/qresearch/ - Q Research Board

I'm no constitution-fag, but I think the focus drafting something like this should be on limiting the powers of congress and protecting the rights of people.

In the Internet age, we have to consider more parties have a stake in this:

Individual users of the Internet (real persons)

Business users of the Internet (companies)

Providers of Internet connectivity

Providers of Internet content

Protectors of rights of the above (government)

Anyone I miss?

>>165945

>Individual users of the Internet (real persons)

>Business users of the Internet (companies)

>Providers of Internet connectivity

>Providers of Internet content

>Protectors of rights of the above (government)

I don't know if you want to make a separation for government usage trough internet?

And I have to say that the whole "extend the 1st amendment to the internet" sounds like a very clean way to do this, but we have to watch out that someone doesn't water down the freedoms like the fcc has on tv/radio broadcasts (you can't say 7 words on there etc. etc.)

>>165966

The only thing I would worry about is them thwarting that with intellectual property theft cases like (((Hollywood))) goes after people sharing music/movies etc.

And don't get me started on the JewTube musicmafia.

>>165957

>separation for government usage

I was only including those who I thought had a stake in such an effort. Government has a stake in that if it's written in a way that is vague and unenforceable, then the effort is wasted.

If we want to focus on extending the 1st amendment, we have to consider that censorship can come in many new forms that were not possible at the time the original 1st amendment it was written:

+ Delaying or filtering Internet packets both at their source and their destination

+ Handling various types of data traffic with different priority (simply treating all packets the same is not possible because QoS is required to manage any large network)

+ Internet speech crosses physical (and therefore legal) boundaries

One thing I would think everyone would agree on is that the expectation of privacy should extend from user device to the recipient of the users communication. Unless a user is explicitly identifying themselves on a public platform (social media, etc) then they have a right to be secure just as they would if they were sending sealed letters through the USPS. Intercept of communication should require that a warrant that names the targeted individual, and subject to better protections and oversight than is currently provided in secret by FISA courts.

>>166015

I'm with you 100%, but I also can't help but notice that these more recent laws (or lack thereof) seem to be written with a specific goal in mind.

Like with the electronic voter fraud one anon mentioned: Go look into the laws and regulations of slotmachines and then take a look at voting machines (and weep).

At this moment I would like to see the 1st amendment to be extended to the internet with perhaps specific provisions like [Safe harbour, your house is your kingdom and you need a search warrant to enter lawfully after a judge issues one] into [Safe harbour, your house is your kingdom and you need a search warrant to enter lawfully on someones PC/Phone/Tablet/TV~Electronic device or something after a judge issues one]

Extending the 1st amendment to recent development seems like a good thing but you might just want to keep it broad so you don't paint yourself into a corner. I think lawanons will know more how to word something

Some additional comments on this topic pulled in from General #201:

>>165975

>>165963

>>165980

>>165993

>>166023

>>166039

>>166023

>>166032

>>166048

I have to get ready for work, but I have faith in you and the rest to get this thing done. Like >>166043 said: "We are made for this project. We can move mountains with our combined efforts"

Also what I meant with the "keep it broad" was wording like "spying" and "censorship" cover your bases, you don't need to go explicit in how it's done (now, but who knows in the future what they come up with) just make sure it's prevented unless some criteria are met in rare circumstances (eg. Criminal activity warranted by a Judge with oversight by the people for the people on a later point?)

INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

PURPOSE AND INTENT

The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

DEFINITIONS

RULES AND PROVISIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE

ISSUES OF FUNDING

>>166061

INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

PURPOSE AND INTENT

The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

DEFINITIONS

RULES AND PROVISIONS

1) Freedom of Speech

2) Right to privacy

3) Right to retain personal information

4) Right to not been followed around the internet

5) Right to the safety of your own computer

EFFECTIVE DATE

ISSUES OF FUNDING

>>166065

>INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

>PURPOSE AND INTENT

>The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

>ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

>This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

>DEFINITIONS

>RULES AND PROVISIONS

>1) Freedom of Speech

Here we can add a wording similar to what AT&T (no censorship, no throttling down, no shadowbanning, etc) Free speech protected especially for political ideas.

>2) Right to privacy

Here we can address all of the SMART devices that are spying on us.

>3) Right to retain personal information

Here we explain how providers (need definitions) are not allowed to invade our devices, data, etc. doing spying (i.e. microsoft) which should be considered like hacking and fishing, with a penalty of (jail?)

>4) Right to not been followed around the internet

>5) Right to the safety of your own computer

Noone, no agency, no corp, etc can access our computer without express permission from a judge. The same as your home.

>EFFECTIVE DATE

>ISSUES OF FUNDING

We need to work on the wording but if we all work at it a little we will have it done in a week

>>166030

YES let's add that in

another aspect to address is vpns and proxies. if we route our traffic through another country that must be covered as well since we are still citizens of the us. i believe that could be covered under "citizens at home and abroad". i'm not a big legalfag so they might have the potential to wiggle around that without explicitly stating the above.

>INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

>PURPOSE AND INTENT

>The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

>ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

>This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

>DEFINITIONS

>RULES AND PROVISIONS

>1) Freedom of Speech

Here we can add a wording similar to what AT&T (no censorship, no throttling down, no shadowbanning, etc) Free speech protected especially for political ideas.

>2) Right to privacy

Here we can address all of the SMART devices that are spying on us.

>3) Right to retain personal information

Here we explain how providers (need definitions) are not allowed to invade our devices, data, etc. doing spying (i.e. microsoft) which should be considered like hacking and fishing, with a penalty of (jail?)

>4) Right to not been followed around the internet

>5) Right to the safety of your own computer

Noone, no agency, no corp, etc can access our computer without express permission from a judge. The same as your home.

One thing I would think everyone would agree on is that the expectation of privacy should extend from user device to the recipient of the users communication. Unless a user is explicitly identifying themselves on a public platform (social media, etc) then they have a right to be secure just as they would if they were sending sealed letters through the USPS. Intercept of communication should require that a warrant that names the targeted individual, and subject to better protections and oversight than is currently provided in secret by FISA courts.

>EFFECTIVE DATE

>INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

>PURPOSE AND INTENT

>The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

>ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

>This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

>DEFINITIONS

Individual users of the Internet (real persons)

Business users of the Internet (companies)

Providers of Internet connectivity

Providers of Internet content

Protectors of rights of the above (government)

>RULES AND PROVISIONS

>1) Freedom of Speech

>Here we can add a wording similar to what AT&T (no censorship, no throttling down, no shadowbanning, etc) Free speech protected especially for political ideas.

>2) Right to privacy

>Here we can address all of the SMART devices that are spying on us.

>3) Right to retain personal information

>Here we explain how providers (need definitions) are not allowed to invade our devices, data, etc. doing spying (i.e. microsoft) which should be considered like hacking and fishing, with a penalty of (jail?)

>4) Right to not been followed around the internet

>5) Right to the safety of your own computer

>Noone, no agency, no corp, etc can access our computer without express permission from a judge. The same as your home.

>One thing I would think everyone would agree on is that the expectation of privacy should extend from user device to the recipient of the users communication. Unless a user is explicitly identifying themselves on a public platform (social media, etc) then they have a right to be secure just as they would if they were sending sealed letters through the USPS. Intercept of communication should require that a warrant that names the targeted individual, and subject to better protections and oversight than is currently provided in secret by FISA courts.

>EFFECTIVE DATE

As an ISP-fag, we need to keep in mind that providers need to manage their network in ways that may affect how user traffic is handled. We cannot prevent that from happening as this is a technical limitation.

As an example, if Netflix or Youtube packets of video were treated with exactly the same priority as VOIP traffic, VOIP could not exist.

So we have to realize that providers must be allowed to manage their network by shaping traffic in ways that might LOOK like censorship to those who don't know how the Internet works, but what we can do is require better disclosure to users of how ISP traffic management works with a given provider.

In other words it needs to avoid the net-neutrality argument pitfalls.

>>166102

Good points, in your ISP-fag's opinion, what would be the most logical way to manage this so it is fair and it respects all users?

>>166108

another ISP-fag here. no issue to manage traffic based on the technical (read non-content based) capabilities of the network and the overall traffic demands.

one key in my mind would be transparency as to the traffic management algorythms in use.

just like what would be wanted from gulag etc…in terms of presentation of search results.

>>166108

>>166121

Traffic should be treated anonymously in terms of individual identity of users. Management decisions should be based on type of service and bandwidth requirements necessary for that type, and it should be required to be disclosed how that priority hierarchy algorithm is applied.

>>166121

>search results

This one is a little tougher because I'm sure some users find value in search engines that "tailor" their results to their audience in ways the users desire. This must be balanced with the need to maintain a free market

>>166140

no reason why users couldn't be given the power to tailor their own experience.

just keep that power away from the service or platform providers

>>166146

I agree that user preference is preferred, but I think the technical hurdles to accomplish that are significant, because it would be difficult to implement that kind of control across an entire global backbone (let alone multiple providers) where user traffic might flow.

I could see allowing users the ability to select among established applications / ports they use and prioritizing them across their individual gateway, but end-to-end control (especially beyond the edges of local ISP network which accounts for majority of traffic) is nearly impossible.

>>165905

Morning anons, I was thinking something along the lines of:

UNSOLICITED CONNECTIONS

No outbound/inbound unsolicited connections shall be imposed on any software or operational systems without prior and explicit consent, which shall be granted or denied by the consumer after thorough justification of the manufacturer.

>>166168

We want to protect we the people not impede businesses either.

I like >>166133 lets add it

>>166168

yeah agree on the end-to-end difficulties. It would require a concerted effort by all the parties involved and would certainly not fit well into the access - agg - core - peering network model.

it would require finer grained traffic management based on content at each network level.

i'm going to have to concede this point i think.

>INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

>PURPOSE AND INTENT

>The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

>ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

>This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

>DEFINITIONS

>Individual users of the Internet (real persons)

>Business users of the Internet (companies)

>Providers of Internet connectivity

>Providers of Internet content

>Protectors of rights of the above (government)

>RULES AND PROVISIONS

>1) Freedom of Speech

>Here we can add a wording similar to what AT&T (no censorship, no throttling down, no shadowbanning, etc) Free speech protected especially for political ideas.

>2) Right to privacy

>Here we can address all of the SMART devices that are spying on us.

>3) Right to retain personal information

>Here we explain how providers (need definitions) are not allowed to invade our devices, data, etc. doing spying (i.e. microsoft) which should be considered like hacking and fishing, with a penalty of (jail?)

>4) Right to not been followed around the internet

>5) Right to the safety of your own computer

6) fairness of services

Traffic should be treated anonymously in terms of individual identity of users. Management decisions should be based on type of service and bandwidth requirements necessary for that type, and it should be required to be disclosed how that priority hierarchy algorithm is applied.

>Noone, no agency, no corp, etc can access our computer without express permission from a judge. The same as your home.

>One thing I would think everyone would agree on is that the expectation of privacy should extend from user device to the recipient of the users communication. Unless a user is explicitly identifying themselves on a public platform (social media, etc) then they have a right to be secure just as they would if they were sending sealed letters through the USPS. Intercept of communication should require that a warrant that names the targeted individual, and subject to better protections and oversight than is currently provided in secret by FISA courts.

>>166180

Yeah, you would have to somehow encapsulate individual user preferences in the exchange of packets and then somehow make sure that all parties are in agreement as to how those preferences are applied.

And as soon as individual user preferences are transmitted, you raise the issue of privacy.

Not only that but traffic crosses borders without regard to international laws. That is, unless you're operating the Great Firewall of China.

>>166191

That's a tricky one, because what is often done is: You agree to our terms and services or fuck you!

There is no choice… we need to force that choice

>>166191

what you could do (logically - technically its probably not possible at the moment) would be to define several global profiles and tag any traffic with that. Like the old TDM switches could do on the masking tables.

in those days global parameters could be set at the exchange level……but the configs of those switches were much more complicated in a certain sense (because they were actual switches i think).

In any case, you could have a single on/off switch that could be used to disallow any tracking/tracing.

>>166203

What is needed is a right to not be tracked + a right to defend against it.

The right to defend could be very practical - say the right to organize ddos attacks against offending parties…..

the chans could sell it as a service or provide it as a public service.

>>166220

>right to ddos

I like the idea of having the right to defend, but DDOS itself is the denial of service to others. If you trample on others with DDOS because big powerful ISP is trampling on you, are you still within your rights?

>>166220

I do like the right to not be tracked.

Perhaps a better way to expose (and litigate) those who are trampling your rights is appropriate?

>>166229

yeah, i don't know the answer to that. a proper defense in my mind would:

hit the offending part in the pocket book and

be immediate, no courts etc….

we should see the unwanted tracking and tracing as an immediate and ongoing threat to the person

>>166238

maybe, but when a burgular is in your home you don't wait for the courts (or even the police) to take defensive action).

>INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

>PURPOSE AND INTENT

>The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

>ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

>This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

>DEFINITIONS

>Individual users of the Internet (real persons)

>Business users of the Internet (companies)

>Providers of Internet connectivity

>Providers of Internet content

>Protectors of rights of the above (government)

>RULES AND PROVISIONS

>1) Freedom of Speech

>Here we can add a wording similar to what AT&T (no censorship, no throttling down, no shadowbanning, etc) Free speech protected especially for political ideas.

>2) Right to privacy

>Here we can address all of the SMART devices that are spying on us.

>3) Right to retain personal information

>Here we explain how providers (need definitions) are not allowed to invade our devices, data, etc. doing spying (i.e. microsoft) which should be considered like hacking and fishing, with a penalty of (jail?)

>4) Right to not been followed around the internet

What is needed is a right to not be tracked + a right to defend against it.

The right to defend could be very practical - say the right to organize ddos attacks against offending parties….. <WORDING>

>5) Right to the safety of your own computer

>6) fairness of services

>Traffic should be treated anonymously in terms of individual identity of users. Management decisions should be based on type of service and bandwidth requirements necessary for that type, and it should be required to be disclosed how that priority hierarchy algorithm is applied.

>Noone, no agency, no corp, etc can access our computer without express permission from a judge. The same as your home.

>One thing I would think everyone would agree on is that the expectation of privacy should extend from user device to the recipient of the users communication. Unless a user is explicitly identifying themselves on a public platform (social media, etc) then they have a right to be secure just as they would if they were sending sealed letters through the USPS. Intercept of communication should require that a warrant that names the targeted individual, and subject to better protections and oversight than is currently provided in secret by FISA courts.

As unappealing as it sounds, if social media was paid for, service to users would be their product. Instead, the service itself is free, and the product is the users themselves, and their customers are the advertisers, and in our case a plethora of government agencies who are hurling our own tax dollars.

Wondering if we could prevent governmental org from giving money to those corps (think clowns) that would level the playing field

>>166259

This. Shit tends to go sideways when there are alternative revenue sources in play.

>>166263

There has been attempts for alternatives for kikebooks et al. but they all failed. I suspect that these little slush funds may have helped to keep them in business… that and goldman sachs

>>165905 are these guys good or bad guys? either way, may get some ideas here https:// www.eff.org/

> AT&T>No Such Agency [contract].

Guys, nothing on this Board About NSA yet.

There is a contract awarded to AT&T from the NSA. Depending on the Classified Nature it may actually be posted on the Federal contract / award sites which are public info.

If we can find the RFP, or anything like that it will tell us a lot about the details of the contract purpose and Statement of Work for the contractor.

No tracking cookies, or cookies in general. Too much personal data is collected to make ads more relevant to the user, but at an incredible cost to ones privacy.

>INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

>PURPOSE AND INTENT

>The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

>ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

>This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

>DEFINITIONS

>Individual users of the Internet (real persons)

>Business users of the Internet (companies)

>Providers of Internet connectivity

>Providers of Internet content

>Protectors of rights of the above (government)

>RULES AND PROVISIONS

>1) Freedom of Speech

>Here we can add a wording similar to what AT&T (no censorship, no throttling down, no shadowbanning, etc) Free speech protected especially for political ideas.

>2) Right to privacy

>Here we can address all of the SMART devices that are spying on us.

>3) Right to retain personal information

>Here we explain how providers (need definitions) are not allowed to invade our devices, data, etc. doing spying (i.e. microsoft) which should be considered like hacking and fishing, with a penalty of (jail?)

>4) Right to not been followed around the internet

>What is needed is a right to not be tracked + a right to defend against it.

>The right to defend could be very practical - say the right to organize ddos attacks against offending parties….. <WORDING>

that includes Cookies

>5) Right to the safety of your own computer

>6) fairness of services

>Traffic should be treated anonymously in terms of individual identity of users. Management decisions should be based on type of service and bandwidth requirements necessary for that type, and it should be required to be disclosed how that priority hierarchy algorithm is applied.

>Noone, no agency, no corp, etc can access our computer without express permission from a judge. The same as your home.

>One thing I would think everyone would agree on is that the expectation of privacy should extend from user device to the recipient of the users communication. Unless a user is explicitly identifying themselves on a public platform (social media, etc) then they have a right to be secure just as they would if they were sending sealed letters through the USPS. Intercept of communication should require that a warrant that names the targeted individual, and subject to better protections and oversight than is currently provided in secret by FISA courts.

>>168011

>>168134

Good point what do you do with the bots that spam everywhere, and the companies that run them.

>>168600

>>168744

If donotcall.gov is any indication, any attempt to simply declare that users have the right not to be disturbed by unwanted solicitation (without actually giving it teeth) will be completely unenforceable and ignored.

There should never be a "bill of rights" for the internet.

that's MADNESS.

The internet is a series of PRIVATE PROPERTIES that should NEVER be mandated as public property.

THAT WOULD BE A SEIZURE BY THE GOVERNMENT, AS WAS THE FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY BILL.

>>168811

Hm? All businesses have to follow laws. They are not taken by gov by the laws … Are you okay?!?! Fever???

>>168749

that's a good comparison… however an internet connection is a bit more complicated…we may have to deal with the bots

>>168811

A great deal of public investment went into the development of the internet.

Primarily in the sense of taking a hands-off approach and letting the tech industry develop it with little interference.

That trust has been repaid with tech co policies DESIGNED to undermine public discourse and in the end any sembelance of order in society.

The private parties that own/control these companies got obscenely rich along the way.

And now they want to run the world.

What do you propose as a solution?

How do you propose to fix it.

>>168856

The ones that go out and down or up vote things are the worst.

>>168600

Sorry I didn't answer your question anon, the pic related was directed to other anon. It is a very good question.

>>169008

Nice.

>>168869

the same could be said about all fucking things.

that is NOT an argument.

Just let it be and it will handle itself.

let the weak die and the stupid trip over.

you have no right to call private property public, and if you do, expect resistance.

>>169048

Freedom vs natural selection is a hard thing to get your head around in this case

>>169054

>Just let it be and it will handle itself.

Letting it be is how things got to the point where they are.

>>168811

>The internet is a series of PRIVATE PROPERTIES that should NEVER be mandated as public property.

I agree with this, however my computer, my mobile device, and my private communications are my private property as well, and yet that right privacy is compromised all the time. Should we ignore that?

>>169100

you lying sack of shit, no it isn't.

NN did that, and you KNOW IT.

without NN making it impossible for us to troll and cause trouble, we can't do anything because it is legal to police the internet!

it was FINE until NN was pushed.

>>169228

wait I meant to write "NN makes it impossible for us to attack bullshit sites on internet because was no longer private and therefor can be policed."

>>169183

TY for posting this. I will need to reread several times.

>>169100

also that depends who is compromising it.

I can tell you have mental problems, because you are implying that because YOU are losing privacy that everyone ELSE should.

I don't care what you think, you don't have the right to punish others because you were hurt.

Go attack the person compromising your privacy, not the public.

>>169242

Hostile much?

Not sure how you gathered from my comments that I think ANYONE should lose privacy. My point was the opposite.

>>169254

>I agree with this, HOWEVER my computer, my mobile device, and my private communications are my private property as well, and yet that right privacy is compromised all the time. Should we ignore that?

HOWEVER implies you are contradicting my point, you illiterate dog rapist.

>>169254

I don't even know how the fuck you could construe that as not implying that you are contradicting my point.

you are CLEARLY illiterate.

>>169276

Personal attacks aside, I see the misunderstanding here, and I'll take responsibility for it. Now can you calm the fuck down?

All private property should remain as private property. My point is that government and other entities I have not explicitly given permission to are compromising everyone's right to privacy. Legal protection from this is my primary goal in creating this discussion.

If you look at the current bill of rights and cross them, it works

1 F.O.S Right to assembly right to press

= right to F.O.S right to form competing forums (GAB) Right to independent media

2. Bear Arms, Militia

= right to dissent, arms would have to take a different meaning so the wording doesn't work as well ammendmemnt 1 and 2 would be combined?

Same with 3 and 4 because in the virtual world being surveiled is the same as having someone hangout in your virtual house.

Amendment 5 would grant exceptions for suspension of rights listed in 3 and 4 for internet users and list out the due process that must be met for suspension of user protections listed in 3 and 4

Amendment 6: whatever the equivalent of speedy trial etc. Trouble when considering suspension of protections in 3 and 4? > how can surveillance be effective if user know their 'witness' and that they are being surveilled? Would suggest that suspension of protections in 3 and 4 be required to be repeatedly approved by judge. Another problem > need more judges and advocates who are internet literate.

Amendment 7 and 8 can be reworded or combined to meet their virtual equivalent.

Amendment 9 is hugely abused but essentially no 'word-salads' or lies/interpretations used to make up new laws that violate The Internet bill of rights.

Amendment 10: The user and forums and assemblies, virtual institutions shall enjoy autonomy and all rights to self-govern that are not listed as the governments province.

It can be done_X

Make first amendment rights apply to

'deserialization of data structures across transmission mediums' so that it includes radio, ethernet, fiber, cell networks, satellites, the traces in your motherboard and cellphone.

Then make up some laws about the right to transmit and receive analog and digital signals, make collection of those signals subject to search and seizure laws.

Define surveillance in terms of analog/digital signal collection, apply reasonable limits on data collected and have a transparent method for demasking which includes the alerting the individual demasked so they can seek legal representation.

Push for open and auditable hardware. Push for cheaper infrastructure for servers etc and let the free market do the rest. Forget govt intervention in the form of an 'Internet Bill of Rights', forbid refusal to lease last mile infrastructure and make ISP's compete for it the way it should have been done from the get go. Drive down the cost required to have a scalable service so that individuals can compete with services like facebook and youtube.

AT&T>No Such Agency [contract].

AT&T>GOOG/FB/etc. 'prevent unfair censorship' PUSH.

Internet Bill of Rights.

Q

We are in an information war and the stakes are high – American freedom or military/corporate control

DARPA’s Dark History

In 2001, under the Total Information Awareness Program, President Bush had secretly authorized the NSA’s domestic surveillance of Americans without court-approved warrants. This was also the year that the Bush administration drew up its Information Operations Roadmap. Describing the internet as a “vulnerable weapons system,” Donald Rumsfeld’s Information Operations roadmap advocated that Pentagon strategy “should be based on the premise that the Department of Defense will ‘fight the net’ as it would an enemy weapons system.” The US should seek “maximum control” of the “full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems,” advocated the document.

Another component of NSA data collection is a program called Marina that is a database and analysis toolset for intercepted internet metadata.

US persons are not exempt because metadata is not considered data by US law (section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act).

This fact is little known, that the US military is now allowed to act within the borders of America and target Americans as hostile war-actors (as the military calls us).

The Internet is a weapon and it is our job to find out what the battle is all about and make sure that we retain our US Civil Rights and American freedom and liberty.

We must call out DARPA and In-Q-Tel for their patent thefts, continuous lies, and cyberwarfare manipulations and demand that taxpayer dollars that funded these evil weaponized tools be acknowledge and that those cyber-tools be turned over to Americans without the spy systems and information control systems attached

We need a free and private internet and social networks that are not manipulated as a tool that intends to control our very thinking.

Remember that the intent is to “master the human domain” via the mechanical domain controlled by warlords who wish to take our freedoms away.

