Saturday, May 13, 2006

Verizon - It's the First Amendment

I just got a voicemail message this morning that was sent Monday. I guess my provider Verizon was too busy this week providing my records to the NSA to worry about good service. Now when I look at those commercials with all those people standing behind the Verizon customer representing, "the network," I wonder just how many of them are NSA agents spying on the customer for the government?

And if that wasn't enough to make them too busy to give me good service, then it must have been the time they spent lobbying congress to get rid of Net Neutrality and limit my ability to surf wherever I want on the net. For me there's a more important reason to choose a wireless company, it's the first amendment. Where can I find the number to Qwest?

-Stand up and fight the powers.


Anonymous said...

I'm afraid this is backward. Net Neutrality is a stalking horse for the NSA.

Think about it. If you were the US gov't and you wanted to exert greater abilities to peer into what was happening on the networks, wouldn't you want to pass laws that would give you greater control over the Internet, including especially what its routers and switchers are allowed to do? Seems like a no-brainer.

And it's maybe no coincidence Google & Co. are on the Net Neutrality side. Considering what Google and Yahoo have done for China, does this really sound so far-fetched?

As Admiral Akbar once said -- it's a trap! And I'm afraid the whole Internet is falling for it.

arevolutionofone said...

You're going to have to explain to me exactly how preventing an ISP from slowing down or blocking sites would help the NSA "peer into" what is happening on the networks. The principle of net neutrality has been in force since the beginning of the Internet through FCC regulation that applied to telephone communications. The Bush administration and their FCC appointees changed the regulations, requiring legislation to insure that it stays in place. Your argument is not making sense to me. This legislation protects our freedom. Without it we would surely loose it.

leoncino said...

First. For over a decade, the NSA has had unequalled oversight over and infiltration capability into the Internet. Period. The intelligence community implemented their own network protocol technology long before the Internet as we know it. They know it inside and out.
Second. The NSA sits at the head of a lofty throne known as the UKUSA agreement of 1948, and is the chief authority of a nifty little intelligence operation titled ECHELON, which allows it to effectively intercept and decipher virtually every microwave, radio, radar and telecommuncations transmission in the world. That was ten years ago. This is one of the more recent extensions of the NSA's long-standing SIGINT operations, which were called into question 31 years ago when the Pike and Church committees pulled a few dozen skeletons from the agency's vast closet.

The company that wants you to trust them with the freedom of the Internet just sold you out to that agency within the PAST YEAR. Every avenue of communication has been compromised, and the last is about to go.

America, I'm fucking sick of it. You swallow too much of this bullshit every day, and you seem to like it. This is one of the last shreds of this excuse for a democracy we have left; and this blog, or a committee, or a colaition of the whatever-the-fuck is not going to stand in the way of its destruction. Show me one successful, democratic defeat of a coercive, underhanded bill or proposal in Congress such as this one, and I'll show you 20 that either passed anyway, or slipped under the sitcom-saturaed radar of virutally the entire American public (ie: patriot II). What do we do when bloging, or petitioning, or forwarding cutesy Bush cartoons to our in-laws are meaningless? When pen and paper are not enough, when we continue to be bullied and mocked and trampled in spite of our peacefull compliance with the democratic system, what do we have left? Every day is a sharp reminder of the reform we so desperately need but are helpless to make manifest. This bill is another veil to conceal and misdirect; another plate in the armor of the perpetuators of greed and inhumanity. There will come a day -- a day I sincerely dread -- when we will trade our pens and our voices for fire. I pray for an end to this tyranny before our lives are truly at stake for our liberty. But if need be, I also sincerely hope that there still exist somewhere those who possess the courage to pull the drunken kings from their thrones.

arevolutionofone said...

Dude, you're overwrought. Chill. I am a confirmed Virtual Revolutionary. And the kind of stuff you're talking about, sounds to me like stuff you have to get dressed for. I just think that's going to an unnecessary extreme. Further, I, unlike you, believe in the power of the internet. I believe in the power of cutesy George Bush cartoons. I believe that email is more powerful than "fire." I believe that one day, through email and cutesy cartoons, we will triump. Finally, I believe that children are our future, but that's a whole different topic.

