OT: Net Neutrality maybe in Jeopardy

[Double Helix]

OK look, DH, I don't want to get any more worked up about this topic, which I obviously care about, than I am. I'm going to assume that your heightened concern with law and order stems from either a tragic experience with the need for law enforcement or a personal anxiety. If it's the former, I sympathize, and I know it can colour your views on these issues permanently. If it's the latter, well, happily you will find if you consult the stats that crime rates including violent ones have been falling for years, so things are looking up. Either way, locking down the internet commercially and destroying what little privacy rights remain online are not the way to reduce criminal activity. There are much better and much less destructive strategies available that I'd encourage you to focus on.

Fair enough. I have many personal reasons for feeling the way I feel that I won't get into but I'll offer one. I have a good friend who's an investigator (I won't share more than that) and after a few too many beers and a lot of poker he's shared with me the amount of challenges they face related to technology and how much harder guilty verdicts will be to come by if privacy advocates push back too much.

The amount of times law enforcement receives information from coworkers or friends or family members that an individual is showing signs of aggression, or threats, or that they may act on urges, or that the business down the street may be engaged in something horrible and the difficulty they face in properly monitoring developments because of how much research, conversation, and plotting actually occurs online, on cell phones, etc is staggering. With suspected terror they've gained increased agility to monitor developments if they convince a judge of their concern but in so many other areas they almost have to sit back and wait until the next phone call comes indicating the husband did kill the wife, or that the business was involved in a child exploitation ring that hurt a lot of kids for months before they could gather sufficient evidence to make arrests. Or that the daughter who was convinced her father was legitimately going to kill her with his uncle because he said he would did do it and the two of them had plotted it out in messages and online. They can get to some of these things after the fact now and it can be used to drive guilty verdicts but what happens if we push back too much on privacy and their ability to collect this kind of info after the fact is removed?

What if they could be more agile and monitor developments of these persons and organizations of interest for a limited period of time following a request for information and a judge order similar to what's now possible with terror suspects and see people pre-meditating, plotting, communicating with co-conspirators, and learn more about the criminal network some of these people operate in? Imagine being able to charge more people with attempted and get them mandated psychiatric help.

Sounds like hell to a privacy advocate obviously. It's almost Minority Report. However, law enforcement always had these kind of powers in the past. We trusted judges to make these kinds of decisions. It's just that the resources required to wire tap and monitor were expensive and inefficient and reserved for only the largest of sting operations and organized crime so the public concern over privacy was muted. Now, this kind of thing could be easier, less expensive and more efficient than ever before. You could even add more oversight. However, now privacy concern is enormous to such an extent that there might be push back to limit what kind of information these places can even gather, limiting what investigators could gather afterward.

With all of the terms and conditions forms we've all signed over the past 17 years for companies that have come and gone online, and all of the hacks that have occurred, and all of the data sharing that probably occurs when a dot com goes bankrupt, and all of the corrupt employees at otherwise good companies who've probably sold data for personal gain, and all of the state sponsored hacking that's occured, I'm honestly shocked at the amount of anger some people have over the idea of the institutions, whose responsibility it is to protect us and pursue convictions and secure justice, receiving updated tools and technical options for increased agility in the digital age. Prosecutors need to be able to get at this digital data to get guilty verdicts and it's entirely possible that violent crime could decrease if investigators could use some of the tools associated with the fight on terror for other persons of interest related to violent or predatory crime.

I've always been able to understand the concerns of these Sci-fi dystopias where it's all gone too far but I'm more concerned for society's sake of the worst and most violent predators that live among us than I am of powers such as these, granted by judges, and tracked, being exploited in a way where it's hurting us more than how criminals hurt society.

[Double Helix]

Oh, and 3 other things and them I'm out.

1) I don't work for MLSE. Never have. Never would. My views on privacy are that I would rather live in a world where the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have access to my privacy then the people who do through any of the efforts I’d laid out earlier.

2) I think every person in Canada should have dashboard cameras for accidents.

3) I think establishments should receive a tax exemption if their own security camera footage outside of their establishment meets a certain quality threshold, following inspection of equipment, and they opt into a registry that law enforcement keep on hand so that law enforcement can rely on better security footage from establishments and encourage them to upgrade their technology to new specs regularly.

