CDZ How the internet is destroying us

[SAYIT]

I would bet that more than 99% of what is on line is opinion, rather than fact.

I have no facts with which to counter your claim but I wonder ... is it fact or just your opinion? That said, I'd say (IMHO) that a significant percent is outright BS, much of which is intentional and nefarious-agenda or ideologically driven. We should be teaching our middle schoolers that much of the "info" is bogus and how to know the diff between facts, opinion and outright lies.

 

[SAYIT]

My main beef with the Interwebz is that it's too much information.
Anybody and everybody can put anything out there and it's taken as fact.
We see it here all the time.....

There's a sign in front of a business near my house that says:
Respect you parents.
They passed without Google.

I would bet that more than 99% of what is on line is opinion, rather than fact.

Its a good point, but we have to be careful how far down the road we would go, that could lead to government silencing opinion.
The world of our grandparents was a different world. News papers were much more independent than they are today. today you can pick up
3 different ones and they all have the same stories, so much more is edited. opinions are also ideas

With paid subscriptions falling (thanks in part to the Internet) most newspapers can no longer afford large staffs and so pick up many of their stories from agencies such as Reuters or the AP.

 

[Ava]

Why do I get the suspicious feeling Luddly's OP is leading up to how Obama's new "Net Neutrality" plan is going to cure all of these alleged social problems caused by the internet? ......

Maybe he hasn't considered the latest news:

Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague "General Conduct" Rule


LEFT GROUPS NOW FEAR: GOV'T NET GRAB GOING TOO FAR!

Dear FCC Rethink The Vague General Conduct Rule Electronic Frontier Foundation



Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.” Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality.

The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue.

“So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.” The vote on the new Internet regulations is scheduled for Thursday.

Read more at: National Review

 

[Circe]

We should be teaching our middle schoolers that much of the "info" is bogus and how to know the diff between facts, opinion and outright lies.

Well said. The Internet has fostered a LOT of "urban legends," i.e., lurid false rumors, like all the tourists waking up in a bathtub with a kidney gone --- it's remarkable how many people believe things like that, and fall prey to scams. A woman I've known for years got into that Zeekler pyramid scheme and was pitching it to a group I'm in not four weeks before the FBI raided the house it was based in and all the "officers" of the scam were imprisoned or fled like cockroaches. So that's one problem, grossly false narratives.

Regular porn may not be a social problem as studies are coming out that the more porn, the fewer rape crimes. Child porn is quite another matter since children are victimized to make it, often in foreign countries like Thailand where there is no way to stop it and American child porn consumers do pay for the continuation of those crimes.

Certainly women are grossly maltreated on the Internet, but maybe we just need to know what the world is really like. There are a whole lot of male woman-haters out there who want to terrorize women anonymously, and it's a Reality Check. So a lot of women avoid discussion forums and so on and go to all-women groups for knitting and such. That's why there aren't as many as men on these forums.

I think the worst problem of all is that the Internet has very definitely caused governments to fall all over the world: major civil wars and reorganizations of society from the entire Mideast to eastern Europe and elsewhere. This happened with the last major revolution in communication, when Gutenberg's press caused the Reformation with all its many religious wars for two centuries. The same thing is going on now. The people can talk to each other, organize, exchange ideas, revolt. And that's certainly what they are doing.

 

[hadit]

My main beef with the Interwebz is that it's too much information.
Anybody and everybody can put anything out there and it's taken as fact.
We see it here all the time.....

There's a sign in front of a business near my house that says:
Respect you parents.
They passed without Google.

I would bet that more than 99% of what is on line is opinion, rather than fact.

There is little doubt that is correct. Trying to find the origin of most things accepted as fact on the internet usually becomes a circular effort, as sites reference other sites instead of actual sources.

 

[Circe]

There is little doubt that is correct. Trying to find the origin of most things accepted as fact on the internet usually becomes a circular effort, as sites reference other sites instead of actual sources.

Though maybe that doesn't matter ---- I have long believed that "facts" are just opinions that somebody has labeled in a way that means they REALLY REALLY want you to believe it. Like whether the sun comes up every morning -----------

When you think about it, that's quite debatable. Indeed, the Catholic Church threatened to burn Galileo alive because he didn't think it worked quite that Earth-centric way, and they meant it, too. He recanted, and they imprisoned him in house arrest the entire rest of his life. So much for "facts." I'm not sure there are any facts, just positions people take.

