wikileaks

[billy]

you'll end up with a few localised intranets like pirate radio stations of old. the masses will be squeezed in to a shoe box being allowed to only view information they want us to view.

A few localized intranets would probably eventually join to become another large internet. The world wide web is the most common web of computers but that doesn't mean it needs to be the only one.

You can't censor the internet 100%. And if you could, a lot of people wouldn't bother with it then. You can't create a 1984 state, no matter how you try. You can't see into people minds, you can't censor what they are thinking. The same way that if I connect to another computer outside the internet, you can't even know that I'm doing so. All I'm saying is that there's always a way out.


And back on topic. If Assange's charges are for "rape" in Sweden, why would he be extradited to the US?

they would have to censor it almost a 100 percent. they already control the airways in the uk.you create the state run internet by controlling it.

look to china, they control the net, they allow what they want to allow. yes they can use proxies but only because other state aren't as strict.

can you imagine the infrastructure needed to start a new net. can imagine how easy it would be for a state to close it down or monitor it.
the only reason it hasn't happened so far is the fact it's too draconian a measure for the usa to take. if pushed hard enough though they'll say they have no option.

again, i quote what they said about 7 million dead jews, "it will never happen"

i'd say for espionage as a starter or passing on state secrets. to do so is a crime (i think)
they or he (the editor) made the secrets public knowledge.

i can envisage the day when the net is used for commerce and internet banking primarily, along with a few select forms etc.