backtop


Print 115 comment(s) - last by camylarde.. on Mar 3 at 10:13 AM


The U.S. has fought to keep the ACTA treaty secret. The treaty allows monitoring of citzens online and warrantless search and seizures at border crossing, of electronics suspected to be carrying infringed content.  (Source: PuppetGovernment)
The U.S. Government insisted that the terms of its privacy and rights-trampling treaty were too sensitive to expose to the public

ACTA, short for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is an all-reaching proposal that may represent an epic victory for the film and music industries in their fight against piracy, a victory that comes at the high expense of citizens' privacy and rights, if it is upheld.  

Championed by both former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama, the proposal is the child of countless millions in international lobbying money from the media industry.  It aims to enact constant monitoring of citizens' online activities -- even perfectly legitimate ones -- and grants border agents in the U.S. and many member states the power of warrantless search and seizures -- provisions that would grant them the power to destroy U.S. citizens' laptops, iPods, or CDs, if the agents suspected that they might contain infringed content.  And the best part?  The cost of the bill will be footed by the taxpayers themselves -- without even giving them a clue as to what's happening.

With its Big Brotheresque terms, it's little wonder that the U.S. wanted to keep the agreement under wraps.  What was unknown until now, though, was just how few nations support the U.S. in keeping the agreement secret, or the fact that the Obama and Bush administration negotiators overpowered other major nations to keep the treaty out of the public eye.

Officials in the Netherlands, a nation pushing for the treaty to be exposed to the public, "accidentally" leaked (DutchGoogle English translation) a memo from a secret ACTA negotiation meeting in Mexico, which detailed who supported keeping the treaty secret from citizens of member nations.

Only a handful of European nations -- Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Denmark -- and two other nations -- South Korea and Singapore -- supported keeping the treaty a secret.  Denmark was reportedly the most vocal supporter of secrecy.  

The majority of the other participating nations -- the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, and Austria, the UK, and Japan supported releasing details to the public.  The UK and Japan, two of the world's biggest powers, reportedly were particularly vocal about transparency.  Other nations, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, were not listed in the memo, but have been advocates of transparency.

Despite the vast majority supporting openness, the U.S. fought to silence these voices.  With the help of the handful of nations supporting secrecy, it successfully prevented the ACTA terms from being aired to the public, even as the U.S. government considers warrantless border searches for "pirate materials".

Of course, a vast body of information regarding ACTA made it to the public eye anyways, thanks to the internet and leaks sites like Wikileaks.

The treaty and the recent information on how the U.S. fought to keep it secret raises alarming questions about politicians at the highest level on both sides of the political aisle.  Why would our nation's leaders plot and champion a treaty that would raise citizens' taxes in order to violate their constitutional rights, as a favor for major corporations?  And more importantly, why would these leaders fight to keep the treaty secret, when transparency and public participation form the foundation of our nation?  

It's all to protect you -- even if you don't know about it.  At least that's what your elected officials say.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Enough is enough
By amanojaku on 2/25/2010 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 5
We aren't children, and most of us aren't criminals. If our governments are going to treat us this way then we need new governments. Last time I checked the government was supposed to serve and protect us; none of this ACTA stuff protects anyone, even the copyright holders.

And I'm REALLY tired of our hypocritical "free" America. Spying, strong-arming, incompetence... None of this should describe a government of a free nation.




RE: Enough is enough
By geddarkstorm on 2/25/2010 2:57:27 PM , Rating: 5
We seem to be headed to that same level of police state that the UK is. And the UK constantly keeps getting even more policed. The question is, how long can they keep playing games with us before history repeats?


RE: Enough is enough
By Adonlude on 2/26/2010 2:15:19 PM , Rating: 4
We don't have to let this happen though. VOTE!!!

Oh... and buy guns just incase!


RE: Enough is enough
By nfalk on 2/26/2010 4:44:50 PM , Rating: 5
Voting won't do a thing to change this. The only thing that speaks to politicians is money...so unless you have a lot of it or are a member of a union, there's not much you can do... Sad but true.


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough
By amanojaku on 2/25/2010 4:29:00 PM , Rating: 5
The alternative to government is anarchy, and we all know how well that works. Both the Ivory Coast and Somalia are rife with violence and corruption. Government exists to preserve freedoms by placing reasonable limits on freedoms. Without government people could, and maybe would, steal and murder with impunity. And there will always be government, either elected by the people or taken by force.


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
You're right...the problems in Africa are all the West's fault.

/rolleyes.

"...(unless you count the 2.29 million people languishing in American prisons..."

How about we let out all the rapists and murderers, and let them come live with you? Or better yet, your mother?


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 6:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think if you reread my reply you might pick out that I was making examples of specific countries. Or do you believe the entire continent of Africa is one country? Or if you have superior knowledge of Anglo-American/African political and financial interactions I am always open to being educated by those more learned than myself.
But you're right, I must apologize. It was wrong for me to assume everyone reading my post would have familiarity with prison population statistics. So, once my apology is accepted or dismissed, I can clarify that those particular numbers (2.29 million prisoners) allude to my previous remarks of imprisonment, by the state (and by state I mean government), for non-aggressive acts. Which, in all of the countries in the world, the US ranks #1. I'm pretty sure rape and murder are considered acts of aggression even in the absence of government. Do you believe that protections from acts of violence would not exist without government? I'm inclined to believe people would be far safer given government enjoys a monopoly on 'protection.' Or are governments free from the laws of economic activity? Are they not driven by self-interest and the disutility of labor? Do they not maximize expenditures and minimize production? Given their monopoly status, does this not, over time, drive down the level of 'protection' while raising the cost? From a purely economical standpoint, how is this superior to competition of service? Need I point out? that the ever-growing list of things our noble government protects us from, consumes more than 40% of the wealth produced by this country.
Though your post is enlightening and certainly welcome, I couldn't quite glean from it a refutation for the preference of no government over government. I don't claim to be brilliant but I did study it quite thoroughly.


RE: Enough is enough
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 6:43:04 PM , Rating: 3
" in all of the countries in the world, the US ranks #1"

Meaning the US either has better enforcement of laws, or more criminals...or a combination of the two.

GO US!

"Do you believe that protections from acts of violence would not exist without government? "

Yes. And a thousand historical precedents exist to confirm it.

" Given their monopoly status, does this not, over time, drive down the level of 'protection' while raising the cost?"

Sure. Governments get less effective over time, in general. So? Your "cure" is worse than the disease.


RE: Enough is enough
By stilltrying on 2/25/2010 7:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
"Do you believe that protections from acts of violence would not exist without government? "

Yes. And a thousand historical precedents exist to confirm it.

And millions upon millions of historical precedents set with acts of violence by the state/government.


RE: Enough is enough
By Jaybus on 2/26/2010 11:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And millions upon millions of historical precedents set with acts of violence by the state/government.

Of course, because before there were governments, there were no written languages, and thus no historical record.


RE: Enough is enough
By stilltrying on 2/26/2010 5:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Are you BRAINDEAD. Hitler, Stalin, Tse Dong. Get a clue.


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 8:32:15 PM , Rating: 1
- in all of the countries in the world, the US ranks #1"

Meaning the US either has better enforcement of laws, or more criminals...or a combination of the two.

GO US
-

It's disheartening the level of complacency toward government's ability to manufacture laws and destroy private property. The sheer number of coddled, state-fed automatons, whose security is measured in how well they emulate the collective. This team mentality is weaponized by their masters to cast out non-conformist who oppose the 'official story' or challenge the status quo. Critical thought is the enemy. Schools replace logic and critical thinking with groupthink and emotive reception. Why think for yourself when you can just chant 'GO TEAM.' God forbid there's ever a day when television is rendered inoperable by cosmic winds or massive system failure. These pitiful creatures won't know how to think or behave without their up-to-the-minute instructions. Tax-producing cattle will remain happy so long as you provide a big enough pen, they don't immediately notice their constraints. They will chew their cud and spend their life standing in shit so long as their masters allow enough food they don't have to search for it elsewhere.


RE: Enough is enough
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 9:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Why think for yourself when you can just chant 'GO TEAM."

Your sense of humor broken, along with everything else? Did you actually take my comment seriously?

" God forbid there's ever a day when television is rendered inoperable by cosmic winds or massive system failure"

Son, I haven't watched a single show on TV in over five years. I strongly suspect it's been much less time than that for you.


RE: Enough is enough
By Zshazz on 2/25/2010 9:52:08 PM , Rating: 3
I like how you avoid addressing any of his points and instead attack his character. It shows that you're clearly smarter than him.

To be fair, your reply was to a personal attack on you... but to be even more fair, his far more effective attack was a response to an utterly useless (I'm seeing a pattern here) response to his original points.

If you have an argument against his case, present it. However, if you cannot come up with something, please refrain from making yourself look like an idiot and, thus, giving more perceived credit to his argument.


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 10:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like how you avoid addressing any of his points and instead attack his character. It shows that you're clearly smarter than him.

Cheers. I believe the fancy term for it is argumentum ad hominem.

And you're right, I was hoping for a serious argument.
So far the focus has been on the continent/country of Africa (confusing, that). Which I was only trying to use as an example. Not a platform.
Ah well.


RE: Enough is enough
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 10:47:26 PM , Rating: 1
"If you have an argument against his case, present it"

I did so in my first post--- to which he replied with a rambling, semi-incoherent series of personal attacks and innuendo.

" if you cannot come up with something, please refrain from making yourself look like an idiot "

Examine your own posting in the light of your remarks and tell me what you conclude.


RE: Enough is enough
By Zshazz on 2/26/2010 12:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
I did so in my first post--- to which he replied with a rambling, semi-incoherent series of personal attacks and innuendo.

Oh, I so enjoyed your argument. Splendid use of the argumentum via rolly-eyus.

And the statement "let's let all the murderers live with your mother" was also a shining example of a proper argument. We have much to learn from you, Jedi Master.

Certainly his "incoherent series of personal attacks and innuendo" didn't clarify (although, I certainly understood him from the beginning) the point that he didn't mean violent criminals ... which is a point you have failed to address. Perhaps you are avoiding a proper argument in order to enlighten us that it's so stupid that it's not worth a proper argument's time? Brilliance!

Examine your own posting in the light of your remarks and tell me what you conclude.

Touché. However, the point stands regardless. I cannot help that I have a weakness that makes me find people without something to say saying something to avoid saying something annoying beyond measure (surely you can understand my plight now that you understand how I think of it). I will willfully retract that statement as soon as you shape up and provide an argument void of personal attacks as you have conducted, without fail, throughout the entire page.


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 9:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry Pa, I regret giving the impression of a personal attack.
But you're absolutely right. Given the context, I don't know how I could've misinterpreted. It's so glaringly obvious now that you point it out.
As far as the last TV show I watched... I'm pretty sure it was News Radio.
But no hard fealings, eh Pops.
I gotta run - lotta things to fix.


RE: Enough is enough
By stilltrying on 2/25/2010 7:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Very well said.


RE: Enough is enough
By thurston on 2/28/2010 6:43:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How about we let out all the rapists and murderers, and let them come live with you?


Why would you let out the rapists and murderers? I would start with minor drug offenders. Potheads are usually not as violent as rapists and murderers.


RE: Enough is enough
By amanojaku on 2/25/2010 5:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
I know I shouldn't respond as you are clearly unreasonable, but I don't want other people to misunderstand me. So...
quote:
Well it's good to know that government disallows stealing and murdering.
They're called laws. You can do what you want as long as you're willing to accept the punishment. Plenty of people obey the law just to avoid punishment.
quote:
I suppose taxation is not theft.
No, because we need government and no one works for free. The only question is how MUCH of our money should go to taxes. We need the police. We need the fire department. But we could give a sh1t about a bunch of other things the government spends our money on.
quote:
Conscription is not slavery.
It sure is, but most non-totalitarian countries are without conscription, including the US, so your point is irrelevant. The citizens of totalitarian states ARE slaves, so the existence of conscription is meaningless there. Many wars fought on foreign soil are BS, so I can ignore draft dodging in some cases. But if your conuntry gets attacked and you refuse to pick up a gun to protect your fellow citizens you deserve to be shot FIRST.
quote:
Can you clearly define reasonable?
Yes. I'm allowed to do what I want as long as it doesn't impact someone else negatively. No stealing, no murder, etc...

As to African countries you clearly don't know squat. It's been many years, in some cases decades, since Western countries left Africa. The violence that exists today is the result of the people there TODAY. To make an analogy, you're saying an adult is not responsible for his or her actions because he or she was raised badly. BS. We have free will, and do what we want.

Your last paragraph is a mess that doesn't deserve analysis or a response.


RE: Enough is enough
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2010 6:01:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, because we need government and no one works for free. The only question is how MUCH of our money should go to taxes. We need the police. We need the fire department. But we could give a sh1t about a bunch of other things the government spends our money on.


Taxation is all well and good. However the founders CLEARLY believed wealth distribution to be unconstitutional. When you tax another mans wealth to give it someone without, then it most certainly is theft.

MOST of our tax money now goes to things that have nothing to do with running the government and keep basic services going. That is theft.


RE: Enough is enough
By Keeir on 2/25/2010 7:33:37 PM , Rating: 3
How US Tax dollars are spent.

(Does not include "special spending")

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/b...

My favorite?

We spend a 251 Billion a year to service our debt. Almost 1,000 dollars per citizen is spent paying interest.


RE: Enough is enough
By intelpatriot on 2/26/2010 4:32:13 AM , Rating: 4
The majority of US government debt is held by US private interests (individual or coprorate).

Basically interest payment on government debt is the transfer of money from American taxpayers to other Americans who either have large amounts of money or who profit from the control of money.

If the government goes "bankrupt" as per the libertarian/supply side ideal; that means we go back to a feudal "natural order" where the majority are serfs paying for the maintainance of a small elite who enjoy "economic freedom".


RE: Enough is enough
By TSS on 2/26/2010 11:52:29 AM , Rating: 2
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_...

Then you'll love that one.

And like the article says, if interest rates rise the interest on the debt balloons like crazy because it's so big (what i didn't see mentioned is that most of it is short term too, meaning you have to renew it against the current day interest rate each, on average, 1-3 years.)

Then consider this history of interest rates:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TB3MS

Honestly you people should be revolting about now. I know i'm not supposed to say that, as a non american, but even stevie wonder can see this disaster waiting to happen.


RE: Enough is enough
By TSS on 2/26/2010 12:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry to add to my own post, but i thought this might be the time to share another link i've been following periodically for the past 2-3 years.

http://babylontoday.com/

Purely because it facinates me. I'm not a christian so i'm skipping that part, but the economics are sound as far as i can tell. It's also where i got the above picture from before the original source ^^


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 7:26:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well it's good to know that government disallows stealing and murdering.

You're right, I misspoke. That quote was in reference to amanojaku's comment
quote:
Without government people could, and maybe would, steal and murder with impunity.

It was intended to discredit the idea that the existence of government somehow diminished the instances of violence. Especially when they are funded by acts of violence.
quote:
because we need government and no one works for free. The only question is how MUCH of our money should go to taxes. We need the police. We need the fire department. But we could give a sh1t about a bunch of other things the government spends our money on.

'we need government' Such a statement is not self-evident. Once you concede that taking something by force is acceptable (taxation) how do you rationally or logically limit the extent to which something is taken. Is it possible to get just a little pregnant? Morality is not measured in degrees but absolutes. And don't confuse the existence of government with the services they provide. I only ask you to explain why those services are best provided by a monopoly with the power to take your money regardless of your satisfaction.
quote:
It sure is, but most non-totalitarian countries are without conscription, including the US

So a draft is not on the same fundamental level as conscription? Is the loss of liberty from noncompliance with a draft different than conscription? As far as what order I deserve to get shot in, I would challenge you to define the moral grounds upon which I owe my neighbor, or someone in Ohio, the means of defense over my own inclinations. Their existence is not a legitimate claim check on my productive efforts. Unless you can prove that is somehow is.
quote:
Yes. I'm allowed to do what I want as long as it doesn't impact someone else negatively. No stealing, no murder, etc...

Why is it this same moral code is not applied to government. I wouldn't give a damn what any government did, so long as it didn't effect me. So why is it preferable to give a monopoly the job of 'protection?' Or allow it final say in my affairs at all?


RE: Enough is enough
By Zshazz on 2/25/2010 10:07:39 PM , Rating: 5
I find myself helplessly having to agree with your logic. However, if I may, I find that your polarization of morality to simplify the issue too much. For instance, how would it be equally immoral to steal an apple because you're starving versus brutally torturing someone to death over the course of several weeks. Both are morally wrong (subjectivity might come in to play here, of course) but they certainly are different "degrees" of wrong. The first might be difficult to classify as "wrong" as you can't exactly realistically expect someone to choose to die by starvation.

Of course, the discussion of ethics and morality is intrinsically subjective in nature; it varies from person to person and country to country. Darn you, moral relativism! And regardless, the point that the government is a monopoly which provides services you cannot choose (and, therefore, cares nothing about your satisfaction of those services) stands strong.

I would be interested if an intelligent and coherent argument could be made against you. So far, I'm very unimpressed by everyone's attempt to rebut your points.


