Three Headlines About The US Government And The Internet

from the read-'em-and-weep dept

Paul Keating points us to an amusing (if somewhat disturbing) juxtaposition of three headlines -- one after the other -- on the CircleID website:
In case you can't see the image, these are the three headlines: So, yes, Homeland Security wants nearly a billion dollars for its internet activities, which involve "accidentally" removing tens of thousands of perfectly legitimate websites... while the State Department pledges a grand total of $25 million for "internet freedom." Priorities?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 3:51pm

    Priorities?

    Unfortunately it seems the priorities are rather clear at this point...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 3:57pm

      Re:

      But...But...[insert cause here]!!!

      ...I think that sums it all up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Hephaestus (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 9:41pm

        Re: Re:

        "But...But...[insert cause here]!!!"

        You are so correct. So lets "[insert 'a' cause here]" in this case.

        But ... But ... [the record labels and movie studios will loose money and will not be able to use accountants to steal from artists].

        Wait, we can not sell that one, it is the truth...

        But ... But ... [Everyone on earth is employed by the content industry]

        Wait, that one doesn't work either, its only 80 percent of the world thats employed by us /sarc...

        But ... But ... [The people infringing are costing the artists the money that we will never pay them]

        Wait, we cant tell the world we don't pay our artists ...

        What do we have left? Oh yeah ...

        But ... But ... [ Kiddie porn ]

        Yeah, that one works really well, we do not need to prove a thing, just accuse people of it. Lets use it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    johnjac (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 3:58pm

    Cyber

    I never trust anything that calls itself 'cyber' Only clueless bureaucrats use the prefix cyber.

    (See also information super highway)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nick Dynice (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 4:14pm

    The lobbyists have convinced various gov officcials to hire their firms to do the work of popular causes. So basically our tax dollars are fighting each other and snake oil salesmen get our money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JMT, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 4:19pm

    So internet "freedoms" are less than %3 as important as internet "security".

    What was that Ben Franklin quote again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 4:35pm

    so this "cybersecurity" is expensive and tends to make huge mistakes

    i think some important document in history had said something to enable the people to remove such parts of government

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 4:39pm

    But... but... CENSORSHIP!

    Juxtaposition - wow Mike, you are working the anti-government rhetoric to the boiling point this week, aren't you?

    Funny: Cyber security, law enforcement, and freedom are not opposites of each other. Rather, they are complimentary. None of them are absolutes, not even freedom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 4:55pm

      Re:

      http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2011/02/secy-of-state-clinton-espouses-pure-cognitive-dissona nce-strategy/

      “Liberty and security. Transparency and confidentiality. Freedom of expression and tolerance. There are times when these principles will raise tensions and pose challenges, but we do not have to choose among them. And we shouldn’t. Together they comprise the foundation of a free and open internet.”

      (((Who the heck wrote that amazing paragraph?! I’d like to shake that guy’s hand! He’s found some incredible diplomatic rhetorical middle-ground between honesty and dishonesty. It’s like a marriage which is firmly founded on a “challenging tension” of chastity and adultery. And, well, to tell the truth, that’s been known to work out — somehow. I mean — what else can she possibly say? Think about it.)))

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Feb 17th, 2011 @ 4:56pm

      Re:

      leaving aside the nonsense that is the general reaction to the 'cyber' element of that, i give you the following response:

      sure, if done Properly. which the US government kinda fails at on a regular basis. (actually, the US is just the most obvious offender in this regard.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 5:40pm

      Re:

      Yup, and the Chinese were simply enforcing the law in Tienanmen square - see how that works?
      Coming to a city near near you, eventually.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 10:15pm

      Re:

      "But... but... CENSORSHIP!"

      Now that the FCC locks the public out of most public airwave use (only allowing big corporations to use such spectra and limiting Wifi spectra so that it can only transport info a short distance) and the government grants big corporations monopolies over cablco infrastructure use to monopolists that lock out opinions they don't like, outside the Internet censorship is a reality. Just look around. The mainstream media is entirely one sided in favor of IP and hardly any criticisms are allowed on the mainstream media, despite the fact that the current laws are completely indefensible in the face of criticism.

      For example see

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12204511290/why-won-t-universal-music-let-you-see-t he-20-20-report-from-1980-about-how-the-music-industry-is-dying.shtml

      and there are many more examples of this nonsense. The mainstream media tries to fearmonger everyone into supporting a position that's completely indefensible in the face of criticism yet criticism is not permitted. Censorship is real.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2011 @ 6:43am

        Re: Re:

        Another example is that Comedy Central puts this pro patent nonsense on their show and they allow those who argue in favor of patents to discuss the issue on their show.