 

[Yarddog]

There is little doubt that is correct. Trying to find the origin of most things accepted as fact on the internet usually becomes a circular effort, as sites reference other sites instead of actual sources.

Though maybe that doesn't matter ---- I have long believed that "facts" are just opinions that somebody has labeled in a way that means they REALLY REALLY want you to believe it. Like whether the sun comes up every morning -----------

When you think about it, that's quite debatable. Indeed, the Catholic Church threatened to burn Galileo alive because he didn't think it worked quite that Earth-centric way, and they meant it, too. He recanted, and they imprisoned him in house arrest the entire rest of his life. So much for "facts." I'm not sure there are any facts, just positions people take.

I guess what the truth is, is an argument as old as time. They're only debating the delivery system. Ferguson riots wernt caused by the internet, they were caused by television news cycles portraying the incident in a biased way before the facts even came out. If it hadnt been for the internet, people would not have seen Mike Brown roughing up theh store clerk.

 

[Circe]

Good point, the Internet allows actual pictures and videos and sounds now --- that helps to figure out truth, at least when they are not altered technologically. Yeah, "what is truth" is a very difficult question, and many of us don't care much. We like what we like, and aren't much concerned if it is "true" or not.

A lot of what people call true is just propaganda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The internet, its many evangelists tell us, is the answer to all our problems. It gives power to the people.

It’s a platform for equality that allows everyone an equal share in life’s riches. For the first time in history, anyone can produce, say or buy anything.

But today, as the internet heads towards putting more than half the world’s population online, all this promise has evaporated...

The author makes a self aggrandizing argument based on a Straw Man presumption. I have heard none say that the Internet "is the answer to all our problems." Furthermore it's "promise" has not "evaporated" and it does indeed serve the public good (notice I didn't say "solve all our problems"). Rather than toss the baby with the bathwater, perhaps we should strive to make it more useful while diminishing its negatives.

1. Thomas Friedman, on ‘Meet The Press,’ ‘The internet is an open sewer of untreated and unfiltered information.’
   1. If the internet existed in 1933, the NYTimes and Walter Duranty would not have been able to bury the story of he millions of Ukrainian farmers who were starved to death by Joseph Stalin and the Communists.
   2. If there had been an internet in 1957-1959, Herbert Matthews and the NYTimes would not have been able to claim that Fidel Castro was the new George Washington.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In a nutshell, our government has decided that encryption is a weapon of mass destruction. Couple that with the common understanding that our government is weeding through all of our internet communications, such as email... and it becomes painfully obvious why our government has decided to make strong encryption illegal.

Which laws make it illegal to use strong encryption?

Obviously you don't know much about encryption because if you did you would know that it is possible to hack anything given enough computing power and time.

Your Libertarian paranoia is no substitute for actual subject matter knowledge.

I linked to the laws that make it illegal. Why did you think I provided those links?

While it is theoretically possible to hack anything given sufficient computing power, it is also damn easy for a guy like me to code up an encryption program in a matter of minutes that is not hackable with the amount of computing power available on this planet, not during my lifetime anyway.

You haven't provided any links pertaining to your allegation that "our government has decided to make strong encryption illegal".

It is easy enough to send a message in plain text that contains encoded information as long as both the sender and receiver know the code so your claim is bogus IMO.

The onus is on you to prove that it is illegal to use strong encryption.

Yes, I did provide said links. If you need help finding the word "strong" in the links I provided I suggest you find a web browser that lets you search for text on a web page.

As I explained it's illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption. All said uses are restricted / managed by the federal government to legitimate government uses. It's like the law where you can get a license own a machine gun.. only they don't allow any machine guns to be manufactured except for government uses. You can use low encryption, but not strong encryption. And if you use strong encryption you have to give them the key.

Still no links provided nor any actual laws cited means that you are just making this up as you go along.

 

[RKMBrown]

In a nutshell, our government has decided that encryption is a weapon of mass destruction. Couple that with the common understanding that our government is weeding through all of our internet communications, such as email... and it becomes painfully obvious why our government has decided to make strong encryption illegal.

Which laws make it illegal to use strong encryption?

Obviously you don't know much about encryption because if you did you would know that it is possible to hack anything given enough computing power and time.

Your Libertarian paranoia is no substitute for actual subject matter knowledge.

