Soldiers & YouTube

I read that American soldiers in Iraq, and probably other places as well,
can no longer access Youtube. And MySpace.

A total of 13 sites seem to be banned. According to a spokesman, this is
because there is not enough bandwidth availeble, and the network collapses.

You know what i think? I think its a pile of shit.

I think its censorship. The left media here seem to be very UNHAPPY about
certain sites. Anyone who witnesses a certain event, can use their cellphone
to make pictures, or better, a small film. And with the latest models, you
probably dont even have to go home to display it.

Or, you send it to someone who is at home, and let them put it on YouTube.

Within a few minutes, every event can be seen, and the media will have a
MUCH harder time to twist it, if they had the desire to do so.

With the existence of Internet, and sites such as YouTube, AND the existence
of cell-phones that can record life-events, the media has to think twice
before they bring the news.

--
Pete

On Mon, 21 May 2007, Pete wrote:

> I read that American soldiers in Iraq, and probably other places as well,
> can no longer access Youtube. And MySpace.
>
> A total of 13 sites seem to be banned. According to a spokesman, this is
> because there is not enough bandwidth availeble, and the network collapses.
>
> You know what i think? I think its a pile of shit.
>
> I think its censorship.

Yes.

> The left media

No. It's got nothing with the leftist media wanting to twist things, and
everything with the rightist government not wanting people to see or read
ground truth about Iraq.

tom

--
Is this the only way to get through to you?

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:

>> I think its censorship.

> Yes.

>> The left media

> No. It's got nothing with the leftist media wanting to twist things, and
> everything with the rightist government not wanting people to see or read
> ground truth about Iraq.

I am naturally suspicious to the left because they are responsible for the
cencorship over here.
With the presence of Internet, they are slowly losing that power.

Another thing that i find disturbing;

25 Countries are banning certain sites for political/religious reasons.
These are "muslim" countries or communist Coutries. I wonder what/who is
next.

With modern days technology, i think its impossible. AFAIK, pre-paids cant
be traced. (not easily, anyway...)
So, text messages and pics/videos will be comming in from everywhere around
the Globe.

I really am convinced we are witnessing a new Era of newsmedia.
Censorship will become next to impossible.

Information will be at hand even to those who didnt have it before.

Long live Internet. The introduction of it will be in the history books to
come.
Information about anything and anyone, just a few mouseclicks away.

Mao & Stalin are having nightmares. If they are watching.

--
Pete

In article <4651590a$0$14762$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> I read that American soldiers in Iraq, and probably other places as well,
> can no longer access Youtube. And MySpace.
>
> A total of 13 sites seem to be banned. According to a spokesman, this is
> because there is not enough bandwidth availeble, and the network collapses.
>
> You know what i think? I think its a pile of shit.
>
> I think its censorship. The left media here seem to be very UNHAPPY about
> certain sites. Anyone who witnesses a certain event, can use their cellphone
> to make pictures, or better, a small film. And with the latest models, you
> probably dont even have to go home to display it.
>
> Or, you send it to someone who is at home, and let them put it on YouTube.
>
> Within a few minutes, every event can be seen, and the media will have a
> MUCH harder time to twist it, if they had the desire to do so.
>
> With the existence of Internet, and sites such as YouTube, AND the existence
> of cell-phones that can record life-events, the media has to think twice
> before they bring the news.
>
> --
> Pete

I have to totally agree...

There are so many "nanny blocks" on the internet at work, I even had
trouble accessing sites that listed the constitution. For some odd
reason, any websites having to do with "history" were blocked.

Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.

It gets to be rather silly after awhile.

Youtube and tinypic are also blocked.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <46516416$0$95133$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:
>
> >> I think its censorship.
>
> > Yes.
>
> >> The left media
>
> > No. It's got nothing with the leftist media wanting to twist things, and
> > everything with the rightist government not wanting people to see or read
> > ground truth about Iraq.
>
> I am naturally suspicious to the left because they are responsible for the
> cencorship over here.
> With the presence of Internet, they are slowly losing that power.
>
> Another thing that i find disturbing;
>
> 25 Countries are banning certain sites for political/religious reasons.
> These are "muslim" countries or communist Coutries. I wonder what/who is
> next.
>
> With modern days technology, i think its impossible. AFAIK, pre-paids cant
> be traced. (not easily, anyway...)
> So, text messages and pics/videos will be comming in from everywhere around
> the Globe.
>
> I really am convinced we are witnessing a new Era of newsmedia.
> Censorship will become next to impossible.
>
> Information will be at hand even to those who didnt have it before.
>
> Long live Internet. The introduction of it will be in the history books to
> come.
> Information about anything and anyone, just a few mouseclicks away.
>
> Mao & Stalin are having nightmares. If they are watching.
>
> --
> Pete

Let's just prey we can keep it this way.
The internet is the only true anarchy that there is, especially usenet.

While I'm not a _political_ anarchist, I am when it comes to full
freedom of information.

Down with censorship in any form.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:

>> With the existence of Internet, and sites such as YouTube, AND the
>> existence
>> of cell-phones that can record life-events, the media has to think twice
>> before they bring the news.

> I have to totally agree...

> There are so many "nanny blocks" on the internet at work, I even had
> trouble accessing sites that listed the constitution. For some odd
> reason, any websites having to do with "history" were blocked.

Thats really weird. Blocking history?

> Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.

> It gets to be rather silly after awhile.

> Youtube and tinypic are also blocked.

These days, its easy to download a "YouTube Grabber." It will be stored, or
converted to AVI or Mpeg on the hard-drive, and then can be easily put in
the phone. And be sent to anyone.

They can try, but i think with todays technnology they CANNOT longer censor
the news. There are so many ways around it.

I will convince ANYONE i know to purchase a cell-phone with build-in camera,
for both pics and video.
And log in on YouTube. And record ANYTHING that might enter the news. With
only 5 witnesses, we might 5 different videos from 5 different angles.

YouTube was allready shut down in Turkey. See? They panic!

--
Pete

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:

>> Long live Internet. The introduction of it will be in the history books
>> to
>> come.
>> Information about anything and anyone, just a few mouseclicks away.

>> Mao & Stalin are having nightmares. If they are watching.

> Let's just prey we can keep it this way.
> The internet is the only true anarchy that there is, especially usenet.

> While I'm not a _political_ anarchist, I am when it comes to full
> freedom of information.

> Down with censorship in any form.

I think the only question we have to ask ourselves, is WHO benefits from the
censorship and WHY!

But like i said, i think is techically impossible to censor people. We have
3 cell-phones here, and 2 computers.
If for whatever reason my computers are blocked, i can use the phones to
record any event in front of my house. And send them to you, if i had your
number. Or anyone in this newsgroup, if i had their numbers. Each member of
this newsgroup, can send the file to their friends and family. And so on.

AS i speak, WE ALLREADY HAVE the technology to do just that!

Think about it, Om. Any event here in Holland, no matter the importance, can
be spread to thousands of US Citizens within a few minutes. And the other
way around.

That means that thousands US citizens have the ability to verify anything
that comes into the news. And if the media twist/censors it, anybody will
know.

George Orwell was wrong. Not even in his wildest dreams could he have
imagined that in the beginning of the 21st Century, regular Citizens could
have the ability to send video files to one another AROUND THE GLOBE!

And the devices to do that will cost about $100 or so. Accesable for almost
anyone.
Hell, you get these things for free here if you sign up for a year.

Censorship will be dead in a few years.

--
Pete

On Mon, 21 May 2007, Omelet wrote:

> In article <46516416$0$95133$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> Long live Internet. The introduction of it will be in the history books
>> to come. Information about anything and anyone, just a few mouseclicks
>> away.
>
> The internet is the only true anarchy that there is,

No, it isn't. It's an autocracy with very lax laws, and that's a very
different thing. Never forget that the internet is built on a rather small
number of backbone networks, all operated by giant companies or state
agencies, and so all within reach of the government. At the moment, the
whole thing is run in an admirably hands-off way, but it would be very
easy for them to change that. They'd have to wreck it in the process, but
the point is that they could do it.

> especially usenet.

Oh well, yes, that's different.

tom


--
Sometimes it takes a madman like Iggy Pop before you can SEE the logic
really working.

