Re: errm... on a point of order
Here, here!
Cuba lies almost entirely on the North America tectonic plate:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Tectonic_plates_Caribbean.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Plate
Posts by Boston Yankee in Tampa
3 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Jun 2012
Facebook strips away a bit more of your privacy – but won't say why
Habeas data: How to build an internet that forgets
Monday 11th June 2012 16:18 GMT
Perhaps a starting point
Maybe the place to start is with data control laws mandating companies who collect information to show:
1) Exactly and completely the full extent of data collected,
2) To whom they sold, rented, leased, gave away or otherwise shared specifically which data,
3) How to delete certain or all data collected by that company,
4) Some sort of sworn testament that requests to delete data were completed.
Further, the laws regarding ownership of data need updating to clarify that collected data belongs to the source of the data, not the collector. Mailing lists, for example, might continue to be covered under some sort of trade secret law, but no longer under corporate property rights law.
The worst offenders, of course, are governments. They need to be held to an even higher standard.
Americans stand against UN internet-tax plan
Saturday 9th June 2012 18:43 GMT
Let's be clear what this is...
The UN's ITU is clearly being manipulated by the majority of "poorer" countries, because they see a rich source of easy money and new ways to control the flow of information to and from their citizens.
The flaw in the ITU argument for levies against large Internet service providers is that they are not the initiators of the transfer - the end consumer is. Claims of the large service companies being the source of burdensome costs to various state controlled internet connection utilities are laughable at best. No one is forcing consumers to view or access American content.
Since the alternative is to tax their own citizens (clearly unpalatable), governments are choosing instead to "tax" service providers to either raise revenue or to drive those providers out.
So we come to the socialist argument. Is this a socialist power grab? You bet it is. The defining feature of the socialist is their belief that rich people's money should be taxed (seized, really) for the so-called common good. Once those special taxes against the rich are collected, the money is funneled to political supporters to ensure the continued power and control of those who had called for "redistributing" that money.
Americans are opposed to this ITU power-grab for many good reasons, not the least of which is that it forces American businesses and consumers to contribute more dollars to fund programs of other governments. It is effectively taxation without our consent or representation, with plans made in secret closed-door meetings by unelected and unaccountable officials.
Treaties are supposed to be compromises to ensure the well-being of all parties. These proposed changes in the ITU are mandates designed to wrest money away from "the rich Americans". The changes are not in our interest, and we won't agree to them.
I suspect, one day soon, we Americans will get so fed up with the UN that we'll defund them by more than half, thus ending much of the wasteful spending of that bloated and ineffectual bureaucracy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
