I don't have a Twitter account, nor a Facebook account or even a mobile telephone.
To some here, that may imply I'm a dinosaur and in a way, I am. But it's self-induced
and I think the term is 'techno-peasant'!
The way I see it -and it's not too far from Ninurta's cautious thinking, there was a time
when we used only land-lines for telephonic communication and for myself, that was fine.
I'm not naive enough to believe that the official Powers-That-Be would always require a
warrant to access my telephone account, this isn't the movies.
But now, we throw our voices and opinions up into the air and because I know that whatever
one man creates, another can counter and abuse it, those lumps of gossip, private information
and life-threatening data are greatly accessible without the need for paperwork.
Nobody owns the sky.
Some may say 'If you're not doing anything wrong, then what difference does it make?' -and
at face-value, I can understand why some would believe that. If we all unconsciously agree on
a moral benchmark for the internet and communication channels, then any suggestion of policing
would seem toothless as it would be globally acknowledged that the patrons were doing it
themselves!
But we only pretend to be adults... and the great cyber-highway is an ideal place to be the person
we secretly wished we were. In Cyberland, we can be good, bad (BIAD?!) and indifferent and even
perfom these actions all that same time under different names.
It's also an ideal area for a marketplace and with the school-promoted hardwired acceptance that
anything written tends to be true, it a place where the more-unscrupulous of us can steal, trick and
subject others to negative ordeals.
As Ninurta indicates, who does the European Union think they are?!! -and as a Brit, I would like to
offer my suggestion.
At first, I thought the EU were doing a stealthy version of China's decision and merely lighting a fire
to put it out. One only needs to propose an extreme of what one really wants and usually, the sheeple
will feel that they still have some form of control by dialing the debate back to some middle-ground
and a neutral acceptance. Yet in reality, you're further away from your original stance.
So the act of policing the internet would be worthless if only part of the world will agree to a partial
shield that would protect it's innocent residents from the evil-dripping information traffic.
It would still be available of course, just happening in another room.
But I would suggest it's more than just keeping Stacey from being sent images of men's genitalia
and Aaron tormenting the plump girl in class that he secretly fancies.
With the Silk Road being cleared and Russia being geographically annexed, there's a migration of
not just people, but a way of life that's intrinsically wrapped in a religion. I think this is their true fear.
Is this about a different way of praying or worshipping to a different god...? Is the concern about strict
doctrine that will be demanded to be adhered to, that may conflict with the current traditions of the groups
of countries that make up Europe...? No.
It's about money and power.
US President Jimmy Carter, state of the union address, Jan. 23, 1980:
'...Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian
Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and
such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force...'
So, the United States gets the oil and Europe gets the job of carrying the burden of conflict-torn migration.
But it's not just oil, the black-stuff isn't the only horse on this particular carousel.
Between 1970 and 1979 the United States committed to over $22 billion in arms sales to Iran, accounting
for roughly three-quarters of all of Iran’s weapons purchases during the decade.
Sales commitments to Saudi Arabia were more modest, at just under $3.5 billion for the decade, still a
significant amount considering that the United States only started selling weapons to the kingdom in 1972.
One could assume this lucrative industry hasn't tailed-off!
Then there's the problem of religion to contend with. Three of the worlds main religions are all based in the
Middle East and each lay claim to certain holy sites and are in territory that is contested between more than
one nation. This creates conflict over who controls those sites and more broadly over who controls the region,
another factor laid at Europe's doorstep.
Apart from feeding/housing them, the most difficult part would be to re-educate the migrants to perceive the
west as not just a basket of wealth, but a place of religious pluralism, where tolerance is now the watchword.
This would be difficult enough considering what Britain the French have done in the Middle East over the
centuries!
So for the officials of Europe to want to monitor and control the internet, this must be seen by them as a vital
act. The sins of the Father have come back to haunt his children and now, Europe is looking for a way to
listen at the door for it's footsteps.
To some here, that may imply I'm a dinosaur and in a way, I am. But it's self-induced
and I think the term is 'techno-peasant'!
The way I see it -and it's not too far from Ninurta's cautious thinking, there was a time
when we used only land-lines for telephonic communication and for myself, that was fine.
I'm not naive enough to believe that the official Powers-That-Be would always require a
warrant to access my telephone account, this isn't the movies.
But now, we throw our voices and opinions up into the air and because I know that whatever
one man creates, another can counter and abuse it, those lumps of gossip, private information
and life-threatening data are greatly accessible without the need for paperwork.
Nobody owns the sky.
Some may say 'If you're not doing anything wrong, then what difference does it make?' -and
at face-value, I can understand why some would believe that. If we all unconsciously agree on
a moral benchmark for the internet and communication channels, then any suggestion of policing
would seem toothless as it would be globally acknowledged that the patrons were doing it
themselves!
But we only pretend to be adults... and the great cyber-highway is an ideal place to be the person
we secretly wished we were. In Cyberland, we can be good, bad (BIAD?!) and indifferent and even
perfom these actions all that same time under different names.
It's also an ideal area for a marketplace and with the school-promoted hardwired acceptance that
anything written tends to be true, it a place where the more-unscrupulous of us can steal, trick and
subject others to negative ordeals.
As Ninurta indicates, who does the European Union think they are?!! -and as a Brit, I would like to
offer my suggestion.
At first, I thought the EU were doing a stealthy version of China's decision and merely lighting a fire
to put it out. One only needs to propose an extreme of what one really wants and usually, the sheeple
will feel that they still have some form of control by dialing the debate back to some middle-ground
and a neutral acceptance. Yet in reality, you're further away from your original stance.
So the act of policing the internet would be worthless if only part of the world will agree to a partial
shield that would protect it's innocent residents from the evil-dripping information traffic.
It would still be available of course, just happening in another room.
But I would suggest it's more than just keeping Stacey from being sent images of men's genitalia
and Aaron tormenting the plump girl in class that he secretly fancies.
With the Silk Road being cleared and Russia being geographically annexed, there's a migration of
not just people, but a way of life that's intrinsically wrapped in a religion. I think this is their true fear.
Is this about a different way of praying or worshipping to a different god...? Is the concern about strict
doctrine that will be demanded to be adhered to, that may conflict with the current traditions of the groups
of countries that make up Europe...? No.
It's about money and power.
US President Jimmy Carter, state of the union address, Jan. 23, 1980:
'...Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian
Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and
such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force...'
So, the United States gets the oil and Europe gets the job of carrying the burden of conflict-torn migration.
But it's not just oil, the black-stuff isn't the only horse on this particular carousel.
Between 1970 and 1979 the United States committed to over $22 billion in arms sales to Iran, accounting
for roughly three-quarters of all of Iran’s weapons purchases during the decade.
Sales commitments to Saudi Arabia were more modest, at just under $3.5 billion for the decade, still a
significant amount considering that the United States only started selling weapons to the kingdom in 1972.
One could assume this lucrative industry hasn't tailed-off!
Then there's the problem of religion to contend with. Three of the worlds main religions are all based in the
Middle East and each lay claim to certain holy sites and are in territory that is contested between more than
one nation. This creates conflict over who controls those sites and more broadly over who controls the region,
another factor laid at Europe's doorstep.
Apart from feeding/housing them, the most difficult part would be to re-educate the migrants to perceive the
west as not just a basket of wealth, but a place of religious pluralism, where tolerance is now the watchword.
This would be difficult enough considering what Britain the French have done in the Middle East over the
centuries!
So for the officials of Europe to want to monitor and control the internet, this must be seen by them as a vital
act. The sins of the Father have come back to haunt his children and now, Europe is looking for a way to
listen at the door for it's footsteps.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.