Internet Censorship on the Move Again

Those hounding for American ISPs to censor the Internet have a new scheme up their selves. This time, surprisingly, it has nothing to do with “protecting the children.” The new bill titled the Investor Protection Act has been introduced by Representative Paul Kanjorski, a dumbass from Pennsylvania.

The bill would require ISPs to block sites hosting financial scams. Let me rephrase that, the bill would require ISPs to block all electronic material related to financial scams. This of course sounds like a good thing right? Wrong.

This is what I call the negotiating with terrorists maneuver. As a country we have an official stance to never negotiate with terrorists. It’s a good policy because if you negotiate with terrorists you open the floodgates to other terrorists attacking you in the hopes of negotiating something out of you. If you legally require ISPs to filter any single thing it opens the floodgates to legally force them to filter other materials using the last bill as precedence. Gun control laws often get passed now because way back when somebody decided bills restricting constitutional rights were OK in one situation.

As it sits right now ISPs are not forced to filter any traffic. If you get scammed that’s your fault. But alas don’t be stupid and you won’t get scammed, just like real life. On the other hand if you do something illegal your ISP will cooperate with law enforcement to take you down. The system right now works and keeps the Internet an open medium here in the United States. We need to shoot this bill down less we start dealing with other filtering bills.

Net Neutrality

Unless you’ve been living under a slab of pure granite for the last couple of years you’ve heard of the war looming over the Internet. The war has been given the name Net Neutrality and at risk is the very freedom of the Internet.

The war had another shot recently introduced by none other than John McCain, the self professed luddite, who recently introduced the deceptively named Internet Freedom Act.

Net neutrality boils down to this, several of the world’s largest ISPs want to have discretion over what Internet traffic can flow over their wires. Comcast wants to ban peer or peer, AT&T wants voice over IP destroyed, and all the big players would love to make you buy a tiered Internet. What do I mean by tiered Internet? Well it’s a lot like cable television, if you want the basic web like e-mail and Yahoo you pay a certain fee. If you want access to “premium” websites like YouTube you have to pay an additional free. You get the picture.

On the other hand you are dealing with a company’s liberty to conduct business without interference from the government. Free market involves a lack of government interference in corporate matters. The only way to achieve net neutrality is to have the government tell the ISPs they can’t selectively filter Internet traffic. Of course companies are the people who built the infrastructure and pay for the equipment maintenance to keep the Internet going so they should have a right to do what they want with it correct?

Well that’s what it boils down to. The problem is nothing is quite as simple as it appears. I am the last person who is going to profess a need for government to do something and certainly you would expect me to say the FCC should not be allowed to regulate the Internet correct? Here is the problem, the government has been meddling with the Internet since before it was created.

The Internet as we know it today evolved from a Cold War research project called ARPANET. The idea behind ARPANET was to create a communication system that was decentralized and therefore would stand a better chance of surviving a first strike incident by the Soviets. Since no central unit was required by ARPANET to function there was no single target the Soviets could strike to disable our communication capabilities. Eventually research based off of ARPANET was released into the private sector. This research is what the Internet you see before you evolved from.

The Internet itself was made in a generalized manner so it could be broadcast through almost any media. It didn’t depend on a specific cabling system, nor a wireless frequency. This lead to the eventual use of the already established phone lines to send data across. That key item is the reason phone companies like AT&T and Verizon were able to become Internet providers, they had the infrastructure.

Here is where we run into move government control though. Back when the phone system was created the government was quick to establish a sanctioned monopoly to control it. This sanctioned monopoly was granted to Bell Systems which is still commonly referred to as Ma Bell. So from the get go the phone system was controlled by one central agency, obviously not a development from the free market. Eventually a case, the United States vs. AT&T, started in 1974 and concluded in 1982 broke the government sanctioned telecommunication monopoly. In return for divesting their local exchanges Ma Bell was allowed to enter the personal computer field.

This divesture was where our modern telecommunication companies hail from. Originally the breakup created eight “Bell Babies.” Through mergers we eventually ended up with three major players being AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest. All of this is important to note because the telecommunication field has been so heavily influenced by government control there is no way to know how it would have evolved without government control.

So now we find ourselves in a rather precarious situation. Either we call on the government to regulate the Internet, an entity of its own creation, or allow companies, also entities of its own creation, to do as they please. But we can look further yet into this. We need to look no further than the United States Postal Service.