        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/10432810380.shtml

        Yet IP maximists are notoriously afraid to even debate critics because they know they will look bad. People like Mike Masnick (and others) would be more than happy to go on a television news show and debate the issue (someone challenged me on this in one post a long time ago and so I simply asked Mike if he would and he said yes. I'm not gonna look for the post because I know I can ask Mike the question again and he'll give the same answer) and those who criticize IP are often more than happy to publicly debate those who favor it, but the mainstream media would never put someone like MM on a news or other show to debate the issue because they know he would completely humiliate them.

        Again, censorship is real, and it's the governments fault that big corporations control the media distribution channels (outside the Internet) and use that control to censor arguments, facts, news, and opinions they don't like. The government and the corporate complex do this on purpose and it's not too far fetched to assume that they want to censor the Internet from such dissenting views as well, just like they did to so much media outside the Internet.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2011 @ 11:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yet IP maximists are notoriously afraid to even debate critics because they know they will look bad. People like Mike Masnick (and others) would be more than happy to go on a television news show and debate the issue

          It is mostly because those who support patents (not maximalists... just support patents) understand that this system is complex, and the interactions between patents, research, and plenty of other things is complex to explain. Where as the other side (the Masnick types) can come on and spew "innovation! New Products! Patent Thicket!" and show patents off in a bad light, without addressing the core issues.

          It wouldn't be a debate, because the patent abolishonists would not debate the full implications over time, only the short term gain in "more stuff for you now!".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2011 @ 12:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Without the debate happening in the first place, this is neither here nor there.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2011 @ 2:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            More stuff for you now sounds so terrible. And I'm sure that wouldn't have any positive effect on the future. Nope. Why even debate it?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 10:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "It is mostly because those who support patents (not maximalists... just support patents) understand that this system is complex, and the interactions between patents, research, and plenty of other things is complex to explain."

            Yes, because only IP maximists are smart enough to sufficiently understand the issue, the public is not. and exposing the public to IP criticisms and debate over the matter will confuse the dumb public who is too stupid to understand the issue as well as IP maximists are.

            How condescending and arrogant. Sorry, I do not buy the argument that the public is dumber than IP maximists and are unable to evaluate both sides as reasonably as IP maximists.


            "It wouldn't be a debate, because the patent abolishonists would not debate the full implications over time"

            No one is stopping the IP maximists from debating those implications. and if the abolitionists (or at least those who want to reduce IP) can't reasonably respond, then IP maximists will easily be able to convince the public of their position in the face of criticism. The reason they block criticism is because they know very well that they will lose the full implications over time debate just as well. Otherwise, they should have no problems winning that debate in the face of criticism and convincing the public that they are right.

            The fact is that the reasoning in favor of IP is no better than the reasoning in favor of 95+ year copy protection lengths and IP maximists know it, which is why they block criticisms. The laws are written for the corporations by the corporations and have little to do with the public will or interest.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 6:04pm

    More net freedom for other countries, less net freedom in US.

    I can't see any contradiction there. [6]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 6:07pm

      Re:

      You need expensive equipment and consultants to monitor the net, while you only need a few people using Twitter (and possibly a few trip to foreign countries) to promote net freedom. That'd justify the cost difference.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 10:01pm

      Re:

      Contradiction and hypocrisy are not the same thing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Feb 17th, 2011 @ 7:08pm

    "Homeland Security Department Seeks Boost in Cybersecurity Funding, $936 Million for Fiscal 2012"

    They will need a lot of money to build the great Firewall of Amerika

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 18th, 2011 @ 8:52am

    Priceless...

    Cybersecurity Funding - $936 Million

    Internet Freedom Agenda - $25 Million

    Unintended Shutdown of Thousands of Websites - Uncounted Amounts of Collateral Damage

    Having your hypocrisy pasted all over the Internet - PRICELESS

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2011 @ 9:33am

    The US government doesn't give a shit about governing. They live in a different world from the rest of the country. They're more worried about making sure the opposite party looks bad. They're using laws selectively and tramping your rights in the name of fighting terrorism, supporting massive corporations and protecting the children.

    If there's a right time for the American people to fight back and make their government understand that they've gone too far, it's right about now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    known coward, Feb 18th, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    If we kill both programs

    / carl sagen voice on

    we can save almost a billion dollars

    / carl sagen voice off

    and both us and them would he happier and safer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This