The internet is a creation of the government and is a privilege, not a right...

The internet is a creation of the government and is a privilege, not a right. Anything you post on it is theirs and you do not deserve to have total privacy if you use the internet.

That is all.

Other urls found in this thread:

govtech.com/e-government/Who-Invented-the-Internet.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>the internet was created by the government
source?I thought it was created by independant engineers

This is Anonymous. We will never forget this posts

But Sup Forums says my comments are my property...

In a way, OP does raise an important point. Same with ISPs and selling browsing history.

All the talk about VPNs and Tor doesn't address that the infrastructure is owned by corporations. This is different than, say, FidoNet, where the routing and data was all done by non-corporate, non-government hobbyists. Or UseNet being almost entirely handled by educational bodies.

>The Internet did start with the ARPANET project and the federal government directly funded the creation of the Internet we know today, Cerf wrote. And Xerox deserves credit for great work, Cerf wrote, including creation of the Ethernet protocol, the ALTO personal computer, the Xerox Network System and PARC Universal Packet. “XEROX did link homogenous Ethernets together but the internetworking method did not scale particularly well,” Cerf wrote.

>Ultimately, it was the work of researchers around the world from dozens of organizations that created the Internet. “After our initial paper was published, detailed design was conducted at Stanford during 1974 and implementation started in 1975 at Stanford, BBN and University College London. After that, a number of other institutions, notably MIT, SRI, ISI, UCLA, NDRE, engaged heavily in the work,” Cerf wrote.

govtech.com/e-government/Who-Invented-the-Internet.html

Fun fact: thank the US Navy for TOR

> The internet is a creation of the government

Not in its entirety. They got the ball rolling sure, but it is absolutely a collective effort.

It was a collaboration between the government and academia at first. DARPA was responsible for the very first bits. Back then it was called ARPANET

Internet isn't a single thing; its creation is just a manifestation of disparate networks communicating. It doesn't belong to or depend upon any one infrastructure or protocol. Same goes for the information transmitted over it.

What you're talking about is the World Wide Web. And yeah, we've become bitches of the dominant brand.

Fuck you.

You have a right to privacy. Rights are things you have innately. They are not things the government graciously allows you to have, and can revoke if it finds them inconvenient. They are things that governments must respect - or be forced to respect.

offering something up as an infrastructure for the general public to use revokes some of your rights, user. They can't just say "lol no more public transit" "lol no more water" "lol no more electricity".

There is such a thing as property rights, but there is also such a thing as responsibilities consequential to participation in society.

If you want to be able to do what-fucking-ever you want with your things, then don't involve those things in society at large. Society does not work when everyone thinks only of themselves, so gtfo out of our society if that's what you wanna do.

bump

I don't think the WWW is a creation of the government, but yeah, by using this service you're pretty much accepting that all your data be mined.

WRONG. Rights are not something that we inherently have, they are granted to us.
Human rights and the "innate to all humans" are a new concept brought forth by the french revolution. They weren't a thing before that.
And governments do revoke rights when they find it inconvenient: the right to freedom is revoked in the form of imprisonment, and some countries (including the US) have death penalty.
If human rights were innate to all humans, then there would be no way around them, they'd be as unavoidable as gravity.

>everyone who's used pasta that doesn't belong to them has committed a crime

Am I going to jail?

...

To further elaborate, human rights are granted to us by society, for our participation in it. For those who don't participate in the dominant society (ie, small communities in the middle of nowhere), then these rights are irrelevant, such communities can be wiped with the general acceptance of the public (and if they are taken into account, it is only by the demand of groups that do take part in the dominant society, and only when such groups are large enough).
To add to that, human rights are absolutely arbitrary. I don't remember what those are exactly (except for a couple), but for example: is property a human right? If so, how come many people have nothing and are freely disposed of their properties by banks and corporations, through the state? How about water? It is essential to life, but is water considered a human right? I remember I heard the CEO of a water company say that water is and should not be considered a human right.
We can go on citing examples on this.

Not statism. I don't believe in the State. But that is how societies work: they grant priviledges to those who belong to them, while denying them to those who don't. Thats why there are immigration laws.
Ever since the time of ancient societies, when a tribe would conquer another, the members of the subdued tribe would face coercions of all sorts while those of the prevailing one would enjoy the benefits granted to the conquerors.
It is all inherent to how societies work. And mind I remind you again, that human rights are a new thing?

>these rights are irrelevant, such communities can be wiped
The history of civilization is the history of humans slowly and fitfully moving past this primitive, barbaric, might-makes-right, law-of-the-jungle approach to organizing society.

Only after it has wiped almost all those societies that could serve as an example of such progress.
And those that remain, they are said to be in territory owned by the state (whichever state), because the whole world belongs to some state, and are still being disposed of their lands to make way for the necessities of the dominant society (to deplete natural water resources, or any other resources, or to make such things as power plants and highways). This still happens as frequently as possible for the scarcity of such societies.

>whig history

How about no?

Yet another example, one that we see in the news all the time: Military powers waging war in territories other than their own. Especially when those countries have petrol.
With nuclear bombs, modern society is more barbaric than ever before.