I'm on the list, Scott, you don't need send the message twice. On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 01:43 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:10:41 -0400 Ted Smith <teddks@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 23:55 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:33:10 -0400 Ted Smith <teddks@xxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> >On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:28 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: > >> >> If they couldn't do this, to stay competitive, they=3D20 > >> >> would charge more money for everyone and you would=3D20 > >> >> suffer more. Cheap internet access and "serving" is=3D20 > >> >> not some inherent human right, so let's not complain=3D20 > >> >> about the price of gas here. ;) (unless it is to=3D20 > >> >> propose ways to make tor use less gas...) > >> >>=3D20 > >> >> -Martin > >> > > >> >On the contrary, it was my impression that we are here working on, > >> >contributing to, and using Tor because we believe that internet access > >> >is a human right. This includes end-to-end connectivity. Pricing a real > >> >internet connection (what is being referred to as a "business account" > >> >or the like) out of reach of common folk is equivalent to the overt > >> >denial of this human right. > >> > > >> >Am I misinformed here? > >> > > >> I believe you are. Martin is correct in that the surest way to kill > >> freedom on the Internet is to apply socialist economics to it. It is > >> probably also the best way to ensure governmental abuses of users of the > >> Internet (see, for example, communist China or Cuba and, in the most extr= > >eme, > >> North Korea, where the Internet doesn't really exist, for all practical > >> purposes). > > > >You're conveniently ignoring countries like Sweden, Iceland, Estonia, > >where "socialist" Internet policies have resulted in some of the best > >environments of digital freedom. In fact, your list appears only to > > Am I, indeed? Let me see now...would that Sweden and Estonia happen > to be the same Sweden and Estonia that are members of the European Union, > that lovely organization issuing various directives requiring member states > to institute legislation and regulation inimical to freedom on the Internet? The last I heard, Estonia was refusing to adhere to those mandates. Sadly, not all EU member states nor EU politicians have the same dedication to Internet freedom as some of them. > Like the legislation in Germany that has caused so much consternation on > this list? As for Iceland, no, I'm not ignoring it, but I know nothing about > its Internet situation at present. (But isn't this also the same Iceland that > has been uprooting and ejecting foreigners by virtue of revoking or refusing > to renew work visas en masse lately because their socialist programs have > run them so far into debt that they now have mass unemployment far exceeding > what is happening in the U.S. during the worldwide economic downturn?) Does that have *anything* to do with this (off-topic) discussion? Or are you just bringing it up to try to raise up a "socialist menace"? Do you assert that this is because of cheap access to the Internet? > BTW, do you remember when all of Finland's Internet access was funneled > through a single 56 Kbaud leased line, while mere universities all over the > U.S. were adding extra T1 lines to what they already had? Worse yet, the > U.S.S.R.'s Internet access at that time was relayed through Finland, IIRC. > Did I mention Finland? I don't believe I ever brought it up. What's the relevance of your statement? I still don't see how providing cheap Internet access *leads to* these abuses in a causal way as you stated: > > the surest way to kill > > freedom on the Internet is to apply socialist economics to it. It is > > probably also the best way to ensure governmental abuses of users of the > > Internet
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part