I linked to the laws that make it illegal. Why did you think I provided those links?

While it is theoretically possible to hack anything given sufficient computing power, it is also damn easy for a guy like me to code up an encryption program in a matter of minutes that is not hackable with the amount of computing power available on this planet, not during my lifetime anyway.

You haven't provided any links pertaining to your allegation that "our government has decided to make strong encryption illegal".

It is easy enough to send a message in plain text that contains encoded information as long as both the sender and receiver know the code so your claim is bogus IMO.

The onus is on you to prove that it is illegal to use strong encryption.

Yes, I did provide said links. If you need help finding the word "strong" in the links I provided I suggest you find a web browser that lets you search for text on a web page.

As I explained it's illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption. All said uses are restricted / managed by the federal government to legitimate government uses. It's like the law where you can get a license own a machine gun.. only they don't allow any machine guns to be manufactured except for government uses. You can use low encryption, but not strong encryption. And if you use strong encryption you have to give them the key.

Still no links provided nor any actual laws cited means that you are just making this up as you go along.

Wrong. I provided the links and I provided the key words to look for. Your inability to read them means you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which laws make it illegal to use strong encryption?

Obviously you don't know much about encryption because if you did you would know that it is possible to hack anything given enough computing power and time.

Your Libertarian paranoia is no substitute for actual subject matter knowledge.

I linked to the laws that make it illegal. Why did you think I provided those links?

While it is theoretically possible to hack anything given sufficient computing power, it is also damn easy for a guy like me to code up an encryption program in a matter of minutes that is not hackable with the amount of computing power available on this planet, not during my lifetime anyway.

You haven't provided any links pertaining to your allegation that "our government has decided to make strong encryption illegal".

It is easy enough to send a message in plain text that contains encoded information as long as both the sender and receiver know the code so your claim is bogus IMO.

The onus is on you to prove that it is illegal to use strong encryption.

Yes, I did provide said links. If you need help finding the word "strong" in the links I provided I suggest you find a web browser that lets you search for text on a web page.

As I explained it's illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption. All said uses are restricted / managed by the federal government to legitimate government uses. It's like the law where you can get a license own a machine gun.. only they don't allow any machine guns to be manufactured except for government uses. You can use low encryption, but not strong encryption. And if you use strong encryption you have to give them the key.

Still no links provided nor any actual laws cited means that you are just making this up as you go along.

Wrong. I provided the links. Your inability to read them means you have no clue what you are talking about.

You were asked to provide links and haven't done so. Either provide the links or the post # where you allegedly provided them. Onus is on you to support your claims.

 

[RKMBrown]

Apparently someone deleted my post... interesting.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Apparently someone deleted my post... interesting.

Probably a violation of CDZ rules.

 

[mudwhistle]

How the internet is destroying us: Its pioneers hoped the web would transform society. Now a devastating new book says it has - in a way that diminishes humanity

The internet, its many evangelists tell us, is the answer to all our problems. It gives power to the people.

It’s a platform for equality that allows everyone an equal share in life’s riches. For the first time in history, anyone can produce, say or buy anything.

But today, as the internet heads towards putting more than half the world’s population online, all this promise has evaporated.

The dream has become a nightmare, in which I fear we billions of network users are victims, not beneficiaries.

In our super-connected 21st-century world, rather than promoting economic fairness, the net is a central reason for the growing gulf between rich and poor and the hollowing out of the middle classes.

Rather than generating more jobs, it is - as I will explain - a cause of unemployment. Rather than creating more competition, it has created immensely powerful new monopolists such as Google and Amazon in a winner-takes-all economy.

Its cultural ramifications are equally chilling. Rather than creating transparency and openness, it secretly gathers information and keeps a watch on each and every one of us.

You need only have read the stories this month about how smart TVs can spy on us in our living rooms to realise that Orwell’s vision in Nineteen Eighty-Four, of a Big Brother society, is becoming a reality.

Because such TVs are connected to the internet, they can watch us and listen to us, then beam that information around the world for companies to use for commercial gain.

And thanks to the explosion in social media, rather than creating more democracy, the internet is empowering mob rule.

An increasingly common kind of online attack involves the threat of rape against women.

For, rather than encouraging tolerance, the internet has unleashed such a distasteful war on women that many no longer feel welcome online.

Amanda Hess, for example, a feminist writer and journalist in the U.S., has received threats ‘to rape you and remove your head’ from men who have disagreed with her writing.