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 10:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree entirely that there is a 'range' of morality. But I would argue that it's directly proportional to the situation.
Yes, the theft of a single apple for sustenance of life is technically immoral, but the reaction to it should be relatively equal in morality. An initiation of force is never 'right' but reactions to it should be weighed based on the imposition of the aggressive act. I could not argue that killing the lone-apple thief is a 'fair' treatment. But the owner of the apple would certainly have legitimate claim to any future possessions of the thief until full reparations can be made, up to lethal retaliation.
While I don't personally think that would be fair, as far as my own sensibilities are concerned, I cannot, however, argue that the owner of the apple does not have the immediate right to defend his property with lethal force. If caught in the act, morally speaking, the owner has the ultimate right on how he protects his property.
If in absolute terms a man must concede a portion of his property, there remains no grounds for the defense of the rest of his property. And since our ultimate posession is our self, he would lose the moral means of self-defense.
Also, the objective monetary value is not the only value a man has to defend. Psychic value is just as important, if not more so. The market value of a purebred dog may reach into the thousands, but an adopted mutt may have greater psychic value to the owner than all the purebreds in the world. So in defense of his property, the owner is also defending the psychic value of the idea of his security.
Lastly, I would posit that if based on the individual, a cosistant and universal code of morality is quite possible. Yielding not in the slightest to relativism.


RE: Enough is enough
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 10:51:51 PM , Rating: 3
"I would be interested if an intelligent and coherent argument could be made against you"

The most effective rebuttal was made by he himself...when he labelled Somalia and Ivory Coast as "the only free nations" in the world.

Who here would choose to live in one of those lawless, anarchistic hellholes? Not even the OP himself would...which is why he's posting from a nation made safe and comfortable by the government he so despises.

We even have a term for that condition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 11:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think my use of these countries has been taken a little too far out of context, so I will clarify my intent. I was merely trying to point out that in the world today there exists only a few locations that are free of the impositions of government. In no way was I submitting these particular place as examples of functional anarchy. They are simply coincidentally anarchic.
If you have the time later, you could read further clarification on points related to these African countries in my previous replies in this section.
In no way was I advocating the adoption of overall conditions represented in the Ivory Coast. I tried to explain that the reasons for widespread unrest cannot be honestly attributed to the absence of government under current conditions, but rather to too much government under previous conditions. A more thorough treatment of the cause of their specific problems can be found here http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj18n1/cj18n1-2.p...
a quote from the CIA's own factbook
quote:
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

The realities of these countries, while not on par with standards in the US, aren't nearly as bad as CNN or BBC make them out to be.
Again, I'm not advocating either of these places as models for anarchy utopia, merely pointing out progress is possible in absence of government. (and in spite of massive damage caused by government)


RE: Enough is enough
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:17:16 AM , Rating: 2
"The realities of these countries, while not on par with standards in the US, aren't nearly as bad as CNN or BBC make them out to be."

Per capita GDP of Somalia: $600/year, #189 out of 193 nations. It has a murder and violent crime rate 6 times higher than the US, and 8 times higher than Europe. Slavery has made a return in some areas. The average life expectancy is less than 50 years. The ongoing civil war alone has killed as much as 5% of the total population.

Sounds like a wonderful place to live. When are you emigrating there?


RE: Enough is enough
By Zshazz on 2/26/2010 12:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... I'm noticing an interesting pattern developing...

You Said:
Who here would choose to live in one of those lawless, anarchistic hellholes? Not even the OP himself would...

He, in response, said:
In no way was I submitting these particular place as examples of functional anarchy. They are simply coincidentally anarchic. (among many other repetitions with various modification ...)

You responded:
Sounds like a wonderful place to live. When are you emigrating there?

I hope that you can understand why your argument seems so underwhelming.


RE: Enough is enough
By Leper Messiah on 2/26/2010 9:58:28 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are confusing the idea of government and a sovereign nation. A tribal council is a form of government. A mayoral government is still government, even if it is only on the local level.

Getting rid of government entirely is impossible, human beings are social creatures and they will organize themselves into a hierarchical structure no matter what the circumstances are.


RE: Enough is enough
By Zshazz on 2/26/2010 12:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
Great point. I was actually starting to think about this myself this morning. Even in small groups, people tend to give "leadership and power" to a strong individual in the group. Rarely is there a case otherwise.

It seems only natural that this leader may need additional resources to accomplish what s/he thinks is best. Inevitably an anarchy would simple regress to exactly what you describe... and would, inevitably (jeez, my vocabulary is failing me!), demand resources to do things.


RE: Enough is enough
By cmdrdredd on 2/25/2010 10:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The alternative to government is anarchy, and we all know how well that works. Both the Ivory Coast and Somalia are rife with violence and corruption. Government exists to preserve freedoms by placing reasonable limits on freedoms. Without government people could, and maybe would, steal and murder with impunity.


As I have said many times before the US is unique in the world today. We are a self policing society. We have rules of conduct and a list of actions deemed improper. Generally speaking, the people move about freely and are able to do anything they care to without fear of persecution assuming you do not break the accepted laws. Most laws are obvious such as you can't steal something that isn't yours, violence against another person is wrong, you have to pay for items at the store etc. We are not forced to adhere to these laws except by fear of arrest, fine, incarceration (jail time) etc. You are free to make your choices and you will have to deal with the consequences.

Now in many societies, including the ones you mentioned, this idea is lost. The people have no concept of laws because they never grew up with any. The only thing they know is someone forcing them to a certain accepted viewpoint of the world. They know that if they steal they will lose a hand or be caned. They only know fear and have no concept of true freedom. So while there may not be a real established government with a set of laws and regulations to abide by and people run rampant killing each other with no regard for being imprisoned or put on trial and fined, they aren't truly free because they live in a constant state of fear. At any moment you could be killed for your rice.


RE: Enough is enough
By Modeverything on 2/26/2010 1:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
Some of us who live in the US remember a piece of our history called the Revolutionary War. While the colonies started out supposedly governed by Britian, after Britian became too controlling and demanded too much from the people. The people broke from the government, banded together, and fought back. This would be the anarchy you spoke of. Last I checked, the Revolutionary War was considered a positive move in history.

This is probably the first time in my life I have felt the government is going too far, and we need to fight back. The people need to band together and fight for our rights and freedoms before they're taken away.


RE: Enough is enough
By tfk11 on 2/28/2010 1:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both the Ivory Coast and Somalia are rife with violence and corruption.