[Double Helix]

Sorry DH but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. "Privacy fanatics"? What the hell are those? Are you out of your mind? Do you realize that the internet has enabled the almost total destruction of the very concept of privacy as it has been known for hundreds of years? Did you not notice Edward Snowden sharing DOZENS of illegal surveillance programs run by governments that involve domestic and external spying, the collection of YOUR metatata through backdoors built into the most widely used platforms in the world??? Do you believe that people who are calling the for the retention of even the smallest slice of privacy rights - like the kind that would prevent the police from unilaterally searching and reading and viewing every email or voice call or text you have ever made without notifying you (something being advocated for in the USA now and quite possibly going to be made into law because of nutbars like you) are "privacy fanatics"????? What sort of alt-right loony bin are you spending time in? Well, hello Agent Smith!

Do you think that privacy rights protect pedophiles and online criminals working the dark web? What? Are you kidding? Do you think they care in the slightest about those supposed protections or feel in any way bound or affected by them? What are you saying?

You want to fight online predators and pedophiles? Fine, every single person here is with you. But your invention of 'privacy fanatics' and insistence that they are a threat that we must respond to by locking up every freedom is exactly the same BS that is used to demonize the handful of antifa protesters or Black Lives Matter and justify even more state suppression and intimidation. Your arguments are either intentionally misleading and shameful or merely ignorant and seriously in need of some research from elsewhere than the Breitbart echo chamber.

If you didn't come on so strong I wouldn't respond so strongly, but man, whether you know it or not you're spouting some genuinely dangerous ideas in these volatile times.

He's an FCC shill.

I am absolutely blown away that after all this time people on this board still haven't realized that DH is an MLSE employee paid by Rogers/Bell. Seriously smh.

I've been the same Raptors loyalist online at RealGM since 2002 and was on the Sportsnet boards before that. Check the start date. That's 15 years I've been a hard core fan of this team online here. I'd be surprised if MLSE even had a single employee that's stayed loyal to them or the Raptors that long.

[Jadoogar]

John Oliver did a great piece on this last year (i think).
The internet is weirdly a level playing field. The barrier to entry is relatively small that independent companies can actually compete with huge companies. But if companies can pay for their services to be easier to access for the consumer, it would kill emerging internet companies. Imagine if Netflix had to pay insane prices to get their content to the consumer on reasonable speeds when they were still starting up?

[TorontoRapsFan]

OK look, DH, I don't want to get any more worked up about this topic, which I obviously care about, than I am. I'm going to assume that your heightened concern with law and order stems from either a tragic experience with the need for law enforcement or a personal anxiety. If it's the former, I sympathize, and I know it can colour your views on these issues permanently. If it's the latter, well, happily you will find if you consult the stats that crime rates including violent ones have been falling for years, so things are looking up. Either way, locking down the internet commercially and destroying what little privacy rights remain online are not the way to reduce criminal activity. There are much better and much less destructive strategies available that I'd encourage you to focus on.

Fair enough. I have many personal reasons for feeling the way I feel that I won't get into but I'll offer one. I have a good friend who's an investigator (I won't share more than that) and after a few too many beers and a lot of poker he's shared with me the amount of challenges they face related to technology and how much harder guilty verdicts will be to come by if privacy advocates push back too much.

The amount of times law enforcement receives information from coworkers or friends or family members that an individual is showing signs of aggression, or threats, or that they may act on urges, or that the business down the street may be engaged in something horrible and the difficulty they face in properly monitoring developments because of how much research, conversation, and plotting actually occurs online, on cell phones, etc is staggering. With suspected terror they've gained increased agility to monitor developments if they convince a judge of their concern but in so many other areas they almost have to sit back and wait until the next phone call comes indicating the husband did kill the wife, or that the business was involved in a child exploitation ring that hurt a lot of kids for months before they could gather sufficient evidence to make arrests. Or that the daughter who was convinced her father was legitimately going to kill her with his uncle because he said he would did do it and the two of them had plotted it out in messages and online. They can get to some of these things after the fact now and it can be used to drive guilty verdicts but what happens if we push back too much on privacy and their ability to collect this kind of info after the fact is removed?

What if they could be more agile and monitor developments of these persons and organizations of interest for a limited period of time following a request for information and a judge order similar to what's now possible with terror suspects and see people pre-meditating, plotting, communicating with co-conspirators, and learn more about the criminal network some of these people operate in? Imagine being able to charge more people with attempted and get them mandated psychiatric help.

Sounds like hell to a privacy advocate obviously. It's almost Minority Report. However, law enforcement always had these kind of powers in the past. We trusted judges to make these kinds of decisions. It's just that the resources required to wire tap and monitor were expensive and inefficient and reserved for only the largest of sting operations and organized crime so the public concern over privacy was muted. Now, this kind of thing could be easier, less expensive and more efficient than ever before. You could even add more oversight. However, now privacy concern is enormous to such an extent that there might be push back to limit what kind of information these places can even gather, limiting what investigators could gather afterward.

With all of the terms and conditions forms we've all signed over the past 17 years for companies that have come and gone online, and all of the hacks that have occurred, and all of the data sharing that probably occurs when a dot com goes bankrupt, and all of the corrupt employees at otherwise good companies who've probably sold data for personal gain, and all of the state sponsored hacking that's occured, I'm honestly shocked at the amount of anger some people have over the idea of the institutions, whose responsibility it is to protect us and pursue convictions and secure justice, receiving updated tools and technical options for increased agility in the digital age. Prosecutors need to be able to get at this digital data to get guilty verdicts and it's entirely possible that violent crime could decrease if investigators could use some of the tools associated with the fight on terror for other persons of interest related to violent or predatory crime.

I've always been able to understand the concerns of these Sci-fi dystopias where it's all gone too far but I'm more concerned for society's sake of the worst and most violent predators that live among us than I am of powers such as these, granted by judges, and tracked, being exploited in a way where it's hurting us more than how criminals hurt society.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said. I want to point out that the concern demonstrated in Sci-fi dystopias isn't too much surveillance or lack of privacy in themselves but the abuse of power for oppressive and discriminatory, usually some form of class- religious, political- means. The problem isn't being watched, its being watched by predatory institutions. Right now, speaking strictly of the US, its fairly clear that, as a society, for whatever reason, those who have risen to positions of power across various institutions, are typically F*d up individuals who also have a high percentage of actual abuse, literal predatory action on other human beings, as part of their personal history. This is beside the other great societal contingent that has decided greatest source for profit is through abusing the buyer rather than provision of products. So, if you were American, do you really feel like the measures being taken for the sake of security where sacrifice of privacy is concerned will result in a positive outcome?

[Double Helix]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said. I want to point out that the concern demonstrated in Sci-fi dystopias isn't too much surveillance or lack of privacy in themselves but the abuse of power for oppressive and discriminatory, usually some form of class- religious, political- means. The problem isn't being watched, its being watched by predatory institutions. Right now, speaking strictly of the US, its fairly clear that, as a society, for whatever reason, those who have risen to positions of power across various institutions, are typically F*d up individuals who also have a high percentage of actual abuse, literal predatory action on other human beings, as part of their personal history. This is beside the other great societal contingent that has decided greatest source for profit is through abusing the buyer rather than provision of products. So, if you were American, do you really feel like the measures being taken for the sake of security where sacrifice of privacy is concerned will result in a positive outcome?

I can absolutely understand how my views would be more concerning in nations with weaker democracies than ours and I see America as a particularly flawed democracy to be honest.

However, I faith that the Canadian democratic process has enough media, checks and balances and an appetite for oversight and for non-confidence votes if any major issues were noted, reported and outraged the public.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Clutch Carter]

I think there is a lot of misinformation and chicken little posts here.

Let's clear one thing, this was set for the first time by Obama in 2015 in his quest to have government control everything.
At the time it was a big cry against government control.
FCC does what is supposed to do and reason why Trump was elected, to get government to back off and leave things they were they have been from beginning.

that simple.

Obama expressly endorsed net neutrality and classifying internet access as a utility and put pressure on his appointee Wheeler to create regulations that defend that principle, that now Trump appointee Pai is trying to rescind... but blame Obama?

[Senbonzakura]

Sorry DH but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. "Privacy fanatics"? What the hell are those? Are you out of your mind? Do you realize that the internet has enabled the almost total destruction of the very concept of privacy as it has been known for hundreds of years? Did you not notice Edward Snowden sharing DOZENS of illegal surveillance programs run by governments that involve domestic and external spying, the collection of YOUR metatata through backdoors built into the most widely used platforms in the world??? Do you believe that people who are calling the for the retention of even the smallest slice of privacy rights - like the kind that would prevent the police from unilaterally searching and reading and viewing every email or voice call or text you have ever made without notifying you (something being advocated for in the USA now and quite possibly going to be made into law because of nutbars like you) are "privacy fanatics"????? What sort of alt-right loony bin are you spending time in? Well, hello Agent Smith!

Do you think that privacy rights protect pedophiles and online criminals working the dark web? What? Are you kidding? Do you think they care in the slightest about those supposed protections or feel in any way bound or affected by them? What are you saying?

You want to fight online predators and pedophiles? Fine, every single person here is with you. But your invention of 'privacy fanatics' and insistence that they are a threat that we must respond to by locking up every freedom is exactly the same BS that is used to demonize the handful of antifa protesters or Black Lives Matter and justify even more state suppression and intimidation. Your arguments are either intentionally misleading and shameful or merely ignorant and seriously in need of some research from elsewhere than the Breitbart echo chamber.

If you didn't come on so strong I wouldn't respond so strongly, but man, whether you know it or not you're spouting some genuinely dangerous ideas in these volatile times.

He's an FCC shill.

I am absolutely blown away that after all this time people on this board still haven't realized that DH is an MLSE employee paid by Rogers/Bell. Seriously smh.

Wow... I didn't know this cause I haven't been here for that long I guess. Doesn't surprise me though given the content of his posts. There's a guy like that over on RR too who's always shilling for MLSE, maybe he's paid as well.

[Clutch Carter]

There is very little broadband competition in Canada, relatively speaking.

Is Tek Savvy still around? If not, then this sounds like a market opportunity for new businesses.

Tekksavvy is a reseller. All the third party ISPs are resellers.

There are only 2-3 competitors per province. In Ontario, we have Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco (in rural areas). The CRTC doesn't allow new entrants into the space. Competitors have to lease their lines from Rogers/Bell.

Technically speaking they aren't a reseller, they lease the last mile but have their own interconnects. Their networks are completely separated at the trunk, so to speak.

Not a true competitor, but not a reseller either, somewhere in between.

[MixxSRC]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said. I want to point out that the concern demonstrated in Sci-fi dystopias isn't too much surveillance or lack of privacy in themselves but the abuse of power for oppressive and discriminatory, usually some form of class- religious, political- means. The problem isn't being watched, its being watched by predatory institutions. Right now, speaking strictly of the US, its fairly clear that, as a society, for whatever reason, those who have risen to positions of power across various institutions, are typically F*d up individuals who also have a high percentage of actual abuse, literal predatory action on other human beings, as part of their personal history. This is beside the other great societal contingent that has decided greatest source for profit is through abusing the buyer rather than provision of products. So, if you were American, do you really feel like the measures being taken for the sake of security where sacrifice of privacy is concerned will result in a positive outcome?

I can absolutely understand how my views would be more concerning in nations with weaker democracies than ours and I see America as a particularly flawed democracy to be honest.

However, I faith that the Canadian democratic process has enough media, checks and balances and an appetite for oversight and for non-confidence votes if any major issues were noted, reported and outraged the public.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

That's such a arrogant thing to say.

[Clutch Carter]

If this comes to pass it'll be interesting to see how the market adapts. I don't think it'll be how the big guys think it will.

This. Are we the only two not worried by this? The conglomerates like Bell and Robbers will probably charge for popular content, but there's nothing stopping smaller ISP's from not charging anything extra for content. I'm with Bell, but if they start charging a per diem for Netflix and such, I'll simply switch to a competitor.

Switch to who exactly? Not many providers at least in Ontario that i know of that aren't owned by either Bell, Rogers or Cogeco *

Teksavvy and Start are great ISP's with great prices.

[Wo1verine]

Ajit Pai is probably getting bribed - Guy used to work as a lawyer for Verizon, clearly has a bias towards the billion dollar corps.

https://ajitvpai.com/

[Double Helix]

People keep mentioning this term "The last mile." What is that in reference to?

[Clutch Carter]

People keep mentioning this term "The last mile." What is that in reference to?

Last mile refers to the physical cable connection between your home and your telecom, ie your physical phone line or coaxial cable. Telecoms were granted monopolies in last mile access in exchange gov't regulation, support and oversight.

[lobosloboslobos]

So I've been reviewing your posts in this thread DH and want to gather some of the threads together:

1) I don't work for MLSE. Never have. Never would. My views on privacy are that I would rather live in a world where the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have access to my privacy then the people who do through any of the efforts I’d laid out earlier.

I have a good friend who's an investigator (I won't share more than that)

let me guess. you are white. male. friends with at least some law enforcement. could this have anything to do with your willingness to give over access to your 'privacy' and be spied on at any time by your friends the good guys in uniform and parliament? Can you imagine anyone for whom this might be justifiably less appealing?

Then there's your repeated use of 'privacy fanatics', a phrase that is almost impossibly top-heavy with the stink of fake news.

I'm talking about how that very legitimate concern is being co-opted yet again by privacy fanatics in the attempts to earmark privacy-related concerns into the net neutrality agenda, and because of the money behind the net neutrality movement from the dot coms this message has been given a megaspeaker with very little counter-arguments from the other side related to privacy because the Telecoms are more concerned about fighting the primary issue you outlined and we all discussed on page 1.

which, according to you is this twisted PR blitz...

This really isn't what net neutrality is largely about to be honest. Net neutrality is more about the telecom companies who own the internet infrastructure making use of the foresight they had in investing into the internet infrastructure decades ago by exerting control over third party companies and doing things like allowing video from their own platforms not to count at all against data plans as a way to entice new consumers. This idea and others like it outrages the companies who would be faced to compete against that now and into the future.

and then there's this

When I hear the average person talk about net neutrality they’re often confused and talk about privacy issues

So from this we can gather that you do not consider yourself an average person in relation to this topic. Moreover, since the average person knows d*** all about net neutrality, this statement gives me pause. And finally when you claim that the average person when talking about net neutrality confuses it with web privacy issues, I know something is wrong, because NO average people care about web privacy issues.

And then to cap it off, after saying you are not an average joe and spending thousands of words explaining to us the ins and outs of technology policy as you see it you offer up this newbie nugget:

People keep mentioning this term "The last mile." What is that in reference to?

BUSTED!

Now, DH, you may well be just an opinionated raps fan like the rest of us, but something doesn't add up here. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before but after looking at just how messed up a lot of your statements are in the context of the real world where yes, by golly, corporations, governments and law enforcement lie ALL THE TIME about all kinds of serious stuff, and even when they abide by legal policies often enough twist them to gain advantage over poor suckers without the trust fund or white skin or male genitalia or degrees or friends on the force to prevent them from being screwed in ever so many ways, when I think of all that reality and I compare it to the long list of strategically placed defamations, fake claims, revisions, distractions and utterly bogus logic you have presented in this thread, I am inclined to doubt your professions of integrity and humility, and to conclude that while you may or may not be working for Rogers or Bell, you're definitely working for someone. Maybe you are yourself the cop that you're friends with and are just saying what you'd like to be able to do to the bad guys. Maybe you're one of those preachers or politicians denouncing evil and lewdness and getting up to no good behind closed doors. Or maybe you are an MLSE shill. I have no idea. But I don't buy it. You're too clever and not clever enough to not be up to something with all this cock n bull.

[AkelaLoneWolf]

So I've been reviewing your posts in this thread DH and want to gather some of the threads together:

1) I don't work for MLSE. Never have. Never would. My views on privacy are that I would rather live in a world where the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have access to my privacy then the people who do through any of the efforts I’d laid out earlier.

