Ron Paul's new manifesto: Private corporations data mining you is OK

[Satyagraha]

The Technology Revolution
A Campaign for Liberty Manifesto
 
This is what a technology revolution looks like:

New innovators create vast new markets where none existed previously; Individual genius enabled by the truly free market the Internet represents routes around obsolete and ineffective government attempts at control; The arrogant attempts of governments to centralize, intervene, subsidize, micromanage and regulate innovation is scoffed at and ignored.

The revolution is occurring around the world.

It is occurring in the private sector, not the public sector.

It is occurring despite wrongheaded attempts by governments to micromanage markets through disastrous industrial policy.

And it is driven by the Internet, the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets.

The true technology revolutionaries have little need for big government and never have. Microsoft ignored the government for years and changed the world by leading the PC revolution.

(Ron Paul is defending the virtual monopoly that Microsoft has had on the PC software/hardware industry? It's a good thing?)

Today, companies like Apple -- which has created several completely new markets out of whole cloth (iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and iPod) -- are changing the world again, successfully adopting visionary new revenue models for movies, songs and games, and launching an “app economy” responsible for creating almost half a million jobs in the United States since the iPhone was introduced…

(And Apple's spy technology is a good thing? Is this a new 'narrative' to keep Rand Paul in libertarian good graces?)

All in less than 5 years, and all without government permission, partnerships, subsidies, or regulations!

(Yes, they can spy on you without any interference... yippee!)

Technology revolutionaries succeeded not because of some collectivist vision that seeks to regulate “fairness”, “neutrality”, “privacy”
or "competition” through coercive state actions, or that views the Internet and technology as a vast commons that must be freely available
to all, but rather because of the same belief as America’s Founders who understood that private property is the foundation of prosperity and freedom itself.

Technology revolutionaries succeed because of the decentralized nature of the Internet, which defies government control. As a consequence, decentralization has unlocked individual self-empowerment, entrepreneurialism, creativity, innovation and the creation of new markets in ways never before imagined in human history.

But, ironically, just as decentralization has unleashed the potential for free markets and individual freedom on a global scale, collectivist special interests and governments worldwide are now tirelessly pushing for more centralized control of the Internet and technology.

Here at home they are aided and abetted both by an Administration that wholeheartedly believes in the wisdom of government to manage markets and some in the technology industry that cynically use the cudgel of government control and regulation to hamstring competitors – the Apple’s and Microsoft’s of tomorrow.

Internet collectivism takes many forms, all of them pernicious. Among the most insidious are government attempts to control and regulate competition, infrastructure, privacy and intellectual property. According to them;
 
* Successful companies in brand new frontier industries that didn’t even exist as recently
as five years ago should be penalized and intimidated with antitrust actions in the name
of “fairness” and “competition.”
 
* Privately owned broadband high-speed infrastructure must be subject to collective rule
via public ownership and government regulations that require “sharing” with other
competitors.
 
* Internet infrastructure must be treated as a commons subject to centralized
government control through a variety of foolish “public interest” and “fairness”
regulations.
 
*  Wireless, the lifeblood of the mobile Internet revolution, must be micromanaged as agovernment-controlled commons, with limited exclusive property rights.
 
* Private property rights on the Internet should exist in limited fashion or not at all, andwhat is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded.
 
* Private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the name of “protecting consumers”, at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased.

Internet collectivists are clever.

They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control.

“Openness” means government control of privately owned infrastructure.
 
“Net neutrality” means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be "neutral".

“Internet freedom” means the destruction of property rights.
 
“Competition” means managed competition, with the government acting as judge and jury on what constitutes competition and what does not.

Our “right to privacy” only applies to the data collection activities of the private sector, rarely to government. The eminent economist Ludwig von Mises wrote that when government seeks to solve one problem, it creates two more. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of Internet collectivists and the centralized control of the Internet they seek. The body of incremental communications law and regulation that has emerged since the days of Alexander Graham Bell are entirely unsuited to the dynamic and ever-changing Internet for one simple reason:

Technology is evolving faster than government’s ability to regulate it.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." But in the Internet era, true Internet freedom can be lost in far less than one generation.

Around the world, the real threat to Internet freedom comes not from bad people or inefficient markets -- we can and will always route around them -- but from governments' foolish attempts to manage and control innovation.

And it is not just the tyrannies we must fear. The road away from freedom is paved with good intentions.

Today, the road to tyranny is being paved by a collectivist-Industrial complex -- a dangerous brew of wealthy, international NGO's, progressive do-gooders, corporate cronies and sympathetic political elites.

Their goals are clear: The collectivist-industrial complex seeks to undermine free markets and property rights, replacing them with "benevolent" government control and a vision of "free" that quickly evolves from "free speech" to "free stuff."

We know where this path leads. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

"A benevolent monopoly for "the public interest" is nothing more than a means for the old guard to reassert their power. The role of the government on the Internet is to protect us from force and fraud, not to decide our interests. But while the Internet has produced a revolution, it has not, in fact, "changed everything".

We do not need to reinvent our principles for the web; we only need apply our core principles to it. When faced with Internet regulation, we should ask these key questions:
 
1. Is this a core function of the federal government?

2. Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties?
 
3. Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights?

4. Does it protect property rights?

5. Does it protect individual rights?

6. If the federal government does not do this, will others?

7. Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort the market for political ends?

8. Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?

Yes, there will always be problems and challenges that exist in the online universe. These challenges are sometimes significant and important and other times not. Government,however, will never solve them. Markets will.As a matter of principle, we oppose any attempt by Government to tax, regulate, monitor or control the Internet, and we oppose the Internet collectivists who collaborate with the government against Internet freedom.

This is our revolution…. Government needs to get out of the way.

================================================

The Pauls' New Crusade: “Internet Freedom”
Defending the Internet — and the corporations that invest in it — from government regulation is the new “End the Fed,” Paul advisors tell A new Paul manifesto: “This is our revolution.”