On Mon, 21 May 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:
>
>>> Long live Internet. The introduction of it will be in the history
>>> books to come. Information about anything and anyone, just a few
>>> mouseclicks away.
>>
>> Let's just prey we can keep it this way. The internet is the only true
>> anarchy that there is, especially usenet.
>>
>> While I'm not a _political_ anarchist, I am when it comes to full
>> freedom of information.
>>
>> Down with censorship in any form.
>
> But like i said, i think is techically impossible to censor people. We
> have 3 cell-phones here, and 2 computers. If for whatever reason my
> computers are blocked, i can use the phones to record any event in front
> of my house.

Quite true.

> And send them to you, if i had your number. Or anyone in this newsgroup,
> if i had their numbers.

Using the local cellular GPRS link. Which is operated by a phone company.
Which is under the thumb of the state. So if they don't want pictures and
movies coming out of a particular set of cells, you can be sure that they
can make it so [1].

Something along these lines already exists:

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

Although i don't know if it affects GPRS; this would not be hard to do,
though.

> Think about it, Om. Any event here in Holland, no matter the importance,
> can be spread to thousands of US Citizens within a few minutes. And the
> other way around.

Even easier to block - there are a small number of points where media
messages can leave the Dutch networks to head overseas, so block those.

> Censorship will be dead in a few years.

Censorship of the form you describe has been largely obsolete for decades
now. Read some Chomsky.

tom

[1] Unless you fancy figuring out how to get video over a CSD link ...

--
Sometimes it takes a madman like Iggy Pop before you can SEE the logic
really working.

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:46516416$0$95133$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:
>
>>> I think its censorship.
>
>> Yes.
>
>>> The left media
>
>> No. It's got nothing with the leftist media wanting to twist things, and
>> everything with the rightist government not wanting people to see or read
>> ground truth about Iraq.
>
> I am naturally suspicious to the left because they are responsible for the
> cencorship over here.
> With the presence of Internet, they are slowly losing that power.
>
> Another thing that i find disturbing;
>
> 25 Countries are banning certain sites for political/religious reasons.
> These are "muslim" countries or communist Coutries. I wonder what/who is
> next.
>
> With modern days technology, i think its impossible. AFAIK, pre-paids cant
> be traced. (not easily, anyway...)
> So, text messages and pics/videos will be comming in from everywhere
> around the Globe.
>
> I really am convinced we are witnessing a new Era of newsmedia.
> Censorship will become next to impossible.
>
> Information will be at hand even to those who didnt have it before.
>
> Long live Internet. The introduction of it will be in the history books to
> come.
> Information about anything and anyone, just a few mouseclicks away.
>
> Mao & Stalin are having nightmares. If they are watching.
>
> --
> Pete
>

Pete,
You are correct in stating that the FAR right and or left is fucked. Both
sides are ready and willing to fuck us at any time. We have to worry far
more about the right in the US at this time.

--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote in message
newsmp_omelet-0B701F.04295121052007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <4651590a$0$14762$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> I read that American soldiers in Iraq, and probably other places as well,
>> can no longer access Youtube. And MySpace.
>>
>> A total of 13 sites seem to be banned. According to a spokesman, this is
>> because there is not enough bandwidth availeble, and the network
>> collapses.
>>
>> You know what i think? I think its a pile of shit.
>>
>> I think its censorship. The left media here seem to be very UNHAPPY about
>> certain sites. Anyone who witnesses a certain event, can use their
>> cellphone
>> to make pictures, or better, a small film. And with the latest models,
>> you
>> probably dont even have to go home to display it.
>>
>> Or, you send it to someone who is at home, and let them put it on
>> YouTube.
>>
>> Within a few minutes, every event can be seen, and the media will have a
>> MUCH harder time to twist it, if they had the desire to do so.
>>
>> With the existence of Internet, and sites such as YouTube, AND the
>> existence
>> of cell-phones that can record life-events, the media has to think twice
>> before they bring the news.
>>
>> --
>> Pete
>
> I have to totally agree...
>
> There are so many "nanny blocks" on the internet at work, I even had
> trouble accessing sites that listed the constitution. For some odd
> reason, any websites having to do with "history" were blocked.
>
> Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.
>
> It gets to be rather silly after awhile.
>
> Youtube and tinypic are also blocked.
> --
> Peace, Om
>

That is REALLY quite frightening.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

In article <46516973$0$23496$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:
>
> >> With the existence of Internet, and sites such as YouTube, AND the
> >> existence
> >> of cell-phones that can record life-events, the media has to think twice
> >> before they bring the news.
>
> > I have to totally agree...
>
> > There are so many "nanny blocks" on the internet at work, I even had
> > trouble accessing sites that listed the constitution. For some odd
> > reason, any websites having to do with "history" were blocked.
>
> Thats really weird. Blocking history?