What could the Postal Service possibly have to do with the Internet? Well it’s an example of how much our founding fathers cherished the idea of open communication. The Postal Service is established in Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution. The clause states, “To establish post offices and post roads.” That in itself isn’t greatly useful for the topic at hand but it’s reason for establishment is. As already stated it was created to ensure interstate communication. Secondly it was a form of revenue for the United States government in its early days. Still the idea of open communication existed in the very beginning of this country.

And that’s what the Internet provides, communication. But not just interstate communication but inter-country communication as well. Much like the telephone service before it and the postal service before that the Internet facilitates open communication between people.

It is through this research and understanding that I personally support the concept of net neutrality. The Postal Service doesn’t discriminate what kind of mail you send, and Ma Bell didn’t establish restrictions on who you called. Why should the Internet ISPs be allowed to control the means of which you use the Internet?

Citizens of Europe You’re Screwed

Bad news for those of you living in Europe. Your last been hope for freedom, the Czech Republic, has signed the Lisbon Treaty. It’ll be law soon as all countries have ratified it. That’s right the piece of legislation so bad it couldn’t be passed by a vote by the citizens so it was made a treaty, is now going to be law.

What does this mean for those of you living in Europe? Well first anybody deemed mentally unstable or addicted to a substance no longer has any rights. But most worrisome is there will be the European Army which will be centered in, take a guess, Germany. Because Germany has such a great track record when they have a huge army at their disposal.

California Screwing Its Citizens Again

Do you live in that People’s Republic of California? Well you have my sympathies in that case since you’re getting beating up by your government again. Stating yesterday California will be withholding an additional 10% of citizens’ paychecks. Oh but get this, it’s not a tax. Yes it’s mandatory and yes the state is taking it from your paycheck before you even get it, but it’s not income tax. You’ll get it back someday, scout’s honor.

As a citizen of the United States of America let me extend a welcome invitation to all subjects of California to uproot yourselves and come to the U.S. It’s actually rather nice here.

For Those of You in Support of S. 1317

I’ve made some quips about the unconstitutional S. 1317, known as the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, before. If passed the bill would say anybody on the FBI’s secret terrorist watch list would become a prohibited person. This means you could be denied your right to bear arms because your name appears on a list nobody can read. To add insult to injury nobody is allowed to know the criteria for placing names on that said list.

Well for those of you who still support the idea take a look at this story. According to numbers released by the FBI 1,600 names are submitted to be added to the secret list EVERY DAY. The list already has 400,000 names of “suspected terrorists” and it ever growing. That’s a potential of 1,600 people every day losing their right to bear arms based on suspicion alone. So much for being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The New Guy Sounds a Lot Like the Old Guy

Wow more change from the administration that’s been promising it since their campaign. In a move to reverse the Bush administration’s unconstitutional warrentless wire tapping law the Obama administration is repealing the law.

Oh wait sorry that’s only in the magical land of make believe. Since Mr. Rogers is dead we can’t go there anymore and hence we have to deal with reality. The new administration is sounding incredibly like the old one time and time again. Now Attorney General Eric Holder is saying the San Francisco lawsuit against warrantless wiretapping needs to be stopped in the name of national security. And with logic like this how can we argue:

In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration’s position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate.

Wait Obama isn’t keeping promises he made? By God he must be a, wait for it, politician. Holy crap it’s almost like you can’t trust these guys. I’m just waiting for Obama’s supporters who were against Bush on these very topics to justify what the current administration is doing. After all it’s OK, they came to the conclusion differently.

Tom Emmers

Every Wednesday evening me and other members of Campaign for Liberty sit down and have dinner. Last night we were joined by potential Minnesota Governor Republican candidate Tom Emmer. You can imagine that any candidate that sits down with us for several hours is probably going to be closer to a libertarian than a neo-conservative which, by what he said throughout the night, is very true.

I’ve mentioned Representative Emmer on this blog before after he introduced the Minnesota Firearms Freedom Act which emulates the same act passed in Montana. I talked to him briefly about it, mainly asking why there was an exemption for machine guns. This is always a good litmus test to see if a candidate is pro-gun or not as many will give reasoning why machine guns are horrible weapons that civilians shouldn’t have. Tom said he didn’t realize such a clause was in there and asked me to e-mail him the part of the bill that says that as he felt it shouldn’t be in there. I did e-mail him although haven’t heard back yet but alas this means one of two things. First he just fucked up or two he didn’t know what was in his own bill. Either way he said he didn’t see a difference between machine guns and any other type of firearm. Good.

I then asked him about suppressors. He lives right down the street from the range I go to (I didn’t know that previously) and admitted to enjoying the sound of gun fire (another good thing). But he agreed that suppressors should be legal in Minnesota as well. That question was more or less for my person interest on the subject.

Finally I asked him what he thought about Alaska and Vermont style carry laws. Once again Mr. Emmer thought they were great. He also said in his opinion the licensing thing we have in this state was nothing more than a method to appease law enforcement officers and felt we should be able to practice our right to bear arms without any for of licensing. He also made a quick mention about how we should get a clause in the Minnesota constitution proclaiming citizens’ right to bear arms (we have no such clause).

Overall I was very impressed with him, even on issues outside of guns. He is certainly a person to keep an eye on for Minnesota governor.

More British Tyranny

Oh Britain when will you ever learn. My friend sent me this article via old school e-mail (Yup no Twitter here). Well the British police decided to rip open and confiscate the contents of over 6,000 safety deposit boxes in a mad rush to find drugs and *GASP* guns.

I’m not going to spend time analyzing this as most of you are probably capable but I’m going to pull out some choice quotes:

A semi-automatic Glock 9mm, the weapon of choice for British gangsters, was lodged in Box 1653 at the Hampstead depository, rented by 44-year-old Gavin Leon, who was jailed for five years last March.

Wow I’m actually impressed, British gangsters have much better taste then those in the United States. Here gangsters usually haul around Hi-Points and Jennings as their gun of choice. I’m glad to see not every country’s criminals have the same lack of taste and sophistication. Next up:

However, by talking to scores of box-holders, none of whom have spoken before, Live has uncovered a different version of Operation Rize, one that shows how the vast majority of those caught up in the raids were innocent. They have had their lives turned upside down over the past 17 months. Many have struggled to recoup their money and possessions, been forced into legal trench warfare with police lawyers and told they must prove how they came by the contents of their boxes.

That’s right the police went in, stole the contents of every safety deposit box, and it’s the burden of those who were stolen from to prove they own what was in those boxes. That must have been one fucking general warrant. I’m guessing the description of the person was something along the lines of, “Human being between 3′ and 7′ tall weighing between 50 to 700 pounds. Skin may be white, black, red, yellow, or indigo.” And the description of the evidence must have read, “Any item in the possession of the suspect or being held in a place rented or leased by the suspect.” Seriously what the fuck? But that’s not all:

Mark Richardson, a former military intelligence officer and now a forensic accountant, who has been employed by several box-holders to explain their wealth, told us: ‘We had to get one family’s diamonds carbon-dated at great expense to demonstrate to the police that they had been cut in the Thirties, which tallied with their story of fleeing Germany before World War II.’

Yup guilty until proven innocent. “What’s that? Oh you say this diamond that we found in YOUR safety deposit box is in fact YOUR’S? Prove it.” I would assume that having an expensive item in a safety deposit box under your name would qualify as proof enough, just a thought. What else do we have? Well this:

Lawyer Sara Teasdale, of City practice Roiter Zucker, whose client had kept more than £900,000 in his box at the vaults in Edgware as cash flow for his business leasing black cabs, said: ‘The police are “deep-pocketing” – hauling people through a protracted legal process that they know is so costly that most will roll over.’

Not surprising. I’m sure the police get to keep anything that isn’t claimed, hence there is a conflict of interest there. The police are supposed to uphold the law but will try to fuck over people they stole from to keep the goods.

Anyways you get the idea. If you have heart pressure problems I’d advise not reading the article. The same goes if you have an allergic reaction to fascism.

Amtrak Shenanigans

So recently an amendment to Amtrak’s appropriation bill states that they will lose a huge chunk of money unless they allow passengers to transport firearms on board in a manner similar to airliners. Great idea! Ever since 9/11 Amtrak has had a zero guns in any form policy on their trains. Well now Amtrak is crying that they can’t meet the deadline for this policy change:

Amtrak and its defenders in Congress have argued that the government-owned train company needs more time and resources before it could allow firearms onto trains.

“We don’t think we’ll be able to do that March 31 deadline, and, of course, finding the funding to make all of that happening,” said Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm. Failing to meet that deadline and missing out $1.5 billion in appropriated funds, its entire funding request for 2010, would bring a “cessation of train service nationwide,” Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper wrote to appropriators last month.

So they are saying they can’t meet the deadline to do something they used to do before 9/11? Really? It seems to me they just have to do the exact same thing they used to and nothing else will need to change.

Very Convenient

So provisions in the illegal PATRIOT Act are up for renewal and all of the sudden terrorists are being found left and right here in America. In fact two people in Chicago have been arrested under suspicion of terrorism. It’s almost like law enforcement wants to give our leaders a reason to renew provisions in a law that hasn’t done shit to fight terror but certainly did a great job at shitting on our rights.