I have a good friend who's an investigator (I won't share more than that)

let me guess. you are white. male. friends with at least some law enforcement. could this have anything to do with your willingness to give over access to your 'privacy' and be spied on at any time by your friends the good guys in uniform and parliament? Can you imagine anyone for whom this might be justifiably less appealing?

Then there's your repeated use of 'privacy fanatics', a phrase that is almost impossibly top-heavy with the stink of fake news.

I'm talking about how that very legitimate concern is being co-opted yet again by privacy fanatics in the attempts to earmark privacy-related concerns into the net neutrality agenda, and because of the money behind the net neutrality movement from the dot coms this message has been given a megaspeaker with very little counter-arguments from the other side related to privacy because the Telecoms are more concerned about fighting the primary issue you outlined and we all discussed on page 1.

which, according to you is this twisted PR blitz...

This really isn't what net neutrality is largely about to be honest. Net neutrality is more about the telecom companies who own the internet infrastructure making use of the foresight they had in investing into the internet infrastructure decades ago by exerting control over third party companies and doing things like allowing video from their own platforms not to count at all against data plans as a way to entice new consumers. This idea and others like it outrages the companies who would be faced to compete against that now and into the future.

and then there's this

When I hear the average person talk about net neutrality they’re often confused and talk about privacy issues

So from this we can gather that you do not consider yourself an average person in relation to this topic. Moreover, since the average person knows d*** all about net neutrality, this statement gives me pause. And finally when you claim that the average person when talking about net neutrality confuses it with web privacy issues, I know something is wrong, because NO average people care about web privacy issues.

And then to cap it off, after saying you are not an average joe and spending thousands of words explaining to us the ins and outs of technology policy as you see it you offer up this newbie nugget:

People keep mentioning this term "The last mile." What is that in reference to?

BUSTED!

Now, DH, you may well be just an opinionated raps fan like the rest of us, but something doesn't add up here. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before but after looking at just how messed up a lot of your statements are in the context of the real world where yes, by golly, corporations, governments and law enforcement lie ALL THE TIME about all kinds of serious stuff, and even when they abide by legal policies often enough twist them to gain advantage over poor suckers without the trust fund or white skin or male genitalia or degrees or friends on the force to prevent them from being screwed in ever so many ways, when I think of all that reality and I compare it to the long list of strategically placed defamations, fake claims, revisions, distractions and utterly bogus logic you have presented in this thread, I am inclined to doubt your professions of integrity and humility, and to conclude that while you may or may not be working for Rogers or Bell, you're definitely working for someone. Maybe you are yourself the cop that you're friends with and are just saying what you'd like to be able to do to the bad guys. Maybe you're one of those preachers or politicians denouncing evil and lewdness and getting up to no good behind closed doors. Or maybe you are an MLSE shill. I have no idea. But I don't buy it. You're too clever and not clever enough to not be up to something with all this cock n bull.

although I too disagree with DH, let's not target one poster for his views. In fact we should welcome all different opinions. Realgm tends to be a 'lefty' kind of place. There should be a space for conservative minded views as well, even if we don't agree with them. Nuance is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Double Helix]

Lobosloboslobos! Are you reading what you’re writing now? Take off the tin hat and take a deep breath and relax. Not everyone who is interested in seeing the world change in ways differently than how you’d like to see the world change is part of some big conspiracy or being paid to oppose you. Sometimes people just see things differently or enjoy showing the other side of things. The crazy thing is I probably would agree with you and most of the people in here on almost any progressive social agenda initiative that’s popular within the NDP, Liberal or Democratic parties. Except for surveillance. If that’s a conservative issue or perspective so be it. It would be my only one and it just goes to show that not all of us fit perfectly under the political tents the parties want us to.

I stick my nose into all sorts of topics because I’m opinionated and probably have a dopamine weakness of some kind (like many around here) that’s just addicted to dissecting and debating and analyzing. It becomes habitual and I’m the same way with just about anything I’m interested in.

I am white. It’s true. I am a guy. It’s true. I do have some friends and a relative in law enforcement. It’s true. I also have a friend of a friend who works in MLSE. I’ve shared that before and I’ve also shared the odd scoop I was able to get from that individual but I certainly don’t work for them or their owners. I also have friends who work in non profits and tech companies and Universities and record stores and at accounting firms and in hospitals and in pharmacies and in restaurants and bars and hardware stores. For pete’s sake, Dude, don’t most people know lots of people from different professions and learn more about their jobs and challenges? Has my relationships with others and discussions I’ve had with people in person and online informed who I am today along with things I’ve read? Absolutely. Isn’t that the same for most people? Does my upbringing as a white guy in Canada provide a certain level of privilege? Absolutely. Do these things mean I can’t talk about things that concern me, or explore the money behind certain movements based on things I’ve read? Hell no. Certainly I can. Particularly on a message board where I’ve not insulted you or anyone who disagrees vehemently with my views on surveillance. I’ve accomodated each of your increasingly obsessive insinuations with time and consideration but I don’t owe you anything. Realize that.

[beanbag]

I’m pretty much done with this topic to be honest.

Page 4. Writes 50 more paragraphs on the topic.

[Double Helix]

I’m pretty much done with this topic to be honest.

Page 4. Writes 50 more paragraphs on the topic.

Guy tries to leave topic. Gets quoted and accused of 50 things in rest of topic so that he feels he can’t leave. Tries to be accommodating. Gets bashed further.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[lobosloboslobos]

:laugh: Lobosloboslobos! Are you reading what you’re writing now? Take off the tin hat and take a deep breath and relax. Not everyone who is interested in seeing the world change in ways differently than how you’d like to see the world change is part of some big conspiracy or being paid to oppose you. Sometimes people just see things differently or enjoy showing the other side of things. The crazy thing is I probably would agree with you and most of the people in here on almost any progressive social agenda initiative that’s popular within the NDP, Liberal or Democratic parties. Except for surveillance. If that’s a conservative issue or perspective so be it. It would be my only one and it just goes to show that not all of us fit perfectly under the political tents the parties want us to.

I stick my nose into all sorts of topics because I’m opinionated and probably have a dopamine weakness of some kind (like many around here) that’s just addicted to dissecting and debating and analyzing. It becomes habitual and I’m the same way with just about anything I’m interested in.

I am white. It’s true. I am a guy. It’s true. I do have some friends and a relative in law enforcement. It’s true. I also have a friend of a friend who works in MLSE. I’ve shared that before and I’ve also shared the odd scoop I was able to get from that individual but I certainly don’t work for them or their owners. I also have friends who work in non profits and tech companies and Universities and record stores and at accounting firms and in hospitals and in pharmacies and in restaurants and bars and hardware stores. For pete’s sake, Dude, don’t most people know lots of people from different professions and learn more about their jobs and challenges? Has my relationships with others and discussions I’ve had with people in person and online informed who I am today along with things I’ve read? Absolutely. Isn’t that the same for most people? Does my upbringing as a white guy in Canada provide a certain level of privilege? Absolutely. Do these things mean I can’t talk about things that concern me, or explore the money behind certain movements based on things I’ve read? Hell no. Certainly I can. Particularly on a message board where I’ve not insulted you or anyone who disagrees vehemently with my views on surveillance. I’ve accomodated each of your increasingly obsessive insinuations with time and consideration but I don’t owe you anything. Realize that.

Good answer. I believe you and apologize for making bogus accusations against you. I appreciate your providing some context for yourself. It helps to clarify things. I myself am an anarchist by nature who has worked at various times providing digital strategy (mostly not acted upon) to executives at Telefilm, CBC, The Canada Council, Bell, Telus, Rogers and many other orgs.

Having said all that, I don't apologize for holding you accountable for dominating this thread with dismissive and defamatory ranting and false statements, made in the name of upholding democracy but actually threatening it.

Or for not acknowledging that your stated 'opinions' about the nature of the net neutrality issue are hogwash, as many posters here have explained to you. It is not about benevolent corporations reaping their just rewards. And it is not about catching bad guys.

Or for again and again using the instrumental language of terror and calling Canadians defending their right to privacy 'fanatics' who are 'obsessed with privacy' and are 'enabling pedophiles', as opposed to the engaged citizens contributing to a vibrant and healthy civil discourse that they are.

That stuff is on you.