/qresearch/ - Q Research Board

This is the current one expiring march 7th

#1. We The People have the Right to complete free speech when on the Internet.

#2. We have the right and shall be guaranteed absolute privacy when online. There shall be no unauthorized monitoring, recording, or storing of our data at any time.

#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

#5. We have the Right to select and appoint a new special council to oversee these Rights, and a report on the State of The American Internet shall be submitted to POTUS by January 15th of each calendar year.

This is the one expiring tomorrow, which was splitting our votes.

In an age where many citizens communicate with each other and receive the news from media that did not exist upon our founding; it is necessary to protect the rights of ALL Americans using the internet (and its platforms) including but not limited to [online]:

Freedom of speech, expression, graphics and video

Freedom of association

Freedom of the press

Freedom from unfounded censorship or expulsion from platforms

Freedom of religious expression

F.reedom to remain anonymous

The founders made"Freedom of Speech" the 1st amendment for a reason. It's time we protect our rights online with an Internet Bill of Rights. 62s

Short summary of the normal bill of rights +constitution (with links) for reference

https:// www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

https:// www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

We have 800 characters for the petition;

Starting from #1, Free Speech

Our current problem is that the Cabal has manipulated companies into censoring us. This goes around current free speech laws.

How do we have both free speech and moderated forums at the same time?

"

For many of the online sites where you may think free speech is protected, you’re required to contractually agree to limit your free speech rights. You actually don’t have the same right to free speech that you would in a truly public forum.

This is true of Facebook, Twitter, and pretty much all the major social media sites I’m aware of. Review their Terms of Service and see for yourself.

In most cases the restrictions are reasonable and maybe even necessary for maintaining a quality service. It depends on who’s running the service.

While it may seem that you’re entitled to free speech just the same as you would in a public forum, in actuality you waived that right when you joined the service. That was a condition of your registration.

Some online services are quite liberal when it comes to restricting your free speech rights, while others are more restrictive."

https:// www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2009/09/free-speech-in-online-communities-the-delusion-of-entitlement/

How goes the Petition?

>>553880

https:// 8ch.net/qresearch/res/253926.html

Yep.

Ok first problem is terms of service.

I present for consideration, the first rule:

Users of a public forum cannot have their rights presented here restricted by terms of use, service clauses or other contracts.

second rule:

Providers of a service may not discriminate against speech or expression except otherwise to provide for quality of service.

Users of a public forum cannot be censored without notice, and an appeal process must be provided. (prevents shadow banning altogether)

>>554033

Any other ideas?

Need something for privacy

anybody?

Providers of a public internet forum must allow users to opt out of personally identifiable information data collection.

Providers of a public internet forum may not apply foreign laws to American citizens.

Current iteration

1. These rights shall not be infringed. Users of a public internet forum cannot have their rights presented here restricted by terms of use, EULAs, service clauses or other contracts.

2. Providers of a public internet forum or service may not discriminate against a user's speech or expression except otherwise to maintain quality of service. This does not cover commercial speech or political speech from a third party.

3. Providers of a public internet forum or service may not apply foreign laws to American citizens.

4. Users of a public internet forum or service cannot be censored without a public notice, and an appeal process must be provided.

5. Providers of a public internet forum or service must allow users to opt out of personally identifiable information data collection.

Current revision.

We the People demand the restoration of our liberties!

1. These Internet rights shall not be infringed and are inalienable.

2. Users of a Public Internet Forum or Service shall not be censored nor denied service without a Public notice, and an appeal process must be provided.

3. Providers of a Public Internet Forum or Service shall not discriminate against a user's speech or expression

except to restrict commercial speech, illegal material, indecency or verbal abuse as defined by existing laws and regulations.

4. Providers of a Public Internet Forum or Service shall not apply foreign laws to American Citizens.

5. Providers of a Public Internet Forum or Service must allow users to opt out of personally identifiable information data collection.

Along the lines of the US constitution:

An educated citizenry, being fundamental to the betterment and advancing of civilisation, dictates no infringement which limits or restricts information access and provision shall be put in place by any government or corporate body.

>>554703

hi anons. war room here.

came to check out potential petitions

>>554703

mind if I chime in and fuck around with your concept a bit? Some anon legal anon gave me some text yesterday. looking if I still have it.

unalienable rights

The constitution has already written down that the freedom of speech, press and other stuff is given by GOD. There is no need for us to "ask the government for this".

So (imo) any petition asking for rights is pointless.

Here is a quoted text:

>“Unalienable rights” are ours to keep, by virtue of our Creator. So said Thomas Jefferson through the Declaration of Independence, and he was seconded by James Madison through the Bill of Rights. 

A “central component” of our “unalienable rights” is the right to keep and bear arms.

Moreover, because we are “endowed” with them, the rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity. 

In a word, the government did not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government still strains at ways to suppress them. 

To protect fundamental, individual rights, James Madison helped include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The intent was to remove them from government’s reach.

The “unalienable rights” explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth. 

Among the “unalienable rights” implicitly protected in the Bill of Rights are freedom of conscience–how can one have freedom of speech or religion without freedom of conscience?–and the right to self-defense. As Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority decision for McDonald v. Chicago (2010): “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in [District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)], we held that individual self-defense is a central component of the Second Amendment right.”

“Unalienable rights” are ours to keep, by virtue of our Creator. So said Thomas Jefferson through the Declaration of Independence, and he was seconded by James Madison through the Bill of Rights. 

A “central component” of our “unalienable rights” is the right to keep and bear arms.

=============================

'''IMO, We should draw a SHORT petition, with a very short title in which we point out that internetcompanies/platforms/whatever/Etc

are infringing on our God Given Rights and should be punished for this by the Government (which works for US, not the other way around).

pls think with me, draw up a simple draft.

war roo eurfag

>>553544

Here is what I have worked on, with concert of others.

Neither Congress, nor government institutions, nor government agencies, nor individual, nor any company hosting or managing a bulletin board service, means of interacting with other followers or friends known hereafter as “collective”, shall not infringe on the rights guaranteed to United States citizen’s, whether naturalized in the United States or born in the United States known hereafter as “citizens” from the rights defined below.

Amendment I: No citizen shall have their freedom of speech or freedom of religion rights infringed upon from the collective. All United States citizens have the freedom to say what they wish and worship whom they believe in.

Amendment II: This Internet Bill of Rights shall instate a body to manage, monitor and maintain all new technologies and services by a group of individuals from each state in the Union. The body shall be referred to as the “Internet Governors Committee”. This body will work closely with the collective and will be voted in by a majority citizens vote, the collective will not be prohibited from participating in any part of this process. Each individual voted to this body, will have a term limit of 7 years.

Amendment III: Any new technology that the collective invents shall be published and openly available to any citizen, unless it is detrimental to United States National Security. United States National Security is defined as a product or service that will compromise the protection of its’ citizens. The collective will only be able to declare this type of description after such evidence is deemed appropriate by the Internet Governor’s Committee (IGC).

Amendment IV: The collective shall not have the authority to throttle or decrease any citizens Internet connection. During times of National Emergencies, as defined by the President of the United States, the collective will use and maintain Web 2.0, funded by the collective and not tax payers funds, in so doing will make available the Internet for citizens to contact and assist other citizens in times of need.

Amendment V: The collective shall not introduce any compromising service or product which is determined by the IGC to be used in part or whole against the citizens. Compromising service or products include, but not limited to: deterioration of citizens health, mental or subconscious automation, [fill in the blank]

>>560204

Kick it over into the War room and run with it.

caught from a bread last night.

▶Anonymous 03/05/18 (Mon) 03:06:04 7287b5 No.555461

Reply to post in last bread

>>554606

1) These rights shall not be infringed upon; they are unalienable and granted to us by God

2) Users, observers, participants et al of any internet forum, group, discussion, board; however categorically designated or related, shall not be censored, nor denied service without public notice as well as due process and shall provide of an appeals process for such notices or actions taken against them (the user)

3) Providers, whether they be private or public, shall not discriminate against any such user, observer, or participant’s speech in any form (audio, text, visual, etc.) except in regards to restrict commercial speech, gross indecency, and otherwise illegal material(s) as defined by existing laws & regulations so long as they provide appropriate and sufficient evidence(s) regarding any act which requires, by their (the providers’) assertion, discriminatory action

4) Providers, whether they be public or private, shall not apply foreign laws, regulations, treaties, or any other foreign declarations to American citizens

5) Providers, whether they be public or private, of an internet forum, board, or otherwise applicable service, must provide clearly and discernibly to the average citizen or user the option to opt-out of allowing personally identifiable information and/or data collection

6) These rights shall be considered in association with the First and Fourth Amendments, and thus an extension of their privileges into the internet

Its important to know that we only have 800 characters to work with. give the seed information that the president can work with.

What is really behind this AT&T stuff? AT&T's biggest customer is the NSA apparently. It's involved with the CFR! I have loved the Q phenomenon but in his recent post, he basically said you weren't patriotic if you to didn't accept this narrative without questioning it. Not good enough Anons. As Q said, expand your thinking.

>>560554

>>560612

>>563832

thanks all. war room open 4 final thoughts. edits n (legal) arguments . pls remember: deadline midnight tonight. pls come to war room to discuss. be mindful of clowns and shills. we have a vermin problem in war room.

>>452644

https:// 8ch.net/qresearch/res/567016.html

If you really want Internet Freedom, let's make a petition to ask that QKD and other next generation crytosystems to include key distribution and an open audit-able specification(to include die and IC teardowns).

https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution

This is the enforcement part of IBOR. Actually secure crypto would forever be a game changer, you could never censor an idea and if what ATT says is true about not manipulating traffic based on content. to ATT with actual secure cryptosystems it would be pointless to collect data this way since the data coming across the network would (potentially) be unencryptable without the key.

The NSA just has some kind of fiber sandwich which reads the fiber directly by scraping a little bit of outer portion of the fiber and allowing some of the light in the cable to leak into their parallel fiber. (Sauce: Wikipedia article on fiber optics and the suspicious lack of information on the process of fusing fiber optic cables that allow light to pass through the sides.) Secure crypto would mean they would have to pursue other means of collecting intelligence.

I don't see how IBOR can work without physical guarantees, and that's why I made a thread. I won't just say I want IBOR because it sounds good, I want real guarantees, you all should too. Including this technology in our petitions is the only way you'll get traction because words cannot enforce actual internet freedom, only encryption can.

>>571077

ATT can't do fuckall if your shit is encrypted. If they don't throttle ANY data, to include ENCRYPTED data then the minute we have actual secure crypto the rest of the world is sunk. Like guns, there would be no putting the cat back in the bag.

The only way to beat a Room 641A situation is proper crypto and key distribution. It's a technical issue, hardly shilling.

>We dont' buy your Anti-NSA agenda

They've done so well in the past!

What a great and trustworthy department!

anons, pls leave the shills here arguing themselves and pls sneak of to the war room >>452644 for final decission bout #ibor.

b nice.. had a FUCKED UP day.

we hv a deadline. so come on.

Seriously, if AT&T wants to stand by their whole "We won't throttle any data", then what we NEED to be demanding is the crypto research that WE paid for be released.

Because AT&T saying "We're the good guys" just isn't convincing enough.

And if not blindly following this shit makes me unpatriotic, then fuck you and kiss my ass.

filtered times 2

>>571675

>Not an argument.

And you're somehow in charge of writing up IBOR? Sad.

AT&T has placed a few full-page ads explaining that it is pro-net neutrality, it has always been pro-net neutrality and that Congress once and for all should enshrine net neutrality principles in law.

No, it’s not opposite day. This is a clever play by AT&T aimed not at protecting users, but kneecapping edge providers like Facebook and Google. It’s like the fox calling for a henhouse bill of rights.

First, the idea that AT&T is in favor of net neutrality — the net neutrality we all had and enjoyed — is laughable.

The company fought tooth and nail against the 2015 rules while they were being prepared, fought them while they were in force and fought for their rollback and replacement with the new, weaker ones. It fought against municipal broadband, pushed the limits of what constitutes a violation of net neutrality and, of course, the blockage of FaceTime on its network is one of the textbook cases of why we need it in the first place.

Gigi Sohn, once former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s counselor, and now among other things a Mozilla Tech Policy Fellow, isn’t having it. “They’ve done everything in their power to undermine consumer protections, competition, municipal broadband… it’s hypocrisy to the tenth degree,” she told me.

But let’s just hear what AT&T has to say.

“Courts have overturned regulatory decisions. Regulators have reversed their predecessors… it’s understandably confusing and a bit concerning when you hear the rules have recently changed, yet again,” writes chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson, who fails to mention that his company has been deeply involved in those changes, spending lavishly on lawyers, lobbyists and the elections of officials friendly to the company.

“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,” he continues. “Period.”

In fact, an FCC report issued early last year (just before inauguration day) concluded that “AT&T offers Sponsored Data to third-party content providers at terms and conditions that are effectively less favorable than those it offers to its affiliate, DirecTV.” And of course there’s the FaceTime thing. And the fact that paid prioritization isn’t mentioned by AT&T as a bad thing (it’s not “based on content” if it’s based on whose content it is).

“But the commitment of one company is not enough,” Stephenson writes, as if the company’s commitment was not only real, but the only one extant. “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.”

The privacy protections AT&T lobbied to undermine? Never mind. Leaving aside that AT&T is the last company on earth we should listen to when it comes to such a theoretical Congressional action, this paragraph is where the real sleight of hand happens. Three little words:

“All internet companies.”

Tarring the fortunate ones

These broadband providers aren’t dumb. They’ve been playing the game for a long time now, and it’s pretty clear that regulators are coming for them sooner or later — the last two years were just a preview, and the recent victory in the FCC possibly a short-lived one.

They’ve been resigned to that fate for a long time. But what really gets their goat is the runaway success of edge providers — that is to say, internet companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and so on. The idea that these major companies, which handle all this personal data and are so critical to users of the web, have escaped serious regulation while ISPs are closely watched, this rankles the latter group to their core.

The threat of edge providers is a great way to distract from the threat of broadband providers — which is why it gets brought up so much. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai himself wrote in an op-ed last year:

Edge providers are a much bigger actual threat to an open Internet than broadband providers, especially when it comes to discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Pai adopted this argument, so long in use by the broadband companies (Sohn called AT&T “Ajit Pai’s chief strategists”). But as I and others have pointed out again and again, the whole thing is a colossal red herring.

What AT&T is trying to do here is put all internet companies in the same bag, bringing down regulations on a hated rival (edge providers) just after escaping the regulations placed on its own industry. And the idea of shared net neutrality rules is the bait.

“This is absolutely nothing new,” Sohn told me. “For the last seven or eight years, [ISPs] have been saying, ‘Net neutrality? But what about these guys?’ But as powerful as Google and Amazon and Facebook are, they don’t provide access to the internet. They provide their services on the internet.”

The fundamental difference between these industries is plain for anyone to see. Do you regulate farms and grocery stores the same? Of course not. What about cars and gas stations? Don’t be ridiculous. Same for phone companies and the companies that use phones, and internet providers and companies that use the internet to provide things. These are overlapping, but very distinct, magisteria.

A Congressional solution may be required, but don’t forget that the people in Congress AT&T is working with are likely the same ones who gave the company a green light to collect personal information last year. The prospect of Congress rolling back the FCC’s recent decision doesn’t sound quite so sweet, I’m guessing, since Stephenson doesn’t mention it at all.

The sentiment of AT&T’s suggestion is hollow, and the logic is absent. AT&T hasn’t earned your trust, let alone the benefit of the doubt. Don’t take this palaver seriously.

https:// techcrunch.com/2018/01/24/atts-internet-bill-of-rights-idea-is-just-a-power-play-against-google-and-facebook/

Fake bread

We have to make sure that they do not sneak in wording or words it in a fashion that they can exploit us. AT&T recently placed a few full-page ads explaining that it is in fact proudly pro-net neutrality. And who supported net neutrality George Soros. Just because a bill sounds pretty doesn't mean the criminals are going to try and put in words and clauses that goes against what we want. I think because Google, Facebook, twitter, and YouTube received money from the CIA those companies should be deemed utilities. Because if they aren't they can do as they please. Because they are companies and they do not have anything to do with Internet service providers. AT&T is a Internet service provider which is totally different to a company like YouTube. So sense the American taxpayer subsidized or provided seed money for these big companies they should be considered utilities and that way they cannot censor people because of their views or political affiliations. if we aren't very careful with this Internet Bill of Rights we are going to end up getting screwed. Remember the friendly sounding Patriot act bill that bill was fashioned from communist doctrine. Never trust lawyers and government to do the right thing.

We have to verify exactly what is in the bill before it is passed.