Re: BBC: Let’s Kill the Internet and Start Over

[Tony Scharf]

It's who would build that internet that worries me most.


Tony

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:35 AM, The Dong <dong at f2s.com> wrote:
> On 20/02/2012 07:49, perry7 at mac.com wrote:
>>
>> Do we agree?
>
>
> Do you have a link to the origin of this?
>
> I think anything that originates FROM the BBC in relation to the internet is
> nothing but propaganda, because they WANT to impose a TAX on the whole
> internet of the UK via forcing the ISP's to charge us all a fixed rate on
> our bills, whether or not it has anything to do with watching TV. All so the
> BBC can save itself from the costs of having to coerce monies from an ever
> dissatisfied audience waking up to the notion that it just might be better
> to start ignoring any claimed authority that demands money through menaces
> and threats and imprisons more single mums for the socially damaging crime
> of not paying for a TV license!!
>
> This is the real drive.
>
> Anyway. No. I don't believe the internet is 'dangerous' the way it is.
> I get pretty much zero malicious or junk email now, without having to
> install daft software on my own PC (the ISP filters 99.9% of garbage) whilst
> surfing, I pickup malware or virus very, very seldomly, just by using
> Firefox with a few addons. So, my PERSONAL security on my own equipment is
> very good, imho. In all honesty, the internet is more secure than my
> telephone is, because I get a lot more annoying and dodgy phone calls!
>
> What this dood might be waffling about is business and internet provider
> security levels, which have NOTHING to do with any of the people that pay
> for the internet (that's you and me) We are already paying for this, both to
> the businesses and the ISP's which we would expect to be all part and parcel
> of the costs customers already have to endure. If your business is being
> attacked by cyber 'terrorism', either you are doing something wrong to
> attract such attacks, in which case you should change policy to become a
> nicer corporation, or invest more profits to boost security in those areas
> open to abuse.
>
> I guess if the 'internet' (such a broad term) was restructured to ultimately
> protect corporations, what we would end up with is an internet of spiralling
> costs to enjoy, an internet where everything you do is logged, scrutinsed
> and automatic fines of penalisation are slapped by computer systems for any
> breach (like swearing, political 'hate' speech, downloading a suspected
> copyright item etc.)
>
> In other words; we'd be shafted and herded into an almost 'channelized'
> internet, where you are free to shop and chat on the assigned sites, but
> deviate and be prepared to pay the standard threat of a level 2 £1000 fine,
> or suchlike threat that the BBC use willynilly already...
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> music-bar mailing list
> music-bar at lists.music-bar.org
> http://lists.music-bar.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/music-bar



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NoiseTheorem:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NoiseTheorem
myspace:http://www.myspace.com/noisetheorem
soundcloud:http://soundcloud.com/noisetheorem