Unless you've have first hand knowledge, I doubt you can have any degree of certainty that this is true. The media is wholly owned by those who would have us believe that their way is only way.


RE: Enough is enough
By itzmec on 2/26/2010 12:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
i agree with government and free nations not being compatible, but i disagree with your belief that somalia is a freen nation, governed or not, somalians are far from free. maybe i should ask what you meant by free nation.


RE: Enough is enough
By NobleKain on 2/26/2010 12:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
You asked for a "non-humorous" reply, so I'll offer one.

Your "all or nothing" assessment of Government is decidedly false. Your inability to see any middle ground on the issue is likely not related to your ignorance or lack of intelligence, but rather your stubbornness to agree a middle ground exists simply because it therefore reinforces your own argument.

Government (at least here in the US) is meant to be an institution delivered by the "people" to serve the same people. Is there corruption in government? Sure. I don't think any rational person would say otherwise. But the corruption exists for the very same reason that the government is created:

"There are millions of people all over the world are innately greed, power hungry, selfish and evil, and either hate you or want what you have and will stop at nothing to get it."

Simple concept really. That's why government first begins... as an institution for the people to assist in protecting the people. Don't stop here though, keep reading, or else you'll miss it entirely.

The problem is, security is a full time job, and people can either be secure, or live their lives. So government gets created to "outsource" security... and when you have a nation as large as ours, government also becomes large. But now you have a public corporation that needs to be run efficiently... so you "hire" people to run it. But hired people need to be paid, and resources aren't free, so you agree to "taxation" so everyone pays their "fair share" of their portion of protection.

The problem? The same type of person you want to protect yourself from exists across the world. Those "evil" forces are not simply external forces. Thus, the institution you create for real and necessary reasons now also carry the tools to be easily abused and corrupted by those that are corrupt.

Long explanation? yes. But apparently it was needed.

Here's the short answer: "Evil people exist that can either come take what you want directly, or will try to use government to take it indirectly. Government as an institution is effectively neutral, it's the people in it that need to be carefully vetted. Utopia's don't exist because of sin (something that can't be ignored)."

Because Government is there to serve me, I can say that I can agree to government action... but I can also say that when someone evil is given power, I can disagree with the abuses they begin to take.

We actually have it fairly lucky in the US because we at least get a shot at protecting ourselves from putting the "Evil" into leadership positions. Are we successful? marginally... but at least we have a chance, and that's why our Constitution was setup the way it was... because smart people knew that some would try to take advantage and it needed to be as difficult as possible to do so. That's more than most other countries can say.


RE: Enough is enough
By Litzner on 2/25/2010 9:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
When the Government violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the People to rise up against the Government to bring the Government into compliance with the Constitution.


RE: Enough is enough
By Jaybus on 2/26/2010 11:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
That is not true. It is the duty of the courts to ensure any laws passed by Congress do not violate the Constitution. The courts have many times found laws to be unconstitutional. It is the duty of the People to elect representatives who they believe will not violate the Constitution, and to not re-elect those who attempt to do so.


RE: Enough is enough
By jimbojimbo on 2/26/2010 3:17:45 PM , Rating: 1
I thought it was the duty of citizens to elect people that were most popular or looked the most handsome?? Who's job is it to slap the shit out of stupid voters?


RE: Enough is enough
By Samus on 2/26/2010 12:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
Given time, future administrations will undo the damage of the Bush administration, but the popular figure is it will take about 20 years to remove the many programs such as this.

Taking a systematic approach, we need to focus on the damage done to the economy, lack of regulation in wall street, rebuild our military supply and upgrade our civilian infrastructure so we're somewhat cought up with the rest of the world technologically (electric grid, transportation, education, etc)

Whether the Obama administration will successfully tackle these problems is yet to be seen. So far all they seem to be focusing on is healthcare. Although its important, its not AS important as many other things that are broken right now like ACTA which is as easy a fix as closing down Guantanamo.


RE: Enough is enough
By straycat74 on 2/26/2010 9:15:04 AM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the part where Obama was a Senator and now President who supports this?


RE: Enough is enough
By myhipsi on 2/26/2010 10:53:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Taking a systematic approach, we need to focus on the damage done to the economy, lack of regulation in wall street...


The damage was done by government in collusion with the federal reserve, not lack of regulation. Hear me out:

Government regulation of the economy creates problems that compound themselves over time. Lets take one good example: The Glass-Steagall Act

In simple terms, Glass-steagall was supposedly necessary (separating deposit banks from investment banks) in order to "protect" the depositors.

First of all, since the fed sets interest rates and not the market, interest rates are artificially low by a wide margin (Near 0%). This sends the message to the market that there are huge amounts of capital, and it's cheap as dirt to obtain. So what do banks do, they borrow boat loads of cash and invest of course, since it costs almost nothing to borrow. The end up over-leveraging themselves and when their borrowers default, they fail. But wait, they're "TOO BIG TO FAIL" remember, so the tax-payer backed insurance bails them out, so the CEOs and fat-cats still get their million dollar+ bonuses.

So the moral hazard of artificial interest rates (near 0%) encourages excess borrowing, and the "too big to fail" mentality allows banks to over-leverage themselves without risk. This is not free market economics.

If the market was free and unregulated, and considering there isn't a shred of savings in America, the interest rate should be more like 20%. This would encourage more savings and people (including banks) would be much less inclined to borrow unless their investments could net them more than 20% which is not very likely. Also without the "too big to fail" policy, even if they did take out loans, they would have to be damn sure that they would get a return on their investments or it could be over for them.

So Glass-Steagall was simply a regulation to prevent the moral hazards of a previous regulation. This is why government shouldn't be involved in the economy (other than to enforce contracts, property rights, etc. via the court system)

Simple fix for the economy:

1. Get rid of the Fed. All it does is inflate bubbles and then desperately try to reinflate them once they burst by printing more money and diluting the currency and/or further taxing the people.
2. Let the market set interest rates. Interest rates by definition relate to the amount of free capital available(brought about by SAVINGS). IOW, the REAL value of money, NOT what the fed says it is.
3. Get rid of the tax-payer backed insurance that the banks rely on aka, the "too big to fail" idea. All this does is create a moral hazard in allowing banks to make "risky" investments/loans without any real risk.

I apologize for the long-winded response, but it gets frustrating when people don't understand economics and assume it can be "FIXED" and/or centrally planned by big government. All the government does is create moral hazards that create yet more hazards. Ultimately, this is a good example of why government continues to grow unchecked. They f*ck things up with regulation, then they regulate the f*ck up, and that f*ck up, and it goes on forever until you have this 800 lb gorilla on your back.


RE: Enough is enough
By wempa on 2/26/2010 4:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
This makes a lot of sense and it's exactly why we should be voting for Ron Paul. After reading both "End The Fed" and "The Revolution", I've got his back.


RE: Enough is enough
By Shippy on 2/26/2010 6:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't JFK get assassinated for attempting to end the federal reserve (I know, conspiracy theory)? Do you really think the "men behind the curtain" controlling the money, which controls our government, would let this happen?


Innocent until proven guilty....
By tigz1218 on 2/25/2010 2:56:55 PM , Rating: 5
Welcome to the land of Guilty Until Proven Innocent.




RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By geddarkstorm on 2/25/2010 2:59:27 PM , Rating: 5
Wasn't that one of the grievances Q had against the human race, for which he put Picard on trial? There's a lot one can learn from Star Trek! Really! I swear it!


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By amanojaku on 2/25/2010 3:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know how much you can learn from Q. The man-god had bad judgment. He was hot for JANEWAY!!!


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/25/2010 3:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
I always had a crush on Dr. Crusher from season 3 onward.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Anoxanmore on 2/25/2010 3:36:19 PM , Rating: 5
Oh come now Brandon, Jadzia Dax was the sexiest of them all

(I don't count 7 of 9 as regular starfleet officer)


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/25/2010 3:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I never watched DS9 -- I was strictly TOS and TNG :-)

Maybe it was the red hair or maybe it was the whole MILF thing, but Beverly had it going on ;-)


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Anoxanmore on 2/25/2010 5:11:52 PM , Rating: 1
Aww.. that is sad DS9 was one of the better spin-offs.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Akrovah on 2/25/2010 7:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
Very much so.

I love me some Star Trek, but DS9 was something totally different. It was the least "Trek like" of the Trek shows, and was better for it. It was like Bablyon 5, but in Trek land. How could you go wrong?


By Jellodyne on 2/26/2010 11:50:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, not so coincidentally -- JMS pitched Babylon 5 to Paramount and they decided to rip him off and try to make it without him as a Trek property.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By messyunkempt on 2/25/2010 6:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
With the added bonus that you could offer wesley crusher your fingers and say 'smell your mum'.

...too far?


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/25/2010 7:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
Damn dude...LOL


By messyunkempt on 2/25/2010 7:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to hell.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Camikazi on 2/25/2010 3:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Count or not 7 is HOT! I also got a thing for T'Pal, I think I am attracted to the ones who can kick my ass and find a logical reason for doing it :)


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Oregonian2 on 2/25/2010 5:38:48 PM , Rating: 3
T'Pol was good. Something "similar" in a different vein would be Ziva on NCIS.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Camikazi on 2/26/2010 11:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yes love Ziva as well, I see a trend in the fictional women I am attracted too. Although my geek side tells me I need an Abby type, but then again she has done enough ass kicking herself.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By JediJeb on 2/26/2010 4:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
Samantha Carter, need I say more.


By Camikazi on 2/26/2010 5:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
She is hot and badass enough, but I prefer the others more... I think I am very messed up, prefer the ones who would kick my ass, not care and let me die... Sam doesn't exactly fit that profile.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By Fenixgoon on 2/25/2010 4:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Leeta >> *


By Anoxanmore on 2/25/2010 5:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
My good sir, you are wholly incorrect... B'joran was not cute enough to warrant any true attraction.

I think my favourite quote is definately.

"How far down do those spots go?"

Jadzia: "All the way"


By Akrovah on 2/25/2010 7:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely, Jadzia was Hawt. Ezria not so much.

And as far as 7, yeah, she was sexy, but I'd still take Crusher or Jadiza over her.

Talk about off topic though, lol.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By McGixxer on 2/25/2010 4:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I always had a crush on Dr. Crusher from season 3 onward.


Dude's should not use the word "crush" when talking about girls. ;)


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/25/2010 4:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
For a kid that was 7 when TNG started, you can call it a "crush" :)


RE: Innocent until proven guilty....
By rs1 on 2/25/2010 3:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're being too optimistic. If the IP companies have their way, it will simple be the Land of the Guilty.


Dig a bit more Jason
By oTAL on 2/25/2010 3:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
I can't even begin to understand how keeping this kind of thing secret could serve the public's interest. Can anyone give me a reason for this (other than corruption)? Honest question... any ideas?

Well, I was ashamed to read that my country was one of the six that wanted to keep this secret. But I take the content of DT articles with some skepticism so I looked it up...

...and it appears Jason's article might have some incorrections (hopefully he won't apply the standard DT practice of correcting mistakes without telling anyone, making us in the comment section look like idiots).

Jason wrote:
quote:
Only a handful of European nations -- Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Denmark -- and two other nations -- South Korea and Singapore -- supported keeping the treaty a secret. Denmark was reportedly the most vocal supporter of secrecy.


At boingboing Myatu translates:
quote:
The United Kingdom pressed the EC that it should take a pro-active stance and attempt to convince the other parties that transparency is of the highest importance, which was supported by Finland, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Belgium and Portugal".

quote:
"There were still some reservations from a few (EU) member states. Belgium, Portugal, Denmark and Germany were not entirely sure about making it fully transparent. It seemed that Germany, Belgium and Portugal could be convinced, but Denmark was quite inflexible about this.


source: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/25/acta-leak-now...

Sounds completely different to me....




RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By geddarkstorm on 2/25/2010 3:10:17 PM , Rating: 3
Huh? Doesn't sound different to me, other than the first quote by Boingboing. The second quote contradicts the first. Unless, the truth is that Mick is right, those countries he listed are against /full/ transparency, but somewhat support the UK in that maybe some transparency would be ok; they just aren't completely convinced. And, maybe they could be swayed to the UK's camp. But currently, as the last quote states, they are against full transparency.

Truthfully, I don't see any glaring inaccuracies, just a complex web of political maneuvering that wasn't fully nuanced by Mick.


RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By geddarkstorm on 2/25/2010 3:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, looking at it again, there are /no/ discrepancies except within Boingboing's translation itself. The first quote from Boingboing makes no sense, what so ever in context of the second. It says the UK was pro-active to convince other parties that transparency was good, which was supported by... Denmark? And then the next quote says Denmark was completely inflexible against the idea of any transparency. It can't be both!

That just doesn't make sense. I think something was lost in translation.


RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By oTAL on 2/25/2010 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 1
There were reservations on full transparency.


RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By geddarkstorm on 2/25/2010 3:19:05 PM , Rating: 3
Which is the same as supporting to keep the treaty a secret :P.


RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/25/2010 3:41:46 PM , Rating: 1
I'm with you man. "These aren't the droids you were looking for" comes to mind now more often than not.


RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By Kurz on 2/25/2010 7:51:03 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder if Obama has a Purple Lightsaber.


RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By Zshazz on 2/25/2010 9:31:17 PM , Rating: 1
Wonder no more: Just earlier, as Obama was picking his nose, you could clearly see the gleam of his red lightsaber under the table through his eyes.


RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By oTAL on 2/25/2010 3:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
A pretty good translation (a lot better than Google's):
http://jan.wildeboer.net/2010/02/the-dutch-acta-le...


RE: Dig a bit more Jason
By Robear on 2/25/2010 11:33:51 PM , Rating: 1
This topic attracts the trolls, I guess.

I'm with you, oTAL. I'd really like to know the rationale behind "it's for your own good." You can justify just about anything with that.

I'd like to know 1) how it benefits Americans to perform search & seizure without proving just cause and 2) how does keeping it a secret benefit us?

How is the american population hurt by this knowledge going public?


Jason loves the lying headline, doesn't he?
By porkpie on 2/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: Jason loves the lying headline, doesn't he?
By Faxs on 2/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: Jason loves the lying headline, doesn't he?
By xmichaelx on 2/25/2010 5:57:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Becuase like most far left liberals...


Time to turn on the news, Faxs -- the "OMG HATE TEH EVIL GOVERNMENT!1!" torch has now passed to the conservatives. (And both sides are still wrong.)


By Zshazz on 2/25/2010 9:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was refering more to the fact that democrats believe the people of the US as being the source of all strife in the world. Global warming, meat eaters killing poor defenseless animals, and our big bad unregulated corporations killing people in the back of alleys for a profit are some examples of values that left-wingers hold.

However, I do agree that both sides are being hypocritical at this point... but I think they're both right/wrong. The government has been continually stretching out their power to allow THIS sort of thing to happen. This should have NEVER been allowed to happen and this is CERTAINLY NOT how the architects of our constitution intended the government to function.

However, this is a problem caused by all sides and, therefore, arguing "whose fault is it?" is an utterly useless waste of time as both sides have equally valid points that the opposite side would argue against.


By The Raven on 2/25/2010 6:06:26 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that this is article seems a focused on the US, but I think most of the "international lobbying money" is also coming from the US. The US has the most to lose with regard to music/movies. Also, The US is usually the one to get people on the bandwagon ala the "coalition of the willing" because it is one of the most powerful nations in the world.

So even if it isn't being reported as such: we can connect the dots.

But it is irrefutable that the US is NOT calling for transparancy here. That is where the US gov't strikes out in my book.

Again, I think you've got a point. Besides, word on the street is that Lars von Trier is behind all of this. I heard that he is sick of people passing around pirated cassettes of his big budget blockbuster "Dogville"! ;-)


The DMCA was the start
By dgingeri on 2/26/2010 8:09:34 AM , Rating: 3
This is merely one more step in the wrong direction.

This will lead to a civil war sooner or later, mark my words. Degrade the people's rights, and they will revolt. that has been the case countless times.

It could possibly happen through elections, but with the super rich holding that arena with a strangle hold, it is very unlikely.

I'm certain my nieces and nephews will see a civil war here in their lifetime.




RE: The DMCA was the start
By straycat74 on 2/26/2010 9:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
you underestimate the American people. We are very tolerant, even if the media doesn't acknowledge it. But when push comes to shove, we citizens push and shove back. See the Tea party movement. It's not a move-on .org movement, but real people. See the Massachusetts election. We no longer need civil war unless the government refuses to abide by the elections.
quote:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.


RE: The DMCA was the start
By dgingeri on 2/26/2010 5:21:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.


This is exactly the problem these days. I tried to convince my dad to run for a state office. he's certainly wise enough for it, but he refuses. There are many good men out there that won't run for any office, yet complain about the government spending too much and spending on wrong stuff.

We need to get out there and figuratively smack the existing parties upside the head with the proverbial newspaper. (I actually had a rolled up newspaper attached to a string attached to the entrance of my cube at one time, just as a warning of stupid ideas.) The Tea Parties might be a start, but will the current politicians listen?

I don't think so. I think the only thing that will get them to listen is to outright revolt.


Secret treaty, really?
By sandhuatdt on 2/25/2010 2:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
I am shocked that so many nations are allowed to enter into talks about a secret treaty that isn't disclosed to it's citizens. How so? Aren't we in 2010 and not 1910? Secret treaties, give me a break, please!!! Anyways, if they didn't get China, India, Russia, Vietnam, Malaysia and a bunch on other fast growing third world nations in this treaty then it's totally b0rked. Shame on you Obama! You are more of the same, not hope and change.




RE: Secret treaty, really?
By HotFoot on 2/25/2010 3:17:50 PM , Rating: 1
The wealthier nations produce a lot more citizens doing international travel, and that's where this treaty gets you - where you really don't have many rights while travelling abroad.

I'm left wondering how I'm to prove that the few thousand mp3s on my smart phone were in fact ripped by myself from my CD collection, which I obviously don't travel with. Do I need to remove all that sort of media from my smart phone or be faced with the prospect of the device being confiscated or destroyed while I'm overseas? Because I bought this damn thing to help me keep in touch, not get lost, and play music/video while I travel.


RE: Secret treaty, really?
By straycat74 on 2/26/2010 9:25:54 AM , Rating: 4
The only thing is that if your phone is stolen with the songs on it, you must destroy the originals at home.


Typo?
By AWeav09 on 2/25/2010 2:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ACTA, short for the Anti-Copyright Trade Agreement...


Doesn't ACTA stand for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? Somehow I think an Anti-Copyright Trade Agreement wouldn't be quite the same thing.




RE: Typo?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/25/2010 2:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for pointing that out. The correction has been made!


RE: Typo?
By amanojaku on 2/25/2010 2:57:36 PM , Rating: 1
This is DT; just glance at the article, then read the sources. You'll be happier and live longer.

And you're correct, it's Counterfeit. The correct form is even in the linked article under the incorrect expansion of the acronym ACTA!


RE: Typo?
By oTAL on 2/25/2010 3:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
just glance at the article, then read the sources.


You could say that about most of the DTs competition and it would still be true.

You come here for a reason and if you are like me that reason is the comments section. Maybe due to ATs support there is a pretty decent community around this website which makes it a pretty good resource, even though some of the authors post articles with glaring incorrections and no proofreading.

Add something to the discussion like the OP did. Don't be a hater.


Al Jourgensen said it
By ClownPuncher on 2/25/2010 2:36:01 PM , Rating: 4
All the locals hide tears of regret
Open fire 'cause I love it to death
Sky high, with a heartache of stone
You'll never see me 'cause I'm always alone

How to love without a trace of dissent
I'll buy the torture if you can pay for the rent
Flying high with the public in hand
I'm in love with the promised land

I'm in love with a malicious intent
You've been taken but you don't know it yet
A truer love has never yet to be found
I see the sunset through the eyes of a clown

A new world order




RE: Al Jourgensen said it
By sapiens74 on 2/25/2010 2:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Amen Brother AL


History repeates itself
By Regected on 2/25/2010 5:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This seems to be ringing more and more true the more government tries to keep us safe. A rift is forming between the people and the state. Hopefully the constitution will be the basis of government to come, and not the bloated entity it has become.

And spread the word; the US is not and has NEVER been a democracy. It is a representative republic. Why should it try to spread something to other nations that it can not give its own citizens?




RE: History repeates itself
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 5:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Why should it try to spread something to other nations that it can not give its own citizens? "

The problem with your statement is that a representative republic is superior to a democracy.


RE: History repeates itself
By Jaybus on 2/26/2010 12:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is simply stating that when a group decides it has cause to separate themselves from their current nation and form their own nation, it is only fair that they plainly state those causes in order to clearly explain their decision. The rest of the Declaration is a simple, concise list of those causes.

If you are going to compare "this" to the causes for separation stated in the Declaration, then you are going to have to do better than "a rift is forming between the people and the state".


Australia
By InternetGeek on 2/25/2010 2:34:20 PM , Rating: 4
It's interesting to see that Australia is advocating transparency, because we are being a bunch of hypocrits then. This is because that we are advocating transparent for ACTA, but at the same time, and if the current labor (center-left) goverment has its way, we will have "SafeInternet" instead of the real thing. What this means is that by next year Australia would have its own "Australian Wall" or mandatory Internet filter alla China to keep out all the filth and unwanted stuff. This includes things the government doesn't want us to know or talk about.




I still don't believe this
By Murloc on 2/25/2010 4:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they will destroy stuff just because there is music on them.
It wouldn't have any sense.




RE: I still don't believe this
By Omega215D on 2/25/2010 5:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
since when did corrupt governments make any sense?


references??
By roostitup on 2/25/2010 7:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
So where are the references that DON'T point to DailyTech articles? You make many claims in this blog that you do not back up with legit references. This blog is nothing more than opinions unless you can back up your claims.




RE: references??
By bodar on 2/25/2010 10:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
Did you try the links listed as:

quote:
(Dutch, Google English translation)


Call To Boycott Hollywood
By gorehound on 2/25/2010 9:32:58 PM , Rating: 4
I have stopped buying any new films or going to a Cinema.I only buy used Hollywood films.
I will support buying new Indie Films that have nothing to do with Hollywood.
I do not support any artists who have anything toi do with RIAA & MPAA

Welcome To 1984.Hope millions revolt and boycott these greedbags




Today I am ashamed of being a Dane
By BZDTemp on 2/25/2010 3:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
What the F&## were they thinking.




Korrupte Møghunde
By Danish1 on 2/25/2010 5:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
Danish words for danish politicians.




By Cometer on 2/26/2010 2:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
Its a brave new world.
So corporate interest was able to destroy one of the basis for any democratic society. This is a totalitarian regime tool that is simply not acknowledged for obvious reasons. Ignorance is a bliss. Does anyone really thing they're going to use this treaty only to find people with counterfeit products? This is yet another open door to watch every single action you make.




Medieval ages
By camylarde on 3/3/2010 10:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
I have never heard of a story that someone was beheaded, jailed, or his property seized only because he was lending his BOOK to someone else who could read in the village.

Movies, music and software is essentially still the same thing, covered by the copyright principles, right?

Good save america, the only democratic country which behaves worse than dictatorship. Only because money has power.




Secret law
By camylarde on 3/3/2010 10:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
You have been found guilty of violating a secret law of this society by not contributing enough money to the wellbeing of our secret society "The keepers of the secret laws". All your property now belongs to us. Resistance is futile, we already have all the guns.




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki