Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet China United States Technology

Russia, China, and Others Seek Greater Control Over Internet 174

Posted by Soulskill
from the whoever-controls-the-cat-pictures-controls-the-universe dept.
kodiaktau writes "A proposal put forth by Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates seeks greater international control and government of internet addressing. 'A leaked draft (PDF) of the Russia-led proposals would give countries "equal rights to manage the Internet including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering." This could allow governments to render websites within their borders inaccessible, even via proxy servers or other countries. It also could allow for multinational pacts in which countries could terminate access to websites at each others' request.' The move would basically undermine ICANN and decentralize control of internet addressing: 'The revision would give nations the explicit right to "implement policy" on net governance and "regulate the national Internet segment," the draft says.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia, China, and Others Seek Greater Control Over Internet

Comments Filter:
  • Oh FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:32AM (#42232947)

    Well, I knew it was coming. No "free" source of information can remain free forever. Here's to hoping they fail.

    • Re:Oh FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Armakuni (1091299) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:35AM (#42232961) Homepage
      They likely won't fail completely. They will get some small victory, at least. Next time, they will get a little more. And the time after that. This is too important to governments to ever give up.
      • Re:Oh FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:39AM (#42232973)

        They likely won't fail completely. They will get some small victory, at least. Next time, they will get a little more. And the time after that. This is too important to governments to ever give up.

        Sometimes I fear that I'll be telling my grand kids about how I remember when the internet was free. Actually, my biggest fear is that they'll be so indoctrinated they'll compare it to the wild west, and tout how all the regulation of the mature internet made it a safer place. I fear they'll just file my complaints about lack of freedom under "old man rambling" category.

        • by caspy7 (117545) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:49AM (#42233013)

          This reminds me of the scene at the beginning of Serenity in which the children question why the Browncoat rebels would reject civilized living.

          • by aurispector (530273) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:17AM (#42233189)

            Remember that the next time some idiot starts blathering about the need for gun control. Freedom can be dangerous. The most dangerous thing of all is an idea.

            Take away people's ability to defend themselves, then take away people's ability to educate themselves. The last hurdle is taking away people's ability to think for themselves.

            "1984" was a warning, but a lot of governments seem to be using it as an instruction manual.

            • by Gonoff (88518)

              Take away people's ability to defend themselves,..

              I am not sure how having a load of armed civilians around me would make me feel freer. They certainly would not make me feel safer!

              • having a load of armed civilians around me ...certainly would not make me feel safer!

                You might not feel safer, but feelings are a piss-poor guide to reality. Within the U.S., you are -- as a matter of crime statistics -- safer in areas where civilians are legally allowed to own and carry firearms then in areas with strong gun control laws.

                • by AK Marc (707885)
                  And outside the US, you are safer in countries where civilians are not allowed to own and carry firearms then in areas with lax gun control laws.
                  • by pete6677 (681676)

                    Such as Mexico, where private gun ownership is banned? Very safe country, I hear.

                    • by AK Marc (707885)
                      As opposed to most waring African nations where guns are common? How about the USA, where guns are generally legal and murder is much more prevalent than the UK, where guns are generally not legal.
                    • by Gonoff (88518)
                      More likely, as opposed to in Europe. .
            • by AK Marc (707885)
              "1984" wasn't a warning about communism or fascism. It was a warning that parallels the iRobot movie. A benevolent entity tasked with our benefit would have no "choice" but to enslave us for our own benefit. That one entity looked like a giant computer and the other looked like a fascist or communist government doesn't change the plot or message.
          • by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:27AM (#42233275)

            What's interesting here is that these countries already have plenty of control over the internet at home. They want to extend that control further abroad.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              you hit the nail on the head. they already have all the control they NEED (over their own people).

              thread over; you win.

        • my 7yo logged on to his 1st Linux desktop at age 2. He wants anything between him and flash games gone.
        • by houghi (78078)

          I already tell them that The Internet used to be about content and not about advertising. And they are not even grandkids or kids. They are people of my own age.

          I remember the outcry when sites did not just had one but TWO banners.

        • Re:Oh FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kesuki (321456) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @11:13AM (#42233533) Journal

          you can do something about that here and now.
          the government tried taking away alchohol, the people stopped following laws.
          it's not like the government can just make us think whatever they want us to think. even if they control the information people find ways to fact check, there have been people who sneak in digital cards with non state approved data on them in countries with tight controls.. before that they snuck in microfilm, and used whatever magnafier they could find.
          before that they printed papers and before that they wrote cyphers that could be decoded with innocent looking canes.
          the government has a contract with the people not just the top 1% they truly are the servants of all the people. the sooner they realize they are servants the better.
          the internet isn't free on the whole earth and probably never will be, freedom is fought for daily, almost everywhere. i know a lot of smart people and i know that i benefited greatly from freedom on the internet, maybe the internet will be reduced to walled gardens, but for some reason i think people will not tolorate the loss of the 'free' internet.

        • Wild west (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Tony Isaac (1301187) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @11:40AM (#42233705) Homepage

          Nostalgia aside, there are significant parallels to the wild west.

          - The Internet has been a place of wide open spaces and unparalleled freedom.
          - Everybody who wanted to could go stake a claim (domain name) somewhere, for next to nothing.
          - If you don't protect your own turf (Web site, community, etc.), often nobody else will.
          - Peddlers (Web ads) roam around selling goods you probably don't want or need, only to disappear when the goods don't turn out to be what was advertised.
          - Outlaws lurk around the periphery, and sometimes roam around causing damage to established communities, or you own computer.

          The wild west could not stay wild. As it became a more popular place to live, the old free-for-all could no longer be sustained. People demanded security and enforcement of laws to protect themselves and their communities. Whether we like it or not, the same thing will happen / is happening to the Internet. We must be vigilant to ensure that the new, "civilized" Internet is a place where people will want to live.

      • Don't pretend the US administration, donkey or elephant regardless, doesn't want this. Even our voice in the negotiations (the arguably honourable senator CONroy) is against these changes but being a lawyer with no understanding of tubes he may be hoodwinked into total control.
        • Re:Oh FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

          by grcumb (781340) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:15AM (#42233177) Homepage Journal

          Don't pretend the US administration, donkey or elephant regardless, doesn't want this.

          Okay, I won't pretend. They don't want this.

          The primary reason is that it's simply bad for business. Secondarily, they simply don't want Internet governance to become a matter of political and diplomatic negotiation with countries that don't love them. Tertiarily: There's a reason the EU, Canada, Japan and Australia are all lined up against these proposals: They actually do occasionally give a shit about human rights. I know it's not au fait to think so, but it's true.

          And regarding delegates' stupidity: Judge for yourself [readwrite.com] whether the US Ambassador to this event sounds stupid or not.

          • by Jawnn (445279)
            True, they don't need it, but quite for the reasons you suggest, though your statement that it's "bad for business" is spot on. Business, in particular the telecom industry and to a lesser extent the legacy "content providers" RIAA and MPIAA, dictates the rules to our government. Paid toadies (congressmen and senators whose elections were paid for by "business", simply rubber stamp those policies. Want proof? Look no further than the retroactive immunity granted to all the telecom players for the blatant ci
          • by jovius (974690)

            The primary reason is that it's simply bad for business.

            Well, you don't need a state to control the Internet.

            Besides: censorship mechanisms are actively in place in many of the advanced western societies because of content piracy, and more often something new to block is proposed by concerned politicians. One of the problems raised is specifically the fact that the actions have no effect on the original sites. Darknets and Tor kind of systems are increasingly too under fire.

            It's not so far fetched to think that US, EU and the other parties could come to an agree

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by gmuslera (3436)

          They don't want this... because they have it already, and are taking a big advantage of it. Most of the internet information passes already thru them, and they freely inspects everything that goes thru. Maybe there are some legal protection against abuses for US citizens (diminishing each day) but never were for foreigners.

          I would prefer a way to control that isnt control, for anyone, specially including the major offender today: US.

        • by Kergan (780543)

          Don't pretend the US administration, donkey or elephant regardless, doesn't want this.

          I wouldn't be as sure as you are. The current situation is in their best political interest, in every manner you can possibly imagine, and they've no material reason to make the slightest concessions. Think about it for a moment, and forget for a moment that they wouldn't mind banning an islamic website or three...

          They currently control ICANN et al. If they cave in to the demands of authoritarian States, they'll need to forfeit ICANN. So this is dead in the water to start with. Not to mention the NSA.

          Also,

      • I agree, it will be a gradual change, at each step we'll lose a bit more one day we'll wake up and there will be no Internet. American lawmakers are already pushing their own agenda trying desperately to gain control of this beast that has escaped. It's only matter of time until greedy bastards ruin everything. Greed disgusts me.
      • by Alwin Henseler (640539) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:17AM (#42233181) Homepage

        With today's centralized structure of backbone connections, it shouldn't be too hard for governments to 'squeeze the pipes'. Which for most users, should do the job of blocking 'undesired' sites. I don't see why a government would even need the help of outside organizations (or other countries) for that.

        Technically inclined users will be able to find ways around that. And it'll be very hard (if not impossible) to stop those users. That is, unless a government is prepared to f**k with such basics as encrypted connections. Which would make many legitimate uses (eg. online banking, webmail) impossible too. So from a government's POV it's basically a choice between "no internet at all", or "a mostly controlled internet, but with loopholes for those who know to find them".

        With wireless routers becoming very common, it's not hard to imagine that some mesh networking protocol will pop up. Retrieve firmware from your neighbor (to get around what government allows to be sold commercially), upload to your router @ home, send messages around the net by passing them to a neighbor's router, that router passing it onto the next neighbor, and so forth a 100 times until it reaches its destination. All in P2P style with full use of encryption technology. Maybe not efficient (or a replacement for general web browsing), but good luck blocking that.

      • by flyneye (84093)

        Yeah, they will control the internet within their borders. Smells like victory to me, oops, no, that's fish from yesterday.
        I'm so sure that somewhere, some country is saying, I bet the internet would be better if we just let China/Russia step up and control what we read/do, what a bargain!
        Man you must be a psychic or something.

      • All it will take is one "incident" in the right place, and they will clamp all the new restrictions in place as a temporary measure to protect the children. There's no need to introduce it piecemeal.
    • Russia, China and others seek power over others. Shocking surprise. More shocking, no one trusts them enough to give them a f**king drop of it outside their borders. Film at 11 with pie charts,timelines and product placement.

    • They already have this power. Most of these countries have a state owned telco that is the gateway to "the Internet" and the state can walk in and order "the switch" tuned off any time they please.

      All you really get out of this is ICANN adding official hooks to BIND so that a country can build into all their routers sold to ONLY contact .ru or .cn sites and prohibit ways around it.

  • Control of internet numbering.. so these countries don't want to move from IPv4 to IPv6 to aid in their controlling of device / service blocks?

  • by Halo1 (136547) <.jonas.maebe. .at. .elis.ugent.be.> on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:37AM (#42232967) Homepage

    From the official speech [itu.int] delivered by the ITU's secretary-general at the first Plenary of World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai last week:

    We have the power to create a brave new world, where social and economic justice prevails – together.

    And no, that quote is not taken out of context.

    • by sycodon (149926) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:09AM (#42233145)

      "Social and Economic Justice" = Totalitarianism in a nutshell.

      • by Halo1 (136547) <.jonas.maebe. .at. .elis.ugent.be.> on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:18AM (#42233197) Homepage

        Seems like my browser decided to log me out. So, again, logged in this time:

        "Social and Economic Justice" = Totalitarianism in a nutshell.

        I completely disagree with that statement, although it can be perfectly abused for that purpose of course. Then again, so can "spreading democracy".

        • "Social and economic justice" is a hollow phrase that can mean anything. Does economic justice mean protecting consumer rights, or does it mean doing 9 years for copying a couple of songs? Does social justice mean freedom from censorship, or does it mean censorship in the name of protecting us from child porn and hate speech?

          Don't look at the statement, look at the people uttering it. None of these guys have one iota of interest in safeguarding our current freedoms on the internet. One might want to
    • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:29AM (#42233287)

      The Internet is such a great success today, precisely because the ITU was not involved with it. If it was their creation, it would be their right to regulate it. The other countries just want a piece of the action of Internet control because it is now such an important resource to the economy of the world.

      Well, so is crude oil . . . so should the UN also declare that crude oil is a world resource and crude oil exploitation and distribution be regulated by the UN? Saudi Arabia might not be so happy about that.

  • by gadget junkie (618542) <gbponz@libero.it> on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:40AM (#42232977) Journal
    Instead of opposing it and then caving in, The western world could rip a page off the dictatorships' book: "the proposal has merit, but it has to be studied thoroughly: We could form a committee with ,oh, all the countries in the world, chaired by a non aligned country, Tuvalu [internet domain: *.tv], and wait until they come with a legal and technical proposal behind which a qualified majority, for example enough countries representing 95% of world population and internet domains, gathering at least 85% of the number of countries involved, could be found. Do you mind if we of the ole US of A get represented by all the 50 states individually? We know for a fast that Canada wants to do likewise, and to be fair, all the European countries have a vote each, so it would only be fair..... See you in 3.100 AD, ok? Of course, if some technical advance has taken hold in the meantime, the whole process has to be restarted."
    • Where are the damned bureaucrats when we need them? You can definitely count on the EU, we even gathered our best bureacrats and placed them in one spot to concentrate their paperwork-producing powers.

      • Where are the damned bureaucrats when we need them? You can definitely count on the EU, we even gathered our best bureacrats and placed them in one spot to concentrate their paperwork-producing powers.

        Begging your pardon, it's untrue. we gathered our best bureaucrats in TWO places, Strasbourg and Brouxelles. According to, guess what, a committee, cutting one would save about 180 mln EUR a year [brusselsst...rgstudy.eu]. I am also guilty, in my original post, of not having put in fat salaries for the committee members. Nothing like an entitlement to make a problem into an eternal problem, see also the common agricultural policy [wikipedia.org].
        Personally, I think that any entity willing to have two capital cities and spend half its budget

        • by Dahamma (304068)

          I think it's mostly a matter of redundancy. If one of the headquarters collapses into a bureaucratic black hole under its own ponderous weight, they'll still have a backup bureaucracy to continue to get nothing done...

          • Hmm, think we can induce that black hole and leverage it against the UN? A quick estimate tells me we'd still have enough bureaucracy to start over again in Brussels/Strasbourg and still be able to regulate the packaging of oil and vinegar in restaurants.

    • Instead of opposing it and then caving in, The western world could rip a page off the dictatorships' book:

      . . . and impose martial law on the Internet.

      . . . it couldn't be worse than letting Sudan and Algeria run it.

      They don't like it as it is? Ok, let them build their own, with ITU ISO OSI protocols.

      They will need access to our Internet, more than we will need access to theirs.

  • by StormyWeather (543593) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:41AM (#42232983) Homepage

    Now is their chanc to experience the awesomeness ofRussian and Chinese control.

    • I assume your statement's laced with sarcasm.

      The moral standpoint of the US and other liberal democratic countries to resist such proposals is compromised by these countries' eagerness to "censor" the Internet for something as trivial as copyright infringement. However "evil" you might think it is, copyright infringement doesn't lead to ANY civil disturbance. On the other hand, the Arabs can argue that the propagation of anti-religious media like Innocence of Muslims can trigger riots and hence pose a secur

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by poity (465672)

        If slashdotters can support Obama, despite knowing full well that he's done some disagreeable things, in order to prevent Romney from taking power, then it is entirely rational and congruent for them to also support the US, despite knowing full well that it's done some disagreeable things, in order to prevent Russia/China/Saudi Arabia/etc from taking power.

        What's the alternative, give it to Finland (the Ron Paul of the world) [wikipedia.org]? You know what... that's not a bad idea

        • Actually I wouldn't be against that, or Switzerland. Of course giving it to those pasty white countries is racism you know ;).

        • Yes, that's not a bad idea.

          But note how Obama's support fell because he was unable or unwilling to do the Change he promised. So maybe other countries are simply indifferent to having a "free" worldwide Internet. As far as I can tell the Russian/Red Chinese/Islamist proposals would at worst balkanize the Internet, and each country would be free to spy and censor its own version of the Internet as it sees fit.

          And that isn't entirely a bad idea, if you already live in a country where electronic communication

      • Those are not justifications, they are excuses to prop up an oppressive regime, and you would happily hand them the tools......
  • ....ignoring the word "NO!"

  • It's a dictators charter, pure and simple.

    Now's a really good time to tell the world where to jump off.

    • by 1s44c (552956)

      It's a dictators charter, pure and simple.

      Now's a really good time to tell the world where to jump off.

      The current situation is a dictatorship. Sharing responsibility isn't.

  • by 1s44c (552956) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:54AM (#42233055)

    The current situation:
    One country can implement rules to abuse the whole world. Each country can implement rules to screw over its own citizens and manipulate traffic routed though that country. Many countries already abuse their own citizens ( China, UK, Netherlands, etc. )

    Without US control:
    Each country can implement rules to screw over its own citizens and manipulate traffic routed though that country. Many countries already abuse their own citizens ( China, UK, Netherlands, etc. )

    How can this not be a Good Thing(tm)?

    Besides the part in the summary about blocking access via proxy servers is bull. Even with the deep packet inspection currently implemented in the UK they can't block VPN links which can be easily hidden in other traffic.

    • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:12AM (#42233161)

      Be fair. There is a matter of degree. The UK has an extensive internet surveilance system and a secretive committe who have the power to ban any website without any oversight or accountability and maintain a secret blacklist which all ISPs are obliged to block (In the name of fighting child porn, of course), true - but we hardly ever use such powers. China, on the other hand, frequently and as a matter of routine blocks websites for posting non-government-approved oppinions, revealing facts that could impact the government's support, go against the rulers cultural ideals or even that could compete commercially with domestic companies. They may do the same thing, but China does it to a far greater extent. The UK has a lot of catching up to do before it can claim to be in the same category of oppression as China.

      • by epyT-R (613989)

        Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean we should ignore it GETTING worse at home. I see a lot of wingnuts (right and left) here in the states pull this crap to defend their cherished parties. It's bullshit.

    • by fufufang (2603203)

      The current situation:
      One country can implement rules to abuse the whole world. Each country can implement rules to screw over its own citizens and manipulate traffic routed though that country. Many countries already abuse their own citizens ( China, UK, Netherlands, etc. )

      Without US control:
      Each country can implement rules to screw over its own citizens and manipulate traffic routed though that country. Many countries already abuse their own citizens ( China, UK, Netherlands, etc. )

      How can this not be a Good Thing(tm)?

      Besides the part in the summary about blocking access via proxy servers is bull. Even with the deep packet inspection currently implemented in the UK they can't block VPN links which can be easily hidden in other traffic.

      Because without US control, other countries screwing over their own citizens is legitimised. US at least pretends that it cares about the citizens in other countries.

      • by epyT-R (613989)

        except that it doesn't really care about the citizens it's supposed to represent. It's too busy selling out to industries that want their false scarcity scams propped up as well as law enforcement lobbies who think their personal convenience is more important than protecting civil liberties.

        It might be worse other places, but it's getting worse here, and that's a bad thing.

    • by grcumb (781340) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:26AM (#42233259) Homepage Journal

      One country can implement rules to abuse the whole world.

      It can, yes. But the problem, you see, is that it doesn't.

      Oh sure, it plays fast and loose with its own law enforcement against individual sites and services that piss it off, but it does not implement rules to abuse the world at large. In fact, it doesn't even implement rules at all, for the most part.

      What you're suggesting here is that we trade the potential for abuse of power by a national government that has a track record of avoiding any egregious abuses, for the certainty of abuse of power by a bunch of governments whose history is riddled with examples of some of the most appalling derogations of human rights in the history of the world.

      How can this possibly be a Good Thing(tm)?

    • by cynyr (703126) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:30AM (#42233295)

      some examples of breakage this would likely cause...

      UK decides that it would like to have control over *.com. Implements rules for it, and give out www.google.com to Microsoft (they paid more). Now what happens in the USA when I ask the root DNS servers for the IP(s) for www.google.com? Do I sometimes get UK Bing?

      If your answer was "simple, each country runs its own namesever!" How do I get to www.bbc.co.uk? Does the BBC have to setup a server in the USA?

      Actully what i think should happen is all non-countrycode TLDs should go away. Then we could have a international internet body (IIB) that basically agrees that the only allowed TLDs are country codes and that each country is responsable for maintaing them. *.com would then become *.com.usa *.gov would become *.gov.usa. In Australia they could have *.com.au, and *.gov.au. This would allow each country to have control, and wouldn't break the internet.

      Also it could be decided by this IIB that all servers must use the country code of the country they are located in. Recognized countries are the same set that the UN recognizes. So if google wants to setup www.google.bz they would have to have at least a forwarding server in Belize.

      • by 1s44c (552956)

        There is already a country code for the US, it's .us.

        Why not use this as an opportunity to replace the creaking DNS system with something more suitable?

        • by cynyr (703126)

          What do you propose we replace "the creaking DNS system" with?

        • by dkf (304284)

          Why not use this as an opportunity to replace the creaking DNS system with something more suitable?

          Are you talking about the technical part that is used to announce to computer systems what the mapping of names to IP addresses is for each system, or the legal part that is used to decide what names can be owned and who actually owns them? There's very little contact between the two, really, and the troubles associated with one really have nothing to do with the other. Technically, you're talking about how to do things like DNSSEC, and legally you're talking about ICANN and their quest for ever greater mon

    • by poity (465672)

      Is that like saying if Southern US states seceded and became some theocratically ruled Confederacy, the continent of North America would become a better place?

  • Dis-unity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Commontwist (2452418) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:00AM (#42233083)

    So instead of working towards an Internet that blends everything together in a rich, international and multicultural mosaic they wish to deny everything in areas where a select, privileged few rule, creating a blander Internet that caters to their dogma. Nice way to block other people's viewpoints and thus create greater cultural, religious, and political misunderstandings.

    Kings of the hill, indeed.

    • True, but you need to think cross-culturally. From their perspective, multiculturalism is just a way of saying that their ancient, respectable culture or pure thoughts and holy justice is going to be corrupted by western heresy, perversion and blasphemy. It is their duty to defend themselves against these abominable ideas. And if doing so means securing their own grasp on power, so much the better.

      • by gtall (79522)

        Respectable culture? You mean the degradation of women, child brides, honor killings, taxing everyone not Islamic, no personal freedoms except those granted by an arcane moldy old book? That respectable culture?

        • Exactly! Sure, it looks like bronze-age barbariasm from the outside. But to someone born and raised in that culture would see that as the natural and right way to live, and see us as the immoral ones.

          • Any reasoned human being can figure out that subjugating another human is evil, culture be damned.
            • But they can't. If that were the case, subjegation would never have been tolerated at all - and throughout history, slavery has always existed in some form.

  • "equal rights to manage the Internet including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering." This could allow governments to render websites within their borders inaccessible, even via proxy servers or other countries. It also could allow for multinational pacts in which countries could terminate access to websites at each others' request

    The idea of internal websites within a country's boarders doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Not really sure how they would stop you from

  • how about China and Russia pull the plug on their WWW connection, and make something like a Local Area Network that functions like the internet but only inside their national borders so the rest of the free world can enjoy their internets without some draconian rules imposed by totalitarian state

    in short i would like to say "FUCK YOU to the UN, China & Russia and any other totalitarian bigwigs that want to stifle free speech and the freedom to share ideas and free software, and free music and video
  • by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @12:18PM (#42233921) Homepage

    The real goal is to require all other nations and institutions to actively cooperate with their censorship.

The Universe is populated by stable things. -- Richard Dawkins

Working...