Who's Intellectual Property Ours or Their's!*

Which type are these *!%^* worried about!

http://www.telecomseurope.net/content/secret-copyright-treaty-takes-aim-isps
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/02/online-copyright-clampdown-con.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

http://www.pcworld.com/article/189922/ 


0
Futuristic
2/23/2010 4:40:11 PM
grc.privacy 4590 articles. 0 followers. Follow

3 Replies
663 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 2

"Futuristic" <key562.invalid@aol.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hm10dk$nt1$1@news.grc.com...
> Which type are these *!%^* worried about!
>
> http://www.telecomseurope.net/content/secret-copyright-treaty-takes-aim-isps
> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/02/online-copyright-clampdown-con.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/189922/
>

We would not have any of these problems if our lawmakers would remember and 
follow the basics.

1. The United States is a country about freedom.

2. It assures freedom by maintaing a check and balance. (Which is why we 
have 3 branches of government.)

3. The law applies to everybody, or they aren't laws at all.

4. Those in power are to be held accountable for their actions with that 
power, which means no secrecy by our law makers on decisions which directly 
impact the American people.

If those things would be remembered and folowed then.

1. The patriot Act would have never been passed (or introduced) without the 
checks and balances to ASSURE that it could not be abused.

2. There would be no secret law negotiations, as secrets are meant to 
deceive the people.

3. There would be no health care proposal to REQUIRE the citizens to have 
health care insurance. and to pay the profits out of your pocket to big 
corporations for something you do not want.


0
Renee
2/24/2010 5:44:29 PM
Renee Keller wrote:

> "Futuristic" <key562.invalid@aol.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hm10dk$nt1$1@news.grc.com...
>> Which type are these *!%^* worried about!

Losing their grip and control of their "market" avoiding any sane 
competition?

[...]
> 2. There would be no secret law negotiations, as secrets are meant to
> deceive the people.

And deceive is exactly the right word for such an %$·%$)$ law.

-- 
Mark Cross @ 02/24/2010 3:06 p.m.
Buy land - they've stopped making it. -Mark Twain

0
Mark
2/24/2010 7:10:40 PM
"Renee Keller" <kellerr13@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:hm3oeq$a9o$1@news.grc.com...
> "Futuristic" <key562.invalid@aol.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hm10dk$nt1$1@news.grc.com...
>> Which type are these *!%^* worried about!
>>
>> http://www.telecomseurope.net/content/secret-copyright-treaty-takes-aim-isps
>> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/02/online-copyright-clampdown-con.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/189922/
>>
>
> We would not have any of these problems if our lawmakers would remember 
> and
> follow the basics.
>
> 1. The United States is a country about freedom.
>
> 2. It assures freedom by maintaing a check and balance. (Which is why we
> have 3 branches of government.)
>
> 3. The law applies to everybody, or they aren't laws at all.
>
> 4. Those in power are to be held accountable for their actions with that
> power, which means no secrecy by our law makers on decisions which 
> directly
> impact the American people.

Are you really in the USA? I think all of the above certainly do not apply 
to the USA's politicians, bankers, judges and those that hold so called 
powerful positions (corrupt ones) of authority, it is seen as a police state 
more than anything.



> If those things would be remembered and folowed then.
>
> 1. The patriot Act would have never been passed (or introduced) without 
> the
> checks and balances to ASSURE that it could not be abused.
>
> 2. There would be no secret law negotiations, as secrets are meant to
> deceive the people.
>
> 3. There would be no health care proposal to REQUIRE the citizens to have
> health care insurance. and to pay the profits out of your pocket to big
> corporations for something you do not want.
>
> 


0
Muggles
2/26/2010 10:01:03 AM
Reply: