Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

WCIT-12

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-06 20:21

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]

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 7:06

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'.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 13:29

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 14:30

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 14:43

>>40
[][] faggot quotes[][]

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 14:48

>>43
define lobster

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 15:08

loebster

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 15:24

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 16:46

>>47
fuck you faggot

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 19:50

>>48
Ignore him, retard.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-08 20:57

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 1:27

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 1:40

>>51

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 1:53

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 2:27

>>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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 2:49

>>54
Fuck you, shotgun-retard.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 2:56

>>55
Fuck you, nazi-fuckward.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 3:02

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 4:08

>>57
Then why do you hate society?

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 5:16

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 5:40

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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 12:28

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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 13:37

>>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''.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 13:44

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 13:45

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 13:59

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 14:02

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

Back to /r/atheism, please.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 14:39

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 14:48

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 14:50

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 15:03

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 16:06

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 16:23

penislise

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 16:23

>>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?

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 16:52

>>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).

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 17:40

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 17:50

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

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 17:58

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 18:14

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 18:30

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2012-12-09 18:35

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

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List