There is no doubt. Facebook and Twitter have played a role in nurturing the revolt that led to the resignation of President Mubarak. Maybe or maybe not by accident, just days after these momentous events, the U.S. administration announced a new policy for the freedom of the Net. A policy that will work around any barriers and walls that autocratic governments can put in place to suppress dissidents.
Beautiful is not it? Democracy of the Net But we may have to do with Democracy Democracy in the Net is the network as it proclaims. Democracy is taking the network could be the end result. The basic question to ask is not at all complicated. What are the "projects" that deserve attention? For the countries against which dissidents such regimes or governments, it is all well and good to provide technological support and digital? Who decides? The network must be considered in all respects to drop a weapon or tool repressive regimes, very, very effective in the hands of repressive regimes to root out and crush dissent? This is not a theoretical question.
What happened in Tunisia, Egypt, and that is happening in Iran, he sees the use of social networking as much from each other. Who helps you and when? The lessons of the past are not forgotten. The United States expect to finance "projects" as a circumvention service, or architecture and tools that enable its users to "escape" from prison in the Internet, allowing them to continue to resist, to make their voices heard.
Or the formation and training of those involved in civil rights to teach them how not to get intercept electronic mail, how to delete sensitive data from their mobile phones if arrested by the police, how to delete files from their computers embarrassing. They sound good. They say that networking technologies are a force that leads to democratic change but not the ultimate weapon to take down repressive regimes.
Although this sounds good but I disagree. I am not at all agree. Spouse as stated by Michael H. Posner, Deputy Secretary of State for Democracy, civil rights and employment. The people feel that technology will make us free. No, people will make us free. The persons directly involved, not those who "assist".
Certainly, the behavior of the U.S. government is least dissociated. One day, says that the network should be for everyone, without restrictions and information, the truth must be free to move. The next day asking for the extradition of the responsible WikiLeaks. He says he will fund projects that no one can control the network and then discusses the "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act", known to most as "Bill Kill Switch." Mah! Last question.
How to evaluate the real intentions of those who claim to champion freedom and democracy. The media has talked a lot of Anonymous who want to help the collapse of the Iranian regime. Have you read their proclamation? No? Here it is: "Hi, leader of Iran. We are Anonymous. A nation that seeks freedom for too long endured tyranny.
For 30 years you promised you the false and nonexistent denounced foreign interference. Your time is over. These lies have been discovered by your own citizens who have shed their blood in protest. Have risen against you and continue to do so and there are millions. 40 days and 40 nights have passed and you have continued your brutal and bloody attacks against your own people, your brutal repression was noted.
Knowledge is free, but your citizens are not. However, we are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not condone. We will not forget. The final blow to your door is convenient. Wait. "Tocqueville something like that would not have written. I do not think the very essence of democracy ... 
Beautiful is not it? Democracy of the Net But we may have to do with Democracy Democracy in the Net is the network as it proclaims. Democracy is taking the network could be the end result. The basic question to ask is not at all complicated. What are the "projects" that deserve attention? For the countries against which dissidents such regimes or governments, it is all well and good to provide technological support and digital? Who decides? The network must be considered in all respects to drop a weapon or tool repressive regimes, very, very effective in the hands of repressive regimes to root out and crush dissent? This is not a theoretical question.
What happened in Tunisia, Egypt, and that is happening in Iran, he sees the use of social networking as much from each other. Who helps you and when? The lessons of the past are not forgotten. The United States expect to finance "projects" as a circumvention service, or architecture and tools that enable its users to "escape" from prison in the Internet, allowing them to continue to resist, to make their voices heard.
Or the formation and training of those involved in civil rights to teach them how not to get intercept electronic mail, how to delete sensitive data from their mobile phones if arrested by the police, how to delete files from their computers embarrassing. They sound good. They say that networking technologies are a force that leads to democratic change but not the ultimate weapon to take down repressive regimes.
Although this sounds good but I disagree. I am not at all agree. Spouse as stated by Michael H. Posner, Deputy Secretary of State for Democracy, civil rights and employment. The people feel that technology will make us free. No, people will make us free. The persons directly involved, not those who "assist".
Certainly, the behavior of the U.S. government is least dissociated. One day, says that the network should be for everyone, without restrictions and information, the truth must be free to move. The next day asking for the extradition of the responsible WikiLeaks. He says he will fund projects that no one can control the network and then discusses the "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act", known to most as "Bill Kill Switch." Mah! Last question.
How to evaluate the real intentions of those who claim to champion freedom and democracy. The media has talked a lot of Anonymous who want to help the collapse of the Iranian regime. Have you read their proclamation? No? Here it is: "Hi, leader of Iran. We are Anonymous. A nation that seeks freedom for too long endured tyranny.
For 30 years you promised you the false and nonexistent denounced foreign interference. Your time is over. These lies have been discovered by your own citizens who have shed their blood in protest. Have risen against you and continue to do so and there are millions. 40 days and 40 nights have passed and you have continued your brutal and bloody attacks against your own people, your brutal repression was noted.
Knowledge is free, but your citizens are not. However, we are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not condone. We will not forget. The final blow to your door is convenient. Wait. "Tocqueville something like that would not have written. I do not think the very essence of democracy ...
- mpnews.it: Recensione: Kanye West - My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (25/12/2010)
- WhosHere - MyRete (26/01/2011)
- Fabio Metitieri, Riccardo Ridi - Biblioteche in rete - Aggiornamento 2008, Introduzione (24/11/2010)
- Luca Marcis joins RRD (09/02/2011)
- WhosHere for iPhone Adds Support for Five New Languages (02/02/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment