[anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states

On Sun, 6 May 2018 18:53:52 -0300
Gerente de Sistemas <viabsb at gmail.com> wrote:
> *INTERNET* is a PRIVATE network of networks, builded by *USA*
> Department of Defense, Army Forces and universities, americans and
> europeans.
> *INTERNET* uses PUBLIC PROTOCOLS to allow communications betwen
> people and companies.
> 

no. wrong way around. it is not a private network of networks and it is
not built by the USA and it does not "allow" anyone to do anything.

Internet is many PRIVATE networks, owned by companies, governments and
people(s) NETWORKED together using public protocols, and, although
starting from an initial design protocol by *USA* military it was further 
developed and built with contributions from all over the planet. these
public protocols have been developed, improved and constructed by
people from all over the planet, including people from Africa, Russia and China

and over many decades.

the Internet has evolved into what it is today and the history of it's
origins does not entitle anyone to "dominate" anyone else.

the Internet belongs to EU as much as it does to China and as much as
it does to Africa and as much as it does to the US.


> *INTERNET* is NOT a POLITICAL NETWORK, and should not be treated like
> a POLITICAL environment - or a digital State.
> One of the biggest issues on *INTERNET* is the fact email is used to
> transport files while *FTP* is the right protocol to transport files.
> And NOBODY seems to care about it. This is an immense cost to operate
> *INTERNET.*

not sure what the above means. of course it is a political network.
each private company, government or people(s) connecting to each other
have their own "politics" - one could in fact say that the Internet is
the largest "POLITICAL" network in existence. 

regarding smpt, pop or ftp I have no idea what you are saying. there is
no such thing as the "right" protocol or the "wrong" protocol.

> >
> > "In any case, this" invisible "exercise of power under the guise of"
> > secret "algorithms and" proprietary "technology is extremely
> > harmful and a powerful weapon in the hands of the evil organization
> > (s). 

++++++++++++++
> What do you mean, "in the hands of evil organizations"? Do you
> consider the invasion of Islam in Europe, and the NoZones in Sweden,
> England, Norway as "*organizations
> of good*"?
> 

any organization that develops technology to empower war or to kill
humans on a mass, targeted or bulk scale.

in my example: Google.

++++++++++++++

I do not know if "NoZones" is evil or if "they" are doing anything
anyone would consider "evil" - you do not provide any additional
information either. (actually I have no clue what that/they are)

the other aspects of my post would be : huge Internet
monopolies targeting individuals (or political groups or political
parties)  BY OMISSION or by additional emphasis on the NEGATIVE 

The GDPR is already quite extensive from the privacy standpoint - and
we will eventually see how much the GDPR does to protect society from
Internet monsters.

the other aspect is also in the subject line: The increased use of the
Internet for warfare - there are more and more countries, as we speak,
developing defense: "walls" and doing many other interesting things
(walled gardens and 'unique routing', etc. assault: "assets" in other
countries used either by itself (like the assets some governments
and nation states hold in Mexico for example) or in conjunction with
other assets (combining say assets in Spain and Mexico for a single
attack) all these mostly done and dev in the "dark" and without any inputs 
from civil society. this all impacts freedoms of societies all over. 

of course Internet warfare, seen from a perspective or say an average
hosting company: Is ABUSE. (as it disrupts the services that company
provides, etc etc)


> The answer is more regulation?
> What do you mean by "more regulation"? More INTERVENTION OF THE STATE
> IN THE PRIVATE LIFE of the people who are using the INTERNET?
> 

Yes.

Like the GDPR, but also catering fro the other types of abuses society
has to endure from nation states, huge evil companies and huge non evil
but overly exploitative companies, even.

> But is not this exactly what Cuba, China, Russia do? Not to mention
> the "States of Good" - Iran, Iraq, Syria and other Muslim countries?
> Is the answer to look more the Chinese example?
> What, exactly, in the "Chinese example" is "good" for people using the
> INTERNET?
> The answer is an Internet not free?
> 
Yes. one of the easy answers would be a non free Internet.

At some point society has to consider the balance of damage (youtube
tracking 6 year old kids) and facebook addicts, whatsap chat addictions
and all the other evil and misery the Internet currently brings - with
the good, the sharing of information the open communications, the
freedom even of typing this email, etc. 

And, on a balance, it may be better and in the best interests of
society, to simply shut it down. - or to firewall and control it, like
China does.

> It depends on your definition of "free". There is no free lunch, and
> if you do not pay a fee to use the * INTERNET,* you PAY TAX in your
> country to pay for the *INTERNET,* as governments pay to subsidize
> the existence of the *INTERNET.*
> 
> How do societies and societies protect their own cultures? Your own
> ways of
> > life, your own values ​​and preserve your own freedoms? "
> >  
> 
> The "culture" of people who "buy" the "culture" of other people do
> not have strength (culture) in their societies to provide their own
> culture for their people. Americans say "cosmos" to say sidereal
> space and the Russians say "OK" to say they agree.
> 
> *The Voice* is a "sold" program for virtually ALL CULTURES on Earth,
> *... Got Talent* and *X Factor* as well.
> 
> What, exactly, do you mean with countries "*losing" their cultures*?"
> 
> Google is a private company.
> 
> You may want to refer to the creation of a Private Monopoly, as was
> done by the *US* Congress with the telephone.
> 
> In the Clinton administration, the same *US* Congress broke the
> private monopoly formerly created to protect the economic interests
> of the inventor, forcing the private company to be sold to become a
> *MARKET* in the industry, since there was no longer any justification
> for protecting the inventor.
> 
> is this what you mean?
> 
> I use google but I use more *DuckDuckGo.com*, other people can do the
> same, but DO NOT WANT.
> 

no.

Internet popularity is like gravity.

EU does not have any hugely popular and successful Internet companies...

The reason is that it is much more pervasive than simply creating a great piece of software..

But that is not really related to abuse, more related to human nature.

> I use *TOR* - and google does not like you to use *TOR* and HARDS
> access to their computers when you use *TOR* - and I invest in *MY
> SECURITY*.
> 
> I do not use FACEBOOK or INSTAGRAM or WHATSAPP for the same reasons:
> my INSECURITY and the SAFETY of those companies.
> 
> I do not miss the "services" that those companies offer, where YOU
> ARE THE PRODUCT.
> 
> And the amount of people who *"sells"* their private lives easily to
> those companies producing PROFIT is almost 20% of the Earth's
> population.
> 
> You mean that companies are to blame?
> 
> Would not you agree if you said that the same people who give away
> their private lives for the easy profit of better able people are the
> GUILTS of their countries and their societies LOSING THEIR CULTURES?
> 
> But these people have HIGH EDUCATION and money. How would you explain
> this?
> 
> That almost 20% of Earth's population is a terrorist? Traitors of
> their cultures and their homelands?
> 
> There are several Search Engines
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=open+source+search+engines&t=seamonkey&ia=web>
> that can be used in Internet Service Providers and private companies,
> especially in universities and mid-level schools, including government
> agencies, but what you see is a public university paying Google to do
> the documents
> in their academic environment. Even the university's information
> technology course DOES NOT DEVELOP RESEARCH in the area of ​​textual
> information retrieval.
> 
> "Sphinx
> 
> [image: Top 5 Open Source Search Engines - Image 5]
> 
> Sphinx is an open source full text search server that is programmed
> with relevant search quality and integration simplicity.
> Sphinx allows flexible testing whereby its indexing features include
> full support for SBCS and UTF-8 encodings, stopword removal and
> optional hit position removal (hitless indexing); morphology and
> synonym processing through word forms dictionaries and stemmers;
> exceptions and blended characters; and many more.
> Sphinx has an easy application integration that is derived from 3
> different APIs. It has a native library for many programming
> languages, a pluggable storage engine for MySQL and an application
> query that uses MySQL client library and syntax.
> Websites such as Craigslist, Living Social, MetaCafe and Groupon has
> adopted Sphinx for its searches.
> 
> *Programming Language:* C++
> *License: *GPLv2 and commercial
> *Ranking of search results:* Versatile
> *Indexing style:* SQL database indexing and Non-SQL storage indexing."
> 
> 
> No government agency from the countries you claim to be victims of
> Google (and other *IT* companies) uses, or research, retrieval of
> textual information in their corporate environments.
> 
> And most of the societies you want to protect send their brains to
> compete for a job in Google and *US* *IT* companies.
> 
> Is this American's FAULT?
> 

a practical example would be that of a slumlord, or the dude who bought
a drug company and hiked the prices of the life saving drug the company
produced by 5000% overnight.

there is a lot of EVIL in the world. where that evil is, in AMERICA or
in the EAST or in AFRICA matters not.

Evil is evil.

the rest of your below is more of a rant and less of anything that
makes any real sense. but I will try here and there...

> Do you misuse wrong high-tech companies working together with the
> government of the country that they help with taxes and give them
> national and global MARKET SAFETY?
> Which government do you think companies should help? To the
> government of Iran? To the government of Syria? To the government of
> Russia? To the government of China?
> 

I do not think that private WORLD companies, that makes and takes money 
from say XYZ country should also be helping another country, say ABC country, 
to say develop technology that could be used to kill people in XYZ or even in DEF country, etc. 

> Are you saying that *US* high-tech companies should pay taxes to CHINA
> ALSO? To be "*good*"?
>

Yes. If a company operates or chooses to operate in ABC country, that
company should pay taxes and abide by the laws of ABC country, whatever
those laws may be.

> Are you saying that *US* *IT* companies should deliver their data
> encryption protocols to China? To be "*good*"?
> 

see the above.

> "The Internet is a global network."
> *INTERNET* is a NETWORK of computer networks and was created in the
> *USA,* and is owned by the *US* government. It only exists within the
> territory of the *USA.* Other nations may use it if they adhere to
> the protocols - which are OPEN and FREE ACCESS CODE for ALL EARTH
> INHABITANTS.
> 

actually no. see my initial response. The USA does not "own" the
Internet any longer. 

When you give a gift, you cannot keep on reminding people that you gave
the gift when you are also stabbing the same people with a knife.

> "
> *Use of that global network by dominant and large tech companies
> to**empower single country military is evil.* "
> 
> The "*bad*" is not the use of a property by the owner, but those who
> are not owners want to have the right of the owner without doing
> anything for the existence of the property.
> 
> What you are saying is that you are a "*homeless*" and those who have
> a roof have a duty to give you the roof.
> 
Duty? 

No. Not "the roof" but not to take the *homeless* shoes as well.

And, yes, to improve the life of the *homeless* - share your roof or
help the *homeless* to build a roof.

Duty to community, duty to civilization, duty to improve the planet and
to leave the world a better place than you found it.


> ​You could agree that there is a need for regulation to PROTECT
> INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of users of the *INTERNET,* with protocols - open
> like the ones in the network - to verify the correct use of the
> network.
> 
> But this is another conversation and you do not want regulation to
> protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, you want a Digital State to intervene in
> national societies for IMPOR sanctions on individuals, and companies,
> because at the time of regular there is no distinction between person
> and company.

what I do know is that any society can no longer tolerate the level of
abuse that companies like Google are delivering.

what I do know is that the abuse and enslavement of our children will
not be tolerated by societies all over.

what I do know is that the subliminal warfare where private companies
are targeting, fighting and destroying individual people, political organisations 
and entire cultures, will no longer be tolerated by any society.

what I do know is that the exploitation of "products" (people) will not
longer be tolerated by societies all over the planet. (in the EU see the GDPR)

what I do know is that a closed Internet, like in China, is much more
secure and protects the individuals in a society to a far better degree
than the "open" and "free" Internet of the present day does.

So, what these currently EVIL companies and Governments who empowers
these various abuses do to redress, protect and stifle their present abuses 
actually now does will determine the future.

I used to think of the Internet as a self correcting eco system. It once was that, but it no longer is.


And great changes are demanded and required to protect societies from the current predators.

 
Andre