WCIT-12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union#World_Conference_on_International_Telecommunications_2012_.28WCIT-12.29

The ITU will facilitate the The World Congress on International Telecommunications or WCIT, a treaty-level conference that addresses the international rules for telecommunications, including international tariffs.^[11] The previous conference to update the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) was held in Melbourne in 1988.^[12] The next conference is taking place in Dubai in December 2012.

[...]

In August 2012, ITU called for a public consultation on a draft document ahead of the conference.^[13] It is claimed the proposal would allow government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet and create a global regime of monitoring internet communications – including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves. It would also allow governments to shut down the internet if there is the belief that it may interfere in the internal affairs of other states or that information of a sensitive nature might be shared.^[14]

[...]

Proposals currently under consideration would establish regulatory oversight by the U.N. over security, fraud, traffic accounting as well as traffic flow, management of Internet Domain Names and IP addresses, and other aspects of the Internet that are currently governed either by community-based approaches such as Regional Internet Registries, ICANN, or largely national regulatory frameworks.^[17] The move by the ITU and some countries has alarmed many within the United States and within the Internet community.^[18][19] Indeed some European telecommunication services have proposed a so-called "sender pays" model which would requires sources of Internet traffic to pay destinations, similar to the way funds are transferred between countries using the telephone.^[20][21]

The WCIT-12 activity has been attacked by Google, who has characterized it as a threat to the "free and open internet".^[22]

Cool, it's about time everyone switched to darknets.

On 5 December 2012, the lower chamber of the United States Congress passed a resolution opposing U.N. governance of the Internet by a rare unanimous 397-0 vote. The resolution warned that ".. proposals have been put forward for consideration at the [WCIT-12] that would fundamentally alter the governance and operation of the Internet ... [and] would attempt to justify increased government control over the Internet", and stated that the policy of the United States is "... to promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today." The same resolution had previously been passed unanimously by the upper chamber of the Congress in September.
It's dead, Jim!

>>2
No darknet. The ITU (the people who manage international calling) will publish recommendations (read: mandates) that member states use DPI to block suspicious traffic that may harm internet security, real-life security, or violate international laws (like copyright). With the power of the DNSSEC keys, they will be able to ensure that no website encrypts it's traffic without paying for a license when registering the domain. All traffic not to or from a licensed server (and clients can only contact servers, as clients and servers are separate tiers of users under ITU control), will be marked suspicious and possibly disconnected.

Then the UN will have blasphemy and porn blocked, then Russia and China will have political speech blocked, and the US will have all material that doesn't have it's copyright verified by a public notary and ten witnesses blocked.

Darknets only work when encrypted traffic is viewed as legitimate. Every time you go to onionland to look at CP, your ISP gives you the benefit of the doubt that you are just browsing some forum about knitting. They aren't so stupid that they can't tell between an encrypted packet and an unencrypted packet, after all.

>>4-autist, you are a paranoid faggot.

>>5
I'm not sure how you inferred that >>4 was autistic, paranoid, or a faggot. Care to explain?

>>6
No, fuck you.

>>4
Then darknet + mesh network + sneakernet.

All traffic not to or from a licensed server (and clients can only contact servers, as clients and servers are separate tiers of users under ITU control), will be marked suspicious and possibly disconnected.
Right, and the hundreds of thousands of companies that depend on a free Internet will just stand by as their business model crumbles to the ground.

Darknets only work when encrypted traffic is viewed as legitimate. Every time you go to onionland to look at CP, your ISP gives you the benefit of the doubt that you are just browsing some forum about knitting.
That's just because darknets aren't sufficiently advanced yet to support some sort of voluntary "conspiracy attack" on servers that break the darknet rules (e.g. to unmask nodes that sell/post CP/snuff, or who spam). Also, the ISP has fuck-all to do with encrypted traffic; the government is the one that has the authority to interfere, and it doesn't do it because it would violate over 9000 constitutional amendments (unless you live in some retarded niggerland). Finally, the existence of steganography proves the futility of Internet censorship, no matter how draconian.

>>8
Right, and the hundreds of thousands of companies that depend on a free Internet will just stand by as their business model crumbles to the ground.
Do they have lots of money? Hollywood Jews have money. Saudi Arabia has money. Google is broke compared to The Forces That Be.

That's just because darknets aren't sufficiently advanced yet to support some sort of voluntary "conspiracy attack" on servers that break the darknet rules (e.g. to unmask nodes that sell/post CP/snuff, or who spam).
Are you fucking stupid? If someone can unmask a node, then it isn't a fucking darknet, it's fucking limewire. You have no god damn clue as to what you are talking about you fucking faggot. You just want to play like on of the hackers on TV and browse green-text-on-black-background websites with 1337 URLs and talk about how the government is afraid of you. Why don't you go buy a fucking clue and read up on what a fucking darknet is and look into encryption before you spew your idiotic cyberpunk fantasies and make yourself look stupid again.

>>8
It's not that far off of a reality. The government can require parties to apply for a license to use encryption. Upon approval of the license, the party discloses the private keys to the government. The companies still get security from other members of the public, but not the government. Encrypted traffic can be detected, and if the user does not have a license, they can be prosecuted. This is how it is done in some places in the world.

>>9
Fuck you.

>darknet

it doesn't mean what you think it means

>>9
Wow, you are fucking retarded.

>>10
It's not that far off of a reality.
That depends on how vigilant not-completely-brain-dead the citizens in a particular country are. Of course, if the country is ruled by a dictatorship, it doesn't really matter.

Encrypted traffic can be detected, and if the user does not have a license, they can be prosecuted.
Steganography.

This is how it is done in some places in the world.
It's usually the same places where people don't really enjoy most of the rights on the UDHR.

Fighting crypto is a losing battle, and even the USA gov't was smart enough to know that back in the late nineties.

http://www.cryptolaw.org/cls2.htm

Why are there so few sex scandals in the UN? Hint:JEWS!

>>15
The UN has rules that say that anyone who reports about a UN sex scandal is a terrorist.

>>3
forgot to cite:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/271153-house-approves-resolution-to-keep-internet-control-out-of-un-hands

>>8,11-1005
Also, we still have chaosnet and hesiod we can always use. And now days, most p2p like I2P, still works if the most oppressive ISPs.

>>10
concurred. And knowing reality, people will ignore them until forced. But Again, I still remember the USENET ban, and how effective it was.

why is human behavior so parasitic when you are the alpha mammal that controls countries?

looks like the 1990's of the USA finally hit the authoritarian niggerlands (e.g. almost every asian country). let's see how they deal with it.

>>18
Don't forget about prison state UK and retarded piece of shit France.

>>10
The government can require parties to apply for a license to use encryption.
Not this shit again. Your average 6th fucking grader can understand and implement strong pubkey crypto, how fucking thick-skulled must you be to even suggest the banishment of mathematics?

fucking sage

Your average 6th fucking grader can understand and implement strong pubkey crypto
That's not how it works, fagshit.

Using sage rudely considered harmful.

>>21
Then how does it work, shotgun-san? Please, enlighten me.

>>22
I'm not the retarded shotgun cocksucker.

A 6th fucking grader can't even do algebra for shit, that's why it doesn't work like that.

>>23
A 6th fucking grader can't even do algebra for shit, that's why it doesn't work like that.
What country are you in?

>>23
Modular arithmetic is easy to explain, and they already know what exponentiation is, so you should be able to teach them e.g. ElGamal encryption.

fucking stupid retarded shotgun cocksucker

>>26
Freedom-hating piece of shit, go back to soviet russia.

The guy who regulates fraud is called a mafia boss

>>27
shotguns are for fagshits

get a rifle freedom-hating fagshit

>>24
The US of A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#2009

ur all posting in a troll thread, niggas
if you weren't so stupid youll'be licking UTI's ass already
more unencrypted traffic -> fatter covert channels
steganography and shit provides plausible deniability, that conjecture seems to be strong enough to rely on.
can't you see what that means? UTI is forcing differentiation into categories of greygoo and steganoleet. that's the end of eternal september, faggots!

>>20
you are confusing ability with legality. It's easy enough for me park a vehicle on a sidewalk that's painted red, but that doesn't make it legal. What is and isn't legal is up to the country, and in some places the use of encryption is banned, in others it is allowed with a license, and in others there is no regulation whatsoever.  I wasn't suggesting that it should be banned, just stating that it is in some places, and using it in such places would be putting yourself at risk.

>>32
Doing mathematics is about as private as masturbation (being its mental counterpart and all that). A country that bans cryptography would probably have no problems banning masturbation either.

>>5
Perhaps you aren't paranoid enough.

>>8
Then darknet
Useless with DPI for sharing anything less trivial than pie recipes, unencrypted. It also isn't a publishing method like the internet proper is, but a sharing platform where you already have to know the people to allow them to connect\connect to their darknet.

mesh network
Same problem, and also expensive. You also require licenses for the frequencies that you use. Also, the state could simply require licenses for encryption (for example, HAM radio operators can't encrypt anything (or so I'm told)).

sneakernet
Slow as balls. Not only can you not publish, you can't share with strangers either. If you do, you have to communicate somehow and use the postal system, most often run by the government. It would be like fansubs in the 90s, where you had to write some faggot that you meet on Usenet, mail him a tape, and hope that he sends it back to you in four to six weeks. It would work fine for sharing with local friends I guess, but then you have to actually have friends.

Also, the ISP has fuck-all to do with encrypted traffic; the government is the one that has the authority to interfere, and it doesn't do it because it would violate over 9000 constitutional amendments (unless you live in some retarded niggerland).
That's why the AT&T never took the NSA's money in exchange for letting them set up an office next to their routers, right? The constitution stopped that, and Congress certainly never gave them immunity, right? Even now, the police is trying to have the government force telecoms to keep verbose logs of traffic and shit for years on end.

Finally, the existence of steganography proves the futility of Internet censorship, no matter how draconian.
How exactly will steganography help? Mass inspection of internet traffic is not an investigation itself, it is a survey to see who should be investigated more closely. Even if you can only need 8 bits of stegotext for 1 bit of plaintext, to transfer that 500KB mohammed_goatfuck.png you would need an entire four megabytes! That's going to look pretty fucking suspicious to be transferring to an internet that is only supposed to be used for Facebook and Walmart.com. Then there is the fact that it isn't exactly hard to extract data from known algorithms, so you'd better encrypt before you upload! But once again, that's not publishing, that's sharing, and you could probably just print it out and mail it to your friends instead.

But before I get too involved, please detail your plans of how exactly steganography would be useful.

>>13
That depends on how vigilant not-completely-brain-dead the citizens in a particular country are. Of course, if the country is ruled by a dictatorship, it doesn't really matter.
You don't have to be stupid to trade freedom for protection against evil terrorist and pedophiles and blasphemers, you just have to be scared and trusting. That is the trade that is being offered to the people, and they just don't know that they will be fucked.

Fighting crypto is a losing battle, and even the USA gov't was smart enough to know that back in the late nineties.
It's a losing battle for a civilized government. A government that doesn't really care about hitting a few innocents in the head and ruining a few lives for THE GREATER GOOD might prove to be much more successful.

>>20,33
Not this shit again. Your average 6th fucking grader can understand and implement strong pubkey crypto, how fucking thick-skulled must you be to even suggest the banishment of mathematics?
You are already required to turn over keys and passwords to the government when requested. You are already required to have a license to use the airwaves (It's just an EM wave! How can they possibly regulate an natural phenomenon and a fundamental force of nature?!?!?!?). It's illegal to export software, including cryptographic software, to many countries.

The idea that math can't be banned or that information wants to be free is purely academic. Governments operate in the real world, and if you don't follow their laws, they will send scary men to to take you and put you in prison. It doesn't really matter how much you tell the judge (it's just a number!), they won't care any more about what you say that they care about potheads who keep saying that it's wrong to ban a naturally growing plant.

Cryptography considered JEWISH

>>35
[citation needed]

>>23,30
LOL, sucks to be you. I touched prealgebra concepts on 4th, and on 6th actually learn it. So much so, was half into trig at the end. Homescholed although. Took for creditation on 7th Algebra and aced ith witha 124% (extra credit, something Americunt only has)

You also require licenses for the frequencies that you use.
directional antenna + spread spectrum + minimum required power to make contact
Anyone who doesn't know exactly where to look and exactly what to look for will probably never detect your transmissions if you do it right. They can't enforce licensing for signals they can't detect.

HAM radio operators can't encrypt anything
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html
Encryption on ham radio

While IEEE 802.11b allows WEP, an encryption algorithm, Amateur Radio transmissions are characterized as being an open media. That is, amateur radio operators expect and assume that their transmissions are being listened to around the world with no presumption of privacy. And, the FCC even mandates that hams will not encode/encrypt to obscure meaning.

Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption is ok as long as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97.  Again, the encryption's purpose is not to "obscure" but to provide security and authentication.  To further this, an amendment made to Article 25.2A (1A) at the 2003 World radio Conference no longer specifically prohibits the use of encryption and other strong security measures on transmissions between Amateur Radio stations within the same jurisdiction.

The FCC, under non-emergency situations does NOT want stations of one service routinely communicating with stations of another service  So many saw encryption as required to be used, and the ARRL attorney (Chris Imlay, W3KD) asked the FCC if that was acceptable and they said "yes". The FCC's reasoning was that it was NOT our INTENT (an important legal concept) to obscure the communications.

Some agree, some don't.  As far as I know the FCC is aware or should be as the HSMM and ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the  purpose of control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued any citations.  It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to the FCC telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not received a citation.

This probably isn't much of an issue for a private network, but I can see it being an issue when porting traffic over the internet. Keep in mind how the FCC rules are stated: "An amateur station shall not intentionally obscure the meaning ..." Encrypting just login & password strings doesn't obscure the meaning does it? Also using encryption can be classified as an "unspecified" digital code, which is permitted as long as you provide public documentation for it.   Which can be fulfilled much the way the ARRL HSMM created a standardized WEP key that they posted on their webpage.

The use of encryption has actually been legal all along.  For the communications purposes of; network security and access control, emergency communications, and practice for same—our purposes in using encryption are the security of the network and the privacy of third-party information. In either case, the purpose is not to obscure meaning.

It should also be clarified that whatever encryption methods you use —WEP, WPA, WPA2, or whatever—it must be publicly documented. Please note that this specifically means the encryption algorithm, not the encryption key.

>>38
It should also be clarified that whatever encryption methods you use —WEP, WPA, WPA2, or whatever—it must be publicly documented. Please note that this specifically means the encryption algorithm, not the encryption key.
What if you super-encrypt?

>>34
Same problem, and also expensive. You also require licenses for the frequencies that you use.
Yeah, right, banning the 2.4GHz band. Why not ban knives too, those can be used by criminals.

But before I get too involved, please detail your plans of how exactly steganography would be useful.
For short messages (under, say, 10KB, so perfectly suitable for email), steganography (used in conjunction with cryptography) completely defeats DPI and any kind of crypto regulations. Simply that fact alone is enough to prove that surveillance and crypto legislation are nothing but a mere hindrance to ``hardcore cybercriminals''.

You are already required to turn over keys and passwords to the government when requested.
Depends on the country. Also, that kind of request requires a warrant (except in prison state UK), so if they have a keys/passwords warrant they could probably have gotten a hardware keylogger warrant anyway.

You are already required to have a license to use the airwaves (It's just an EM wave! How can they possibly regulate an natural phenomenon and a fundamental force of nature?!?!?!?).
That one actually makes sense, because the spectrum crosses property boundaries easily and, generally, waves emitted by someone on their private property will travel far beyond that, into public space, potentially interfering with other people's communications. Someone needs to arbitrate that, so naturally the public servants do it.

It's illegal to export software, including cryptographic software, to many countries.
I heard Zimmerman still sells his OpenPGP source code book overseas.

The idea that math can't be banned or that information wants to be free is purely academic.
And it is entirely correct.

Governments
You mean public servants?

operate in the real world, and if you don't follow their laws, they will send scary men to to take you and put you in prison.
Good old confinement torture.

they won't care any more about what you say that they care about potheads who keep saying that it's wrong to ban a naturally growing plant.
And they are also absolutely right. Most [i]possession[/u] crimes are idiotic by definition (maybe with the exception of loaded guns and bombs).

they won't care any more about what you say that they care about potheads who keep saying that it's wrong to ban a naturally growing plant.
Except that you can't just make a cannabis plant appear by typing specific instructions into your computer and hitting 'run'.

>>41
you can make one by throwing a seed in your backyard (if you live in a sufficiently warm climate)

Did you know it could be a federal offense to be in possession of a lobster?

>>40
_[][] faggot quotes^[][]

>>43
define lobster

loebster

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

>>47
fuck you faggot

>>48
Ignore him, retard.

>>41
Except that you can't just make a cannabis plant appear by typing specific instructions into your computer and hitting 'run'.
unless you're really fucking high.

look at me, I'm going to exponentiate an integer, divide it by another integer and take the remainder, and poof I'm a criminal

>>51

yes you are, terrorist scumbag. reported to the govmnt.

>>51
As a black hacker, I feel offended by this post.

>>51,53
and poof I'm a criminal
As a black hacker, I feel offended by this post.
Oh no you didn't.

>>52
govmnt.
U MENA THE PUBLIC SERVICE?
also, fuck you authoritarian fuckwad

>>54
Fuck you, shotgun-retard.

>>55
Fuck you, nazi-fuckward.

>>52
Fuck you, anti-intellectual brutish piece of authoritarian shit.

>>57
Then why do you hate society?

You're just a spoiled little brat, shotgun-retard.

http://hexus.net/business/news/internet/49005-privacy-alert-itu-secretly-approves-deep-packet-inspection/

The first confirmation of fears to emerge from talks has been the adaptation of the 'Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks' standard, 'Y.2770'. This standard provides a means for ISPs and governments to inspect the actual content of user traffic and not just packet headers for the purposes of data routing.

The shotgun-retard is a 14yo who just read the concept of ``anarchy'' on Reddit and thinks he's an anarchist because he hates how his parents tell him to make his bed.

>>59,61
And obviously the correct policy here is to ban cryptography because only paedophile terrorist murderers want privacy, correct? Fuck off and die, ``conservative''.

>>59
And because you had such a hard life in the first world, that suddenly gives more legitimacy to your opinions?

>>61
A law forcing everyone to make their beds would be idiotic and unnecessary.

Enjoy your child pornography and degenerate behavior, freaks. Just know when the time comes, you'll be hanging from a rope.

>>62
Who the fuck said I wanted to ban cryptography, 12 year old Redditard?

Back to /r/atheism, please.

>>66
So you're not pissy about the issue at hand, you're pissy about me posting here. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't just ignore you.

>>65
What constitutes degenerate behaviour or ``being a freak'' is subjective, child pornography production hurts/destroys children, most possession crimes are retarded, and suggesting death to your fellow humans is a sign of being a degenerate freak.

>>67
I wouldn't mind if you weren't such an insufferable faggot.

>>67
There is nothing degenerate about advocating the death penalty for criminals.

>>68
I wouldn't mind if you weren't such an insufferable faggot.
Sorry, no can do.

>>69
Yes, there is. The point of the penal system is to reform, not to punish (also, punishment does not work). Killing people doesn't qualify as reforming them, and violates their right to life. Death penalty is state-sanctioned murder.

>>70
The point of the penal system is to penalise. Now get out.

penislise

>>71
You must think you're really clever. Okay, now suppose that's true. Then the aim of the penal system being to penalize (and not to reform), it does not concern itself with reducing or preventing criminality, thus it does not concern itself with the safety of the citizens. Wait, what?

>>73
Don't you "wait, what" me, cretin. Your conclusions are fallacious. And since it looks like you actually believe yourself, I'm going to respond seriously.
Penalties such as incarceration and death are means of incapacitating criminals so they do not harm innocents (at least for the duration of their imprisonment or deadness). Therefore it does concern itself with the safety of the citizens.
It does not, however, concern itself with reform, even for extreme cases of dysfunction such as paedophilia - there is more utility in just removing them from society than spending the resources necessary to `fix' them (with unknown probability of success).

>>74
If utility only includes the utility of those that are determined to be normal and law abiding, ie those that are never affected by the penal system, then removing criminals from society, whether it be by indefinite incarceration or by death, would yield a higher utility for those that are selected to live a free life. This is assuming that the free society would experience a net benefit from the removal of the criminals from society, which can only be true if the sum damages hypothetically committed in the future by the removed criminals would out weight the sum contributions to society they may later perform, such as curing cancer. It's easy to look at a criminal and say they will always be this way, but more people have changed their ways than you might think, and it can be facilitated with reform.

If the utility of a society includes the utility of those subjected to incarceration, then reform always wins.

Another way to look at it is through morality. By maintaining the death penalty, the government makes a statement that murder is a form of justice. This gives a message to people, that murder is acceptable when performed in the name of justice. And this gives people the idea that it is ok to kill those that they feel deserve it. Such a mentality would only increase amount of murder in a society.

Finally, when the punishment for a crime has been risen to the death penalty, a criminal has no incentive to give themselves up to law enforcement. A criminal that is interested in survival and rational will always fight to the death to avoid capture. This endangers the lives of bystanders and law enforcement.

>>75
This is all true. Death penalty is also a form of justice.

>>76
That actually brings up another point I had left out. The justice system is not infallible. Errors in conviction are frequent and this should be expected. They very nature of trying to determine the exact events of what happened and who is responsible is a difficult task when witnesses might not be available, witnesses may lie, evidence may be absent or fabricated, etc. When the punishment is limited to long term imprisonment, this at least gives investigators more time to piece the case together, or for new evidence to surface. If later the prisoner is proven innocent, they can be released. While it was unjust to incarcerate them for a crime they did not commit, they can at least be released and get back to their life. This isn't the case with the death penalty. Once a person is executed, there is no way to bring them back to life. If later the deceased is proven innocent, nothing can be done.

>>77
People don't accidentally get sentenced to death row. The death penalty is serious business. If there is ever a shred of doubt within a case, then death shouldn't be a penalty used for  punishment.

>>78
People are mistakenly convicted. Some of these people are executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

Give me your definition of shred of doubt, and I will give you a scenario that is within a shred of doubt and is still a delusion.

>>75
such as curing cancer
The biologist who will cure cancer will be a 40 year old pothead.

>>78
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

>>81
did you even read that page?

>>1-1000
Back to Reddit, ``please''.

>>83
fuck you faggot

>>82
The point is that while the justice system is fallible, the doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to cases that potentially involve the death penalty. When it can be shown that there's a reasonable doubt that the accused did their alleged crime, the penalty of death shouldn't become a factor anymore. In order to get a judgement for death, the evidence has to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To get a judgement for this is no easy feat. It means that there can only be one interpretation of the events that led to the crime. If there any other possible interpretation given the facts, then it can also be shown that there is reasonable doubt.

>>85
And despite all that, innocent people still got murdered by their tender loving state. Fucking trials how do they work?

>>86
[Citation needed]. What evidence is there to suggest these people were not guilty as charged?

>>87
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

>>88
There's a perverted pleasure I gain from seeing people get disproved by wikipedia links.

>>88
The reason why these people were exonerated was because of advances in medical science that give society more tools uncover evidence. We can now use these same techniques for evidence for anybody facing the death penalty today. This means the false positive rate for the death penalty reduces even further and that people who do deserve it are more likely to get it (when they are caught).

>>90
The reason why these people were exonerated was because of advances in medical science that give society more tools uncover evidence. We can now use these same techniques for evidence for anybody facing the death penalty today.
That's good to know. I suppose that since the false positive rate is now exactly zero, that's why we stopped funding forensic science research. Oh wait.

people who do deserve
Deserve? Says who? Your Daddy up in the sky (who is actually terribly inefficient at giving people what they ``deserve'')? You? Paranoid single mother who lives next door? The victim's relatives? The killer's relatives?

>>91
What are you talking about? What does funding have to do with this? What does my daddy have to do with this? My daddy is in the ground, not the sky.