I honestly did not get that one.
They also blocked any reference to the Virginia shootings shortly after
they happened. :-P

>
> > Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.
>
> > It gets to be rather silly after awhile.
>
> > Youtube and tinypic are also blocked.
>
> These days, its easy to download a "YouTube Grabber." It will be stored, or
> converted to AVI or Mpeg on the hard-drive, and then can be easily put in
> the phone. And be sent to anyone.

How do I send stuff from my computer to my cell phone?

>
> They can try, but i think with todays technnology they CANNOT longer censor
> the news. There are so many ways around it.

Yes. I've managed to get around some of their blocks sometimes with some
alternate searches and backtracking. <G>

>
> I will convince ANYONE i know to purchase a cell-phone with build-in camera,
> for both pics and video.

Mine has a camera but not a video.
It's a Motorola camera phone.

> And log in on YouTube. And record ANYTHING that might enter the news. With
> only 5 witnesses, we might 5 different videos from 5 different angles.
>
> YouTube was allready shut down in Turkey. See? They panic!
>
> --
> Pete

There are a lot of blocks in Muslim countries. Saudi too.
Chickenshits...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <46516d80$0$23419$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:
>
> >> Long live Internet. The introduction of it will be in the history books
> >> to
> >> come.
> >> Information about anything and anyone, just a few mouseclicks away.
>
> >> Mao & Stalin are having nightmares. If they are watching.
>
> > Let's just prey we can keep it this way.
> > The internet is the only true anarchy that there is, especially usenet.
>
> > While I'm not a _political_ anarchist, I am when it comes to full
> > freedom of information.
>
> > Down with censorship in any form.
>
> I think the only question we have to ask ourselves, is WHO benefits from the
> censorship and WHY!
>
> But like i said, i think is techically impossible to censor people. We have
> 3 cell-phones here, and 2 computers.
> If for whatever reason my computers are blocked, i can use the phones to
> record any event in front of my house. And send them to you, if i had your
> number. Or anyone in this newsgroup, if i had their numbers. Each member of
> this newsgroup, can send the file to their friends and family. And so on.
>
> AS i speak, WE ALLREADY HAVE the technology to do just that!

Yes. I have the option to send pics as soon as I take them.
It costs me more air time, but so what?

>
> Think about it, Om. Any event here in Holland, no matter the importance, can
> be spread to thousands of US Citizens within a few minutes. And the other
> way around.
>
> That means that thousands US citizens have the ability to verify anything
> that comes into the news. And if the media twist/censors it, anybody will
> know.

As long as they are "jacked in". Only the technophobes can be lied to.
Unfortunately, there are still plenty of those around.

>
> George Orwell was wrong. Not even in his wildest dreams could he have
> imagined that in the beginning of the 21st Century, regular Citizens could
> have the ability to send video files to one another AROUND THE GLOBE!

Why do you think the internet scares the hell out of governments? ;-)

>
> And the devices to do that will cost about $100 or so. Accesable for almost
> anyone.
> Hell, you get these things for free here if you sign up for a year.

Yes. My cellphone was free with one years service and 400 minutes.
I bought tracfones.

> Censorship will be dead in a few years.

It's getting there...

>
> --
> Pete
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705211354200.28046@urchin.earth.li >,
Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article <46516416$0$95133$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> > "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Long live Internet. The introduction of it will be in the history books
> >> to come. Information about anything and anyone, just a few mouseclicks
> >> away.
> >
> > The internet is the only true anarchy that there is,
>
> No, it isn't. It's an autocracy with very lax laws, and that's a very
> different thing. Never forget that the internet is built on a rather small
> number of backbone networks, all operated by giant companies or state
> agencies, and so all within reach of the government. At the moment, the
> whole thing is run in an admirably hands-off way, but it would be very
> easy for them to change that. They'd have to wreck it in the process, but
> the point is that they could do it.
>
> > especially usenet.
>
> Oh well, yes, that's different.
>
> tom

Thank you. <G>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <leh4i.320963$7g3.71524@newsfe14.phx>,
"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:

>
> Pete,
> You are correct in stating that the FAR right and or left is fucked. Both
> sides are ready and willing to fuck us at any time. We have to worry far
> more about the right in the US at this time.
>
> --
> Robert Schuh

Unfortunately, you are so correct...

After hanging out on some of the gun forums, the rabid far right people
scare me FAR more than any far left liberals.

Seriously.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <rhh4i.320964$7g3.165301@newsfe14.phx>,
"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:

> > There are so many "nanny blocks" on the internet at work, I even had
> > trouble accessing sites that listed the constitution. For some odd
> > reason, any websites having to do with "history" were blocked.
> >
> > Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.
> >
> > It gets to be rather silly after awhile.
> >
> > Youtube and tinypic are also blocked.
> > --
> > Peace, Om
> >
>
> That is REALLY quite frightening.
>
>
> --
> Robert Schuh

It actually pisses me off. :-P

At least they cannot touch my home computer.

I don't know what their problem is, honestly! I can see them blocking
porn sites, but we have a 30 minute time quota for internet usage each
day so it's not like I'm going to neglect my work and play on the
internet all night.

I wouldn't anyway. I rarely use more than 5 minutes of my quota time a
couple of times per week.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>
>> Pete,
>> You are correct in stating that the FAR right and or left is fucked. Both
>> sides are ready and willing to fuck us at any time. We have to worry far
>> more about the right in the US at this time.
>
> Unfortunately, you are so correct...
>
> After hanging out on some of the gun forums, the rabid far right people
> scare me FAR more than any far left liberals.

Rob and Om,

When the nuclear device detonates in Phoenix, or Seattle, or Los Angeles,
please remind me why I should have been so concerned with the civil rights
of Abdul Hassan, Ibrahim al Ashwari, Maqmood el Camelfucker, and their
buddies.

David

In article <tRi4i.17591$3P3.6739@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> > "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Pete,
> >> You are correct in stating that the FAR right and or left is fucked. Both
> >> sides are ready and willing to fuck us at any time. We have to worry far
> >> more about the right in the US at this time.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you are so correct...
> >
> > After hanging out on some of the gun forums, the rabid far right people
> > scare me FAR more than any far left liberals.
>
> Rob and Om,
>
> When the nuclear device detonates in Phoenix, or Seattle, or Los Angeles,
> please remind me why I should have been so concerned with the civil rights
> of Abdul Hassan, Ibrahim al Ashwari, Maqmood el Camelfucker, and their
> buddies.
>
> David

You will get no arguments from me on that one David, but what if we
appear on the terrorist watch list for collecting small arms?

Or moderately large amounts of ammo 'cos we like to reload?

What is the definition of an "arsenal"?
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> Pete wrote:
>> I read that American soldiers in Iraq, and probably other places as well,
>> can no longer access Youtube. And MySpace.
....
>> I think its censorship.
>
> Yes.

Is the internet access provided by the employer?

I think that generally, censorship at work is a universally accepted
part of Western democracy. People can have their freedom after 5pm but
not during the hours when they work in those little dictatorship
countries called corporations. Needless to say I always felt like fish
in water while working for corporations. Man, I miss that time when
natives used to ask me for advice in writing those "performance
reports" and "personal development plans".

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote

> Mine has a camera but not a video.
> It's a Motorola camera phone.

Many camera phones now work like many camera do, allowing short video
clips. Our $120 digital camera will take 30-second movies, and the cell
phones we've bought in the last year or two all work the same way -
photos and short movies are both possible. Not saying yours absolutely
will do this, just that most recent phones do.

Me, I've got a 3-year old cell phone that does neither but I'm perfectly
happy with it, save the fact that trying to buy any replacement parts or
accessories costs more than completely replacing the phone would, so I'm
sure its days are numbered.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

On May 21, 2:59 am, "Pete" <phouts...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> Censorship will be dead in a few years.

Never. Censorship will always exist.
Over 25 countries now block websites and even ban blogging.
Even the US Congress is conspiring with the big phone/cable companies
to place limits on the internet: http://www.savetheinternet.com/

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

http://ice.citizenlab.org/

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...-youtube_x.htm

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/07051...net_censorship

Instead of 'censorship will be dead in a few years' its more likely
that freedom of thought and the expression of it will be dead in a few
years.

joanne

Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There are so many "nanny blocks" on the internet at work, I even
>>> had trouble accessing sites that listed the constitution. For
>>> some odd reason, any websites having to do with "history" were
>>> blocked.
>>>
>>> Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.

Job hunting at work, huh? I really cannot blame them :-) Think of it
as parental control. The employer is a big daddy, albeit he can get a
bit suggary at times.

>>> It gets to be rather silly after awhile.
>>> Youtube and tinypic are also blocked.

Who'd want their IP logged at some random places? In a regulated
environment (as opposed to research) internet could be provided simply
as a tool to do the job, nothing more. I remember as someone was
fired, back when I worked in Big Pharma, for posting a Christian
flyer. I should say that I cannot really blame them. There is no
freedom of speech at work, and never will be unless you're your own
employer.

> It actually pisses me off. :-P
> At least they cannot touch my home computer.

You can secure shell home and run a browser from there. Of course
you'd have to abandon the habit of running any communist OS at home
that tells you what you can or cannot do ;-)

This is engrained even in computer "admins" culture. For example I
have root access to Linux OS at work, but the Windows or Mac guys for
example would NOT understand if I ask for an admin acount access, that
is - even on the same Linux/Windows dual boot machines :-), so I don't
even bother - it would only antagonise them.

"DZ" <28999@931216192.1889619096.23889.23762.24534> wrote in message
news:23064@844419084.1136630229.26141.20124.3269.. .
> Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There are so many "nanny blocks" on the internet at work, I even
>>>> had trouble accessing sites that listed the constitution. For
>>>> some odd reason, any websites having to do with "history" were
>>>> blocked.
>>>>
>>>> Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.
>
> Job hunting at work, huh? I really cannot blame them :-) Think of it
> as parental control. The employer is a big daddy, albeit he can get a
> bit suggary at times.
>
>>>> It gets to be rather silly after awhile.
>>>> Youtube and tinypic are also blocked.
>
> Who'd want their IP logged at some random places? In a regulated
> environment (as opposed to research) internet could be provided simply
> as a tool to do the job, nothing more. I remember as someone was
> fired, back when I worked in Big Pharma, for posting a Christian
> flyer. I should say that I cannot really blame them. There is no
> freedom of speech at work, and never will be unless you're your own
> employer.
>
>> It actually pisses me off. :-P
>> At least they cannot touch my home computer.
>
> You can secure shell home and run a browser from there. Of course
> you'd have to abandon the habit of running any communist OS at home
> that tells you what you can or cannot do ;-)
>
> This is engrained even in computer "admins" culture. For example I
> have root access to Linux OS at work, but the Windows or Mac guys for
> example would NOT understand if I ask for an admin acount access, that
> is - even on the same Linux/Windows dual boot machines :-), so I don't
> even bother - it would only antagonise them.

I have one client for whom Internet access for most employees is limited
to a list of approved web sites, period. Since even work-related
Internet access sometimes requires unfettered searching, I am asked from
time to time to lift the restrictions for an individual employee for a
few hours or a day, and I'm also asked to add a new web site or two to
the approved list from time to time as well, but otherwise it's wrapped
up very tightly. I suspect this approach will become more common as
time goes on.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides wrote:
> "DZ" wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>> Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.
>>
>> Job hunting at work, huh? I really cannot blame them :-)
....
>>> At least they cannot touch my home computer.
>>
>> You can secure shell home and run a browser from there. Of course
>> you'd have to abandon the habit of running any communist OS at home
>> that tells you what you can or cannot do ;-) This is engrained even
>> in computer "admins" culture. For example, I have root access to
>> Linux OS at work, but the Windows or Mac guys for example would NOT
>> understand if I ask for an admin account access, that is - even on
>> the same Linux/Windows dual boot machines :-), so I don't even
>> bother - it would only antagonise them.
>
> I have one client for whom Internet access for most employees is limited
> to a list of approved web sites, period. Since even work-related
> Internet access sometimes requires unfettered searching, I am asked from
> time to time to lift the restrictions for an individual employee for a
> few hours or a day, and I'm also asked to add a new web site or two to
> the approved list from time to time as well, but otherwise it's wrapped
> up very tightly. I suspect this approach will become more common as
> time goes on.

This is an interesting perspective and I'm sure you're right -
disregarding what that employee is possibly thinking of you at the
moment :-) Internet would simply have to catch up with what's been
going on "at the office", since Marx invented capitalism (the ending
of this sentence was meant to be a joke).

To make it kinda on-topic I recall how I once stumbled upon rules that
emploees at a gym I was going to had to sign. I swear that I had
signed less paperwork when I was employed as an investigator for a
company in the business of inventing, patenting, and putting through
trials a diverse array of prescription drugs. For example, the gym
employees had to agree not to contact any gym-goers of that gym chain,
such as myself, for 2 (IIRC) years after a termination of their
contract. Blocking myspace doesn't seem that horrid now does it?

In article <5be05rF2s6namU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Mine has a camera but not a video.
> > It's a Motorola camera phone.
>
> Many camera phones now work like many camera do, allowing short video
> clips. Our $120 digital camera will take 30-second movies, and the cell
> phones we've bought in the last year or two all work the same way -
> photos and short movies are both possible. Not saying yours absolutely
> will do this, just that most recent phones do.
>
> Me, I've got a 3-year old cell phone that does neither but I'm perfectly
> happy with it, save the fact that trying to buy any replacement parts or
> accessories costs more than completely replacing the phone would, so I'm
> sure its days are numbered.
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com

Just be sure to recycle it. :-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Mon, 21 May 2007, David Cohen wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>> "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You are correct in stating that the FAR right and or left is fucked.
>>> Both sides are ready and willing to fuck us at any time. We have to
>>> worry far more about the right in the US at this time.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you are so correct...
>>
>> After hanging out on some of the gun forums, the rabid far right people
>> scare me FAR more than any far left liberals.
>
> Rob and Om,
>
> When the nuclear device detonates in Phoenix, or Seattle, or Los
> Angeles, please remind me why I should have been so concerned with the
> civil rights of Abdul Hassan, Ibrahim al Ashwari, Maqmood el
> Camelfucker, and their buddies.

Okay. And every time an innocent man walks free after a few years in
Guantanamo, you can remind us why we shouldn't. Deal?

tom

--
GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music
both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK

In article <23064@844419084.1136630229.26141.20124.3269>,
DZ <28999@931216192.1889619096.23889.23762.24534> wrote:

> Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> There are so many "nanny blocks" on the internet at work, I even
> >>> had trouble accessing sites that listed the constitution. For
> >>> some odd reason, any websites having to do with "history" were
> >>> blocked.
> >>>
> >>> Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.
>
> Job hunting at work, huh? I really cannot blame them :-) Think of it
> as parental control. The employer is a big daddy, albeit he can get a
> bit suggary at times.

Oh we were just curious about the new Toyota plant in San Antonio. ;-)
We really weren't serious about job hunting.

I figure the weapons sites were blocked as nobody want's patients or
visitors to see pictures of pistols or rifles up on a screen at the
nursing stations. Might give a bad impression or something.

>
> >>> It gets to be rather silly after awhile.
> >>> Youtube and tinypic are also blocked.
>
> Who'd want their IP logged at some random places? In a regulated
> environment (as opposed to research) internet could be provided simply
> as a tool to do the job, nothing more. I remember as someone was
> fired, back when I worked in Big Pharma, for posting a Christian
> flyer. I should say that I cannot really blame them. There is no
> freedom of speech at work, and never will be unless you're your own
> employer.
>
> > It actually pisses me off. :-P
> > At least they cannot touch my home computer.
>
> You can secure shell home and run a browser from there.

It I knew how!
Guess I need to brush up on that.

But, I'm generally too busy doing my job to fool around with stuff like
that but even _I_ get breaks from time to time.

> Of course
> you'd have to abandon the habit of running any communist OS at home
> that tells you what you can or cannot do ;-)

<snork>

>
> This is engrained even in computer "admins" culture. For example I
> have root access to Linux OS at work, but the Windows or Mac guys for
> example would NOT understand if I ask for an admin acount access, that
> is - even on the same Linux/Windows dual boot machines :-), so I don't
> even bother - it would only antagonise them.

Overall, I think the nanny blocks are overdone but it's not really
_that_ big of a deal. I can always do what I want when I get home.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"DZ" <12916@932929713.36006913.27560.4806.10449> wrote in message
news:6072@711232353.527228476.19643.20006.13829...
> Steve Freides wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>> Same with job hunting sites and weapons websites.
>>>
>>> Job hunting at work, huh? I really cannot blame them :-)
> ...
>>>> At least they cannot touch my home computer.
>>>
>>> You can secure shell home and run a browser from there. Of course
>>> you'd have to abandon the habit of running any communist OS at home
>>> that tells you what you can or cannot do ;-) This is engrained even
>>> in computer "admins" culture. For example, I have root access to
>>> Linux OS at work, but the Windows or Mac guys for example would NOT
>>> understand if I ask for an admin account access, that is - even on
>>> the same Linux/Windows dual boot machines :-), so I don't even
>>> bother - it would only antagonise them.
>>
>> I have one client for whom Internet access for most employees is
>> limited
>> to a list of approved web sites, period. Since even work-related
>> Internet access sometimes requires unfettered searching, I am asked
>> from
>> time to time to lift the restrictions for an individual employee for
>> a
>> few hours or a day, and I'm also asked to add a new web site or two
>> to
>> the approved list from time to time as well, but otherwise it's
>> wrapped
>> up very tightly. I suspect this approach will become more common as
>> time goes on.
>
> This is an interesting perspective and I'm sure you're right -
> disregarding what that employee is possibly thinking of you at the
> moment :-)

There are, it seems many ways to run the proverbial airline. My way has
always been just the opposite, make the working environment as pleasant
as possible, but these folks, while they don't try to make it
unpleasant, are of the firmly held belief that they needn't do anything
other than provide the resources to get the job they're paying for done.
To each his own.

> Internet would simply have to catch up with what's been
> going on "at the office", since Marx invented capitalism (the ending
> of this sentence was meant to be a joke).
>
> To make it kinda on-topic I recall how I once stumbled upon rules that
> emploees at a gym I was going to had to sign. I swear that I had
> signed less paperwork when I was employed as an investigator for a
> company in the business of inventing, patenting, and putting through
> trials a diverse array of prescription drugs. For example, the gym
> employees had to agree not to contact any gym-goers of that gym chain,
> such as myself, for 2 (IIRC) years after a termination of their
> contract. Blocking myspace doesn't seem that horrid now does it?

This is all too common, and my theory is simple - we are an overly
litigious society. Even though I volunteer at my local YMCA, I've had
to go through the child abuse prevention training, and we are not
allowed to be alone with any child, period, simply because it would
provide the opportunity for the child or the child's parent to claim
abuse without witness to support the Y employee's (and volunteer's)
point of view. They show us a harrowing film in which a male soccer
coach is accused to sexually abusing a female teenage soccer player he'd
been nice enough to give ride to and from games and practice. In the
end, it turned out the girl had a crush on her coach and was just trying
to get attention from him, but it ruined the man in the meantime. It
was a reenactment of a real situation, too, not just a made up, worst
case scenario.

The other reason, other than worry about legal actions, is to prevent
competition. They don't want employees meeting people then taking them
as private clients or to other facilities. I don't know that signing
such an agreement as ever put a stop to any more than a small percentage
of such practices, but they still make people sign these things.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>>> "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are correct in stating that the FAR right and or left is fucked.
>>>> Both sides are ready and willing to fuck us at any time. We have to
>>>> worry far more about the right in the US at this time.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, you are so correct...
>>>
>>> After hanging out on some of the gun forums, the rabid far right people
>>> scare me FAR more than any far left liberals.
>>
>> Rob and Om,
>>
>> When the nuclear device detonates in Phoenix, or Seattle, or Los Angeles,
>> please remind me why I should have been so concerned with the civil
>> rights of Abdul Hassan, Ibrahim al Ashwari, Maqmood el Camelfucker, and
>> their buddies.
>
> Okay. And every time an innocent man walks free after a few years in
> Guantanamo, you can remind us why we shouldn't. Deal?

Deal.

Heck, Tom, let's just jump ahead.

We shouldn't because a few years at Gitmo for an "innocent" man is not only
not worth the lives of 100,000 dead nuked Americans, it's not worth the
lives of 100,000 nuked Brits.

David

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
>> > "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pete,
>> >> You are correct