Men of vision, such as Mahtma Ghandi and Martin Luther King lead non-violent revolutions that changed their respective worlds. I believe that the same kind of change can happen through Virtual Revolution.

Sit Down and Fight The Powers

leoncino said...

Quoting arevolutoinofone:

“I, unlike you, believe in the power of the internet.”

Forgive me, chap, but isn’t that exactly what’s at stake here? Isn’t that why I bothered posting here in the first place? The power of the internet, which is of… you know… of some importance to me, is endangered a) by legislative defecations such as this bill, and b) so-called “virtual revolutionaries” who would prefer to downplay and minimize it rather than acknowledge the severity of the issue. I meant to deliberately convey that the usurpation of the free and equal Internet from the American people, and really people all over the world, will effectively monopolize all media; ALL OF IT. While almost every wall certainly has ears, the auditorium of the Internet makes too much noise to be heard in its entirety, and hence every voice is at equal volume. This bill stands to silence the room down to a few high-priced, politically slanted microphones, drowning out anyone with a competitive or “unwanted” voice. Could anything be less democratic? Oh I’m sorry, I must be too overwrought. Yea, maybe its not such a big deal.

You can hardly expect me or anyone else to "sit down" when there has been so much to stand up about. I don't say such things to be heedlessly oppositional. This is not an illness, its an EPIDEMIC. This is the becoming the rule over the exception. The powers whom were once accessible, once accountable for their actions have systematically insulated themselves with the technology of their own creation. The means by which reformation could once have taken shape has become increasingly siphoned down to nothing. The age of the "nonviolent revolution" is slowly becoming something of our history books, because our elder humanitarians were never up against such a formidable front. Is it not in the best interest of the bearers of power to preserve it? and thus cut off or manipulate or infiltrate or buy out all avenues by which citizens or politicians or peace advocates or civil rights activists might collaborate and collectivize their opposition? You know what I think of when I hear the word ‘terrorist’ my virtual-revolutionary friend? Red. Communist. Witch. Jew. Fag. Nigger. A manufactured enemy -- a scapegoat -- painted with the evils of the world, who is far more evil in the fear-infested imagination than in actuality. And if you’ve anything to say on the imminence of terrorism, do some homework on our truly terrible national tragedy of September the 11th. I guarantee your sources on the topic will be cut in half if operation Internet-price-tag passes.

It would be shamefully and sheepishly ignorant to permit anyone to "soften my sermon," so-to-speak, considering an abusive, foolhardy, inconsiderate, and egocentric history such as ours, without a particularly convincing argument to warrant your carefree optimism. In other words, if you want me to kick back, give a back rub, hug a tree, and mellow out while the "virtual revolutionaries" save the world, tell me why; particularly when the “virtual” is exactly what is about to be stolen and redistributed to the highest bidder. More than anything, I want to know why YOU are content to confine your adamancy to your keyboard, and I AM NOT.

Sit down and fight the powers? The true revolutionary, the one who has surpassed both you and I in dedication and devotion to the common good, turns in his grave at the sound of such words. The children are our future, I just hope your children aren’t.

No matter how much that may have pissed you off I’m eager to continue this dialog. This time, please take the time to actually read what I’ve said so as not to misinterpret my meaning, and perhaps we can have a truly meaningful discussion. I await your reply.

arevolutionofone said...

If as you say leoncino:

"age of the "nonviolent revolution" is slowly becoming something of our history books, because our elder humanitarians were never up against such a formidable front. Is it not in the best interest of the bearers of power to preserve it? and thus cut off or manipulate or infiltrate or buy out all avenues by which citizens or politicians or peace advocates or civil rights activists might collaborate and collectivize their opposition?"

What makes you think that the "avenues" of violent opposition will be open? If the bearers of power are strong enough to cut off, manipulate, infiltrate and buy out all the non-violent means of opposition, do you think they somehow spaced out and forgot to block violent means. Just how do you propose that we fight someone like the NSA, the government, the CIA, and the military/industrial complex except through our collective voices, our votes and protest, without being killed or ending up in jail? If you think there's another way you are a fool and that's where you'll end up. You're an even bigger fool to talk about it on the internet, especially if you know the walls have ears.

Try reading Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King, leoncino, if you want to learn the power of, reasoning behind, and humanity of non-violent resistance. With this technology, it's even easier to fight a non-violent revolution. In the future, revolutions will be fought from our couches. And dude, you're a bit wordy. And really worked up. Try the de-caf man.

-Sit down and fight the powers.

leoncino said...

so we disagree...

to address your critiques:

1. I use words to explain things. I use big words to explain big things. I apologize if you think it is in excess. I don't.

2. the emotion in my writing indicates how I feel. I'm happy you've noticed I'm worked up, and again, you have yet to explain to me why you are not, at least not enough to get off the couch.

3. Peaceful protesting has not been "blocked." You can do all the peaceful protesting you want. What has been compromised is the annals by which citizens recieve the information they protest about -- kind of like the topic at the header of this page -- and the integrity of the people, places and methods citizens would ordinarily utilize in fixing these problem are equally frought with misdirection, abuses of power, and greed. When another cabinet member or CEO or Capitol Hill cronie gets nailed almost monthly for buttfucking the money tree, I tend to lose my fervor for diplomacy. So combine those two: keeping the people un/misinformed and the breaking down of the system by which "reform" can take place. Now you've got problems, and they are, unfortunately, beyond the reach of the protest that we normally see in society. And they are also beyond your couch.

4. It is interesting that you brought up the plausability of "less-peaceful" protest. Riot control (aka active denial) and other non-lethal technology developments of the past 20 years have generated some... interesting innovations; namely microwave, VLF and ULF wave emissions devices capable of dropping a square mile of dissenters to the ground, inducing instant vommiting or diarrhea or excruciating burning sensations just beneath the surface of the skin, or altering behavior patterns. (Look it up. I'm not kidding.) That is not to say that certain less than peaceful or non-compliant avenues of protest are unfeasable. I'll get to that in a minute.

I admire your loyalty to non-violence. Believe it or not, I am a pretty non-violent person myself. Never fought a human being in my life, and I hope I never will. But I have a different meaning behind the word 'violence' than you may think. I use the term to denote the destabilization or dismembering or weakening of the machinery by which something perpetuates its oppression, malice, inhumanity, whatever, but NEVER THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. I think we can agree that murdering a murderer makes you a murderer just the same. Whomever takes it upon themselves to kill in the name of any common good does so without the blessing of any God, including their own. But if you wrench the whip from the master's grip and scar his hands in the process, is that really the same as whipping? The "violence" or non-compliant behavior I'm discussing never would consist of the endangering of human life. Ever. And it is for this reason that I find its application less immoral and less criminal than you do, especially if it eases LIVING suffering at the expense of DEAD material. Metal, mortar, and stone.

Legal, moderate action requires playing by the very rules dictated by the power you are up against. There must some semblance of integrity within the system you hope to change if you are using the system to change itself. Without that, coloring inside the lines is useless, futile, and stupid. Given the topic of this post and the other dozens of examples of the parasite that is eating this country alive, if this disgusting momentum continues, not only is more oppositional and forceful action more likely -- whether I or anyone else approves of it or not -- we begin to also see that the adhrence to methods/doctrines/ideologies which are blatantly ineffective seem to exemplify a reckless passivity, ignorance, and indifference which placates the very evil(s) they try to correct.

now my critiques:

1. You seem to be repeatedly missing the point. Your "virtual" arsenal is owned, operated, and about to be mandated by the very people and ideas and companies and GOVERNMENT you supposedly oppose. Kinda like boxing the guy that invented hands. It's just stupid.

2. Voices, votes and protest. I'm not sure I should even bother with this anymore if voting is one of the lolipops you want to throw at the world's problems. A popularity contest, which has been RIGGED just a few times in recent memory. I lost my faith in the the voting system when Diebold lost its interest upholding the dignity and equality of the electoral process. Give me a fucking break.

Another touching finale by the way. Fighting revolutions from couches. You really have no idea what you're doing do you. Ask a Sudanese family on the wrong end of a machete how much fucking good you're doing them on your couch. Someone or something has to be the hand for the magical arm of this "virtual revolution" you speak of. Judging by your lust for sitting, I take it you aren't interested in that part.

We are of two different minds my friend. You are of reformation, and I am of reformulation.

ps: i know they listen and I hope they're taking notes. the same goes for you.