The internet has unleashed such a distasteful war on women that many no longer feel welcome online.

Pornography is so ubiquitous on the internet, and controls denying access so inadequate, that many parents rightly feel their children are at serious risk.

Read more: The internet would transform society and a new book says it has in a way that diminishes humanity Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Read the rest at the link.

So, what do you think?

Something must be done!!!!

Let Obama screw it up.

 

[RKMBrown]

Export of cryptography from the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Excerpt: "As of 2009, non-military cryptography exports from the U.S. are controlled by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security."

Bureau of Industry and Security - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Excerpt: "Items on the Commerce Control List (CCL) - which includes many sensitive goods and technologies like encryption software - require a permit from the Department of Commerce before they can be exported. To determine whether an export permit is required, an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) is used.

Excerpt: "The main focus of BIS is the security of the United States, which includes its national security, economic security, cyber security, and homeland security. For example, in the area ofdual-useexport controls, BIS administers and enforces such controls to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them, to halt the spread of weapons to terrorists or countries of concern, and to further U.S. foreign policy objectives. Where there is credible evidence suggesting that the export of a dual-use item threatens U.S. security, the Bureau is empowered to prevent export of the item."

Data at Rest - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Excerpt: "A further method of prevented unwanted access to Data at Rest is the use of Data Federation[9] especially when data is distributed globally (e.g. in off-shore archives). An example of this would be a European organisation which stores its archived data off-site in the USA. Under the terms of the USA PATRIOT Act[10] the American authorities can demand access to all data physically stored within its boundaries, even if it includes personal information on European citizens with no connections to the USA. Data encryption alone cannot be used to prevent this as the authorities have the right to demand decrypted information. A Data Federation policy which retained personal citizen information with no foreign connections within its country of origin (separate from information which is either not personal or is relevant to off-shore authorities) is one option to address this concern."

For a background on what they are doing with our data:
PRISM surveillance program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thanks for belatedly providing your links.

Nothing in what you provided supports your claim that it is "illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption".

Nothing is stopping you from using strong encryption so your claim is bogus.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks for belatedly providing your links.

Nothing in what you provided supports your claim that it is "illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption".

Nothing is stopping you from using strong encryption so your claim is bogus.

Incorrect. 1) I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission." 2) I can't get permission unless I agree to hand over the keys, which means it's not encrypted, it's not encrypted because they have the keys. 3) I can't use a tool that has strong encryption because NONE ARE AVAILABLE that are allowed to use strong encryption except the ones that have AGREED TO HAND OVER THE KEYS.

IOW you can only have the illusion of strong encryption, you are not actually allowed to have or distribute or publish code for tools that use strong encryption where govco does not have the key.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thanks for belatedly providing your links.

Nothing in what you provided supports your claim that it is "illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption".

Nothing is stopping you from using strong encryption so your claim is bogus.

Incorrect. 1) I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission." 2) I can't get permission unless I agree to hand over the keys, which means it's not encrypted, it's not encrypted because they have the keys. 3) I can't use a tool that has strong encryption because NONE ARE AVAILABLE that are allowed to use strong encryption except the ones that have AGREED TO HAND OVER THE KEYS.

IOW you can only have the illusion of strong encryption, you are not actually allowed to have or distribute or publish code for tools that use strong encryption where govco does not have the key.

Your paranoia is no substitute for facts. Nowhere do your links support your allegations.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks for belatedly providing your links.

Nothing in what you provided supports your claim that it is "illegal to use and / or publicly distribute tools that use strong encryption".

Nothing is stopping you from using strong encryption so your claim is bogus.

Incorrect. 1) I can't make a tool that uses strong encryption without "permission." 2) I can't get permission unless I agree to hand over the keys, which means it's not encrypted, it's not encrypted because they have the keys. 3) I can't use a tool that has strong encryption because NONE ARE AVAILABLE that are allowed to use strong encryption except the ones that have AGREED TO HAND OVER THE KEYS.

IOW you can only have the illusion of strong encryption, you are not actually allowed to have or distribute or publish code for tools that use strong encryption where govco does not have the key.

Your paranoia is no substitute for facts. Nowhere do your links support your allegations.

Ok provide us with your proof I'm wrong. Any link to any strong encryption software in which the government does not have access to the keys would suffice.