We the People demand that these companies (and any others like them) that were financially seeded and funded by US taxpayers, BE GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE AS A PUBLIC UTILITY and that the fictitious owners of these companies be prosecuted for patent infringement.

https:// aim4truth.org/2017/12/19/big-brother-is-watching-you-for-real/

>>169471

>>169370

^^^ Both worthy considerations

And this:

>>169694

>We need a free and private internet and social networks that are not manipulated as a tool that intends to control our very thinking.

It sounds like this is what Q wants us to focus on.

>>169087

Could it be a requirement that a bot or an A.I. be tagged. That way the end user would know if they are dealing with a real person.

>>169800

There's a difference between requirement and enforcement.

>>169824

Wouldn't want enforcement, and it's not necessary. I think the public should be made aware of what they are dealing with.

>>169254

Hostile much?

Just feed him meat. He sounds like my drummer.

>>172297

We need him.

>>169370

>If you look at the current bill of rights and cross them, it works

I think this is the way to go yes

Would also like to remind people that the majority of current tech giants like g00lag, fb, tw@tter et. al. try to circumvent US free speech laws by adhering to the less strict EU privacy policies, and that presenting a large TOS (legalese wall of text you have to click here to agree or being unable to continue does not constitute "free choice" whatsoever. They should be held accountable when they provide a service to the people and adhere to current local laws and regulations.

I would like to believe that if you can get this to work in the USA only, eventually the world will demand the same.

>>173536

Not local laws it would have to be federal for the whole country.

>>173536

If a law is made to police the government it should be federal.

>>169054

Where did I call private property public?

I said that Public capital was invested into many of the tech companies.

I assume that corporations have some level of responsibility to society.

Just like persons do (and a corporation is a legal person).

We are certainly entitled to a discussion around whether or not particular companies have violated the public trust.

We have fucking laws that cover this.

Like anti-trust laws.

>>175816

having to follow laws doesn't make a corp public. Anybody who's had a business before knows this. All we are saying here is to respect the rights of individuals so that the internet is more free.. I remember 1995-2010 it was freer internet then, it is not like that anymore.

>>195967

you make no sense. it is the private individuals running the corporations (like the ISPs, Media and content providers, and social media companies that have caused and are continuing to cause the erosion of freedom.

You are either stupid AF or a shill.

>>173536

I would think the market, in this case, would take care of the problem. When their CIA funding gets pulled, they are going to meet the food chain

>>225035

That IS for sure a big problem (Cl0wns)..

INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

PURPOSE AND INTENT

The purpose and intent of this title are to ensure that all American Citizens have a their constitutional rights protected in all virtual environments, including all networks and regardless of the electronic device used.

ELIGIBILITY AND EXCEPTIONS

This bill apply to all American Citizen living within the 50 States, territories and abroad.

DEFINITIONS

Individual users of the Internet (real persons)

Business users of the Internet (companies)

Providers of Internet connectivity

Providers of Internet content

Protectors of rights of the above (government)

RULES AND PROVISIONS

1) Freedom of Speech

Here we can add a wording similar to what AT&T (no censorship, no throttling down, no shadowbanning, etc) Free speech protected especially for political ideas.

2) Right to privacy

Here we can address all of the SMART devices that are spying on us.

3) Right to retain personal information

Here we explain how providers (need definitions) are not allowed to invade our devices, data, etc. doing spying (i.e. microsoft) which should be considered like hacking and fishing, with a penalty of (jail?)

4) Right to not been followed around the internet

What is needed is a right to not be tracked + a right to defend against it.

The right to defend could be very practical - say the right to organize ddos attacks against offending parties….. <WORDING>

that includes Cookies

5) Right to the safety of your own computer

6) fairness of services

Traffic should be treated anonymously in terms of individual identity of users. Management decisions should be based on type of service and bandwidth requirements necessary for that type, and it should be required to be disclosed how that priority hierarchy algorithm is applied.

Noone, no agency, no corp, etc can access our computer without express permission from a judge. The same as your home.

One thing I would think everyone would agree on is that the expectation of privacy should extend from user device to the recipient of the users communication. Unless a user is explicitly identifying themselves on a public platform (social media, etc) then they have a right to be secure just as they would if they were sending sealed letters through the USPS. Intercept of communication should require that a warrant that names the targeted individual, and subject to better protections and oversight than is currently provided in secret by FISA courts.

Bill needs to distinguish between a public virtual space and a private virtual space and also that some services might have both public and private spaces.

Public virtual spaces should have maximum freedom, where private virtual spaces should be able to make up their own rules.

Creators of private virtual spaces protected from government or legal action to force them to advocate or prohibit certain ideas.

Essentially any IBOR needs to protect entities that host virtual spaces from claims in court otherwise the legal system will be abused to try and control.

>>259077

Good point. We should add them into the definitions

259943

>>259943

Starter Petition for The Internet Bill of Rights and others @ 76Lives.com.

https:// www.about.att.com/story/consumers_need_an_internet_bill_of_rights.html

Firefox tryed to block this website so that means George Soros does not like it.

Consumers Need

an Internet Bill of Rights

Government rules for the internet have been debated for nearly as long as the

internet has existed, even before a professor coined the term “net neutrality”

15 years ago.

The internet has changed our lives and grown beyond what anyone could

have imagined. And it’s done so, for the most part, with very few—but ofen

changing—rules. Regulators under four di?erent presidents have taken four

di?erent approaches. Courts have overturned regulatory decisions. Regulators

have reversed their predecessors. And because the internet is so critical to

everyone, it’s understandably confusing and a bit concerning when you hear

the rules have recently changed, yet again.

It is time for Congress to end the debate once and for all, by writing new laws

that govern the internet and protect consumers.

Until they do, I want to make clear what you can expect from AT&T.

AT&T is committed to an open internet. We don’t block websites.

We don’t censor online content. And we don’t throttle, discriminate,

or degrade network performance based on content. Period.

We have publicly committed to these principles for over 10 years. And we

will continue to abide by them in providing our customers the open internet

experience they have come to expect.

But the commitment of one company is not enough. Congressional

action is needed to establish an “Internet Bill of Rights” that applies to all

internet companies and guarantees neutrality, transparency, openness,

non-discrimination and privacy protection for all internet users.

Legislation would not only ensure consumers’ rights are protected, but it would

provide consistent rules of the road for all internet companies across all websites,

content, devices and applications. In the very near future, technological advances

like self-driving cars, remote surgery and augmented reality will demand even

greater performance from the internet. Without predictable rules for how

the internet works, it will be difcult to meet the demands of these new

technology advances.

That’s why we intend to work with Congress, other internet companies

and consumer groups in the coming months to push for an

“Internet Bill of Rights” that permanently protects the open internet

for all users and encourages continued investment for the next generation

of internet innovation.

Randall Stephenson

AT&T Chairman and CEO

The Internet now is in the same situation as the Printing Press of the 1400 and 1500s. So history is a great instructor of what actions maximize freedom now.

Here are the comparisons:

1) It was not the printing press technology that the authorities (Kings and Clergy) opposed. It was controlling what was printed. (WrongThink must be stamped out!)

A) Now it is the fight against the “Narrative” that is the battle, not bandwidths and routing technicalities. (WrongThink must still be stamped out!)

2) The most offensive act with a printing press in England (circa 1530s) was to print Bibles in the English Language.

B) The most offensive act committeed using the internet is distributing truths not supporting authoritarian control of the population.

3) The problem with widely distributed English Language Bibles was the Lay population could find out exactly what Jesus said was important vs. what the Church said was important.

The big difference was money…for the King and Church.

C) The problem with the internet is how incredible powerful it is at delivering Red Pills. The issue comes down to money…for you know who.

4) William Tyndall

D) Andrew Breitbart

5) The Kings and Clergy could kill trickles of the lay population reading the Bible, but they could not stop a flood. Once the flood came, the King’s James Bible became official.

E) The Opponents of Freedom can censor high profile commentators, but they cannot stop the majority of Americans.

The final lesson is the same. Do not focus on technicalities. The battle is entirely over Internet “Content”, not the “Internet”.

Be the Flood.

https:// petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/american-internet-bill-rights