Posted Jul 5, 2012 10:51am EDT
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-pauls-new-crusade-internet-freedom

Ron and Rand Paul are set today to shift the central focus of their family's long libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom.

Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty.

The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace
what has been their movement's long-running top priority,
shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank.

The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook.

The manifesto, obtained yesterday by BuzzFeed, is titled "The Technology Revolution" and lays out an argument — in doomsday tones —for keeping the government entirely out of regulating anything online, and for leaving the private sector to shape the new online space.

"The revolution is occurring around the world," it reads. "It is occurring in the private sector, not the public sector. It is occurring despite wrongheaded attempts by governments to micromanage markets through disastrous industrial policy. And it is driven by the Internet, the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets."

The manifesto quotes Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and attacks not just the federal government, but also progressive groups that have called for similar measures to keep the Internet largely unregulated: "Today, the road to tyranny is being paved by a collectivist-Industrial complex -- a dangerous brew of wealthy, international NGO's, progressive do-gooders, corporate cronies and sympathetic political elites."

The manifesto lays out five specific battles with government regulation and with liberals who state their goal of online liberty in similar terms, but who view corporate encroachment as a more immediate risk. The Paul manifesto seeks to rein in anti-trust actions against companies in new industries; to stop attempts to impose "Net Neutrality" rules on broadband providers; to prevent government control of online infrastructure; to broaden private control of the wireless spectrum, and shore up "private property rights on the Internet."

The Pauls also take a stand for the growing industry known (and widely criticized) as "big data."

They deride the notion that "private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the name of 'protecting consumers,' at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased."

Paul's so-called "Audit the Fed" bill will soon be put to a vote in the House of Representatives, and the new campaign will kick off shortly thereafter.

"We are going to bring to this project the same kind of intensity, resources and energy we brought to the Fed Audit," said one Paul adviser.

The document is intended to serve as a conservative counterpoint to a Declaration of Internet Freedom released this week and hosted by the group Free Press, though the two share some goals. The earlier document, which sets out broad principles but does not take sides on divisive issues like Net Neutrality, was signed by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union as well as Internet companies such as Mozilla.

The language of the document tries to reclaim the issue of Internet freedom from the strange bedfellows that have staked a claim to it: progressives and tech companies on one hand, and more traditional conservative politicians like California Rep. Darrell Issa.

"Internet collectivists are clever," the manifesto says, accusing their foes of series of Orwellian linguistic twists. "They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control. 'Openness' means government control of privately owned infrastructure.'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be 'neutral'."

"This is our revolution -- government needs to get out of the way," the manifesto concludes.

This is also a new stage for what supporters refer to as the Ron Paul Revolution, and a way to make sure that Ron Paul's followers stay on board with the movement after the congressman's retirement from the House of Representatives. Paul supporters are already Internet-savvy, frequently launching digital campaigns of their own, and skew young. And the new cause gives his son Rand an easier way to connect with them, given that his relationship with his father's supporters has often been fraught.

Internet freedom, Paul insiders say, is going to be Rand's end-the-Fed.

Making Rand Paul the standard-bearer of Internet freedom "is one of the goals,"
said a Republican strategist close to the campaign.

"As you may have noted he has been speaking out about Internet Freedom a fair amount including in his endorsement of Romney on Hannity," the strategist said in an email. "Freedom online and freedom and liberty offline are seamlessly linked and Senator Paul gets that."

A Paul adviser told BuzzFeed that the full Campaign for Liberty Internet project will start about two weeks after the Fed bill vote.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the Declaration of Internet Freedom signed this week by several groups.
 Share on Facebook More on BuzzFeed Politics

================================================


Can you believe that Ron Paul is not aware of the fact that we live in a corporate-fascist state?
Corporations ARE the Government:

The Global Elite: Who are they?
See: "Revolving Door" government<->corporate switch-hitters.

"Most Important Info Ever Published" by Bob Chapman
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=149497.msg889324#msg889324
..."In addition making matters worse corruption is flourishing via the incestuous revolving door between Wall Street, the Treasury, in a multiplicity of other appointments and with the Fed..."

Ron Paul (along with Romney butt-boy Rand) would protect the rights of Apple, Google, the Military Industrial Corporations and any other non-government entity to 'data mine' you and me; somehow forgetting the overall issue of PRIVACY. This "Manifesto" was created in support of Rand Paul's DECEPTION: probably written by Romney operatives with RAND input. WTF.

[corbettreport]

[sarcasm]Oh yes, we definitely need more government to protect us from these corporations. They've done such a good job of it up to this point. Don't even think of allowing individuals the choice over whether or not to support the data mining corporations with our dollars...no, better invent some more government restrictions to do the job.[/sarcasm]

For anyone who's interested, here's my take:

Corbett Report Radio #170 - Internet Freedom and Food World Order

[Satyagraha]

[sarcasm]Oh yes, we definitely need more government to protect us from these corporations. They've done such a good job of it up to this point. Don't even think of allowing individuals the choice over whether or not to support the data mining corporations with our dollars...no, better invent some more government restrictions to do the job.[/sarcasm]

For anyone who's interested, here's my take:

Corbett Report Radio #170 - Internet Freedom and Food World Order

I'll listen to your report on this subject.

So far, we have no 'advocate' for our freedoms as far as being data-mined by corporate interests. Clearly the government has no interest in protecting our privacy, and since there is NO difference between the government and the corporations (fascist state we live in), then we seem to be powerless to protect our own individual rights to privacy.

Then we have a 'freedom' candidate in Ron Paul - who gives kudos to Microsoft and Apple for their efforts, which must include their data mining/tracking applications for private citizens. Hello? What?

Truly a noosphere created by the Romney camp: forget privacy; it's all about moving away from the Fed.

Great.

What about the people who's data sits in private industry servers, ready to be delivered instantly to 'government' upon request?

The Pauls also take a stand for the growing industry known (and widely criticized) as "big data."

They deride the notion that "private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the name of 'protecting consumers,' at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased."

That "manifesto" is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Perhaps a Romney dressed up as a libertarian. He's not interested in going after the Fed.
Why would he be? Among his major contributers are Goldman Sachs and Chase.

"As you may have noted he has been speaking out about Internet Freedom a fair amount including in his endorsement of Romney on Hannity," the strategist said in an email. "Freedom online and freedom and liberty offline are seamlessly linked and Senator Paul gets that."

The Age of Big Data Theft by Bilderberg Nazis for Anti-Human Enslavement Grids
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=230530.msg1350990#msg1350990

Big data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data

In information technology, big data[1] consists of datasets that grow so large that they become awkward to work with using on-hand database management tools. Difficulties include capture, storage,[2] search, sharing, analytics,[3] and visualizing. This trend continues because of the benefits of working with larger and larger datasets allowing analysts to "spot business trends, prevent diseases, combat crime."[4] Though a moving target, current limits are on the order of terabytes, exabytes and zettabytes of data.[5] Scientists regularly encounter this problem in meteorology, genomics,[6] connectomics, complex physics simulations,[7] biological and environmental research,[8] Internet search, finance and business informatics. Data sets also grow in size because they are increasingly being gathered by ubiquitous information-sensing mobile devices, aerial sensory technologies (remote sensing), software logs, cameras, microphones, Radio-frequency identification readers, and wireless sensor networks.[9][10] The world’s technological per capita capacity to store information has roughly doubled every 40 months since the 1980s (about every 3 years)[11] and every day 2.5 quintillion bytes of data are created.[12]

One current feature of big data is the difficulty working with it using relational databases and desktop statistics/visualization packages, requiring instead "massively parallel software running on tens, hundreds, or even thousands of servers".[13] The size of "big data" varies depending on the capabilities of the organization managing the set. "For some organizations, facing hundreds of gigabytes of data for the first time may trigger a need to reconsider data management options. For others, it may take tens or hundreds of terabytes before data size becomes a significant consideration."[14]

Definition

Big data is a term applied to data sets whose size is beyond the ability of commonly used software tools to capture, manage, and process the data within a tolerable elapsed time. Big data sizes are a constantly moving target currently ranging from a few dozen terabytes to many petabytes of data in a single data set.

In a 2001 research report[15] and related conference presentations, then META Group (now Gartner) analyst, Doug Laney, defined data growth challenges (and opportunities) as being three-dimensional, i.e. increasing volume (amount of data), velocity (speed of data in/out), and variety (range of data types, sources). Gartner continues to use this model for describing big data.[16]
Examples

Examples include web logs; RFID; sensor networks; social networks; social data (due to the social data revolution), Internet text and documents; Internet search indexing; call detail records; astronomy, atmospheric science, genomics, biogeochemical, biological, and other complex and/or interdisciplinary scientific research; military surveillance; medical records; photography archives; video archives; and large-scale e-commerce.
Technologies

Big data requires exceptional technologies to efficiently process large quantities of data within tolerable elapsed times. Technologies being applied to big data include massively parallel processing (MPP) databases, datamining grids, distributed file systems, distributed databases, cloud computing platforms, the Internet, and scalable storage systems.[citation needed]

Some but not all MPP relational databases have the ability to store and manage petabytes of data. Implicit is the ability to load, monitor, backup, and optimize the use of the large data tables in the RDBMS.[17][18]

The practitioners of big data analytics processes are generally hostile to shared storage[citation needed]. They prefer direct-attached storage (DAS) in its various forms from solid state disk (SSD) to high capacity SATA disk buried inside parallel processing nodes. The perception of shared storage architectures—SAN and NAS—is that they are relatively slow, complex, and above all, expensive. These qualities are not consistent with big data analytics systems that thrive on system performance, commodity infrastructure, and low cost.

Real or near-real time information delivery is one of the defining characteristics of big data analytics. Latency is therefore avoided whenever and wherever possible. Data in memory is good. Data on spinning disk at the other end of a FC SAN connection is not. But perhaps worse than anything else, the cost of a SAN at the scale needed for analytics applications is thought to be prohibitive.

There is a case to be made for shared storage in big data analytics. But storage vendors and the storage community in general have yet to make that case to big data analytics practitioners.[19]
Impact

When the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) began collecting data in 2000, it amassed more in its first few weeks than all data collected in the history of astronomy. Continuing at a rate of about 200 GB per night, SDSS has amassed more than 140 terabytes of information. When the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, successor to SDSS, comes online in 2016 it is anticipated to acquire that amount of data every five days.[20] In total, the four main detectors at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produced 13 petabytes of data in 2010 (13,000 terabytes).[21]

More Big Data impacts:

Walmart handles more than 1 million customer transactions every hour, which is imported into databases estimated to contain more than 2.5 petabytes of data - the equivalent of 167 times the information contained in all the books in the US Library of Congress.

Facebook handles 40 billion photos from its user base.

Decoding the human genome originally took 10 years to process; now it can be achieved in one week.[20]

The impact of “big data” has increased the demand of information management specialists in that Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, and SAP have spent more than $15 billion on software firms only specializing in data management and analytics. This industry on its own is worth more than $100 billion and growing at almost 10% a year which is roughly twice as fast as the software business as a whole.[20]

Big data has emerged because we are living in a society which makes increasing use of data intensive technologies. There are 4.6 billion mobile-phone subscriptions worldwide and there are between 1 billion and 2 billion people accessing the internet. Basically, there are more people interacting with data or information than ever before.[20] Between 1990 and 2005, more than 1 billion people worldwide entered the middle class which means more and more people who gain money will become more literate which in turn leads to information growth. The world's effective capacity to exchange information through telecommunication networks was 281 petabytes in 1986, 471 petabytes in 1993, 2.2 exabytes in 2000, 65 exabytes in 2007[11] and it is predicted that the amount of traffic flowing over the internet will reach 667 exabytes annually by 2013.[20]
Critique

Danah Boyd has raised concerns about the use of big data in science neglecting principles such as choosing a representative sample by being too concerned about actually handling the huge amounts of data.[22] This approach may lead to results biased in one way or another. Integration across heterogeneous data resources - some that might be considered “big data” and others not - presents formidable logistical as well as analytical challenges, but many researchers argue that such integrations are likely to represent the most promising new frontiers in science.[23] Broader critiques have also been levelled at Chris Anderson's assertion that big data will spell the end of theory: focusing in particular on the notion that big data will always need to be contextualized in their social, economic and political contexts.[24] Even as companies invest eight- and nine-figure sums to derive insight from information streaming in from suppliers and customers, less than 40% of employees have sufficiently mature processes and skills to do so. To overcome this insight deficit, “big data,” no matter how comprehensive or well analyzed, needs to be complemented by “big judgment.”[25]
See also

Cloud computing
Data assimilation
Database theory
Database-centric architecture
Data Intensive Computing
Data structure
Object database
Online database
Real-time database
Relational database
Social data revolution
Supercomputer
Tuple space
Architecture comparison

Survey Distributed Databases
Marin Dimitrov's Comparison on PNUTS, Dynamo, Voldemort, BigTable, HBase, Cassandra and CouchDB May 2010
Why Use HBase-1: from Million Mark to Billion Mark
Why Use HBase-2: Demystifying HBase Data integrity, Availability and Performance
Beyond Hadoop: Next-Generation Big Data Architectures by By Bill McColl 23 October 2010 about "Not Only Hadoop".
MPI and BSP See wiki about Bulk Synchronous Parallel and Apache HAMA on Hadoop cluster.
Performance evaluation

Existing work done by community
2010:Yahoo Cloud Serving Benchmark(YCSB)
2010:HBase - non SQL Database, Performances Evaluation
References
^ White, Tom. Hadoop: The Definitive Guide. 2009. 1st Edition. O'Reilly Media. Pg 3.
^ Kusnetzky, Dan. What is "Big Data?". ZDNet. http://blogs.zdnet.com/virtualization/?p=1708
^ Vance, Ashley. Start-Up Goes After Big Data With Hadoop Helper. New York Times Blog. 22 April 2010. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/start-up-goes-after-big-data-with-hadoop-helper/?dbk
^ Cukier, K. (25 February 2010). Data, data everywhere. The Economist. http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15557443
^ Horowitz, Mark. Visualizing Big Data: Bar Charts for Words. Wired Magazine. Vol 16 (7). 23 June 2008. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_visualizing##ixzz0llT2DN5j. Volu 16(7)
^ Community cleverness required. Nature, 455(7209), 1. 2008. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/455001a.html
^ Sandia sees data management challenges spiral. HPC Projects. 4 August 2009. http://www.hpcprojects.com/news/news_story.php?news_id=922
^ Reichman,O.J., Jones, M.B., and Schildhauer, M.P. 2011. Challenges and Opportunities of Open Data in Ecology. Science 331(6018): 703-705.DOI:10.1126/science.1197962
^ Hellerstein, Joe. Parallel Programming in the Age of Big Data. Gigaom Blog. 9 November 2008. http://gigaom.com/2008/11/09/mapreduce-leads-the-way-for-parallel-programming/
^ Segaran, Toby and Hammerbacher, Jeff. Beautiful Data. 1st Edition. O'Reilly Media. Pg 257.
^ a b "The World’s Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information", Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), Science (journal), 332(6025), 60-65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html
^ http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/bigdata/
^ Jacobs, A. (6 July 2009). The Pathologies of Big Data. ACMQueue. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1563874
^ Magoulas, Roger., Lorica, Ben. (Feb 2009) Introduction to Big Data. Release 2.0. Issue 11. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. http://radar.oreilly.com/r2/release2-0-11.html
^ Douglas, Laney. "3D Data Management: Controlling Data Volume, Velocity and Variety". Gartner. http://blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/files/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-Management-Controlling-Data-Volume-Velocity-and-Variety.pdf. Retrieved 6 February 2001.
^ Beyer, Mark. "Gartner Says Solving 'Big Data' Challenge Involves More Than Just Managing Volumes of Data". Gartner. http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1731916. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
^ Monash, Curt eBay’s two enormous data warehouses, 30 April 2009 http://www.dbms2.com/2009/04/30/ebays-two-enormous-data-warehouses/
^ Monash, Curt eBay followup — Greenplum out, Teradata > 10 petabytes, Hadoop has some value, and more, 6 October 2010 http://www.dbms2.com/2010/10/06/ebay-followup-greenplum-out-teradata-10-petabytes-hadoop-has-some-value-and-more/
^ How New Analytic Systems will Impact Storage Sept, 2011 http://www.evaluatorgroup.com/document/big-data-how-new-analytic-systems-will-impact-storage-2/
^ a b c d e http://www.economist.com/node/15557443
^ Geoff Brumfiel (19 January 2011). "High-energy physics: Down the petabyte highway". Nature 469: pp. 282–283. doi:10.1038/469282a. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110119/full/469282a.html. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
^ Danah Boyd (2010-04-29). "Privacy and Publicity in the Context of Big Data". WWW 2010 conference. http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/WWW2010.html. Retrieved 2011-04-18.
^ Jones MB, Schildhauer MP, Reichman OJ, and Bowers S. 2006. The New Bioinformatics: Integrating Ecological Data from the Gene to the Biosphere. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37(1):519-544
^ Graham M. 2012. Big data and the end of theory?. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/09/big-data-theory
^ Shah, Horne and Capella. 2012. Good Data Won't Guarantee Good Decisions. Harvard Business Review http://hbr.org/2012/04/good-data-wont-guarantee-good-decisions/ar/1

[Satyagraha]

The Paul Manifesto is trying to convey this narrative:
A vote for Rand Paul aka Romney = Internet Freedom.
Bullshit.

A vote for Romney is a vote for the New World Order,
for complete freedom by corporate (a euphemism for 'government') interests to invade your private information via telephone, email, bank records, etc., store the data in 'big data' banks, and offer it up to any entity that can pay for it.

The Pauls are either seriously mentally deficient or collaborators with Romney in highjacking all of the Paul supporters to the GOP.
No thanks.

[Jackson Holly]

The Paul Manifesto is trying to convey this narrative:
A vote for Rand Paul aka Romney = Internet Freedom.
Bullshit.

A vote for Romney is a vote for the New World Order,
for complete freedom by corporate (a euphemism for 'government') interests to invade your private information via telephone, email, bank records, etc., store the data in 'big data' banks, and offer it up to any entity that can pay for it.

The Pauls are either seriously mentally deficient or collaborators with Romney in highjacking all of the Paul supporters to the GOP.
No thanks.

@SATY ... I must say that I am in complete agreement with you on this ... though Corbett makes some good points in his argument for complete "freedom" on the net. However, we (at least in the US) are supposedly already protected constitutionally from excessive government (like you say, read 'corporate') snooping, eavesdropping, search and seizure, etc. These freedoms MUST be upheld and protected ... NO exceptions ... no matter the 'framework'. One must have a computer with internet access to maintain and to operate in the modern world ... that does NOT mean we must give up ALL freedom to privacy just because some govt/corp entity 'owns' the wires/satellites/whatever ... the govt/corps also own the Postal Service super structure ... but that does NOT mean they can READ MY MAIL! The govt/corps own the phone wires/cables, but that does NOT mean that they can LISTEN in on my conversations. Having internet access is NOT a license for govt/corps to climb in bed with us ... or to steal us blind.

The Pauls?     I don't get it.

[2Revolutions]

New innovators create vast new markets where none existed previously; Individual genius enabled by the truly free market the Internet represents routes around obsolete and ineffective government attempts at control; The arrogant attempts of governments to centralize, intervene, subsidize, micromanage and regulate innovation is scoffed at and ignored.

These brave new innovators use patents to stifle innovation and competition

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/08/google-publicly-accuses-apple-microsoft-oracle-of-patent-bullying/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/13315119597/judge-posner-do-most-industries-even-need-patents.shtml


The true technology revolutionaries have little need for big government and never have. Microsoft ignored the government for years and changed the world by leading the PC revolution.


NSA Helping Microsoft With Windows 7 Security

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/nsa_microsoft_windows_7.html

The National Security Agency has been working with Microsoft Corp. to help improve security measures for its new Windows 7 operating system, a senior NSA official said on Tuesday.

In 2007, NSA officials acknowledged working with Microsoft during the development of Windows Vista to help boost its defenses against computer viruses, worms and other attacks. In fact, the cooperation dates back to at least 2005, when the NSA and other government agencies worked with Microsoft on its Windows XP system and other programs.


Court Upholds Google-NSA Relationship Secrecy

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-upheld/

Facebook IPO: CIA and Goldman Sachs Take the Suckers for a Stroll

http://www.infowars.com/facebook-ipo-cia-and-goldman-sachs-take-the-suckers-for-a-stroll/

[Geolibertarian]

This is what a technology revolution looks like:

New innovators create vast new markets where none existed previously; Individual genius enabled by the truly free market the Internet represents routes around obsolete and ineffective government attempts at control; The arrogant attempts of governments to centralize, intervene, subsidize, micromanage and regulate innovation is scoffed at and ignored.

The revolution is occurring around the world.

It is occurring in the private sector, not the public sector.

It is occurring despite wrongheaded attempts by governments to micromanage markets through disastrous industrial policy.

And it is driven by the Internet, the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets.

Al Gore may not have invented the Internet (or rather the technological core of what later became the Internet), but neither did the "free market."

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet#Networks_that_led_to_the_Internet

But apparently we're supposed to ignore that historical fact, lest Austrian Schoolers call us "collectivists."

The true technology revolutionaries have little need for big government and never have.

Translation: "Pay no attention to those overextended patents behind the curtain!"

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RPKtMTjXHg

Microsoft ignored the government for years and changed the world by leading the PC revolution.

Anyone who's aware of (a) the fact that patents, by definition, are government-granted monopolies, and (b) the ridiculous extent to which Microsoft has relied upon overextended software patents as a means of shielding itself from the very "free market" of which it is a supposed symbol, knows just how laughable that statement is.

Today, companies like Apple -- which has created several completely new markets out of whole cloth (iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and iPod) -- are changing the world again, successfully adopting visionary new revenue models for movies, songs and games, and launching an “app economy” responsible for creating almost half a million jobs in the United States since the iPhone was introduced…

We interrupt this shameless propaganda piece and virtual worshipfest to bring you the following dose of reality:

     http://www.prisonplanet.com/is-apple-evil.html
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnaeCe3jCx4
     http://www.naturalnews.com/032239_iPhone_tracking.html

All in less than 5 years, and all without government permission, partnerships, subsidies, or regulations!

Let's have another reality check, shall we?

----------------------------

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/10/steve-jobs-a-free-market-capitalist-who-got-rich-selling-computers-to-taxpayer-subsidized-k-12-public-schools/

Steve Jobs: A “Free Market Capitalist” Who Got Rich Selling Computers to Taxpayer-Subsidized K-12 Public Schools

By Duane Roberts
October 10, 2011


THE NANNY STATE CAN MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH: It is documented
that Apple Computer might have gone belly up in the 1980s if it
wasn’t for the fact Steve Jobs embarked on a rather ambitious
strategy to create demand for his company’s products by aggressively
marketing them to taxpayer-subsidized K-12 public schools throughout
the United States.

In an article entitled, “Steve Jobs: Free Market Capitalist,” recently posted on Calwatchdog.com, a libertarian-leaning website, Joseph Perkins, the author, made the claim that Jobs, unlike some entrepreneurs, received “no government help” as he helped build Apple into the multi-billion dollar company it is today:

There’s another aspect of the Jobs legacy that has been underreported, that has nothing to do with his technological prowess, or his keen entrepreneurial instincts:

In launching Apple, in building it into one of the world’s foremost companies, in helping to make California’s Silicon Valley the world’s high-tech capital, Jobs never relied on government subsidies.

Although Perkins might be technically correct in saying Apple did not depend on “government subsidies”–at least not directly–it is documented the company might have gone belly up in the 1980s if it wasn’t for the fact they created demand for their products by aggressively marketing them to taxpayer-subsidized K-12 public schools.

When Apple was formed in the late 1970s, there was no mass consumer market for personal computers. Not only was there no use for them in domestic households, but most people didn’t have a clue as to how they operated. If you wanted one, you had to assemble it from a kit and learn complicated codes to make it function.

Under Jobs’ leadership, Apple embarked on a rather ambitious strategy of creating a market out of thin air for its products. One way it did this here in California was to give away hundreds of free computers to schools across the state. In return for its “good deed,”  it got a very generous tax break from the politicians in Sacramento.

As the trade journal Infoworld observed in 1990:

Apple Computer’s involvement in elementary education in the early 1980s was a work of marketing genius. The then-fledgling company offered to donate one Apple II system to each elementary school in the country — that is, once the government guaranteed them certain tax advantages in exchange for their corporate largesse.

Many schools accepted Apple’s generosity. Immediately, they all faced the same question: “What does a school with hundreds, or in some cases thousands of students do with one computer?”

For many, the answer was to buy more Apple computers, build computer labs, and create computing programs. And, as schools began equipping labs with discounted Apple equipment, parents of elementary school children began buying up Apple II computers for use at home, paying full price.

Nearly 10 years later, elementary schools continue to buy Apple II technology. As a result, the strategy has kept what many industry observers contend is an overpriced and technically obsolete system in the mainstream. And it provided Apple with a virtual lock on the elementary school market that continues today.

In 1995, the New York Times reported that “Apple’s share of computer sales to elementary and high schools was expected to climb from 46 percent of all educational computers bought last year to 58 percent of the total being bought in the 1995-96 school year.” It further pointed out that:

The schools market is sizable: in the 1994-95 school year, the nation’s public schools bought nearly a million personal computers, spending roughly $2.5 billion on machines, printers, communications devices and other hardware. Besides the dollar amount, Apple hopes to win the loyalty of children who might grow into future customers, much as the company is doing in the college world.

According to the survey, conducted by Quality Education Data, or Q.E.D., an education market research firm based in Denver, the share of Macintosh sales to elementary and secondary schools jumped sharply in the last school year, while such sales of I.B.M. and I.B.M.-compatible PC’s fell. This was in sharp contrast to the market for business and consumer computers, in which the Macintosh has rapidly lost ground.

“Apple’s longtime courting of the school market has paid off in strong brand loyalty,” said Jeanne Hayes, president of Q.E.D., which says it surveyed 80 percent of the nation’s public elementary and secondary schools for the report. “Special pricing, strong service and support and habit have made the K-12 market an unusually loyal Apple niche.”

The public school district in Hampton, Va., for example, has 4,000 Macintoshes, all linked on one gigantic network. “We’ve had Apples for seven or eight years now and see no reason to change,” said Dr. Charles Stallard, director of information services and technology for the Hampton schools….

So as the evidence suggests, Perkins’ assertion that Apple received “no government help” during its transformation into a multi-billion dollar company is nonsense. Jobs did what many other “free market capitalists” in this country do to become filthy rich: they get the nanny state to buy most of their firm’s products.

Jobs’ behavior shouldn’t be of any surprise given he grew up in Silicon Valley, an urban settlement that developed around clusters of high tech industries built from the ground up thanks to billions of dollars of taxpayer money from the Department of Defense. Understand that birds of a feather really do flock together.

----------------------------

Technology revolutionaries succeeded not because of some collectivist vision that seeks to regulate “fairness”, “neutrality”, “privacy” or "competition” through coercive state actions, or that views the Internet and technology as a vast commons that must be freely available to all, but rather because of the same belief as America’s Founders who understood that private property is the foundation of prosperity and freedom itself.

Translation: If you don't support allowing a handful of overprivileged corporations erect toll boths all over the place so they can price-gouge everyone, you're a freedom-hating "collectivist."

That's royal libertarianism in a nutshell right there.

Technology revolutionaries succeed because of the decentralized nature of the Internet, which defies government control.

Yes, but it was the government that made it decentralized in the first place. Why does he conveniently fail to mention this yet again? Because in the ideological fantasy world of the Austrian School, government is an unconditional evil, and so there isn't anything good in the world that could possibly have resulted from government action.

By oversimplifying reality to such a ridiculous extent, anarcho-capitalists give the entire anti-NWO/pro-America movement a bad name. Hence what I've been saying for years about the need to stop letting ancaps portray themselves as the divine gatekeepers of any and all things having to do with "liberty," "property" and "free enterprise."

But, ironically, just as decentralization has unleashed the potential for free markets and individual freedom on a global scale, collectivist special interests and governments worldwide are now tirelessly pushing for more centralized control of the Internet and technology.

The problem is that we're being given yet another false choice. What the Austrian School is essentially telling anyone foolish enough to listen is that the only alternative to the socialize-everything ideology of "collectivism" is the privatize-everything ideology of royal libertarianism.

And the dirty little secret is that both ideologies are merely two sides of the same ruling-class coin:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=232841.0 (Rothschild and Rockefeller interests created the Libertarian-Communist dialectic)

All that being said, I'll close with this simple question: If -- via the patenting process -- private corporations are allowed to proclaim the genetic underpinnings of life itself their "private property" (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca3FUv12oF4), will the Austrian School wrap that in the flag of "liberty," too, and expect us to fall down and worship it accordingly?

[Geolibertarian]

That "manifesto" is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It would also appear to be a return on a $2.5 million investment.

I think most reasonable people would agree that someone who's a member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee would never be one to hand out millions of dollars to a politician unless he expected something of value in return. And in view of how the Bilderberger in question made his fortune, it's very difficult to imagine that this manifesto is not at least part of that something.

[chris jones]

 Ending the fed,or auditiing the FED, private corps (3 bags full) data mining.
 Get the troops home,end FED, freedoms, etc... Where has all this hype gone to?
 
 What happened?

[worcesteradam]

There are two big computer giants, Apple and Microsoft, neither of them started out anything close to free market.

[Satyagraha]

The Internet is a privately-owned communications entity: owned by corporations that are PRIVATE and don't have to publicly report on their financing.

The people at the helm are former NSA, CIA, Pentagon, FBI, IRS, -- now become private spooks.

There is no "Internet Freedom" when "private" corporations OWN the internet. You don't have any rights to any 'ownership' as individuals; no rights to privacy, no recourse when they decide to censor a specific country, or area of a country, and no rights when they decide to put every bit of information about you and your Facebook friends, your tweets, your emails, etc., into a giant "big data" server.

Please Watch:

"The future of the Internet is Corporate Fascism" - Paul Garrin
Paul Garrin - Part 1 of 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhWWVXVT2d8
Paul Garrin - Part 2 of 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuAj6h6Q4VA

The Pauls' Manifesto is serving the NWO agenda towards corporate fascist media control of the internet by allowing "free market" "hands-off" control to the corporate sector, which is no different than the government. It's just "government" without a shred of public accountability, or without even the illusion of accountability.

It's MUSIC to the ears of Bilderbergers like Peter Thiel; a NWO solution that uses buzzwords like "Freedom" and "Free Market" to make people automatically think they're getting "free speech", and that the people "own" the internet. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But it might win some support for the propagandists putting out the message of "Freedom" ... some people will believe it because they don't bother to look any further.

It's a rigged game.

[corbettreport]

Oh I can't wait till government steps in and puts everything right with the Internet again! I'm glad we won't be able to choose what ISP to go with because the government will grant communication monopolies to the companies that it likes! I'm glad tax dollars will still go into secret programs with Apple and Microsoft and Google and there will never be a viable alternative because of the rigged markets! All hail government intervention!

[Geolibertarian]

So the only alternative to corporate tyranny is government tyranny?

All hail the false dilemma fallacy!

I'm reminded of the following:

----------------------------------

“…the Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined ‘What Fidelity Wants It Usually Gets, And It Wants Massachusetts Tax Cut.’ It opened by stating that ‘when Fidelity Investments talks, Massachusetts listens’ -- or else.

“Massachusetts listens, the article explains, because Fidelity is one of the biggest firms in the state and can easily shift operations across the border to Rhode Island. That was exactly what it was threatening to do unless Massachusetts granted it ‘tax relief’ -- a subsidy, in effect, since ‘the people’ pay more taxes to compensate for it. (New York recently had to do the same, when major financial firms threatened to move to New Jersey.) Massachusetts granted Fidelity the ‘relief.’

"A few months earlier, Raytheon had demanded tax and utility rate relief, perhaps to compensate for the fact that its shares had only about tripled in value in the past four years, while dividends per share rose 25% as well. The report on the business pages raised the (rhetorical) question whether Raytheon ‘is asking for tax dollars with one hand while passing money to shareholders with the other.’

"Again, Massachusetts listened to the threat to transfer out of state. Legislators had planned a big tax break for Massachusetts businesses generally, but restricted it to Raytheon and other ‘defense contractors.’

"It’s an old story. Until the late 19th century, corporations were limited to functions explicitly determined by the state charters. That requirement effectively disappeared when New Jersey offered to drop it. Corporations began incorporating in New Jersey instead of New York, thus forcing New York to also drop the requirement and setting off a ‘race to the bottom.’

“The result was a substantial increase in the power of private tyrannies, providing them with new weapons to undermine liberty and human rights, and to administer markets in their own interest. The logical is the same when GM decides to invest in Poland, or when Daimler-Benz transfers production from Germany, where labor is highly paid, to Alabama, where it isn’t.

“By playing Alabama off against another competitor, North Carolina, Daimler-Benz received subsidies, protected markets and risk protection from ‘the people.’ (Smaller corporations can get into the act too, when states are forced to compete to bribe the powerful.)

“Of course, it’s far easier to play this game with states than countries. For Fidelity to move to Rhode Island, and for Raytheon to move to Tennessee, is no major problem -- and Massachusetts knows it. Transferring operations overseas would be rather more difficult.

“’Conservatives’ are surely intelligent enough to understand that shifting decisions to the state level does not transfer power to ‘the people’ but to those powerful enough to ask for subsidies with one hand and pocket them with the other. That’s the ‘profound philosophical principle’ that underlies the efforts of ‘conservatives’ to shift power to the states.

“There are still some defenses at the federal level, which is why it’s been made the enemy (but not, of course, the parts that funnel money to large corporations -- like the Pentagon, whose budget is going up, over the objections of more than 80% of the people).

“According to a poll reported in the Washington Post, an enormous number of people think anything the federal government does is bad -- except for the military, which we need (of course) to counter grave threats to US security. (Even so, people didn’t want the military budget increased, as Clinton, Gingrich and the others proceeded to do.) What could explain this? the Post wondered.

“Could it be the fifty years of intense corporate propaganda, in the media and elsewhere, that have been trying to direct people’s fear, anger and hatred against the government and make private power invisible to them? That isn’t suggested as a reason. It’s just a mystery why people have these strange ideas.

“But there’s no question they have them. When somebody wants to vent his anger at the fact that his life is falling apart, he’s more likely to put a bomb in federal building than in a corporate headquarters.

“There are plenty of things wrong with government, but this propaganda opposes what’s right with it -- namely, that it’s the one defense people have against private tyrannies.”

--Noam Chomsky, The Common Good, pp. 20-22

“The Argentine government is in the grips of a neoliberal frenzy, obeying the orders of international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. (Neoliberalism is basically nothing more than the traditional imperial formula: free markets for you, plenty of protection for me. The rich themselves would never accept these policies, but they’re happy to impose them on the poor.)

“So Argentina is ‘minimizing the state’ -- cutting down public expenditures, the way our government is doing, but much more extremely. Of course, when you minimize the state, you maximize something else -- and it isn’t popular control. What gets maximized is private power, domestic and foreign.

“I met with a very lively anarchist movement in Buenos Aires, and with other anarchist groups as far away as northeast Brazil, where nobody even knew they existed. We had a lot of discussions about these matters. They recognize that they have to try to use the state -- even though they regard it as totally illegitimate.

“The reason is perfectly obvious: When you eliminate the one institutional structure in which people can participate to some extent -- namely the government -- you’re simply handing over power to unaccountable private tyrannies that are much worse. So you have to make use of the state, all the time recognizing that you ultimately want to eliminate it.

“Some of the rural workers in Brazil have an interesting slogan. They say their immediate task is ‘expanding the floor of the cage.’ They understand that they’re trapped inside a cage, but recognize that protecting it when it’s under attack from even worse predators on the outside, and extending the limits of what the cage will allow, are both essential preliminaries to dismantling it. If they attack the cage directly when they’re so vulnerable, they’ll get murdered.

“That’s something anyone ought to be able to understand who can keep two ideas in their head at once, but some people here in the US tend to be so rigid and doctrinaire that they don’t understand the point."

--Noam Chomsky, The Common Good, pp. 84-85

----------------------------------

If someone merely objects to turning the power to declare and wage war over to a handful of overprivileged corporations such as Academi, DynCorp and Haliburton, would that justify accusing him of wanting to institute a Nazi-style war machine?

Are there no shades of grey at all?

Must the entire universe be painted in childlike terms of black and white?

[chris jones]

 How long has it been since we have been a true constitutional "representative democracy", any guesses?
 The last time I saw what comes close  was the  JFK era.
 Believe me, I know I was brainwashed, I confess, I believed in anything the Gov so ordered as being the right decision, afterall this was my home, family neighborhood, America, we could do no wrong.
 Raised to believe, society's child and all that Shiite. Oh ya, I was a true flag wiggler. I look back and detest my naivety, or was I?
 I was a product, a counterpart and was not aware of it, I'm talking about 40 years past.
 Waking up is a  very FN cold shower, the shock, the disappointment, the anger.
 Its a hard pill to swallow, the psychos run this ball of dirt and have for many moons.  This gang of freaks laugh at us, they are on a orgasmic high manipulating the masses, perhaps they are convinced we are morons and its their job to controll us, or they simply revel in their power they have over us.
 No matter, keep stuffing truth pills down the throats of the sheep, its not to late but its getting there.
 Supercorps, elites, bent POLS and all their souless sucklings don't care about you and yours. Their pretense nauseates me.
 
 
 

[EvadingGrid]

Absolutely Epic.

So to protect us from "Big Govt" we must hand all power to Robber Barons of the Internet ?

[2Revolutions]

Corporate fascism indeed


Exclusive: Google, CIA Invest in ‘Future’ of Web Monitoring

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/

The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future.

The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.”

The idea is to figure out for each incident who was involved, where it happened and when it might go down. Recorded Future then plots that chatter, showing online “momentum” for any given event.

“The cool thing is, you can actually predict the curve, in many cases,” says company CEO Christopher Ahlberg, a former Swedish Army Ranger with a PhD in computer science.

Which naturally makes the 16-person Cambridge, Massachusetts, firm attractive to Google Ventures, the search giant’s investment division, and to In-Q-Tel, which handles similar duties for the CIA and the wider intelligence community.

[Satyagraha]

Oh I can't wait till government steps in and puts everything right with the Internet again! I'm glad we won't be able to choose what ISP to go with because the government will grant communication monopolies to the companies that it likes! I'm glad tax dollars will still go into secret programs with Apple and Microsoft and Google and there will never be a viable alternative because of the rigged markets! All hail government intervention!

So far your comments are strictly sarcastic responses - nothing of substance describing what you see as a possible solution.
I agree that governments should not 'control' the internet, so stop with the sarcastic straw man responses. NOBODY here believes that the government should regulate the internet, ok?

Have you bothered to watch the Paul Garrin video?

If you have seen it, then please offer some serious comments; do you understand the problems with having the corporate oligarchs running the internet ... do you realize there's a revolving door between corporations and the government?
Do you see there is no difference between government and private mega corporations "running" the internet?
How do you see the "Manifesto" as described by the Campaign for Liberty as a solution?
Please try to respond without sarcasm.

[chris jones]

Hi Saty, Yup, the elites, the Gov and their lackey's-data mining.
 I remember Billy C. pushing the internet, have to wonder what was the true agenda.
 The last president who deserved the respect and admiration of the people was JFK , then LBJ got his crown and  might has well have dirty bombed this nation.
 Remember the Gulf of Tonkin for one.
 The elites have been at this GAME since Hector was a pup, 24/7 x decades.

[Brocke]

[Valerius]

If the government were given new authority to "scrutinize" intrusive data collected by nefarious corporations ostensibly to "protect" us wouldn't that mean they had access to all that data (which people reading these pages already know they mostly already do) even more openly?

[EvadingGrid]

Oh I can't wait till government steps in and puts everything right with the Internet again! I'm glad we won't be able to choose what ISP to go with because the government will grant communication monopolies to the companies that it likes! I'm glad tax dollars will still go into secret programs with Apple and Microsoft and Google and there will never be a viable alternative because of the rigged markets! All hail government intervention!

So the Robber Barons of The Internet are your heroes because your so brainwashed into anything but Big Govt ?

[chris jones]

               Brocke, Good on ya, excellant.

[freedom_commonsense]

Conveniently forgotten is the fact that what we now know as the internet was originally started as US military infrastructure (the government funded DARPA in the 1960s).

I know Apple had educational deals, did Microsoft not do the same thing about 10-15 years later? Of course corporate welfare is a-okay because it "creates jobs" [in the far east] while individual welfare is a crime against humanity