Project Meshnet: Building a Way to Protect Internet Freedom.

Every time an Internet censorship bill like SOPA, CISPA, PIPA, ACTA, is shot down by public protest, another one pops up. To be sure, one day when we're all distracted by something else, an Internet censorship bill will pass.  That's where Project Meshnet comes in.

Whereas the network routing system Tor uses peers to connect and send information through the infrastructure that is already in place for the Internet Project Meshnet is proposing an entirely new internet with different routing protocols. Multiple computers are connected to each other via a wireless connection spanning a large area and all information, messages, documents, music, images, etc., passes from computer to computer until it reaches its destination. If a computer or node is down than an alternative route is found. In other words, the architecture of the meshnet is owned by countless individuals instead of a handful of corporate providers, which makes the oppression of free speech practically impossible.

“Our objective is to create a versatile, decentralized network built on secure protocols for routing traffic over private mesh or public internetworks independent of a central supporting infrastructure."

Links:

MeshWiki

reddit DarkNetPlan This subreddit is dedicated to organizing a decentralized alternative to traditional ISP's.

Internet Relay Chat

Read more...

Bill Clinton Wants to Send us Back to the Cave to Watch the Shadows on the Wall or Snooki

As drones become pervasive inside America, Bill Clinton thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to control the "misinformation" on the Internet. We're not supposed to know that our government is going to employ the use of drones to to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions on us.

You see, since warfare is the only means to maintain the hierarchical society of the Ruling Elite, of which Bill belongs, Bill has the "right" to misinform, whereas, we, the muzzled masses, do not.

Read more...

Good News! You're Not Liable for Bumping!

No, not chest bumping, although I can think of several reason why liability might be an issue, but we won't go there.

Nope, it's far more liberating than Bush's chest bumping or Obama's fist bumping. It's Internet post or thread bumping.

If you have spent night after night, tossing and turning, worrying about whether what you've bumped on the Internet, there is good news for you:

"Bump messages" - new comments posted to older messages in order to move them current on a forum or web site - are not considered republication, therefore you can not be sued for liable. Whew! I can finally get some sleep.

On 12/10/08, in Admission Consultants Inc. v. Google, Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn of Manhattan denied Admission Consultants request that Google give up identifying information aimed at obtaining the names and addresses of two anonymous posters to BusinessWeek's Web site. Admission Consultants claimed that each bump message republished the defamatory material, therefore "constituted an actionable statement". In other words, they sued for bumping.

Citing Gregoire v. Putnam's Sons, (1948), Justice Cahn said:

"Under the 'single publication rule,' which New York follows, the publication of a defamatory statement in a single issue of a newspaper or magazine, although widely circulated and distributed, constitutes one publication that gives rise to the cause of action. That rule applies here to the modification of an Internet Web site,"

Justice Cahn concluded:

"Subjecting a single modification of an Internet Web site, such as a bump message, to the definition of a republication of defamation would have a 'serious inhibitory effect' on this form of communication."

Some other ground-breaking lawsuits:

I was circumsized, dammit!

My dress fell apart at the altar!

My thong injured by eye!

Poop happens.

Don't hug me!

Brooklyn Judge sues for negligent use of soapy water, mop bucket and wringer.

Read more...

Why Do We Need to Speak Up When It Doesn't Seem to Affect Us Personally?

I'm sure most people have read this before but it's worth repeating.

Why should we speak up about things that don't seem to affect us?

Pastor Martin Neimoller's quote answers that question. He supported the Nazis until he realized what they were all about. By that time it was too late. He was sent to a Dachau concentration camp. He was one of the fortunate ones and lived until 1984.

Read more...

Justifying Imus' Behavior, by Borat, and the Rappers?

How come no one is bringing up the fact that Imus is a middle-aged, rich white-man who targeted a specific group of kids that fought tremendous odds to get where they are today?

How come we are afraid to say "No, it's not OK for rich white men to racially slur black college students?" especially when that rich, white man has no past history of contributing to the fight for their equality?

I don't see how Borat (Sacha Cohen), who has created a caricature to expose racism, prejudice and the hypocrisy that exists in today's society, can be compared to Imus' cruel remark specifically targeting innocent college girls. Just as "Archie Bunker" was created to reveal racism and hatred in a context, easy to digest, because we are laughing at the same time the ugly truth is being disclosed; Borat takes it one step farther, trying to anethnatize the painful process of seeing ourselves as we really are.

The rapper's lyrics -- who are extremely offensive, and hopefully the marketplace will coax them out of existence -- can't be compared to a racist remark coming from a person, who comes from a part of society, that literally, the rules of our society, are made tailor made.

The upper-class white man has rights the lower-class black woman will never have. These rights are woven into the fabric of our society and they guarantee the rich white man will always be in power. But, in order to detect these heavily shrouded entitlements, one must be willing to rip the fabric to shreds because they are so intricately and tightly woven.

This is not an issue of free-speech. If it were, I would be supporting Imus 100%, because I do not feel out government should interfere in any way in an American citizen's right to say whatever they please, no matter how cruel, mean-spirited or outlandish it is.

Read more...