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]

>>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.