorofChange that hope to protect freedom on the Internet supporting FCC reclassification of the Internet in a way that gives the Federal government and whoever may be running it at the time, unlimited power to control the Internet, need to play close attention to Assange's words.


Julian Assange - Oslo Freedom Forum 2010 (Part 2 of 2)

Here is a recap of my other DKos dairies on this subject:
FCC Net Neutrality's Trojan Horse
Free Press: Country Codes for the Internet?
The Mountain comes to Mohammad
Keith Olbermann's Deception
Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits
EFF on the Google\Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
Google-Verizon: What is the Free Press Agenda?
End of the Internet As We Know It!
Free Press would make this Illegal!
Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

Originally posted to Linux Beach on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:08 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  you have a typo in your title. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen

      The "on" should be "is a."  

      Like this:  "Julian Assange is a threat to internet freedom."

      He's a threat to internet freedom because he publishes sources & methods info that gets people identified and killed by the Taliban.

      That causes public outcry that supports clamping down.

      Kinda' like shitting on the sidewalk and calling it protest.

      That ain't a leak, it's a dump, and it stinks.  

      •  Hardley, He is the Daniel Ellsberg of this (5+ / 0-)

        generation.

        Right now in Oakland there is a rally with

        * Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistle-blower * Tom Hayden, author and activist * Carl Davison, US Marine/Army vet of Guantanamo Bay, Africa, and Asia * Wikileaks "Collateral Murder" video screening * Aimee Allison, author and KPFA Morning Show Host
        Being broadcast live
        FREE PFC BRAD MANNING LIVE STREAMING

        •  arguement from authority? (0+ / 0-)

          He's good because he hangs out with good people?

          Where have we heard this before?  

          It's not even a good debating tactic.

          Bottom line is he failed to do his due diligence and that is getting people killed.  

          And please don't engage in the trollish "but the US is killing people too" nonsense: that's how Operation Rescue justifies blowing up abortion clinics.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

          See also "Austin Heap" + "Haystack."  At least the coder who wrote Haystack had the decency to resign.  Behind the scenes, Heap is known as a publicity-hound and an attention-seeker.   I wonder how many people have yet to come forward about Assange's personality tweaks, starting with his obsessive/compulsive tendencies and the weird shit in his childhood?  

          If you want to defend someone who knows how to run a private spook shop and do leaks correctly, be my guest.  I'd be defending Assange right now if he had just taken the time to redact all the sources & methods info.  

          But I sure as hell wouldn't work for Assange's spook shop, because he doesn't know how to do business.  

          •  Bradley Manning is a HEROIC WHISTLEBLOWER who (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, neroden, CMikkelson

            informed us TAXPAYERS how our money is being spent. It showed us that there is not a careful assessment before shooting people when there is no danger to US forces.

            Daniel Ellsberg reminded us a few minutes ago the definition of treason.

            The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

            Bradley Manning is not adhering to enemies of the US; he is informing us. Thank you Bradley.

            •  Bradley Manning is a disturbed kid who... (0+ / 0-)

              .... will turn out to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder by psychiatrists who are friendly to him.  

              He was in the "creative God" phase when he went digging, but when he was in one of the mixed mood phases his COs apparently had his weapon disabled so he couldn't use it to kill himself.

              I feel sorry for him, I really do.  

              And there's no way to avoid the conclusion that he deserves a prison sentence for having conveyed classified material to someone unauthorized to receive it.  

              That said I do believe he can be rehabilitated.  

              If I was the judge I'd try to temper justice with mercy by sentencing him to five years, and then defer to the psychiatrists and order him committed to hospital instead of sent to prison.  

      •  You aren't listening (4+ / 0-)

        The public is not fully informed and the public is deceived by corporate media infotainment whores like Murdoch who have no allegiance to decency or common humanity and certainly not to anything resembling freedom. Sky and Fox and the Murdoch empire exist to curtail freedoms.

        So why do you say this?

        That causes public outcry that supports clamping down.

        From Julian Assange in the above video (2):

        Gag orders prevent the press from reporting that the press has been gagged.
        ...
        Privatized and fiscalized state censorship. Corporations use the coercive mechanisms of the state to censor.
        ...
        We have privatized state censorship. We have made it more complex and not as obvious. It is not a brute hammer anymore. It is a sophisticated device like money laundering through Caribbean tax shelters... it is a sophisticated device where the brutality is hidden in its complexity.

        ...

        Before we embark on particular political stratagem we have to know where we are.  For if we don't know where we are, it is impossible for us to know where we are going.

        Likewise, it is impossible to correct abuses unless we know that they are going on.

        ... think about the words of Machiavalli:

        Thus it happens in matters of state; for knowing afar off (which it is only given to a prudent man to do) the evils that are brewing, they are easily cured. But when, for want of such knowledge, they are allowed to grow until everyone can recognize them, there is no longer any remedy to be found. - Niccoló Machiavelli, The Prince. 1537

        So secret planning is secret usually for a reason because if it is abusive, it is opposed. So it is our task to find secret abusive plans and expose them where they can be opposed before they're implemented. Because if they are exposed by the implementation... by people suffering from that abuse... then the abuse has already occurred and it's too late.

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:21:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  if I could push a button and cause Murdoch.... (0+ / 0-)

          ....to replicate the "Mr. Creosote" scene in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (hint: "just one little wafer-thin mint?") I would do it in a ten-second minute.  

          But it's not Murdoch-zombies who are getting fed up with Assange, it's anyone who knows what operational security means.  

          Assange has good rhetoric, that his true believers truly believe.  That's all he has in common with Murdoch, but apparently it's enough.

          •  "Operational Security" in Defense (0+ / 0-)

            of and illegal war is also a war crime. And please don't make ridiculous arguments about how our wars are legal and we have been within our rights to murder a minimum of eight million non-combatants in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and on and on..

            "Operational Security" be dammed! I salute Ellesberg, Banning and Assange and all those who are willing to put their lives on the line to stop this maddest

          •  You know very well that Assange provided the info (0+ / 0-)

            to at least 5 agencies/military/CIA and waited months for them to ascertain the "operational security" of any release. They didn't raise any objections until Assange made the info openly available online.

            And his comments in defense of democracy and openness and human rights are hardly rhetoric.

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 08:05:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Again, with the complete misunderstanding of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, rfall

    what "Net Neutrality" is.

    - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

    by second gen on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:13:36 PM PDT

    •  Net neutraility is discrimination. (0+ / 0-)

      And that's what it should be called:  Internet discrimination.  

      Republicans want a do-over. No, really, a do-over -- do it the same way all over again. Every Dem should make that clear every day.

      by gooderservice on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:29:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No reply needed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler

      Since I have gone into detail about net neutrality is elsewhere, We don't need an FCC takeover to protect what we already have.

      •  Clay, there is no "FCC takeover" proposed (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, OHdog, Corwin Weber, second gen

        ...and your continued strawman approach to making your case is getting tiresome.

        No one is proposing this:

        Groups like Free Press and ColorofChange that hope to protect freedom on the Internet supporting FCC reclassification of the Internet in a way that gives the Federal government and whoever may be running it at the time, unlimited power to control the Internet

        If you think this is true--it's not--then provide evidence as to why.

        "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

        by rfall on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:11:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is what EFF thinks: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler, Sandino, neroden

          Last fall, the Federal Communications Commission proposed rules for "Net Neutrality" — a set of regulations intended to help innovation and free speech continue to thrive on the Internet.

          But is the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality the real deal? Or is it a fake?

          Buried in the FCC’s rules is a deeply problematic loophole. Open Internet principles, the FCC writes, "do not... apply to activities such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works."

          For years, the entertainment industry has used that innocent-sounding phrase — "unlawful distribution of copyrighted works" — to pressure Internet service providers around the world to act as copyright cops — to surveil the Internet for supposed copyright violations, and then censor or punish the accused users.

          From the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality movement has been to prevent corporations from interfering with the Internet in this way — so why does the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality specifically allow them to do so?

          Tell the FCC that if it wants to police the Internet, it first needs to demonstrate that it can protect Internet users and innovators by standing up to powerful industry lobbyists. Sign your name here to demand that the copyright-enforcement loophole be removed.

          Real Net Neutrality

          •  I'm a member of the EFF, so I'm well aware (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, Corwin Weber, second gen

            ...of what it thinks.

            You have taken this out of context.  EFF thinks that the principles embodied in NN are a good idea, and the end of the quote:

            Tell the FCC that if it wants to police the Internet, it first needs to demonstrate that it can protect Internet users and innovators by standing up to powerful industry lobbyists. Sign your name here to demand that the copyright-enforcement loophole be removed.

            is clear, if you were paying attention:  The EFF wants the copyright loophole closed, and thinks that's more important than NN--but doesn't believe that NN is a bad idea.

            You have failed, again.

            "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

            by rfall on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:52:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What do you mean 'taken out of context"? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden

              I quote the whole thing.

              •  Then you are either a fool or being (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden, Corwin Weber

                ...disingenuous.

                Here's what else the EFF has to say about Net Neutrality:

                Fortunately, there are two opportunities to reign in the FCC’s expansive views of its own "ancillary jurisdiction." A federal court is considering this important question as part of Comcast's challenge to the FCC's order last year regarding interference with BitTorrent traffic (PFF filed a strong amicus brief in the case, arguing against the FCC's power grab). Or Congress could limit the FCC's power by authorizing to regulate only to ensure network neutrality.

                So while we look forward to evaluating Chairman Genachowski’s proposed net neutrality regulations, the first step must be a clear rejection of any suggestion that those regulations can be based on "ancillary jurisdiction." Otherwise, "net neutrality" might very well come to be remembered as the Trojan Horse that allowed the FCC take over the Internet.

                Meaning, for the slower among us:  the EFF wants to see the "right kind" of NN implementation, one which is not subject to the whims of the given administration.  And that is laudable.  They are not against all versions of NN.

                Look, the 1933 Communications Act gave the FCC jurisdiction over the airwaves--including, as it effects me, amateur radio operation--and in the succeeding years the FCC has never made serious moves to control access to the airwaves based on content.  Why would the situation be any different for the Internet?

                "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

                by rfall on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:01:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Adding: (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden, Corwin Weber

                Those who have followed EFF’s position on net neutrality will know that, while we strongly support neutrality in practice, we are opposed to open-ended grants of regulatory authority to the FCC

                So, the EFF has problems with the details of some NN proposals, not NN in general.

                You, OTOH, seem opposed to NN in general, from my reading.  Is that right?

                "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

                by rfall on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:03:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How do you conclude that I oppose NN? (0+ / 0-)

                  was it this fromGoogle Verizon Announce Terms of Deal :

                  I believe that Google has been following it's do no evil policy all along in this matter. It has long championed net neutrality along with everyone else in the Open Source community and Free Software movements which produced it, long before DailyKos was and most people here ever heard the term.

                  or maybe thus from Free Press would make this Illegal!

                  So Once Again: Network Neutrality means that data, of the same type, is treated the same irregardless of source or destination.

                  or this from
                  Where Al Franken is Wrong on Network Neutrality

                  He is right that net neutrality is the first amendment rights issue of our time. He is right to say free speech is threatened by monopoly corporations and not just the government. This is why we must be very careful about how we define net neutrality and exactly what we give the federal government the right to control on the Internet.

                  or this from Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits

                  The Internet is international, it should be run by international bodies under international law, as it is now. The only thing our FCC and our Congress should be doing is making sure our country's Internet companies do not violate well established Internet practices, and we should demand that every country do the same and there will be the freedom of the Internet. There is no need for an FCC takeover.  

                  or this from Free Press: Country Codes for the Internet?

                  The Internet has been regulated, and network neutrality and Internet freedom in general has been effectively defended by these international non-government bodies that have been creating the future of the Internet and IMHO, a great model of international cooperation and administration.

                  and BTW I do think you were taking me for a fool and you were being disingenuous when you comment that I am quoting out of context, I point out that I quote the entire piece and not a selection, and you respond with stuff they wrote elsewhere.  

              •  Strike that and accept my apology. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden

                Then you are either a fool or being disingenuous.

                That was harsh and uncalled for.

                "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

                by rfall on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:04:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, Clay, we should rely on the "free market" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, OHdog, Corwin Weber, second gen

    ...to protect our interests in the digital world, since that's worked so well elsewhere.

    And where, pray tell, do you get your misunderstanding about how the IETF works, and what RFCs actually are?

    This is a good thing as there are ways to protect net neutrality through the existing regime of international Internet regulatory bodies.

    Gee, the IETF standards have worked so well to keep Microsoft and others with market dominance from establishing their own standards and keeping markets closed to competition.

    Are you really this much a believer in Ayn Rand?

    "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

    by rfall on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:13:45 PM PDT

  •  Free Bradley Manning Wikileaks Whistleblower who (4+ / 0-)

    revealed the video showing US helicopter gunning down innocent citizens and AP cameramen.

    LIVE ON THE WEB
    Rally now * Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern * Col. Anne Right, Diplomat in Afghanistan * Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistle-blower * Tom Hayden, author and activist * Carl Davison, US Marine/Army vet of Guantanamo Bay, Africa, and Asia * Wikileaks "Collateral Murder" video screening * Aimee Allison, author and KPFA Morning Show Host

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site